Following on the thread that I brought up in the last note, we can apply this idea of looking at technological change in the rear view mirror to education. Currently, there is a lot of interest in distance education, which, I believe will do to the education industry what the web did to the newspaper industry. Yet, as always, there are those who refuse to believe that this will happen. And they have their talking points, an earmark of futile resistance that I have discussed before. Most of those talking points center around the virtues of face to face interaction. If you have been reading this blog for a while, you might see some parallels between the arguments for face to face interaction as arguments against virtual worlds and the arguments for face to face interaction as arguments against distance education. They are basically the same and can be summarized as "what I am used to is better".
Nonetheless, I should give them a fair airing. Distance education skeptics will point to the fact that in the classroom you can see the students faces and they can see your face. Since you can see their face, you can tell if the are confused by what you have said and try explaining it a different way until the light goes on. Since they can see your face, it gives you another channel of communication by which you can emphasize points or provide nuance. One could also argue that being in a classroom provides a sense of group cohesion and makes learning a social experience as well as an intellectual experience.
I actually agree with all these points and utilize them routinely in my face to face classes. But, I would also raise three questions. First, how uniformly and effectively are they applied? Second, are their other ways in which the same thing could be achieved? And, third, does distance education provide any benefits that the current approach does not?
On the first point of uniformity and effectiveness, I would point out that teachers are not uniform in their ability to read their audience. Some miss audience feedback entirely. Some misread it. Some are simply not interested in it. While there are, admittedly, some teachers who really connect with the audience, this is far from universal. So, holding it up as an essential feature of today's education system is a bit like attributing the surge in the number of baby boomer to drive-in movies. It certainly is a factor, but probably less common than one might think.
On the second point, we are assume that audience feedback can only be achieved in face to face interaction. Not only is this not true, it could be argued that real time feedback is inhibited by face to face interaction. Some students are shy. Others do not want to appear stupid by asking a question. Some do not want to appear interested as dispassionate detachment is often seen among college students as a virtue. Technologically mediated interaction can even be preferable as we have seen in Group Decision Support Systems.
On the third point, I could go on at length, but will just summarize a few points to spare the reader. First, in distance mode students can view their lessons at convenient times, and review them as needed. Their is less variation in quality between classes as the classes can be refined as needed. In today's environment there is a tremendous variation between teachers and ever variation from one class to another with the same teacher. Finally, distance education allows us to adjust to learning styles more effectively and utilize multimedia and advanced technologies more effectively. So, face to face education is far from the only approach and, arguably not even the best.
Now, let's look in the rear view mirror. Imagine a scenario a hundred years into the future. All education is done online. Applying the manufacturing model of constant refinement, the classes are nearly perfect after a century of accumulated incremental improvement. Students are effectively educated in all areas where education is needed from basic job skills, to life skills, to the intellectual skills needed for good citizenship. And, then... something happens. The Internet goes dark. The reason for the Internet going dark is not important. But, if you are one of those people who cannot get past certain details, let's say it was a solar flare or a comet passing too close the earth creating electrical disturbances.
With the Internet dark for the foreseeable future we have to figure out a way to continue educating the population. Somebody suggests going back to the way it used to be done. We can put them in a room, thirty people at a time, at an assigned time, and have somebody stand in front of the room and tell them what they need to know. How well do you think that would work? My guess is - not very well. We do things the way we do them today, not because it is the best way to do them, but because we are making the best of a bad situation. Trying to make that bad situation noble is nothing more that a lame attempt to hang on to what you are used to.
No comments:
Post a Comment