Ambiguity about Online Teaching
There's a TV show on this summer that I have caught a few times called "Minute to Win It" in which there's this sort of computerized voice narrating various challenges and counting down to the start time (hear example here). For some reason, this voice irks me. I suspect that it is truly a person speaking, but it has this computerized monotone sound that rubs me wrong. It's as if the creators of the show felt like it would be "cool" to have this semi-human-sounding, disembodied voice narrating parts of the show.
More and more, people are being exposed to these computer-like or computer-mediated experiences that, though convenient and sometimes better, take something away from being human. For example, GPS voice directions rather than asking people for directions, pre-recorded voices on a tour bus rather than the driver narrating, telephone directory trees (e.g. "press 9 for troubleshooting tips") versus speaking with a "live" person, online dating as opposed to meeting in person, or online classes as opposed to traditional face-to-face (F2F) classes.
As I have mentioned in a couple of previous postings, I have been experimenting with teaching some online classes for my university - one class was completely synchronous (where we all "met" online in a virtual classroom for 3 hours per week) and the other was done solely through readings and asynchronous discussion board postings. In both classes, I have been reflecting on the advantages and disadvantages of computer-mediated learning experiences. My personal jury is still sort of out on all this. While I recognize the values of convenience, accessibility to people with special learning needs and/or disabilities, embracing change, etc., I am still more a fan of F2F teaching. Do my feelings stem from a discomfort with the relatively unfamiliar online format or from something else? Although I cannot be 100% sure of the key reason for my ambiguity towards this form of teaching, I do think it has something to do with the absence of a sense of democratic education/humanization in the online formats.
I believe in humanized/democratic pedagogy. My feelings are that for true learning and growth to occur there needs to be authentic relationship development between all parties - that the people in a learning environment need to see others as equals, as fellow travelers, as worthy of respect and dignity. Such relationships and views of others, I think, are enhanced by being able to see, hear, and be present with others in a physical setting. I believe these things help us to perceive others as more real, as individuals/fellow humans rather than disembodied beings far removed from us. I believe we tend to be more considerate and careful when we discuss things face to face than online, and we perhaps tend to do less stereotyping when we engage in F2F dialogue with others. I know this is not always true and that sometimes a more disembodied conversation can lead to more in-depth soul searching as we don't feel the pressure of "all eyes on us," but nonetheless, I feel that I can get more of a sense of real, human relationships with others when I am present physically with them. And again, I think it is these relationships that ultimately lead to the most meaningful learning and growth.
I heard something on NPR yesterday that leads me to suspect that I am not alone in my ambiguous feelings about online teaching. It seems that for-profit online universities (e.g. University of Phoenix, Strayer, etc.) have a much higher default rate for student loans because these graduates have a harder time getting employment after finishing their degree.
Why do these graduates have less luck getting jobs than graduates of more traditional, F2F universities? Is it because people are just unfamiliar with (and thus mistrustful of) these new types of education, or is it that they too have concerns over the amount and quality of learning truly going on in these online settings?
I am certainly not arguing that no learning occurs through online formats; that would be absurd; but I do somehow suspect that the learning is qualitatively different and somewhat lacking in humanizing/democratizing elements. I don't have a full grasp of what I am trying to argue here, so would love to hear from others about their online learning experiences - what do you think? Can online teaching/learning formats be as fully human, democratic, and meaningful as traditional F2F environments?
Posted in on Aug 18, 2010 - 09:57 AM
I missed my July posting due to being buried up with summer teaching along with trying to grab some moments of R&R (I know, excuses, excuses), but as George Costanza on Seinfeld would say, "I'm back, baby, I'm back!"There's a TV show on this summer that I have caught a few times called "Minute to Win It" in which there's this sort of computerized voice narrating various challenges and counting down to the start time (hear example here). For some reason, this voice irks me. I suspect that it is truly a person speaking, but it has this computerized monotone sound that rubs me wrong. It's as if the creators of the show felt like it would be "cool" to have this semi-human-sounding, disembodied voice narrating parts of the show.
More and more, people are being exposed to these computer-like or computer-mediated experiences that, though convenient and sometimes better, take something away from being human. For example, GPS voice directions rather than asking people for directions, pre-recorded voices on a tour bus rather than the driver narrating, telephone directory trees (e.g. "press 9 for troubleshooting tips") versus speaking with a "live" person, online dating as opposed to meeting in person, or online classes as opposed to traditional face-to-face (F2F) classes.
As I have mentioned in a couple of previous postings, I have been experimenting with teaching some online classes for my university - one class was completely synchronous (where we all "met" online in a virtual classroom for 3 hours per week) and the other was done solely through readings and asynchronous discussion board postings. In both classes, I have been reflecting on the advantages and disadvantages of computer-mediated learning experiences. My personal jury is still sort of out on all this. While I recognize the values of convenience, accessibility to people with special learning needs and/or disabilities, embracing change, etc., I am still more a fan of F2F teaching. Do my feelings stem from a discomfort with the relatively unfamiliar online format or from something else? Although I cannot be 100% sure of the key reason for my ambiguity towards this form of teaching, I do think it has something to do with the absence of a sense of democratic education/humanization in the online formats.
I believe in humanized/democratic pedagogy. My feelings are that for true learning and growth to occur there needs to be authentic relationship development between all parties - that the people in a learning environment need to see others as equals, as fellow travelers, as worthy of respect and dignity. Such relationships and views of others, I think, are enhanced by being able to see, hear, and be present with others in a physical setting. I believe these things help us to perceive others as more real, as individuals/fellow humans rather than disembodied beings far removed from us. I believe we tend to be more considerate and careful when we discuss things face to face than online, and we perhaps tend to do less stereotyping when we engage in F2F dialogue with others. I know this is not always true and that sometimes a more disembodied conversation can lead to more in-depth soul searching as we don't feel the pressure of "all eyes on us," but nonetheless, I feel that I can get more of a sense of real, human relationships with others when I am present physically with them. And again, I think it is these relationships that ultimately lead to the most meaningful learning and growth.
I heard something on NPR yesterday that leads me to suspect that I am not alone in my ambiguous feelings about online teaching. It seems that for-profit online universities (e.g. University of Phoenix, Strayer, etc.) have a much higher default rate for student loans because these graduates have a harder time getting employment after finishing their degree.
For profit [typically online] colleges ... say ...they're more convenient. [That} they have better technology. But ... there's a huge debate about how valuable for-profit college degrees are. Very often, students will sign up for degrees at these for-profit colleges. They graduate and they discover that the degrees aren't worth very much. And that's where the money issue becomes the problem because not only are students upset about that, but then if they can't get a job, they can't pay back the loans.
Why do these graduates have less luck getting jobs than graduates of more traditional, F2F universities? Is it because people are just unfamiliar with (and thus mistrustful of) these new types of education, or is it that they too have concerns over the amount and quality of learning truly going on in these online settings?
I am certainly not arguing that no learning occurs through online formats; that would be absurd; but I do somehow suspect that the learning is qualitatively different and somewhat lacking in humanizing/democratizing elements. I don't have a full grasp of what I am trying to argue here, so would love to hear from others about their online learning experiences - what do you think? Can online teaching/learning formats be as fully human, democratic, and meaningful as traditional F2F environments?
Tags for this entry:
democratic education,
online teachinng,
humanized learning
Comments
Aug 19, 2010 - 07:29 AM
What a great analogy, Jessica!
jessicacallahanclark
Aug 18, 2010 - 10:34 PM
I’ve always been a fan of my online classes- at community college, I seem to get certain prerequisites out of the way, and through undergrad and grad it’s always been nice to take an online class every now and then to add some flexibility to my schedule. Like proponents of online colleges, I’ve always worked full-time during school, I can understand the opportunity an online college can present!
However, that being said, I do NOT think online teaching can ever fully replace face-to-face. Don’t we tell ourselves that college is meant to “prepare ourselves for the future”? (Whatever that means!) The face-to-face interactions we have during our education- whether positive or negative- shape our interactions and provide their own sort of learning. I once read an article encouraging parents of school-aged children NOT to switch their kids out of a class from a teacher they don’t like- the article argued that it’s a good experience to learn to work with people we don’t necessarily get along with.
I recently went to a concert with a friend, and while I was throwing myself into the music and the moment, I noticed she didn’t put her camera down- she took pictures almost constantly throughout, desperate to “catch the moment”. Although she definitely got her pictures, I couldn’t help but think that although she caught the moment, she didn’t live it. That’s how I think of entirely online colleges- they may have caught the degree, but they didn’t live it- therein lies a huge difference, which is apparently perceived thereafter.