<nostalgia>That takes me back to my UIUC days, and PLATO...Programmed Logic for Automated Teaching Operations.</nostalgia> (That probably gives away my age as much as admitting I have a "record collection.") These are the kinds of discussions in which I wish we could engage many U.S. faculty and administrators. One of the things I'm seeing on a lot of campuses the last couple of years is excitement among administrators about "blended" learning because it promises to free up classroom space, which ties into two important administrative matters, namely an interest in increasing enrollment as a means of increasing revenue, and an interest in keeping a lid on construction costs (or, in some cases, the cost of leased space). I agree that those are important matters, but I disagree that they are sufficient reasons to "re-design" teaching (though maybe in really dire circumstances, along the lines, say, of what happened in New Orleans and along the Gulf Coast due to Hurricane Katrina, it would be justifiable as a temporary solution to buildings that must be rehabbed and are unusable in the meantime). Just out of curiosity, how many of us are at a campus that has what we would consider a good complement of technology in all classrooms? Back to the matter at hand, I'm in favor of alternative learning methods, ones that do not necessarily rely on the "traditional" classroom style, and I am willing to give them (and have given some of them) a try. What support is going to be provided to faculty and to students when using various technologies for learning? In large part when I say "support" I mean technical support, but I also mean other kinds. Will our students themselves have access to sufficient technologies that we may require them to use? Are there faculty incentives or disincentives to use technology and/or to use alternative teaching methods? Out of what part of the budget is this support to be paid for? So far as I'm concerned there are larger "infrastructure" issues than just technical ones (not that those are often not daunting enough) at most U.S. institutions of higher education that must be managed before we can move very far ahead (beyond case studies, most of which are at the individual level, some of which are at the department level, and precious few are at the college level, never mind the level of an entire university) with learning technologies . Sj On May 22, 2007, at 5:15 PM, Mary-Helen Ward wrote:
You're right, Charlie, of course. Thanks for the compliments. I guess I was just (over)responding to the idea that academics might become redundant, replaced by designers and 'automated delivery'. This is certainly a fear in some of the (less enlightened) corners of our large and conservative campus.
M-H
On 23/05/2007, at 7:48 AM, Charles Balch Ph.D. wrote:
Mary-Helen, I have to disagree a little but, before I do, ID is huge and has been very much a part of my life. As a little background, I wrote a complete courseware system before courseware systems were cool because I wasn't happy with the offerings some ten years ago. I've kept up with the literature. I've been on teams and worked with teams. I hope my respect for you and all the folks on the front line of ID is loud and clear.
ID is hard work that requires much balance.
I don't think you can remove yourself from the creation of content though. ID is not just a (Clark/Kozma) grocery truck delivery system. Even Clark eventually agreed that the methods changed the message. All instructional designers should have huge control over the design process.
The fact that you are chatting on this list proves to me that you take your responsibilities seriously.
Charles Balch
_______________________________________________ The air-l@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http:// listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/