Online learning does have the power to dissolve barriers of time and place - but it is not without it's limitations ... some of which have been mentioned in previous posts on this subject. If you were to come to Australia, I believe there are skills that I could teach you more effectively in a f2f situation. Koala arm-wrestling for example - where not all students will have access to their own Koala, some may have insufficient motivation to expend the time and effort without direct supervision, some will lack confidence in undertaking the task without personal guidance, some will not have the technical skill/ necessary equipment to abstract the required information from video, audio etc, and some of the finer points of Koala arm-wrestling may be better demonstrated/practiced/refined in a hands-on situation. Cheers, Marj Dr Marjorie Kibby, Senior Lecturer in Communication & Culture Faculty of Education and Arts The University of Newcastle, Callaghan NSW 2308 Australia Marj.Kibby@newcastle.edu.au +61 2 49216604

...

...

"Dr. Steve Eskow" <drseskow@cox.net> 23/05/2007 12:12 pm >>> I'm asking that you consider that the "hybrid" of classroom and online negates the power of the Internet and the Web to do away with the spatial and temporal limitations of traditional learning.

If I were the student the standard version of "hybrid" requires that I be able to relocate to wherever your college is located in order to have you be my teacher. The "hybrid" of ee-learning allows me or any student to work or serve anywhere in the world and use the Internet and the World Wide Web to create a learning community and to engae with other students and with you and other faculty who never need to come together physically. I am not physically co-located with Marj Kibby, but this medium allows me to learn from her without relocating. I am arguing that the extra measure of learning I would get from her if I were face-to-face with her in a classroom is doubtful, and perhaps not worth what I would have to give up in order to get to wherever she is. Steve Eskow -----Original Message----- From: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org [mailto:air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of Marj Kibby Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 6:03 PM To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org Subject: Re: [Air-l] Technology Transforming Education--EE-Learning This is not what I think 'hybrid' learning is. I'd describe this as 'web-supported learning'. In hybrid learning the online and f2f components are equal in value, both are essential components of the learning experience. An example would be where students have f2f instruction for two weeks, then undertake group projects or problem solving, using online communication, reference sharing, file sharing ... Engaging in learning experiences that are difficult or inconvenient in the classroom, or more effective online. Marj Dr Marjorie Kibby, Senior Lecturer in Communication & Culture Faculty of Education and Arts The University of Newcastle, Callaghan NSW 2308 Australia Marj.Kibby@newcastle.edu.au +61 2 49216604

...

...

"Dr. Steve Eskow" <drseskow@cox.net> 05/23/07 10:30 AM >>>

"Blended" or "hybrid" learning continues to be shaped by the classroom, and uses ICT to enrich classroom-dominated ways of learning. _______________________________________________ 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/ _______________________________________________ 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/

Not quite sure how I came to be the champion of the face to face classroom - my argument is simply that all teaching/learning methods will have advantages and disadvantages for some. EE-Learning is probable closest to my current teaching method - web facilitated Problem Based Learning. I used to get virtual guest lecturers to participate in online discussions, which the students enjoyed - though some argued that I simply played the roles of the various authors of their set readings. Marj Dr Marjorie Kibby, Senior Lecturer in Communication & Culture Faculty of Education and Arts The University of Newcastle, Callaghan NSW 2308 Australia Marj.Kibby@newcastle.edu.au +61 2 49216604

...

...

"Dr. Steve Eskow" <drseskow@cox.net> 23/05/2007 2:09 pm >>> Are you open to discussing and negotiating trade-offs, Marj?

I'd ike to study with you. Coming to Australia at this time in my life is, however, quite out of the question. I have an infant son I must care for, and a job that I need to keep for a number of reasons, some obvious. And: if I can study with you and remain in California there may be some advantages for you and for your college and for your students in Australia. For one, I can act as a placement officer for Australian students who might want to come to the States for a period of study. In any event, what I'm wondering is whether you're open to trading off the advantage that you see in the face-to-face setting to allow all of us who can't get to Australia to learn--or if your unalterable commitment, the beginning and end of the innovation, is the face-to-face classroom. In Australia. Cheers, Marj. Steve Eskow (I don't really have an infant son. I do have an infant grandson.) -----Original Message----- From: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org [mailto:air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of Marj Kibby Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 8:51 PM To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org Subject: Re: [Air-l] Technology Transforming Education--EE-Learning Online learning does have the power to dissolve barriers of time and place - but it is not without it's limitations ... some of which have been mentioned in previous posts on this subject. If you were to come to Australia, I believe there are skills that I could teach you more effectively in a f2f situation. Koala arm-wrestling for example - where not all students will have access to their own Koala, some may have insufficient motivation to expend the time and effort without direct supervision, some will lack confidence in undertaking the task without personal guidance, some will not have the technical skill/ necessary equipment to abstract the required information from video, audio etc, and some of the finer points of Koala arm-wrestling may be better demonstrated/practiced/refined in a hands-on situation. Cheers, Marj Dr Marjorie Kibby, Senior Lecturer in Communication & Culture Faculty of Education and Arts The University of Newcastle, Callaghan NSW 2308 Australia Marj.Kibby@newcastle.edu.au +61 2 49216604

...

...

"Dr. Steve Eskow" <drseskow@cox.net> 23/05/2007 12:12 pm >>> I'm asking that you consider that the "hybrid" of classroom and online negates the power of the Internet and the Web to do away with the spatial and temporal limitations of traditional learning.

If I were the student the standard version of "hybrid" requires that I be able to relocate to wherever your college is located in order to have you be my teacher. The "hybrid" of ee-learning allows me or any student to work or serve anywhere in the world and use the Internet and the World Wide Web to create a learning community and to engae with other students and with you and other faculty who never need to come together physically. I am not physically co-located with Marj Kibby, but this medium allows me to learn from her without relocating. I am arguing that the extra measure of learning I would get from her if I were face-to-face with her in a classroom is doubtful, and perhaps not worth what I would have to give up in order to get to wherever she is. Steve Eskow -----Original Message----- From: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org [mailto:air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of Marj Kibby Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 6:03 PM To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org Subject: Re: [Air-l] Technology Transforming Education--EE-Learning This is not what I think 'hybrid' learning is. I'd describe this as 'web-supported learning'. In hybrid learning the online and f2f components are equal in value, both are essential components of the learning experience. An example would be where students have f2f instruction for two weeks, then undertake group projects or problem solving, using online communication, reference sharing, file sharing ... Engaging in learning experiences that are difficult or inconvenient in the classroom, or more effective online. Marj Dr Marjorie Kibby, Senior Lecturer in Communication & Culture Faculty of Education and Arts The University of Newcastle, Callaghan NSW 2308 Australia Marj.Kibby@newcastle.edu.au +61 2 49216604

...

...

"Dr. Steve Eskow" <drseskow@cox.net> 05/23/07 10:30 AM >>>

"Blended" or "hybrid" learning continues to be shaped by the classroom, and uses ICT to enrich classroom-dominated ways of learning. _______________________________________________ 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/ _______________________________________________ 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/ _______________________________________________ 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/

Charles: Great to hear you are doing well and your insights and wording are excellent as usual. One technical caveat though, when acting in my capacity as a motion picture producer/director, I have been routinely blending mixes of singers and voices from multiple locations with the assistance of computer editing technology like Avid and Final Pro and utilizing specialized phone lines and conference calls to speak to the singers or actors or both. I actually began using this around 1996 with video and earlier than that when I produced and hosted a radio show for multiple locations. Many, if not most, of the sound recording for music or films, often take place with musicians in one location, lead vocalists in another location and background singers who may come in later into the studio or from another location. The editing and recording technology is so clean now that only a trained musician/artist/conductor/editor/producer/sound engineer can notice the differences and it is now a legitimate argument among audiophiles. The entire phenomenon of homogeneous radio that has occurred due to media consolidation during the late 80's and 90's has actually developed these technologies to the point where radio hosts may live in one location but syndicate nationally simultaneously or in different time zones live with hosts in different cities. I am not sure that most educators realize how advanced these technologies are now and how much better they will become if embraced by academia. The natural partnership of entertainment and media is coming and has real potential if the media people don't try to pimp it like they have done with publishing and the universities really listen, adopt and adapt the media for educational purposes. Another unintended consequence of media consolidation is that there are and will be a wealth of media talent available for institutions of higher learning who already develop future professionals in the fields of media and technology. Chris -----Original Message----- From: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org [mailto:air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of Charles Ess Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 7:31 AM To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org Subject: Re: [Air-l] Technology Transforming Education--EE-Learning

Not quite sure how I came to be the champion of the face to face classroom - my argument is simply that all teaching/learning methods will have advantages and disadvantages for some.

Hang in there, Marj! This has been a terrific discussion and my only regret is that preparations for overseas sojourns have kept me from participating. Now I can't resist... While there are clear advantages to online learning environments - one of the best teaching moments in my life occurred during a brief stint with WebCT - because, like Mark Johns, I'm privileged to teach in a private, liberal arts place with classes ranging between 8 - 20 students each, I'm also profoundly convinced of the many sorts of teaching excellences that I can do only in f2f environments. A great deal of it has to do with what I teach - logic, philosophy, applied ethics, religious studies, critical thinking, writing. All of these can deeply challenge not simply the intellect but also the whole person as a complex, embodied being. First of all, the f2f context lets me gauge how my students - both individually and collectively - are responding to these challenges in ways that allow me to then judge (though it's always a judgment call, and sometimes an incorrect one) whether they're "getting it," how much further, if at all, they may be pushed, what turns I might take to help them come along - and what ones to avoid - etc. I know from hard experience that I can make mistakes in these judgments in f2f - but I make them even more frequently in online settings (and we're off with the disadvantages of relative anonymity, etc.). One of the points that may be missing in the discussion so far - though I'm being quick here, so if I've missed something, apologies - is the nature of the "information" at stake. As some know, I've written a couple of articles on teaching not simply information, but wisdom and virtue vis-à-vis online environments - wisdom and virtue of the Socratic and Confucian sort. Following the taxonomies of Hubert Dreyfus (based on a phenomenological focus on embodiment and learning), I concur that there is much good that can be taught in virtual environments as they currently exist. But there is also much that, in my view, cannot be taught in such environments as they currently exist, because they depend on being close at hand to and with someone with great and embodied familiarity with not simply the material and content, but most centrally the _judgment-making process_ (what Aristotle calls _phronesis_) as it works in a given discipline or area. My analogy for this is learning to sing in the choir. I suppose such a thing could be done - up to a point - through an online venue. But I find it difficult to conceive that a master choir director and even modestly capable choir would be able to make much progress in an online environment with helping a novice (such as myself) come along with learning how to engage with the music - not simply in terms of learning to read notes, but, more fundamentally, of learning how to produce music out of one's own mind and body in concert and harmony with others. So much depends on immediate verbal and nonverbal communication - hearing how the person next to me is finding his note; seeing the choir director cut us off together at a tricky rest out of the corner of my eye while simultaneously looking at the music for the current and next measures; trying to hear how the tenor part blends (or fails to blend) with the larger choir and the music, adjusting accordingly, etc. Most of all, what is learned there are judgments about how to do it right, or at least well (with many possibilities for that, of course, not just one). So much of this sort of embodied learning seems to crucially depend on spending hours and hours, weeks and weeks, years and years, face-to-face and side-by-side with a group of sister and fellow human beings struggling to learn the same things. I had exactly the same experience this past year as I struggled to improve my all-but-non-existent French - reading is easy; repeating drills on the computer is straightforward. But learning to speak appropriately - not only to get the grammar and vocabulary right, but also to learn to judge face-to-face with another human being in response to his or her actions and responses what the right thing to say might be is an entirely different matter. All of this is to say that I think Marj has it exactly right. Each venue has its strengths and its limitations. The point is not to fall into false polarities of "good" / "bad" - but to learn to use each environment effectively for specified pedagogical goals. O.k. - back to packing ... - charles ess _______________________________________________ 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/

Nancy Baym writes: ,,One thing I haven't seen mentioned in this interesting discussion is that e/distance learning is really poorly suited for unmotivated students. For them, coming to a class where their physical presence is observed (even if they are checking email or doing crossword puzzles) may be the only thing that keeps them engaged in academics at all. >> A central and critical issue. Somehow many unmotivated students have learned to forego purchasing the required texts, presumably do not read them, and yet are somehow able to earn a grade. How this is done baffles me. That is: there seems to be evidence that the unmotivated student is able to beat the system without doing much of the academic work one would think necessary. Might this be somehow connected with the new market-oriented approaches of the struggling-for-funds university which incorporates student evaluation of facutly performance into the university framework? Are instructors somehow making it possible for the unmotivated student--the student who cannot will not read--to get by? On the other hand, consider the experience of the British Open University. The BOU has absolutely no academic requirements for admission: does nnt, for example, require graduation from secondary school. Research reveals that the composition of the BOU student body is more like the population at large than the students of the traditional universities. In 1995 the BOU had an enrollment of 150,000 in degree-credit courses and another 60,000 non-degree students. And all studies by indpendent bodies reveal that the graduation rate at BOU is higher and the level of learning higher than that of all but a few of the traditional universities. One hypothesis: The notion of "blended" or "hybrid" universities that bring together the dynamics of both the place-based modes of learning and the distance modes is based on shaky and perhaps faulty assumptions. We may be trying to blend oil and water. What research might help us to learn why some online and open learning modes work, and others fail? Steve Eskow My experiences attempting to incorporate online components like blogging into courses have been extremely disappointing, even when the course was about online communication (how I wish it had made them more thoughtful in class discussion!). In general, students seem to have viewed online elements as a chance to do an absolute minimum, and sometimes not even that. My sense was that very few ever read what anyone else wrote, and when I tried mandating that they respond to one another, they wrote 2 word responses like "good point." And that was with explicit discussion of what constituted a good response (moves discussion forward, contributes a new idea...) I hoped that the chance to write online would allow quiet ones to open up, give people time to reflect and to engage one another, etc. But all that presumes that they want an educational experience. In my advising at this large residential university with a 'traditional' student population, students seem to prefer online courses only when they perceive that they will be less work than f2f courses. There are of course exceptions -- students who are motivated but have time and transportation or work constraints. I hope it goes without saying that there are also many good students here, and indeed, the motivated students really did take advantage of the blogging and other online elements, but as a whole, I've been so disappointed with my efforts to incorporate elearning components. Perhaps this is a question of how I have designed the online components. I thought I was doing well. I gave them specific topics to write on which were connected to the day's topic, the blog writings formed the basis of their term paper and allowed them to explore possible topics and get going on it throughout the semester, the topics allowed them to focus on their own interests, etc. But if the proof is in the pudding, either I did it poorly or the students just didn't care enough about having a rich educational experience to bother. If anyone has suggestions about how to make e-pieces alluring to students who are not very engaged to begin with, please share as I'm going to try yet again this fall. Nancy

Nancy, you write:

...

Your point about mixing oil and water by combining on and offline components in education is intruiging. I don't know and am curious what others think. I am not one to argue that a university education should be job training, but I do think that learning to function in multiple media to get a job done is an essential piece of modern life for most professionals, and I would hope students are given the opportunity to work on those skills in their education.>>

Here's a retrograde thought. The emphasis on "learning styles" and "multiple media" that suit different learning styles may be the problem rather than the solution. Textual illiterates can be fluent oralists, if that's a word. And they can learn from television and the other visual/aural media. Premise: success in the middle and upper ranks of the work force depend on print literacy. The central medium of instruction of the university, then, ought not to be the orality of the lecture, or the conversation of the seminar, but the reading of texts and the writing of texts, with the other media in an assisting and supporting role. Hunch: the success of the British OU is based on their organizing their courses around texts, texts usually written by expert faculty or practitioners for the course. Television and radio and the computer play a supporting role--at least that was the case when I was close to the work of the OU. Students who choose the OU know in advance that their success will depend on their ability and willingness to read a great deal, and write a great deal. They know there is no way to avoid that reading, substitute summaries or outlines or good conversation for that work of close reading. Nancy, and all, does "multiple media" mean that a university education need no longer require the ability to cope with complex texts? Steve Eskow

Your premise holds true presently because of the fact that most of the individuals at the middle to higher ranks in the workforce are older and digital immigrants. Your premise will definitely not be true in a generation as the technology gets better. The hunch that you propose may be valid and worth further research. I believe that the mixing of oil and water analogy may be true for people who are not trained communicators/producers. Professors are taught to cover and emphasize what to emphasize based on the content; whereas, as a producer/writer who has produced and hosted instructional television for years we are taught to focus on our audience first and to wrap the same content with the same emphasis so that it has emphasis where it needs it through the use of music, effects, voice and visual impact. -----Original Message----- From: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org [mailto:air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of Dr. Steve Eskow Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 8:44 PM To: 'Nancy Baym'; air-l@listserv.aoir.org Subject: Re: [Air-l] Technology Transforming Education--EE-Learning Nancy, you write:

...

Your point about mixing oil and water by combining on and offline components in education is intruiging. I don't know and am curious what others think. I am not one to argue that a university education should be job training, but I do think that learning to function in multiple media to get a job done is an essential piece of modern life for most professionals, and I would hope students are given the opportunity to work on those skills in their education.>>

Here's a retrograde thought. The emphasis on "learning styles" and "multiple media" that suit different learning styles may be the problem rather than the solution. Textual illiterates can be fluent oralists, if that's a word. And they can learn from television and the other visual/aural media. Premise: success in the middle and upper ranks of the work force depend on print literacy. The central medium of instruction of the university, then, ought not to be the orality of the lecture, or the conversation of the seminar, but the reading of texts and the writing of texts, with the other media in an assisting and supporting role. Hunch: the success of the British OU is based on their organizing their courses around texts, texts usually written by expert faculty or practitioners for the course. Television and radio and the computer play a supporting role--at least that was the case when I was close to the work of the OU. Students who choose the OU know in advance that their success will depend on their ability and willingness to read a great deal, and write a great deal. They know there is no way to avoid that reading, substitute summaries or outlines or good conversation for that work of close reading. Nancy, and all, does "multiple media" mean that a university education need no longer require the ability to cope with complex texts? Steve Eskow _______________________________________________ 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/

Charles Ess adds Hubert Dreyfus to the voices here, and that is exciting, since Dreyfus brings the authority of Heidegger, Foucault, and Merleau-Ponty to the discussion of the Internet versus the lecture-hall and the classrooms as the scenes of instruction. So: Heidegger teaches us, says Dreyfus, that our day-to-day practices open the space of "being" to us, and Dreyfus tells us that the lecture-hall and the classroom open a different disclosive space and thus create a different "being" than the Internet. (All this in Dreyfus' ON THE INTERNET, which I conclude is a useful but very confused piece of work for an important philosopher and exegete.) I will find and post in full here a one-paragraph review of ON THE INTERNET by one Geoffrey Cain, a former student of Hubert Dreyfus. Cain reports that he took a course with Dreyfus at Berkeley and never spoke to him or got close enough to the embodied Dreyfus to shake his hand. Cain says he never felt as disembodied as he did in Dreyfus' class. And that,arguably, gets at the heart of the matter. Merleau-Ponty and "embodiment" supports, in Dreyfus' hands, the lecture. One hundred or one thousand students in a hall, motionless in chairs, nothing moving except their fingers, all but the figure in the front of the room silent. Embodied instruction? Dreyfus, a scholar of Foucault, does not invoke Foucault's "gaze" to describe the clinical attention of the faculty member as he or she watches the crowd for signs of insight or difficulty. Is not the lecture hall a Panopticon? And Foucault's "power-knowledge"? How much power does the student have vis a vis the teacher and the institution? So: arguably the campus io indeed a "scholastic enclosure" (Bourdieu), a heterotopia if you like it, a prison if you don't, an institution that insists that learning needs to remove students and teachers from the ordinary occupations of life and create a structure of time and space and activities remote from the practices and embodiments of everyday life. While this medium allows me to engage with Charles and Marj and so many others without insisting that I come join them in their respective heterotopias. And if they put their lectures on YouTube I can watch them several times, at times of my choosing, while moving around freely as my needs dictate. Steve Eskow -----Original Message----- From: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org [mailto:air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of Charles Ess Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 4:31 AM To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org Subject: Re: [Air-l] Technology Transforming Education--EE-Learning

Not quite sure how I came to be the champion of the face to face classroom - my argument is simply that all teaching/learning methods will have advantages and disadvantages for some.

Hang in there, Marj! This has been a terrific discussion and my only regret is that preparations for overseas sojourns have kept me from participating. Now I can't resist... While there are clear advantages to online learning environments - one of the best teaching moments in my life occurred during a brief stint with WebCT - because, like Mark Johns, I'm privileged to teach in a private, liberal arts place with classes ranging between 8 - 20 students each, I'm also profoundly convinced of the many sorts of teaching excellences that I can do only in f2f environments. A great deal of it has to do with what I teach - logic, philosophy, applied ethics, religious studies, critical thinking, writing. All of these can deeply challenge not simply the intellect but also the whole person as a complex, embodied being. First of all, the f2f context lets me gauge how my students - both individually and collectively - are responding to these challenges in ways that allow me to then judge (though it's always a judgment call, and sometimes an incorrect one) whether they're "getting it," how much further, if at all, they may be pushed, what turns I might take to help them come along - and what ones to avoid - etc. I know from hard experience that I can make mistakes in these judgments in f2f - but I make them even more frequently in online settings (and we're off with the disadvantages of relative anonymity, etc.). One of the points that may be missing in the discussion so far - though I'm being quick here, so if I've missed something, apologies - is the nature of the "information" at stake. As some know, I've written a couple of articles on teaching not simply information, but wisdom and virtue vis-à-vis online environments - wisdom and virtue of the Socratic and Confucian sort. Following the taxonomies of Hubert Dreyfus (based on a phenomenological focus on embodiment and learning), I concur that there is much good that can be taught in virtual environments as they currently exist. But there is also much that, in my view, cannot be taught in such environments as they currently exist, because they depend on being close at hand to and with someone with great and embodied familiarity with not simply the material and content, but most centrally the _judgment-making process_ (what Aristotle calls _phronesis_) as it works in a given discipline or area. My analogy for this is learning to sing in the choir. I suppose such a thing could be done - up to a point - through an online venue. But I find it difficult to conceive that a master choir director and even modestly capable choir would be able to make much progress in an online environment with helping a novice (such as myself) come along with learning how to engage with the music - not simply in terms of learning to read notes, but, more fundamentally, of learning how to produce music out of one's own mind and body in concert and harmony with others. So much depends on immediate verbal and nonverbal communication - hearing how the person next to me is finding his note; seeing the choir director cut us off together at a tricky rest out of the corner of my eye while simultaneously looking at the music for the current and next measures; trying to hear how the tenor part blends (or fails to blend) with the larger choir and the music, adjusting accordingly, etc. Most of all, what is learned there are judgments about how to do it right, or at least well (with many possibilities for that, of course, not just one). So much of this sort of embodied learning seems to crucially depend on spending hours and hours, weeks and weeks, years and years, face-to-face and side-by-side with a group of sister and fellow human beings struggling to learn the same things. I had exactly the same experience this past year as I struggled to improve my all-but-non-existent French - reading is easy; repeating drills on the computer is straightforward. But learning to speak appropriately - not only to get the grammar and vocabulary right, but also to learn to judge face-to-face with another human being in response to his or her actions and responses what the right thing to say might be is an entirely different matter. All of this is to say that I think Marj has it exactly right. Each venue has its strengths and its limitations. The point is not to fall into false polarities of "good" / "bad" - but to learn to use each environment effectively for specified pedagogical goals. O.k. - back to packing ... - charles ess _______________________________________________ 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/

Just to say I've been following this thread with great interest and have come out of "lurking" mode (another great thread) simply to say that I agree that such technologies enable and enhance certain types of practices but disable or take away from others. I take Steve's point about crtically examining the reasons for any big push from university administrations. If it's assumed to be a cost-saving measure, then don't expect improved education. I also agree with Nancy that unmotivated students and distance ed are a very bad combination. Distance ed and online courses in particular at UW are becoming very central on on campus students. I was told by the Director of the unit that half the students enrolled are now regular students who are working alot and prefer to take electives via DE. Rhiannon Bury University of Waterloo Mark D. Johns wrote:

Charles Ess wrote:

...

... While there are clear advantages to online learning environments - one of the best teaching moments in my life occurred during a brief stint with WebCT - because, like Mark Johns, I'm privileged to teach in a private, liberal arts place with classes ranging between 8 - 20 students each, I'm also profoundly convinced of the many sorts of teaching excellences that I can do only in f2f environments.

Thanks for the mention, Charles, and your willingness to be seen in the company of one who commits the abominable sin of (gasp!) taking attendance in his classes.

This, and Nancy's point a little further downstream about unmotivated students, are what I was attempting, less articulately perhaps, to state earlier. Some things work better online, some things don't work well that way at all. It depends on the situation, the subject matter, the temperament, motivation, and learning styles of the students, etc.

Yes, as Nancy points out, being able to use the technology and understand how these various technological and F2F environments affect communication are crucial for students (and professors) to learn in order to be successful in our technical world. But using technology for technology's sake is not always productive. And what we teach is often more than the subject at hand, but the "wisdom," as you say, to live life well.

On Wed, 23 May 2007, Marj Kibby wrote:

Online learning does have the power to dissolve barriers of time and place - but it is not without it's limitations ... some of which have been mentioned in previous posts on this subject.

I just read -- can't remember where now -- an article on Freud's "Disturbance of Memory on the Acropolis," where he talks about the shock he felt when he finally saw the Acropolis in person and realized that it was, in fact, real, something he had known intellectually his entire life. I wonder if anyone has looked at this in the context of computer-mediated communication. It's probably a common experience for all of us now to interact with people, occasionally with some frequency and in some depth, without ever encountering that person in the real world...and then having the experience of meeting that person (finally) at a conference....perhaps not dissimilar from how we imagined characters in a novel -- back when people read novels -- and then saw the movie version. Chris Hodge University of Tennessee "There's quitters to be buried." John Wayne, Red River

--- "Heidelberg, Chris" <Chris.Heidelberg@ssa.gov> wrote: <snip>

-----Original Message----- From: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org [mailto:air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of chodge5@utk.edu Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 9:15 AM To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org Subject: Re: [Air-l] Technology Transforming Education--EE-Learning

On Wed, 23 May 2007, Marj Kibby wrote:

...

Online learning does have the power to dissolve barriers of time and place - but it is not without it's limitations ... some of which have been mentioned in previous posts on this subject.

I just read -- can't remember where now -- an article on Freud's "Disturbance of Memory on the Acropolis," where he talks about the shock he felt when he finally saw the Acropolis in person and realized that it was, in fact, real, something he had known intellectually his entire life. I wonder if anyone has looked at this in the context of computer-mediated communication. It's probably a common experience for all of us now to interact with people, occasionally with some frequency and in some depth, without ever encountering that person in the real world...and then having the experience of meeting that person (finally) at a conference....perhaps not dissimilar from how we imagined characters in a novel -- back when people read novels -- and then saw the movie version.

I would say not just _now_. In the business context - certainly working for an international company from 1980, with widely distributed national and worldwide interests, working by phone and paper (and then e-mail) with many people who you would often never meet, save for maybe irregularly if at all, was the norm. That goes back in my direct experience to the early '80s. And also in the '70s, working in international and domestic banking, and then as a student activist in the mid to late '70s. Meeting those you've spoken with maybe only for months or years, written to, and then e-mailed for the first time would be equally disturbing. Noone ever seems to look the way they speak! D. Dominic Pinto http://www.ecademy.com/user/dominicpinto http://www.linkedin.com/in/dominicpinto Live or work in, or visit Covent Garden and Westminster? Check out http://www.westmin.co.uk/index.php e-m: dominic.pinto@ieee.org Skype: zorrodp M: +44 780 302-8268 Ph: +44 207 379-8341 In the U.S. M/Cell: +1 215 667-3001