Here are some thoughts, Charles, stimulated by your interesting post. <<I think we are getting very close to instructional design that removes the need for faculty. For many learners and some content, good instructional designers are already creating content that outweighs the value added of the instructor. Yes, such content costs a lot more than each delivery of "chalk and talk" but, once created, the physical cost of delivery is marginal. Such marginal cost would be an administrators dream unless they thought things all the way through.>> First: this assumes that good learning results from "design." Most of what we learn we learn through undesigned experience and practice: we learn to be students, athletes, parents, Republicans, Democrats, cooks, adults, household repairers. . .without designed instruction. For this reason there is body of educational practice that proposes a shift away from immersion in the environment called "classroom" and an expansion of "experiential learning": having students immersed in the "real world," and connecting the experiences they have there to the disciplines. Second, we have had brilliantly designed learning materials for centuries. I have a sociology textbook in front of me that is "designed" to move a student from sociological ignorance to expertise. It begins at the beginning and moves the student to the complexities of sociology in easy--and well-designed--stages. If design were enough, we wouldn't need sociology instructors now. And: there is a television series on sociology that accompanies the textbook: brilliantly scripted, acted, filmed: designed. And yet we have instructors. Or: are you thinking of the notion that the computer can add dialog to the design--become a tutor, ask the student the questions an instructor might ask, and obviate the need for a live instructor by being a kind of technological Socrates? Clearly your logic is right: if "design" can eventually do all that an instructor can do, the instructor is superfluous. Perhaps, however, all "design" can do is change the role of the instructor. Steve Eskow -----Original Message----- From: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org [mailto:air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of Charles Balch Ph.D. Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 12:27 PM To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org Subject: Re: [Air-l] Technology Transforming Education I'd be very interested in hearing what other members think are some of the forces associated technology driven changes to education. Some forces that jump out for me are cost, quality, and fun. Fun is important to me -- I like to play with new toys. But I want to wander I bit. I've heard it argued that the chalkboard has changed education more than any other technology. Chalkboards are relatively cheap, use very little in the way of consumables, are kind to the environment, and use technology that is easily mastered. Chalkboards brought education to many who could not otherwise afford the cost of entry. Chalkboards also created the need for a lot more instructors. Modern computer technology is certainly far beyond the chalkboard but I think the analogies somewhat hold true. Modern technologies are becoming cheaper all the time, (arguably) use little consumables compared to other ways of distributing content, and provide a technology that is often easy to use. Modern technology also provides us with a number of fascinating new modalities such as sound, programmed instruction, and animation. But what is driving instructional change? Is it faculty who constantly strive for a better way? Student demand? Excitement about something that is new and improved? At the community college where I teach, administration's primary metric for judging my worth appears to be the number of student credit hours I pump out. Thus admin loves technology that increases credit hours delivered while reducing the cost to deliver the content. It seems at least some higher ed administrators would happily buy into Papert's vision of the electronic instructor. Oddly enough, from an altruistic point of view, I like the idea of inexpensive mass produced education for the masses. I particularly like the idea of getting the basics covered mechanically if I might be able to move into more of a role of moderator or facilitator for higher level courses.

From a not so altruistic point of view, I spent many years getting my various degrees and would hate to become obsolete. How many rocks stars does education need?

I think we are getting very close to instructional design that removes the need for faculty. For many learners and some content, good instructional designers are already creating content that outweighs the value added of the instructor. Yes, such content costs a lot more than each delivery of "chalk and talk" but, once created, the physical cost of delivery is marginal. Such marginal cost would be an administrators dream unless they thought things all the way through. One more analogy. Until the printing press was invented, books were very expensive to make. The printing press made books much more popular and drove the technology of books in ways that had not been considered. The creation of tables of contents, indexes, page numbers, abstracts, ISBN numbers and such where all improvements to book technology driven by books popularity. These changes took a long time. The recent success of Google shows that we are still learning much about how to use technology. I think it is going to be a fun ride. Thoughts? Charles Balch http://charles.balch.org -----Original Message----- From: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org [mailto:air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of Caroline Haythornthwaite Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 10:37 AM To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org Subject: Re: [Air-l] Academic traditions There is indeed a large movement re online education from many directions. A very interesting transformation, one that I try to follow closely. /C ---- Original message ----

Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 12:21:23 -0400 From: "Heidelberg, Chris" <Chris.Heidelberg@ssa.gov> Subject: Re: [Air-l] Academic traditions To: <air-l@listserv.aoir.org>

Caroline:

I concur! I am amazed at how many professors in the academic game do not understand the history and research behind this technology that was ironically created in large part and tested on the campuses of research institutions under federal and corporate grants. Your assessment is correct because the Ivy league schools (Harvard, Yale, Princeton etc), major private institutions (Duke, Johns Hopkins, Stanford), technology based schools (Cal-Poly,Georgia Tech, MIT)and many flagship universities (Cal-Berkeley, Illinois-Champaign,Maryland,Michigan,Ohio State and Texas-Austin) have already taken their offerings online (Rhodes, 2001)to match the challenge posed by the University of Phoenix and others. However, if one were to examine the federal defense based and medical grants received by these research institutions over the course of history since WWII, it is clear that the technology is not going away and new professors will have to get with the program and start looking at options like online publishing for environmental and financial reasons (Willinsky, 2006). The key will be the new methods created by and for learners by professors (Gee, 2005) such as video games.

---------------------------------------- Caroline Haythornthwaite Associate Professor Graduate School of Library and Information Science, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 501 East Daniel St., Champaign IL 61820 _______________________________________________ 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/ -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.7.6/814 - Release Date: 5/21/2007 2:01 PM _______________________________________________ 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, you say <<I'm excited about the ID possibilities of creating a mutual exchange among learners. You sort of hinted at apprenticeships and internships and I believe this method of instruction is making a comeback as traditional academia fails to prepare learners in ways that employers are willing to pay a premium for.>> I'd appreciate your reactions, and those of any on this list, to my own current work. I'm using the name "ee-learning" to describe an emerging educational practice that the new communication technologies make possible. "e-learning" is, of course, (e)lectronic learning, notably online learning. The second "e" is (e)xperiential learning. ICT makes it possible for learners to be scattered in time and space, working and serving anywhere in the community, the region, the world, and yet be in easy and regular touch with fellow students and with faculty. "ee-learning" means to suggest the possibilities of a new pedagogy that explores what can happen educationally when we bring together experiential learning and distance learning. The student can work, and become a "participant-observer" of the workplace, writing enthnographic description of the workplace and its routines, applying his sociology and his literature to what he is experiencing, sharing what he is learning--and what is troubling him about the work or service--with faculty and fellow students. The conviction that the world is, or can be, a teacher, and the places of the world learning places has a long history, from Rousseau to Dewey and beyond. Arthur Morgan's Antioch was devoted to the notion of bringing together what Morgan called the "two blades" of education, experience and theory coming together to create education with "a cutting edge." Up till now attempts to have the student abandoon the campus for the world were thwarted by the difficulty of connecting the experiences to the studies: connecting percept and concept, in James' terms, connectintg activity to cognition. Up to this point in time we have been essentially moving modes of instruction developed for the classroom online: programs like WebCt and Blackboard and Moodle help with that work. "Blended" or "hybrid" learning continues to be shaped by the classroom, and uses ICT to enrich classroom-dominated ways of learning. A growing number of academics are beginning to think through what new possibilities emerge when the basic locale of instruction is in the places of society, and the connection between teachers, students, and ideas is online. The issues, of course, are many and tense. Clearly those who believe that speech and face-to-face communication are vital for learning are not happy with such a pedagogy. If you, Charles, or others are interested, I'm editing a special issue of INNOVATE, the online journal on this matter, and we'd welcome contributions from any here who are working this field. Steve E. -----Original Message----- From: Charles Balch Ph.D. [mailto:charlie@balch.org] Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 4:48 PM To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org Cc: drseskow@cox.net Subject: RE: [Air-l] Technology Transforming Education Please excuse this if your receive it as repost - I got bumped for length and am resending. Charlie --- Thanks for adding to and clarifying my thoughts Steve. More rambling ahead. Your point "First: this assumes that good learning results from 'design.'" is spot on. But I'll see you a good point and raise you one. What is "good learning?" I find the definition of good learning slippery depending on my mood and what model I'm following. I suspect we've all studied the classics from behaviorism to constructivism and other interesting isms. Many of the isms have outcomes that might be categorized using Bloom's taxonomy. Knowledge is easiest to measure and thus probably easiest to create ID for (OK - I'm being careful here. Of course knowledge is easiest to test.) I see where you are going but I don't agree that "all design can do is change the role of the instructor." My take is that learning is contextual in that it depends on the needs of the learner and type of content. If the instructional goal is to "just" impart some facts, such as basic math, I think that free programs such as those provided by http://funbrain.com compliment if not improve upon traditional instruction of facts. (The effectiveness of funbrain may be because it pops up Maslow's hierarchy as well). Unless we just use the DSM, I see sociology as towards the evaluation area of Bloom's taxonomy and thus the "correct" answers are increasingly arbitrary and harder to measure. This border state where many mutually exclusive answers and methods are "correct" is where life gets interesting. Modern ID provides the possibility for the sociology instructor to be much more effective. But what is effective? The instructor's goal might be to convince or the facilitator/moderator might want to create an environment where the role of teacher is both blurred and enhanced. I'm excited about the ID possibilities of creating a mutual exchange among learners. You sort of hinted at apprenticeships and internships and I believe this method of instruction is making a comeback as traditional academia fails to prepare learners in ways that employers are willing to pay a premium for. The web is already providing extensive areas outside of traditional academic channels. I'm not saying that Wiki's and listservs are superior to traditional education but I think we as educators need to aware of the strengths and weaknesses of all the tools at our disposal. This is a fun and evolving time. What we create will always be available. What is used will depend on its perceived utility. I can't let the "technological Socrates" thought go by. Publishing is not everything. It could well be that Socrates was illiterate. He certainly never published. Neither did some other great teachers like Jesus, Mohammed, and Buddha. Charles Balch -----Original Message----- From: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org [mailto:air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of Dr. Steve Eskow Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 1:21 PM Here are some thoughts, Charles, stimulated by your interesting post. <<I think we are getting very close to instructional design that removes the need for faculty. For many learners and some content, good instructional designers are already creating content that outweighs the value added of the instructor. Yes, such content costs a lot more than each delivery of "chalk and talk" but, once created, the physical cost of delivery is marginal. Such marginal cost would be an administrators dream unless they thought things all the way through.>> First: this assumes that good learning results from "design." Most of what we learn we learn through undesigned experience and practice: we learn to be students, athletes, parents, Republicans, Democrats, cooks, adults, household repairers. . .without designed instruction. For this reason there is body of educational practice that proposes a shift away from immersion in the environment called "classroom" and an expansion of "experiential learning": having students immersed in the "real world," and connecting the experiences they have there to the disciplines. Second, we have had brilliantly designed learning materials for centuries. I have a sociology textbook in front of me that is "designed" to move a student from sociological ignorance to expertise. It begins at the beginning and moves the student to the complexities of sociology in easy--and well-designed--stages. If design were enough, we wouldn't need sociology instructors now. And: there is a television series on sociology that accompanies the textbook: brilliantly scripted, acted, filmed: designed. And yet we have instructors. Or: are you thinking of the notion that the computer can add dialog to the design--become a tutor, ask the student the questions an instructor might ask, and obviate the need for a live instructor by being a kind of technological Socrates? Clearly your logic is right: if "design" can eventually do all that an instructor can do, the instructor is superfluous. Perhaps, however, all "design" can do is change the role of the instructor. Steve Eskow

On 5/22/07, Dr. T. Michael Roberts <dr_haqiqah@yahoo.com> wrote:

We are moving, in practice, toward an educational system where the good students learn online and the students who need lots of help are taught face to face.

I can't help but view this discussion through the lens of (a) my student affairs background and (b) current trends in funding, financial aid, and access in the United States. Given that, it seems to me that ideally the decision of how one should "attend class" would be made primarily based on the learner's desired learning style. But I think it's pretty clear that many other factors play into this, including economics (on both the supply and demand sides) and pressures related to cultural and personal circumstances. Further, it has not been my experience that many students, particularly undergraduates, choose to "attend" online classes because it's their preferred style. Instead, they seem to choose it because of the flexibility in scheduling, geographic independence, and course/instructor availability. I am sure that is changing over time but it relates strongly to a previous comment about demand outstripping supply as institutions try to balance or increase their resources. On a broader scale, SES *has* to play a role in this. Will we eventually move into a future where only the rich can afford (a word with many denotations and connotations) a traditional, face-to-face education? Will residential liberal arts institutions remain the domain of the elite as others "choose" distance education (because it's cheaper, not because it offers an equivalent or better education)? Kevin

Kevin, Thank you for a thoughtful response to random thoughts I threw out there hoping someone could help me polish up a few ideas. What I am seeing happen in my own practice as a teacher is DL increasing the gap between haves and have-nots at the level of knowledge and academic credential. Distance is the best thing that ever happened to bright, motivated students that already have jobs and families. They can do courses and degrees online that they could not do on-ground because of constraints of time. Many such students use scraps of time to be in school. This is possible because they do not have to be at a particular place at a particular time every week. Many students who could not fit on-ground classes into their already insane schedules manage to do a course or two a term by using every scrap of time they might have throughout the week to get their class work done. This is great for a single mom trying to increase her earning potential by getting more education assuming that she is motivated enough to do her coursework in scraps of time with no one monitoring her and assuming that she is reasonably bright. I see distance as making opportunities to learn and grow available to students who are bright and motivated that were not there before. The pattern I see is that the person who would have made an “A” in my ground class if he or she could have fit that course into his or her schedule will also make an “A” in my online course doing the course in scraps of time stolen from a very busy life when and were these scraps can be found. However, many students who might have made “C” in my ground class end up flunking online because they can not motivate themselves to do the work without a live person standing there making unhappy noises when they do not have the assignment done on time. It seems to me that, over time, distance will increase whatever gaps in educational attainment already exist between bright people who are motivated to learn and people who are less bright and/or less well motivated. All of this is based on what I think I see happening in my classes and not on any time at all spent looking at actual research on these issues. If the research says that I am wrong, I will humbly accept that. This is just how it looks from where I sit. T. Michael --- Kevin Guidry <krguidry@gmail.com> wrote:

On 5/22/07, Dr. T. Michael Roberts <dr_haqiqah@yahoo.com> wrote:

...

We are moving, in practice, toward an educational system where the good students learn online and the students who need lots of help are taught face to face.

I can't help but view this discussion through the lens of (a) my student affairs background and (b) current trends in funding, financial aid, and access in the United States. Given that, it seems to me that ideally the decision of how one should "attend class" would be made primarily based on the learner's desired learning style. But I think it's pretty clear that many other factors play into this, including economics (on both the supply and demand sides) and pressures related to cultural and personal circumstances. Further, it has not been my experience that many students, particularly undergraduates, choose to "attend" online classes because it's their preferred style. Instead, they seem to choose it because of the flexibility in scheduling, geographic independence, and course/instructor availability. I am sure that is changing over time but it relates strongly to a previous comment about demand outstripping supply as institutions try to balance or increase their resources. On a broader scale, SES *has* to play a role in this. Will we eventually move into a future where only the rich can afford (a word with many denotations and connotations) a traditional, face-to-face education? Will residential liberal arts institutions remain the domain of the elite as others "choose" distance education (because it's cheaper, not because it offers an equivalent or better education)?

Kevin _______________________________________________ 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/

“We have to think of ways to use games not just to escape reality but to re-engage with reality.” Henry Jenkins ____________________________________________________________________________________ Expecting? Get great news right away with email Auto-Check. Try the Yahoo! Mail Beta. http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta/newmail_tools.html

I just wanted to pass this along to everyone given our discussion regarding ICTs & Education. I thought this video might give some food for thought....(quicktime) Tracy Pay Attention http://t4.jordan.k12.ut.us/t4/content/view/221/35/ ******************************************** Tracy L. M. Kennedy PhD Candidate - Department of Sociology Graduate Fellow - Knowledge Media Design Institute Research Coordinator - NetLab - Centre for Urban & Community Studies University of Toronto 725 Spadina Ave. Toronto, ON M5S 2J4 tkennedy@netwomen.ca www.netwomen.ca www.kmdi.utoronto.ca/collaborative Virtual Research Assistant - Centre for Digital Media Great Northern Way Campus 555 Great Northern Way Vancouver, BC V5T 1E2 Second Life - TracyTrail Blazer Research Director Netwomen Consulting ********************************************

I work as an educational designer and I'd like to point out that educational designers don't *create* content. We take content created by academics and make suggestions about its presentation (online, in my case). In the past year I've worked on automated assessment with feedback in undergraduate engineering, structuring of graduate bioethics and a strategic project in graduate medicine. I'd have to have a fairly big brain if I could create content for all these disciplines! Our job is to support faculty in their teaching practices. For our unit this might mean helping people think their way through taking parts of their teaching online, creating specialised online summative assessments, creating tools for formative assessment, presenting support material such as 'remedial' learning support online, or maybe researching and writing a report for an upcoming strategic faculty decision. I understand that there is anxiety among academic staff that they are being 'phased out' of teaching, but in truth their minds, their insights an their presences, whether it is in person or online, are still crucial to the learning experience of students. Most of us in educational design also spent/are spending years getting our degrees - we have two PhDs in our unit, two PhD candidates (including myself) and everyone else has at least one Masters. We have the highest respect for our teaching colleagues, M-H On 23/05/2007, at 5:27 AM, Charles Balch Ph.D. wrote:

Oddly enough, from an altruistic point of view, I like the idea of inexpensive mass produced education for the masses. I particularly like the idea of getting the basics covered mechanically if I might be able to move into more of a role of moderator or facilitator for higher level courses.

...

From a not so altruistic point of view, I spent many years getting my

various degrees and would hate to become obsolete. How many rocks stars does education need?

I think we are getting very close to instructional design that removes the need for faculty. For many learners and some content, good instructional designers are already creating content that outweighs the value added of the instructor. Yes, such content costs a lot more than each delivery of "chalk and talk" but, once created, the physical cost of delivery is marginal. Such marginal cost would be an administrators dream unless they thought things all the way through.

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 -----Original Message----- From: air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org [mailto:air-l-bounces@listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of Mary-Helen Ward Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 2:07 PM To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org Subject: Re: [Air-l] Technology Transforming Education I work as an educational designer and I'd like to point out that educational designers don't *create* content. We take content created by academics and make suggestions about its presentation (online, in my case). In the past year I've worked on automated assessment with feedback in undergraduate engineering, structuring of graduate bioethics and a strategic project in graduate medicine. I'd have to have a fairly big brain if I could create content for all these disciplines! Our job is to support faculty in their teaching practices. For our unit this might mean helping people think their way through taking parts of their teaching online, creating specialised online summative assessments, creating tools for formative assessment, presenting support material such as 'remedial' learning support online, or maybe researching and writing a report for an upcoming strategic faculty decision. I understand that there is anxiety among academic staff that they are being 'phased out' of teaching, but in truth their minds, their insights an their presences, whether it is in person or online, are still crucial to the learning experience of students. Most of us in educational design also spent/are spending years getting our degrees - we have two PhDs in our unit, two PhD candidates (including myself) and everyone else has at least one Masters. We have the highest respect for our teaching colleagues, M-H On 23/05/2007, at 5:27 AM, Charles Balch Ph.D. wrote:

Oddly enough, from an altruistic point of view, I like the idea of inexpensive mass produced education for the masses. I particularly like the idea of getting the basics covered mechanically if I might be able to move into more of a role of moderator or facilitator for higher level courses.

...

From a not so altruistic point of view, I spent many years getting my

various degrees and would hate to become obsolete. How many rocks stars does education need?

I think we are getting very close to instructional design that removes the need for faculty. For many learners and some content, good instructional designers are already creating content that outweighs the value added of the instructor. Yes, such content costs a lot more than each delivery of "chalk and talk" but, once created, the physical cost of delivery is marginal. Such marginal cost would be an administrators dream unless they thought things all the way through.

_______________________________________________ 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/ -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.7.6/814 - Release Date: 5/21/2007 2:01 PM

<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/

I think the core teaching skills remain the same. It is only the delivery methods that evolve over the time. I see evolution of the classrooms as normal. The world is changing and the education industry is chaging with it. On 5/23/07, Mary-Helen Ward <mhward@usyd.edu.au> wrote:

I'm not clear who 'we' are (people on this list? Academics?) or why we would limit this engagement to the US. Shifts in the technologies of learning are happening worldwide.

Teaching is always being redesigned - the classrooms my children sat in in the 70s and 80s bore little resemblance to the classrooms I sat in the 1950s. The classrooms my grandchildren sit in today are very different again

M-H in Australia.

Steve Jones wrote:

...

<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).

_______________________________________________ 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/

-- "My Body is my Temple" "Be The Change You Want to See In The World." Gandhi

I teach Communication on two islands at once. Using video teleconferencing systems, I hold class on St. Thomas in the US Virgin Islands with a video teleconference link to our St Croix campus which is 50 miles away over open ocean. This is extraordinary. While most of the class experience is easily transmitted over the Video link, and I make extensive use of the e-Blackboard - there are oddities. I had a class this semester with 12 students on the distant campus and none on my local campus. So I taught a full semester to an EMPTY ROOM, talking to a camera and watching my students on the distant campus on a video screen. Odd, but entirely workable. I did feel odd waving my arms and gesticulating in an empty room. The only really serious limitation has been when teaching a class that is software intensive... I had a class on video editing and really felt the difficulty trying to show students the software. I could go to my local students and look over their shoulders and point to things on the screen, but the distant students had to do that using NetMeeting - decidedly inferior. Also it is a lot harder to demo and showcase software using the VTC system. The scan rates of NetMeeting prevent live demos of some video features. Other than that, if one is able to use Blackboard and LISTSERV software, the distant learning is a breeze... My classes are all E-classes. No paper. and I am moving toward no books. My CMC class this fall will be entirely electronic with no paper or books. Alex Randall Professor of Communication University of the Virgin Islands. ----- Original Message ----- From: Michael Baron To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 12:41 AM Subject: Re: [Air-l] Technology Transforming Education I think the core teaching skills remain the same. It is only the delivery methods that evolve over the time. I see evolution of the classrooms as normal. The world is changing and the education industry is chaging with it.

"We" refer to air-l. The choice of limiting to the U.S. is mine, because that's my experience. YMMV. No doubt that teaching is always being redesigned, and for any number of reasons, many of which are often out of the control of the teacher. I was speaking only about two reasons that I think are not very good ones. In my case the classrooms I sat in (K-12 through college) haven't changed much at all. This brings up a point I may have buried in my previous message, though, which is that there are "levels" of redesign - individual, departmental (or other next larger administrative unit), collegial, etc. Of course one size doesn't fit all, but the discussion of redesign of teaching (not necessarily the one on air-l, but certainly ones in which I have participated in other online and offline venues) often embodies assumptions that one size does fit all and that there are broad "trends" that are somehow "inevitably" going to change "everything" (right, I exaggerate...but just a bit). By bringing that up I'm urging that it not be a footnote to the discussion that the discourse surrounding such redesign is also about power, that teachers, students, administrators, parents, etc., deploy particular arguments for particular reasons in their circumstances. Sj On May 22, 2007, at 10:25 PM, Mary-Helen Ward wrote:

I'm not clear who 'we' are (people on this list? Academics?) or why we would limit this engagement to the US. Shifts in the technologies of learning are happening worldwide.

Teaching is always being redesigned - the classrooms my children sat in in the 70s and 80s bore little resemblance to the classrooms I sat in the 1950s. The classrooms my grandchildren sit in today are very different again

M-H in Australia.

Steve Jones wrote:

...

<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).

_______________________________________________ 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/