I’d love to just end there, really. but I do want to address a couple of things – both in the post and Austin’s comment.

I disagree somewhat with the statement “rapid growth = online learning is working.” mainly because I think that it doesn’t take into consideration the commerce of it and the likelihood that people are jumping on the bandwagon, so to speak. not that there aren’t good models of online learning, just that the “boom” isn’t necessarily because it’s working. I do agree that it’s important to highlight the good models, because those help us to see how it could be. and to acknowledge that things like MITx allow access to content that before was available only to a few. it’s like saying that guy who does the online videos thing (no, I won’t name him) is awesome – not really. how you use that resource and the context you use it in is important. so yeah… ed tech is awesome, but only if it fits the context and… “works”.

re: the personal connecting online thing: I don’t follow this blog. but I follow Jon Becker on Twitter, and came here because of a comment he made on there. I would never have found, eaten with, organized a panel for a conference with, and hugged Jon if it hadn’t been for social media. no, I don’t think Jon and I have a deep, personal connection, but we do have a connection, and I learn so much from him and hence his network. I know that we have enough of a connection that if I reached out for some help or advice or a virtual hug, he would respond to me (right, Jon?). wait… does that count as a deep, personal connection?

I was able to connect with him and others, purely through Twitter. I’ve found some of my closest friends through there. I’ve made some amazing connections. I have learned about so many things from Anime to LOLcats to BioTech to the NBA. I have access to people like Howard Rheingold, Clay Shirky, Andy Carvin, Zeynep Tufecki, Kathleen Fitzgerald, Dan Cohen, Cathy Davidson… and so many more. I have connected with academics and fellow phd students. I have peer reviewers. I’ve had screaming arguments. I’ve battled trolls. in other words: I have a very rich and responsive online community. it is more than a community – it is a support system: educational, emotional, inspirational.

ok I’ll stop now. but before I go… group hug!

Well, Austin, isn’t that *exactly* what Monty has now done? Would he have done that by adopting a different (perhaps more “even”) stance?

Regardless, I’d like to challenge your claims that “…deep interpersonal connecting and bonding is largely absent in the worlds of texting and social media; pouring your heart out to a friend and developing trusting bonds is not convenient in those formats; shared space and time, and the permissions given via nonverbal cues are required for people to open up in those ways.”

I’d start by highly recommending Nancy Baym’s book “Personal Connections in the Digital Age.” http://politybooks.com/book.asp?ref=9780745643311 It’s a thorough and reasoned look at how connections are being made in networked communities, and includes a tremendous historical perspective. That look back reminded me of how well-meaning individuals resist new communications technologies, broadly conceived (see e.g. http://speedchange.blogspot.com/2012/02/technology-and-our-misunderstandings.html). In the Phaedrus, Plato quotes Socrates as saying: “If men learn this [writing], it will implant forgetfulness in their souls; they will cease to exercise memory because they rely on that which is written, calling things to remembrance no longer from within themselves, but by means of external marks.” Socrates was opposed to writing!

Also, I’d HIGHLY recommend reading Nathan Jurgenson’s piece on “Digital Dualism and the Fallacy of Web Objectivity” http://thesocietypages.org/cyborgology/2011/09/13/digital-dualism-and-the-fallacy-of-web-objectivity/
Jurgenson brilliantly, IMHO, articulates the argument against digitality as “mutually constitutive” from physicality. “…we should abandon the digital dualist assumption that the on and offline are separate in favor of the view that they enmesh into an augmented reality”

Argument by personal anecdote is folly, but I’m here to tell you that I’ve developed a number of deep, personal connections via social media; this is my augmented reality. And, I’m certain that hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of other people would say the same thing. Furthermore, you say those media are “inconvenient;” I find it inconvenient when my wife, for example, is not in my presence and I can’t confide in her. Social media are nothing if not “convenient.”

I think you and I would agree that teaching and learning are relational; that ideally we’d develop deep, meaningful relationships with all of our students. I find that happens best during dissertation advisement; that one-to-one relationship is “the best.” But, most of our formal learning experiences are not designed as one-to-one. I believe that the more the teacher:learner ratio exceeds x (I don’t know what x is), we make sacrifices in learning because we lose our ability to relate/connect to the student. When we teach classes of x+n, it’s unfortunately, necessarily the case that “deep interpersonal connecting and bonding is largely absent” (your words) with our students, even when those classes are fully face-to-face. So, then, why haven’t we rid ourselves of the 40 student class (let alone the 300 student intro. course)?

We haven’t and we do the best we can to forge relationships with our students. I believe that where online learning makes sense based on issues of geography, time, etc. (Monty’s argument), we can also do our best to forge relationships with our students. Where you and I disagree, I think, is in how deep and meaningful those relationships can be.

In Educational Leadership we are moving toward a blended format in some of our programs and we’re trying to discover what we mean by that. Which types of activities work online? Which ones don’t? What don’t we want to lose in the face to face format (actually that’s not right, we can do face to face online, maybe I should say physical classroom)? What is impossible online?

We are looking at our syllabii and trying to walk through those decisions. What I have noticed is how much more thought most of us go through when our teaching/class is online. We are much more intentional about what constitutes teaching and with providing primary and secondary materials. There is much to be valued in that and perhaps will instill that habit into all of our teaching.

I don’t think any of us (and really, I should just speak for myself, so let me amend that to, I don’t think that I) know how to make these decisions. My hope is that, as a collective, we will puzzle it through. We’re taking some notes about our process and about the results in an attempt to be able to look back at our thinking a year from now.

Monty, thank you for this newsletter. And Austin for your comments. As a side-note, I find the online world a real gift to introverts like me. I communicate with others much more, share ideas more, and participate more online than I do offline. I can get out of my office without getting out of my office. While it might be better if I were able to be more extroverted, I don’t see that as realistic. And I probably won’t ever get there. But online, I’m closer than I’ve ever been.

First, no, you are the first to respond to my newsletter. Second, thank you. The primary reason for this newsletter is to start conversations around emerging technologies in education. It is my hope to use this blog and the newsletter as springboards for debate and conversation.

To address your concerns, I agree with you that the general tone of my newsletters is somewhat “pro-online learning”. A lot of the articles I link to discuss the general growth of online learning, which factually is rapid, and I understand how this could be viewed as suggesting that online learning is “good”. Rapid growth = online learning is working. I also agree that I should balance these stories out with stories about some of the hurdles online learning still has to overcome, and some of the failures of online learning programs. As a researcher in this field, I am trying to figure out what the affordances of this technology are, and how it can improve education. I suppose in looking for these answers I tend to focus on the positives.

I do think online learning affords us the ability to overcome geographic and temporal constraints associated with face-to-face real-time instruction, and this is a non-trivial point. It allows us to provide instruction to people who could not otherwise get it. I think due to this obvious benefit, many in my field are working to figure out how we can improve online instruction. So while we are identifying the drawbacks, we are at the same time working to overcome them, as opposed to simply identifying them. I think a lot of the articles I present in the newsletter identify gaps which online learning can fill. For example, MITx allows anyone, through online learning, to learn for free. I think this model breaks down many of the walls currently in place for students who want to learn but either can’t afford it, or do not have access to it.

I also do not believe that online instruction is the proper method for everyone and everything. You bring up many examples of this in your comment, and it is my hope through better understanding of this technology and research in this area that educators will be able to make informed decisions on when to utilize this tool. As this field matures instructional designers may also uncover methods and strategies to provide better environments in which participants can learn in areas we originally thought were not suited to online instruction.

It is my hope, as I imagine it is everyone’s, that we work to improve education. To that end, I guess I do tend to post more stories on how to improve teaching and learning through technology than to point out the drawbacks of various technologies. I think it may be more beneficial. However, I agree we also need to critically look at examples where technologies are not used appropriately so that we can better understand how to best use these new tools.

do people ever respond to your newsletter commentaries? I assume you don’t mean to start a dialogue, but today I have some responses.

I think the readership deserves exposure to some skepticism in your commentaries of online learning. Your discussions of MITx and the related topics of ed. technology are mostly information-oriented, but something about them (maybe the lack of skepticism alone) results in a positive, this-is-awesome-and-exciting spin. For example, I disagree that online learning trends are awesome and worry very much about what is likely impossible to offer via online coursework (e.g., socialization into cultures, group identity propelled engagement in learning tasks/motivation stemming from meaningful interpersonal relationships; long term effects of identity formation on performance). I feel safe assuming that there are many students out there who will respond poorly to online learning/are predisposed to under perform due to the format. And I’m confident there are things that will be made inconvenient by the online format and will gradually be lost, to students’ detriment (like how deep interpersonal connecting and bonding is largely absent in the worlds of texting and social media; pouring your heart out to a friend and developing trusting bonds is not convenient in those formats; shared space and time, and the permissions given via nonverbal cues are required for people to open up in those ways). I think whatever problems really do exist in online learning will become apparent in time and will slow the tide of change.

So my point is, for the sake of the faculty and the consciousness you help create, I recommend probing of the limits of the online format other ed. technologies’ potential (maybe there’s research or theory out there on this) alongside your discussions of any uses and potential benefits and shifts in higher ed. You’ve got an opportunity to stir some controversy, prompt critical thinking, and help faculty take authentic positions on these issues (which is really cool).

I hope you receive this as a friendly encouragement with notes of intellectual seriousness. If I was sitting in your office, I wouldn’t be giving you any fighting or judgmental signals, and would at all times be a half second away from a smile or laugh.

austin