Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
We educators are definitely ambivalent when it comes to teaching online. It’s a challenge
to avoid whiplash trying to follow the arguments volleying back and forth between the neo-Luddites
and the technology evangelicals:
“It’s a threat to quality education!” say some.
“It’s the key to improving education and is inevitable!” reply others.
“It’s inferior to conventional face-to-face instruction!” warn some.
“It’s superior to conventional face-to-face instruction!” claim others.
Between these extreme views are many who are interested but skeptical of the overbroad
claims of instructional salvation or educational doom. A study conducted by the Association
of Public and Land Grant Universities confirmed educators’ mixed feelings about online instruction.
Released in October, it surveyed more than 10,000 faculty for their perspectives on online
learning. Headlines on stories reporting the results captured the ambivalence quite well:
“Professors Embrace Online Courses Despite Qualms About Quality” (Chronicle of Higher
Education, August 31, 2009).
The study results fueled a rehashing of most of the same arguments by both proponents and
opponents that have dominated the debate for years. You can get a taste of the various
stances in articles such as “Chronicle Readers Debate the Merits of Online Learning” (Chronicle
of Higher Education, August 31, 2009).
The pivotal study question asked faculty to compare online instruction with conventional
face-to-face instruction. At first glance, it seems a reasonable and even important comparison.
It is certainly a common framing of the issue through the years at all levels of education.
Although the responses to that question capture faculty’s current attitudes toward online
education, it helps little to enhance our understanding of the potential for online
instruction in higher education and offers little to inform decisions about why, when
and how to best integrate it into curricula.
In a nutshell, it asked the wrong question.
I argue that it’s the wrong question because it prioritizes the medium over the content.
It assumes that instructional format is THE crucial variable and thus discounts the importance
of instructional practices.
I can explain my concerns by asking a question parallel to the one in the survey: Which are
better – movies or books?
You might be able to answer that question easily. You might say something like “Movies,
of course.” Others might just as quickly respond “Books, naturally!”
The next obvious question is “OK, why? What makes movies better than books (or books better
than movies)?” And we could talk about how movies are so much more vivid and memorable
than simply reading words on a page or how books are so much more intellectually engaging
compared to passive movie viewing. We might even explore a more sophisticated analysis
and talk about how books are better for certain situations and movies are better for others.
Some of you, however, might respond to the question “Which are better: movies or books?”
with a question of your own: “It depends -- which movies compared to which books?”
This moves us beyond comparing the format (text vs. video) and recognizes that content
counts. There are ***, utterly forgettable books and magnificent, awe-inspiring movies
– just as there are masterpieces of literature and movies that are a disgusting waste of
celluloid (or more currently, pixels). Once a specific book title (or genre or author)
is named and a specific movie title (or genre or director) is named, then a meaningful comparison
is possible. So once we get past a simplistic format comparison question, we’re weighing
the quality of the content.
When we apply this logic to education, I argue that comparing instructional formats without
considering the content is an incomplete and thus potentially misleading exercise. Comparing
online instruction to conventional face-to-face instruction could be useful only if you assume
no differences in instructional quality. But not only is there great variation in quality
between formats, there is great variation in quality within each format. There are outstanding
conventional face-to-face courses as well as some badly outdated and ineffective ones.
Same is true of online courses, of course.
However, I’m also not arguing that content is king and format is irrelevant. Instead,
I argue that both are important to these comparisons. The key to effective instruction is matching
specific content to a specific format for a specific outcome. Educators must make informed
judgments to match subject matter to one (or more) available channels of communication
to create the most powerful learning experiences. Doing that well is a significant challenge,
but one that is essential if educators are going to make the best use of newer (and older)
technologies for online education.
“So,” you might say, “if the study asked the wrong question what is the right question?”
I propose that instead of asking “Which is better, online or face-to-face instruction?”
we should be asking “What are the best ways to foster deep and enduring learning using
available instructional tools and the best instructional techniques?” The answers to
that question can provide a road map to guide us as we learn to take advantage of emerging
technologies in ways that enhance our students’ learning and better prepare them for their
future.
The good news is that we do know some preliminary answers to that question, but I’ll have
to leave that for a future column.