The research on teaching via an online format as opposed to face-to-face instruction is clear -- there is little or no difference in student achievement, course satisfaction, and prevalence of cheating. We also know that in the minds of many faculty and administrators, online instruction is considered inferior to in-class instruction. Real teaching requires an informed and prepared instructor lecturing or leading discussion in a room with students; online teaching amounts to an automated course and the instructor is getting away with not doing the job he/she was hired to do.
Given the above (which I can support with references), I am curious about the current wave of interest in developing online sections for high-enrollment courses in the California State University system and elsewhere. Given the foot-dragging in the 4-year colleges regarding distance learning options, this decision to begin vigorous promotion of online classes is puzzling. On my campus, the faculty are being offered $2000 this summer if they will work with a computer technology expert to transfer course materials to an online format and teach a section online next year. That's a nice incentive! Is the administration motivated by the desire to provide students with choices? Is it about scheduling flexibility? Or reduced use of campus resources, increased accessibility, minimized disease transmission? Are they hoping to reduce the campus carbon footprint by reducing the number of car trips to campus? I think none of the above. From a variety of sources, I'm thinking it all comes down to money -- administrators see online instruction as some sort of free lunch. Since the teachers don't really teach in online courses, we can load up these sections with lots of students and enjoy the cost savings. On our campus, we won't even call these folks "teachers." Rather they will be referred to as "facilitators." And here is the problem. Those who promote the development of online sections only see the cost of setting up the course for transferring instructional information to students. Hence money for the time to upload readings and assignments to an online course site, set up quizzes and online testing, record lectures and get them uploaded. But making class information available to students is only a part of what is involved in teaching. The other part of the task (the larger part once a course has been set up) involves dealing with how students respond to the in formation provided. And here is where the real teaching comes in. Class discussion in online forums has to be monitored and controlled. Posts to discussion boards have to be assessed for grading purposes. Uploaded homework assignments have to be responded to. Quizzes, exams, term papers -- all have to be graded. My point: a major challenge in any course (once the lectures and assignments have been developed) is communicating with students, providing feedback on work completed, and doing the grading. So you can't simply provide resources for course set-up, then open the class for high enrollment, and have cheap education. There is a significant cost where the real instruction is -- in working with students and providing assessment. And this is what the administrators are missing. There is a way in which the administration could "get it." Each of these decision-makers should set up and teach an online course themselves (including working with the details of an LMS like Blackboard or Moodle). They would soon realize that the challenge in online teaching is not in the glory of lecturing before a class -- rather it is in the many small-but-important details of switching on assignments, making test answers visible (or hiding them), getting due dates and reminder emails correct, handling email traffic, scheduling chat room opportunities, etc. It's the little stuff that adds up. Require an administrator to teach online and he/she will soon realize that making a discussion comment in a traditional class takes moments. You simply say what you have to say and the task is done. But make the same comment on an online discussion board and a couple of paragraphs might take 30-minutes or more. The reason? Your words are there in print and you are the model of correctness -- hence you need to spell check, grammar check, proof and edit, etc. because a bit of slop in face-to-face discussion won't fly in print. Any use of sarcasm or devil's advocate remarks (voicing controversial opinions that you probably don't personally hold) can come back to haunt you when on the written record for all to see and review. The full impact of just this difference in online vs. face-to-face discussion is only going to be felt when someone has experienced it through both modes of teaching. My point is that the current interest in online instruction (from top down) is misplaced, ill-informed, and headed for trouble. Those making the decisions see only some upfront costs and then big financial savings. If they don't address the real costs, then faculty will adjust their workloads by degrading the quality of online courses (e.g., cutting back on graded assignments and teacher presence). And then we really will have automated courses. Is it just me, or do any of you have similar feelings on this issue? --Dave -- ___________________________________________________________________ David E. Campbell, Ph.D. [email protected] http://www.humboldt.edu/~campbell/psyc.htm --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=1186 or send a blank email to leave-1186-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
