Caution: Ostrich Posturing can be Hazardous to Your Future

A colleague, reflecting on this NYT article about a recently published meta-analysis of studies examining the effectiveness of online and blended courses, observed:

But I don't think we should worry about online education being an adequate substitute for more traditional forms.  That is.......yet.

Prompted me to respond as follows:

I find interesting that the NYT chose to characterize the study's findings so positively. Perhaps the reporter read the abstract only?  For example, the study authors observe:

"the observed advantage for online learning in general, and blended learning conditions in particular, is not necessarily rooted in the media used per se and may reflect differences in content, pedagogy and learning time."

The study authors also observe:

"the online and classroom conditions differed in terms of time spent, curriculum and pedagogy. It was the combination of elements in the treatment conditions (which was likely to have included additional learning time and materials as well as additional opportunities for collaboration) that produced the observed learning advantages. At the same time, one should note that online learning is much more conducive to the expansion of learning time than is face-to-face instruction."

One might take away from this that student time-on-task is the central factor driving differences observed in the meta-analysis; that online and blended (online combined with face-to-face meetings) expands student time on task. It would seem that any tool that expands the time students spend working with course material would be beneficial to the educational process.

Not addressed by the study is my hunch (yes, pure speculation) that on-line and blended course delivery requires that learning outcomes be specified with greater clarity than may be the norm for face-to-face classes. We know from the Brightman workshop that measureable student learning increases in parallel with the specificity of the learning outcomes communicated to students.

Overall, my take away is that the study suggests that course delivery method -- online, face-to-face, or blended -- is a comparatively minor factor in learning effectiveness. The study findings suggest that, from the perspective of student learning, online delivery is a viable substitute for and alternative to, face-to-face the delivery channel.

Following the classic path of a disruptive innovation, online and blended delivery bring to the table and leverage an attribute on which face-to-face instruction cannot compete. That attribute is convenience. Like it or not, students regard courses as commodities.  Given a choice between commodities, consumers will choose the more convenient alternative. Indeed, convenience can trump better performance (as witnessed when you take a photo with your phone rather than a dedicated camera). Are our course offerings competitively convenient?

For digital natives – i.e., our current and future students -- online learning is a traditional form. Online delivery is non-traditional only from the perspective of digital immigrants (i.e., those of us old enough to have lived BC … where BC could be interpreted as Before Calculators and/or Before personal Computers). Bowling Green just opened a new middle school.  The school is designed for distance learning. This is the norm, not an exception. Imagine the expectations those digital natives will have when they come to college!

We in higher ed ignore these market dynamics at great peril.

Crowdsourcing Equipment Reviews

Outside is launching a crowdsourced gear review program. What a great idea! It will be interesting to see how this evolves.

The Conceit of General Education

Mention General Education to university or college faculty and watch the reaction. Many will wrinkle their noses.  Some will look puzzled. Others, especially those enmeshed in the day to day delivery of GenEd courses, will exhale an exasperated sigh. Still others may say something to the effect of, "not part of my watch."  Each reaction reflects deep fissures in the gen ed dream. The reactions also reflect differing perspectives on ownership and responsibility. Mostly, reactions to 'general education' reflect deep seated, often unrecognized or unexpressed, assumptions about how a university education 'ought to be.'

Faculty reactions to general education typically reflect 'what I think' or 'how gen ed impacts my department.' Infrequently do faculty view gen ed from the student's perspective.  A distinction between 'general education' and disciplinary studies may make sense to faculty.  Students, in contrast, see an entire program of study; "a list of requirements that stand between me and my degree," if you will.Some requirements make sense. Other requirements, requirements that often fall into the 'gen ed' category, elicit puzzlement ("why do I need a course in ...?). As Bok points out in Our Under Achieving Colleges, students tend to not make the connection between program elements; between gen ed courses and other parts of their program of study. This failure reflects shortcomings in program design and delivery. This disconnect is a lost opportunity.

The conceit of general education, as traditionally practiced and conceptualized is the belief that it is a free-standing part of a student's university or college education.  This belief yields general education curriculum that is separate from, independent of, and possibly competing with developing a disciplinary foundation.  This mind-set fosters development of gen-ed fiefdoms that silo general education learning from the balance of a student's experience and education. The partitioning is evident in "layer cake" or "parallel column" curriculum design models. It is a model that risks reifying disciplinary silos rather than optimizing a student's progress toward cultivating general education objectives.

Adopting Nichols' view of liberal education as the collaboration and integration of general education offers an alternate model that disintermediates the conceit. A collaboration model emphasizes integration rather than separation. A collaboration model encourages forming partnerships among faculty from across a campus directed toward a common purpose.   

Our students should, and deserve to, experience and understand their college program as a unified holistic integrated entity in which the interfaces between general education, core curriculum, and major are seamless and mutually reinforcing. Rope provides a useful, although imperfect, metaphor.  Rope is perceived holistically. It's rope.  Yet, rooe is made of individual yarns. Each yearn runs the full length of the rope and, compared to the rope, has little strength.  Each yarn makes a modest contribution to the strength of the rope. A yarn, working in collaboration with many other yarns throughout the length of the rope, yields synergies in that the resulting rope is stronger than would be expected given the individual yarns.  .

This collaborative model requires helping students build a cognitive framework for understanding their program holistically, of the pieces that make of the program of study, and of their interconnections.  Collaboration should be viewed as extending the duration of a student's program; not confined to a particular temporal sliver. Accomplishing this requires careful curriculum design and cultivating in students the cognitive framework necessary for understanding of the whole and the parts from which it is made. If successful, the contributions of each curriculum component to the totality of the program of study should be apparent to every student in the program. If successful, students will perceive the resulting curriculum as a seamless experience. If successful, the resulting educational experience will be of greater value than can be achieved by partitioning general education from the balance of a student's program.