Today the New York Times published an article on the need for workers in all sectors of the economy, from physicists and doctors to auto mechanics and librarians, to constantly upgrade their skills to remain relevant and keep their jobs. The article mentioned Coursera, Lynda.com, and other online education sites. They are resources workers can use to learn new skills and keep up with the state of the art in their fields.
Nothing new here. The takeaway for me is that, as I've said in earlier posts, online education is the most cost-effective way to get people the education and training they need for today's world. Millions of people wouldn't have access to useful courses, like Coursera's new one on strategy and innovation in organizations, if they weren't provided online, free of charge.
All this means that we better get used to learning on our computers, tablets, and mobile phones. The need to learn quickly will only increase, and we can't be scared of new ways of learning because they are nothing like the classrooms, teachers, and chalkboards we grew up with.
I think the pressure to learn will bring about a kind of "Golden Age" of education. The requirement to learn constantly, throughout one's life and not just during youth, happens to coincide with a point in history in which there have never been more resources for all people to do so.
The wrinkle in the fold is our educational system in the U.S. We can't expect people to become effective - and voracious - lifelong learners if they aren't taught to read and write at an advanced level. It won't work if we graduate students from high school who are mathematically and scientifically illiterate. And it definitely won't work if our students have never had the meaningful experiences with art and culture, as both audience and producer, that are required to think creatively and critically.
We need to make sure that quality education - both in the classroom and online - is available to everyone, from Pre-K through graduate school. That means public investment in our educational system, which is our intellectual infrastructure. It's time to start building.
Saturday, September 22, 2012
Sunday, July 22, 2012
Missing the point of online education
Today's New York Times featured an editorial by Mark Edmundson, a professor of English at the University of Virginia, called "The Trouble With Online Education." Professor Edmundson describes how a good college teacher can read the emotions of a roomful of students and adjust his teaching accordingly, like "a jazz composition" in which "there is the basic melody that you work with. It is defined by the
syllabus. But there is also a considerable measure of improvisation
against that disciplining background." The best teachers are adept at at modulating their instruction to fill in gaps in students' knowledge and abilities, spark their interest in pursuing in-depth learning, and fostering a sense of intellectual community that extends beyond the classroom.
Edmundson insists that these aspects of instruction are missing, or greatly compromised, in online education:"Online education is a one-size-fits-all endeavor. It tends to be a monologue and not a real dialogue. The Internet teacher, even one who responds to students via e-mail, can never have the immediacy of contact that the teacher on the scene can, with his sensitivity to unspoken moods and enthusiasms." Online classes are the educational equivalent to poster reprints of famous artworks. While they convey the idea, the texture and nuance is lost.
This view of online education is common among academics, especially those in the humanities. It is also a form of a wider critique of online interaction in general, in which detractors hold that interactions via Facebook, Twitter, text messages, and blogs are less rich and meaningful than interaction in person and communication via telephone and flattened trees with ink on them. In person interaction is richer than digital interaction, without a doubt, but online interaction has advantages that in person communication doesn't. It allows communication over vast distances, asynchronous collaboration, and reduces barriers of entry so that anyone can participate in content creation. Yes, digital interaction is different from traditional ways of communicating, and some things are lost. But many things are also gained. To see one as better than the other is to miss the point: New forms of communication are not about displacing old ones, but are rather about letting us do things that were previously impossible, or not even thought of.
Just as digital detractors miss the point about what new communications technologies are for, so do Edmundson and those of his ilk miss the point of online education. Yes, professors may not be able to individualize their instruction for particular groups of students. But in the United States, at this time, the question for a vast swath of the population is not, "How do I get the best higher education possible?" The question is, "How do I get any higher education at all?" With tuition at private schools upwards of $50,000 per year, tuition at state schools around $20,000, and few grants and scholarships available, students are looking to get an education as cheaply as possible, so they are not burdened by tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt that prevents them from buying a house, starting a family, launching a business, going into the non-profit world, or travelling abroad. Online education, which is free from Coursera, MIT, and other institutions, and is very low cost at schools like Western Governors University, is about providing an alternative to mortgaging our young people's future.
Even for those who have completed undergraduate or graduate education, the rapidly evolving nature of work in our "information" or "post-industrial" economy requires constant upgrading of skills and new learning. For those of us paying $500 a month in student loan debt, it is not easy to take a class in the evening at a community college to sharpen our skills. It is more likely we have a second job waiting tables at the bar next to the college, to help pay off those loans (or just make rent and buy food). Of course, for many young college graduates, the job at the bar is primary employment, since it's very difficult to get a job at the moment. So yes, online education lacks many of the benefits of traditional education. But for those of us who are unemployed, underemployed, or otherwise struggling to make ends meet, online education is the only option. And, in light of a recent study showing that online education is sometimes more effective than traditional education, at least in terms of imparting concrete knowledge, it is a damn good option for those of us with a desire to educate ourselves for today's world or a love of learning and no money.
Another argument can be made that online education does in fact allow the type of customization that Edmundson extols. I'll save that for another day. The bigger issue is that Edmundson's view is elitist in that it ignores the plight of the vast majority of Americans who are not wealthy and who do not have access to prestigious universities. Many Americans don't have access to any university or college at all. Online instruction is our best bet for educating our population for the modern economy, and for leading a fulfilling life in a rapidly changing world. A computer, a modem, and Internet service cost a hell of a lot less than $50,000 a year.
Edmundson insists that these aspects of instruction are missing, or greatly compromised, in online education:"Online education is a one-size-fits-all endeavor. It tends to be a monologue and not a real dialogue. The Internet teacher, even one who responds to students via e-mail, can never have the immediacy of contact that the teacher on the scene can, with his sensitivity to unspoken moods and enthusiasms." Online classes are the educational equivalent to poster reprints of famous artworks. While they convey the idea, the texture and nuance is lost.
This view of online education is common among academics, especially those in the humanities. It is also a form of a wider critique of online interaction in general, in which detractors hold that interactions via Facebook, Twitter, text messages, and blogs are less rich and meaningful than interaction in person and communication via telephone and flattened trees with ink on them. In person interaction is richer than digital interaction, without a doubt, but online interaction has advantages that in person communication doesn't. It allows communication over vast distances, asynchronous collaboration, and reduces barriers of entry so that anyone can participate in content creation. Yes, digital interaction is different from traditional ways of communicating, and some things are lost. But many things are also gained. To see one as better than the other is to miss the point: New forms of communication are not about displacing old ones, but are rather about letting us do things that were previously impossible, or not even thought of.
Just as digital detractors miss the point about what new communications technologies are for, so do Edmundson and those of his ilk miss the point of online education. Yes, professors may not be able to individualize their instruction for particular groups of students. But in the United States, at this time, the question for a vast swath of the population is not, "How do I get the best higher education possible?" The question is, "How do I get any higher education at all?" With tuition at private schools upwards of $50,000 per year, tuition at state schools around $20,000, and few grants and scholarships available, students are looking to get an education as cheaply as possible, so they are not burdened by tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt that prevents them from buying a house, starting a family, launching a business, going into the non-profit world, or travelling abroad. Online education, which is free from Coursera, MIT, and other institutions, and is very low cost at schools like Western Governors University, is about providing an alternative to mortgaging our young people's future.
Even for those who have completed undergraduate or graduate education, the rapidly evolving nature of work in our "information" or "post-industrial" economy requires constant upgrading of skills and new learning. For those of us paying $500 a month in student loan debt, it is not easy to take a class in the evening at a community college to sharpen our skills. It is more likely we have a second job waiting tables at the bar next to the college, to help pay off those loans (or just make rent and buy food). Of course, for many young college graduates, the job at the bar is primary employment, since it's very difficult to get a job at the moment. So yes, online education lacks many of the benefits of traditional education. But for those of us who are unemployed, underemployed, or otherwise struggling to make ends meet, online education is the only option. And, in light of a recent study showing that online education is sometimes more effective than traditional education, at least in terms of imparting concrete knowledge, it is a damn good option for those of us with a desire to educate ourselves for today's world or a love of learning and no money.
Another argument can be made that online education does in fact allow the type of customization that Edmundson extols. I'll save that for another day. The bigger issue is that Edmundson's view is elitist in that it ignores the plight of the vast majority of Americans who are not wealthy and who do not have access to prestigious universities. Many Americans don't have access to any university or college at all. Online instruction is our best bet for educating our population for the modern economy, and for leading a fulfilling life in a rapidly changing world. A computer, a modem, and Internet service cost a hell of a lot less than $50,000 a year.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)