Scott Overmyer (Scott.Overmyer@cis.drexel.edu)
Mon, 21 Sep 1998 14:41:05 -0400
>Received: from mail.gmd.de (postix) by zeus.gmd.de with SMTP id AA19535 (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for <ifetsarc@zeus.gmd.de>); Thu, 1 Oct 1998 10:46:42 +0200
>Received: from mail.gmd.de (postix) by zeus.gmd.de with SMTP id AA28906 (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for <rashev@zeus.gmd.de>); Mon, 21 Sep 1998 20:44:16 +0200
From: "Scott Overmyer" <Scott.Overmyer@cis.drexel.edu> Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998 14:41:05 -0400 Subject: Re: [ifets] Concern with F2F
** Digest version of list available -> more information ->
http://ifets.gmd.de/maillist.html
---------------------------------------------------------
William Terrell wrote:
> I am having difficulty understanding the F2F issue. Most of my
university work
> as a student and as a professor has involved classes in excess of 200. I
recall
> one graduate "seminar" in research design in which there were over 700
students.
> Not much F2F.
Anecdotal evidence of large universities maximizing profits aside, I'd like
to take
a stab at addressing these comments. First, in face-to-face education, why
are
these class sizes occurring? Is there an overall educational plan in which
these
lectures serve some useful role? I don't like large classes myself, either
in
F2F or in distance education. I find that it is impossible to give proper
feedback and assessment in these large courses.
> When I read about the police arresting adults for soliciting sex from
juveniles
> on the internet I am impressed with how powerful the medium is for direct
> involvement on very personal levels. I am struck by the notion that good
Perhaps this is because the normal social cues that help govern certain
situations
are missing in computer mediated communication. This promotes the building
of
assumptions on the part of participants that are not true.
> instructional design should be able to involve students in the learning
process.
> In fact, since each student is directly interfacing with the program,
there is
> greater opportunity for involvement than in the traditional classroom.
Think
> about the fact that not every student in a class of 10, 15, 20, or 30 has
an
> opportunity to participate in a meaningful way. Usually only a handful
dominate
> the time of the instructor. Not really much F2F there.
Isn't the instructor at all to blame for this situation? or is it
completely the
fault of the situation itself?
> However, if Web-based training is only an electronic form of the droning
> teacher, not much is gained. The Web actually presents more
opportunities for
> student involvement than was true in any of the classes I attended in
high
> school through PhD. The question is whether any of the instructional
designers
> are imaginative enough to use the full interactive capabilities of the
internet.
University education is what you make it, but I'm sure the Board of
Trustees at
your former school will apologize for your poor educational experiences
upon
request. (Probably won't give back the money, though...)
> Part time students in remote locations and faceless students in higher
education
> factories would probably benefit from well designed WEB- based classes.
Often
> it is their only opportunity to maintain certification, advance in
profession,
> or simply to keep up.
No doubt! It is undeniable that Web-based courseware is an enabler for
individuals who are in this situation. I currently teach (facilitate)
courses
via Drexel's asychronous learning network, using Lotus Notes. Aside from
the
meetings that students have who work together, there is no face-to-face
requirement
in the M.S.I.S. program. This gives remote, working, or disabled people
from all
areas of the state, country, or even world, the opportunity to study the
same
subjects that they would if they came to campus. Do they receive the same
education?
They results are not yet clear!
> When I read someone whining because the internet threatens F2F, I assume
I am
> reading someone without imagination. I also assume their lack of
imagination
> shows in the traditional classroom.
When I read someone making blatant assertions that all courses should be
offered via computer technology of
some sort, I assume that I am being dictated to by "technology push",
rather than persuaded by "requirements
pull". This has nothing to do with protection of the academy, rather with
the lack of convincing demonstration
that, on a large scale, this technology should replace face-to-face
instruction in all, or even most, cases. These
new paradigms are far from fully described and evaluated.
Finally, I know many imaginative instructors, some who utilize computers
and some who don't, offering F2F
instruction that is excellent. To suggest otherwise shows faulty
assumptions.
scotto...
---------------------------------------------------------
Forum website: http://ifets.gmd.de/
Email address for sending message to everyone on the list ifets@gmd.de
Forum's contact person ifets-info@gmd.de
---------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu 01 Oct 1998 - 11:13:34 MET DST