| Higher Education Course Migration from F2F to Online Instruction: Problems for Instructors |
||||
Reflection #1 It is interesting to note how the literature sorts itself out. There are only a handful viewpoints regarding technology and higher education, as expressed in the literature, and none of these are likely to resonnate with that group of instructors who would otherwise be perfectly content to live in the traditional F2F teaching environment, were it not the case that distance education is rapidly changing the landscape of teaching and learning--forever. In articles that speciffically address the audience of instructors, there is much discussion on how best to integrate technology, how best to utilize technology, and there is no shortage of enthusiasm for technology's alleged benefits for learner-centered [read constructivist] instruction. There is an awareness that many, if not most, college teachers are technologically challenged, and there is no shortage of ideas on how to address that issue. There seem to be three main approaches: 1) from the point of view that technology is self-evidentially efficacious, helpful hints to make it usable, 2) the testimonial, from the innovators ( in Rogers' taxonomy of the diffusion of innovations) and 3) the programmatic synthesis. Among the first group, see Levenburg and Major, "Kindling the Fire: How to Attract Faculty to Distance Education," and Kolbo and Turnage, "Technological Applications in Faculty Development," both in the Technology Source Journal. For the innovator testimonial, visit Julia Matuga's "Electronic Pedagogical Practice" in the ETS Journal, and Grover Furr's "From Paperless Classroom to Deep Reading, " in Technology Source. Clearly these innovators have given careful thought to the pedagogical implications of technology, and they are, in a sense, truly pioneers in the field. Their work may reach out to other innovators and early adaptors (again, from Rogers), but what about the late adaptors and stragglers. Finally, for examples of the programmatic synthesis, look at Ann Luck, "Developing Courses for Online Delivery: One Strategy," and Mark Fink, "faculty on the Move" in Syllabus magazine, available at http://www.syllabus.com/article.asp?id=6076, (I include the URL here because I have not yet posted the article elsewhere.) The IT professional may find these articles interesting. perhaps even thought-provoking; the edtech student will find them helpful and encouraging. The non-technological college professor however, quite comfortable in the lecture hall, may find such reading mystifying, troubling, baffling, frightening. It strikes me that what we may have here is "a failure to communicate," a failure, or at least a problem, rooted both in ideas and language. While technologists are brimming with ideas flush with possibility, we speak in a foreign language so far as non-technologists are concerned. The jargon of technology is not like the English language, it cannot necessarily be understood if it is just spoken loudly or slowly enough. While the edtech literature makes it clear that, in the migration from F2F to DE, the needs of instructors must be addressed, the literature also makes it clear that technologists are inclined to speak at, rather than to, this audience. So I come to the first tenative conclusion of this endeavor: communication is a problem. We need to converse in a language that everyone can understand and, so far we may not be doing a very well in that regard. Perhaps we should do more listening. A thought that leads to Reflection #2... |
||||