I'm generally supportive of the observations in this post of things misted the recent (and widely criticized) article in the NY Times on online learning:
- online Learning is Not Anti-Teacher
- traditional notions of class size make no more sense for online learning
- the Times article is shockingly bereft of any reference to actual research
Now of course we here are doing actual research in online learning. And it makes me want to reflect a bit more on the first point. Because while teachers play an important role in online learning (what do you thing I do?) it is nonetheless true that the traditional role of teacher is abolished. The idea of the teacher as a wage-labourer producing class after class of identical student output is dead, dead, dead. The only people who don't know this yet are (a) teachers, and (b) educational administrators and 'reformers'. See The Role of the Educator.
- online Learning is Not Anti-Teacher
- traditional notions of class size make no more sense for online learning
- the Times article is shockingly bereft of any reference to actual research
Now of course we here are doing actual research in online learning. And it makes me want to reflect a bit more on the first point. Because while teachers play an important role in online learning (what do you thing I do?) it is nonetheless true that the traditional role of teacher is abolished. The idea of the teacher as a wage-labourer producing class after class of identical student output is dead, dead, dead. The only people who don't know this yet are (a) teachers, and (b) educational administrators and 'reformers'. See The Role of the Educator.
Today: 1 Total: 23 [Direct link] [Share]
