Every facilitator of learning, whether a teacher in a traditional classroom, a trainer in a corporate environment, or an instructor in a distance learning program, develops a personal philosophy of education. It may be conscious and structured, finding expression in the myriad decisions, attitudes, and interactions that make up the person’s professional life. Or it may lurk in the subconscious with subtler effect. For students of education – those of us engaged in the metacognitive journey of learning about learning – periodically giving shape and form to a personal philosophy of education is a useful exercise in introspection. In fact, there is no better way to crystallize one’s thinking than to share it with others. Such will be undertaken here.
What is the purpose of education?
The American thinker and social commentator, Eric Hoffer, put it very well: "The central task of education is to implant a will and facility for learning; it should produce not learned but learning people. The truly human society is a learning society, where grandparents, parents, and children are students together" (Yero, 2001, para. 7). Thus, education should create lifelong learners who not only have the ability but also the desire to learn throughout life. The benefits trickle up from the individual to the family to the society at large.
Novelist and philosopher, Ayn Rand, focused on another important purpose of education: “… to teach a student how to live his life – by developing his mind and equipping him to deal with reality” (Yero, 2001, para. 9). Education should have relevance and usefulness in everyday life.
Finally, Chinese Taoist philosopher, Lao Tzu, observed: “Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach him how to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.” (AllGreatQuotes.com, 2010). We can take the proverb a bit farther: Teach the man critical thinking and problem solving and you not only feed him, but clothe him, house him, and stimulate him for a lifetime. The only thing you can’t give him is the commitment to make the most of those opportunities. That must come from inside.
The purpose of education is thus to create lifelong learners who have the mix of understanding and practical skills needed to be productive and contributing members of their societies.
How do people learn?
Lifelong learning is not so rare, really. Healthy humans learn by directly assimilating information from sources they find credible: Parents, peers, religious or governmental leaders, newscasters and commentators, even popular icons such as actors, musicians, and sports stars
They also learn as they experience life. Their senses receive information about what is going on around them; their brains process the information, construct meaning from it, and store the results in their memories.
Both of these informal or natural ways of learning are efficient and effortless for the learner. The challenge faced by the educator is to find ways to harness and give direction to a propensity for learning that humans already have. There is no need to reinvent the wheel, metaphorically speaking. Instead, the task of the educator is to get a perfectly usable wheel rolling toward a specific destination.
Traditional direct instruction (e.g. the lecture) seeks to trigger assimilation. It is relatively easy to design and deliver, and may actually be preferred by seasoned learners such as graduate students and researchers because of its explicitness. There is no wallowing about, trying to create personal meaning. The facts are presented; the student absorbs them, and then moves on to the next task. However, this is not an efficient approach for all students and all subjects.
Fortunately, direct instruction can be effectively coupled with the other flavor of natural learning, where meaning is constructed from experience.
The constructivist approach
“In the constructivist approach, students construct personal understanding and knowledge of the world by experiencing things and reflecting on their experiences” (Lang & Evans, 2006, p. 220). Constructivist approaches take the learner through stages of discovery, reflection, sharing, and evaluation. Strategies include
1. Learning by doing (experiential);
2. Learning by working with others (collaborative/cooperative learning), and
3. Learning by working through challenges (problem-based learning).
In direct instruction, the student is asked to accept. In a constructivist activity, the student is asked to discover. This changes the teacher’s job from being a dispenser of knowledge in the former case to an advisor and cheerleader in the latter. “The role of the teacher, in the constructivist approach, is to pose questions and guide students to assist them in finding their own answers” (p. 221). The teacher presents problems, establishes boundaries, provides support and creates an atmosphere of safety. The teacher incorporates both explicitness and vagueness to keep learners moving forward on the learning journey.
Learning styles and comfort zones
Students have preferred learning styles, modes of learning in which they feel most comfortable. But what is the role of comfort in learning? Again, Chinese Taoist philosopher Lao Tzu offered an important insight: “A scholar who cherishes the love of comfort is not fit to be deemed a scholar” (ThinkExist.com, 2010). Deliberate formal learning – even when the best constructivist approaches are used, even when there is good alignment with a student’s preferred learning style, even with all of that in place - requires effort. It is a transformative process. It is by its very nature unsettling. The good news is that venturing out of one’s comfort zone and doing something substantive while out there, has the curious effect of expanding that comfort zone. The challenge of the instructional designer is to use a variety of learning activities such that each student is likely to find some comforting and some challenging.
Instructional delivery models
For this writer, balance is key in how instruction is designed and delivered. Just as natural learning features both assimilated meaning and constructed meaning, deliberate facilitation of learning through instruction is at its best when it does the same. In education, there is a time and place for explicitness and a time and place for ambiguity. Both can be part of a comprehensive instructional delivery model. For example, direct instruction is highly desirable for conveying instructions about an assignment, expectations for performance, assessment of outcomes, and even the baseline knowledge needed to begin an experiential project. In this context students need explicitness. This creates the boundaries and framework in which they can work through an experiential exercise, in which they can construct their own knowledge. It assures that they are headed in the right general direction without giving them a precise road map for getting there. Then the experiential journey – the experiencing, the reflecting, the sharing, and the evaluating – can begin.
Online education
An important mandate for education in the modern age is to make it suitable for online delivery. The Internet has been a game-changer. So profound is its importance to learning that the following can easily be imagined:
1. The history of learning will one day be divided into pre and post-Internet
2. “Online education” will eventually become a redundant term. Instruction – even the face-to-face variety – will be assumed to have an online dimension somewhere in its development, delivery, execution, or evaluation.
Connection is the service that the Internet provides, and this is both in the literal sense of providing linkage between computers and in the larger sense of creating channels of access between the people and resources that make up the educational experience.
Distance learning and socialization
If there is one persistent criticism of learning from a distance using online education, it is that it downplays the social component of traditional classrooms. But that could be precisely where its value lies! Decoupling social growth and academic growth allows each to proceed at the rate best for the individual student.
In his country hit, “Online,” singer/songwriter, Brad Paisley confesses, “I’m so much cooler online” (AZLyrics.com, 2010). In a traditional classroom, the shy and unsure student often slouches in the back of the classroom, intimidated by quicker-thinking, confident achievers who dominate a discussion. But in an online discussion board, that shy student can take all the time he or she needs to compose a thoughtful post and be certain it will be read. The student is not only cooler online, but smarter as well, spending more time on task and growing into the student he or she wants to be, less inhibited by social pressures. And what exactly is lost in the process? Nothing! Interaction with others is still present but doesn’t wield the power to compromise academic learning.
Taking it to the corral
Online education isn’t only for discourse-based subjects such as philosophy and sociology. Nearly any subject that can be taught has some component that could be taught online. A good example is the writer’s work as an educator in the horse industry.
The curriculum is horsemanship. One could easily presume that this is all about developing facility and technique in handling horses, and that it would not be suitable for online instruction. While physical interaction with a horse is certainly part of the journey, there is also a strong cognitive component, and it is this component that is best suited for development with distance education. Students are well served by studying the evolutionary history of equus caballus (modern horse), the resulting behavior complex, veterinary science, horsekeeping/husbandry, the history of horsemanship (including modern horsemen), and general principles of behavior modification as well as those that have been proven particularly effective with horses.
Target students are predominantly middle-aged women, college educated and computer literate, who are interested in increasing the enjoyment they get from their horses. They are accustomed to learning through technology. Indeed, many are already accessing the writer’s television and radio programs, and writings online.
Just how well can the natural learning phenomenon be harnessed to reach these students online? Direct assimilation of knowledge through readings, lectures, video, and audio has already proven viable in the handful of horse-oriented distance education offerings available today. The greatest room for growth, however, is in incorporating constructivist methods, and it is here where there is the greatest opportunity to have a positive impact. Discussion boards where learners can share experiences and learn collaboratively would be an easy first step.
What’s more, it is conceivable that one day, motion-controlled gaming technology (e.g. Nintendo's Wii™) could simulate a hands-on horse experience to safely teach newbies basic horse-handling skills remotely, similar to the way driving students use simulators or families play sports from their living rooms. This would undoubtedly improve the learner’s confidence and competence, enhancing the quality of the experience when human and horse meet.
A final thought
This writer’s focus is clearly on the individual, believing that individual freedom, excellence, and virtue are the proper starting points for achieving those characteristics in a society. A natural corollary to that belief is that the most formidable barriers to lifelong learning are not imposed from without but found within, the foremost such barrier being the learner’s own attitude. In a recent radio interview, a young Canadian horseman, Jonathan Field, shared an observation made by one of his mentors. There are three words that every learner should avoid uttering, for they all but assure that the learning has stopped: “I know that.”
References
AllGreatQuotes.com. (2010). Retrieved from
http://www.allgreatquotes.com/lao_tzu_quotes.shtml
AZLyrics.com. (2010). Retrieved from
http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/bradpaisley/online.html
Lang, H.R., & Evans, D.N. (2006). Models, strategies, and methods for effective
teaching. Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.
ThinkExist.com. (2010). Retrieved from
http://thinkexist.com/quotation/a_scholar_who_cherishes_the_love_of_comfort_I
s/11351.html
Yero, J.L. (2001). The meaning of education. Teacher’s mind resources. Retrieved from
http://www.teachersmind.com/education.htm
Friday, March 25, 2011
Thursday, March 17, 2011
Thoughts on Assessment
For me, assessment is the most difficult and least enjoyable part of being an educator. I have been on the receiving end of assessments that I felt were too critical and others that I felt were not critical enough. The one occasion when I taught college, I felt most uncertain about how to assess performance and assign grades. Now, sixteen months of grad school later, assessment is still not my favorite subject, but I am becoming less uncertain about my own feelings.
For one thing, I believe in the value of the traditional test, a relic from the reign of behaviorism, as well as reflective writing, the primary tool of modern constructivists. I feel no compulsion to pledge allegiance to one theory of learning over another. And why should I? I have found valuable insights in behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism, and connectivism. Metaphorically, I think of each theory as a door offering a different view onto the complex phenomenon of learning. Teachers in the trenches seldom commit to a particular ism, either, preferring instead to cherry pick the best ideas they can find to help their students, leaving behind what doesn’t work.
What works and doesn’t work in assessment
The view of assessment offered by constructivists Palloff & Pratt (2006) is perfect for cherry picking. They put forth a number of practical and common sense prescriptions for assessment in online courses, such as:
1. Use assessment techniques that fit the context and align with the learning objectives (p. 1); and
2. Design assessments that are clear, easy to understand and that are likely to work in the online environment (p. 1).
Yet some of their other prescriptions seem to intensify negative social influences on learning and abdicate assessment responsibility. These are best left behind:
1. Include collaborative assessments through public posting of papers along with comments from student to student (p. 1); and
2. Ask for and incorporate student input into how assessment should be conducted (p. 1).
Constructivism challenged
In my opinion, students of all ages need strong guidance from their teachers in both the learning and assessment phases if they are to achieve individual excellence. But constructivism pushes the guide off to the side, recasts him or her as a learning peer, and promotes the group to the role of primary facilitator of learning, changing the goal of individual excellence to the goal of being a good team player.
For one thing, I believe in the value of the traditional test, a relic from the reign of behaviorism, as well as reflective writing, the primary tool of modern constructivists. I feel no compulsion to pledge allegiance to one theory of learning over another. And why should I? I have found valuable insights in behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism, and connectivism. Metaphorically, I think of each theory as a door offering a different view onto the complex phenomenon of learning. Teachers in the trenches seldom commit to a particular ism, either, preferring instead to cherry pick the best ideas they can find to help their students, leaving behind what doesn’t work.
What works and doesn’t work in assessment
The view of assessment offered by constructivists Palloff & Pratt (2006) is perfect for cherry picking. They put forth a number of practical and common sense prescriptions for assessment in online courses, such as:
1. Use assessment techniques that fit the context and align with the learning objectives (p. 1); and
2. Design assessments that are clear, easy to understand and that are likely to work in the online environment (p. 1).
Yet some of their other prescriptions seem to intensify negative social influences on learning and abdicate assessment responsibility. These are best left behind:
1. Include collaborative assessments through public posting of papers along with comments from student to student (p. 1); and
2. Ask for and incorporate student input into how assessment should be conducted (p. 1).
Constructivism challenged
In my opinion, students of all ages need strong guidance from their teachers in both the learning and assessment phases if they are to achieve individual excellence. But constructivism pushes the guide off to the side, recasts him or her as a learning peer, and promotes the group to the role of primary facilitator of learning, changing the goal of individual excellence to the goal of being a good team player.
I’m not the only one who believes minimizing guidance is a mistake. Kirschner, Sweller & Clark (2006) report, “The past half-century of empirical research on this issue has produced unambiguous evidence that minimal guidance during instruction is significantly less effective and efficient than guidance specifically designed to support the cognitive processing necessary for learning” (p. 76). In other words, there is evidence now that constructing meaning for one’s self is not the best way to learn. It follows that assessment methods flowing from that same faulty assumption should also be abandoned.
References
References
Kirschner, P.A., Sweller, J. & Clark, R.E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during
instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75-86. Retrieved from http://www.cogtech.usc.edu/publications/kirschner_Sweller_Clark.pdf
instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75-86. Retrieved from http://www.cogtech.usc.edu/publications/kirschner_Sweller_Clark.pdf
Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (2006). How do we know they know? Student assessment
online. 22nd Annual Conference on Distance Teaching and Learning. Retrieved from http://csuglobal.blackboard.com/bbcswebdav/library/Article%20Reserve/ OTL541/How%20do%20we%20know%20they%20know.pdf
online. 22nd Annual Conference on Distance Teaching and Learning. Retrieved from http://csuglobal.blackboard.com/bbcswebdav/library/Article%20Reserve/ OTL541/How%20do%20we%20know%20they%20know.pdf
Sunday, March 6, 2011
Universal Design
Universal design is “the design of products and environments to be usable by all people, to the greatest extent possible, without the need for adaptation or specialized design” (Mace, 2008, para. 1). UD gives increased access to disabled users, and sometimes better serves the able-bodied, as well. Levers instead of doorknobs are helpful to arthritic seniors and anyone with an armful of groceries. When “universalizing” a design makes it work for all users, universal design is good design.
However, UD doesn’t always produce that effect. Especially when technology is involved, UD often simplifies a product (e.g. cell phones and TV remotes with big buttons and bare bones features.) Although consistent with UD principles, such products don’t meet the needs of sophisticated technology users, who are every bit as much a part of the “universe” as disabled, feeble, or unsophisticated users.
A truly universal design would not favor one class of user over another. Yet UD clearly advocates for citizens perceived as underserved. The wants and needs of able-bodied, literate, and experienced users take a back seat to those of disabled, language-challenged, or inexperienced users.
UD is social engineering wrapped in product engineering. That does not make it bad. Just misnamed.
References
Mace, R. (2008). About UD. Retrieved from
http://www.ncsu.edu/www/ncsu/design/sod5/cud/ab
However, UD doesn’t always produce that effect. Especially when technology is involved, UD often simplifies a product (e.g. cell phones and TV remotes with big buttons and bare bones features.) Although consistent with UD principles, such products don’t meet the needs of sophisticated technology users, who are every bit as much a part of the “universe” as disabled, feeble, or unsophisticated users.
A truly universal design would not favor one class of user over another. Yet UD clearly advocates for citizens perceived as underserved. The wants and needs of able-bodied, literate, and experienced users take a back seat to those of disabled, language-challenged, or inexperienced users.
UD is social engineering wrapped in product engineering. That does not make it bad. Just misnamed.
References
Mace, R. (2008). About UD. Retrieved from
http://www.ncsu.edu/www/ncsu/design/sod5/cud/ab
Course Management Systems
In her article, “Toolbox or Trap? Course Management Systems and Pedagogy” (2008), Lisa M. Lane argues that online courses designed for delivery by course management systems suffer in a pedagogical sense because they must conform to the limitations of the CMS.
“They aren’t designed to encourage innovative teaching” (p. 5), she says in a thinly veiled reference to CMS giant Blackboard™. However, Moodle™, a CMS “designed with a more constructivist pedagogy in mind” (p. 6) suits her fancy much better. So this really boils down to the question of how much constructivist philosophy should drive online education.
Ironically, Blackboard™ is a perfectly good constructivist tool. Discussion boards facilitate formation of communities of inquiry and encourage collaborative learning through asynchronous sharing of thoughts and experiences, and a variety of media (text, audio, and video) may be incorporated to appeal to a range of learning preferences. Strong constructivist ideals both.
But there is a lot of wiggle room in the constructivist notion that learners should create their own meaning. It is vague, idealistic, and difficult to assess. Some would argue that it has failed miserably in the United States, where education does not measure up to world standards. Blackboard™ is sufficiently grounded in behaviorism to avoid contributing to this problem.
Bottom line, today’s online students want specific knowledge and skills to improve their lives. Becoming lifelong learners who can reconcile new ideas with past experience in a collaborative setting is what theorists want for them. The trap that threatens to ensnare course management systems is too much constructivism rather than too little, as Ms. Lane argues. But market forces will sort this out. If learners don’t get what they want from an institution, they will move on. And if institutions don’t get what their customers want from a CMS, they, too, will move on.
References
Lane, L.M. (2008). Toolbox or trap? Course management systems and pedagogy.
Educause Quarterly, 31(2), 4-6.
“They aren’t designed to encourage innovative teaching” (p. 5), she says in a thinly veiled reference to CMS giant Blackboard™. However, Moodle™, a CMS “designed with a more constructivist pedagogy in mind” (p. 6) suits her fancy much better. So this really boils down to the question of how much constructivist philosophy should drive online education.
Ironically, Blackboard™ is a perfectly good constructivist tool. Discussion boards facilitate formation of communities of inquiry and encourage collaborative learning through asynchronous sharing of thoughts and experiences, and a variety of media (text, audio, and video) may be incorporated to appeal to a range of learning preferences. Strong constructivist ideals both.
But there is a lot of wiggle room in the constructivist notion that learners should create their own meaning. It is vague, idealistic, and difficult to assess. Some would argue that it has failed miserably in the United States, where education does not measure up to world standards. Blackboard™ is sufficiently grounded in behaviorism to avoid contributing to this problem.
Bottom line, today’s online students want specific knowledge and skills to improve their lives. Becoming lifelong learners who can reconcile new ideas with past experience in a collaborative setting is what theorists want for them. The trap that threatens to ensnare course management systems is too much constructivism rather than too little, as Ms. Lane argues. But market forces will sort this out. If learners don’t get what they want from an institution, they will move on. And if institutions don’t get what their customers want from a CMS, they, too, will move on.
References
Lane, L.M. (2008). Toolbox or trap? Course management systems and pedagogy.
Educause Quarterly, 31(2), 4-6.
The Information Explosion
IBM Corporation predicted in 2006 that within four years, the world’s information base would be doubling in size every eleven hours (p. 2). If true, the amount of information in the world today has quadrupled since this time yesterday.
The exponential growth of information in the modern age has caused me to look at learning in a different way. At one time, I thought of learning as acquiring information, internalizing facts, filling my brain with data. Now I think of learning as acquiring information meta skills that allow me to find and use information when I need it. At the top of the list of meta skills is categorizing information. Is the information I need by nature stable or subject to change? This tells me where to look for it. For example, if I am interested in learning Plato’s philosophy – information that hasn’t changed in nearly 24 centuries – I can get a hard copy of The Republic and it doesn’t matter whether it was published last week or last century. However, if I want to learn the latest attitudes and software in the world of social media, I need an online source that is up-to-the-minute in its currency.
But not all online sources are created equal, and this brings me to another meta skill needed: Categorizing sources. Wikis, web sites, and discussion boards present information that is subjective at best, biased, ill informed, and inaccurate at worst. On the other end of the spectrum, peer-reviewed professional journals and news sources are more trustworthy online sources because it is in their interest to be so. Being a discriminating information shopper when online is just as important as knowing to go online in the first place.
So what is the teacher’s role in all this? The teacher must first master these meta skills and then become adept at teaching them to students. In doing so, he or she helps “chart a way through this chaos, to provide order and create the conditions to encourage a deep approach to learning.” (Garrison & Anderson, 2003, p. 17).
Dealing with progress
The exponential growth of information in the modern age has caused me to look at learning in a different way. At one time, I thought of learning as acquiring information, internalizing facts, filling my brain with data. Now I think of learning as acquiring information meta skills that allow me to find and use information when I need it. At the top of the list of meta skills is categorizing information. Is the information I need by nature stable or subject to change? This tells me where to look for it. For example, if I am interested in learning Plato’s philosophy – information that hasn’t changed in nearly 24 centuries – I can get a hard copy of The Republic and it doesn’t matter whether it was published last week or last century. However, if I want to learn the latest attitudes and software in the world of social media, I need an online source that is up-to-the-minute in its currency.
But not all online sources are created equal, and this brings me to another meta skill needed: Categorizing sources. Wikis, web sites, and discussion boards present information that is subjective at best, biased, ill informed, and inaccurate at worst. On the other end of the spectrum, peer-reviewed professional journals and news sources are more trustworthy online sources because it is in their interest to be so. Being a discriminating information shopper when online is just as important as knowing to go online in the first place.
So what is the teacher’s role in all this? The teacher must first master these meta skills and then become adept at teaching them to students. In doing so, he or she helps “chart a way through this chaos, to provide order and create the conditions to encourage a deep approach to learning.” (Garrison & Anderson, 2003, p. 17).
Dealing with progress
Older learners tend to be overwhelmed, at least in the beginning, by information and technology. This is less of a problem for young people – digital natives – because they never lived in a simpler time. Technology that is disruptive, confusing, and unnecessary to one generation is often embraced as a birthright by the next. It’s a fact of life.
This is the context for “A Vision of Students Today” (Wesch, 2007), where yet another generation of students adopts the timeless whine, “adults don’t understand us!” This video is more remarkable for the way students openly admit the vacuity of their daily routines than for being an indictment of modern education. Would the traditional college freshman lecture class benefit from a makeover? Of course! But the deliberate learning required in college will always take more effort, willpower, and money than socializing with one’s friends, regardless of the technology used.
Dr. Wesch’s “The web is us/ing us” (n.d.) is more clever and useful in that it rapidly creates a sense of the way web technology and the connectedness of people and information has developed. Progress can always use a good sales pitch. That is also a fact of life.
References
Garrison, D. & Anderson, T. (2003). E-Learning in the 21st century: a framework for
research and practice. New York: Routledge.
References
Garrison, D. & Anderson, T. (2003). E-Learning in the 21st century: a framework for
research and practice. New York: Routledge.
IBM Corporation. (2006). The toxic terabyte: how data-dumping threatens business
efficiency. Retrieved from http://www.martingover.com/1752/knowledge-doubling-curve-and-your-singularity/
efficiency. Retrieved from http://www.martingover.com/1752/knowledge-doubling-curve-and-your-singularity/
Wesch, M. (2007). A vision of students today. Retrieved from
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=dGCJ46vyR9o
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=dGCJ46vyR9o
Wesch, M. (n.d.). The web is us/ing us. Retrieved from
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=NLlGopyXT_g
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=NLlGopyXT_g
Friday, February 18, 2011
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
Crafting Social Presence
In their discussion of social presence in the community of inquiry, Garrison and Anderson (2003) suggest that the online teacher should project himself or herself “socially and emotionally as a ‘real’ person” (p. 28) with the goal being that the teacher’s full personality comes out. This begs the question, “What if the teacher’s full personality is somewhat lacking?” The answer is simple: Change it!
But let’s back up for a moment. The role of the teacher is complex. We expect the teacher to have knowledge about the subject being taught, to be skilled at communicating, and to be fair and effective in management of the class. Classroom teachers also serve as role models, especially in primary grades, where children often spend more time with their teachers than their parents.
Online education is also best served when teachers project more than mere competency. The best online teachers are engaging, supportive, and worthy of emulation by their learners, too. These traits help instill confidence and sharing among learners as they negotiate unfamiliar territory from a distance, and best serve the educational institution in delivering the quality experience promised to its customers.
So back to our dilemma. What if the online teacher’s true personality does not align well with this model? Is the teacher stuck with projecting a less-than-ideal personality online? Not at all! Country singer, Brad Paisley (2007), croons, “I’m so much cooler online.” Teachers can be cooler online as well, and we can identify specific attitudes and actions that will make them so.
The cool online teacher
Cool online teachers are open, accessible, and accepting. They are willing to share personal history, opinions, vulnerabilities, and even photographs. They paint a full picture of themselves as living, breathing people, complete with imperfections, thus encouraging students to do the same and reducing the effects of time/space distance.
Cool online teachers are stimulating, quick to encourage, suggest, question, correct, and expand. They have a sense of humor, even about themselves, which can be invaluable in managing the pace and tone of online learning.
Cool online teachers are also learners, and they project joy about sharing the journey with their students.
Every online teacher can craft this sort of ideal social presence. It may take a little play-acting at first to develop an online alter ego; but because online teachers typically communicate exclusively through text, without facial expressions, tone of voice, or body language to betray any incongruity, this is easily accomplished.
More importantly, the ruse becomes real. Living into the person you would like to be is a proven way of reinventing yourself. The online teacher who consistently acts the part of an engaged, open, and supportive learning guide will slowly but surely internalize those qualities and become all he or she pretends to be. It’s a quirk of the subconscious mind, where real change begins, that it can’t tell the difference between imagined and actual events.
In the end, the social presence of an online teacher can be crafted to best serve the needs of the community of inquiry. We may not all be cool in real life, but we can all be cool online teachers.
References
DuBois, C., Lovelace, K. & Paisley, B. (2007). Online. Nashville: Arista
Garrison, D. & Anderson, T. (2003). E-Learning in the 21st century: a framework for
research and practice. New York: Routledge.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)