Dr. Steve Eskow wrote:
...in part...
> What is probably meant by oft-cited "resistance" to "new paradigms" is the
> academy's unwillingness to drop face-to-face styles of teaching and
> learning favor of using "technology."
>
> ...snip...
>
> What has been resisted is replacing classroom instruction with
> correspondence, radio, television, CAI, CBT, or CMC.
>
> That is: various forms of "distance learning".
>
> Or: replacing the teacher with computerized "tutors.,"
>
The above discussion is one I hear often and I don't want to miss the
opportunity to distinguish between the appropriate use of distance
learning and poorly designed / conceived excuses to take away the
instructor and replace it with a computer. I've found that making the
differences clear to anyone "opposed" to learning technologies quickly
changes their minds. One must first think about the learning or
performance objective and ask what instructional methods must be present
for learning to occur.
I've used distance learning and self study with great success over the
last 15 years. The key is to use it in a way that emphasizes its
strengths and abilities. It imparts information well when analysis is not
called for and dissenting opinions are unlikely. It offers an efficient
and cost-effective method for providing a baseline of information that is
routine and fundamental. Take that baseline and put it in a classroom
where an instructor can make real learning occur, and you have a dynamite
combination. I've reduced "training" time by half using these techniques
and teaching line managers to do the same.
Admittedly, one of the strengths of live instruction is getting everyone
corralled in a room and once where (motivated or not) they will be exposed
to the instruction. For adults motivated to learn, this is an unnecessary
device.
regards,
Vana Prewitt
vprewitt@bellsouth.net
--Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>