Two events today –
1) On Face Book I saw two responses to a friend’s posting about virtual courses. The comments were raving about the fact that that particular state has a great network of virtual classrooms, already established.
2) I was in a tech-mediated meeting with someone from Oregon and someone from, well, I guess I have no idea where the other person was located, and it didn’t matter. Among other things we discussed “blended learning” approaches – those that combine elements of traditional face to face classrooms along with a virtual component.
Here was the response those two events triggered as I started to respond to the State Commissioner who had put up the initial post about virtual courses in her state.
I couldn’t help but feel a bit alarmed at the comments about virtual learning opportunities being equated with “virtual classrooms”. It was a well meaning example by well meaning people to take the possibilities of the 21st century and squeeze them into the mid 20th. To be honest, I have seen very few virtual classrooms that didn’t mirror traditional ones (teacher-centered, teacher controlled pacing, teacher chosen content, etc.) I sat through many of them as a grad student as well.
It hit me today, that I think the whole “school” notion could be about to explode. All that is needed to spark that is for parents and students to wake up to the fact that they already can control what, where, when, how and from whom they learn, and they can be given credit for it.
I was in a tech-mediated conf call this afternoon where someone was discussing “blended learning” and it hit me that in 2009, I don’t know anyone under 70 who is not already functioning in a totally blended world (except theoretically in most classrooms).
The promise of virtual learning is not what we used to think (and what those responders seemed to express) — give kids opportunities to take classes that they couldn’t take otherwise. The real promise of virtual learning is that we can begin to help kids understand that we will help them learn anytime, anyplace, anything, anywhere.
I still believe that we can have school from August to June and from 8 to 3 if we want, but NOT organized in current structures. Those are incompatible with today.
This will necessitate radically different responsibilities for teachers, and who is getting them ready??
Right on the mark as usual, Tom.
Last I saw over 2 million people are learning languages on Live Mocha. I am guessing very very few of them are getting credit for this yet they are becoming proficient to some degree in various languages. As soon as employers start recognizing that people who participate in global communities have higher linguistic and cultural proficiency than those coming out of school, our days in traditional classrooms are numbered. Unless, of course, we reposition ourselves as experts at facilitating and documenting learning rather than instructional delivery devices.
Exactly right, Carl. The only thing I would say is that just because folks don’t understand those days in traditional classrooms are numbered doesn’t mean they aren’t. They are.
Thanks for the comments.
FTR – the state does have a great educational network and the educators involved in providing the online environment to support extended learning opportunities for students would to a person agree with you that this is not about replacing the traditional classroom experience with online versions of the same thing.
It’s a very exciting time – I hope that you are right that the breaking up of the log jam is so near. In spite of all of the activity, I am impatient. We need to provide students with opportunities (or rather a clearer means of taking advantage of those opportunities) NOW – they shouldn’t have to wait any longer. Yes, I know that many, many learning possibilities already exist. But I’d like to see the awareness expand far beyond its current level. Because without the awareness, young people miss out. And often it is older people and schools that hold them back.
Btw – perhaps it is already an established concept but I don’t know if I agree with the name: ‘virtual learning’ The term seems as faulty as the expression ‘distance learning’ which is still used even though many people I know hate it.
Learning is learning, isn’t it?
Thanks for the comment, Steve. I’d love to know more about what they are doing in your state. Most of the programs I am familiar with are still time-based (rather than proficiency-based), with a linear curriculum and content that is chosen by the teacher.
I just pulled the following from one state’s description of their virtual school: ” As an online student, you would log in to your online course at a time during the day that is convenient for you. You view the assignments and participate in an ongoing online discussion. You complete your research, project work, readings, and/or collaboration activities submit your work to your teacher. Since deadlines for assignments are set by the teacher, you may take this opportunity to check the course outline or schedule to find out what other course-related activities are coming up; there may be a scheduled chat session or phone conference, or you may need to view a video or listen to an audio recording for the next assignment. Just as every classroom differs slightly, so does the virtual classroom experience. Different courses will use different types of course materials and internet technologies.”
In addition, that same state’s Virtual School Calendar labeled “[State] Traditional Calendar” shows that fall virtual classes started on Tuesday, August 25 and will finish January 15 for students on a block schedule. January 15 will be the end of the second grading period for students on a full year schedule.
Obviously, those courses will make use of the best Web 3.0 technologies, etc, but when every child must progress at the same pace, when teachers are giving class assignments for kids to turn in en masse, when the course catalog lists courses that are found in a traditional school (there is no course for instance for Physics for “Rocket Kids” — who want to learn everything through that focus, and no course that is, for instance, Medieval Studies taught in French — for students to receive credit in both.) I don’t mean any disrespect to that State Virtual School or any other, but my most common observation is that for the most part, state virtuals are doing this same sort of thing across the country.
There are wonderful exceptions emerging. For instance, in Kentucky, all virtual language courses are proficiency based — the student gets the credit only when they reach a certain level of proficiency, be that 3 months or 3 years. Florida Virtual is offering the first MMORPG game for core . credit — a US History game called Conspiracy Code. These are starting to show us not only what’s possible, but what’s coming. As I say, most of the others I have seen (and by no means have I seen all) continue to be traditional courses delivered virtually.
John, I totally agree. We need to talk about, focus on, guide, encourage and document LEARNING whenever, wherever, however it occurs!
I agree with your assessment of, dare I say, a “traditional” virtual learning environment. That environment leaves much to be desired. But it’s not surprising that when new tools are introduced into a process, it takes time for new workflows to evolve that make the best use of them and for new thinking about process itself to emerge. Here’s a little bit of our story.
The bad and good news is that we are only beginning this journey. The bad, it feels like its taking too long; the good, there’s time to implement a new vision. We started our journey a few years ago, when searching for an electronic tool set to help our districts manage the data requirements for our state’s Proficiency Based Graduation Requirements. The search was a rigorous process involving many stakeholders. In the end we chose Sakai, an open source collaboration and learning environment that met our requirements and also provided opportunities to extend our classrooms beyond the classroom walls, the regular school day, the usual school community, and the old paradigms.
Our state’s challenge is moving ten thousand teachers and one hundred fifty thousand students systemically. Systemic change requires a shared vision, leadership, sustainable technical systems, professional development, assessment, a reflective community of practice and the where with all and courage to make it happen. We work with our districts on the technical piece of the puzzle. Clearly only a piece, but I believe, a foundational piece. Our initial work with Sakai included implementing the Goal Management and collaboration tools so that assignments are electronically linked to local, state, and national standards and can be collaboratively built, vetted, and shared within a department, a school, or across the state. Student work can be assessed against the standards, as can the quality of the assignments and the curriculum. Some of our districts now use the collaboration tools to support work that closes the loop around curriculum development, professional development, student work, and assessment, in which the assessments lead back to discussions about curriculum and practice. Districts use the tools to support professional development, provide blended instruction, virtual classes, to access an online environment of science activities and simulations as part of an NSF project, and more. Admittedly, some of the early work took the old ways and fit them into the new tools, but not all. That’s the exciting part. As teachers use Sakai’s tools within their own learning communities and with their students they begin to explore new uses that break down the walls around space, time, and community. As I said, this work is only part of the puzzle. But I believe, if we’re working for systemic change, then integrated, accessible, sustainable technical solutions have to be employed to support the vision.
I found this in my email today, one person’s view on how blending a variety of online and on-ground teaching and learning tools of can more effectively meet student needs.
http://thejournal.com/articles/2009/10/21/bridging-the-gap-between-online-and-on-ground-teaching.aspx
From the trenches….I bring a combined 28 years of face to face, online and hybrid experience to our discussion. I think the reason that not only teachers but entire systems of educators hold on to the traditional format used for so many years of teaching is that they can’t see how theycan be effective unless they are in control of the journey. Top down organization used to make snese: there weren’t enough hours in the school day to set 30 individuals on different paths one by one, and there weren’t the resources available to allow them to take one concept and develop it in many different manifestations.
Now that we have internet access and various tools for acquiring information, manipulating words, and creating/recreating almost any demonstration of learning that has been accomplished, we don’t have to spend hours with each individual student to get them on their way. They can all access the same instructions, but interpret them and demonstrate learning in as many different ways as there are students.
The trick is setting up the learning environment to lead students to master content and build skills without planning a singular journey for all. The standards do not have to be lowered, the content does not have to be abridged, and nothing has to be sacrificed–not even time–if we set up the opportunities in a way that hands the decisions back to the students, demonstrates to them the logical consequences of their decisions, and allows them to move with some flexibility. Never before has this been so easy—–but the planning ahead is the key.
Anyone who has dealt with a rebellious or troubled teenager that they care for has heard of the concept of “letting go with love”–i.e., giving the young person the responsibility of setting a course without fulfilling our need to control all that is done. Well, teachers have long been in control of classrooms, from the top of the day to the bottom. Now I think we have to practice “letting go with effectiveness”. That means we set up the aircraft to provide what is needed–then we pass the controls to the student for charting the journey. And you know what? They can fly the plane better than we ever imagined!
So very well said, Beth!