As this blog discussion has progressed, some of us may have been asking of ourselves: what exactly is the point of e-learning? It may seem at times that online learning merely, as Micah put it, ‘imitates a classroom’. To me, the word ‘imitation’ carries negative connotations. For example, the richness of real vanilla beans can never be substituted for by imitation vanilla essence. There is something egalitarian, perhaps, about imitation (it is much cheaper) but something very important is lost.
Now, popular culture's voracious apetitite for thrill and gimmick over skill and substance (think 20/20 v test cricket or Hollywood v Cannes) may suggest that our use of technology in the classroom acts as little more than a "powerplay" in our already exciting and engaging lessons. But my intuition tells me such a cynical view is not quite the case.
All this gets me wondering: what is it that asynchronous e-learning has to offer us as learners and educators? what makes it more than mere imitation?
Hrastinski (2008) suggests the following occasions for when asynchronous e-learning should be utilised: 1) reflecting on complex issues; 2) when synchronous meetings cannot be scheduled because of other commitments. Essentially, Hrastinski sees that asynchronous e-learning offers us a flexibility which allows for greater 'cognitive participation'. Or, using the language of constructivism that has been running through our discussion, asynchronous e-learning increases our opportunity for cognitive constructvism.
I think about my senior classes where a lot of discussion is had. In history, we talk about issues of justice, non-violence, change etc. in relation to slavery and civil rights in the United States. In ethics, we talk about euthanasia or bioethics and the many factors involved in developing an ethical stance. In many ways, it would be far better to have these discussions in an asynchronous environment such as a blog to allow a greater number of students time to reflect and then offer thoughtful, considered responses. The reality is that, in the classroom, there are fewer students who contribute to these important discussions. I am sure that both time to think and greater confidence when hidden behind a screen and keyboard would increase the number of students willing to participate.
It is for this reason that Lado believes that 'asynchronous learning gives e-learning much of its appeal'. He writes that, 'learners can engage each other when it is most convenient and a knowledge trail is left of discussions...[so] students that are trailing behind in course work still receive the benefit of being able to read discussion posts.'
The problem with synchronous e-learning is that all it really does is imitate the actual classroom. Asynchronous e-learning, however, provides a new, richerand more just learning experience for students. Asynchronous technologies have provided for truly innovative approaches to education rather than mere gimmicks.
All this gets me wondering: what is it that asynchronous e-learning has to offer us as learners and educators? what makes it more than mere imitation?
Hrastinski (2008) suggests the following occasions for when asynchronous e-learning should be utilised: 1) reflecting on complex issues; 2) when synchronous meetings cannot be scheduled because of other commitments. Essentially, Hrastinski sees that asynchronous e-learning offers us a flexibility which allows for greater 'cognitive participation'. Or, using the language of constructivism that has been running through our discussion, asynchronous e-learning increases our opportunity for cognitive constructvism.
I think about my senior classes where a lot of discussion is had. In history, we talk about issues of justice, non-violence, change etc. in relation to slavery and civil rights in the United States. In ethics, we talk about euthanasia or bioethics and the many factors involved in developing an ethical stance. In many ways, it would be far better to have these discussions in an asynchronous environment such as a blog to allow a greater number of students time to reflect and then offer thoughtful, considered responses. The reality is that, in the classroom, there are fewer students who contribute to these important discussions. I am sure that both time to think and greater confidence when hidden behind a screen and keyboard would increase the number of students willing to participate.
It is for this reason that Lado believes that 'asynchronous learning gives e-learning much of its appeal'. He writes that, 'learners can engage each other when it is most convenient and a knowledge trail is left of discussions...[so] students that are trailing behind in course work still receive the benefit of being able to read discussion posts.'
The problem with synchronous e-learning is that all it really does is imitate the actual classroom. Asynchronous e-learning, however, provides a new, richerand more just learning experience for students. Asynchronous technologies have provided for truly innovative approaches to education rather than mere gimmicks.
