Just in case you haven’t subscribed yet, Teacher Dude’s Grill and BBQ is a great addition to any language teacher’s blogroll. What I really like is that he mostly posts lesson plans. If more of us did that it’d help keep the edutech blogosphere’s feet on the ground (and regarding technology intoxication, I’m as much a culprit as anyone). For the life of me I can’t remember who to credit for the original link - maybe EFL Geek.

From Cognitive Daily, some evidence that links memories to the ability to encode experience in language.

George Siemens of elearnspace posted on a Kathy Sierra post - I tried to comment but evidently Movable Type was acting up on elearnspace, and I couldn’t submit the comment (tried 4 times!). So here it is, although it won’t make much sense without reading Siemens’ post first.

Love your blog - I’m a devoted reader.

And I agree that “each is for the task at hand”, and that F2F and online are hard to compare (in the sense that a screwdriver and a hammer are hard to compare - sorta).

That said, I’m bewildered that you reject F2F as richer - of course it’s richer. Maybe what’s ambiguous is what is meant by “richer” - I believe that Kathy Sierra is referring to research that measures “richness” in “bits” of information an observer receives. The number of bits of information a teacher receives (facial expressions, tone of voice, (especially) body language, group mood, etc) is much, much greater F2F. Of course an automaton teacher won’t pick that stuff up, so they might as well be on skype (or podcasting!), but an engaged teacher is far better able to make that emotional connection F2F, given a reasonable class size.

Everything else being equal, we can teach better with F2F. Of course, nothing is ever equal, and online teaching rocks for a variety of reasons and circumstances, some of which you point out. Yes it’s tough to value one over the other - both have strengths and weaknesses. But it’s undeniable that, for the quality “interactive richness”, F2F wins. And we need to recognize these strengths and weakness accurately so that we can effectively select the right tool for the occasion. Not accepting that F2F is richer is like rejecting the point that “hammers drive nails better than screwdrivers” because they are different tools and that each is for the task at hand.

IMO

Via Eide Neurolearning Blog, this video clip (worth every one of the 14 minutes) says it all.

I started to take notes of the most inspiring parts, but it would have just been a transcript of the entire video.

And talk about serendipidy: I had just an hour before posted asking for case studies of learner-centered approaches and assessment outcomes.

Several weeks ago we were discussing testing and evaluation (me, Marco Polo 1, 2, and Aaron at Teacher in Development). Basically the discussion revolved around whether it was evaluation itself or poorly-implemented evalution that smothers learning, and I think that, after much writing and explaining, we all realized that basically we all agreed (kind of).

Anyway the post Learning, assessment, outcomes, ecologies by George Siemens makes some great points about this issue:

Evaluation is part of the teaching and learning process. A good grade is certainly desirable, but if our teaching/learning processes have been well thought out, learners who are competent should know they will do well. By the time a learner is finished a “courses”, she should know where she is in terms of grades. As an instructor, I should provide continual feedback against which a learner can sharpen and measure his/her own thinking. The evaluation outcome should not be a surprise to the learner. Unfortunately, we make the grades the focus (instead of the learning), and our learners think that the reason they are taking our courses is to get a certain grade. In reality, the focus of evaluation is to ensure that a learner has a framework upon which she/he can build and function within a field or within society as a whole. The grade, while mandated, is really one of the least valuable parts of the entire learning process.

I like how throughout the post Siemens navigates (carefully) between the need for feedback and where its limits lie, and the opportunities for learner-defined paths and measuring pre-established outcomes. I think this is exactly the tightrope we have to find our balance on (although maybe “the” answer isn’t found on a dualistic tightrope but rather in a third way). How to actually implement this is the key of course. I would love to see some action research or case studies that exemplify the concepts that are relatively easy to blog about but really tough to put into practice, especially in institutions. If anyone can steer me towards some linkage it’d be great.