Richness: F2F vs Online
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
I really think there’s an interesting debate here, Cleve - how many people would choose to learn a language online rather than f2f, for example, and how many would prefer a blended environment?
If I were about to embark on learning another language now, I think I would definitely end up doing so partly online and partly f2f. And I think the experience of doing it this way would be richer. But then, maybe this is just me - I have to admit that I’m getting the most valuable professional development I’ve ever had online. Gone are the days when the best training session you could expect was for one of your colleagues recycling a few ideas.
With blogs, podcasts, webcasts, etc, there’s so many rich resources to choose from for professional development, and so much of the time you can learn from the real experts out there rather than having to rely on it being handed down third hand. I for one find it completely exhilarating!
Comment by Graham Stanley — April 20, 2006 @ 6:25 pm
Hey Graham - thanks for stopping by. I agree that blended is the way I would go as well…and in fact almost all the professional development I do now is online.
If I were to continue to work on my Spanish, I’d definitely use all the online tools and resources I could find, and I bet that experience would be “richer” in terms of finding a variety of multi-modal content that turned me on, compared to a class with 10 other upper intermediate learners. Granted.
But at the same time a good teacher simply cannot be beat, especially in a small group. F2F is richer if we define richer as the “bits of info received by the observer (teacher)” and the info the teacher receives about my connection in the classroom simply cannot be reproduced online, in my experience. I’ve taught online plenty and as a teacher I really miss watching the learners’ eyes and posture and tone. I guess that’s what I’m getting at - the human, emotional connection is tougher when mediated by technology, for me at least. But then I’ve always taught small groups when F2F, so I’ve had more opportunity for this.
And of course I’m not disparaging online learning - I’ve spent the last 4 years working on a software project to do it right (we’re finally getting close to finishing!). I’m just saying that there are advantages to F2F and communicative richness is one of them.
BTW I set up my account in Second Life just now and am exploring around - basically I’m awestruck at the experience and potential. William Gibson’s vision has arrived - it’s exhilarating to be part of it.
Comment by Cleve — April 20, 2006 @ 7:46 pm
It seems to me that online learning presupposes the superiority of F2F, at least it did in the beginning. Technology is used to approximate/replicate the social interaction that is part of the classroom/F2F experience. Audio and video provide what we would hear and see in class. Chat and VOIP allow us to communicate with other students who would be in class. Online exercises such as Hot Potatoes are simply electronic versions of old pen and paper exercises done either in class or as homework. To my mind, the great benefit of online learning is that it approximates F2F so well these days and does so in such a way that I can access it when it’s most convenient for me.
Comment by daniel — May 7, 2006 @ 2:50 am
Hey Daniel - Thanks for stopping by. You summed up the issue well in the last sentence. I might modify it a bit though:
“Online approximates F2F well enough so that we don’t sacrifice too much to get the asynchronous and distance advantages”.
Comment by Cleve — May 12, 2006 @ 7:31 am