Face-to-Face vs. Cyberspace: Finding the Middle Ground
Content delivery is another area in which big differences surface. Indeed,
it is one of the biggest bones of contention in the war of the worlds. Traditional
content delivery via written, oral, or visual lectures d'esn’t map well
online. The term “shovelware” has been coined to describe the tendency
to load up the Web with notes. Sir John Daniel, during his tenure at the United
Kingdom’s Open University, observed: “...our own Open University experience
of the use of the Net and the Web at scale indicates that its most powerful
and popular use is for communication between people about the course rather
than for dumping the content of the course on each student’s computer.”
Asynchronous communications, on the other hand, score big in the online world.
The ability to post messages, read and respond to messages, reflect on responses,
revise interpretations, and modify original assumptions and perceptions is the
silver bullet and a distinguishing characteristic of online teaching. Considered
a hallmark of the online world, active learning actually serves as a great example
of a best teaching practice that spans both worlds. Increasingly, instructors
employ active and even collaborative learning in the classroom. Active learning
translates well to the online world through the development of Web quests, treasure
hunts, Web-based presentations, and other means for engaging students actively
in the construction of knowledge. Increasingly, perhaps as a result of feedback
from online courses, on-campus instructors are incorporating more active learning
in their classes in conjunction with traditional lecture formats.
Finally, one of the best qualities of online teaching is that it offers greater
flexibility in terms of what is taught and how it is taught throughout the course.
Formative assessments provide opportunities for immediate feedback on student
learning and learning styles, and they allow an instructor to modify the approach
to achieving learning outcomes. Summative assessments—including midterms,
final exams, and end-of-course surveys—in on-campus courses are not typically
intended to help make in-session modifications to a course. But by taking advantage
of the capability for collecting and crunching numbers quickly for statistical
or qualitative analysis, online exams and surveys enable an instructor to evaluate
what’s working and what’s not working nearly in real time.
Bridging the Gap
To incorporate the benefits of both on-campus and online teaching, I’ve
taken a one-course-for-all approach in which campus students and online students
share the same Web site resources, complete the same assignments, and take the
same online exams. Campus sessions are the clear benefactors here, because they
are devoted more to fundamental skill development, hands-on activities, collaborative
learning, and discussions of specific topics and online sessions that extend
skill development, student-student interaction, and a greater sense of community.
By creating a bridge between on-campus and online teaching and learning, our
courses shift from instructor-dominated worlds to student-centered worlds. Students
learn to take responsibility for their own learning. Although the initial transition
requires guidance, once the approach is adopted, students embark on an active
process that increases their chances for a lifetime of learning.