doctorquant
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2009
- Messages
- 20,133
So, your humble correspondent finds himself bewitched, bothered and bewildered by a cadre of School of Education (my university doesn't have a "College" of Education) types who have insinuated themselves into certain aspects of online instruction.
Apparently, to pass muster with the paste-eaters, an online course must contain "learning activities [that] provide opportunities for interaction that support active learning." Active learning is education hoop-de-do for "anything other than the student just sitting back and taking it in," and interaction can take one of three forms: student-material, student-instructor, student-student. The course I'm developing has plenty of the first two as well as discussion boards to facilitate the third ... for students who want such.
And therein lies the rub.
Apparently, if you're one of those "experts in education," merely providing "opportunities for" something doesn't rise to the level of providing "opportunities for" that. No, unless student-student interaction has been made mandatory, no opportunity has been provided.
The amazing thing is when you argue with them. "Well, the research shows ..." they'll say. All well and good, says I, but that's not what the standard says. Yes, but if you don't make it mandatory not everyone will do it. Show me in the standard where it says everyone has to do it. Yes, but the research shows ...
I tell you, it's enough to make a man want to open a charter school.
Apparently, to pass muster with the paste-eaters, an online course must contain "learning activities [that] provide opportunities for interaction that support active learning." Active learning is education hoop-de-do for "anything other than the student just sitting back and taking it in," and interaction can take one of three forms: student-material, student-instructor, student-student. The course I'm developing has plenty of the first two as well as discussion boards to facilitate the third ... for students who want such.
And therein lies the rub.
Apparently, if you're one of those "experts in education," merely providing "opportunities for" something doesn't rise to the level of providing "opportunities for" that. No, unless student-student interaction has been made mandatory, no opportunity has been provided.
The amazing thing is when you argue with them. "Well, the research shows ..." they'll say. All well and good, says I, but that's not what the standard says. Yes, but if you don't make it mandatory not everyone will do it. Show me in the standard where it says everyone has to do it. Yes, but the research shows ...
I tell you, it's enough to make a man want to open a charter school.