Contributing to internetevolution.com, on Online learning:  (see link below)

I’d like to sift through segmentation and highlight perhaps a new paradigm with some paradoxes.

There is a need to segment the many purposes of online.edu:  A first approach would be to tier the knowledge needs of various audiences.  The now famous Khan Academy on YouTube is a great example of one knowledge tier where an audience can go to learn/re-learn something very specific.

For the experienced professional, online classes can be essential to updating a skillset.
For traditional students, online material can present a level of engagement through marrying the online/offline platforms which, in turn, can yield higher productivity.

For the undergraduate student though, there is so much more than data/information/technologies or knowledge transfer.  Right now for example, I benefit from your great article/resources.  But a meeting in person is so much more cognitive and individuated, as an authentic teacher or mentor feels/intuits the student in the moment.  (Does this economics work in a university class of 120+ students?)  Can the system improve from re-configuring the human interface in a new model of engagement?

At a higher level, we are also in the midst of evolutionary change – with a multitude of motivations for students as I read between these lines:

To take a programmatic angle, the online.edu trend brings something akin to object-based learning:  It was much more difficult in the brick and mortar days to actually criss-cross fields in search of learning ‘modules’ to amalgamate into a ‘secret’ potion!

Nowadays, one can hunt across fields and technologies to put together a new specialty.  This is a great value-add in a cross-functional age – looking to master complexity.

Having said that, traditional multi-disciplinary studies don’t afford the depth required to delve into many disciplines – something which takes years to master/evolve into.  And this begs a deeper question:  Cost.  It becomes evident in the USA that as we lead the world in the production of knowledge, our universities are becoming unaffordable and may themselves not be able to sustain this cost structure.

Online allows the student not only to engage at his/her own pace, but with varying levels of engagements.  Eventually the Universities will evolve the educators’ tenure model -  to perhaps one of field/domain engineer or master coordinator – facilitating a platform of ‘web 2.0’ collaboration towards thought leadership and new knowledge production.  (The challenge will be figuring out a way to monetize this participation.)

But even in the totally virtual worlds, there is an affinity towards meeting in person:   Can a Web2.0 education make up for something sought out in the top schools:  meeting/getting-to-know future captains of industry.

We can see parts of this collaborative model at work better in the private sector (where a highly educated workforce is contracted.)   Such example is intel.  Intel overcame the limits of computing beyond materials and process engineering boundaries through their famed town hall meetings – (where cross-functional engineers hammer at a bottleneck.)

So in concluding, there are many study needs – all the way to the social perspectives of Universities as the R&D centers for tomorrow corporate success stories.  A student then needs to evaluate/tier his/her needs and compare them to the Univerisities knowledge levels, the platform models and optimal configuration for personal engagement. There are varying ROIs accordingly.

…Give or take generational aptitudes: the younger generations – Gen Y/D (etc.) the ‘multi-taskers’ criss crossing the fields of knowledge to shape tomorrow’s world…ideal for object-based learning!

http://www.internetevolution.com/messages.asp?piddl_msgthreadid=230670&piddl_msgid=216427#msg_216427

Advertisement