Glowing type letters on black background

Online Learning: a Manifesto

 Published on December 3, 2012 /  Written by /  8

Online learning is not the whipping boy of higher education. As a classroom teacher first and foremost, I have no interest in proselytizing for online learning, but to roundly condemn it is absurd. Online learning is too big and variable a target. It would be like roundly condemning the internet or all objects made from paper.

Much of the rhetoric currently being used against MOOCs is the same rhetoric that has been used against online learning since the 90s (and against distance education since the mid-1800s). There are important questions to be asked, such as how do MOOCs change the business models of higher education, or how do we maintain online the intimate and tailored experiences some of us create in the classroom, but these are not new questions. What I find exciting about the rise of the MOOC is that it brings with it a new level of investment in discussions of online learning. This isn’t to say that MOOCs are necessarily good or bad (they are, in fact, a lot of different things, depending on the MOOC), but to get lost entirely in the stories being told about MOOCs is to miss the forest for the trees, so to speak.

Since I started teaching in 1999, I’ve frequently encountered an anti-pedagogical bent amongst fellow teachers and faculty, a resistance to thinking critically about our teaching practices and philosophies, especially regarding online learning. What we need is to ignore the hype and misrepresentations (on both sides of the debate) and gather together more people willing to carefully reflect on how, where, and why we learn online. There is no productive place in this conversation for exclusivity or anti-intellectualism. Those of us talking about digital pedagogy and digital humanities need to be engaging thoughtfully in discussions about online learning and open education. Those of us in higher ed. need to be engaging thoughtfully with K-12 teachers and administrators. And it’s especially important that we open our discussions of the future of education to students, who should both participate in and help to build their own learning spaces. Pedagogy needs to be at the center of all these discussions.

I’ve said previously that “MOOCs are a red herring,” because there is a bigger beast in the offing. I would not proselytize for online learning or MOOCs, but I would for open education, participant pedagogy, critical voraciousness, and play. The internet didn’t invent collaboration or solve all the problems of institutional access, but it does allow for new forms of collaboration and does bring educational opportunities to new audiences. (In my own online classes, for example, I’ve taught housebound students, new mothers in rural areas hundreds of miles from a university, and soldiers stationed abroad.)

I have no interest in debating the whether of online learning. That bird has most assuredly flown. What I’d like to do here is outline a pedagogy of online learning — not best practices, but points of departure to encourage a diversity of pedagogies.

  1. Online learning happens at many different scales. Not all online learning, though, is scalable. The MOOC is one possible approach, and it is neither a panacea nor a pariah. It might function well for certain learners or for certain courses, but it should be viewed as one of many available approaches. Online learning can happen alone or in groups of 2, 20, 500, or 100,000. The scale of the activity, event, or course changes the experience (but does not define the experience).
  2. I’ve argued elsewhere that “all learning is necessarily hybrid.” The best online learning should engage us in an immediate and physical way. Learning shouldn’t happen entirely at a desk. The best online courses — the best courses of all types — ask students to do work in the world (outside their houses and/or outside the online course portal).
  3. The openness of the internet is its most radical and pedagogically viable feature. This isn’t to say that every class should be entirely open, but we should not assume in advance (or use systems that assume) we need a learning space to be closed (or password-protected). Some learning happens best in rooms with walls, but some learning happens best in fields or in libraries or in town squares.
  4. A class should not be made open purely as a publicity ploy (though publicity can be a happy consequence). We need to ask ourselves how openness serves the students (both the official for-credit students and the unofficial not-for-credit students). The mission of an educational institution is both to serve its students and also to serve a much broader public. Putting these two audiences into direct conversation is (in many cases) an effective pedagogical strategy.
  5. Rigor fails to be rigorous when it’s made compulsory. It can’t be guaranteed in advance by design. Academic rigor shouldn’t be built into a course like an impenetrable fortress for students to inhabit. Rigor has to be fostered through genuine engagement.
  6. Designing an online course involves building both the course and its interface. Online course development requires more preparation, more advance planning, and more technological support. At many institutions there’s a problematic divide between instructional designers and teachers — between those building online courses and those teaching them. Expert teachers need to build their own online courses or we need to create closer collaborative relationships between teachers and instructional designers.
  7. Online learning is not the domain of for-profit institutions. While online learning has been most-visibly used by for-profits, this leaves no permanent black spot upon its hide. Innovative, pedagogically-sound, and ethical work is being done online. That is the work we need to be talking about and advancing with gusto.
  8. Don’t wield outcomes like a weapon. Online learning activities should not be overly designed or too-strictly standardized. In “Explaining Rhizomatic Learning to My Five Year Old,” Dave Cormier writes, “We shouldn’t decide beforehand what we’re going to learn.” Improvisation, play, and experimentation are essential to learning.
  9. FERPA is not an excuse for bad pedagogy. FERPA is designed to protect students and does not outlaw public work. Some simple guidelines: If you’re asking students to do public work online, let them know their work will be public, offer the option of anonymity, never post grades publicly, and don’t forget about intellectual property (which is separate from FERPA).
  10. There is no one-size-fits-all approach to online education. Learning is not neatly divisible into discrete chunks (like courses). We make courses, because they suit a business model and because they’re practical (i.e. gathering a community in the same place at the same time). The chunks, though, 10 weeks, 15 weeks, semesters, quarters, are arbitrary. The course is not always the best container for learning.
  11. Community and dialogue shouldn’t be an accident or by-product of a course. They should be the course. You can’t just stick people into a room and expect them to talk. The same is true for online space. We must create platforms that both actively facilitate and passively encourage interaction. Then, we work to model constructive interaction. The best online courses have a personality, create genuine relationships, and ask hard intellectual questions.
  12. Content-expertise does not equal good teaching. The internet already has lots of experts in all manner of things. A good pedagogue, rather, relies on a variable mixture of content-expertise and careful thinking about teaching practices. The teacher is not merely a facilitator, but uses her own learning of a subject (its histories, theories, and methodologies) to design, structure, and scaffold a learning experience. Once a course begins, the growing expertise of the students, and not the teacher, should be the primary focus.
  13. Online learning needs less quantitative and more qualitative assessment. Students are not columns in a spreadsheet. Most learning management systems make assessment far too neat and tidy. Certainly, some things can be objectively assessed, but that’s not the stuff of learning that we should be focusing on so intently. Numerical data should be a guide only, a way into the deeper conversation about what was learned, a reference point for more productive and qualitative assessment. The most important form of assessment, though, is self-assessment by the students of their own learning.

The first mistake of many online classes and the majority of MOOCs (so far) is that they try to replicate something we do in face-to-face classes, mapping the (sometimes pedagogically-sound, sometimes bizarre) traditions of on-ground institutions onto digital space. Trying to make an online class function exactly like an on-ground class is a missed opportunity. There’s a lot that happens in F2F classrooms that just can’t be replicated in an online environment, and that’s okay. Better to ask ourselves what can be achieved online and what sorts of classes (or learning experiences) we can construct to leverage the potentials of the specific interface or community.

[Photo by wvs]

Add to the Conversation

8 Responses
  1. […] Me gustan porque han despertado a muchos de los brazos de Morfeo. Me gustan porque son un buen ejemplo de lo que significa aprender haciendo. Me gusta verlos como laboratorios de innovación educativa y me gusta su lado experimental e incierto. Me gustan por el debate que han provocado y por habernos mostrado la importancia de lo abierto en educación y la necesidad de no darlo por supuesto y luchar por ello. Y de paso porque nos han mostrado los peligros tanto del ludismo tecnológico como, usando el término de Morozov, del “solucionismo”. Porque nos han hecho valorar la importancia que tienen nuestros datos de aprendizaje y el derecho que tenemos a decidir qué uso les damos y quién puede hacerlo. Y porque han permitido que, en medio del debate, algunos hayan pensado en una carta de derechos y obligaciones para el aprendizaje en la era digital o redactado un Manifiesto para el aprendizaje online. […]

  2. Kim

    While as a teacher in the classroom, I enjoy taking on line classes because of the flexibility. I can see where it would interest some of students more that being in the classroom. I feel like I am an immigrant in the land of technology and they are the natives. It makes to think and consider, are we really meeting their needs in F2F or could some students benefit from different instruction presentation. As an EC teacher, I have found sometimes we just get in the way of learning.

    1. Michelle Thomas-Mitchell

      I can really see your point. F2F classes tend to lead to the instructor controlling the “conversation”. When the students are allowed to chat without much interaction from the instructor, everyone (including the intructor) can better assess the depth of understanding on a subject. This would be great in subjects that may be deemed difficult to many students, like math. It automatically provides a venue for open collaboration.

  3. Michelle Thomas-Mitchell

    I especially agree that all learning environments are necessarily hybrid. This means that some of the teaching on the online courses are given by standard means, like reading the data written by the teacher. It also means that face-to-face courses have to use technology in order to effectively teach in this age of constant change.

  4. Michelle Thomas-Mitchell

    I especially agree that the learning environment should have some “closed spaces”. One of the advantages of a safe learning environment is to be able to express one’s opinions or beliefs without being judged by them. Openly expressing even erroneous thinking in a classroom environment, strengthens the learning of everyone in the class. If students are afraid that their thoughts will be shown to the world, then they may not be as comfortable sharing those thoughts. And to add to this, an online environment can provide a learner with an extra level of comfort to more freely express their thoughts on a subject.

  5. Tim Pimperl

    Overall, this article gave me a lot to think about. My attitude is hybrid in nature. While I prefer the opportunity to get to know my students face to face so that I recognize them and even know a little bit about them as individuals, I also prefer for them to know me in the same way. I’ve also taken online courses that actually required more interaction than I sometimes get in a F2F classroom. Truly the bird has flown and Distance Learning is in demand, but since my passion is teaching I would prefer to look at what it can do and learn to do it well rather than adamantly stake my claim to harping on it’s short falls.
    Incidentally, I also prefer Hybrid classes to get the best of both worlds.

Leave a Reply

Explore Related Articles from Hybrid Pedagogy

journal logo (two nested mathematical Unity symbols in light and medium blue) above the following text: “Hybrid Pedagogy: An open-access journal of learning, teaching, and technology”

Open to Chance?

Latest Comments on Hybrid Pedagogy

Support Our Work