NECC 2009: Clicks vs. Bricks Debate

I’ve been reading a lot about a debate that took place at NECC a week or so ago.  In the eSchool News, it read:

NECC Update…
	Experts debate the relevancy of brick-and-mortar schools in an internet-connected world at the 2009 National Educational Computing Conference in Washington, D.C.View Video
For more live coverage of this year’s National Educational Computing Conference in Washington, D.C., see our online Conference Information Center.

In one of the iNACOL forums someone had posted:

At the annual NECC Conference a friendly Oxford style debate was held entitled “Clicks vs. Bricks”. Experts debated the relevancy of brick-and-mortar schools in an internet-connected world at the 2009 National Educational Computing Conference in Washington, D.C. Michael Horn, co-author of Disrupting Class was one of the speakers.

You can watch the hour long debate on this website:
http://www.eschoolnews.com/news/top-news/n…widget/?i=59541

I came across some more portions of the debate at http://www.istevision.org/watch.php?vid=d50b09b05790f24ee5dcfcb2d98a51b5ee98f902 – and the introductory remarks from the panelist begin around the 27 minute mark and the actual debate begins around the 53 minute mark.

In the blogsphere I came across the following:

• Opportunity Lost from TipLine – Gates’ Computer Tips
• NECC 2009 from Clayton Christensen

So, with all of this coverage (and that’s just on the small part of the Internet that I monitor, one can only imagine what you’d find if you started to Google this) I figured I should take the time to watch the debate.  In listening to the eSchool News clip, I have to be honest and say that I believe the debater were likely instructed to take an either or position.  If they weren’t, than the folks who edited the clip took portions of the people’s comments to make it appear as if they were taking an either or position (for example, the comments they have from Michael Horn seem very slanted towards getting rid of brick-and-mortar schools in favour of all virtual learning – and having debated with Michael several times (both in e-mail and on this blog), I do not believe that he view is that black and white, but much more nuanced).

In viewing the ISTE Vision feed, there were a couple of things that caught my attention.  Michael Horn indicated that students in online and blended learning environments did better than those who were limited to by four walls of their classroom environment.  Again, while I caution that the debaters may have been asked to take an either or position, I think this is a very limited view of classroom education.  Back in the early part of this decade, when I was a classroom teacher my classroom wasn’t confined to the four walls of my classroom.  And as an expert in online learning, I would never classify what I was doing back them as online or blended learning.  For example, in my grade 9 Social Studies class, which was a course that focused upon Atlantic Canada and its place in the world.  As a way of teaching geography, I did an “E-mail Around the World” project.  In this instance, the students didn’t touch a computer but yet the walls of my classroom were expanded to include anyone who might have been forwarded a message that I sent to a group of friends and family.  While this is a very basic example, it is an example of something that isn’t online or blended learning on the part

The third speaker, and I missed the individual’s name, spoke about the quality of online learning and indicated not to tell him many of the online courses were nothing more than glorified correspondence based courses.  He also used the line about product over process when it came to the online delivery of courses, as a set-up for one of his points about the power of online learning.  I have to take issue with this, as in all honesty as someone who has reviewed a lot of online learning (both courses and delivery), I have to honestly say that a lot of it is glorified correspondence courses with a bunch of multimedia added to dress up the old text and image-based delivery.  I mean when you have 60-85 students per teacher per course, how much teaching is going on?  Whynot just purchase a CD Rom of everything your third grader should know and have them complete that instead?  And I’m not just picking on cyber charter schools here, look at some of the asynchronous instruction that occurs in the supplemental programs.  How many of these programs have a method of delivery where students read something (either online or from their textbook), than interact with some multimedia, they take a self-test, they participate in an online discussion, and then they submit some form of assessment for a teacher to grade?  How much “teaching” is happening here?  How much learning is happening for students beyond those who the literature have described as highly motivated, self-directed, self-disciplined, independent learners who could read and write well, and who also had a strong interest in or ability with technology (Haughey & Muirhead, 1999)?  How are the less academically successful students able to succeed in that model of instruction?

I think the fourth speaker, was the one who hit the mail on the head (but also the only one who didn’t take an either or position).  The crux of her argument was in favour of hybrid learning – and I’m curious if she used the term hybrid instead of blended on purpose.  But that was really all that jumped out to me about her comments, probably because her comments were the most rationale (and staryed from the one side or the other debate format).

I have to be honest and say that the speaker who made the least sense, in my opinion, was the first rebuttal speaker (i.e., the student from Maryland).  The notion that the main learning in school takes place outside of the formal curriculum, that somehow schools limit a person’s learning to only the 8 hours that school is in session (I mean, how many teachers out there demand that your students stop learning when they leave school), and that people that have similar life experiences as you have nothing to teach you and you have nothing to learn from them because they are the same as you.

At the end of the hour that I spent on viewing this debate, I have to be honest and say that it was an opportunity that was lost due to the debate format and the specific polarized resolution.  As I think many of you know, I am a believer in the potential of K-12 online learning to extend learning opportunities for students who would not otherwise have access to those options.  However, I do believe that for most students are best served in the classroom environment when that option is available to them.  The problem that needs to be discussed more, and examined in greater detail, is how do we design and deliver these learning experiences so that they are accessible and effective for all students.  That would have been a better use of 75 minutes during a national conference the size and scope of NECC.

Finally, for those who have had enough with all of the NECC 2009 posts…  You should take the time to read Time Well Missed from Things from my mind.

Bibliography:

Haughey, M., & Muirhead, W. (1999). On-line learning: Best practices for Alberta school jurisdictions. Edmonton, AB: Government of Alberta. Retrieved July 31, 2005 from http://www.phrd.ab.ca/technology/best_practices/on-line-learning.pdf