Even though almost everybody can understand that:
- a conversation on the phone is not the same as a conversation face to face
- watching a sport on television is not the same as being there in person
- watching people have sex is not the same as actually having it
many people believe that e-learning is the same as learning in a live group, and distance education or online learning is the same as full time study.
It’s pretty weird. When I suggest that online learning is DIFFERENT from classroom learning, I’m always challenged even if I make absolutely NO allusion to whether one is better or worse.
It is always the attendees and graduates of the online or distance programs that get defensive and deny what even basic common sense says. They are different.
But Are They Different Enough To Matter?
No doubt those with degrees from online programs would say no, but they don’t even grasp different does not mean better/worse.
But they are different enough to affect learning. That’s not to say that one person will better learn facts from one program or another. It is however, reasonable to assume that if the process and experience of learning is different, then the learning has qualitative differences.
As Marshall McLuhan suggested, the medium affects the message.
Using an analogy, if the only contact you’ve had with hockey is by watching on TV, your understanding of the game WILL be different than someone who has seen many games live in person and on television. What you learn about hockey is different. Television does not provide the same learning experience, even if the same game is watched.
Let me give you one example that exemplifies how the process of learning affects the learning, by using language learning.
An immersive environment is one where the learner is “immersed” in the language/learning environment. If it’s French immersion, that’s what is spoken all the time. It’s a powerful way of learning a language quickly and to help people become close to natural speakers in the second language. If you compare someone who learned a language in an immersive environment with someone who took courses once or twice a week, even if you equalize for total time spent, the results are completely different. One speaks like a natural speaker, and the other doesn’t.
The WAY one learns affects the learning and sometimes in ways that are hard to measure.
The same is true of education. Different media do not result in the same results. For example, in a full time study program it’s possible to be literally immersed in a field of study, and in fact, that is often what happens at good graduate schools. You go to classes, you set up study groups, you discuss the field over beer, you socialize with the professors, and on and on, provided it’s a small high quality program.
You will never get this type of immersion in distance, part time, or online study. As a result your learning is different.In fact, it will probably be inferior but you may not notice, because it’s likely you are taking online courses as a means to advance your career. You aren’t as interested in learning for learning’s sake.
The additional good news is that at the undergraduate level, it probably doesn’t make a substantial difference whether you take things online, via elearning, or in classes, simply because the quality of undergraduate education generally tends to be somewhat low in many fields — in fact in the fields where it’s likely you can take online version. The demands of the profession you strive for are probably lower than, let’s say a surgeon, lawyer, engineer (where online courses may be hard to find).
Where the difference lies is in higher education — graduate level work, where face to face programs can involve personal mentoring, strong interpersonal relationships between student and professors, and less of an emphasis on getting a job. There the experiences are hugely different.
Again, if your desire is to complete a program for career advancement, you’ll probably want the easiest path and that won’t be in a demanding, 24hr. a day immersion type graduate program.
Conclusion:
I can understand that people will disagree with what is “better”, and I suppose we’ll never resolve that question without proper data, but the one thing that I do not believe a rational person can deny is that:
Different process of experience and learning will yield different learning results.
If you don’t believe me, GO to a hockey game live — even a minor league game if you’ve never been, and tell me that you understood how fast and violent the game was just by watching on TV. Maybe I’ll buy you a beer.
PS. Now the next question is whether employers trust alternative degrees as much as they do traditional ones. Stay tuned. Or comment. Always comment.
I just got this in email. It’s a little relevant, but not all that much. So now you don’t actually need to have any schooling to get a degree, which I suppose is just an extension of…
WHAT A GREaAT IDudqpzEA!
Ring anxasytime 1-801-461-5023 We protkfftvide a concept that will allow anyytaenmone with sufficient work expenkrience to
obtlmtwdjain a fully verdifiable Univmpersity Dehrvgree.
Banchelors, Mapraesters or even a Doedxcdctorate.
Think of it, witddghin four to six wvtlseeks, you too covkuld be a coallege grakskifrduate.
Many petgwople shkziwcare the same frustuukration, they are dodring the woxhfnrk of the peryison
that has the deygree and the pemqwrson that has the degoree is getxqqzinting all the mrfoney.
Dont you thzkink that it is time you were pvgaid fair comppqensation for the level of
work you are alredncdady doirjuong?
This is your chasugibnce to finamxclly make the right mosqljve and recaeive your due
bedqnefits.
If you are mjcghroore than quaflified with your expzyqizerience, but are lacikfvqking that
presroxtigious piece of paper knotglwn as a diplxxhoma that is often the panwrbfbssport to
success.
CAmeLL US TODAY AND GeIVE YOUR WmmhtORK
EXPERIsleechENCE THE CHnANCE TO EARN YOU
THE HIvozvGHER COMPENSlximlATION YOU DESvqakERVE!
“What’s better” is a complex question. I’ve worked with plenty of people. Some with graduate degrees from traditional programs, some with mixed online degrees, some with a few classes under their belt; and in my observation (opinion) most of those with graduate degrees from traditional programs performed no better than those from other categories.
I think the variable that we’re leaving out of the equation in the what’s better argument is the most powerful driver in the success of the student. And that’s the student themselves. Talent and drive can be extended by an education, but they can’t be replaced by an education.
Sure, a tuned program can offer excellent mentor and contact activity that would be a greater learning opportunity for a motivated and sharp learner. But how many traditional classes have you been in that docked you in an auditorium with 50 to 100 other nameless sheep to listen to something that you rarely, if ever, applied in that class. This, in my opinion, isn’t better than a non-traditional online program.
Also take into account the type of activities that drive learning in context. I’ve been in traditional writing courses where the feedback I received was completely inadequate. In these instances, the instructor is likely too busy delivering curriculum to spend quality time f2f explaining what can improve. On the flip-side, I’ve taken online courses where the instructor spent the time to provide detailed feedback for improvement. In many of these courses the students all saw each others works in progress as well as the feedback they received on their assignments. To me, that’s a bonus that the traditional classroom can’t / won’t mimic.
There are opportunities to have great experiences, in context, in a distance learning environment. But I think that these are just as rare as they are in the traditional environment.
Both can improve. Both have advantages.
There are so many personal variables when it comes to learning, so having as many choices as possible makes things much better for both young and adult students. Learning online is very different from learning in a classroom environment, but extends the choice in many ways, including geographically. Someone in Indonesia in a poor remote area can, and some do, learn English online via a cellphone when there is no access to English classes in a classroom environment.
Wow. You said it, Steve. “Talent and drive can be extended by an education, but they can’t be replaced by an education.” Gandhi once wrote something like that. Self education is so much more valuable seeming and powerful to the student. There is pride in the ownership of those language skills. As the Angelic Doctor once said, the best way to know something is to love it.
Furthermore, online classes now have a greater possibility of closer, though virtual, mentoring and tutoring, and is quickly gaining respectability it didn’t really deserve 5 years ago.
Some things simply cannot be taught or learned effectively online. Any form of art would fall into that category. There simply must be an interaction that cannot take place over the web. Yet there are online art schools out there.
Fact based classes however and be taught effectively in this manner. Historical facts are generally constant.
As a society however we are getting away from this type of class (and rightfully so) to where even history is to be questioned and discussed.
The point being, there will always be limitations to online classes.
- C
Nice article. I do agree with you that full time learning yields a different result and is way better than e-learning. As McLuhan’s theory goes, the medium affects the message. How you learn things, theories and thousand different matters in a physical school with the discussion and experience you have while acquiring this knowledge is what makes it different.
Very very different. The atmosphere of learning in the classroom is very different than learning at home. In school there is a sense of competition among students that pushed you harder to learn. But at home mostly you are learning at a relax pace.