REACH

More and more Christian colleges and seminaries are moving toward internet-based learning as land-locked institutions struggle to keep doors open.  Christianity Today presents the reality of the trend in the April 23rd online edition.

 The Great Recession has hit seminary budgets hard, forcing some small schools to attempt radical changes to survive. Starting in fall 2010, Lexington Theological Seminary (LTS) will shift from being a campus-based school to offering online courses with short, intensive on-campus supplemental classes. It’s a radical move for the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) school, founded in 1865. Residency for the 80 students who have not yet graduated will be phased out in May 2011.

Read more at Christianity Today

Michael News & Views online learning

I was recently part of a conversation in which a gentleman expressed the following opinion: “I don’t think incoming college students are self-directed learners.” The context was online learning as well as hybrid courses for a traditional campus. Included in his generalization is the subset of online learners who are incoming college freshmen. His concern is that the prevalence of online technologies has created a generation that has become less capable of diagnosing one’s own learning needs.

Knowles (1975) is perhaps one of the most familiar names linked with self-directed learning. He wrote, “In its broadest meaning, ’self-directed learning’ describes a process in which individuals take the initiative, with or without the help of others, in diagnosing their learning needs, formulating learning goals, identifying human and material resources for learning, choosing and implementing appropriate learning strategies, and evaluating learning outcomes.” We know from work by Tough, Moore, Brockett and Hiemstra that self-directedness is a critical part, and in many cases an inherent component, of lifelong learning. Most of us would likely embrace futurist Toffler’s prediction that “The illiterate of the 21st century will not be those who can’t read and write. They will be those who can’t learn, unlearn, and relearn.”

It seems that learners can become more intentional about their learning and thus take responsibility for 21^st century literacy through online technologies. One could even argue that online learners take greater responsibility for their own learning because of intentionality. There is a capacity for greater depth in online courses because of the issue of intentionality in one’s contribution to discussion boards, posts, and chat rooms. Blogging is one way in which people take responsibility for outlining and expressing thoughts and ideas. Bednar (2005) wrote about blogging as a way of looking at the issue through participatory lenses. He believes that it promotes an interactive and proactive form of communication and encourages the writer to assume ownership in the posted content. He states, “As bloggers, we take an active role in our personal spiritual formation. We take seriously Paul’s admonition to participate, “When you come together, everyone has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. All of these must be done for the strengthening of the church (1 Corinthians 14:26).” The phenomenon of blogging is transforming our expectations of church [and I would argue Christian education]. Soon this meme—a product of our online spiritual formation—will emerge from our cyberchurch and transform the existing church.”

Part of the tension in spiritual formation lies between human participation and divine interaction. Online learning is one way in which the tenets of faith in Christian education can become more personalized. Students are required by nature of the medium to be active participants in their own learning and formation. Gresham (2006) noted, “Rather than the passive absorption of information delivered through a lecture typical of classroom teaching, online learning almost by necessity requires a more active role for the student” (p. 28). The implication is that spiritual formation requires intentionality by the participant in his or her community rather than a passive interaction with one’s environment.

In work done by Horrigan (2001) for the Pew Internet and American Life Project reveals that Internet users who participate in online communities are becoming greater participants in their own local communities of involvement which only strengthens the networks that allow them to move freely between online and physical community. Participation in an online community has not contributed to fractures in our notions of so-called community but is having the opposite effect by intensifying already-established groups. Self-directedness, as an outcome of learning in life, seems to be a value-added benefit of online education. It stands to reason then that this can and will spill over into other areas of life, including on-campus classrooms.

Now if only I could just get into this blogging thing…..

Mary Lowe Blogging Blogging, intentionality, self-directed learning

My husband Steve and I recently returned from a mission trip to Haiti involving a team of medical and dental personnel and educators. We were there during the earthquake that devastated the capital city, Port-au-Prince, and experienced the ripple effect of that in the southern part of the nation. We were ministering in a small town 130 miles west of the capital so only felt the tremors but concerns for safety, transportation, and communication were still part of our experience. We managed to get word out to our families and friends via the missionaries that we were ok but it wasn’t until we returned to the mission station that we really began connecting to our loved ones. Fortunately, the Internet was still operational and we began an intense and engaged interaction via the social networking site, Facebook. We were able to assure people that all was well with us, we were safe, and we were in good hands. We felt the concern on the part of our families in the U.S. as well as the expressions of love, support, and prayer. While we were a world away, we very much felt connected to those back home. We clearly felt their urgency to have us home and safe on solid ground. To be certain the reunion we had with our families and friends upon our eventual return to the U.S. couldn’t be substituted by Facebook. But to suggest that we felt disconnected or in some sense isolated from those folks who were hundreds of miles away is simply not the case.

There are some who would challenge the notion that the Internet (and other technological media) can sustain communities or social ties. Di Petta (1998) and Hudson, (1997) have suggested that with the advent of the Internet, people still feel isolated and alone. Others (Ebersole and Woods, 2001) suggest that virtual community is simply an imitation of real socialization and cannot replace the value of organic connectedness.

A study by the Pew Internet Personal Networks and Community survey challenges these notions and suggests that sites such as Facebook may in fact provide opportunities for people to not only sustain but create significant groups and community. The Pew article reports that “only 6% of the adult population has no one with whom they can discuss important matters or who they consider to be “especially significant” in their life.” The Pew work determined that a majority (71%) of those who participate in social networking sites report that at least one of their online “friends” is someone of great influence to them. Contrary to previously-held notions, the Pew work reveals that Internet users are more likely to engage in social activity in physical communities.

Community is not necessarily restricted to a quantifiable location but can include a qualitative component as well. The Facebook community has been affected on many different levels by postings online. It would be fair to say, judging by the responses, that pictures Facebook users have posted online emotionally affect some. Others have been energized to go to Haiti and help in the relief efforts. Most are intellectually challenged by what they read. Some of my Facebook friends were able to get updates from and about loved ones. Comparing the response of my campus to the online community, there has been a greater degree of reaction and active engagement of the latter.

Developing community-based models for theological distance education requires the realization that technology alone cannot create or maintain human relationships and should not replace them. The focus should be on technology that encourages individuals to come together in community. The relationships that have begun here on our campus as well as those forged online continue to develop long after graduation, in part from interaction on Facebook. Many of our students simply cannot return for alumni gatherings. They do however meet on a regular basis through the medium of Facebook to share prayer concerns, encourage one another, engage with one another, and simply continue those relationships. I think we have to begin shifting the conversation about technology in the classroom to ways in which that technology can sustain over time the community that has been developed because of the classroom.

Mary Lowe Online Community community, online learning

Longtime ACCESS member, Dr. Larry McCullough was recently named president of John Wesley College in HighPoint, North Carolina. In the press release McCullough said of his new post at John Wesley: “We have tremendous potential to grow by providing higher education that is convenient, affordable, and highly accessible.”

Accessible education has always been at the forefront of what ACCESS is about. Through the various institutions he’s served, Dr. McCullough has been associated with ACCESS since 1979. In 2008, he was awarded the Lifetime Achievement Award given for outstanding service to individual exemplars of accessible higher education. We are very happy for John Wesley College to find a such a godly leader, grounded in biblical authority, who emphasizes 21st century strategies. Congratulations on your new appointment, Dr. McCullough!

Michael News & Views

When I was in college, I read through the writings of Francis Schaeffer.  One of the things that struck me was his contention that ideas (particularly those concerning truth) move through the world in stages.  In The God Who Is There, Schaeffer presents a staircase (below his famous line of despair) and notes that the shift in truth affects philosophy first, then art, then music, then into the general culture, and finally into theology.  I’ve heard it put more broadly concerning cultural trends – first they hit the academy, then a decade later they permeate popular culture, then about ten years after that the church finally embraces the trend.

This makes me wonder about the Christian community’s response to online learning.  On the one hand, entrepreneurial Christians have been promoting non-traditional learning models for years.  Whether we consider Moody Bible Institute’s 100+ year foray into correspondence and distance education or the Institute of Theological Studies’ work in making seminary-level courses available on tape, then CD, and now MP3s for almost forty years, we’ve certainly had pioneers in the field.  At the same time, however, there’s still significant resistance to the use of online learning environments for theological education.

I don’t believe that all churches, ministries, and schools should rush to put their courses online but neither do I accept the argument that online learning is antithetical to a Biblical model of education (particularly when contrasted to an institutional/classroom model). I see online learning as an area in which we should be not merely involved but genuinely leading, through quality teaching, training, research, writing, and service.

I wonder how we can do this more effectively…

Jason Baker News & Views online learning, technology

There are often assumptions made about online or distance education but one recurrent theme seems to be that of duplicity or dishonesty. Quite a bit has been made lately of the issue of verification of student identity and making sure students don’t have the opportunity to cheat or misrepresent themselves in what seems like a huge temptation trap. The underlying message seems to be that those persons engaged in face-to-face encounters are by virtue of their presence, innately honest and transparent. I would beg to differ. A quick google search of this subject brings up scores of reports suggesting that cheating (in traditional classrooms) is on the rise. Hudson (1997) stated, “In many ways, friends made online are still strangers. But that is true of friends ‘in real life’ as well.” Moreover, Hudson pointed out that in many urban communities across America, people feel disconnected from their face-to-face social networks. As I reported in a previous blog, league bowling is down; moreover church attendance has decreased, neighborhood gatherings are rare, and hospitality is almost a thing of the past.

Proponents of computer-mediated communication argue that dishonesty and duplicity have been a hallmark of the human condition throughout history. However, Galston (1999) argued that simply because there is the potential for online duplicity, one cannot dismiss the possibility for legitimate forms of community and by extension, honesty and integrity. One of my students recently posted this response to a similar question: “People can now lie straight to your face and not think twice about it.  So if people will lie online then surely they will like to your face and vice versa.  Lying online is probably much easier than face-to-face but of course deception comes through many ways.  The reason why people are dishonest is because they do not want to face the truth and the deception comes in when we blame others or think well if I do not say anything it will go away. I have recently learned that releasing the truth is more powerful than keeping it in.  Feeling convicted about something is no fun to go through but it is a part of growth.”

How do we encourage people to come together online in a way that reflects who they truly are and conduct themselves in a way that is honoring to God?

Mary Lowe News & Views cheating, duplicity, integrity, verification

Do media influence learning?

One of my students recently posted this comment, “I do not believe that technology has that much impact on learning itself. I think that a person can learn just as much sitting in a class as they could seeing a PowerPoint or something.” She made the comment in the context of noting that there are different learning styles that influence how people learn and also that technology has simply become part of the way we teach our classes. For her, technology is another way of receiving information. Her comment reminded me of Richard Clark’s Learning from media: Arguments, analysis, and evidence (2001). He argues that, “there are no learning benefits to be had from any medium used for any instructional purpose for any learners in any setting” (p. ix). Clark illustrated this point by saying that “Instructional media . . . are mere vehicles that deliver instruction but do not influence student achievement any more than the truck that delivers our groceries causes changes in our nutrition” (p 445).

He asserts that, “most new media are not developed with educational applications as their foremost goal” (p. 64). In some cases, institutions adopt innovations because of financial interests, enthusiasm about a new toy, or a need to compete with other schools. His observation that “while the enthusiasms that surround the introduction of a new medium lend a certain currency and legitimacy to schools, they also take scarce resources away from already identified priorities” (p. 64). Some believe that part of what is driving what they observe as an unbalanced zeal for incorporating technology into the classroom may be due in part to the financial considerations.

The Lilly Endowment funded a proposal by the Association of Theological Schools (ATS) to identify ways in which technology could serve theological education. The goal of that funding department is to “improve the capacities of theological schools to use computer technologies and online resources effectively in their educational programs” (Willard, 2005, p. v). Admittedly, Viktora (2005), one of the participants in the study found that his school was often infatuated with new hardware and gadgets to the point of ignoring some of the larger issues in theological education (such as community formation). He felt that while the money provided in the grant allowed his school to do things previously not available, “the problem with having outside funding was that it was convenient money to spend” (p. 37). This convenience allowed them to march forward in the hope that technology would significantly impact teaching and learning. While there were certainly discoveries made about the importance of incorporating technology into theological education, Viktora observed “it is not about becoming an aficionado of computer dexterity. It is a matter of using the potential of new teaching tools to develop and sustain excellence in theological learning” (p. 43).

In the end I think learning outcomes have to drive the teaching methodologies rather than letting computer-mediated technology be the tail that wags the dog. We can have all the latest and greatest in the industry but we can’t overlook the student and the relationships we’re committed to building as facilitators of Christian education at a distance.

Mary Lowe News & Views

Dr. Steve Lowe led a great ACCESS webinar regarding the issue of spiritual formation and Christian distance education. This is a topic of many of our schools and organizations are dealing with.

If you participated in the webinar, which took place on Sept. 23rd, you can continue the conversation here.  If you weren’t able to attend, you’re invited to view the recorded presentation, so you too can join the dialogue. When prompted, the enrollment key is standard .

Michael News & Views Webinars

Isolation and disconnectedness have become a part of American life during the last approximately 30 years. Putnam and Feldstein who authored Better together: Restoring the American community (2003) reported, “Beginning, roughly speaking, in the 1960s, Americans in massive numbers began to join less, trust less, give less, vote less, and schmooze less” (p. 4). Oldenburg, author of The great good place: Cafés, coffee shops, bookstores, bars, hair salons, and other hangouts at the heart of a community (1989) lamented a loss of an informal public place, similar to coffeehouses in Europe where people gather for social discourse. He maintained that the problem of place is magnified by the inability to establish common experiences outside of family or professional contacts. Oldenburg’s solution for the problem of place is what he termed the third place or components in society that allow for the engagement of sociopolitical structures. The third place has both tangible and intangible evidence; places such as public parks and city squares allow for informal gathering of people. The third place also speaks to the intangible by allowing for a level playing field, so that diverse groups can come together in discourse and greater unity. Oldenburg reminded his readers that in ancient times, the agora, or public place, was centrally significant to the culture, but he complained that in today’s societal structures, third places are neither significant nor prolific.

Robert Putnam wrote about the decline of social networks over the last 50 years or so in his book Bowling Alone (2000). He wrote about the decrease in participation in bowling leagues by stating “given population growth, more Americas are bowling than ever before, but league bowling has plummeted in the last ten to fifteen years. Between 1980 and 1993 the total number of bowlers in America increased by 10% while league bowling decreased by more than 40%” (p. 112). Did you know that bowling is still the most competitive sport? The decline of league bowling is only one example that Putnam cites as the disappearance of social networks. He also talks about the value of social networks and the impact they have on modern lives. Studies reveal that co-workers account for less than 10% of our friends. Neighbors are more likely to be identified as friends than the people we work with day in and day out. Putnam reported that spending time together with others in worship and visiting friends fell by more than 20% during the 90’s. He summarized our situation by stating, “informal social connectedness has declined in all parts of American society.”

John Horrigan of the Pew Internet and American Life Project used the term virtual third places to suggest that the online community has become more prolific than the local community for users seeking to gain access to connections. He concluded that online groups only serve to enhance community rather than to destroy it. Horrigan noted,
In some ways, online communities have become virtual third places for people because they are different places from home and work. These places allow people either to hang out with others or more actively engage with professional associations, hobby groups, religious organizations, or sports leagues. (p. 3)
The use of the term virtual social capital was applied to Putnam’s argument that, although there may be concern over the demise of physical community building, one cannot place entire blame at the feet of the Internet. Putnam (2000) observed, “By the time that the Internet reached ten percent of American adults in 1996, the nationwide decline in social connectedness and civic engagement had been underway for at least a quarter of a century” (p. 170). The underlying issue for building community then seems to lie in communication as a way of unifying individual components into a cohesive whole, or apply social capital.

So what? The question I pose to you is what is your institution, organization, or company doing to apply virtual social capital to counter the isolation and disconnectedness that characterizes our culture? How does Christian distance education bridge those gaps?

Mary Lowe Uncategorized

Howard Rheingold defined virtual communities as those groups that form as a result of online interaction over a period of time and with an emotional investment. Much of what happens in a physical community can be replicated in a virtual community. Rheingold observed, “People in virtual communities do just about everything people do in real life, but we leave our bodies behind.” Mary Hess argued that online education does not, in fact, lead to a disembodied nature of learning. The individual is very much interacting with the medium of technology through the use of the mental, physical, emotional, and spiritual dimensions. Moreover, she noted that there is nothing inherently engaging about physical space. In fact, she countered that some of what is taught in the traditional classroom is disconnected, or disengaged, from the world in which students live and minister.

What do you think? Is online learning really embodied learning? Your thoughts?

Mary Lowe Uncategorized