REACH

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

I recently had an online conversation with a student who expressed some concerns about missed opportunities for interaction and subsequent lack of formation of deeper relationships as a result of online engagement. This musing led him to question how or to what extent our gathering together (too much) online fits or contradicts the Matthew 18:20 text, For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them.”

Christians who study together at a distance have a common bond of connection that transcends physical time and space. The Holy Spirit is purposely unconstrained by physical proximity and freely operates in and through ecological space to accomplish redemptive transformation. We “quench” the Spirit when we insist that “gathering together” can only occur in physical community by restraining the ability of the Spirit to transcend barriers of space and time (John 3:8; 14:16-17, 26; 15:26-27). Simultaneously we constrict our understanding of the church as ecclesia invisibilis and the ekklesia tou Theou comprised of all God’s people “that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one” (Westminster Confession, 1647) when we insist that only the physically gathered community represents the true church through which the presence of Christ exists. Thus through our union with Christ and our common indwelling by the Holy Spirit we are endowed with the capacity to be connected to the Trinity and to one another without being constrained by time and space.

The Holy Spirit carries out his ministry through socially constructed communities unconstrained by their form, physical or spatial proximity, or means of communication. If Paul could produce spiritual transformation in his readers through the socially constructed mechanism of written letters, should we not expect similar results when using the socially constructed mechanism of electronically mediated communication

A recent article published in the Chronicle of Higher Education outlined the Excellent Inevitability of Online Courses. It would seem natural to expect that most, of not all of us, agree with the premise. The commentator, Brooks, wrote that, “supporters of online instruction . . . believe that online courses intrinsically benefit students’ learning experiences, and are the intellectual equivalent of traditional courses” (¶ 3).

Are you gathered together?

Mary Lowe Uncategorized

It’s hard to believe a week has passed since the ACCESS conference in Virginia Beach, VA. Our time together truly epitomized the theme Networked Christian Learning. This conference brought together members of The Next Step as well as ACCESS members for what seemed like a great fit. Many of the folks from The Next Step were mission representatives involved in a number of activities related to online training, networking, and non-formal educational opportunities for a number of organizations around the world.

The presentations covered a range of topics, some of which we hope to feature in upcoming webinars. One of the sessions I found to be most helpful was led by Amanda Rockinson-Szapkiw, a Human Service instructor and consultant for online course development at Old Dominion University in Norfolk, Virginia. Amanda showed us how to use wikis to teach a course online. She makes use of wikis as a way of implementing community building that encourages participatory forms of learning. Students are required to collectively write their own textbook by collaborating on a research project, publishing their findings, and providing input to each other. With a background in adult education, I can certainly appreciate the andragogical principles she highlighted in her presentation.

Now if I could only figure out how to get started . . . .

Mary Lowe News & Views ACCESS, conference, wiki

Welcome to The ACCESS Blog.

We hope you’ll be inspired and informed about things happening in the field of Christian Distance Education.

Together, let’s expand our reach!

Michael Uncategorized