Dr. Shelton, past President of ACCESS, and Dean of Online Education at Dallas Baptist University was recognized for her work, Quality Scorecard for the Administration of Online Education Programs, and was recently named an Effective Practice Award winner by the Sloan Consortium. Sloan-C will be promoting and developing this scorecard as an interactive component on their website.

Read more information about Dr. Shelton’s work can be found at the Sloan-C site.  To access the Quality Scorecard, Rubric, click here.

You are likely familiar with the Six Degrees of Separation theory and the accompanying online “game” found at www.oracleofbacon.org. The idea is that we’re more connected to more people than we may think. This notion has been blown almost out of proportion by the popularity surge of Facebook. The term that the creators of Facebook use for a social “networkee” (my word) is friend and we’ve suddenly turned this noun into a verb (friending) and an action identifying our desire to dissociate with said friend (unfriending). There is evidence to suggest however that we are limited in the number of connections we can really make to others by virtue of our humanness (Dunbar, 1993).

Christakis and Fowler give ascent to the notion that social connectedness is an innate desire and related to “religion” and that these issues are brought about by our “biological heritage.” These authors may not embrace the idea that we are created in the image of God, who represents the one and the many, and therefore possesses the capacity for relationships, networking, and reciprocity. They do however report on a study of “social autographs” and its findings that people report being “close to” or “significantly” impacted by God and “chose to include [Him] as a node on their networks.” While the authors are somewhat dismissive about the reasons people feel connected to God, they do admit that there is a sense that “God is among us.” It would seem reasonable to conclude that we can integrate the social order (“among us”) and acknowledgement of God’s presence because we reflect the image of God. In fact social scientists would argue that normal human development cannot occur without the interchange between persons. Social networking then, is not only critical for our formation as persons but it reflects the image of God.

That connection is at the heart of the Genesis 11 account of the Tower of Babel. The real shame may have been the disconnection of the people. They were, before the scattering, one people speaking the same language. Their mistake was seeking to replace God with themselves and as a result, encountered alienation from God, from creation, and from one another. Judging from criminal profiles, there seems to be a correlation between those who are identified as “loners” and increase criminal behavior. Disconnection and alienation are often, if not always detrimental to productive, healthy development.

How then do we reflect God’s image in our connections with others? What is the real power of our social networks in terms of shaping our lives? How is this reflected in our online courses?

Oldenburg’s solution for the problem of place is what he termed the third place (first and second place being home and work) 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 reminds his readers that in ancient times, the agora, or public place, and forum was centrally significant to the culture. This past May, my husband Steve and I visited Rome and got to see those public places. We were reminded that those structures were intended to be magnificent, imposing and central to life in ancient Rome. Oldenburg notes that “the forums, colosseums, theater, and ampitheaters were grand structures” (p. 17). I can attest to the grandness of the colosseum!

Mary Hess of Luther Seminary echoed Oldenburg’s concerns by noting that our culture has become much more disconnected in terms of geographical space. Her term for this is a space of disconnection. Throughout many cities and towns, space is increasingly being taken up by industry and development. Have you ever observed a group of teens at one of the few third places we still have – the mall? Their together’ness is defined largely by various forms of electronic technology that fit comfortably in their hands.

While Oldenburg and Hess have not embraced virtual community as a legitimate replacement or extinction of physical community, they have suggested that the Internet may provide opportunities for expanding existing real-life communities. There is a beneficial component to physical gathering. John Horrigan of the Pew Internet and American Life Project used the term virtual third places to suggest that the online community has become prolific with users seeking to gain access to something more than local community. He concluded that online groups only serve to enhance community rather than to destroy it. “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).

What are you doing to engage and expand your third places?

 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

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…..

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.

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!

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…

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?