As I was reflecting on what we as a department do and how technology fits into that equation, I realized that so much of how we think about technology has to do with how the instructor uses the technology to push/impart information to the student. While this is a valid use, I fear that what we are creating is really just a high-tech version of a correspondence course. Is there really that much difference between a lecture delivered via a video tape and one that is streamed over the Internet? Sure there is the “cool” factor—we can make the Internet version portable so the student can view it on their iPod—but are we really offering the student anything new? I would argue that these technologies should also be used by students to demonstrate their understanding of the concepts. I would further argue that when both faculty and students are using these technologies to communicate knowledge to each other, we will have created a paradigm shift in online learning.

For example, when we think about presentation tools, we often think about the instructor using them to deliver a “lecture.” Many face-to-face courses, however, have a requirement for students to present to the class. In a face-to-face class this is easily accomplished—the student stands up and presents his or her material (often using a tool like PowerPoint) and is able to receive feedback immediately. In the online class, this process can be more difficult, and many times, the obvious solution is to have a synchronous webcast session. While not a bad solution, synchronous sessions in online classes can be tricky, because it requires all students to be available on a particular date at a scheduled time—often defeating the reason that the student took the class in the first place! The easy solution is to simply have the students upload their presentation directly into the course-management system and allow for asynchronous discussion. While this works, the personal element tends to be missing.

Instead, why not have students develop their presentations in an application like SlideBoom (see Rick’s post for more information on Slideboom) or VoiceThread. Both tools allow for easy creation and sharing as well as commenting. This is an example of a VoiceThread created by my eleven-year-old for a class project on culture: http://voicethread.com/share/264578/. This is just one example of how the same technology used by faculty can easily be used by students to complete class assignments. Other examples might include students producing podcasts to fulfill a class assignment. At a conference a couple of years ago a presenter talked about a class that produced NPR-like podcasts for a final project. In producing these podcasts, the students put together mock interviews, developed commentary, and produced a high-quality final product. The feedback from the students indicated that they not only enjoyed the project (translation: they had fun) but also learned from the activity.

As I think about what we need to do to make engaging online courses a reality, I see that there are at least two major barriers that are keeping us in a more “correspondence” mode. The first of these is technological literacy. Just like regular literacy, it is important that students who are enrolling in online classes have a common base level of technological expertise. For example, can these students upload attachments? Do they understand how to zip and unzip files? While many online programs provide students technology specifications (tech specs) for their computers, few provide students with guidelines or, better yet, screenings to see that they have the minimum technical knowledge to be successful in an online class. Secondly, student and faculty support is imperative. Many faculty hesitate to have students use technology for assignments, because they are afraid of having to provide technical support. This is a very valid concern and one that needs to be addressed at the programmatic level: faculty cannot be expected to provide technology support for their students while teaching the class. I fear that until we address these issues we will remain in a 21st century correspondence course holding pattern.