Why Dynamism Is Key In Today's Learning Strategies

The Chronicle of Higher Education has posted a story about Professor Jeremy Littau at Lehigh University, and how he has used not only social media, but a range of other modern paradigms like crowdsourcing to teach his university journalism classes. Not only that, he has actively involved the students in teaching and providing feedback on the methods used in his courses. In fact, his students were partially his inspiration for changing the format of the class.

This is a great example of a meaningful two-way line of communication between learners and experts. The match is further enabled by the many options technology now provides us. Twitter is a factor in Littau's success, but his encouragement of students to find new and interesting ways to present stories is another way of empowering the students to learn and expand creatively, instead of providing rigid standards that everyone needs to meet, semester to semester.

What interests me to learn more about Mr. Littau's class now, is the experiential quotient, and where, how, and from a technology perspective, in what way, that factors into his methods. Are students using Twitter in a mock live reporting fashion, as we have seen for recent current events such as the revolution in Egypt? Are students building networks of reporters around a single story or topic? I intend to take these question to Mr. Littau for a more succinct picture. Bravo on his success with this course.

Improving Discussion In Distance Education

I was reading a short interview that the folks at Bloomfire did with Loventrice Farrow, a communications specialist at Boeing. In it Farrow is asked about important books that tackle the issues in training at the corporate level. Farrow's offering is Discussion as a Way of Teaching, by Brookfield & Preskill. The answer Farrow gives to the last question is the one that caught my attention:

"...I used to be uncomfortable with silence and felt that voids must be filled with continuous chatter—mostly my own. Sometimes the audience eventually joined in and sometimes the silence continued. However, a skillful trainer can keep discussions going by using some of the tactics outlined in the book."

As distance education in both the corporate and higher education worlds becomes more ubiquitous, Farrow's observations and reflection on Brookfield & Preskill will become ever more prevalent. I have been in Farrow's position myself in the past, wondering just what the audience is thinking or doing when prompted to answer a question, or when a thought by the presenter/instructor is completed. I think technology (in the form of telepresence tools) will eventually step in on some level, and resolve some of the problems with attendee silence and feedback. I am interested, however, to see what Brookfield & Preskill have to offer in the interim.

I'll definitely have to give this title a look.

Accountability for Professional Development in Organizations

This study by Patterson & McFadden (2009) provides us a window into one of the burning questions in higher education right now: The effectiveness of distance education (or online) degree programs versus traditional "brick-n-mortar" programs. The results are interesting for the task of talent development. Patterson & McFadden have seen a very significant attrition rate for the two online programs that were studied, whereas the rate for the traditional programs was much lower. Age was not a factor for the online programs, however it was for the traditional campus-based programs (older students were more likely to drop). The study does not make a distinction for those attending the programs as to whether students are attending for purely academic purposes in preparation for future work, or to augment existing degrees as a means of advancing in their current job. Patterson & McFadden also do not make a distinction between the type of institution each program is from, be they purely online or a traditional U.

What the results seem to indicate is that perhaps the online audiences find it easier to drop out. I would hypothesize that this may be because the in-person connection is not there, whereas with campus-based programs there is a direct social element, and a one-to-one interface with the professor. What this may mean for companies is that the accountability systems on the academic side (grades, GPA) may not be enough to ensure that employees in an organization are persisting in their development. Many business do have "learner-side" accountability in the form of pay increases requisite with degree advancement, and some still provide educational reimbursement for successful completion of classes and programs of study. I think what would interest me more in these results is a study of the motivations behind students in these programs, particularly those that are taking them to augment their existing degrees and experience in the workplace.

This issue is also important as we look to the future of higher education. One of the most pressing problems of late has been the astronomical costs associated with getting a degree today. Obtaining an undergraduate degree is often cost enough, however companies today are increasingly looking for those that have completed graduate and doctoral programs. Part of this search is borne from an employer's market with respect to job openings at present, but another factor is global competition. If we add the sort of drop out rate Patterson & McFadden have seen to the mix, the state of the educated and job-ready populace of the future is one to be concerned with.