[opendtv] Re: Connected classrooms
- From: dan.grimes@xxxxxxxx
- To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2013 14:49:28 -0800
Bert wrote:
"Consider that the government consists of those same adults, who think
Skype classrooms are a huge expense."
But it isn't exactly a cheap affair. It requires a computer, PTZ camera,
graphics controller/image processor, projector, sound system, and control
system to control all the components. We easily spend $150K on a
"high-tech" classroom. And with Skype all you get is two connected points,
not a broadcast.
Craig wrote:
"The education industry is rather slow to change; at the college level and
beyond, they are pricing themselves out of the market, and resisting many
of the technologies that can make a quality education affordable.
"...I would also note that synchronous (live) teaching, as illustrated by
this Skype lash up, is not likely to play a major role in the future of
education; it may play a minor role as a supplement to online curricula,
but most learning in the future will be asynchronous."
Skype is great for interviewing experts in the four corners of the world,
but it only allows one group of students (one classroom) to see and
interact with the interviewee. It basically replaces the need for Polycom
type systems. Of course, the Skype interview can then be recorded with
something like Camtasia and a video clip can be easily exported and
delivered or veiwed on demand.
As Craig states, the real drive is to have asynchronous instruction. That
requires a whole lot of people behind the production to get a quality
product. I agree that lectures can easily be captured and provided VOD,
but demonstrations and labs are not so easy to get in an effective manner.
And it is important to not have the instructor focus on the technology but
rather the instruction, requiring an expensive production crew.
It is important to understand that producing and delivering the educational
material, i.e., using technology that captures the lecture and delivers it,
does not in itself provide positive learning outcomes. A course for online
instruction can deliver but not have effective results.
I do have might doubts that even the best online education materials are of
adequate quality, or even can be. Most online education products out there
provide good income to the producers but poor learning outcomes for the
student.
Have you heard about MIT's OpenCourseWare? Their goal is to provide all of
their classes online and free to the general public. That's right, an MIT
education for free! And they'll even give you a certificate in a field
when completing a program's curriculum. But what they won't give you is a
degree. I can't find the quote on their web site any longer, but basically
it said that while they recognize completing the courses will provide an
education, it is not the same as experiencing and participating in real
classes in real classrooms and labs. So I think there is still something
to be said about, and a place for, brick and mortar schools. Yes, they are
expensive, but I think there is a place for them.
Dan
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2013 12:45:15 -0500
From: Craig Birkmaier <craig@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [opendtv] Re: Connected classrooms
At 10:04 PM +0000 3/4/13, Manfredi, Albert E wrote:
>Yesterday I was listening to a program on NPR about distance
>learning from connected classrooms, in high schools primarily. The
>guest was explaining how some schools these days have a classroom
>with projector and distributed mikes, to accommodate two-way Skype
>sessions. Allowing a the class to be taught by, say, a university
>professor who is an expert on some particular topic. Two-way, of
>course, so the kids can ask questions.
...
>Why do I bother with this? Because it sounded to me SO MUCH like the
>supposed problems of setting up Internet TV. Amazing how something
>so simple can be blown out of proportion. And then people wonder why
>government can't get its act together. Consider that the government
>consists of those same adults, who think Skype classrooms are a huge
>expense.
The education industry is rather slow to change; at the college level
and beyond, they are pricing themselves out of the market, and
resisting many of the technologies that can make a quality education
affordable. In a perverse way, the higher education oligopoly has
many parallels to the congloms and the MVPD oligopoly.
Both are now ripe for change, with the potential for significant
competition from new entrants who understand, and can use, new
technologies to deliver quality at an affordable price.
I would also note that synchronous (live) teaching, as illustrated by
this Skype lash up, is not
likely to play a major role in the future of education; it may play a
minor role as a supplement to online curricula, but most learning in
the future will be asynchronous.
While many analysts are focusing their attention on an iWatch or TV
from Apple, their next big thing may well be in an area where Apple
has very deep roots...
Education
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/igeneration/open-university-success-on-itunes-u/15892
Regards
Craig
------------------------------
Other related posts:
