 | Re: Do we still need physical spaces (buildings) for teaching and learning? |
|
Do we still need to go to a workplace? Do we still need to go shopping? Do we still need to go to the ice rink? All of these things can be done in a virtual world, same as learning. The question may be a normative one, in my view, given the inference that we can do all learning via technology. Should we therefore stay in our rooms with our faces in front of an LCD screen, headsets on, and no longer engage f2f? |
 | Re: Do we still need physical spaces (buildings) for teaching and learning? |
|
f2f... Ok, we need physical spaces for f2f or for c2c or I don´t know what, but I agree with the idea that we don´t need to go all days to the university or school to have f2f, there are also another nices places for that. And for learning maybe there are better places that the actual f2f places (Uni, school, and so on). Use the right place for the right thing. Thats all. |
 | Re: Do we still need physical spaces (buildings) for teaching and learning? |
|
Should we therefore stay in our rooms with our faces in front of an LCD screen, headsets on, and no longer engage f2f? This doesn't mean that f2f interactions don't occur - just not in the learning (cyber)space. WE still interact with other people walking to the store to get food, or the delivery person delivering the food. We still talk and interact with our friends and family... Has anyone done a study on whether or not f2f interaction helps students? |
 | Re: Do we still need physical spaces (buildings) for teaching and learning? |
|
Hi Jon Actually a lot of research has been done on the value of f2f alongside online learning. Here are a few Blended Learning; Student-Centred Collaborative Learning Via Face-to-Face and Asynchronous Online Communication: What's the difference?; Using online learning alongside face-to-face learning and Comparing students' opinion between web based learning and face-to-face learning processes. It has also been researched to develop better professional development for teachers. See Teacher Professional Learning and Development; Overview of effective contexts for promoting professional learning opportunies is on Page xxvii. Going by the PD recently completed for engaging & motivating staff in PD that produces positive outcomes for students, they suggested that some f2f is needed (example initial introduction of PD & for immediate feedback & clarification), rather than solely online learning. |
| Re: Do we still need physical spaces (buildings) for teaching and learning? |
| Thank you for the articles! |
 | Re: Do we still need physical spaces (buildings) for teaching and learning? |
|
What do you mean by f2f: Friend 2 Friend or Face 2 Face? I do not think the b-learning can be regarded Friend2Friend. The b-learning is a coeducational, which consists of the virtual part (synchronous or asynchronous) and another presential (Face2Face). The difference is important because in Friend2Friend the learning is horizontal (among peers), while in the Face2Face of a b-learning course of learning is top-down. In the case, the among equals debate takes place in the forum virtual. |
| Re: Do we still need physical spaces (buildings) for teaching and learning? |
|
Hi Dolores, Face to Face is what I mean. What is b-learning? |
| Re: Do we still need physical spaces (buildings) for teaching and learning? |
|
Hi Ruth. There are several types of e-learning. These are some of the abbreviations. b-learning = blended-learning (learning and virtual presence in one course) m-learning = mobile-learning (learning via mobile devices) u-learning = ubiquous-learning (learning apply to multiple devices simultaneously) v-learning = Virtual learning (learning through virtual environments) |
| Re: Do we still need physical spaces (buildings) for teaching and learning? |
|
Thanks for that Dolores, I've only ever heard of them all lumped as e-learning. In that case, to elaborate on the PD currently being done by staff, the PD is actually v-learning (uses a virtual classroom that uses many virtual environments) and b-learning (has 4 f2f sessions). I was running the PD until illness (cancer) caused me to take time off work. No-one else took on the f2f sessions and the PD became totally v-learning. Funnily enough there were mega complaints by the staff because the course no longer had the f2f sessions. Some teachers felt way out of their depth and wanted that extra support of f2f. Do you think the need for f2f is only relevant to adult rather than student learning? Is it because adults previous educational experiences had that structure and they do not have the confidence to branch out on their own? Or is it their view of knowledge, learning and teaching? |
| Re: Do we still need physical spaces (buildings) for teaching and learning? |
|
There are occasions when the face2face is imperative. I had to teach a course on virtual platforms for managers of non-profit institutions. Were not familiar with the technology (they had efficient secretaries). It was so much insecurity that although they understood the concepts, most did not dare to put them into practice. The course, raised entirely virtual, it had to adapt some sessions for them to practice. Here it was necessary face2face. However, in a course for managers of enterprises in the same situation, it was not necessary because they used, so spontaneous, the friend2friend. That is, they asked their friends and employees before they show their weakness to tutors. Which is better? I do not know. It depends on each case. I regret his illness. Please, you must be strong and protect your health |
| Re: Do we still need physical spaces (buildings) for teaching and learning? |
| Ruth - Thank you very much for those links. I should dive into them soon, but life gets in the way far too often. |
| Re: Do we still need physical spaces (buildings) for teaching and learning? |
|
Hi Jon, Know the feeling. I've only skimmed most of these articles and need to go back and have a closer look. My usual skimming method is to read the abstract at the beginning then jump to the conclusions at the end. If its something I find interesting I go back and read more. |
 | Re: Do we still need physical spaces (buildings) for teaching and learning? |
|
Great question! I came to the conclusion several years ago that this is the question that public education has to start with if it is truly going to be empowered by the ever growing virtual access to knowledge and to the connections that afford teaching and learning. However, I have to remind myself that the physical institution is a focus for more than just the teaching and learning that takes place in the classroom. It represents for some a safe environment for their children, for others a target for donations or a community sports team, and to others a job. Its physical presence provides community income (electricians, plumbers, janitors, gardeners) and may elevate the real estate values in the surrounding community - the local high school/college contributes to the economy within its area. Removing it would be like closing down a thriving business. Imagine trying to convince a small town to switch to virtual schooling! You, no doubt, would be impacting the towns identity and the available employment and would meet with at least some resistance. However, even if we discount the non-educational attributes of the physical plant and just consider teaching & learning, there are still several common objections to virtualizing educational. The first roadblock to creating a virtual campus are the courses that need controlled environments (biology, physics..) and those that need hands-on practice (art, welding....) However, this roadblock can also be an opportunity. For example, the biology/botany instructor at the local community college has been promoting a combined summer lab offering for his three term biology sequence. This idea requires a bus with sleeping spaces, lab equipment, laptop computers, and a satellite dish to connect to the web. The students would complete the sequence of biology online during the school year and in the summer do their labs on the bus in an intensive hands-on two week tour of the Cascades (Oregon mountain range) that would include guided lectures of professional foresters and biologists working for the US Forest Service. He has been promoting this idea for several years and when I last talked to him he was at last creating some traction with the administration. This lab solution increases the meaningfulness of the lab experience and also automatically creates an intense personal relationship between the participants. Moreover, the lecture delivered over the web is an efficient and convenient way for the student to accommodate the lecture sections of courses to her schedule. Responding to Socs question, “Should we therefore stay in our rooms with our faces in front of an LCD screen, headsets on, and no longer engage f2f?” I would say NO! However that doesn’t mean that we don’t need to try to discover other ways of engaging the student using all of the f2f and virtual resources available. Moreover, by integrating more virtual resources/methods we can accommodate the college student who often has to work part-time to avoid graduating with a crushing debt or who is accumulating her degree while engaged in raising a family and working full-time. I believe, at least at the college level, the continuation of the extensive physical plant and the communities interest in its survival is not always the best solution for the learners. My feeling is that, as a first step, the hybrid solution has merits. By this I mean selecting and integrating the best of both worlds (online, f2f) by moving toward using the classroom as an "occasional" meeting place. This would allow the institution to schedule rooms so that there are fewer “dedicated” classrooms and more learning commons (empty spaces where students can schedule self selected meetings - study groups.) I believe this would be a step toward using the present physical plant more effectively without threatening the non-teaching and learning “stakeholders.” B-ob |
 | Re: Do we still need physical spaces (buildings) for teaching and learning? |
|
Bob and George, |
 | Re: Do we still need physical spaces (buildings) for teaching and learning? |
|
Hi Bradley nice examples setting out some of the contexts for teaching and learning. In the Vocational Education sector in Australia we are certainly moving to a much greater range of teaching spaces. A lot of teaching happens in the workplace eg in factories, in National Parks, in workshops and salons - wherever people need initial training or up skilling. Due to the vast geographical distances online learning options are also creating exciting options such as web conferencing (virtual f2f?) and the use of LMSs. Despite all this, the mainstream paradigm remains ie f2f in Colleges. It will be fascinating to see what happens in the next 10 years. As teachers and employees in a system, we need to find whatever tools are available to assist the greatest number of people to engage with our educational offerings and give them the best chance of success. Hopefully at the same time giving them a thirst for life long education. |
| Re: Do we still need physical spaces (buildings) for teaching and learning? |
|
I think that both are necessary. In the early stages of education is good that children go to school because is essential that they learn to interact with their peers. In higher education and vocational choice has to be the apprentice depending on your needs: learning style, reconciling professional and family life, ... |
 | Re: Do we still need physical spaces (buildings) for teaching and learning? |
need custom space and real understanding of interactions between people or animals or physical mass. Perhaps more guild oriented approaches to those kinds of spaces might be interesting. Are there custom physical spaces which are needed which may not convert directly to a profession or a guild? |
| Re: Do we still need physical spaces (buildings) for teaching and learning? |
need custom space and real understanding of interactions between people or animals or physical mass. Perhaps more guild oriented approaches to those kinds of spaces might be interesting. Are there custom physical spaces which are needed which may not convert directly to a profession or a guild? |
 | Re: Do we still need physical spaces (buildings) for teaching and learning? |
| A resounding yes for k12 - the social growth aspect is crucial. For higher grades, I don't think so. |
 | Re: Do we still need physical spaces (buildings) for teaching and learning? |
|
I agree completely with Delores and you too mrs durff. While it may not be crucial for education beyond K12, I think f2f plays a significant role in adult education too. We are social animals and interpersonal contact just isn't the same in a forum or blog (video blogs are a bit better but still seem to lack something for me). Perhaps being in the same physical space (or the physical space itself) provides another dimension to connectivism beyond the intellectual, spiritual, and emotional planes provided online. |
 | Re: Do we still need physical spaces (buildings) for teaching and learning? |
|
I am currently working on a project where I am delivering training via screen-sharing software (Adobe Connect) and concurrent conference call. Prior to this engagement almost all of my training has been delivered in face-to-face sessions. In both scenarios, I usually have very little prior contact with the learners, so naturally some, usually most are hesitant about asking questions, or admitting when they don't understand a point. From the instructor's perspective, it's difficult to surrender two things. First is the ability to gauge the facial expressions and body language of the learners. In the virtual setting, I have no way of reading the furrowed brows, darting eyes or polite nods. Second, it is impractical for me to provide one-on-one guidance during lab activities. In the physical scenario, I walk around the training room and I can discuss individual problems with the learners. There is not a practical way of providing such interaction with Web-based delivery. |
 | Re: Do we still need physical spaces (buildings) for teaching and learning? |
|
I teach college classes both online and on-site. Many students tell me they tried an online class, but couldn't handle it; they need the structure of the classroom, the expectation that they be there at certain times, and the hand-holding. The students for whom online classes work best are those who are comfortable in the online environment already, have a level of self-motivation, and whose contraints (temporal, physical, job-related, etc.) are such that online is a necessity rather than just a convenience. |
 | Re: Do we still need physical spaces (buildings) for teaching and learning? |
|
If teaching was simply the sharing of information then no, physical space will soon be replaced by virtual spaces, however at the K-12 level education is more than sharing of information. Our environment is about social development, how to interact with people in the real world. Our schools provide this opportunity, I agree our physical structures need to be altered, but buildings at this level still need to be... |
| Re: Do we still need physical spaces (buildings) for teaching and learning? |
|
Well, I think what George mention can be covered into 4 stages such as : 1. at place ( building needed) 2. distant ( needed only small places) 3. public ( at a certain place) 4. moving ( this will be the last one, we learn or teach as we do not depend on place or building ) Anymore idea how to find a better place for teaching and learning regards |
| Re: Do we still need physical spaces (buildings) for teaching and learning? |
|
Geetha Narayaran makes her own spaces for learning in Bangalore http://kt.flexiblelearning.net.au/tkt2007/edition-13/narayaran/ |
| Re: Do we still need physical spaces (buildings) for teaching and learning? |
|
Cameron Sinclair on TED talks about his work with open architecture http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/cameron_sinclair_on_open_source_architecture.html |
 | Re: Do we still need physical spaces (buildings) for teaching and learning? |
|
Robert Pirsig, in his book Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance (a contemporary of Illich), besides putting forth a Metaphysics of Quality (MoQ), says a few things about the school, referring to it as a type of church. Most people think about schools and churches as physical places, but he argues the real (as in Platonic) church and school is a concept in one's mind. The main character in the novel, a professor of "rhetoric" tries to bring quality to his classes. Here is a quote from an interview with Pirsig. "He used his students to help him discover some of the ideas that make up what he calls the 'metaphysics of quality' in his books, the ideas that led him to believe that he had bridged the chasm between Eastern and Western thought. No two classes were the same. He made his students crazy by refusing to grade them, then he had them grade each other. He suggests that by the end of each term they were so euphoric that if he had told them to jump out of the window they would have done." There is nothing that prevents the uprooting of the activity that goes on in a classroom and placing it in cyberspace. But when one does so, it changes the interactive patterns. Mostly the expectations. And that is a large part of learning, how expectations influence motivation. With some subjects, like EFL (English as a Foreign Language), the interaction in the classroom is essential, but can be blended with online components to maximize the classtime effectiveness. EFL is developing a skill. Other subjects, such as abstract mathematics, have less skill building and more a model of concept development. I'd say that kind of learning lends itself better to exploration, and lends itself better to an uprooting from the classroom. The last point to consider is that a goodly amount of learning happens in cafeterias and dorm rooms, hallways and library study rooms, not just classrooms. Those all have to be considered. |