I think Governor Gregoire is onto something and I hope her ideas get a solid discussion, not just a knee-jerk "this will impact our turf" rebuttal.

For non-traditional learning, I highly recommend the Teaching Company videos and audios of university lectures. Many are available through the King County Library System. The web site is www.teach12.com . They have a lot of classes on humanities and history, and some on science that are aimed more at non scientists than at people who would want to major in a topic.

There are definite implications for higher ed. One wonders, is there any more learning available in a lecture hall of 500 students trying to see an overhead screen than there is when people can pause the lectures, go at their own pace, and follow course notes that are often provided along with the CDs or DVDs? This does not replace discussions, writing papers or the ability to ask questions, but that may not usually happen too much in the huge intro courses anyways.

Thoughtful piece, thanks. It would be interesting to look at dual models of online classrooms with 1-2 day intensive seminars to see what cost overhead and educational access those models result in. One of the most stimulating arts of in person education is not the teachers or subject matter but opportunity to learn how to engage with other students in thoughful ways - so would love to see how online education might create that space.

Let's look at Podlodowski's facile and superficial assumptions here:

--The factor of human interaction is assigned no value in the educational equation. The entire enterprise is cartoonishly characterized as consisting solely of crowded and boring mass lectures.

--Khan, the online wizard in her example, is presented uncritically as an unerring fountain of wisdom and efficiency, while administrators and school boards....well, we all know what they're about. But techies make mistakes too, as any Microsoft graduate should understand. Say, whatever happened to Microsoft "Bob"?

--Does everyone agree that the holy grail of education is to provide access to the best experts on a topic? It certainly is not true on the undergraduate level, where the task is mostly about patiently explaining basic concepts in an understandable form. Experts are often the worst people to do that, and almost always the least interested in making the effort.

Online instruction has a role to play, especially in vocational training. And it's a great tool for filling in the crevices after a foundation has been laid, where an extra element of focused attention is needed or desired. But to jump to a conclusion that the entire traditional educational approach should be chucked out the window and replaced with electronic programs goes way beyond what the facts will support. At this point we can't even answer the most basic question of whether it's actually healthy for a growing child to sit for 6 or 8 hours a day staring without meaningful human contact at a computer monitor.

I know America seems to be falling apart and we're all scared and anxious to do something right now to fix it. But before we stampede over the technology cliff there are some very important questions to be answered. Like, for example: in what respects is electronic technology the cure, and in what respects is it the disease?

I've heard many references in these conversations about online learning to "the sage on the stage" -- implying that a lecture course is next to useless. I would bet that the people who show up for Michael Sandel's lecture at Temple de Hirsch next Monday, and the thousands of students who pack his lectures at Harvard, would disagree.

I spent a couple of years at an undergraduate school that put its major emphasis on teaching, not on research or publications. Some of the faculty do pursue continuing work in their field alongside their teaching responsibilities, but they are not necessarily the leaders in those fields. But their work in the classroom, the lecture hall and the seminar are incredibly important to their students, and are not easily replaced by a series of online encounters, no matter how stellar the expert on the screen.

Nice article. Thank you for the link.

Woofer, people are sitting in front of their computers for 6 to 8 hours a day. Doing unproductive things. Why not promote the time spent in front of a computer to learn, research, and further your education? I don't know about public education at the college level, but I don't think public school is always the healthiest, most positive environment, either. From buying pot in the Jr. High bathroom to being bullied by a nepotistic instructor, there is much for young, developing minds to have to deal with and if they were raised in an attentive home and taught to value education, they don't have the tools or experience to deal with these situations.

The thing I love about Khan's site and others like it, it is the knowledge and just the knowledge. It is the material you need to master in these subjects and nothing else. Clear and concise. Unfortunately, there are different learning styles and I'm not sure it will work for everyone.

sandik, These online schools are the most important step in years, maybe ever, to making this country a true democracy. It's unbelievable. I can attend a lecture about Game Theory, an entire semester in fact, given by a professor at Stanford. What is the downside? No one is suggesting it's not better to have a coveted seat in that lecture hall, but how many people in this country are able to do that? How many freshmen students does Stanford take each year? 1500?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/05/us/05college.html

This is the trend. Students applying to colleges, taking up residence and then taking online courses from their dorm room. What a colossal waste of money.

Why is the presumption so often that every class at a traditional college is presented by a boring professor before hundreds of students in an overcrowded classroom? What is this based on? It's going to be somehow less boring on the internet, where there's really less chance of interaction? Oh, I forgot! Technology is going to fix everything -- we won't be human beings any more, with all our inherent frailties and possibilities. Technology will make us supermen!

TM Sell, what is the downside of online learning?

I don't think anyone is advocating replacing traditional college or secondary education with online courses, but I'm afraid that is what is going to happen if the elected and appointed education officials can't or won't streamline the process. They have the technology to use in the classroom to supplement, reinforce, and TEST, saving money and time for students, teachers, and taxpayers and at the end of the day making a college education affordable and accessible to everyone. I see the student becoming an active participant in the pursuit of his/her education. Responsible and accountable for what he/she is learning. A partner.

I don't think college lectures are boring, I think college is expensive as hell, exclusive and elitist.

Zahara, which college are you talking about? Every college doesn't cost as much as an Ivy League education. And you know what? We're already doing a lot with technology -- offering online and hybrid courses, and supplementing traditional learning with all sorts of online goodies. But surprise! That does not change the nature of the students. They're the same people they always were. Technology has not, in 3,000 years of fairly well recorded human history, altered human nature. To think so is to confuse Star Trek with reality.
Meanwhile, students are already accountable, or they fail. Just like real life.
I teach online classes every quarter. Students generally come away feeling like they learned something useful. And you know what? They're not nearly as effective as face-to-face contact. That is the downside of online learning.

Uh, maybe your online class is not effective because of you, the teacher. Have you checked out Kahn Academy? It's awesome. And, if I read Podlodowski right, she's advocating for intro classes to be a combination of on-line core concepts and in-person practice. More access for everyone. And cheap.

Honestly, you sound like a technology luddite who is angry at having your classes taught online as opposed to someone trying to get as many educational opportunities to the most people for the basics. We don't have the money to get everyone in a classroom. Even UW tuition is beyond lots of folks who need a degree.

Thank you for being a teacher, TMSell, and thank you for your perspective.

Now I'm jealous. And curious. How has the way you teach changed? Has your lesson plan changed? Do you have online group discussions? Have you used Ning? Are there students you've never met? Have you tried anything different in your online class that absolutely bombed?

You are right, the face-to-face contact is the ideal, but is that a fact that it is more effective than online learning? Is the data in? That has to be a huge plus in online learning, the immediate feedback of useful data.

I didn't know about Kahn until this morning, I'm more familiar with Academic Earth where the instructors are featured prominently. I don't see online learning replacing teachers, I think it makes teacher's roles more important. I think online learning has the capacity to both improve teaching and learning. People will always need to be taught how to learn. I agree with Geoffrey Canada when he said "..watching a great teacher is like looking at a piece of art." Not an exact quote. I hold teachers in high esteem.

Spending four years at any college in this country is a luxury. To take the time to grow up a little, think about and discuss philosophy, learn how to pay your bills and live on your own. It is the most important thing you can do for yourself or your children, but it should be available to everyone. The knowledge should not be denied. We should do it in 3 years, year-round. It should cost less. Young people shouldn't have to pay for it for the next 20 years.

Anyway, thank you. It must be an exciting time to be in the field of education.