Stephen Downes

Nuts and Bolts: From Classroom to Online, Think Transform not Transfer
Jane Bozarth, Learning Solutions Magazine, May 13, 2011.

---

The title is the thing that really stood out for me and it alone makes the article worth a link: "Think 'Transform' not 'Transfer'." Just one problem. The author is talking about course migration rather than pedagogy. So, the point of the article is to say that you should 'transform' an in-class course, rather than to merely 'transfer' it to an online environment. For example, "Look for ways to capture the richness that a good instructor brings to the classroom, such as responsiveness, a sense of humor, interesting stories and examples, and immediate feedback." Well, yeah. But there's a much more powerful statement that could have been made with the same title: when you are teaching, think in terms of transforming students, rather than of transferring information. You are helping students become something, not acquire something. Sadly, that wasn't the point of this article. This "nuts and bolts" missed the most practical advice of all! (Hits Today: 0 Total: 1297) [Direct Link] [Tags: none]

---

Comments

Re: Nuts and Bolts: From Classroom to Online

jkunrein, May 14, 2011

So, the author should have treated knowledge transfer as a bad thing? Sadly, in the world of corporate elearning (which is, after all, the Guild's main audience), "just" transferring knowledge would be a vast improvement for a large percentage of courses.

Anyone familiar with the author's corporate and academic work (even to the extent of having read this article) would know that the transformation she's suggesting is in the service of more effective elearning, and her advice to that end is solid and practical. However, the elearning world can never suffer from too much improvement, so I eagerly await better practical advice from you. [Comment] [Permalink] [Previous][Next]

Re: Nuts and Bolts: From Classroom to Online

suifaijohnmak, May 15, 2011

Hi Stephen,
I agree with your views that transforming the students to become a more autonomous learner is much better than transferring information. Often, educators were often using strategies such as that proposed by the author of the article: "a good instructor brings to the classroom, such as responsiveness, a sense of humor, interesting stories and examples, and immediate feedback". However, this would only address "good teaching", and have made numerous assumptions about learning, in that learners are the receptors, ready to be fed with those interesting stories, and receiving feedback. How about learning in the online classroom? Are the teachers also learning? Would such practice help the learners to learn outside their online classrooms, in the communities, amongst networks etc.? What is a more learner-centred approach towards learning, apart from teaching?
@jkunrein, "Sadly, in the world of corporate elearning (which is, after all, the Guild's main audience), "just" transferring knowledge would be a vast improvement for a large percentage of courses." Isn't this similar to feeding the learners with fishes, like what the fisherman normally do? Teachers as fisherman should be providing a space, or showing people with spaces to fish so the learners know where and how to fish, and thus won't have to rely forever for the fisherman (the teacher) to provide them with the fishes. "the transformation she's suggesting is in the service of more effective elearning, and her advice to that end is solid and practical." May be if the transformation is based on the learners' needs in the long run, then we need to consider what transformation really means, rather than just the mere transfer of "knowledge" or the acquisition of "knowledge and skills". The
elearning world can never suffer from too much improvement". Why not? Have we been using innovative approaches such as PLE to improve the elearning world? Have we improve together with our learners. Our current researches indicate that Web 2.0 practices and PLE/PLN are all leading to great advances in elearning, on top of the fixed schedule, teacher instructed online classroom session where students are mostly reactive rather than active in the participation, if it is based on teachers telling their stories (the typical lecture). We may please our customers (learners) by giving them lots of fishes, but my experience for the last two decades with corporate world (training) is that our learners might be much better of if they could share their great learning by teaching each others, rather than being a passive learner sitting in an online class only.
I will share our latest research in MOOC which fully validates what Stephen has said.
Thanks Stephen for relating to a stimulating article, and your great insights.
John

[Comment] [Permalink] [Previous][Next]

Re: Nuts and Bolts: From Classroom to Online

suifaijohnmak, May 15, 2011

Hi Stephen,
Here is my post http://suifaijohnmak.wordpress.com/2011/05/15/cck11-plenk2010-transformational-learning/ in response
John [Comment] [Permalink] [Previous][Next]

Re: Nuts and Bolts: From Classroom to Online

dkelly, May 15, 2011

I have been trying to narrow down why I feel there is a a disconnect between the original source article and your comments regarding it. I think we may have differing definitions of the word 'Problem'. In your comments, you write "The author is talking about course migration rather than pedagogy". By my definition this is not a problem; this is a choice.

The author chose to write about converting a classroom-based course into an online format. While I'm sure many corporate learning functions would love to be spending their days focused on pedagogy, most are instead focused on planning and responding to the learning and performance needs of the business. In today's fast-moving world, many classroom-based learning events are being converted to an online format. In too many of those cases, this is being done ineffectively, and without any real guidance.

That is where the focus of this article was. It provided step-by-step instructions that learning professionals could put into action. Doing so would provide an immediate benefit and address a current need for the intended audience.

Should the author have chosen to focus on pedagogy, I have no doubt she would have addressed some or all of the items you are discussing; perhaps even other you had not considered. After all, every author brings the benefits of his or her personal experiences to their work, which is one of the benefits of actually reading the work of others.

Should the author have taken that route, it would have been a different article, and likely for a different audience. In the world of corporate e-learning, much is lost in the transfer from one medium to another. This article targets that performance issue directly and effectively, providing a valuable resource to it's intended audience. [Comment] [Permalink] [Previous][Next]

Re: Nuts and Bolts: From Classroom to Online

chamblan, May 16, 2011

The disconnect for me between the article and your commentary is a disconnect I see happening often on Twitter and other social media platforms when terms like classroom and learners are used together with elearning. There is an automatic assumption that "classroom" equals an academic building (virtual or not), "course" equals semester long transcripted learning, and "learners" equal traditional academic students.

The corporate world does have classroom-based training. At times, trainers want to move that training online. But corporate training does not resemble semester long courses at an academic institution. It is short-burst learning. It is solving a problem or introducing a new product to employees. Learners are employees with different motivations for attending a course.

It makes for some awkward exchanges if one side of this elearning discussion fails to realize he is not talking about the same elearning as the other.

Ms. Bozarth consistently writes for and speaks to an audience of workplace elearning providers. The Learning Solutions magazine where the article appeared is an "enterprise" marketed magazine (read "workplace"). To project academic pedagogy wishlists onto Ms. Bozarth's article is like reading Runner's World magazine to research your next bicycle purchase.

For its intended audience of beginning workplace elearning providers who are attempting to move a traditional face-to-face training to an online format, the author hit the nail on the head.

[Comment] [Permalink] [Previous][Next]

Re: Nuts and Bolts: From Classroom to Online

Stephen Downes, May 16, 2011

Please let me be clear. I am not saying Bozarth should have written some other article, nor am I criticizing it. It's a perfectly fine article and I have no complaints with it.

The point of my post - which seems to have not been clear - that that the title of the post caused *me* to think of something interesting, a way of representing an argument I have been working at for many years, and that is the pedagogical point that was raised.

I am not saying Bozarth should have addressed the pedagogical point. I am only saying that the title of her article could have been used for some *other* article, one which would address the pedagogical point.

That's one point.

The other is the idea that the pedagogical point is something like "do more transformation, and less knowledge transfer."

People familiar with my work know that I think the idea of knowledge transfer is a chimera. It can't be done. People talk about ti all the time, but the concept is at best a metaphor.

What I am saying with my pedagogical point is that teaching and learning should be thought of, in general, as transformation *instead* of transfer. It's not like you choose one or the other. It's that learning *isn't* transfer, never has been, and if we want to talk about ti correctly we should talk about it as transformation, not transfer.

As an aside, I would also say that this applies to corporate learning as well as to formal institutional learning. [Comment] [Permalink] [Previous][Next]

Re: Nuts and Bolts: From Classroom to Online

jsuzcampos, May 16, 2011

This is an interesting choice of articles to "problematize". Clearly, Dr. Bozarth is addressing the mechanics involved in taking a face-to-face course and developing it in a new, technology-mediated, format for learning. The argument that she should have, or even better, could have been addressing pedagogy ... seems misplaced.

The original "Nuts and Bolts" (as the name implies) is focused on the architecture of world-class elearning environments which are, by their very nature, designed to enable transformative learning experiences. Elearning designers, course developers, and workplace learning professionals can all benefit from these types of simple, straightforward, practical, columns of advice. I was confused to see it linked here, and even more confused by the ensuing commentary. I applaud Dr. Bozarth for her indefatigable efforts to make learning of all kinds, more accessible, more compelling, and more, dare I say, transformative? [Comment] [Permalink] [Previous][Next]

Re: Nuts and Bolts: From Classroom to Online

http://learningintandem.blogspot.com/, May 17, 2011

I agree with your assertion that learning professionals should think in terms of transforming their learners (by which I'm assuming you're referring to behavioral change), what I don't understand is why you are challenging an article that intended to support learning professionals whose goal is exactly that. Having read Dr. Bozarth's article, it is clear that her intentions are to support training professionals that know WHAT they want to do (ie, transform their learners) but are seeking examples of HOW to do that in an online environment.

It is short-sighted to think that learning professionals know how to design effectively for online delivery methodologies and I applaud Dr. Bozarth for her tireless efforts in providing learning professionals with practical, actionable advice for how to improve their professional practice.

What your post suggests, however, is that our basic motivation in our professional practice is misplaced or misguided. This has nothing to do with the service and guidance that Dr. Bozarth is providing to an industry of learning professionals, but what appears to be your belief that all of our intentions aren't guided by the singular principle of helping our learners improve. That insinuation is at best distracting and at worst, insulting.

I applaud Dr. Bozarth in her efforts to get past the theoretical and provide mentorship and guidance on the practical implementation of good design for new training modalities. Her work goes a lot farther in helping us transform our learners than observations questioning our basic motivations. [Comment] [Permalink] [Previous][Next]

Comment

Title
Your comment:
Enter email to receive replies:

Your comments always remain your property, but in posting them here you agree to license under the same terms as this site (CC By-NC-SA). If your comment is offensive it will be deleted.

Automated Spam-checking is in effect. If you are a registered user you may submit links and other HTML. Anonymous users cannot post links and will have their content screened - certain words are prohibited and your comment will be analyzed to make sure it makes sense.