Comments about ‘Reviewers call 'The Innovative University' enlightening, fascinating and 'a must-read'’

With all the talk about the need to technologize a world in which virtual is becoming the only reality, it's time to take a breath or two. Trying to fit all intruction into the model adopted by business schools and law schools should give us pause. Perhaps we should ask how well we think MBA's and lawyers are doing in our current society.

If we want to change modes of instruction, we will inevitably change the content of that instruction as well. There is no way around it. Reading a book is a significantly different experience than reading these words in a virtual environment. It's akin to the difference between watching a film and a video game posing as one.

We had better think harder about what we think a college education is. If we think it is professional training, then we have already lost our way.

Online classes are a HUGE innovation that won't go away. Youtube's Khan Academy for example is an example of FREE education that comes to you in hundreds of topics that are not only ecclectic, but well presented and easier to understand than most college professors who (despite what the author of this book claims) often lack interpersonal communication skills due to their focus on research rather than teaching skills.

Also Stanford University is offering free online courses in topics now. the very first course to be taught in AI (Artificial Intelligence) for example this year will have over 100,000 students in the course!!! I have a coworker who is taking the course. He has bought the text book. He will be doing the assignments and online testing, and will receive a grade for the course.

Those who take the course at the actual Stanford University campus get more in depth information, apparently, but the online courses are being offered out there already. This sort of innovation will only become more common as the internet makes this type of learning more common and devices like tablet PCs allow humans to interract digitally more naturally.

We have an increasing number of young adults who don't understand the concepts of focus and persistence. We have serious issues with online gaming, nonstop texting, and social networking where people feel as if they are communicating, but nothing is really being said.

While collegiate institutions may have become overgrown in some ways (namely, administration), we have a rising generation of young people who aren't even close to being prepared for college studies, let alone success in life. It's all play. Creating attention-getting, interactive, online coursework isn't going to solve the core problems of institution or student. In fact, it's like giving more candy to the baby. It makes the institution feel justified that new technologies are being employed, while giving students less of what they really need-- highly interactive lessons WITHIN the classroom from highly qualified (and compensated) teachers.

Online education is fine for teaching me how to use my new digital camera. It is NOT fine for a university education. Anyone who has taken an online course knows how mechanical and juvenile it is. I can't believe somebody as smart as Clayton Christensen can buy into this absurdity.

After teaching in higher education for more than 33 years, I am excited about the potential of reaching larger numbers of individuals, with less expense to the process. Online will never be a complete replacement for higher education, however, there are many subjects, and many majors, that are incredibly "wired" so why shouldn't the pathway of learning be the same? I am involved with a part of the educational world that requires a great deal of "face to face" to be effective, however, there is also much that can be accomplished with personal research and study. Let us, as a community of scholars, be willing to seek new ways, to reach greater numbers of individuals desiring to improve their lives.

I am concerned that there is no differentiation on the Des News website between hard news stories, blog entries, opinion pieces, letters to Editor, etc. I fear that you lose credibility as a result. While I'm sure that Mr. Christensen's book is wonderful, you should clarify that he is a member of your Editorial Advisory Board before you place a glowing review front and center on the Des News website. Retaining journalistic objectivity is a chellenge and should be addressed at the highest levels, particularly the Editorial Advisory Board.

One of my sons has a 3 year DeVry degree. He put more classroom hours in those three years than he would have in a regular setting. Three nearly four month terms per year, but with one two weeks between each term.

While exploring new practices of education we must reveiw all we know about individual learning:

1) Individuals learn in various ways. One brain processes information differently from another.

2) Individuals learn at different rates. One person can grasp a concept in five minutes while it takes another three weeks.

3) Individuals starting a course come to that course with varying levels of knowledge in that subject. Some bring no knowledge and others may know more than the teacher.

Yet, our education system puts everyone in a classroom, expects them to listen to the same lectures and learn the same material, at the same rate (4 months), by the same method (lecturing).

The biggest advantage of using technology in education is that it provides a method for the learning to be individualized. Instead of one teacher teaching the masses, individuals can read the text or watch lectures, complete exercises, interactive diagrams, listen to audio and othe methods of gaining knowledge that is specifically modified for that individual. It's simply a more effective method of learning.

huggyface, what you forget is that learning is not an individual activity. It's a group activity. People learn from each other, and a good teacher can produce a synergy in the classroom you can't get when you're sitting alone in the dark in front of a talking head on a screen. Sorry, it's contrary to the way people learn.

1- Any smart graduate will tell you the best way to learn is to take teachers, not courses. Always sign up for the class with the most knowledgeable, engaging, enthusiastic teacher. You learn more.

2- I never attended at least 5 courses in college for various reasons: schedule conflict, boring teacher, slow pace, etc. I read the book, took the tests, and got "A's" in all of them. More importantly, I understood and retained the material.

3- My absolute best experiences also offered the opportunity to interact with the professor individually, by making an appointment for individual Q&A.

Online courses offer the best of both 1, 2 and 3. Students will flock to the courses taught by the 1's, will read the material, and will engage the teacher online, via email, via phone, or by appointment.

Interesting observations from someone that made his money teaching at an old-school, non innovative institution that has never shown any ability to be cost conscious. I think he needs to go see the real world from the inside to determine what is needed in education for the future. He needs to see employees that struggle to write well (online will teach that?), organize resources into effective solutions or sometimes just show up to work on time. Online works for very specific, short-term needs, but not for an "education". My company has a short on-line curriculum that includes coaches via phone and email. it works for both those reasons. But for a college education? I don't think so.

Not a recommended read.

Unbelievable how unabashed the Deseret News is these days in the self-promotion of its own. This is news worth four pages of web copy and a blaring headline, "Enlightening, fascinating and a must-read"? More like an echo-chamber of impertinent self-congratulation. The "News" should be embarrassed.

The blog-nature of the DesNews is unfortunately indicative of all news outlets today. There is very little left in 'news' that is actually news, while most of what appears on national headlines either are poorly-written opinions of individuals less smart than their readers, or stories that would be better aimed for Entertainment Tonight.

This alone should give us some indication of why education is in trouble. Watching a lecture on the internet isn't going to fix it.

Macfarren | 7:33 a.m. Sept. 1, 2011
Dallas, TX --"highly interactive lessons WITHIN the classroom from highly qualified (and compensated) teachers."

The very reason one young 20-something person is dragging feet (and legs, and whole body)in the last throes of completing a degree. Would have dearly LOVED highly interactive classroom lessons.

There were lessons WITHIN the classroom (from HIGHLY compensated teachers--
OH WAIT. Make that TA's in charge of lessons or making reading assignments)

As to whether the teachers were highly qualified is hard to say--as they rarely showed up, and when they did, they wanted to tell stories about their lives 20 years ago, instead of covering the course work.

When the students in the class can cover the work better than the instructor--AND so many ridiculous meaningless courses are require--it is sad that so much money and time are wasted on perusing a degree that so far means very little.

Okay. Done whining.

In reality, it WAS the FEW highly involved and qualified professors and teachers, and WONDERFUL, MEANINGFUL classes that have made the rest such a bitter disappointment.

Re:Irony Guy

"huggyface, what you forget is that learning is not an individual activity."

He didn't forget that there are people who wrongly claim that learning is not an individual activity.

"It's a group activity."

Learning has always been an individual activity from the moment a baby seeks to pursue his curiosity and learn from his surroundings through touch, smells, and sights. It is only after being indoctrinated into a social system that we begin to believe that learning is a group activity.

"People learn from each other, and a good teacher can produce a synergy in the classroom you can't get when you're sitting alone in the dark in front of a talking head on a screen."

The word synergy is nothing but babble-speak. Those who argue for synergy really desire a captive audience to express their opinions to so they can feel important about themselves. Essentially it is about a "good teacher" talking to you, letting you tell other students why they are wrong and as a class validating you and excluding anyone who is not part of the dominant clique directed by a teacher silencing any learning or questions.

RE: Irony guy

You've given an excellent example of the need for a shift in thinking.

If learning a group experience, then the group should be given the grade, instead of the individual. Just give one grade for everyone in the class. That wouldn't be very fair, would it?

While learning can occur in a group environment and individuals can benefit from interaction, comments and experiences of other group members - learning is still an individual experience.

In this era - the Age of Information - we have access to more tools for learning than ever before. Technology allows the individual to cater their own learning based on their individual learning style.

With 30 years experience in higher ed, I think I may speak from experience. There are many courses that, IF competent learning modules are developed for on-line courses, it may be possible, even preferable, to conduct them that way. It cannot, however, replace the classroom synergy that comes with a well prepared instructor and students in a face to face experience. Too often, on-line courses fail to teach let alone inspire. This could be improved upon, and thus some, and only some disciplines may partially shift to on-line work. There are other disciplines such as the arts and even sciences that because of media and lab work cannot replace hands-on experience with pictures on PCs. Maybe this model works well for accountants and businessmen. It would be a disaster in my field. Also, my daughter is enrolled at a large USHE school, and finds that her face-to-face Math teacher told them the first day of class that he does not teach, just gives tests, all the rest is on-line. Upon going to the $95 on-line materials, we found it almost indecipherable. Now, that is a waste of time and money.