Formal Education
Why do we still bother take classes when the internet exists? When we could basically learn anything we want by sitting down online and watching youtube videos, what is the value of taking formal college coursework? If we can't find a good answer to this question, then we can't justify the high cost of formal college education. This is particularly true for liberal arts education, which has historically been more hard pressed to defend its value.
I propose that formal education continues to have value over self-education via the internet in three ways:
First, formal education provides credentials. A transcript provides a readily recognizable means to verify knowledge and skills to others. I can point to a grade and prove that I know something about a topic. I can't point to an internet browser history to demonstrate the same knowledge.
Second, formal education gives you feedback. Yes, I can study french online, but I can't necessarily get meaningful feedback about my progress. Someone has to correct me and tell me where I'm wrong, not just in terms of multiple choice questions but in terms of pronunciation and inflection. Even if I find an online quiz somewhere, it may not provide the breadth of feedback that I really need.
Third, formal education provides structure. Since the invention of libraries, people COULD have learned nearly any topic they wished through reading on their own. But they haven't. I've never met anyone who said, "I want to learn anatomy, I'm going to head out to the library (or the internet, or an encyclopedia) and teach it to myself." Most people are simply incapable of creating a structure to learn material on their own and sticking to that structure long enough to master the material.
Let me share a personal example. In college, I briefly decided that I wanted to be a social worker. My first inclination was to register for the social work program. But I wanted to make sure I liked social work before making such a dramatic change. So I decided to register for a social work course. I couldn't find a course that worked with my schedule, so I decided I might just take a course by correspondence. Then I decided that correspondence was quite expensive and really, was it any different than just reading the textbook on your own? So I decided to just get the textbook and study it on my own, using the same schedule as the formal correspondence course. Well, the textbook for that course was over $100, and I thought, "is there really any difference between using that textbook and another textbook?" So I decided to just buy a used textbook that was a few years old and only cost a few dollars. I bought that textbook, read a few pages, and then promptly stuck it on a shelf where I forgot about it. It was not a great moment for me.
Yes, technically, I could have probably learned a lot of the material by reading the textbook myself, but I didn't. Because I need outside structure. An instructor provides structure to help you learn the material in manageable, bite-sized chunks with tests that create consequences. I'm not sure that most people can learn material without those consequences.
Fourth, an instructor provides inspiration. Learning a foreign language, thousands of medical terms, or dozens of complicated theories is hard. A formal class with a good teacher provides inspiration that keeps students wanting to learn when the material is tough. A teacher can say a meaningful, hopeful phrase during a period of discouragement, share their passion about the subject through their daily attitude, ramp up the energy in the classroom when the students look bored, and demonstrate through their own success the rewards of learning the material. A good teacher can say, "don't give up." Going to class and interacting with that teacher a few times a week can give a student a little boost that keeps them caring about the material. Just the act of going to class alone triggers the student's own psychological processes to feel more motivated to learn the material. But, hopefully, a teacher provides inspiration to fuel that motivation.
Fifth, formal education provides community. At the beginning of the semester, you go to class because you are interested in the topic. But at some point your interest falters. At that moment, if you have a friend in the class, someone you look forward to seeing, then you might continue to attend even when your interest wanes. If you like the conversations that happen in class, if you find class interesting, if you like the people in it, then it keeps you motivated when the material itself doesn't.
Credentials, feedback, structure, inspiration, and community. Five things you can't get from youtube videos.
The end.
Some additional implications:
* Formal online education (ie. online courses) have some of the same problems of self-education. Yes, they provide credentials and yes, they can provide feedback. Yes, online courses can provide structure that keeps students on target. But formal online education may not be as effective at providing inspiration, hence the higher drop out rates. There may not be as many opportunities for an instructor to display the passion that keeps students motivated to learn the material. It may be harder for a teacher to sense when students are losing interest in the topic and, thus, provide that truly meaningful motivating phrase at the right time. It may be harder for student's to see the teacher's own success, thus limiting the effectiveness of the teacher as a role model. It may be completely impossible for a teacher to read student's interest level and adjust the material and intensity accordingly.
Is there a way for an instructor to meaningfully inspire students in an online course? A few possible thoughts.
First, seeing the instructor in informal videos undoubtedly makes it easier for students to feel connected to the teacher. Videos that include the same sort of informal conversation that takes place in a classroom might help replicate the "inspiration" function of class: videos where the teacher acknowledges which material is confusing, videos where the teacher shares funny stories about her own life, videos where the teacher shows their own engaging personality. Although videos are certainly not going to replicate the in-person experience.
Second, a teacher may need to make more of a conscious effort to reach unmotivated students. It is harder to identify unmotivated students in an online course, but one big hint is student's who miss assignments. An inspiring email at the right time may help student's stick with it.
Third, a teacher may simply need to require students to have a face-to-face or phone interaction with them once or twice a semester in order to gauge informally how well the student is learning the material, how motivated they are, and what they are struggling with. That same conversation can allow the teacher to provide inspiration, motivation, and resources for students who need more help.
Formal education also does not provide very effective community. For many people, it is harder to make friends online without a personal interaction.
* Implication #2: Church teaching. Sunday School classes in church suffer from a different set of problems. I think these classes are usually full of motivation and inspiration, but lack some of the other elements. They certainly don't provide credentialing, but I don't think that is their intent. They may provide structure (for example, a list of chapters that will be covered each week from the Bible and a suggested reading guide). But I think they do a really lousy job of providing feedback. Rarely, if ever, are students given the opportunity to demonstrate their knowledge through tests or assignments, which means that students don't really have the chance to identify their misconceptions and correct them. They may THINK they know the difference between the four gospels, but when they are asked to identify those differences in written form, they may realize that they only really understand two of the gospels. High stakes testing isn't necessary for these kind of realizations. But some kind of independent assessment method may be useful: a worksheet, an (obviously ungraded) quiz, or multiple choice questions interspersed throughout the lesson.
* Implication #3: (Sociology implication). Interaction Ritual Chains describes a sociological theory about how people experience events in groups. It basically says that rituals take place during group events. Those rituals create memorable or unmemorable events. I'm taking a little leeway with his theory here, but one could argue that his theory states that EVENTS matter. Inasmuch as formal education is an EVENT, it can play a role in student's lives beyond the act of learning the material. If I go to class, it is an EVENT that comes with all of the things that happen in EVENTS: highs and lows, laughter, rituals, conversations, responding to external circumstances (weather, etc.). It can lead students to say things like, "class was good today" and have that "good" be about something other than the material itself: the "good" is about the dynamic of the classroom and the nature of the event that transpired. It is hard to replicate the experience of "An Event" in an online class.
I propose that formal education continues to have value over self-education via the internet in three ways:
First, formal education provides credentials. A transcript provides a readily recognizable means to verify knowledge and skills to others. I can point to a grade and prove that I know something about a topic. I can't point to an internet browser history to demonstrate the same knowledge.
Second, formal education gives you feedback. Yes, I can study french online, but I can't necessarily get meaningful feedback about my progress. Someone has to correct me and tell me where I'm wrong, not just in terms of multiple choice questions but in terms of pronunciation and inflection. Even if I find an online quiz somewhere, it may not provide the breadth of feedback that I really need.
Third, formal education provides structure. Since the invention of libraries, people COULD have learned nearly any topic they wished through reading on their own. But they haven't. I've never met anyone who said, "I want to learn anatomy, I'm going to head out to the library (or the internet, or an encyclopedia) and teach it to myself." Most people are simply incapable of creating a structure to learn material on their own and sticking to that structure long enough to master the material.
Let me share a personal example. In college, I briefly decided that I wanted to be a social worker. My first inclination was to register for the social work program. But I wanted to make sure I liked social work before making such a dramatic change. So I decided to register for a social work course. I couldn't find a course that worked with my schedule, so I decided I might just take a course by correspondence. Then I decided that correspondence was quite expensive and really, was it any different than just reading the textbook on your own? So I decided to just get the textbook and study it on my own, using the same schedule as the formal correspondence course. Well, the textbook for that course was over $100, and I thought, "is there really any difference between using that textbook and another textbook?" So I decided to just buy a used textbook that was a few years old and only cost a few dollars. I bought that textbook, read a few pages, and then promptly stuck it on a shelf where I forgot about it. It was not a great moment for me.
Yes, technically, I could have probably learned a lot of the material by reading the textbook myself, but I didn't. Because I need outside structure. An instructor provides structure to help you learn the material in manageable, bite-sized chunks with tests that create consequences. I'm not sure that most people can learn material without those consequences.
Fourth, an instructor provides inspiration. Learning a foreign language, thousands of medical terms, or dozens of complicated theories is hard. A formal class with a good teacher provides inspiration that keeps students wanting to learn when the material is tough. A teacher can say a meaningful, hopeful phrase during a period of discouragement, share their passion about the subject through their daily attitude, ramp up the energy in the classroom when the students look bored, and demonstrate through their own success the rewards of learning the material. A good teacher can say, "don't give up." Going to class and interacting with that teacher a few times a week can give a student a little boost that keeps them caring about the material. Just the act of going to class alone triggers the student's own psychological processes to feel more motivated to learn the material. But, hopefully, a teacher provides inspiration to fuel that motivation.
Fifth, formal education provides community. At the beginning of the semester, you go to class because you are interested in the topic. But at some point your interest falters. At that moment, if you have a friend in the class, someone you look forward to seeing, then you might continue to attend even when your interest wanes. If you like the conversations that happen in class, if you find class interesting, if you like the people in it, then it keeps you motivated when the material itself doesn't.
Credentials, feedback, structure, inspiration, and community. Five things you can't get from youtube videos.
The end.
Some additional implications:
* Formal online education (ie. online courses) have some of the same problems of self-education. Yes, they provide credentials and yes, they can provide feedback. Yes, online courses can provide structure that keeps students on target. But formal online education may not be as effective at providing inspiration, hence the higher drop out rates. There may not be as many opportunities for an instructor to display the passion that keeps students motivated to learn the material. It may be harder for a teacher to sense when students are losing interest in the topic and, thus, provide that truly meaningful motivating phrase at the right time. It may be harder for student's to see the teacher's own success, thus limiting the effectiveness of the teacher as a role model. It may be completely impossible for a teacher to read student's interest level and adjust the material and intensity accordingly.
Is there a way for an instructor to meaningfully inspire students in an online course? A few possible thoughts.
First, seeing the instructor in informal videos undoubtedly makes it easier for students to feel connected to the teacher. Videos that include the same sort of informal conversation that takes place in a classroom might help replicate the "inspiration" function of class: videos where the teacher acknowledges which material is confusing, videos where the teacher shares funny stories about her own life, videos where the teacher shows their own engaging personality. Although videos are certainly not going to replicate the in-person experience.
Second, a teacher may need to make more of a conscious effort to reach unmotivated students. It is harder to identify unmotivated students in an online course, but one big hint is student's who miss assignments. An inspiring email at the right time may help student's stick with it.
Third, a teacher may simply need to require students to have a face-to-face or phone interaction with them once or twice a semester in order to gauge informally how well the student is learning the material, how motivated they are, and what they are struggling with. That same conversation can allow the teacher to provide inspiration, motivation, and resources for students who need more help.
Formal education also does not provide very effective community. For many people, it is harder to make friends online without a personal interaction.
* Implication #2: Church teaching. Sunday School classes in church suffer from a different set of problems. I think these classes are usually full of motivation and inspiration, but lack some of the other elements. They certainly don't provide credentialing, but I don't think that is their intent. They may provide structure (for example, a list of chapters that will be covered each week from the Bible and a suggested reading guide). But I think they do a really lousy job of providing feedback. Rarely, if ever, are students given the opportunity to demonstrate their knowledge through tests or assignments, which means that students don't really have the chance to identify their misconceptions and correct them. They may THINK they know the difference between the four gospels, but when they are asked to identify those differences in written form, they may realize that they only really understand two of the gospels. High stakes testing isn't necessary for these kind of realizations. But some kind of independent assessment method may be useful: a worksheet, an (obviously ungraded) quiz, or multiple choice questions interspersed throughout the lesson.
* Implication #3: (Sociology implication). Interaction Ritual Chains describes a sociological theory about how people experience events in groups. It basically says that rituals take place during group events. Those rituals create memorable or unmemorable events. I'm taking a little leeway with his theory here, but one could argue that his theory states that EVENTS matter. Inasmuch as formal education is an EVENT, it can play a role in student's lives beyond the act of learning the material. If I go to class, it is an EVENT that comes with all of the things that happen in EVENTS: highs and lows, laughter, rituals, conversations, responding to external circumstances (weather, etc.). It can lead students to say things like, "class was good today" and have that "good" be about something other than the material itself: the "good" is about the dynamic of the classroom and the nature of the event that transpired. It is hard to replicate the experience of "An Event" in an online class.