I think your comments are really valuable. I added the line about ‘no difference in compensation’ because I think that compensation should be part of the conversation about increased teaching competencies, but it never is.

In many professions, as you add capabilities, you are either promoted or given raises to reflect increased responsibilities or increased competencies. In high ed teaching, once you are tenured professor, you get cost of living stuff (sometimes) but no additional compensation for adding to your teaching portfolio. A professor is not recognized for learning to teach online or for learning to teach hybrid, even though colleges and universities are often looking for cost savings by promoting these modalities.

Offering additional pay, a slice of the savings pie if you will, would be good incentive for faculty.

Are 10 high quality interactions better than thirty low quality interactions? Are ten low quality interactions that last one hour each better than two high quality interactions that last fifteen minutes each? There are no real answers to these scenarios because there are too many variables.

Even defining high quality versus low quality interactions is difficult once you get into learner characteristics and multiple intelligences, etc. A kinesthetic approach to a learning unit might work great for one student and terribly for another, depending on their preferred learning style or the nature of their intelligence. Similarly, a traditional lecture might be the best way to preset a certain type of material to a certain type of student, but the worst way to deal with other material for the same students.

The same instruction that produces medical school students also produces high school drop outs. The difference is not always the material or nature of the interactions within the institution, but learner characteristics, motivation, environment, and other factors beyond the classroom.

My point was intended to be narrow and aimed at instruction which is designed to be of high quality and aimed at fostering the highest quality interactions. That is the goal, right? Design instruction to foster the highest quality interaction possible. Perhaps I could have prefaced my remarks with; Given consistent quality and type of interactions, more are better, fewer are worse. I didn’t think such a detailed set of parameters was necessary. My mistake.

–paul

There is no premise. If there is no interaction, there is no learning. There is no hidden meaning or unwritten add-on. It is a simple statement.

Interacting with materials is interaction. I never indicated otherwise. In fact, I stated explicitly that I did consider interacting with materials to be interaction.

The logic path is:

In order for a learner to create knowledge, interaction must occur. I was deliberately non-specific about mode, quality, or direction; only the existence of the interaction. I am not predicting the likelihood of complete non-interaction, nor am I making an assertion that non-interaction will happen, only that if interaction is where learning happens, a complete lack of interaction will result in a complete lack of learning.

Research into ties between interaction and outcomes show the correlation very clearly. More interaction results in more and better learning, less interaction means less and worse learning. I do not think it is a daring leap of logic to conclude that zero interaction results in zero learning.

Thanks for the comment.

–paul

The bottom line – I do not believe there is ever an absence of knowledge unless the learner “drops” the course – or engages in NONE of the modes.

Your reply came to me, as Cindy commented on my blog. Ken Robinson is always interesting. He spoke at Blackboard world in Las Vegas last week, and he was, as always, entertaining, thought provoking, and a little disconcerting. Disconcerting because when he talks, you realize how much work there is to be done in our field!

–paul

Perhaps we should start a “first time bloggers” blog! Cindy, I too have hordes of half-written posts and yes you (me too) may not reach the levels of greatness of blogging masters, but you have put an intention superbly in your “these connections are powerful places to test and measure and refine and temper ideas”. I’m just going to put it out there.

In the meantime, here is a link to “What we need is an evolution, but a revolution in education” that features comments on a TED talk delivered by Sir Ken Robinson with link to his presentation.

http://www.techlearning.com/blogs/40844

best to all, glenis joyce