Re: CBT vs. Stand up (long, but different)

Subject: Re: CBT vs. Stand up (long, but different)
From: Scott Gray <scotty -at- CM -dot- MATH -dot- UIUC -dot- EDU>
Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1998 17:30:05 -0600

It is possible here at the University of Illinois to get a degree in
computer science without ever going to class (except for exams).

My wife just did it.

All major Universities are developing courses to be taken completely
online. Many Universities, including UIUC, are developing complete
degrees to be taken completely online (undergrad and Graduate).

Like all nay sayers of technological progress -- history will prove the
CBT nay sayers wrong.

Scott


Scott Mills Gray
scotty -at- cm -dot- math -dot- uiuc -dot- edu
http://www.useractive.com

"I hear and I forget, I see and I forget, I do and I forget" -- confused.


On Sat, 21 Mar 1998, Elna Tymes wrote:

> Kimberly Lyle-Wilson asked:
>
> > The question, then, is can CBT be put together to teach in ALL the
> > learning styles?
>
> And I ask why not? Think about the online tools that are currently
> available: not only can you transmit static text and graphics online
> (which replaces lectures and slides, and in some cases reading from a
> book in front of the class), but CURRENT tools let you:
> * hold classroom discussions, either BBS style or live (think
> NetMeeting for typed transmission or via voice transmission over the
> internet);
> * simultaneously view AND mark up graphics via live conference modes -
> the analogy for teams working on a diagram of some sort;
> * view digitized TV (with sound) of someone doing something, whether
> that be a prof talking to a camera or a field trip to some
> archaeological dig or whatever;
> * jump to hotlinked related areas for further study.
>
> And those are just off the top of my head. My point with most people's
> concept of CBT is that they're thinking 'inside the box,' not fully
> using the tools that are already out there. Granted, students need
> fairly powerful equipment to get at that much multimedia, but since
> they're already investing in computers as a school tool, they probably
> will be willing to make the investment. Further, the 'pipes' to carry
> that kind of data loading are not far away, and in some cases already
> exist. I know of several companies who have already made the investment
> in the kinds of data 'pipelines' necessary to take that kind of load to
> the desktops of their employees, and I know more are looking at the
> tradeoffs of doing so.
>
> Granted, it requires that teachers change the way they think about how
> to organize and present a course, but we already have models in use as I
> type this.
>
> > I remember reading a book that says there are seven different learning
> > styles, with most people having a primary and a secondary style.
> > Classroom training, like traditional grammar school education, is geared
> > toward verbal (audio and visual) learners. Lecture and readings, take
> > notes. That's fine, since a big majority of people learn that way
> > (something like 75%, I seem to remember). Classroom training
> > supplemented with books works best for this segment. The other styles of
> > learners will be left out in the cold by using this method alone.
> >
> And why is it that we can't substitute the computer screen for the
> classroom, in this model? You can still take notes from material
> presented on a screen; you can read on your own. Same thing, just a
> different kind of classroom. For the other types of learners, you can
> still develop modifications to the 'talking head' approach so that they
> learn too.
>
> > However, the computer industry has a higher than average proportion of
> > people who AREN'T the traditional verbal learners. Many are intuitive,
> > or tactile (like me), etc. As a rule, these folks learn better by DOING,
> > TOUCHING, and PLAYING with something.
>
> Realize that you're talking here about people in the computer industry
> learning about computer tools. I was being more generic than that. But
> my point still holds: you can design CBT for computer tools that lets
> people try things out and get instant feedback, and the tools to apply
> to CBT in this way are already out there. For instance, if you want to
> test whether someone enters data in a particular field on the screen,
> you can mock up a data entry screen with hot spots and test for entry,
> or you can name the field and test for data in it. This isn't rocket
> science.
>
> Furthermore, computer training
> > almost certainly requires some level of hands-on learning, whether you
> > like it or not.
>
> Actually, I'd posit that MOST kinds of training requires some level of
> hands-on learning, but that's beside the point.
>
> > Now, if CBTs could be tailored for ALL the different types of learners,
> > (as classroom training OUGHT to be), I think they would be hugely
> > successful.
>
> My point exactly. The only thing that's between where CBT is now and
> where it could be is the blinders that course developers are wearing,
> and the willingness of the people paying them to allow for different
> learning styles.
>
> I suspect what we're going to see resulting from this year's California
> State University experiment with online learning is a whole lot of
> migration from the traditional classroom-oriented learning to a whole
> palette of learning choices, which includes a LOT of online learning.
>
> Elna Tymes
> Los Trancos Systems
>
>
>




Previous by Author: Re: CBT vs. Stand up
Next by Author: Re: Pricing Translation Costs
Previous by Thread: Re: CBT vs. Stand up (long, but different)
Next by Thread: Re: CBT vs. Stand up (long, but different)


What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads


Sponsored Ads