Group items matching

in title, tags, annotations or url

One of the main themes in the book is the “digital divide,” which refers to the fact that millions of people in the U.S., mostly in the poorest and most rural communities, don’t have access to affordable broadband service, including 2.2 million people in New York City, according to Crawford. “We’re depriving people of basic communications access,” she says. Still, broadband and wireless services have become so important to our business and personal lives that most people are willing to pay up, even in the face of high prices driven in part by a lack of competition in the broadband and wireless markets.

Crawford, who has been a visiting professor at Harvard, Yale and Michigan, spent a year on the National Economic Council as a top telecommunications advisor to President Obama. In her book, she directs much of the blame for the sorry state of the U.S. broadband market at the federal government. “Instead of ensuring that everyone in America can compete in a global economy,” she writes, “instead of narrowing the divide between rich and poor, instead of supporting competitive free markets for American inventions that use information — instead, that is, of ensuring that America will lead the world in the information age — U.S. politicians have chosen to keep Comcast and its fellow giants happy.”

“Truly high-speed wired Internet access is as basic to innovation, economic growth, social communication, and the country’s competitiveness as electricity was a century ago,” Crawford writes, “but a limited number of Americans have access to it, many can’t afford it, and the country has handed control of it over to Comcast and a few other companies.”

Crawford argues that the Internet has replaced traditional phone service as the most essential communications utility in the country, and is now as important as electricity was 100 years ago.

From this, I have learnt that it is perfectly fine to change your mind, as long as you have solid justification. This was also a useful reminder abot the importance of accurately matching the number of objectives with activities. A designer needs to avoid creating an objective that has no activity, and an activity with no objective, as can sometimes happen through oversight.

“You need to rethink lots of things, to be open to possibilities, opportunities to options, then you’re more likely to be successful,” says Alex. This kind of openness does not happen as a matter of course. It has to begin with an awareness. This attitude of being open to possibilities, opportunities and options has to be actively worked upon. I failed to understand this at first. So I found it perplexing that Alex would pursue what I thought was a trivial line of discussion. What do you think is not possible to teach and learn online? I volunteered several bright contributions. I was still unaware of the purpose of this apparently innocuous discussion. Of course now I know better. That discussion was supposed to challenge a closed mind. Because with a closed mind, we render ourselves unable to be open to possibilities, opportunities to options. A closed mind works against innovation, progress, improvement, expansion. This is a new frontier, and therefore the stance which can reap untold benefits and leanings should be “Let’s explore!” So the question we should be asking isn’t “What cannot be done?” but rather “How do I make this possible?”

I was therefore quite relieved Alex confirmed what I had feared. I was packing in too much. Even before even before Alex provided her completely justified feedback that my course was too packed (“for you Joy, less is more!”)

An online environment is different from a f2f setting. Being able to state it in a theoretical way is not the same as understanding it and translating it into practice. Of course I knew the theory. But when the time came for application in the design of the online course, my knowledge did not transfer well into practical application. This is one of the main problems when there is a failure of the student to  successfully transfer learning, which is basically one of great challenges of teaching.  So basically, what I did initially did was to replicate my f2f activities directly into my online classroom.

As I feared, and Alex confirmed, this large amount of group work puts a strain on the students and also poses too many logistic difficulties. Perhaps one or two group work activities might work, but not several in each module. It is unrealistic. So I have learnt, in a very concrete and hands-on way, that designing for my online classroom in this instance is different from designing for my face-to face classroom.

Once again, I am reminded that theory and practice need mutual reinforcement. Understanding the theory is one thing. Transferring the theoretical knowledge into action requires experience, reflection, and feedback from others.

In short – let the students do the work. This is the best way to learn. This principle, I think, has been demonstrated in this course. And I intend to pursue it in my own course. I see the value of giving the students both structure and space.