13.6 :-? Tea to Thomas' introIt is unlikely, that in this course online discussion proved as effectual as a face to face seminar would. Reference Module 2, Thread4. Numerous questions were asked of Boerje, however the limitations of the current technology (not allowing more then 3 levels ofdiscussion ) and the time involved in preparing comments (one seldom runs spell check on the spoken word) stopped the ebb andflow of ideas. The flow of the discussion is stilted, and it is sometimes difficult to follow the patterns of conversation. What is missingis the natural mental movement from one concept to another. Here is a break down of what happens in the first part of the thread:
Boerje describes the assignment What should apparent by now is what is NOT happening. In face to face discussion each of the areas above would have been discussed in much greater detail, with the opportunity to opportunity to "pull" from Boerje more detail and information. The constraint of distance and time interrupts the flow of ideas. For those who would argue that the more reticent members of class get equal opportunity to discuss, I would disagree. There classmembers who seldom or ever post. However, in a face to face situation, even though they were not speaking they would have the ability to hear the exchange. Yes, they may read the questions and comments, but, it is as Marie has said about our posted chats.."difficult to follow".. As busy working adults what is "difficult" is often left undone. So the reticent student loses twice, he doesnot speak, he does not hear.
In the best of conditions, a live seminar can be a lively, interesting, active and enlightening discussion
filled with the give and take ofworking minds. In online
discussions, the chance to "re-think" all too often gives the participant a chance to solidify
an opinion andwalk away. 8^D |