This synchronous vs. asynchronous debate, y'all. I'm thinking through it constantly. It's the number one question I'm hearing from faculty learners right now...

#HigherEd
#AcademicChatter

Hearing about complaints directed at educators relying solely on asynch because parents/students perceive them as "not really teaching." And it's easy to write that off, but I've been trying to dig at the root of that reaction.

#HigherEd
#AcademicChatter

I keep going back to Rebecca Cox's book The College Fear Factor. She found that students resisted the classes with active learning. They didn't want to be positioned as experts. Many wanted prof. to lecture and "be the expert" in the classroom...

But we all know, of course, that this doesn't lead to learning. That students have to get in their and dig and reflect and ideate and create in order to learn, to retain that learning, and to apply it in diverse settings.

And I think that's part of what's going on here. The asynch courses put learners (of all ages) in the driver's seat of their learning. And there's resistance there. Synch sessions more closely align with the sage on the stage model (a lot of the time, not always).

But this is what we've created in American education, haven't we? Sticking kids in desks and teaching to tests and focusing on compliance (and to be clear, I do not pin this on teachers, this is the model we've forced upon them too).

So yeah, anyway, this isn't really about synch vs. asynch. It's bigger than that and speaks to the root issues with American education, IMO. I don't know. What do you think?

But to lend on a positive note, what I learned from Cox is that being a sage on the side works well for new-traditional learners. Relatable expertise. It's a great book, if you're looking for one. Top 5 edu book IMO.

Here’s the book btw