Tuesday, June 10, 2008

More Net Gen Hype Found in Online Learning Book

In an earlier post I noted that the second edition of Terry Anderson's, The Theory and Practice of Online Learning contains a chapter that relies on net gen hype. Now Mark Nichols finds even more:

"I noted that in Anderson's own chapter "Towards a theory of online learning", that is, in the very first chapter...

Prensky is cited... *WARNING!*... as an authority on how students learn.

Prensky! Never mind the far more authoritative and - dare I say it - scholarly (and contrary) voices of, say, Knowles, Ramsden and Mezirow! For me, this is further evidence of how edubloggers and e-learning theorists have become a very cloistered bunch who believe that everything is new and are suspicious of anything published before the year 1995!"

Read the full posting here.


Unknown said...

I like your last sentence about not trusting anything published before 1995. While I was researching a course I am creating on Online Teaching Best Practices, I came across the Otis Book (http://otis.scotcit.ac.uk/onlinebook/). Although it has been revised since 1995, many of the case studies go back further than that and I have to say I felt a little strange about quoting them. However, I pushed through that and realized that distance learning has a wonderful history of success that should be embraced, not run away from. Anyway, that is what I am trying to do at our online school: eDCSD: Douglas County Online Education. Thanks again for the post.

Mark Bullen said...

Please don't take my comment as being dismissive of anything published before 1995. In fact, I often take people to task for ignoring all the good work that has already done. Too many people who are new to the field look at e-learning and online learning as completely new when they should be turning to the rich history of distance education to inform their practice.

My comment about pre-1995 was a caution about using studies that were done specifically on online learning in that era. The technology has changed a lot since then and our understanding of how to use it appropriately has, so relying on studies done in the early days is questionable.