I have just found, for the third time in a few days, within the Internet portals that I regularly visit, a timely reflection by Iñigo Babot entitled “Sudden death”, related to virtual training. It caught my attention because I first heard this expression - “sudden death” - from Kenichi Ohmae years ago, although he, as I understood it in the simultaneous translation, referred to the sudden death of some industries, the result of technological advancement (cameras from reels, vinyl records, etc.).
Babot's text begins: “There is a huge number of teachers who still refuse to accept the virtual medium as another teaching channel. It is a phenomenon that must be studied, as it is already having serious consequences… for themselves ”. Indeed, the author seems to point to the sudden death of teachers who do not adapt to virtual training, and comes to remind us of "renew or die." It is true - it seems to me - that we all have to renew ourselves often to some extent…; perhaps not always to the dictates of technology, but ICT undoubtedly constitute an inexcusable reference. (In the company, let's remember, genuine innovation goes well beyond technological renewal, continuous improvement and the incorporation of best practices).
In his allegations, Babot tells us about theater actors "who learned to make movies", displaying the corresponding analogy; and it is that, indeed, the cinema came to suppose a quantum leap for the interpretation, especially when the sound arrived. Today there are actors who intervene in both media, and even also on television, without excluding some other possibilities. However, it seems that there are some actors and actresses who feel more comfortable (for various reasons) in the cinema; others, who feel more comfortable in the theater (also for various reasons), and others who celebrate their passage on television (also for various reasons).
This same week, I was reading in El País a report by Rosana Torres: "The theater is reborn on all screens." It brought a photo of a work that I have seen recently and that I liked very much: “A wild god”. Undoubtedly the real approach, and not virtual, to the public has appeal for some actors, who perhaps feel more themselves in the "live and direct"; Likewise, face-to-face training surely has its appeal for teachers, perhaps because there are no intermediaries between them and the learners. Fortunately, it does not seem that the theater is going to disappear, nor does face-to-face training, nor does anyone seem to want it (I would say that neither Babot, although I may be wrong and we may be witnessing the sudden death of theater, or face-to-face training: hopefully not). Of course,both theater and face-to-face training incorporate technical advances in their orchestration, when they deem it necessary.
In the case of face-to-face training, I started with chalk and the blackboard, then I projected those transparencies and even slides, and, in due course, I started using PowerPoint, without excluding the use of videos, etc. And also, using simple author tools, I began to design my own Computer Aided Teaching courses in the 80s, courses that were later used in the continuous training of personnel from large companies in the Telecommunications sector. My case is not particularly significant, but today, as a teacher, I prefer face-to-face training (which does not exclude the use of ICTs that are needed for asynchronous communication with learners, not to mention methods such as Peer Instruction, from Harvard), and, as a learner - which I still am - I prefer the great Internet platform,Without excluding interesting printed books (of which sometimes I do not find, by the way, Spanish version).
However, I continue to design scripts for online training, although I do so with some prevention because the final result is already escaping me. This is the reason that motivates me to participate in the debate (leaving the brief space offered by the "readers' comments" in Babot's article) that Íñigo, a prestigious expert who very often moves us to, has opened very opportunely. reflection. He himself reminds me that we have yet to share a coffee, and even a meal, for several years; but I already imagine that his steps through Madrid (and other destinations) are very fast and intense (like the very few of mine in Barcelona).
Obviously, I am not here to question the author's reflections, but to add new ones. I am afraid - to begin with - that, just as when one writes a book, a manual, an article, his name appears as the author, and the text undergoes, if anything, only minor modifications by the editor, in virtual courses, on the contrary, the authorship often seems to be diluted, and the teacher's scripts can undergo slight but sensible modifications (alterations, adulterations, one might say) by the production technicians, perhaps for the greater glory of the technology.
Indeed, some publishers of articles or books have changed me, for example, from “organizational learning” to “organizational learning”, or “informational competences” to “informational competences”, or they have placed the check mark on “even” when it was not appropriate., or they have rejected plurals like "juniors" or "seniors", which the Academy recommends, or they insist on putting capital letters behind the colon. If they consulted me, I could perhaps avoid it (or not), but they do not think it necessary to consult me. It is not serious, but it seems wrong to me that they do not consult any change with the author, if readers by hundreds or thousands are expected. Almost the most striking thing happened to me a couple of years ago in an interview with La Gaceta de los Negocios. There was a tape recorder, but I told them about the intuition of businessman Masaru Ibuka,and they preferred to later write "Akio Morita" (his partner in the founding of Sony). In any case, these are perhaps anecdotes, alongside those that can occur with so-called virtual training (why do we call it “virtual”?).
Yes: what about e-learning? In the last 20 years I have had diverse experiences in this field, and I am in favor of teachers having author tools to make their own designs, as was done at the beginning of the EAO (Computer Assisted Teaching). Between what I have been told and what I have experienced, I know that the script or storyboard can be altered by production technicians, perhaps to the point of detracting value instead of adding it. Sure, I would give value based on learning generated with minimal effort; Perhaps it is that there are other values that I, as a teacher, escape me…
I am not trying to generalize - or even to be right - but to explain my prevention, which could coincide with the possible prevention of other teachers, whom Babot relates to sudden death. My own death may be sudden, but especially because of the shock that they give me when I see that “serenity” is written where I had put “serendipity”, “true assumptions” where I had written “valid assumptions”, etc., and also I They then tell that they simply cut and paste. Or when they draw the Argyris ladder of inferences lying down.
With the ladder of inferences and after so many years, I have had other striking experiences; for example, when they insisted on introducing interactivity and animation, so that the user of the course had to click on each step, and then only the legend for that single step would appear. The user (student) only saw one legend on the screen at a time, so he could not see the entire mental escalation when we inferred. "Long live technology," I thought. I save you more experiences, and I simply clarify that here there are no criticisms against people, but against a system (of course production); a system, wherever it is in force, that seems to subordinate information to technology.
I believe that the objective of making learning faster, more effective and more comfortable for the user should prevail; But I fear that sometimes (I insist: I am not trying to generalize) the technological show will prevail, and even that the freedom of managers and professionals outside the teaching and the subject of the course will prevail, over the dedication and knowledge of the teacher's designer. Interactivity and multimedia yes, but just right; I prefer a timely phrase that is read on the screen at once, to a phrase that they offer me word by word, and that is also not relevant.
The fact is that, perhaps aware of the limitations of e-learning that were being perceived, blended began to be applied for about five years ago, and even today it is insisted on by different agents in the sector (I recently read an interesting interview to the new president of Aedipe). I believe that e-learning could be sufficient in many cases if it was done didactically well, but that, if it was not done well, face-to-face training would lead the learning processes, incorporating ICT whenever they are advisable or convenient. Hopefully better online courses are made, which generate significant learning and satisfy users, but so far what has been denounced by the Tripartite Foundation is that electronic learning was not proving very significant,and the quality improvement continues to be talked about insistently.
It is okay, of course, to take advantage of ICT in training, as well as in all its valuable applications; but perhaps it is wrong, in more than one case, to leave continuous training in the hands of professionals who are not involved in teaching and the content of the courses. I would say that the guarantor of student satisfaction is the teacher (or professor, as Babot says), and technology is not, even being of the latest generation; I believe that learning comes from information and not from technology, that is, we have to translate good information into valuable and applicable knowledge, and technology corresponds to the important but limited supporting role.
Perhaps, in these times and even always, the important thing is what to learn, and to do it quickly, effectively and satisfactorily. If it is fast, effective and satisfying, welcome is e-learning; But, for this to happen, a good teacher, an expert in teaching and an expert on the subject, would have to be behind, asserting his profession. A good graphic designer can do beautiful things, but he cannot teach what he does not know; a good e-learning programmer can program well, but cannot teach what he does not know; and a good teacher can teach very well, but neither can he teach what he does not know. So perhaps, in the production of a digital, interactive and multimedia course, the criteria of the expert teacher should prevail and no other. If not so,I would not be surprised if the student and the teacher considered themselves “eluded” from the e-learning business and opted for face-to-face training, with the risk of sudden death and all. On the other hand, there is also self-teaching, informal learning…
I'm done. My opinion - one more, unpretentious, which adds to the debate - is that the quality of products for e-learning needs a greater role for teachers in the production of courses. Perhaps, with due prominence, there would be more virtuous teachers who chose to also be virtual. I think, Íñigo, that you have put on the table a good topic to debate, but readers will say that. I have contributed my point of view; a partial point of view (for incomplete and perhaps interested), waiting for others to emerge to complete or nurture the debate.
A good online course requires a good instructional script: there is no good movie without a good script. But in saying this, I do not wish to succumb to the tendency of analogies, because they have their risks. Focusing on users, cinema is an activity for leisure, and success has a meaning; lifelong learning is an activity for work, and success here has another meaning: that learning contributes to individual and collective effectiveness, and even to the quality of life in companies.
