“ I ncomparable!” T hings that F 2F t eaching cannot do

Roberto Maragliano – [email protected]

Joint Italy-Taiwan workshop on e-Learning - Ancona, Friday 21 September 2007

“Incomparable!” Things that F2F

teaching cannot do

diRoberto Maragliano



Are there differences, in didactics, between f2f and e-learning?

And if there are differences, what sort of differences we are talking about?

Before trying to answer these questions, I want to explain my personal point of view on the relation between didactics and technology



For didactics, technology can besupportenvironment

For technology, didactics can beimplicit elementexplicit element



For example, in traditional didactics, the manual can be seen

as a material tool, useful to transfer knowledge (support)

as a matrix of experiences, able to mold them (environment)



In addition, the fact that in the manual relies a specific didactics can be

highly considered (explicit element)

ignored (implicit element)



In my opinion

technology offers didactics an environment

didactics must interact with (and within) this environment



If the environment changes, also didactics must change, in order to redefine its identity

So, if the environment changes, didactics must make itself explicit

In my opinion, we have to concentrate in a selective way on the problems of didactics



Many of the ideas we have, and especially many of the practices we adopt in didactics, are determined by the characteristics of

printed books

The manual gives shapes to teaching and learning experiences



The manual is in relation with a dualistic model in which

– there are previously defined subjects and objects, with different roles

– knowledge is seen (and is used) as a physical object, with specific boundaries and specific internal articulations

– the teacher teaches, and the learner learns



Internet technology is very different to printing technology

Although it is so ductile as to adapt itself for people that use it like a printing technology, Internet technology redefines knowledge organization

If this is the time to understand what shapes this technology can give to knowledge, this crisis can be an opportunity



This crisis can be a growth, if it is really a chance to recognize the specificity of didactics problems

If the crisis is a growth, there are no more reasons to believe in a dualistic model

In the most advanced e-learning experiences– subjects and objects are fluid entities– teaching and learning are open functions



For years, online education was controlled by software engineers, who have decided the issues to debate

For years, we have been talking about systems, platforms, standards



Within this teaching approach didactics problems were intended as resolved

We can say more – there were no problems– technology did it all

But technology did not face toward anti-technological prejudicethat is very strong in didactics



During the last years and after various experiences

didactics problems have become more visibles

Today, didactics and technology can interact at the same level, without risks of colonization

I think this is good for both technology and didactics



In the relation between each othersdidactics and technology must define themselves in a better way and singularly

But together they have to face the objections

that come from outer worlds

This process is not linear and its positive result is not sure



There are a lot of resistances

– on technological side, there are resistances toward considering the contributions that come from didactics, for technical innovation and technical clarification

– on didactics side, there are resistances toward considering the contributions that come from technology, for conceptual innovation and conceptual clarification



There’s no comparison!

How can we compare face-to-face teaching and its typical human characteristics to the sterile teaching condition related to a calculating machine?

How can a computer, unable to feel pain or joy, express the feeling of teaching and learning?



These are the objections we have regularly to face in our work

These objections summarize the resistances toward considering

– technology as a philosophical resource– didactics as a field in which we can debate and discuss different point of views



It is difficult to answer these questions

It is difficult to persuade those who are not accustomed to listening– to the others– to the worldIt is difficult to persuade those who do not want to be convinced

But we have to answer and try to debate the prejudices underlying that questions



My answer is usually this

It is true, there is something that online learning cannot achieveI agree, a direct experience is something incomparable But then, we should be coherent, we have to give up our learning habits, based on reading! And more, the machine has no feelings, but can we find feelings in our university rooms or in the pages of our manuals?



And I want to say more, trying to face directly these objections

There are lot of activities we can do exclusively online, and not in a face-to-face experience

For example – interaction among everyone

– simulation– sharing of the same work space



Interaction among everyone, simulation, sharing of the same work space

are not common activities

in the actual university learning methods

due both to material and conceptual (and affective!) restrictions



Moreover, these are typical activities in a technologically and didactically advanced

net learning

Thanks to these activities the entire community learns, not simply the single student



Net learning does not transfer to the student

a strictly delimited piece of knowledge but enables him/her to elaborate and share

open portions of knowledge

Subjects and objects have open boundaries,that can easily change



Net learning permits open dialogues

between teacher and students and among students

There are not rigid distinctions in rolesThere are not fixed roles

– the learner teaches– the teacher learns



These activities are not always realized at the same time in the actual e-learning projects

When they are exploited (even if partially), the way of conceiving and practicing didactics tends to change



Thanks to the awareness about the possibilities of net didactics, that are different from the f2f ones, didactics can develop itself

Thanks to the awareness about the possibilities of interaction, simulation, collaboration, technology can develop itself



We have to respond to the blackmail that came from the common sense about things that net didactics can not do, in comparison to f2f didactics

We have to challenge f2f didactics to do what we manage to do

And above all, we have to challenge f2f didactics to document what it is able to dojust as we document what we are able to do

“ I ncomparable!” T hings that F 2F t eaching cannot do

Documents