Face-to-face: How important is it?

Jones, N. (2005). The development of socialization in an on-line learning environment. The Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 3(3), http://www.ncolr.org/jiol/issues/PDF/3.3.4.pdf

The Richardson and Swan article (previous post) was not the only one that brought to mind methodological questions. Another article where I started to think about alternative methodologies and what outcomes they might produce was in conjunction with the Jones and Peachy (2005) article. In their concluding remarks, the authors state, “Face-to-face contact played a significant part in the socialization process and subsequently in the creation of a community of learners” (p. 15). But how do they know that for certain? While they employed Solomon’s model, with the exception of the face-to-face component as an add-on, all of the students followed the same stages. What would have been enlightening, given that Jones and Peachy privilege the f2f interactions, would have been to really put that belief to the test. For example, half of the students could have followed an unmodified version of the Salmon model; the others could have followed the version with a f2f stage. The findings under these conditions may have confirmed the authors’ claims…or not.

Swan (2003) also mentions the techniques such as ice breakers and a f2f component to cultivate a sense of community among the students. One program she mentions is the LEEP program at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign [she misspells Champaign, though]. Swan points out that those in charge of this particular program connect their 95% attrition rate to the on-campus f2f meetings that they use to build community among the students. For a project that I’ve been working on for almost two years (one that’s not related to libraries or librarians per se), I have conducted interviews (and have transcribed interviews) with a handful of students from the LEEP program. In general, both male and female students feel positively toward the program and the school even though they may work full-time or live outside the U.S. They even report a sense of belonging in this online program. Is this the result of their f2f "bootcamp" or is something else at work?

Even though the article is older than the others, the points made by Chickering and Ehrmann (1996) are still relevant today. This, in spite of all the technological changes that have occurred since the mid to late 1990s. After they address and describe their seven principles, the authors make a point of concluding that technology is not enough. In fact, they argue that students and faculty need to be “tough-minded about the software- and technology-assisted interactions they create and buy into.” Those like Salmon indicate that a f2f component is not needed, and the cost savings alone behind this line of thought would make administrators tend to believe this to be sufficient evidence. However, those affiliated with the LEEP program have found a strategy that works for them and are doing as Chickering and Ehrmann suggest – being “tough minded.”