Although the title might be intended to provoke responses, IMHO the article put forward one important argument for a perspective; that is to look at the affordances of a mode of teaching/learning rather than the mode it self.

The lecture is just another pedagogical approach; it's a method of teaching/learning. This mode has some inherent affordance, e.g. primarily one to many transmission to capture mass audience; it also has some context-dependent affordance, e.g. the interactivity of the feedback channel. 

No matter what you do, a lecture is essentially one to many transmission, which is the appropriate one to deliver standard content to mass to achieve consistency. If you wished to enquire students' mind and allowed them to reflect and project their opinions to others, lecture probably is a lousy (although not impossible) venue to do that.

But within lecture mode, there you can control the degree of backchannel interaction; and usually technology plays the modifier effect to these context-dependent affordances.

e.g.
A Twitter used in a lecture hall allows students to engage in short & concise conversation, that force them to boil down their responses to short bursts. The rapid nature of live Twitter streams not inherently give your student sufficient time to reflect and ponder their response. The pace and nature of the response will to a great extent influenced by the technical affordance of the tool.

e.g.
A collaboration support tool such as NearPod, being used in a lecture hall allows a potentially very different interaction. There could be a more dynamic pull-push of information between individual audience, audiences as a collective and the lecturer/presenter. A survey can be deployed, and students give their response, then based on that, the presenter can adjust the content or pace or direction of the presentation.

And there are more tools/technology available out there to modify the lecture mode. Technology has enabled us to add more these add-on affordance to the same delivery mode, i.e. lecture. This ability can also be true for many other pedagogical approaches. The same tool can modify several pedagogical approaches, another tool would be better suited to modify some other approaches.

The role of technology as a modifier rather than a substitute for a pedagogy approach is a more appropriate lenses to look at educational technology, and a less confrontational approach in the ed-tech implementation.

The article made a judgment that we should scrap the outdated lecture model, which is purely transmitted with students only taking notes. I probably agree we shouldn't torment our students with hours (or more) outdated model of lectures, but I probably won't call it outdated. There could be a time when students need to sit down and take notes, not doing anything else. 

If academics are more dynamics and add more arsenals in their pedagogy toolbox, incorporating technology whenever appropriate and for the duration when it's appropriate. Then confidently switch to other tool, just as we switch between spoon and chopstick during our meal, a different tool, different use, aiming at the same purpose.

The author of this article summed things up perfectly when he said "There are multiple paths through which deep, meaningful learning can occur within the classroom. Rather than pitting one method against another or advocating a whole-scale substitution of instructional approaches, teachers and administrators should consider and leverage what works in a more integrated way".

interesting rubric

Critically viewing the argument against F2F

The article stated that “Some lecturers lack the skill to hold the audience's attention” thus rendering the f2f ineffective and downright pointless waste of time, which given the condition I probably agree. However we need to critically ask if replacing f2f with other approach. In giving this insight I’m not siding with either arguments, but would like to explore the many facets of the issue. Take note that I said “many facets” I didn’t say “complex” since the solution can be simple, but we need to know the many different things it involves.

One critical question If f2f is replaced by a recorded lecturer, would the same lecturer who had been ineffectively deliver the f2f can effectively deliver recorded lectures? So my question is, is this modality issue or human issue? IF it’s human issue, staff development probably would be a better solution than changing the medium.

The process of creating recorded lectures has some similarity with F2F lectures, e.g. both would need the preparation of content and at least some rough storyboard in mind; but they also have differences e.g. academics can take the energy from talking in front of a live audience, as they can be interactive, but recorded lectures can’t. They also have different affordances: F2F sessions can give direct cue to academics, affording us to adjust on-the-fly our direction, emphasis etc of delivery; but recorded lectures devoid of all that, however it does give consistency in delivery.

Having said that, probably not every academic does prepare well to deliver F2F lectures, although they have to stand in person; nor every academic will prepare the storyboard and record with great care when preparing the recorded lectures.

Looking at the human side of this equation, aside from the mastery of content, we have the skill to deliver (either f2f lecture or recorded lecture) and the motivation/passion to deliver; looking at the medium side (either f2f or technology mediated) we need to consider the affordance of that medium and how they match the needs of the delivery and how well the institution can support that medium; then there is another human in the equation, the students; how is their motivation to learn and skill to use the medium. IMHO we can’t really overlook any to make a case to change any one.

Formulating balance argument for Blended Learning

A blended approach would be better, not because we are too lazy to pick a winner and thrust all of our energy on that single pressure point, but because just like human body system, we can’t just keep hammering in only a single point. We have to look at the learning activity as a system if we genuinely want to improve it; and blended learning allowed us to do so. And just like a good coffee, there are many blends, some prefer one over the other simply because personal choices, or one is better suited for certain occasion (time, situation).

To apply this on the issue between f2f lectures and recorded lectures; some people (either or both academics and students) might genuinely prefer it; and some subject, content, or learning activity genuinely better delivered through f2f lectures.

About the Babylonian hour, I think it’s probably the tyranny of the scheduler J rather than an issue of pedagogy or f2f vs recorded lectures. Or to be more risky, we can say the tyranny of the definition of a credit. Even when we create recorded lectures, how many of academics still think in term of this much credit thus this much of recorded lectures hours must be deliver? Or even the students, if I enrol in a x credit unit, I should be getting x hours of content. Is this pedagogical issue? IMHO, not, so what should we do with it, I don’t know.. as long as we still do credits calculations and course fee based on credits, and then translated into x hours of something than that issue stays there. Maybe if the credit is defined as x hours of learning, rather than x hours of teaching, then units’ designers can have flexibility in creating units between the continuum of teaching and learning. Because some units or at least lessons within the units do require different ways of using the time; it’s probably liberating for academics and students alike, if we can flexibly assign hours to different things learning activities. Maybe week 1 to 3 more lecturing, week 4 to 6 more field work, etc, but our scheduling system doesn’t work like that. It’s the tyranny of scheduling system, not the fault of a particular modality. If academics can schedule for 47.7 minutes or 32.5 minutes lecture, and that is the appropriate length, then the lecture should stop there, not dragging it to become 60 minutes just because the contract said so.

Students being passive observers; it’s most likely to be unproductive if students have to be passive observer for the whole semester all the time. But not all learning has to be active learning as well; sometimes students have to sit and pay attention for 5, 15, 30 minutes maybe, at least that’s my opinion for tertiary education. I’m sure the author is writing against prolong passive observing, rather than the passive observing itself. There is a recent commentator in ABC’s Q&A who said there is no serious discussion in the parliament since everyone is talking and no one is listening. I wander if the education system contributes to that. Listening is a life skill, students need to learn to listen as much as they need to learn to construct and convey arguments. Closing ears and shouting probably is a skill any nation can be without. Second part of this, is that lecture doesn’t have to be passive, it’s probably either the size that cause that lecture to be passive (thus issue of logistic); or the skill of the academics (issue of staff development or personal preference i.e. some people not feel comfortable speaking in front of large crowd). There is an opportunity for blending here to take the good things and mitigate the weaknesses by blending. If the unit controller of a unit happen to be someone who can’t comfortably deliver a lecture, that unit can be built around workshop sessions and a guest lectures can deliver the occasional lectures, not every unit need a superstar lecturers to make that unit a good one.

About attention fall off, again it’s not unique to f2f, we can even replicate this in recorded lectures; since it’s about the endurance of attention required of the students. Unnecessarily long recorded lectures have probably equally detrimental effects to our students. We can also easily insert x minutes of break in F2F; students doesn’t have to leave their seat, academics can include a black slide to pause for 3 minutes.

About notes taking, if students can’t take note, it’s not the fault of a F2F lecture mode; students who can’t take note, is like a driver who can’t drive. It’s a basic skill required, students need to take note too when listening recorded lectures. It’s on the institution shoulder to help students to have these skills, if they don’t readily have after graduating from high-school. To touch back on the issue of Babylonian hour, maybe if all lectures and tutorials doesn’t have to be dragged on to be rounded to an hour then the spare time can be used for students taking part in online (or F2F) workshop  to learn how to take notes.

The issue about disability probably is rather misleading to consider it as being resolved by moving F2F to recorded lectures. First either F2F or recorded lectures requires audible and visual perception on the students side. So anyone with weak audible or visual perception will have difficulties. So we then probably talk about how easy to provide support; some lecture theatres are poorly designed, with huge capacity that just make us impossible to see the screen, then maybe technology can be introduced to project the screen to students’ laptop or iPad.

Just in case we talk about physical movement disability, students can join from remote to a F2F lectures or proper construction of the lecture theatre to allow wheelchair access etc. it can be more costly than just record a lecture, but it’s not the issue of pedagogy or modality. Btw, I think it’s perfectly honest and acceptable if a higher education institution to choose a learning approach due to financial reasons; hopefully we are doing it responsibly but in this era where government funding is limited, HEI should be able to make adjustment that can ensure its sustainability to continue to provide education. It is a conflicting requirement, as one of the previous article I shared said, university is placed in the nexus of those conflicts and strive when none a sole winner (paraphrase).

Many of the issue discussed in this article stating the worst possible condition of F2F, thus the worst thing that can happen to F2F of course is always worst off than the best that can happen to recorded lectures. With technology some of the line dividing the two are blurring anyway… there are so many other points in this article that are actually, I think, great pointer for us to discuss further. So we can be more critical in improving the quality of our learning activities, including our F2F and recorded lectures. Thanks to the author of this article to bring the discussion forward.

an old pod-cast from 9 Feb 2012 about blended learning, but the content IMHO still relevant today.

Blended teaching or blended learning? Whose perspective - academics or students?

Blended doesn't have to be 24/7, but nowadays usually integrates technology and non-technology; sometimes we sometimes interchange between the two terms 'blended ness' and the 'flipped ness' of the unit.

Some people's resistance causes: time consuming process, lost in technology; -- staff development? -- finding the right technology to introduce to allow them sees the value or at least some of the value, even when the hard-core techie people might see it as trivial. Remember that value is subjective. Helping resistant academics see the value and experience as well as able to reap the benefit of that value. Might be we only need to introduction just one tool which really offers a value that can make the reluctant to be converted.

Other people resist due to circumstances: e.g. maybe near retire and perceive don't need any changes, not that (s)he can't, but no motivation to do so considering circumstances. -- i don't know what to do with them, if altruistic reason to make students learn better doesn't work, professional reason that this is good for your personal development, egoistic reason if you do this now well you are helping yourself to do more with less effort down the track and still get paid the same also not work, punitive motive if not do this you get fired also not work, then some more options that i won't discuss here pop up in my mind but no guarantee they will work either.

but for some people, it is new don't know where to start; although instinctively they probably have done so; or sometimes some blended learning approach are very messy, giving the perception that the teacher lost control which is discomforting; or afraid that as if the machine will come and take over their jobs, etc.

From all that, the kind of support needed to be provided to academics can range from: skill through traditional staff development, encouragement recognition assurance etc. that can be done through consultative sessions with champions, advisors, and peers in community of practice.

This video resonate with lots of things in my experience, from the science project, I think there are some concrete lessons that me and my colleagues can agree on there; providing scaffold and making sure none of the kids drive to a brick wall. In recent internal discussion about flipped classroom, a colleague of mine, Tim, mentioned about reason of people flipping their class, is being social, the speaker in this presentation said "coming to school to social", although he did not mentioned about sending kids off to their home to do their reading, but he redefined the learning activity in his class to be more social, allowing interaction and discourses, at the same time also not all just social, but also allow self-exploration deep thinking, but they all seems to be learning, instead of just teaching/lecturing.

Hmm.. is teaching contra-productive? Do we as educators, in our endeavour to teach more, actually cause disservice to our students by making them less able to learn? Maybe if the mode of teaching is more of a one way, even if it’s equipped with lots of bells and whistle that actually enabled students to receive the information package we deliver to them, but they are not learning. Sounds like a half-bake thought, but curious to ponder further more down the track.