I want to call attention to a very thoughtful comment on an earlier posting.
Isaac points out that we’ve ignored a rather critical constituency in our discussion of University 2.0: namely, the students:
I think a campaign with the ambition of producing a more interactive learning atmosphere, especially one led by students, would be so positive in the eyes of every observer, it would be impossible for the administration to refuse to actively pursue such changes. Can you imagine the bad press a school would get for saying “No we won’t allow the students to learn as much as they want to” ?
… A student bloc (call it a student union, perhaps) that is actively engaged in making substantive changes in the pedagogy gives current students a stake in their education and also provides an additional incentive for prospective students who are interested in an active learning process to apply to this particular school.
In sum, I think that an important first step is convincing students with the time, drive, and resources to engage actively in the conversation you discuss in this entry. Additionally, I think that if and when faculty observe this active interest amongst their students, they too will be more interested in joining the conversation and facilitating the necessary changes.
The stars must have aligned for a few of us following this conversation on University 2.0.
Earlier this week, a students inspired by the changes of an early adopting faculty provided the impetus for a long time faculty member to look beyond the walls of his garden.
The student suggested that the inclass discussions would become better if an online discussion board was used to extend the conversation beyond the time and walls of the class. So the professor jumped in head first and yesterday, we created a discussion board and talked about ways to keep the students engaged.
Then does the question become, How can we inspire students to take the risk and ask their professors to give them more?