The concern I have is the idea that what happens in the next few months is not considered “real online learning” might discount some of the emergent approaches born of necessity. What’s more, I tend to associate the idea of extensive planning and real, serious online learning as mandate for big, costly edtech that is overly produced, and I am assuming given his post Downes was making the same connection.
In response, Lalonde clarifies his position, explaining that his concern is around people turning to technology to replicate bad practice:
At any rate, the issue here is what is happening within the system; how higher education is reacting, how institutions are responding. Is it “real” online learning? Well, some of it is. Some educators will take this opportunity to rethink how they do things and adapt their teaching to a new modality. But right now what I see is a lot of “let’s sit 50 people in a Zoom room to listen to a lecture”. That is NOT online learning.
Downes explains that this is still online learning, even if it is poor practice.
I don’t think it’s fair to say to people that this is not online learning. It *is* online learning. It might be poor online learning, but it may well be a necessary first step that people need to take. People are, as you say, doing what they know. They’re trying to do it online.
I am left wondering if ‘online learning’ risks becoming (or already is) a dead metaphor? Not sure what Doug Belshaw would think?