3.1 Challenges to maintaining the human touch in educational  (Page 3/5)

• How do we provide blended programs that balance online/virtual learning with some component of face-to-face? [Allen&Seaman (2010) noted that a greater portion of public institutions reported an increased demand for both face-to-face and online courses than did for profit institutions.]
• Do we exclude all face-to-face encounters for student convenience? [By the way, according to the research company Eduventures, over l/3 of online students live within 50 miles of their institution, and almost 2/3 live in the geographical region of the university (Aoun, 2011, p. 3)].
• How do we accommodate the student who needs personalization and differentiation in a fully online environment?
• How do we build a climate where students network and form lasting relationships in the virtual venue?
• What is the appropriate class size when a course is fully online? [Burruss, Billings, Brownrigg, Skiba,&Connors (2009) found that successful experiences in these classes are impacted by class size and this varies depending on the level of the student whether undergraduate or graduate. They also suggested that class size influences the quality of faculty and peer interactions, connectedness and social presence].

Jackson (1968) wrote “The greatest intellectual challenge of our time is not how to design machines that behave more like humans, but rather, how to protect humans from being treated more like machines” (p. 66). We must protect humans from being treated like machines. Thus, we must control technology, rather than let it control us or we diminish the human touch.

Establishing covenant communities

Whether teaching and learning are conducted in face-to-face, blended or fully online delivery models, we must consider the human aspect of education. I cannot say this is more important today than in prior years, but it seems that with the world’s complexities and changing demographics putting a human face to the challenges we face is especially important. One way to do this is to facilitate the development of covenant communities that encourage rich cultural conversations with educational leaders. Sergiovanni (1996) addressed the covenant idea as a way to create a community of learners that

• Respects and values diversity,
• Develops shared values and beliefs,
• Serves the common good by endeavoring to promote unity, and
• Supports people helping one another achieve common purposes,

Having these cultural conversations is a critical component of preparing them for leading in our increasingly diverse schools of today (Okun, 2010).

Ken Young, Carol Mullen, and I have been investigating this challenge of creating covenant communities where difficult cultural conversations can take place with diverse groups of doctoral students in a face-to-face program (Young, Mullen,&Harris, 2011). The doctoral students who participated in our study indicated the importance of participating in difficult conversations because this helps them see other points of view, provides proactive practice, challenges their current thinking, and provides opportunities to learn. Students emphasized they participated because it was a safe, trusting environment – they felt the presence of a covenant community. As professors, we know that this safe, trusting covenant environment did not happen by accident. Instead, professors were purposeful and intentional in building this covenant climate where potentially difficult cultural issues could be discussed in a safe, trusting setting.