Sitting with my friend who is working on a project related to flipped classrooms leads me to the subject of online learning versus face-to-face learning, and my own experiences learning and teaching in both settings.
A couple of years back my perspective on the two changed dramatically. I had always sensed that the two were almost entirely different, but hadn’t been able to articulate clearly why this was the case. And then I began to read a book about Playback Theatre and everything became much clearer to me.
The first Playback Theatre company was created by Jonathan Fox and Jo Salas in 1975. Playback theatre offers improvised theatrical experiences; where typical improvised theater in the US is comedy-centric, Playback Theatre focuses instead on shared experiences within a community, ones which validate the experiences of the members of the community and can have a therapeutic effect for both the individual and the group.
In Playback Theatre, individuals are invited to share stories from their lives with the group. The players then perform those stories, bringing them to life through performance. There is significant interplay between the teller and the troupe, and the experience is heightened through the ritual aspects of theater, which include ceremonial aspects and music.
In his book describing how Playback Theatre works, Jonathan Fox (2003) contrasts the qualities of oral narratives (as performed by epic poets, for example), and the qualities of written narratives. To my mind, this contrast sums up perfectly the difference between face-to-face learning experiences and online learning experiences.
| Qualities of Oral Culture | Qualities of Written Culture |
| Face-to-Face Experiences | Online Experiences |
| Repetitious / aggregative | Concise |
| Concrete and detailed | Abstract, objective, distant |
| Ritualistic – relying on repetition of formulaic phrases | Distaste for the dramatic |
| Oral experience | Silent and low-energy |
| Heard words “enter” the listener | Read words remain “empty” / external |
| Remembrance is essential for both teller and audience | Rereading is central |
| Improvised rather than scripted | Fully scripted – word choice important |
| Performed | Read |
| Communal & inclusive | Individual |
| Emphasis on relation as much as content | Emphasis on content |
| Attuned to the environment / responsive | Non-responsive |
Fox (2003), pp. 12-48
When students (myself included) complain about online classes, the qualities identified in this chart are precisely what they are responding to. At its best, online learning can be self-directed and energizing for learners exposed to new ideas. However, because face-to-face learning is iterative, improvisational, and responsive, it tends to feel better to students – it acknowledges them as individuals on a moment-to-moment level, and it is simple to ask and receive answers to questions, whether asking the instructor or turning to a classmate to ask a quick question about the syllabus or a particular homework assignment.
Lining up the contrasting aspects of oral culture and written culture / face-to-face learning and online learning in this way might be a useful starting point for thinking about how to improve online learning experiences. Because students typically appreciate the qualities of face-to-face classes, but also find online classes convenient, both because they can be accessed at times of the students’ choosing and because students have greater control over the pacing of activities (we have all sat through painful face-to-face learning experiences and had the thought that we wished we could have that time back), we might also think about whether face-to-face classes could gain something from this exploration as well.
At the same time, I think that this list is particularly useful at articulating aspects of face-to-face learning that most educators have sensed but few have been able to clearly articulate. It can help us make the case for face-to-face learning and to explain the value of such experiences to those who push for more and more online learning because of the lower costs associated with such learning.
References
Fox, J. (2003). Acts of service: Spontaneity, commitment, tradition in the nonscripted theatre. New Paltz, NY: Tusitala.