Finland is an important case study, in this respect. Digitization will alter the 'old industrial school system or the pedagogic assembly line' ; the role of the teacher will be that of an expert partner for learning. Project work will dominate the educational agenda; ringing the bell, hour after hour, to rotate the subject and the teacher will become history. The first 10 years of schooling will remain face-to-face; afterwards more autonomy will be granted, due to exponential knowledge automation. Pedagogics will become more scientific, in terms of professionalization.

The digital learning material can just partially replace the teacher.

Face-to-face training will never over in elementary and middle school.

@Senad Becirovic

I agree with you. But people said that " it is important to reach the knowledge". And the digital materials are very good in this area. So do schools lose importance?

The combination of both is preferable

@ Salih Uçak

I agree that the digital materials are very good in this area and extremely important and will be much more used in the future. However, always there will be need for face to face training because teaching does not imply just transmition of information or development cognitive skills etc. Teaching also imply development of social skills which can not be done properly by only using digital technology. That is why face to face teaching will never over in early grades.

Regards,

Senad

@ Peter Griepink

"Face-to-face interaction between professor and students is needed"

Thank you for your evaluation.

They will best complement one another.

Finland is an important case study, in this respect. Digitization will alter the 'old industrial school system or the pedagogic assembly line' ; the role of the teacher will be that of an expert partner for learning. Project work will dominate the educational agenda; ringing the bell, hour after hour, to rotate the subject and the teacher will become history. The first 10 years of schooling will remain face-to-face; afterwards more autonomy will be granted, due to exponential knowledge automation. Pedagogics will become more scientific, in terms of professionalization.

Mr. Stephen, ıt was a very valuable contribution. Thank you very much.

And So,

Can Ivan Ilyich's "Deschooling Society" be possible?

I do not think so. Face to face lessons are important!

Litart

I agree with Prof. Litart.

Technology greatly facilitates the interaction between the link of educational learning: teacher and student. Although we have technology, we will never stop having the need for face-to-face interaction, even if it is sometimes to strengthen learning. The direct relationship between teacher and student will never be eliminated, because it involves more than learning, it links the emotional, social and cultural side.

The answer to this question depends heavily on the nature of the human brain and what it will accept and accommodate doesn't it?

--It also depends on the types of research studies both short- and long-term that are conducted to evaluate "face-to-face" vs. "digital"

learning over time.

Dennis

Dennis Mazur

Hello,

What you say about the utility of digital education may be true because education has always been receptive of innovation and change. Indubitably, the advantages offered by digital education cannot be denied . However, one of the main goals of education is the transmission of moral legacy from one generation to another. Notably, teaching is regarded as a moral activity in which teachers have to contemplate on the ethical complexity of teaching and the moral impact it may have on the learners.The moral philosophy of education is a very important part of the modern curricula which necessitate the implementation of specific activities in schools whereby students learn how to develop moral values of the culture to which they belong. As such, the term values education has an important part of the curriculum. which can be divided into two kinds; namely, explicit and implicit.While the former is directly associated with the teachers, the latter is linked with the hidden aspects of the curriculum embedded in educational contexts and classroom practices. On this basis, I suppose we need to adopt a middle of the road approach blending and mixing together the merits of both face to face and digital systems of education. Consequently, blended learning can cater to explicit and implicit moral values of education reconciling tradition with innovation.

Best regards,

R. Biria

I believe in face to face learning. Even though digital learning is most popular nowadays, face to face learning brings more impact in knowledge sharing.

I don't think so, it can only enhance face-to-face learning.

@Francisco Sávio Gomes Pereira

".....because it involves more than learning, it links the emotional, social and cultural side"

Thnaks

@ Reza Biria

"Consequently, blended learning can cater to explicit and implicit moral values of education reconciling tradition with innovation."

I do not think so. Face to face lessons are important!

@Salih Ucak (your deschooling question? on Ivan Illich).

Illich mentioned 'learning webs' and made important technological forecasts on 'schooling', based on his cultural critique of the general tendency of human civilization. My educational point above was that we are leaving 'industrialized schooling', as the example of Finland shows, i.e. the schools of the future will be no more learning assembly lines or educational factories. The automated forces of production will also change the way we learn, i.e. informatization is an exponential process, but social innovations can only be made gradually, with small projects becoming eventually larger ones. It would be unwise to deschool society and to turn to 'free-market' education, etc. Whether hospitals, schools or banks; all necessary institutions need progressive reforms, in terms of humanistic and technical potential. To sum it up: it would be dangerous for a greater country, e.g. like Turkey, to choose the Illich pathway. However, I am humanistically with the approach of Ivan I.

@ Stephen I. Ternyik

"....the schools of the future will be no more learning assembly lines or educational factories".

In my opinion, the global influence of the society that established their school of the future will be absolute.

Schools play an important role in our growing years at the same time digital learning is very important in this modern era. The combination of

Face-to-face training and digital learning will be having synergistic effect i.e. (2+2 > 4)

@Salih Ucak

3 x Yes ! Value creation is a learning process; to educate for the accumulation of material things will be soon an episode of human history.

@ dibakar pal

Free-market education?

(see: attachment/M.Rothbard).

Maybe this could help you : http://www.rasmussen.edu/student-life/blogs/college-life/online-vs-traditional-education-answer-never-expected/

Thank you very much Mr. Bruno De Liévre

Well digital learning will only be complementary and inclusive in the learning process

Thanks Mr. Taiye

I am tempted to add another reaction to an obviously highly popular question.

My 5 cents contribution starts with the thesis that learning is about the totality of life, which is about subject matter and relationships.

Digital is fine for subject matter and disastrous for relationships. Enough evidence for this from very day social media observations.

You cannot reverse this like: live classrooms are fine for relationships but disastrous for subject matter.

We all know how teachers (through) relations can deepen the insights in subject matters.

My verdict:

Classroom vs Digital 2-0

If I understand the original question correctly, the first ten years of school would be face to face, then we introduce more digital aspects. For me, I take that to mean the global equivalent of high school begins the digital phase. For the time being the key learning years would still be face to face. The pre-adult to and through university would be more 'project work'. The majority of the comments to date say we stay with face to face. There is a key element we are missing here... I can not speak globally, but in the U.S.A. we seem to have lost our way with the funding of the public school system. If we don't come to our senses and put more tax dollars into being sure students are knowledgeable instead of saying something silly like 'no child left behind' then we are facing AT LEAST digital programs in high school and beyond, if not throughout the complete public school system. However, if I focus back on the original question... no 'computer', filled with project work and 'La Machina' type presenters can have the experience and research base that a professor can have. There are so many things that an individual professor or collaborator contributes to the learning and knowledge acquisition process of the undergraduate and graduate programs that are indispensable. Even the doctoral candidate needs guidance in their research. An individual taught strictly via project work and computer interface has insufficient social knowledge to go into the 'field' and deal with real human beings who will be under study. Although I agree that 'face to face' is the best way for the students, I fear that the 'systems' of education are eroding and whether we agree or not, the eventually of replacing experienced 'teachers' with digital interfaces in the name of 'progress' (and reducing costs) may overtake our world.

Confidence in self in developed only when you need to face some one...Eg... Presentation.....

@ Les Harris

"Although I agree that 'face to face' is the best way for the students, I fear that the 'systems' of education are eroding and whether we agree or not, the eventually of replacing experienced 'teachers' with digital interfaces in the name of 'progress' (and reducing costs) may overtake our world."

Thanks

I think blend of both digital and F2F would be ideal to fully develop the skills, knowledge, and attitudes for learning in the formative years of children and adolescents.

Best regards,

Debra

Thank you very much Mrs. Debra Sharon

As one might expect, e-learning is suited to flexible, distance learning. Because knowledge is no longer tethered to lecterns or a teacher’s desk tertiary and secondary education is seen prone to technological disruption just as encyclopedias, journals and magazines, movies, music, newspapers, and television, to name a few other information-centric industries, became from the early 2000s. (Certainly, brick-and-mortar institutions of higher learning are growingly challenged by commercial providers of lecture series; for-profit universities; nonprofit learning organizations, e.g., the Khan Academy; online services, e.g., iTunes U; and specialized training centers that issue instruction and credentials in sundry trades and professions— all of whom can easily scale delivery of online instruction.)

But, there is more: e-learning can also be used in conjunction with face-to-face teaching in blended learning mode, be that synchronous or asynchronous. Therefore, some think that the traditional model of instruction in universities—the main societal hub for higher education since the end of the 11th century—will soon be inverted: instead of attending lectures on campus and after that heading off to work on assignments students will first scrutinize online material and then gather in hybrid learning spaces to explore a subject in rich conversations (or laboratory exercises) with professors and fellow students.

Proponents of blended learning reckon that the Flipped Classroom model may even enhance critical thinking. (Paradoxically, since economic reasons determine much in higher education, traditional but exclusive face-to-face tuition may become the privilege of a few while demand for global standardization in some fields may lower the level in many cases. In reality, consolidation and diversification are not mutually exclusive.)

@Olivier Serrat

"... e-learning can also be used in conjunction with face-to-face teaching in blended learning mode, be that synchronous or asynchronous."

thanks for your contribution

Our goal as teachers fundamentally is to encourage independent thought, independent inquiry and ultimately independent learning. It has been argued that new means of learning will be the way to facilitate this in the future. I say resoundingly no. Good teachers inspire our young people to be lifelong learners, creating a culture of independent inquiry with their enthusiasm and passion. I know this because I see it every day. Good teachers have the skills to know exactly how to get the best out of each and every young person in their care: Technology can therefore facilitate the learning process but it cannot replace the role of the teacher. Technology can only assist in delivering better learning when it is used by a great teacher.

Thank you, Kiran.

Students need to configure the information. That's right, the teacher is there for it. Education technology is very advanced, but I argue that the teacher is indispensable like you.

Teachers impart students with life skills, valuable life lessons and inspire them to reach their potential. A teacher is so much more than a facilitator: they are also a guide and a mentor. Without a great teacher, technology merely becomes an automated tool and stops inspiring and engaging students. Ultimately, it isn’t about teachers being replaced by technology but how teachers can adapt to incorporate technology in their lessons. Technology can only assist in delivering better learning when it is used by a great teacher.

@Kiran Grover

"...A teacher is so much more than a facilitator..."

Thanks

Many thanks, salih, for sharing your question with us,

I agree with @Kiran Grover.

@ Abbas Biglar

Thank you so much

Yes, Digital learning might kill the F2F learning for some years but the future will have to converge to @Kiran Grover's idea. If this happens, the world is going to loose great minds, and there will be inadequate innovations for a wile. What a loss!