Dr. Curt Bonk's Lecture

I really enjoyed Dr. Bonk's lecture. The real-time lecture at a distance really kept me interested. In other ITEC courses I have had distant guest lecturers but this experience was by far the best. I really appreciate that I could see Dr. Bonk. I guess that a talking box or talking powerpoint just does not capture that visual element in my learning process. It also helped that Dr. Bonk was very familiar with the video streaming software/hardware that he was using. I had watch some of his video lectures prior to class and they were all similar to what we all saw in class(with the exception of the interaction with us). He was able to vary what was displayed to his audience to keep people both interested and to remind us that he was able to see/hear us. This really allowed me to feel like he was actively participating in the role of facilitator/lecturer. Though there were a few minor challenges with the audio this presentation was really a refreshing experience for me.

I really liked hearing Dr. Bonk's perspective on scholarship in academics. I had never thought of this concept but once introduced to me it seemed like a very important and relevant point. We have been reading and discussing how technology has changed and will dramatically change education in the students learn and are taught. However, academics are not mentioned in this shift even though they are students as well simply learning by pulling information from many sources to develop an idea that may be unique in their field. This peer-based learning seems to me to be very constructivist. So why would they not be moving towards a change in what is considered scholarship? Well, like Dr. Bonk said, I agree that the academic field has been conducted in a similar fashion for centuries and because of the intense time and mental commitment needed for success there is a sense of superiority in the field. Therefore, those scholars want to maintain their well defined structure for gaging their success (# of reputable published peer-reviewed articles) as opposed to opening the flood gates of scholarly work. I mean who would be hurt by making current research readily available/accessible to the masses? I only see that most will benefit and a few will have bruised egos.