In the sciences, and in the fine/performing arts, though-- this is NOT the case. There, the technology very definitely is NOT capable (and may never be) of duplicating the in-person interactive learning environment.
Hmmm... I'll also say, as a parent to a child that has to use the technology daily, that data-usage capping by ISP's on so-called "super-users" is pretty much making truly interactive learning via distance models a non-starter for the very groups that really could take advantage of it. Fine for people in urban areas where free high-speed WiFi and unlimited data are a reality... not so fine for people in rural areas who are restricted to one of two or three satellite providers. My daughter CANNOT use video on her computer-- even for leisure-- because of the risk of exceeding our cap, and ours is generous. She uses between 40-75 GB monthly doing pretty much only what her schooling requires-- with audio, conferencing, and multimedia clips.
That's why my skepticism. I have one of those kids who really could use the "equivalent" distance model very effectively. She needs that Socratic bit, though-- and it isn't there, except in VERY limited amounts. Providing it is not simple, nor is it affordable. Currently, I mean.
I also can't begin to express how difficult it is to use video to instruct a student in proper LAB technique-- particularly in an interactive sense. There is simply sensory information which NEEDS to be shared.
I'm definitely not suggesting that distance modules/coursework shouldn't be available. Only that they are not-- for most learners, and for some subjects-- equivalent to in-person learning experiences. Even when you compare the BEST of the online learning experiences... to the BEST of in-person ones, instead of comparing the best of them to mediocre/average in-person experiences (which is what I see most people doing, anecdotally)...
it's clear that there are some things which are lacking. I don't think that the two things are interchangeable. That's all. I definitely don't think that there are very many instances in which online is "better" than an in-person option, where one exists. But there are some things for which that is true, of course; for the mastery of rote information or things which are more training than not, I can see how it is a good thing. It streamlines things well, there.
College/Uni means something inherently different to me, though. Maybe this is a good idea for "prep" for in-person sessions-- which is what the research seems to best support. That is, that a hybrid model or flipped classroom which uses technology is a good way to engage students and improve learning outcomes. I don't really see much good evidence that pre-recorded/canned online instruction is a good substitute for meaningful interactive learning with other people, though. As an addendum, sure.
But I'd argue that learning art criticism or rhetoric from YouTube videos, no matter how high their production value, is simply not the same quality of learning experience as that experienced in a classroom with an instructor/facilitator who is a master and other students at similar learning levels as one's self. Can the technology replicate that? Yes, but with caveats, as noted above. The problem is that currently those particular caveats limit access to the groups that could most use the technology in beneficial ways. KWIM?
