For more than a year, WebYeshiva has been conducting live, interactive Torah classes. Partnering with The Jewish Agency and The Lookstein Center, we use two different systems (Centra & WebEx) to deliver audio-video presentations accompanied by integrated text communication and slide presentations using standard Internet connections and requiring no expensive, specialized equipment. The program began with a pilot of weekly classes to one school, and has expanded to a class delivered thrice weekly to one school and a series of themed broadcasts sent to as many as 15 schools simultaneously. There is much that we have learned from our experience with the medium, both regarding its advantages and disadvantages, as well as how to maximize benefit from its unique features and try to overcome its inherent drawbacks.

First, the drawbacks. As an educator with twenty years of classroom experience, it is my firm belief that much of education, especially religious education, is about personal modeling and forging relationships with students. Simulations and virtual interaction can never and should never replace the human contact so critical in student development, and while there may be ways to approximate direct contact via technology, it is my opinion that it will always remain approximate and that the human element need be there.

In the specific context of a virtual class, this has particular and immediate consequences. Good teachers constantly engage in reflection and self-evaluation, even as they conduct the class. They will look to see whose head is down and who is engaged, and will seek eye contact to “read” the students. The expressions on the students’ faces reveal volumes to the teacher – understanding, confusion, excitement, concern, interest, boredom, etc. The lack of visual clues creates a significant challenge for the teacher who needs to adjust the presentation to the needs of the class. Indeed, many who have experimented or considered using the medium, veteran and novice teachers alike, have expressed frustration with the inability to establish eye contact with their students, and feel that they cannot teach without it.

The other half of that, of course, is the lack of visual cues generated by the teacher for the students. Students, like all humans, are sensitive to body and facial language. The time lag inherent in current technologies create a dissociation between the audio and the visual, and the broadcast quality often does not allow for nuances of facial expressions. A raised eyebrow or a smile often lose their effectiveness when unclear, or when there is a delay. The teacher also cannot direct those expressions, whether of approval or disapproval, at any particular student.

Much effort in distance learning is directed at the attempt to re-create a traditional classroom experience, with the difference being that the teacher is not physically present. The model used, by and large, is that of the frontal classroom presentation, with the teacher as the central focus. Creative classroom formats, paired learning (hevruta), breakout groups, etc. are much more difficult, if not impossible to implement. Even taking a few moments for individual student work during a class poses a problem, since silence during a broadcast can be disconcerting and seriously problematic. Finally, one cannot ignore issues of discipline. The thrice weekly class we offer is to a select group of highly motivated and mature students. There is no teacher physically present in the room, and this model can only work with special groups of students. Our public broadcasts, on the other hand, do have faculty present, which certainly aids with the discipline issue, yet it cannot be expected that a teacher communicating via teleconferencing of any sort would be able to hold the discipline of the average class without the assistance of an onsite staff member.

With the disadvantages of the medium as significant as these, one must question why we still pursue this vehicle. The simple answer is that, despite the drawbacks, it works. Distance learning has enabled students to benefit form teachers who are geographically inaccessible, and is an effective tool for communicating information. It provides a bridge to personalities and knowledge that would otherwise be out of range. Beyond that, there are some distinct advantages to the technology, some of which can probably be adapted to the more traditional classroom.

Each class is accompanied by a series of slides, in addition to having an electronic whiteboard. During the course of the class the teacher can write on or modify the slides, and can grant that ability to students as well – essentially the equivalent of inviting a student to the front of the room, but without the accompanying interruption. Erasing one student’s comments to allow for another can be done instantaneously, and the student emendations can be saved for comparison and future reference. There is a considerable sense of empowerment given to the students.

The visual component is one area in which the virtual classroom is profoundly different from the traditional one. In the traditional classroom, the teacher’s presence is paramount. As noted earlier, the physical presence, eye contact, facial expressions and body language play a critical role in the traditional classroom. These elements are almost completely absent in the virtual classroom. So much so, that a poll of students indicated that seeing the teacher in a video window was “very important” to fewer than 20% of the students and “somewhat important” to fewer than 40%. Much more significant were the slides and the activity (highlighting, underlining, annotating, etc.) taking place on them, especially when the students were active in that process.

Students have two means of communication with the teacher. They can electronically “raise their hand” and be granted the right to speak, or they can freely use an integrated text chat facility. One feature of the electronic hand-raising is that it automatically registers the order in which the hands were raised, helping the teacher avoid some of the conflicts which sometimes arise. Despite the accessibility of this feature, experience has shown that students overwhelmingly prefer using the text chat to speaking via microphone. When questioned as to why, they indicated that it gave them free access to the teacher without having to wait.

The prolific use of the text chat has yielded a number of interesting side benefits. In a traditional classroom, private conversations between students can be disturbing, and in most classes they are not tolerated. The nature of the text chat, however, allows for students to continue their discussions on a variety of topics without disturbing the rest of the class. Apparently, given that the current generation of students is used to multitasking, especially on the computer, they generally do not find the text chat significantly disruptive, even while listening to a teacher. (Similar sessions done with adults has yielded very different results, with adults being very hesitant to engage in text chat.) As a result, there may be a debate raging between a number of students while the rest of the class continues. Of course, the teacher is aware of the text chat as well, and can ask the students to desist if necessary.

A second benefit is the allowance of multiple contributions to the discussions. In the traditional classroom only one student can speak at a time. Using text chat in an electronic classroom, many students can contribute their comments simultaneously. This creates a unique dynamic, in which after a brief pause the screen comes alive with numerous comments. Of course, reading comments takes less time than listening to them, and the nature of the chat forces students to be concise in their formulation. The old problem of long-winded students is reduced considerably. At any point, of course, the teacher can ask a student to take the microphone and clarify their remarks.

A third advantage of the text chat is its accessibility to all students. In many classrooms, there are students who are more aggressive in participating and tend to dominate. They make their presence known to the teacher and will insist on being called on, often at the expense of the quieter, less aggressive students. Text chat has allowed the quieter students to participate at the same level as the more aggressive ones. In a typical on-line lesson, more than 75% of the students, including those who would otherwise not do so, actively participate.

Since each on-line class, along with the accompanying visuals, is recorded, with free access by the students, they can review entire lessons or portions of them at will. Students who were ill were able to view lessons and make them up at their convenience. Because the classroom is virtual, there were a number of occasions upon which students who were ill logged in from home and attended class from there. Similarly, when the teacher needed to travel to a conference he was able to log on from a remote location and broadcast from there.

Interactive distance learning, especially in Jewish studies, is still in its infancy. It is likely that as bandwidth and communication technologies improve, some of the drawbacks of the medium will be lessened, although the human element of education cannot be replaced. The nature of the medium allows for new kinds of interactions, which may eventually find their way into traditional classrooms as well. Our experience has demonstrated that, even at this early stage, interactive distance learning can be effective.