Distance learning a losing tactic for advanced physics

Discussion in 'General Distance Learning Discussions' started by JoAnnP38, Sep 3, 2006.

Loading...
  1. JoAnnP38

    JoAnnP38 Member

    An article in PhysicsToday.org.

    Is this another instance of the limitations of DL with repect to labs and equipment or is it more narrow minded professors trying to protect the status quo?
     
  2. JLV

    JLV Active Member

    I think it is rubbish. In Spain there is a public university called UNED that has been conferring physics degrees for over three decades. Those degrees, if studied full time, are five years long so your typical student takes at least ten years to complete all requirements. All the labs are celebrated in Madrid in weekends (actually on selected Saturdays usually in May and June), and the university pays you for both transportation and hotels if you live outside the city (it is heavily subsidized by the government). Quite frankly I doubt big time those students are less prepared than their on campus counterparts. BTW, they also offer physics PhD's.......... just in case anyone is interested.....;)
     
  3. PhD2B

    PhD2B Dazed and Confused

  4. hockeyfan

    hockeyfan New Member

    Sounds to me like a narrow-minded professor trying to protect the status-quo.
     
  5. CalDog

    CalDog New Member

    The article is poorly argued, but the fundamental point is correct. You cannot teach science or engineering generally, or physics specifically, without supervised labs. That's why pure DL programs are not generally available in sciences and engineering at the undergraduate level. It's true that there are good graduate-level DL science and engineering programs, but these are for professionals who work in B&M settings where they have access to the necessary tools.
    That's fine, and there are equivalent US programs. For example, the University of North Dakota offers fully accredited engineering degrees, where you come to the UND campus during the summer for a few weeks of concentrated lab work. But if you have to travel somewhere for labs, then it is no longer a pure DL program.
    The MSU degree programs are specialized programs designed for professionals who work at labs with particle accelerators. As stated here:
    Again, the program is not pure DL, because it assumes that you have access to a B&M laboratory.
     
  6. Andy Borchers

    Andy Borchers New Member

    I took a look at these programs. They certainly appear innovative - but don't stand as a total response to the issue raised in this forum. Note that what MSU is offering on-line is graduate study in a narrow specialty of physics - beam physics. The on-line offering is especially designed for folks employed at national laboratories. In fact, they have key personnel located at national labs to support remote students.

    They aren't offering an undergraduate degree at all or a general graduate program in physics for just anyone interested.

    There are a number of limitations in teaching hard sciences (such as chemistry and physics) via DL, espeically at the undergraduate level. I believe these limitations extend to engineering (at least professional and not technical versions), artistic fields (such as architecture) and professional practice fields (such as law, medicine, psychology).

    DL holds a lot of promise for extending educational offerings - but lets get real. There are some things that can't be taught very well (or at all) by DL.

    The article referenced shows a genuine concern that I see in science and engineering faculty about DL. Is some of it resistence to change - perhaps. Is some of it genuine concern for educating the next generation of world class scientists - I suspect so.

    Regards - Andy

     
  7. PhD2B

    PhD2B Dazed and Confused

    Some programs are harder to translate into DL, but if a person is willing to work out the logistics (i.e. labs, advisor meetings, exams, etc.), then I don’t see any reason why more programs can’t be offered via DL even if it is not pure DL.
     
  8. JLV

    JLV Active Member

    I don't know if any of you have ever stepped in a European university classroom. The professor (who doesn't know your name and certainly doesn't want to know it) uses a microphone to address his lecture to 200 students. If it is the face to face interaction what makes the difference, then I personally don't see much benefit in that picture I just described. In fact a distance learning setting could be more beneficial. Students who decide to study physics are normally well above average and can follow complex math or physics concepts without getting lost. If a question arises, they can always contact the teacher. Quite franfly, I don't see any disadvantage to take hard science courses by distance learning. Of course, it is not for everybody, just for a very selected bunch.
     
  9. JoAnnP38

    JoAnnP38 Member

    I agree that there are challenges to teach disciplines that are dependent on lab-based courses, or for those areas which by their very nature require face-to-face interaction. However, in many cases these challenges could be met if the current DL technology were used to its fullest. That's not to say we can somehow facilitate distance learning for all types of lab-work as its obvious that hands-on experience with expensive equipment would be a prohibitive constraint. However, why don't more institutions offer DL offerings with limited residencies for labs? Why is the availability of professors seemingly less and the quality of interaction seemingly inferior whenever institutions consider the limitations of offering bachelors level engineering programs by DL? With so much attention being paid to the fact that the US will need twice as many in scientific and technical employees by 2015, why aren't more institutions implementing such options? Isn't the broader availability worth the extra cost?

    I believe that cost and resistance to change is the primary reason that more engineering programs at the undergraduate level are not available. In fact I would say the same thing about PhD programs! I do not agree that online communication is inferior to face-to-face to communication. It certainly has different strengths and weaknesses; however, and even for very technical topics, I believe if used effectively it is superior to face-to-face interaction.

    In the US not all courses are presented in large lecture halls. In fact these types of courses are largely seen as inferior to more intimate settings, so while its true that DL would be able to replace these types of courses, I believe we should set our goals a bit higher.

    I agree with this 100%. In fact with the looming shortage of engineers and scientists on the horizon, I think it is imperative that more institutions understand this.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 4, 2006
  10. Andy Borchers

    Andy Borchers New Member

    JoAnn - there is a crying need for scientific and technical grads - but K-12 education and student preferences work against it. To make it in a scientific or engienering field students need solid algebra and trig skills. What we get out of the K-12 level is very weak. We find it virtually impossible at the undergraduate level to remediate 18 year olds with weak algebra skills. Forget DL for these programs - students have to be well prepared in math and science to suceed in undergraduate science and engineering prorams. Students need intense contact and real-time interaction with faculty to learn problem solving skills, not discussion forums to shoot the breeze. I've taught DL for more than 15 years at a variety of institutions. It works for some subjects and programs - but I'm convinced that ost quantitiative courses are difficult, nearly impossible, via DL for typical undergraduate students.

    I disagree with cost and resistence to change being the key issues - IMHO the nature of the subjects fundamentally doesn't fit DL very well.

    As for DL being inferior - the point has been clearly shown in research. For many subjects there is no significant difference between DL and on-ground instruction - all other things being equal. But things are rarely equal - and most of the research done on DL versus on-ground hasn't been done in lab sciences at the undergraduate level.

    The other issue is student preference. During the last 4 years we've seen a 25% decrease in the number of students who indicate an interest in enginering when registering for the ACT test. When I talk with prospective students they are enamored with TV images of crime scene investigators, Donald Trump, lawyers and the like. Learning algebra skills so that they can make in engineering school is a very low priority for all too many students.

    Regards - Andy


     
  11. JLV

    JLV Active Member

    Raise engineers and scientists' salaries (proportionally to that so-called need) and pretty soon you will have as many as you want. As simple as that.
     
  12. JoAnnP38

    JoAnnP38 Member

    Its not quite that simple. Engineer salaries are reasonably high. For instance, the average starting salary of engineers is higher than nearly every other profession. However, due to the spector of outsourcing, parents are discouraging their children from pursuing the degree. The truth is that only a very small percentage of engineering jobs are outsourced in the US. However, perception is stronger than reality in this case.

    In the US, very few companies are mature enough with respect to project management to successfully use outsourcing. Those that are can see some amount of cost savings for certain types of oursourced projects. However, as a parent, when you look at the wages of the Chinese, Eastern Europeans or Indians you have to be worried about the competetion your children will face in the future. I suspect you could double the average salary of engineers and other technical professions and not see the kind of increased interest that one would otherwise expect.

    For me, I treat the job market the same way I treat investing -- buy on bad news. My experience is that people always overreact to bad news providing good opportunities for those who don't follow the crowd.
     
  13. JLV

    JLV Active Member

    JoAnn, if you start paying engineers what doctors or lawyers make, you will have people killing each other for a spot in engineering schools. I mean, is that need for these professional that crucial or not? What I suspect is that that widely advertised "need" for engineers and scientists is not real If it was, the market would have taken care of it already (by simply raising salaries), and there hasn't been any significant increase in salaries during the last years, which seems to confirm my suspicions. In America's case, where there are lots of universities, engineering schools and education providers, it is as simple as increasing the incentives to join the profession. That's why America has a clear advantage over the rest of the world.
     
  14. Tim D

    Tim D Member

    I agree, with exception of America having the clear advantage, I think it's advantage is shrinking and will continue for sometime. I also think it's nieve to discount the effect of the world economy. If the US can no longer attract enough home grown talent it may just look elsewhere. Markets are no longer as restricted as they once were and there is nothing stopping companies from looking elsewhere in the world.
     
  15. Matt R

    Matt R New Member

    This is probably more the case in the US for undergraduate courses. One thing to consider: Valdosta State U is fairly small; the smaller the university, the less the need for auditorium style classes, at least beyond the freshman level. So perhaps the letter writer really sees a lot of one-to-one type instructor to student interaction. VSU is also not a research institute in the state of Georgia; I wonder what the opinions of those at GA Tech and UGA would be on this.
     

Share This Page