DL critic gets his comeuppance

There has been some discussion in this forum of the controversial views on distance learning expressed by Prof. David Noble.

Now for his comeuppance: an article this week in the Chronicle entitled Committee at Simon Fraser U. Votes Against Hiring Outspoken Critic of Distance Education discusses his failure to win a coveted academic appointment. It appears that the decision was based on concerns "about Mr. Noble's ability to get along with colleagues and to work with other departments."


Excuse me while I laugh my ass off...

Hah hah hah hah hah hah hah. HAH HAH HAH HAH HAH HAH HAH HAH. H A H H A H H A H H A H H A H H A H H A H !!!!!!

 

His criticism of DL appears to have worked against him. Wow, that's quite amazing.

I think that the powers that be realize that DL is an essential component of our academic future. Our dependence on computers in all arenas will grow and will not subside. The academic DL arena is to be a forerunner.

Look at how much we've become dependent on computers in the last 10 years! For example: Ten years ago, few people had email addresses. Today, if you tell someone that you don't have an email address, they look at you like you're homeless.

DL must be accepted because it is extremely compatible with our technological future. And, by the way, the future is breathing down our necks.

When scholars begin to face financial loss for rebuking DL, then you can bet your bottom dollar that DL will be accepted as a legitimate form of communication.

 

Good info and good article. Extremism in all its manifestations (race, religion, education, ideology, etc) should be exposed and shamed. Simon Fraser is leading the way. David Noble is definitely an extrimist. I will also laugh. hah ahah ahah haaaah hah.

 

I can't help but let out a chuckle too!

John

 

When you spend your career publicly criticizing those who sign your paychecks, as Dr. Noble has, it shouldn't come as a great shock when other employers take a pass on you.

And yes, I got a chuckle out of it also.

Bruce

 

Noble makes some excellent points in his article. Seems just an "intsy bit" elitist, however. Lotsa folks can't assemble in those beloved classrooms to engage in Socratic discussions. Some of them may have just come off duty on the Korean DMZ or finished a watch on a carrier or come in from doing chores on an isolated ranch or whatever. DL is one of the best things that ever happened for such folks. Of course there are drawbacks. So push on for improvement. Jeez.

 

HA HA from Canada

I am surprised Mr. Noble has not hear from a fleet of civil attorneys from many of Canada's Universities. The following Canadian universities offer distance education courses.

1) Laurentian U (Sudbury, Ontario)
2) Athabasca U (Athabasca, Alberta)
3) Memorial U of Newfoundland (St. Johns, Newfoundland)
4) Simon Frasier U (British Columbia)
5) University of Waterloo (Waterloo, Ontario)
6) Wilfred Laurier University (Waterloo, Ontario)
7) Royal Military College of Canada (Kingston, Ontario)
8) Queens University (Kingston, Ontario) (Online MBA)
9) Many...Many...Others!!!

MR. NOBLE IS CALLING THESE SCHOOLS "DIGITAL DIPLOMA MILLS?"

They are some of Canada's most respected institutions of higher learning.

 

Article in Chronicle: Simon Fraser U. Committee Rejects Hiring Complaint From Bypassed Technology Critic.

Snippet:

• A committee at Simon Fraser University has rejected a complaint by David Noble, an outspoken critic of distance education, who says he was turned down for a prestigious appointment because of his distaste for mixing technology and teaching. ...

 

Perhaps is distinguished Canadian academic accept our offer of tenure-track position of Buzkashi Technical Institute (Kabul Campus). Is for head (I make funny in Afghan language) of Faculty of Goat Beheading. Strictly hands-on, very 5th Century A.H. Surprising amount of reasonably fresh meat in compensation package. No annoying high-tech crap: is guaranteed.

Please remember: Buzkashi--it's not just a sport, it's a science!

Use carrier pigeon to apply (armored kind better--trust me.)

 

SFU chided in declining to hire critical prof

 

Don't you first get the job and then whine about academic freedom?

 

Rejected professor sues Simon Fraser

 

Beside the DL issue here, I find the last mentioned article about the lawsuit, in its discussion regarding academic freedom, interesting (actually sickening). Can SFU not pass over the top recomendation for the 2nd if they feel the latter would better fit in to their university approach? Where is this heading?

 

Well, you've exposed yourself in your extreme viewpoint but are you feeling shame for that?

 

I hold no brief for Professor David Noble. In times past I have strongly criticised his views on distance learning. But, while the reaction of colleagues here is understandable and in a sense predictable, given the unrestrained venom with which Prof Noble has attacked the motives of those who support distance learning as a legitimate form of delivery of educational opportunities to those excluded by circumstances (not ability) from on-campus attendance at reputable universities, I am, however, uneasy about the unrestrained joy with which his failure to be appointed is received.

Hailing the hounding out of opponents of your ideas is dangerous territory for academics. If Prof. Noble has broken the laws of libel in some of the things he has put his name to, or if he ever uses physical violence or encourages others to do so against those he disagrees with, then justice is best served by due process (there is no evidence that he has done the latter, though there appears to be evidence that he has done the former).

Using administrative means to thwart his application for a senior post, for which he may be qualified, is not something I can cheer about. Those who think it is and who wish to jeer on the sidelines may do so (free expression) but I cannot join in and will not.

Prof. Noble is absolutely wrong in his diatribes against distance learning. I will not dignify him by accusing him of the likes of things he accuses us of. Best to defeat his views by arguments, not sanctions.

 

Prof. Kennedy

I miss your point.

Prof. Noble is free to say whatever he wants. SFU, in my opinion is free to reject hiring him for very similar reasons.

The same point involving the Dixie Chicks is in play here. Sure they had the right to criticise president Bush. They failed to understand that that same freedom of speech, that they obviously hold dearly, also applies to their critics.

I would hate to think what situations could arise where a potential employer is forced to ignore the mouth that comes with the person.

 

Dr. Noble is an intelligent man who makes some very cogent arguments in his books and articles. He is definately the favorite source for anti-DL unions and other foes. Unfortunately, Noble, like other DL critics, suffers from fundamental flaws in his arguments.

To assume that the traditional socratic classroom is the only environment where learning can occur is silly and not supported by the research. Noble is concerned that technology will change the role and status of the professorate. Unfortunately, Noble's ideas belong in a bygone era.

Gone are the days where the professor is the exclusive storehouse of knowledge (aside from the textbook). Technology now gives students access to up-to-the minute information--usually from the same sources upon which we faculty draw.

80 years of research into learning from media (media comparison studies) show that, by and large, there is no significant difference in learner achievement when instruction is delivered in a live classroom or via mediated instruction (audio, video, computer, etc.). Critics may point out that many of these studies have not used flawless research methods; however they cannot point to any body of research than shows that students learn worse from DL. Until they create their "perfect" studies with "flawless" methodological controls (which are nearly impossible to do in authentic enviroments like classrooms), their arguments, like Noble's, boil down to simply opinion.

If anyone can show me any consistent research detailing the inferiority of distance learning*, I would be HIGHLY interested.

Tony Pina
Faculty, Cal State U. San Bernardino

* There are studies that show that many DL students would rather be in a live class, however their circumstances make DL study necessary. Yet even these students perform just as well as their non-DL peers.

 

Dennis: "I would hate to think what situations could arise where a potential employer is forced to ignore the mouth that comes with the person."

Potential employers should, quite rightly, ignore the skin colour, race, religion, sex, life-style, origins, politics, and other attributes that might come with a person and, in intellectual matters like recruiting faculty for a reputable university, they should also ignore 'the mouth' (by which I assume you mean the ideas and expressions of those ideas where they relate to the discipline or, in this case, the pedagogy of a university).

I am not expresing sympathy or agreement with anything Prof. Noble has said about DL, nor am I saying that he should be appointed to any particular post. That is a matter for the judgement of the assessment process of all the candidates.

My point is that a refusal of a university to appoint one of our critics is not something that should cause meriment and jeering from within our ranks when there is reasonable grounds to suppose that it was by 'administrative' means. Down that road we march in company with the enemies of freedom.

The Appointment Committee made its recommendation and a higher authority exercised its right to overturn the devolved committee's decision. Straight forward administrative means?
Yes.

But, SFU will have to show precedence for their actions to avoid the implication that they are acting without prejudice to
deny a post to someone qualified for the job. Members of this board, presently cheering the outcome, might wish to reflect on how they would react if a distinguished supporter of DL was refused a post on the same grounds that denied the post to Prof. Noble.

 

Well DL is like so many other things. People resist change and they often tag it as bad. Anything different is bad, right? Anything new must be bad. There are a great many people who are fearful of change and they feel like you should just stick with what works. For example, my grandmother has always washed her dishes by hand. It works so why mess with the system, right? She has yet to grasp the idea of a dishwasher yet by most modern standards a dishwasher is a necessity. The same with a washing machine. She still stands over the tub and handwashes her clothes because that is what she was raised doing so why change. It is amazing how the internet has grown in the last 8 years. It wasn't that long ago that only a few people even had email. I can still remember trying to get my friends and family online and they were not sure what "online" even meant. Distance learning is here to stay and to be honest is rapidly taking over the traditional format of attending college. It is different and as time goes on schools will learn what works and what doesn't work and will perfect their distance learning formats. However it is pointless to think about DL as if it is some passing fancy. I'm sure many people laughed at the concept of the phone as well. Imagine having some device in your house that you pick up and it carries someone's voice to your ear. Preposterous!!!!!! How can it be??? Well my father is a college prof of many years and he loves to snort at the idea of my getting a degree online. To him it is all poppycock too. He is getting ready to retire though because he can't stand the idea of having to teach a class online or even build a webpage for the class. All this "new" stuff just irritates him and he's having to get out because the changes are just too much for him. This is the way all the people that resist change will go. You can't stop the future from happening.

 

As I understand it, Noble was passed over because of his demonstrated inability to play well with others. What does academic freedom have to do with being abrasive and uncooperative?

Seems to me that this is a reason for NOT hiring somebody which transcends all industries and sectors. But I'm not an academic.