IMO, the list isn't very helpful. Some of these points aren't true. For example: #2--Just because the technology is available does not mean that the technology is used. My experience has been that the group interaction on discussion boards is often forced, and I have had to work in groups only on an occasional basis. The author is making broad generalizations based on limited information. #5--The point may be true, but the example is poor. MIT's Opencourseware is not equivalent to a credit-bearing MIT class in residence. It's just a repository for classroom materials. #10--She's missing the point. Yes, you can do activities in the community. What you miss as an online student are the on-campus activities. #21--Knowledge is not "free" with respect to library resources, and there are serious differences in available online resources from institution to institution. Just because you have an internet connection doesn't mean you get to access every resource. #26--She is making a very broad generalization. Online courses are not always cheaper (see the University of Phoenix!). Online courses have the potential for some cost-savings, but even exclusively online schools need support staff. Cost cannot be generalized because it is institution-specific, and each institution has a number of variables factoring into the cost equation. #30---Will it really become "the WAY" of education? I highly doubt it. It is certainly a viable method of delivery, but the author has not provided sufficient evidence to indicate that it will displace face-to-face instruction. There are other points to be made, but in general this list is just another collection of unsubstantiated assertions mixed with a few facts.
In any generalized approach to any topic is always plagued with exceptions and halftruths. There should be caveats to everything. I see that the internet is the next revolution in learning. The first was the printing press that make books cheaper and more available. The printing press revolutionized learning because of this. The university was no longer a collection of letters between academics, often in distant cities so progress in research was very slow. Knowledge become more available to the masses by use of the printing press. Electronic learning has build on that foundation. The question is now what is a university? It is a place ? Is it the learning? Does learning and the place have to be correlated to be a university? I believe that it is constructed by the delivery of learning and research. The electronic approach has added a university without dimensions. It exists in ether, in all places, and yet none. The class exists on the train coming home from work, the kitchen, or the office. The human interaction can be undertaken by videoconferencing. The lecturer now feeds into the student base who may be elsewhere. I understand in my country the University of Central Queensland does that with the lecturer being in one place and the student in a learning centre in another place. This is done to deal with the distances here. The government run School of the Air, for example, has been operating here for decades for isolated children. The School of the Air and remote learning - australia.gov.au Research projects now are global with research teams being spread all over the planet yet communicating via email and videoconferencing. Is the methodology of dissemination of knowledge between human beings is dependent on the current cultural uses of technology? I think so. Maybe the article should have dealt with the more fundamental question as what a college or university actually is.
