distinguishing between ducks

Discussion in 'Accreditation Discussions (RA, DETC, state approva' started by rocco5, Aug 12, 2004.

Loading...
  1. Kirkland

    Kirkland Member

    Is there a point to all this, that relates to the opening purpose of the thread?
     
  2. DaveHayden

    DaveHayden New Member

    Re: final remarks

    In other words, Harvard, Columbia, Stanford, University of Chicago are all wrong for employing DL and only you are correct Dr. Lysias? :)
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 18, 2004
  3. Gus Sainz

    Gus Sainz New Member

    No problem, but I prefer to be called Gus.

    I don’t mind if these are your final words on the matter, Mrs. Evans, but I do mind if the implication is that you are entitled to the last word on the subject.

    I am not certain, but I’ll take a stab at your question. I believe that someone “thinks” (and espouses on a forum dedicated to distance learning), “that live, face-to-face education is essentially better as ‘education’ than any form of distance learning because he or she has a penchant for playing the role of agent provocateur. Am I right? ;)

    This is not good enough, not because we clearly don’t live in antiquity, but because, as previously pointed out, it is an “appeal to authority” fallacy. Why don’t you mention Abraham Lincoln?

    They did it they way they did because those were the tools and resources at their disposal. I don’t believe that you can cite what either individual had to say about distance education, “information transfer (cyber model)” or “the mastery of a body of knowledge (test-out model).” If you discount distance education, you also discount the correspondence model. Do you also disparage or ignore everything in the Bible that is based on letters (correspondence)?

    You conveniently ignore the fact that distance education includes, and can even surpass, face-to-face education in all of these areas.

    So are you now regressing even further and espousing that oral traditions are superior? Who knew that so many years ago such a nefarious plot would be hatched in la grotte de Lascaux?

    It doesn’t; education does not occur by osmosis.

    You ignore the fact that many a teacher can’t.

    I’m not sure what you mean. Can social, ethical, religious, value issues be solved by simply standing next to a teacher? Will any teacher do and will merely being in their presence suffice, or must the student actually participate in those activities for which the Ancient Greeks and the priesthood (the two models you have proffered as being superior to all others) are notorious?

    If Medicine were learned by imitation, bloodletting would still be the treatment of choice. Moreover, the education a medical doctor receives prior to earning the degree pales in comparison to how much education takes place (primarily through books and periodicals) after earning the degree. Think of it. Would you trust a doctor, if upon entering his office, not a single book or periodical were in evidence? What if he or she, in response to your query, told you, “I graduated twenty years ago from medical school and I don’t think things have changed all that much since then?”

    Rather than being the “essence” of education perhaps this is a better description of what constitutes an “educated” individual. I believe you are confusing the process with the outcome.

    However, you have yet to provide any persuasive evidence of this. If, however, in the phrase above, you were to substitute “to me” with “for me, “ the statement would be irrefutable. The main problem I have with your opinion is that, as previously mentioned, there is no best way to learn that applies to everyone. You make no allowances for age, experience, lifestyle, obligations, time constraints, budget, personality types, or whether an individual is visually, auditory or kinesthetically oriented (among many other factors).

    When asked about specific degree programs, one of my main areas of focus deals with the teaching methodology and if it is a good fit with the student’s preferred learning style. Some prefer cohorts and a lock-stepped program, others prefer independent study and not having a rigid schedule for the turning in of assignments, and others prefer correspondence or videotapes to online courses. Fortunately, distance education offers many different methodologies, and students can even make fine distinctions between similar online technologies such as eCollege, WebCT and Blackboard.

    Moreover, Mrs. Evans, traditional schools seem to disagree with your opinion, as they are embracing these technologies in ever increasing numbers.

    I can only hope that somewhere in that rich qualitative experience, “frathouse Joe” learned to spell the word “primitive.” ;)

    Mrs. Evans, if you do a search of the archives of this forum, you will find that many members of DegreeInfo (myself included) would not recommend distance learning to a young individual just out of High School. If you look at the statistics concerning successful distance education students, you will see that they tend to be older, with years of employment experience. These individuals, in many cases, would be somewhat out of place in the idyllic scenario you envision and might possibly even render it impossible (this from personal experience).

    According to your argument, distance education would provide the superior “learning” opportunity, as it allows for the most private (one-on-one) experience. The problem with the “social community” model of learning, is that teachers find themselves teaching to accommodate the lowest common denominator, and I can’t think of a greater problem facing our schools (at all levels) today.

    Once again, I prefer to be called Gus.

    Which one? Could you please provide a link?
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 18, 2004
  4. Kirkland

    Kirkland Member

    Mrs Evans prefers the Jesus/Socrates/Aristotle/Plato approach for modern education. No technology, just brains, eyeballs, and ears...the retrograde approach. OK, so what? Good luck in finding that. Maybe some cult somewhere. Sounds like psychophilosobabble and scatterings of logic.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 18, 2004
  5. Jack Tracey

    Jack Tracey New Member

    Re: final remarks

    I believe that both of the persons you've referenced were interested in reaching as many other people as possible. Why did they teach in the way they did? You've missed the most obvious answer... THEY HAD NO CHOICE!
    Jack
     
  6. Gus Sainz

    Gus Sainz New Member

    Personally, I had hoped that, by now, Dr. Richard Evans, would have respectfully petitioned the administrators of this forum to reinstate his posting privileges. They have been very accommodating to these kinds of requests in the past, and I, for one, would support his reinstatement (subject, of course, to adherence to the TOS of this forum).

    I mean no disrespect to Mrs. Evans, but she voices many of the same opinions as her husband, and I am intrigued whether, after lamenting for so long not being able to directly engage the members of this forum in discussion, Dr. Evans is capable of presenting a more convincing argument.
     
  7. rocco5

    rocco5 member

    one flesh

    You seem very sure that Mrs. Evans is Mr. Evans--are you always so sure of your views?

    St. John's College Annapolis/Santa Fe
    http://www.sjca.edu/asp/home.aspx
     
  8. Jack Tracey

    Jack Tracey New Member

    In my own opinion, this is a case where the difference between being correct and incorrect has become generally irrelevant.
    Jack
     
  9. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    Re: one flesh

    I read and re-read Gus' post. I don't come to the same conclusion at all.

    Of course, I do believe "rocco5" is Dr. Evans. But Gus didn't say that.
     
  10. Gus Sainz

    Gus Sainz New Member

    Re: one flesh

    No, I am not always so sure of all of my views; that is why I frequently don't express many of them. I am, however, smart enough to be extremely certain of the views I do choose to publicly express. However, I don't see what this has to do with anything I have said. Although I could point out several statistically improbable orthographic idiosyncrasies shared between Mrs. Evans and Dr. Evans that that would lead any logical individual to deduce that they are the same individual, I have not averred as such on this forum. Can you point to a single post where I have asserted that Mrs. Evans and Dr. Richard Evans are one and the same?

    So, for $30,570 a year, you end up with a generic Bachelor of Arts degree? Since you hold this up as an example of a superior education, could you please provide examples of how and why this is so? If the education provided is distinctly superior, then this should be readily apparent in the outcomes. If not, then it’s just another ritzy and expensive school whose primary purpose is to allow the student's parents to impress their friends at the country club. There are a certain degrees that tell the world you don’t have to (or don’t care if you) work for a living. This just might be one of them.

    Don’t get me wrong; I happen to like the methodology. It’s just that I’d like to see the evidence that, as you claim, it is superior to all others.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 23, 2004
  11. rocco5

    rocco5 member

    superior education resides in values ?

    I don't think that we really disagree all that much: I accept DL as a good methodology for learning in many cases. Along with you, I think that ALL methodologies should be brought into play for learning accross the board as appropriate to a given situation. I do hold, however, that a live experience is generally suprerior (more basic, primal and humanly authentic) than a virtual one for many human experiences.

    My contention here is that the best ( most natural and authentic)overall education (not a given class or training program, but the total package), particularly at an undergrad level, is in a live setting since I believe that education is a much broader attainment than simply the mastery of a body of technical knowledge. I place a high value on the personal, lived experience in a social setting: going to the Louvre or Vatican Museums in person, standing by the Parthenon, not only seeing on TV, real sex, not just virtual sex, live performance of music, not just recordings. Should we reject CD'S or TV's--of course not, nor should we confuse seeing a picture the Mona Lisa in a book with seeing it in person. Is this an elitist value--I think so.

    Why is standing in front of Michaelangelo's David superior to seeing a replica or a picture ? Because the experience is totlally authentic--a unique object in contact with a unique person. So is an Art History degree which includes autopsical viewing of art treasures superior to one gained only viewing slides and books--absolutely. Is a education gained by personal interaction with fellow students and profs better than one gained completely by remote means--I think so. Social isolation is not the natural state of humans, but personal contact and interaction is the authentic state of human existence. Education is meant to better one's interactional qualities, not just trasfer information into the brain.

    What are the measurable results of the St. John's type education over against any other type? I am not sure such results are measurable. The results will be seen in values and attitudes, cirtical viewpoints and beliefs. What is the measurable result of having walked into Notre Dame in Paris as opposed to having seen it in numerous films. Can that distinction be measured ? Or on the more practical side, what is the difference between having witnessed surgery in a operating room as opposeed to having seen it only on TV ?
    :)
     
  12. Gus Sainz

    Gus Sainz New Member

    Re: superior education resides in values ?

    You seem to be modifying your position somewhat; it is good that you are now using terms such as “many” instead of “all.” However, first, you present no evidence for the contention that superiority is a result of an experience being “more basic, primal and humanly authentic.” Second, you do not explain how or why live educational experiences are “more basic, primal and humanly authentic” (however you define such vague terms) than what you call “virtual” (I have already expressed my disdain for this term) ones.

    Once again, you are defining “best” as the “most natural and authentic” without either defining the terms (they sound like marketing buzzwords) or providing evidence that a traditional classroom setting rates higher in these factors (however you may measure them) than a distance education experience.

    I too, like any logical individual, place a high value on personal live experiences. However, unlike you, I cannot categorically claim they are always superior. I have been to live concerts that were not worth the price of admission while the artist’s recordings were truly sublime. I have been to museums where the crowd made the experience wholly unpleasant. And, Mrs. Evans, I believe that you, like most women, would agree that fantasy plays a significant role in a good and healthy sex life.

    Is your argument that when one views a replica, one or the experience ceases to unique? Does merely standing in front of Michelangelo’s (note correct spelling) David constitute an education, or is a significant amount of education required before one can actually appreciate its full beauty and significance? The truth is that not all individuals rate live experiences the same or superior.

    For example, imagine a musical artist whose work you find abhorrent. Given a choice between being forced to sit through a loud three-hour live concert or playing the recording in the comfort of your own home (where you can adjust the volume to suit your tastes, what would you prefer? Not all live experiences are superior to what you call “virtual.”

    Can an Art History degree that includes autopsical viewing of art treasures be superior to one gained only viewing slides and books? Yes.

    Should an Art History degree that includes autopsical viewing of art treasures be superior to one gained only viewing slides and books? Perhaps.

    Is an Art History degree that includes autopsical viewing of art treasures superior to one gained only viewing slides and books? Not necessarily.

    You may think so, but you have yet to present a logical and convincing basis for your beliefs. As such, it is nothing more than a personal preference. Moreover, only unfamiliarity with distance education would lead you to believe that it does not involve personal interaction with professors and fellow students.

    This too, seems to be a matter personal preference. Moreover, not all personal contact and interaction are as desirable as you make them out to be. Would you like to see some photographs or a video of what Central Park in New York looks like at 2:00 AM, or would you prefer to traverse the park at that time yourself in search of that "authentic personal contact and interaction?" ;)

    You ignore the proven fact that methodologies such as online discussion boards allow many individuals who are somewhat reticent to speak out in a traditional classroom setting to develop these interaction skills. You also ignore the fact that face-to-face communication may not be how most interactions and exchange of relevant information takes place today. What good is it to develop interaction skills that will be minimally utilized? Moreover, the skills you describe, are they really developed in school?

    Think of it, Mrs. Evans, just what are we doing know? Would our exchanges be more thoughtful if they were conducted face-to-face? Would you actually respond to the points I make instead of pontificating on your personal preferences without providing any logical or convincing reasons for why you believe as you do?

    This is precisely my point. If something cannot be measured, on what basis can it be compared to something else and judged to be superior?

    The problem with this statement is, of course, that it is human nature (natural and authentic, if you will) to judge values, attitudes, critical viewpoints and beliefs that agree with our own as superior, and those that disagree as inferior.

    Can the radiation emitted by a nuclear reactor be measured and studied remotely, or must one actually expose oneself to the core? No one is disputing the value or the role traveling, visiting museums, fine wining and dining, and even sex have on the overall education of an individual. This has absolutely nothing to do with your contention “that any class-room based, socially interactive, degree, earned over the course of several years on campus, is better than any virtual degree from whatever school.”

    It depends on the individual personal experience, doesn’t it? If on TV you saw close-ups and details of the surgical techniques and were able to play the video in slow motion or replay it as many times as you like as compared to the operating room where you jostled with several other spectators just to catch a glimpse of the back of the surgeon’s neck, I would say the TV version was far superior. Like I said, not all live educational experiences are "superior."
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 23, 2004
  13. rocco5

    rocco5 member

    Pontification on personal beliefs

    I have hestitated to bring a religious perspective into this very interesting discussion because many hold religious perspectives to be a private matter, but I must confess that my educational preferences/opinions are influenced by my views on religion. As a traditional Catholic, I believe that there can be no "virtual" Eucharist; this must be celebrated by a representative of Chirst (a priest or bishop with apostolic succession) who is a living representative of Christ. God's word is also taught by the mouths of living teachers--not the word recorded in a book but the word proclaimed through the mouths of living teachers. This proclamation, hearing, sharing, etc. must be (in the Catholic tradition) a live experience, passed from person to person directly by personal contact. In other words, no virtual Church.

    With that analogy in mind, my view of basic, authentic, personal education is similar: education is at heart, on my view, a social experience and must be, therefore, socially partaken of. That this is superior dervives from the fact that this style of education is historically original , unique and primal. A copy of a great work of art, no matter how good, is a copy. Any copies of original education are thus copies and derivative, less original. (Now, you will say that some copies are better than originals--replica weapons, for example, stronger, more powerful, etc. But whatever they are, they are not original.)

    Are techologies of all sorts powerful and useful--yes, but they are exensions of our brains and bodies, not our brains and bodies. To learn to accept one's human limitations is a significant part of an education; to learn who one is apart from all the technological extensions of ones' self is part of an education. Why is facing ones'self and others in the raw superior to ususally hiding behind extensions, I guess that's a matter of value, but education needs to prepare us to know ourselves as we are. That's why personal encounters with no or with limited technologies are a good idea--so we can know ourselves without powerful extensions in order to be aware of what we may become and do with those techological extensions.

    You seem to be saying that it is not the process of education that counts, but the product--the educated person. That sounds logical enough, if you think of education as a social science where measurements can be taken of all significant variables. But if you put education in the mystical, quasi-religious realm as well as the logical, where non-measurealbe values are also at play, then not every variable cannot be put into a multivariant analysis of variants. There are unique personal experiences, fostered by a traditional, face-to-face education that cannot be measured but can be discussed and understood by those who share such experiences.

    When I wrote about a final post, it was not a reference to my having the "final word", but more in reference to having gone as far as I can go to explain a value placed on a certain type of social experience. I am not at all sure that Joe College, who spent four years on campus, is more learned than DL Joe who went to school on line, but I think that the on-campus processes produce a qualitatively different result in the receptive on-campus learner. This is admittedly a judgement of value. Can I prove it ? I don't think so--how does anyone prove values ? One can perhaps explain values in relationship to other values. And I don't care what Harvard, Yale or Columbia have to say about DL; we know where their values lie ($$$).
     
  14. Gus Sainz

    Gus Sainz New Member

    In summation, because of who and what you are and the values you hold dear (particularly your religious beliefs), you think that all traditional education is superior to any form of distance education. You cannot, however, express any logical or convincing arguments for this belief, thereby making any civil discussion of your opinion or belief impossible.

    I guess all that is left to say is, thank you for sharing, Mrs. Evans. :rolleyes:
     
  15. rocco5

    rocco5 member

    different premises


    OK, my views (premises) don't convince you. They are not, however, illogical; they are based on a non-vocational, non-operational model of ancient/medieval, liberal arts education: Humans are naturally best suited by natural predisposition) for social interaction so their educational processes need to be in and of a fully (face-to-face) social environment. Education goes not only to intellectual outcomes but also to social and characterological development in and through social processes. Any form of education (DL) that diminishes that social interaction is a reduced (inferior) type of education--not totally inadequate, just reduced, narrower and hence less fully rounded. My views are based on intuitions and observations of the human experience, historical models and texts, and the current practices of liberal arts colleges.

    You are free to start with a different set of assumptions--an operational definition of education which demands measureable outcomes, counter-intuitive ideas about the primacy of technological extensions (epiphenomena) as the most effective educational environment and antihistorical notions about removing education form its primary social (face-to-face) structure. This position appears to be a business or technical model of education where performance of certain pragmatic tasks is the primary object of the exercise rather the development and intergration of mind, tastes, character, social exprerience and the body, too. ( Can tastes be measured--discussed, yes.)

    If I have a basic criticism of my position, it would be that it is over-generalized, not that it is illogical. To say that DL is extracted from a traditional, social learning context seems patent. The value that ones places on that extraction is debatable, for certain.

    I assure you that I am not rying to have the last or final word, but I could not let you think that I agree with your summmary of this disucssion.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 24, 2004
  16. Gus Sainz

    Gus Sainz New Member

    Re: different premises

    It is illogical to apply a non-vocational model to what is currently mostly vocational in nature (those seeking a degree want it to have some kind of utility in the real world); it is illogical to apply a non-operational model to what is currently operational in nature; and it is illogical to apply ancient or medieval standards and methodologies to modern activities. Once again, you make a statement such as, “Humans are naturally best suited by natural predisposition for social interaction so their educational processes need to be in and of a fully (face-to-face) social environment,” without providing any evidence to support it. To accept a premise without evidence is illogical

    You have yet to provide any evidence for your premise that reduced social interaction produces an inferior education; and you also present no evidence that distance learning involves less social interaction. Moreover, as distance education involves a myriad of skills, tools, and methodologies that traditional education doesn’t, it just might be that it provides the more “fully rounded” education.

    It is highly illogical to make contentions based on unproven assumptions.

    None of which support your arguments. That’s highly illogical, Mrs. Evans.

    I only want measurable outcomes if the institution wants a measurable amount of money for tuition. If educators want the outcomes to be vague, then I demand that the amount of money I give them be vague as well. Are there schools that will allow me to pay them what I think the education was worth only after the degree program is completed? Should we apply this concept to teacher salaries as well?

    Concepts backed by evidence that run counter to intuition may indeed be characterized as “counter-intuitive,” but perhaps they are best described as logical. Moreover, how do you compare one individual’s intuition to another individual’s intuition? What may be “counter-intuitive” to you may be extremely intuitive to someone else; that’s the nature of intuition. Furthermore, no one has stated that “technological extensions” are “the most effective educational environment.” It is a fact, however, that “technological extensions” are ubiquitous. Since elementary school, my kids have made use of Web searches and electronic communication, and every classroom had several computers. Moreover, contrary to what you may believe, anyone with any exposure to kids knows that a great deal (perhaps too much) of “social interaction” today takes place via electronic communication, such as discussion forums, emails, and instant messaging. You may dislike the means by which the social interaction is taking place, but it is taking place (perhaps even more pervasively and at a more refined level than face-to-face interaction) nonetheless.

    Isn’t all progress “antihistorical?” Typically, those opposed to progress are those that are threatened by it. If, for example, an individual’s field of expertise was comparative literature of ancient languages, then it would be understandable how he or she would have disdain and little use for technology, and, in a world that, fairly or unfairly, valued that expertise progressively less and less (and consequently the already slim career prospects were becoming increasingly scarce), it is easy to see how such an individual would not only become extremely bitter and cynical, but also wax nostalgic and pine for “the good old ancient days.”

    I don’t want to pay school tuition to have someone develop the tastes, character, and social graces of my children; that’s my job. What evidence do you have that a teacher’s tastes, character, and social experiences will surpass theirs? I can assure you that, in most cases, it doesn’t.

    Most generalizations are untrue and therefore, illogical. How then, can over-generalizations not be even more so?

    What do you mean by "extracted?"

    Ooops, never mind. For a second I forgot that you never actually answer the questions posed to you.

    Nothing of what you have written disagrees with my summation; on the contrary, you have validated it. This not surprising as all I did was distill and paraphrase the concepts you espoused most often. What you do seem to umbrage at is my statement that you have not expressed any logical or convincing arguments for your beliefs.

    The fatal flaw in all of your arguments, Mrs. Evans, is that, if you are a product of the kind of education you advocate, if your arguments, logic, and critical thinking skills are representative of that educational methodology, then the superiority that you ascribe to that education is not at all axiomatic.

    You just don't get it, Mrs. Evans. I don’t think you actually believe all of what you write; I believe you are simply venting frustrations and playing the role of agent provocateur. I am of the opinion that you have an agenda, and the more you post, the clearer it becomes.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 24, 2004
  17. rocco5

    rocco5 member

    Re: Re: different premises

     
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 24, 2004
  18. Gus Sainz

    Gus Sainz New Member

    Re: Re: Re: different premises

    I have no problems with radical critiques. I just don’t think one should spend thousands of dollars (many families mortgage their homes) and four or more years of one’s life following a methodology that serves the interests of a handful of individuals who find a particular radical critique amusing.

    I don’t know if you are intentionally (not to mention consistently) butchering the English language in an attempt to prove you are not your husband (who supposedly teaches English), Mrs. Evans, but I have read and reread your quote and have come to the conclusion that if I wrote as poorly as you do, I too would prefer speaking to writing.

    You seem to think that you can define terms willy-nilly to suit your needs. For example, when you define education as a “mystical, quasi-religious” experience requiring face-to-face social interaction, then, and only then, does your assertion that all traditional education is superior to any form of distance education makes any sense. When the term “education” is defined as practically all other users of the language define the term (yes, by broad agreement), you have nothing on which to base your contention.

    By “dialogically determined by all parties to the interaction” do you mean they have to agree? If so, you have just contradicted your previous statement.

    Why do I get the funny feeling that you actually read the above expressed concept somewhere? Isn’t it ironic that what you know about Plato (and Socrates and Jesus) is thanks to written texts? Moreover, perhaps if you had actually read Bakhtin and Volosinov you would have noted the correct spelling of their names. :rolleyes:

    This is an excellent point. Assumptions that cannot be proven may, at the option of each individual, be accepted on faith. Is that what you are asking us to do with your (unproven) assumptions on education?

    It seems you are now agreeing with me. If you base your evaluation of education on values and beliefs that you cannot nor wish to measure, then you have no basis for asserting that one educational methodology is superior to another. It also explains your disdain or inability to embrace progress, for only that which can be measured can be improved.

    I don't get it. How do you know Plato suggested this?

    Once again, how do you know Plato believed this? Rather than whether it is spoken or written, I think a much greater factor concerning the deceptive nature of language is the credibility of the source.

    Perhaps, but your contention was that distance education was devoid of social interaction, and that this lack of social interaction was the primary reason traditional education was superior. This is clearly not so.

    You are back to defining education as a “mystical, quasi-religious” experience. Notoriously absent from all your definitions of education is the notion of “learning,” and the real needs of individuals. Moreover, although it is consistent with the ancient methodologies you consider superior, your vision of a teacher as some kind of cult leader is, to say the least, disturbing.

    Precisely. Relying on someone else to tell you who you are defeats the purpose. Stupider still is paying an exorbitant tuition to have someone play guru instead of teaching you what he or she is supposedly being paid to teach.

    No! It is us. We are Borg; resistance is futile. :D

    I know that the idea of parlaying an education and a degree into some kind of career and means of providing for yourself and your loved ones is an anathema to your vision of education as a “mystical, quasi-religious” experience, but for most of us, it is a necessity.

    Just like your contention of the superiority of traditional education, only in theory, Mrs. Evans, only in theory.

    I agree. However, you were the only one to broach the issue of efficiency.

    No, but I don’t expect teachers to, as you suggest, function as parents (or gurus for that matter).

    Then you are wrong. Distance education is not devoid of the living stream of speech and live social interaction (living and live are not synonymous with face-to-face). You really must familiarize yourself with distance education and the tools currently available, Mrs. Evans, before embarrassing yourself so thoroughly on a public forum (HINT: look up the terms “streaming audio and video,” “web cams,” “whiteboards” and “synchronous discussions,” among others).

    You are correct; your arguments are unconvincing. Mrs. Evans, may I ask you a question? Being that you have such contempt for distance education, what the heck are you doing here and what do you hope to accomplish?

    Operational views of education are not axiomatic, but in sharp contrast to your views, they are logical and provable; they don’t have to be accepted on faith alone.

    Please, say no more.

    We shall see, Mrs. Evans, we shall see.



    P.S. As you profess to hold language, civil discourse, and social interaction in such high regard, would it be too much to ask to that you take a little more time formatting your posts so that the task of deciphering what you write is a little less onerous?
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 24, 2004
  19. Kirkland

    Kirkland Member

    Mrs Evans,

    Q: How many existentialists does it take to screw in a lightbulb?

    A: Two. One to screw it in and one to observe how the lightbulb itself symbolizes a single incandescent beacon of subjective reality in a netherworld of endless absurdity reaching out toward a maudlin cosmos of nothingness.
     
  20. rocco5

    rocco5 member

    unprovable propositions

    "Then you are wrong. Distance education is not devoid of the living stream of speech and live social interaction (living and live are not synonymous with face-to-face). You really must familiarize yourself with distance education and the tools currently available, Mrs. Evans, before embarrassing yourself so thoroughly on a public forum (HINT: look up the terms “streaming audio and video,” “web cams,” “whiteboards” and “synchronous discussions,” among others). "
    Gus Sainz


    Thank you for offering a masterful illustration of several of my main contentions: (1) that context always co-determines meaning along with the utterance. When I think of live, living stream of speech, for me such living speech can but be in the physicial presence of a live, living human person or it's not living speech. You are thinking of technological extensions of human speech, representations, therefore. I was thinking of the a primal, human, face-to-face context. So you see context has determined meaning for both of us.


    (2) If you think that a technological REPESENTATION (video streaming, etc) of that utterance is the same (contextually) as the utterance, you show my contention that techology often misleads us into thinking that the represented image, voice, etc is the authentic voice or image. This blurring of context (effacing real context) may or may not be of crtitical significance in any given case, but it most surely can be and must, therefore, be noted as merely a representation of utterance, not the living, primary utterance itself. Is a watching webcam a fully primal, authentic social experience--can you smell, touch, feel the presence of the others ? Live, yes, living, NO. You have fallen into the trap that a fully present, in-the-round, educational encounter (like personal parenting) is meant to overcome, offering representations as the real thing.----ooops.

    (3) When you are ready to admit that distance parenting is superior to personal parenting, I'll be ready to concede that DL is superior to traditional, in-person education. What proof do you have that personal parenting is better DP or is that a personal value ? You'll say that this analogy is absurd--then why the traditional college term "in loco parentis" ?
     

Share This Page