Having tried eitgh times over three hours to post a comment of David Noble's article, sent in by Oxpecker, I will try a new thread: Quote: It's a development that threatens "the sacred space of the classroom," according to technology historian David Noble, author of "Digital Diploma Mills: The Automation of Higher Education." This has got to be the most pompous statement that could be written about a classroom. “Sacred space”, indeed! Mr Noble is pulling our legs, surely? He clearing thinks teaching is superior to learning. He also thinks Distance Learning is inferior to Campus Teaching, and indeed, confuses DL with DT (Distance Teaching), on the grounds that DT is inferior to CT (which latter statement I agree is the case, i.e., DT < CT). In fact, it is the proliferation of DT, wrongly named a “DL”, which creates most problems that many educators find with DL, as they understand it to be. But Learning is not the same as Teaching. Those educators, of which Noble appears to be one, who cannot see beyond the campus (because they only teach on one), who find special characteristics in campus teaching (CT) not replicated, or replicable, in DT, ascribe ‘sacred’ characteristics of CT and denigrate DL. (I hope you are following this alphabetic parade, but believe me, it as tiresome to spell it out as read it.) Much of what graduates write about the primacy of campus learning is Nostalgia. Some academics repeat this nostalgia as a proven fact, though in their quieter hours they will admit to it being insignificant in the teaching process. Interaction with tutors is supposed to be a positive plus, yet it applies to a small minority of students, and not always the same minority over a four-year course. Most students never speak to their tutors, unless spoken to, and very few ‘interact’ with their teachers in the manner implied. The vast majority are heads down not heads up as they glide through to graduation. Even at graduate level, where teacher-student contact is supposed to be high, it is still a minority who do so where they can avoid it. Of course, teachers are ‘busy’, mostly with the high flyers – tutors tend to welcome contact with the brightest not the noisiest – and seeing a few students per day out of a class of several hundred seems to be interactive, but numerically it is not (keep a diary and see for yourself). His sub-title is revealing: “The Automation of Higher Education”. You can automate education but you can’t automate higher learning, and where the former is done badly – as it is in many online degree programmes – or well, it makes little difference to learning because that process goes on, often despite the ‘teaching’. DL is student centred not teacher centred. We know how teachers teach but do not know much about how learners learn. I suspect Mr Noble has little idea of how his students learn in the ‘sacred space’ in which he performs is ‘magic’; indeed, I would surmise they do most of their learning outside of his presence in his space. Given that, I further surmise, that on a sample from the populations of campus learners and DL learners you could not predict from which sample the learning population did their learning! This suggests they learn despite the format by which the teaching is delivered. This represents a challenge to CT and DL, but one to which I do not believe Mr Noble can rise.
I find this discussion to be an interesting one. Personally, I fall somewhere between the extremes. Noble is certainly on one end of the scale with his attacks against DL. The general theme of this NG which appears to be that DL is perfect for all education is at the other. I'm a product of both traditional and non-traditional forms of education. As I look back I've seen both good and bad in both. It strikes me that the truth of the matter lies somewhere between the extremes. For example, DL appears to be ill suited for a number of purposes: 1. 18-22 year olds benefit from traditional institutions in that their needs are not only academic - but also social. Part of going to college for such students is learning to grow up. There are millions of 18-22 year olds that need traditional campuses - not DL. 2. Academic programs that are laboratory or studio driven (engineering and architecture programs), are poor candidates for DL. 3. Research intensive fields, such as graduate work in the sciences, are poor DL candidates. Such work requires close student-faculty consultation and lab equipment. DL programs don't produce any significant numbers of research chemist, biologists, etc. and probably never will. 4. Practice oriented fields (such as psychology, medicine or law) don't fit well either. Medical students need to work with doctors "hands-on" with patients. Psychologists need the same sort of experience. Lawyers develop their skills in dialogue with faculty. DL is a poor fit here, unless augmented with significant amounts of supervised practice. DL does have a place in providing access to mid-career adults in fields that don't have these characteristics. I teach in DL business programs and can see their place in the world. While the top busines programs aren't DL, there are lots of students who can benefit from a DL business educaiton. My biggest concern in higher education isn't DL versus traditional classrooms. I'm much more concerned with declining standards. As time goes on students seem to be weaker and weaker. It isn't just DL institutions that are the problem. It seems that so many schools want to build enrollment that they seem to give up any sense of standards. Two other DL concerns. DL institutions seem to focus on profit (or for the non-profits "cash generation") and not on more nobler causes - such as research and service to the community. It is sad to see the DL world doing so little to advance knowledge or serve. Second, DL institutions are driven to use army of adjuncts. While I value adjuncts as a way to keep education "fresh" and "real world" focused, I'm troubled, the lack of full-time faculty is a concern. Who governs academic programs? Who advises students? Who conducts research? Who gives students a sense of deeper and more enduring concepts? Adjuncts typically don't - they teach and they leave. Before someone jumps and says - "You just want to support lazy faculty members!", I have to interject. There probably are lazy faculty members, but the worlds of education is changing. There are many more pressures today on faculty then ever before. Institutions are under the gun to assess learning and improve outcomes. If you think that teaching is easy, I beg to differ. Six years ago I switched from industry to full-time teaching. I am much happier after the move, but I work much harder today then I did in industry. Regards - Andy
Multiple postings... You can delete a posting if you realize you have made multiple postings. Go to edit, check the delete box and hit delete. Most students will go through a class without any interaction if you let them. They will speak if asked a question but will rarely offer a thought uninvited. My classes are small, about 20 students, so it is easy to identify the hidden students. However it is much more difficult when you have 50+ students in a lecture hall. DL actually helps bring these kinds of students out into the open as they will be mandated to log on and participate. Both methods have their advantages. I think there is a problem with standards both in traditional and DL when you see the number of college graduates with poor communications skills. The Army actually has a program to provide communications tutoring to cadets in its ROTC programs. Go figure, we have to ensure college graduates read and write to a high school level!!
two cents My two cents is as follows: There are a few factors that seem to drive the prejudice against DL among certain folk in academia... 1. The human need for initiation: "I did this for initiation. And you must repeat, or your initiation is not real." This happens in many cases in the current societal tornado of change. The whole Robert Bly, Iron John thingy. 2. The egocetrism of the college star blowhard professor (and I say that because I could easily become one of these.): "Dig me, I'm on stage and I am Lord of this class/universe! If distance learning continues, my time wasting dodge will be ended. and the truth of my redundancy and obselescence will be found out!": I took all of three on-campus courses on my way to my bachelors and in two of the cases it was a matter of egocentrisim masquerading as instructon. We, distance folk truly understand that one does not always have to endure endless lectures on the very subject that one has already read enough to do well on the final test. Nothing is worse than a personality conflict with an demogogic instructor. 3. Status Quo must be protected: This is the way things are, and despite the changes in technology, it will always be thus. 4. Class prejudice: Certainly, distance learning is an option for those, like me, who value education but lack financial resources to do it the other way. This brings class into the argument and reveals the bigots who look down their noses at DL student because they are not of the landed gentry cavorting upon the campus green and stinking up the greek houses and sports stadiums. so, I may be wrond but thats my take. Dan B
two cents My two cents is as follows: There are a few factors that seem to drive the prejudice against DL among certain folk in academia... 1. The human need for initiation: "I did this for initiation. And you must repeat, or your initiation is not real." This happens in many cases in the current societal tornado of change. The whole Robert Bly, Iron John thingy. 2. The egocetrism of the college star blowhard professor (and I say that because I could easily become one of these.): "Dig me, I'm on stage and I am Lord of this class/universe! If distance learning continues, my time wasting dodge will be ended. and the truth of my redundancy and obselescence will be found out!": I took all of three on-campus courses on my way to my bachelors and in two of the cases it was a matter of egocentrisim masquerading as instructon. We, distance folk truly understand that one does not always have to endure endless lectures on the very subject that one has already read enough to do well on the final test. Nothing is worse than a personality conflict with an demogogic instructor. 3. Status Quo must be protected: This is the way things are, and despite the changes in technology, it will always be thus. 4. Class prejudice: Certainly, distance learning is an option for those, like me, who value education but lack financial resources to do it the other way. This brings class into the argument and reveals the bigots who look down their noses at DL student because they are not of the landed gentry cavorting upon the campus green and stinking up the greek houses and sports stadiums. so, I may be wrond but thats my take. Dan B
Professor Kennedy: What a fascinating point. This essay has troubled me for some time. It's interesting to see the issues delineated in such a clear way. At some level, we must look at a course in terms in the desired (measurable) outcomes and whether those outcomes were achieved. Learning is the point. But what difference does a great instructor make? Well, perhaps it is significant. But that is not the question. How many physics students had the opportunity to study under Richard Feynman? Not many. By definition, most students will have average instructors. The most pressing question is "What difference does an average instructor make?" I think that there is ample evidence that the difference made by an average instructor (over self study) is not much. And, of course, lots of DL programs are not at all "self-study" and offer significant interaction between and among professor and students. But learning can be, and often is, independent of teaching. Those who claim that "teaching" is becoming commoditized tend to have a significant self interest in teaching remaining a profession of the elite, and learning being a byproduct. In actuality, isn't "learning" the product we are trying to produce? What is the problem with learning becoming a commodity? Jeff
Or, I'd add, where these adults already have access to requirements in the workplace. For example, if a biologist or chemist already worked in the field then the lab component is basically on-the-job. In years past apprenticeships were the norm for law and medicine where you learned under the guidance of a practicing lawyer/physician. Even in medicine the residency program still has elements of this. I agree 100% that 18-22 year olds should benefit from the on-campus experience as part of a transition to becoming an adult. Cheers, Mark
David Noble As soon as I saw his name it brought back memories of debating his articles in a graduate class. He likes to bask in the controversy he creates by painting all of DL with the same brush and using grand generalizations. Apparently he was at MIT and then ended up at York U in Toronto - I don't recall the story. Another article I read a few years ago said that Simon Fraser University led him to believe that he would get an endowed chair in Humanities and then retracted the offer - there was egg on many faces. This is an old Chronicle article (2000) on him: http://www.gse.buffalo.edu/fas/bromley/classes/socprac/readings/CHE_on_Noble.htm More of his articles at: http://communication.ucsd.edu/dl/
I agree with Professor Kennedy's assessment of the article and Noble. IMHO it appears that Noble is pontificating from the Ivory Tower. He needs to look at the data on outcomes and agree that real learning takes place with DL. Essentially he is ignoring the facts of the matter in order to be controversial. When many of our B&M institutions complain that athletics take precedence over academics one solid ray of light out of real DL is that students in DL are more concerned about academics than athletics. We may have to start the "Big 3 Conference" and see how they do against the ACC, Big East, etc. Unfortunately, no one from the Big 3 will show up to play because they are working and studying. From my experience I interact more with DL students than I do with students in the classroom. In my DL courses everyone contributes in class; whereas, in the classroom there are always those who sit there silently and hope they don't get noticed. Traditional education will not go away as it definitely has its place but DL certainly has its place as an equal in learning and quality. Noble's effort would be better spent in trying to stamp out true diploma mills. I will take a Brunton over a Noble anytime. John
I agree wholeheartedly with the Professor’s comments. At the mention of DL, many academic traditionalists suddenly see the classroom in a very idealized way, the “sacred space” for Noble, and “nostalgia”, as Professor Kennedy aptly puts it. It makes for a convenient argument against DL – to suddenly assert that all of us who made our way through traditional classroom settings had a kind of ultimate experience: All of us were engaged in riveting classroom dialogue and carefully mentored by brilliant professors. At the polar opposite is the idea of the DL student taking multiple-choice tests over the Internet and fulfilling laughable standards to come away with a credential that means nothing. I suspect that the reality for most of us who have been exposed to both modes is somewhere in the middle, and closer together than we might imagine. Warning, moderate rant follows: UC Berkeley might be termed one of Noble’s sacred spaces (as well as a school which is particularly resistant to DL – except for its “Extension” school). I had some wonderful experiences there, with a few brilliant profs, who were also excellent teachers. And, yes, there was an energy that’s hard to duplicate when studying remotely. However, I also had less than wonderful classroom experiences, as both an undergrad and grad student: a professor that regularly blew through 125 slides in 2 hours and called that teaching; indifferent professors who couldn’t be bothered with undergraduates; a math professor that came late to class every day, opened up the text and said “time to read nursery rhymes” – this to a class of math majors; a math advisor who refused to advise me because I was not on his list of students (because of a clerical error) and who, despite the department secretary’s assurance that I was in fact “his student”, still refused and ordered me out of his office; a new math advisor (a very well-known mathematical economist) who could just barely be bothered by pesky undergraduate students, and who would only grudgingly give up time for them, as it interrupted him from drawing circles and other squiggles on a pad of paper; a professor in set theory who took perverse pleasure (my assumption) in devising exams that were virtually undoable in the space of an hour (I scored 5/100 on a midterm for the second highest score in the class. How does that measure anything? And how is that a sacred, let alone an encouraging experience?); And there was a kindly and once brilliant math professor who had been seriously injured in a car accident who was so affected physically that he literally couldn’t write fast enough on the board. Many students had to sit in on an identical class with another professor just to keep pace with the required learning. This is only a partial list, and yet my experience is largely positive. Perhaps nostalgia? I contend that what takes place in most B&M institutions is largely distance learning. Does it matter that the distance is thousands of miles, or a couple of miles off campus? Despite the theoretical availability of brilliant mentors in a B&M setting, most of us just have to sit down and figure it out for ourselves. If I could generalize my B&M experience, it was that a tremendous amount was expected, and yet most of us were left alone to figure out how to get it done. No kindly mentors showed up at my door at midnight to help me with a thorny problem set or a tough paper. Some of my best experiences, ironically, were with TA’s, the largely overworked graduate students who do much of the teaching and tutoring (and who, at Berkeley, are making noises about unionizing in order to properly formalize their status). Like the Professor, I believe the issue is DL instead of DT. Give me some well-thought-out material specifically designed for the distance learner, rather than the hastily prepared presentation that confounds the entire class sitting in a classroom. And let’s admit that very few of us had the kind of ideal classroom experience that critics of DL like to assert. Nevertheless, most of us managed to learn a lot – just as we can in the DL model, because they’re not really all that different, most of the time. Tom
