I can't hear them laughing
Jim Flowers
just how much I got out of contact with students in the classes I teach.
There seems to have been some research done on students' needs for
instructor feedback, but online instructors may also have a need that goes
unfulfilled if they cannot play their typical roles of actor, stand-up
comedian, or example-setter, and get immediated feedback from students. As a
classroom teacher, so much of what I teach is taught by physical example,
and so much of what I get is from the expressions of my students. I know
that emoticons and some other text tricks can be used to simulate laughter,
groans, etc., but this is still shallow and delayed. What are your
suggestions?
Jim Flowers
Steve Levicoff
Finally . . . a substantive post! (Forgive me, Jim, the last few weeks
on a.e.d. have been boring as hell. And, since I do not recognize your
name, if this is your first post here - and it is an excellent post -
welcome to the newsgroup.)
Now, I wish I could give you some suggestions to make the web teaching
experience more personal, but I cannot. In fact, I am one of the cave
people who has, thus far, avoided web-based higher education, in part
because of the dilemma you describe.
However, having served nontraditional degree students as an advisor,
preceptor, and adjunct professor, I can add a few comments to what you
have outlined . . .
When I went through my own degree programs nontraditionally, the level
of contact I had as a student with my advisors was what *I* made it. At
Thomas Edison State College, with which most students deal on a purely
external level, I made sure that all of my advisement meetings were
conducted in person, that I took any exams at the college itself, that I
dropped off my portfolios personally, and that when I called an advisor,
that person could associate a face with the voice they heard (and that I
could do the same). Granted, the fact that TESC was located only an
hour from me made life much easier than it would ave been for a student
halfway across the country.
At Vermont College of Norwich University and The Union Institute, I made
sure I had regular, personal, and face-to-face contact with my advisors,
academic personnel, and other students. This went above and beyond the
required level of contact; even in Union, I made sure that my doctoral
committee members heard from me at least once a month by newsletter, at
least once every other month by phone, and whenever any of them were
within 500 miles to do a lecture or otherwise appear in my area, I
showed up.
I would not presume to say that my purpose in maintaining a high level
of contact in all of my programs had anything to do with academic
excellence or the desire to be compulsively efficient. No, what led me
was simply a pragmatic sense of realism: if I kept them informed of what
I was doing during the course of my programs, there would be less of a
hassle at the end of each program. And yes, it worked quite well -
there were no "surprises" as I wrapped up the work on each degree.
When I became an advisor myself, however, I saw quite a different
picture: Very few people held to the same level of personal, regular,
and ongoing contact that I did. They were not out of "the norm," *I*
was. But the result was this: I knew how much time *I* had spent on my
program, the amount of work I did each week, the level of reporting I
set for myself in terms of keeping my academic committee members or
advisors informed of my progress, etc. But as an advisor, I had no idea
how much time my those with whom I was working were spending on *their*
programs each week. (Remember, the *minimum* requirement for
face-to-face contact is presumably an hour per week in the Vermont
College Graduate Program, and only two meetings during the entire Ph.D.
program at Union. There are, of course, regular coloquia, seminars,
peer days, and other residential requirements in each program, but they
did not impact me as an advisor.)
Ultimately, I became *very* discerning when it came to signing off on a
student's program, especially if it had been months (plural) since I had
heard from that student.
Let's translate all of this to the context of your original post:
web-based distance education. As I understand online learning, you can
teach an entire course without having met any of your students face to
face, spoken with them on the phone, or having any indication of their
personality at all, let alone knowing whether they benefit from your
online teaching style. And having taught traditionally at two graduate
schools for six years, I know the importance of not only hearing the
class laugh, but of gauging their facial expressions so you know, at
minimum, whether they are even awake. In fact, the cynic in me would go
so far as to say that not only do you know whether they are *learning*,
you do not even know whether *they* are learning. I can only begin to
imagine how much cheating can occur in an environment in which a
person's identity cannot be verified - whether they are actually doing
their own writing, or whether the enrolled student is actually the one
who is doing the work required at all.
I have long held that, especially at the graduate level (and then,
especially in human services-based programs), *some* level of residency
should be required for students. It tells us whether the student can
interact with his or her peers and advisors, it prevents people from
going off the wall in a Lone Ranger environment, it promotes both
interpersonal and critical thinking skills, it provides feedback tht you
just don't receive in the solitude of the room in which your computer is
plugged in, ad infinitum . . .
To me, I'm afraid, online education is simply an extension of the voice
mail phenomenon - making the educational process more impersonal. And
you're quite correct: Even if the students can get an impression of you
(say, through an online biographical sketch), you do not get to know
*them*. You may participate in their gaining of knowledge in a
particular subject, but that doesn't mean diddly-squat in terms of their
ongoing human development and, at the graduate level, their growing
maturity at scholarship.
My conclusion? I hope that Internet-based learning is a fad. I have
never seen a net-based course that is as efficient as one that involves
face-to-face interactiion, never seen a net-based resource that is as
comprehensive as a good textbook, and never met a net-based student that
can interact with other people as well as one who has been interacting
with other people on a regular basis in the first place.
--
,-~~-.___.
/ | ' \
( ) 0
\_/-, ,----'
==== //
/ \-'~; /~~~(O)
/ __/~| / |
=( _____| (_________|
------------------------------
Steve Levicoff
levi...@ix.netcom.com
http://levicoff.tripod.com
------------------------------
co...@my-deja.com
"Jim Flowers" wrote:
> Until I became involved in distance education on the web, I did not realize
> just how much I got out of contact with students in the classes I teach.
> There seems to have been some research done on students' needs for
> instructor feedback, but online instructors may also have a need that goes
> unfulfilled if they cannot play their typical roles of actor, stand-up
> comedian, or example-setter, and get immediated feedback from students. As a
> classroom teacher, so much of what I teach is taught by physical example,
> and so much of what I get is from the expressions of my students. I know
> that emoticons and some other text tricks can be used to simulate laughter,
> groans, etc., but this is still shallow and delayed. What are your
> suggestions?
>
> Jim Flowers
Hi Jim
I understand what you are saying.
Virtual schooling does have its advantages, especially for students who
cannot attend school for religous, cultural, distance or ability reasons.
Virtual schools can offer some form of developing repore with students in
the form of conference sessions and chat groups and email.
However you cannot get that same feeling of seeing a student
understanding something or just the simple smile.
I hope that virtual schooling will not replace our current form of
education. I see it as an excellent tool or resource for extension
activites and also a form of alternative delivery for subjects who
cannot fit everything into their timetable.
I also read that virtual schooling is really only for students who are
independant workers and are working at there level of learning.
Clare
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Kevin Stewart
Steve Levicoff wrote in message
snipped
>Finally . . . a substantive post! (Forgive me, Jim, the last few weeks
>on a.e.d. have been boring as hell.
Hey, Steve!!! I'm baaa-aacck! Boredom is over! And substance has returned!
[Emoticon deleted due to Steve's dislike for them]
Kevin
Steve Levicoff
> Hey, Steve!!! I'm baaa-aacck! Boredom is over! And substance has returned!
Well, Kev, at least you got two out of three. Nahhhh . . . Make that
one out of three.
Steve Levicoff
> So, Steve. What are you revealing about yourself? It sounds as though
> you like to keep your distance when it suits you and still have the
> option of getting up close and personal with your professors.
Playing amateur analyst again, Joseph?
> Why is that? Do you like the opportunity to occasionally "brown nose?"
That, Joe, depends on whether you have a hot ass. Next question?
Liz
classes within one's major (when it comes to in person classes). I used CLEP
and AP to test out of most of my gen ed classes, and so I had only a few large
lecture classes. I NEVER had a boring large lecture class. The faculty were
excellent and knew how to teach and engage learners. I had one boring small
class, but it was one of the best classes I took--Intro to Logic. It gave me
the skills to reason correctly and spot faulty arguments and write papers and
participate in discussions all through my college experience and into adult
life. The instructor didn't have high entertainment value, but I knew the value
of the content. The rest of my education was small classes (15-30 students)
with people in my major, in a nationally prominent department. The teachers
hardly had to teach. They would pose a question and step back while we
discussed and debated. I had this excellent education at a large state
university of about 30,000 students!
Of course, beside me were snoozers and not beside me were skippers. Everyone
has his or her own priorities; I kept my partying and work hours so that it
wouldn't interfere with my education. Others don't share that priority. I
would argue that their education wasn't as good as mine, by their own choice.
YOGOWYPI! (Say it together, y'all--"yo-go-whippy!") That stands for "You Get
Out What You Put In!" (Also see my "cheating cheats the cheater" post in
dissertation plagiarism for more preachin' on this point.)
I would say that these same qualities apply for online learners. I don't think
you meant to paint all classroom instruction with a broad brush. There are
slackers and cheaters in online learning environments--if there weren't, faculty
of online classes wouldn't have to discuss strategies to address that problem.
I work in a historically undereducated area with a lot of low-income,
first-generation college students. I would not put these students straight into
an online environment because they need to learn more academic, technological,
and social skills before they can succeed in live/in-person or online
environments. However, after a year or two of college and mastering those
things, I aim to help them fulfill their goals with whatever is available, and I
am pointing more students in the direction of distance ed. Since we are in a
rural area, there's a limited number of (in-person) majors and programs
available. If someone has a specific goal that can't be met locally, or can but
other factors impinge, I try to help people find online courses and programs to
get what they need. I offer workshops each semester about associate and
bachelor's degrees available by distance education. It's catching on. I am
seeing a student Monday who wants to find an English BA degree by distance ed.
So......I guess what I'm saying is.......you're both right. Let's synthesize.
Has anyone read the new Jossey-Bass book aimed at online faculty, called
Creating Learning Communities Online (or something like that)? It is advocating
the human, interactional aspects of education that are the core concerns of this
discussion. This book is on my "Maybe Later" list on amazon.com. "When I get
some free time......."
Regards........Lifelong Learner Lizzie.
pcovers wrote:
> Steve speaks to
> the issue of social development as a part of traditional face to
> face learning experience. In my experience, with a half a dozen
> different traditional learning institutions, face to face
> learning created the excitement of a snail race, and definitely
> no aid in the social development of anyone I witnessed. Many
> students were falling asleep in class. Many students were
> skipping as many classes as they can and still get by.
> Instructors that were as boring and lifeless as one could be and
> still considered among the living. This idea that face to face
> education is inherently better than an online learning
> experience is as much rubbish as saying a face to face education
> in the public elementary school system is inherently superior to
> home schooling.
>
--
Elizabeth Cole
**********************************************
May every thought that you think be etched in fire in the sky for the whole
world to see,
for in fact it is.
May every word that you say be said as if everyone in the world could hear it,
for in fact they can.
May every deed that you do recoil on top of your head,
for in fact it will.
May every wish that you wish another be a wish that you wish for yourself,
because in fact it is.
May everything you do be done as if God Himself is doing it,
for in fact He is.
***********************************************
Unsolicited commercial email is in violation of the Federal Telephone
Consumer Protection Act of 1991, and Collateral Code of Federal Regulations
(47 CFR 64.1200). The TCPA allows a private right of action against the
sender of unsolicited advertising. The recipient can sue for $500, or actual
damages (whichever is greater).
That's legalese for NO SPAM!
J.H. Kovacic, SAR, MCB
you like to keep your distance when it suits you and still have the
that? Do you like the opportunity to occasionally "brown nose?"
Joseph
--
"Teach a boy to blow a horn and he'll never blow a safe."
JLM
pcovers
face educational experiences out there to be had. My response
was to Steve's expression that online education is simply an
extension of the voice mail phenomenon and that somehow the
social interaction of a face to face experience was a requisite
to a good graduate education.
I think that for a younger, less experienced learner, online
learning may not be a good fit. However, statistics show that
most distance learners are over the age of 30. Many may indeed
want to take advantage of that in-person experience. But for
others, the uncertain potential benefits of the face to face
experience are apparently not a requisite to a successful
education and do not outweigh the benefits gained in an
instructional design that includes online learning.
I would not want to see distance learning, and particularly
online learning, as the dominant educational delivery method. It
is not suited for all. My intention was to indicate it is
ideally suited for many, with no loss in quality of education.
By the way, I do have the book you mention and it is a very good
resource.
Paul C.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
J.H. Kovacic, SAR, MCB
and BROWN NOSING played a big part in my academic career. :)
Joseph
Steve Levicoff wrote:
>
> "J.H. Kovacic, SAR, MCB" wrote:
>
> > So, Steve. What are you revealing about yourself? It sounds as though
> > you like to keep your distance when it suits you and still have the
> > option of getting up close and personal with your professors.
>
> Playing amateur analyst again, Joseph?
>
> > Why is that? Do you like the opportunity to occasionally "brown nose?"
>
> That, Joe, depends on whether you have a hot ass. Next question?
>
Larry McQueary
"J.H. Kovacic, SAR, MCB" <jkov...@usa.net> wrote in message
news:38BAC63F...@usa.net...
> Well, I don't know 'bout you, but in my case, talent, superior intellect
> and BROWN NOSING played a big part in my academic career. :)
But enough about your instructors, what about YOU, Joe? :) <===obligatory yet
meaningless smiley face added.
Larry
Bill Dayson
Steve Levicoff says:
> I have long held that, especially at the
> graduate level (and then, especially in human
> services-based programs), *some* level of
> residency should be required for students.
It seems to me that the need for residency varies greatly with one's
field. There are the laboratory sciences in which physical presence at
some research site (not necessarily the campus) is necessary. And I
agree with Steve that students in the "human-services" areas certainly
need to have had some face-to-face professional level contact with other
humans before graduation.
But I really fail to see the need for required residencies in fields
like philosophy or history. Although the latter may require visits to
archives or whatever, again probably not located on one's own campus.
> It tells us whether the student can interact
> with his or her peers and advisors,
I think that the strength of this point depends on what *kind* of
interaction we are talking about. The "beer and pizza" thing after class
is very enjoyable, but it isn't really critical. It is important to know
if a student can defend his or her ideas and respond to criticism, but
that can happen in writing, using a number of different media. It
doesn't really need to happen in a seminar room.
Public speaking ability is important for many students I guess. But this
can be practiced in a variety of different ways, not necessarily
requiring campus residency. And if a student intends to teach, some
experience in front of a classroom is necessary. That may be a real
shortcoming of some of the distance graduate programs. Perhaps some kind
of arrangements could be made with local community colleges allowing
these students to get some supervised experience.
But shortcomings in any of these areas aren't something that a short
residency is going to fix. Leaving us with the choice of junking the
residencies and attacking these issues at a distance, or junking the
whole distance format and opting for entirely residential programs.
> it prevents people from going off the wall in a
> Lone Ranger environment,
I don't really understand this point. Students can be expected to remain
in contact with faculty advisors regardless of whether they are in
residence or at a distance. Periodic discussion and feedback can occur
either way. A lot of that depends on how much effort the *instructor*
wants to put in. In fact, I get the impression that some of them
consider their 'distance' courses their 'easy' courses, where they don't
have to do anything but grade papers. So if "lone ranger" means "working
without supervision", or even "academic crank", I see no reason to
expect this in DL students unless their program is poorly designed and
their faculty advisors are lazy. Those things happen on campus as
well...
> it promotes both interpersonal and critical
> thinking skills, it provides feedback tht you
> just don't receive in the solitude of the room in
> which your computer is plugged in, ad
> infinitum . . .
I guess this is starting to repeat the issues above. Let it suffice to
say that I just don't see it.
> To me, I'm afraid, online education is simply
> an extension of the voice mail phenomenon -
> making the educational process more
> impersonal.
I think that's true with *all* distance education. The fact that it is
"on-line" and uses electronic media doesn't cause the problem, in fact
it probably serves to *increase* interactivity as compared to old
fashioned correspondence formats.
> And you're quite correct: Even if the students
> can get an impression of you (say, through an
> online biographical sketch), you do not get to
> know *them*. You may participate in their
> gaining of knowledge in a particular subject,
> but that doesn't mean diddly-squat in terms of
> their ongoing human development and, at the
> graduate level, their growing maturity at
> scholarship.
Again, I don't understand this. "Gaining of knowledge in a particular
subject" is why I take a course. That's my goal. My "on-going human
development" is *my* business. I am not enrolling in class for
psychological counseling. Hell, I'm 51 years old, and I probably know
just as much about "on-going human development" as my instructor.
Perhaps I should be teaching him.
So, where does "growing maturity at scholarship" fit in? To me, it means
things like, does the student have an understanding of the basics of his
or her field? Does he or she have a deeper understanding of some
specialty areas in that field? Is the student aware of what the active
controversies are in those areas, and who the major players are? Can the
student write publishable professional prose? Can the student argue
coherently for a thesis and respond to criticism? Can the student
conduct research? And even the ultimate question: can the student think
an original thought?
I think that if you take something as vague as "on-going human
development", and break it down into specific scholarly abilities, there
isn't much that couldn't be conducted at a distance. At least in those
fields where actual hands-on practical experience isn't necessary.
I realize that some people will object that there is something
intangible that I'm leaving out. The whole *emotional relationship*. But
my question is, are we in class looking for knowledge or for love? Is
our reason for being there really academic, or is it a way of meeting
other needs, whether for companionship or for a captive audience? If
one's reason for enrolling in a community college art history class is
to get out of the house and meet a bunch of other people that like to
look at beautiful things, then taking that class by DL will probably
defeat the whole purpose. But that isn't really an argument that one
can't learn art history by DL, or that a distance course might not be of
immense value to somebody else.
> My conclusion? I hope that Internet-based
> learning is a fad.
I completely fail to see how one can say that without also saying that
*all* distance education is a "fad". Becasue the internet doesn't
introduce any new elements of impersonality into the equation just
because it involves a machine. In fact, the internet *improves*
interactivity, compared to previous DL media. It creates new channels
for instructor and students to communicate with one another.
> I have never seen a net-based course that is
> as efficient as one that involves face-to-face
> interactiion,
Does this imply that *all* DL is less 'efficient'? Or only DL on the
internet? And wouldn't the credibility of that claim depend on how
'efficiency' is defined? I have tried to argue above that it is not as
simple as it seems. It can't simply be reduced to one's feeling of
emotional attachment to instructor and/or students. There needs to be a
clearer understanding of what that means, and how it is relevant to
scholarly skills.
> never seen a net-based resource that is as
> comprehensive as a good textbook,
Who has suggested eliminating textbooks?
> and never met a net-based student that can
> interact with other people as well as one who
> has been interacting with other people on a
> regular basis in the first place.
Oh please. That's bullshit Steve, and you know it.
The great majority of DL students, on-line or otherwise, have also had
experience in classrooms. Distance education supplements in-person
education and rarely replaces it. DL students are not kept locked in a
box their entire lives. They have jobs and families. They interact with
other people every day.
And if, by some strange quirk of child abuse, a student did live his or
her entire life in a box with a computer, what possible good would a
wimpy little short residency do?
My conclusion? In those subjects in which one's work product is composed
of text, and particularly in fields in which work usually isn't done in
teams, I think that distance education is entirely appropriate.
Particularly for mature individuals for whom college is not part of the
maturation process. Regardless of whether it is internet based or not.
Even though I am willing to admit that it might not meet the emotional
needs of some students and faculty, who probably should consider more
traditional on-campus education.
Bill Dayson
J.H. Kovacic, SAR, MCB
Joseph
--
Kelly Ann Doherty
interaction in this discussion. As a teacher, I see this as one of my
biggest goals. Are some of you bored with your students and generally
interacting with people? I understand this as at times I burn out and get
"peopled" out....but as a teacher, the contact with humans is a central
motivation.
Though I am an advocate of distance education and hope to focus in that
field for purposes of educational equity (everyone deserves a education), I
hope my desire to help others prevails as I get bogged down in subject,
marking and technology.
Just me two cents...shrug (don't know an emoticon for this...grin)
Kelly
Steve Levicoff
> Well, I don't know 'bout you, but in my case, talent, superior intellect
> and BROWN NOSING played a big part in my academic career. :)
>
> Joseph
Surprise, surprise! For once, Joseph, I agree with your post 100%.
When I left the Simon Greenleaf School of Law to pursue my M.A. at
Vermont College of Norwich U., I received some sage advice from an SGSL
professor. He said that I shouldn't try to save the world, "make a
difference," or change people overnight. My goal, he commented, should
be *solely* to earn the degree. Do it with excellence, he advised, but
don't over-do it with attitude.
Another sage piece of advice came from a Union professor who was not on
my doctoral committee, but was kind enough to review my application
package before I sent it into the school. He suggested, "Don't write as
if you know you'll get in."
Thus, when it comes to brown-nosing, at least as a student or
prospective student, the advice of both of them combined could read like
the proverbial saying, "You can catch more flies with honey than with
vinegar."
pcovers
teacher/student and peer/peer interactions. My most positive
personal experiences with this have little to do with quantity
and everything to do with quality. I have one particular course
*tutor* I have used several times. I like to use this professor
as he interacts when I initiate the interaction, to the degree
that I need, and with great substance. However, this is not to
say that this interaction is very frequent or lengthy. There is
no small talk or touchy-feely in our interaction, but there is
just what I need when I need it.
As we are all potentially very different learners, some may
experience this as too little and lacking a personal touch. For
me, I appreciate a professor who is clearly at the top of his
game and is willing to be as patient as I require, but does not
feel the need to be overly friendly.
Interaction can mean many things to many people. Some see it as
a pseudo-replacement, given the obvious technology and distance
constraints, to a good in-person experience. Some see it as no
more than is absolutely necessary to accomplish a goal.
Historically, our accepted educational constructs have been
formed out of an almost exclusive educational model that focuses
on the face to face experience. It is no surprise that current
pedagogical frameworks rely heavily on the teacher/student
interaction. Perhaps, years from now, after the growth of
distance learning is no longer an issue unto itself, and it has
become accepted as mainstream, educators may look back and see
how the rules of personal engagement were established out of a
lack of experience with a different way and were held as
requirements driven more by the forces of status quo than as the
best choice among many options.
I am not at all for disengaging the teacher from the learner,
just for considering that the high reliance on frequent
interaction has not necessarily been devised out of
consideration of all other possibilities, but more out of
following what seemed to be a reasonable path. The absence of an
historical perspective of distance learning models, as opposed
to forecasts and experiments with as yet untried distance
learning models, keeps us from being able to really understand
how much of what we have done traditionally is necessary and how
much of our ideas of distance learning is not such a good idea.
Paul C.
J.H. Kovacic, SAR, MCB
with me. Oh, dang. :)
Joseph
Steve Levicoff wrote:
>
> "J.H. Kovacic, SAR, MCB" wrote:
>
> > Well, I don't know 'bout you, but in my case, talent, superior intellect
> > and BROWN NOSING played a big part in my academic career. :)
> >
> > Joseph
>
> Surprise, surprise! For once, Joseph, I agree with your post 100%.
>
> When I left the Simon Greenleaf School of Law to pursue my M.A. at
> Vermont College of Norwich U., I received some sage advice from an SGSL
> professor. He said that I shouldn't try to save the world, "make a
> difference," or change people overnight. My goal, he commented, should
> be *solely* to earn the degree. Do it with excellence, he advised, but
> don't over-do it with attitude.
>
> Another sage piece of advice came from a Union professor who was not on
> my doctoral committee, but was kind enough to review my application
> package before I sent it into the school. He suggested, "Don't write as
> if you know you'll get in."
>
> Thus, when it comes to brown-nosing, at least as a student or
> prospective student, the advice of both of them combined could read like
> the proverbial saying, "You can catch more flies with honey than with
> vinegar."
>
Kevin Stewart
J.H. Kovacic, SAR, MCB wrote in message <38BC0ACE...@usa.net>...
>Correcto. Hey, man. You take the wind out of my sails when you agree
>with me. Oh, dang. :)
From Steve:
>> Do it with excellence, he advised, but don't over-do it with attitude.
Interesting how sage advice is so often ignored or little followed.
Kevin
Kelly Ann Doherty
posted - which I am sure is a common occurrence to all.
What had I wondered is the extent of my desire to interact vs. what others
needed. Perhaps others perception is not mine - what I displayed was quite
personal. From my experience, most student enjoy and need some interaction
with peers and educators, if not to exchange ideas and energy. I know we
electronic-students are becoming quite familiar and comfortable with this
medium and attunes to second nature. However, what worries me is the
dehumanization of society. I spend more time with my machine (taking my
B.Ed. online) than with people - it is not a choice I like but I must.
All in all, I have a hard time letting go of the concept that higher
education fosters debate, discussion, research and critical thinking all in
the presence of fellow student rambling through the halls of learning lined
with real books written by former geniuses. Okay, call me a romantic, but I
hope we all have the eyes and ears to hear what our students really want. As
the methods of teaching change, I question them.
pcovers
>All in all, I have a hard time letting go of the concept that
higher
>education fosters debate, discussion, research and critical
thinking all in
>the presence of fellow student rambling through the halls of
learning lined
>with real books written by former geniuses. Okay, call me a
romantic, but I
>hope we all have the eyes and ears to hear what our students
really want. As
>the methods of teaching change, I question them.
>
>
Kelly, though I am as limited as anyone else in being able to
predict the future of educational delivery, I cannot imagine the
delivery method for the majority of students changing from the
traditional model. I think the object of your romanticism is
very safe. Remember aside from the concept that "education
fosters debate, discussion, research and critical thinking all
in the presence of fellow student rambling through the halls of
learning lined with real books written by former geniuses", how
many 18 year olds will want to give up a four year of "social
experimenting" for distance learning. I just don't see that
happening.
Scott Porter
I agree that the 18-22 year old group will still favor the social atmosphere
of a traditional campus, but what about the 23 - xx year olds? Their are far
more of them, especially considering the baby boomers, and DL would probably
be preferable for most of them. If DL ever becomes more popular than
residential courses, it will be because the larger segment of the population
uses it, not recent high school graduates. I doubt if many DL schools are
even actively courting the younger students. They know where their market
is.
Scott
> pcovers wrote:
> Kelly, though I am as limited as anyone else in being able to
> predict the future of educational delivery, I cannot imagine the
> delivery method for the majority of students changing from the
> traditional model. I think the object of your romanticism is
> very safe. Remember aside from the concept that "education
> fosters debate, discussion, research and critical thinking all
> in the presence of fellow student rambling through the halls of
> learning lined with real books written by former geniuses", how
> many 18 year olds will want to give up a four year of "social
> experimenting" for distance learning. I just don't see that
> happening.
>
> Paul C.
J.H. Kovacic, SAR, MCB
the distance route for my Ph.D. I lived, at the time, in Southern West
Virginia, some 80 miles from both Huntington and Charleston. Negotiating
those narrow and curved roads did not appeal to me, especially after
dark. I was in the neighborhood of 46 years-of-age back then.
Joseph
> > experimenting" for distance learning. I just don't see that
> > happening.
> >
> > Paul C.
Bill Highsmith
pcovers wrote in message <0da2753a...@usw-ex0101-082.remarq.com>...
>>"Kelly Ann Doherty" <kel...@island.net> wrote:
>>All in all, I have a hard time letting go of the concept that
>higher
>thinking all in
>>the presence of fellow student rambling through the halls of
>learning lined
>romantic, but I
>>hope we all have the eyes and ears to hear what our students
>really want. As
>>the methods of teaching change, I question them.
>>
>>
>
>predict the future of educational delivery, I cannot imagine the
>delivery method for the majority of students changing from the
>traditional model. I think the object of your romanticism is
>very safe. Remember aside from the concept that "education
>fosters debate, discussion, research and critical thinking all
>in the presence of fellow student rambling through the halls of
>learning lined with real books written by former geniuses", how
>many 18 year olds will want to give up a four year of "social
>happening.
>
>Paul C.
>
Regarding predicting the future of education: I think that it is *less*
risky to predict major changes in the future of education than it is to
claim
it will remain the same. Since no one has given a time frame for "the
future," I'll say it is fifty years for argument's sake. Now consider life
in general in 1950 and in 2000. How well would you have predicted the
change therebetween, sitting in front of the family radio in 1950? Not too
well I think, since the information age had not yet begun.
I think that the current model of education is doomed. There will be a
major push to reduce the cost and efficiency of educational institutions.
This will be done through a variety means, including:
1) the sharing of campuses by institutions
2) increased importance of DL through the use of broadband connections to
remote classrooms or the home. (The children can stay home and annoy their
parents even longer...after college, maybe they can stay at home and
telework.)
3) increased importance of virtual universities (the same ones that are
now residential)
4) vast redistribution and reduction of education-related employment--it
will be argued that the introductory course in world history done at Harvard
will be just fine for Stanford, UNC, Delft and others. Why have twenty
instructors when one will do...for a year or three? There will be a vast,
highly competitive market of virtual courseware. There will less diversity
(fewer instructors) but the quality of the courses will increase since only
the finest instructors will be successfully marketed and the courseware can
be extensively peer-reviewed. Areas of scholarship that are more subject to
rapid change would require more frequent updating of the material, of
course.
So outcomes of the above:
1) Pure research at universities will diminish in importance
2) There will be fewer hugs.
3) The cost of education will increase at a painful rate, rather than at an
utterly chaotic rate.
4) The percentage of credits required to be taken at an institution in order
to receive a degree will be reduced. Degrees will be more pervasively
patchwork quilted.
5) The definition of "university" will begin to blur. There will be more
specialist institutions providing educational services. (Perhaps
English101, Inc. will be brought in on a contract basis to handle the
freshmen.)
6) Courseware will become like interactive books that we have now...will
alternate directions of emphasis available according to the whim of the
student.
6) The main obstacles to all of the above will be from the professional
unions and associations, such as the ABA, APA, NEA
Bill Highsmith
Tom Head
> I think that the current model of education is doomed. There will be
I don't know about doomed. The radio isn't doomed. 8-tracks aren't
doomed. Poodle skirts aren't doomed. Pet rocks and leisure suits aren't
doomed. The Commodore 64 isn't doomed. They don't have very broad
appeal, but they have their fans. I suspect that in fifty years,
traditional full-time education will fall into this category -- hanging on
to its sports, fraternities/sororities, and claims of being "real
education" for all they're worth. I think traditional education will
survive; it just won't be the biggest game in town. It'll be charming,
romantic, and quaint.
I suspect that most of the rest of us will probably not be doing
distance learning as such, but rather hybrid extension programs with heavy
DL-ish components.
And here's another wild guess to throw out there: more of us will
actually be able to earn our college degrees. No more of this business of
1/3 of the U.S. population being left out of the white-collar market on
the virtue of being born in the wrong neighborhood. Mass media in its
one-way manifestations (newspaper, radio, television) has to a great
extent broken down the barriers which led to discrimination based on race,
sex, sexual orientation and economic class (how else do you explain the
timing of the civil rights, women's liberation, gay rights, and labor
movements?); maybe two-way mass media will finish the job. Hey, it's not
likely, but one can always hope.
Peace,
_____ _ _
|_ _| | | | Tom C. Head
| | | |_| | http://www2.netdoor.com/~tlh
| | | _ |
|_| |_| |_| ICQ 20364804
Bill Highsmith
Tom Head wrote in message ...
Tom,
Well...doomed is as doomed does...no, strike that.... If one is as doomed as
an eight-track tape, well, that's pretty darned doomed. It's at least a bit
doomed. Okay, *doomed* was a shock-troop sort of word for the temper of the
thread, but I don't think that I was unclear.
As far as the activism point...DL is only in its infancy now and has little
impact on the campus scene in 2000. The X-gen seems to show no stomach or
interest for the sort of activism of which you spoke, even though there is
nothing preventing them from participating...there is certainly no lack of
campuses. I can only conclude, then, that the activism of the sixties and
seventies was not a product of the campus; rather, the campus was merely a
stage for it. Without that particular stage, another expression for it
would have been found.
Bill
Tom Head
> Well...doomed is as doomed does...no, strike that.... If one is as
> doomed as an eight-track tape, well, that's pretty darned doomed.
Pretty dang darned all to heck, anyway.
> It's at least a bit doomed. Okay, *doomed* was a shock-troop sort of
> word for the temper of the thread, but I don't think that I was
> unclear.
They won't rule the roost, anyway -- and on that point, you'll find me in
agreement. I'm not sure they'll be quite as bad off as 8-tracks; maybe
vinyl would have been a better metaphor.
> As far as the activism point...DL is only in its infancy now and has
> little impact on the campus scene in 2000. The X-gen seems to show no
> stomach or interest for the sort of activism of which you spoke, even
> though there is nothing preventing them from participating...there is
> certainly no lack of campuses. I can only conclude, then, that the
> activism of the sixties and seventies was not a product of the campus;
> rather, the campus was merely a stage for it. Without that particular
> stage, another expression for it would have been found.
I actually hadn't intended to connect activism to the campus; the campus
has been around for hundreds of years, and has served as a beautiful forum
for activism but not necessarily an exclusive one. I think the main
reason it was so focused in the sixties and seventies was because it
happened to be where a lot of young people lived in one place without
their parents. In other words, it was maybe the one socially acceptable
place where the activists outnumbered the Establishment -- but in any
case, that the campus as campus instigated things was not my point.
Rather, I meant to say that the rise of mass media was a major instigator
for social change; it made rebellion visible and ergo gave people the
feeling that, yes, they could be involved in something big that just might
make a difference, and, yes, they could do it without necessarily
gathering torches and pitchforks and killing vast numbers of people. So
it contributed to the basic idea of rebellion as a productive, almost
comforting social force, sort of the antithesis of terrorism.
What I think two way mass media -- or, at the moment, the Internet
-- will do for us is provide practically everyone with a public access
forum, which I think will gradually bring issues into more of an open
court/town hall format. This could be a beautiful thing for social
activism, and that's what I meant to say. I think it's the next
evolutionary step in media, and I think that its effects will ultimately
be just as world-altering. I really look forward to it. To a certain
extent, I think it's starting to happen now.
How this relates to the virtual university: as people no longer
have to quit work to obtain a degree, distance learning -- as it becomes a
more widely accepted concept -- will let people earn degrees who would
never otherwise have had the luxury of negotiating this. And as these
people earn degrees and become more educated, they gain power on a social
level - the power to increase their human capital and with it their
standards of living, the power to approach problems with a solid
background in essential liberal arts, and so forth. In other words, I
think this marvelous little media is going to put everyone's words in
everyone else's face, give us cheaper and more manageable forms of
education (both formal degree-granting and informal study), and make
everyone just a little bit smarter in the process.
Kelly Ann Doherty
interesting. Ones that disturb me the most are the reduction in research
and the staff of vast resources melted down into a few bodies. I really
can't see the latter one being effective. What an onerous load to put on
someone!
If what you assume does transpire, I hope that the quality and consequences
(critical thinking, etc) of education are demanded along the way of
evolution. Albeit, I wonder, what will define knowledge in 10 years (I
prefer a shorter timeframe, as time speeds beyond my grasp)?
Kelly Doherty
Bill Highsmith <bhigh...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:7Hlv4.4700$aH.3...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Kelly Ann Doherty
Ones that disturb me are the reduction in research and the staff with ample
resources melted down into a few bodies. I find the later concept unlikely
as well as ineffective. Imagine being one of those responsible for all the
facilitating and development?
If what you assume transpires, I hope that the qualities of education we
enjoy today are maintained. Albeit, who is to say what defines knowledge in
10, 20 or 50 years!
Kelly Doherty
Bill Highsmith <bhigh...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:7Hlv4.4700$aH.3...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> pcovers wrote in message <0da2753a...@usw-ex0101-082.remarq.com>...
> >>"Kelly Ann Doherty" <kel...@island.net> wrote:
> >>All in all, I have a hard time letting go of the concept that
> >higher
> >>education fosters debate, discussion, research and critical
> >thinking all in
> >>the presence of fellow student rambling through the halls of
> >learning lined
> >>with real books written by former geniuses. Okay, call me a
> >romantic, but I
> >>hope we all have the eyes and ears to hear what our students
> >really want. As
> >>the methods of teaching change, I question them.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Kelly, though I am as limited as anyone else in being able to
> >predict the future of educational delivery, I cannot imagine the
> >delivery method for the majority of students changing from the
> >traditional model. I think the object of your romanticism is
> >very safe. Remember aside from the concept that "education
> >fosters debate, discussion, research and critical thinking all
> >in the presence of fellow student rambling through the halls of
> >learning lined with real books written by former geniuses", how
> >many 18 year olds will want to give up a four year of "social
> >experimenting" for distance learning. I just don't see that
> >happening.
> >
> >Paul C.
Bill Highsmith
I was blowing hot air...I don't have any better 50-year vision than anyone
else. But here is my prediction for the more accessible 10-year window (are
you ready): in 2010, there will be another 250 DL MBA programs.
Bill H.
Kelly Ann Doherty wrote in message <89pvp...@enews1.newsguy.com>...
>Bill this is quite a comprehensive list of predictions. Some are very
>interesting. Ones that disturb me the most are the reduction in research
>and the staff of vast resources melted down into a few bodies. I really
>can't see the latter one being effective. What an onerous load to put on
>someone!
>
>If what you assume does transpire, I hope that the quality and consequences
>(critical thinking, etc) of education are demanded along the way of
>evolution. Albeit, I wonder, what will define knowledge in 10 years (I
>prefer a shorter timeframe, as time speeds beyond my grasp)?
>
>Kelly Doherty
>
>
>Bill Highsmith <bhigh...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
>news:7Hlv4.4700$aH.3...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>>
>>
Tom Head
> I was blowing hot air...I don't have any better 50-year vision than
> anyone else. But here is my prediction for the more accessible
> 10-year window (are you ready): in 2010, there will be another 250 DL
> MBA programs.
Agreed -- at least 250 more. I would hazard, in fact, that there will be
over 500 total MBA programs available at least mostly via distance
learning by the end of year 2010.
Joseph Wang
Tom Head <t...@netdoor.com> wrote:
>Agreed -- at least 250 more. I would hazard, in fact, that there will be
>over 500 total MBA programs available at least mostly via distance
>learning by the end of year 2010.
I'm not so sure. What happens in most new industries (automobiles in
the 1920's or microcomputer in the 1980's) where there is pent-up
demand followed by a drop in barrier to entry is that there is
initially a huge number of players which compete with each other until
they get whittled down to a few large players.
Based on how other industries behave there will be two trends. One is
for "general MBA" programs to consolidate into a few large players.
The other is for lots of small "speciality MBA's" to exist (i.e. MBA
for computer professional interested in international business).
What I think is highly unlikely is for there to be many "general MBA"
programs to exist. There probably will be some sort of shakeout in
which MBA programs start dropping like flies around 2008.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Wang Ph.D. Globewide Network Academy
pres...@gnacademy.org FREE Distance Education catalog database
http://www.gnacademy.org Over 20,000 courses and degrees
Joseph Wang
Bill Highsmith <bhigh...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>I think that the current model of education is doomed. There will be a
>major push to reduce the cost and efficiency of educational institutions.
>This will be done through a variety means, including:
> 1) the sharing of campuses by institutions
I think that it will go even further and the campus institution will
be decoupled from the instructional institution. In 2010, a local
campus will offer "campus passes" which will for a fee will let you
use computer, lab, advising, dorm, and library functions, even though
you are a student of a completely different university.
> 2) increased importance of DL through the use of broadband connections to
>remote classrooms or the home. (The children can stay home and annoy their
>parents even longer...after college, maybe they can stay at home and
>telework.)
I think that students will still go off to college.
> 3) increased importance of virtual universities (the same ones that are
>now residential)
> 4) vast redistribution and reduction of education-related employment--it
>will be argued that the introductory course in world history done at Harvard
>will be just fine for Stanford, UNC, Delft and others.
Yes and no. There will be a few standard canned introduction to world
history, but the instructors that would have been teaching world
history will then be teaching "niche" classes like the history of
France in the 1950's.
>Why have twenty instructors when one will do...for a year or three?
Because courseware will be so widespread as to be essentially free.
The only way anyone will be able to make any money off education will
be to *gasp* offer human contact.
>There will be a vast,
>highly competitive market of virtual courseware. There will less diversity
>(fewer instructors) but the quality of the courses will increase since only
>the finest instructors will be successfully marketed and the courseware can
>be extensively peer-reviewed.
I think that there will be demand for more instructors. Even the
finest teacher suffers if the student/teacher ratio is too high.
>So outcomes of the above:
>1) Pure research at universities will diminish in importance
Maybe not. I suspect that having people that do cutting edge research
and can explain that research to the general public will give a
university a competitive edge.
>4) The percentage of credits required to be taken at an institution in order
>to receive a degree will be reduced. Degrees will be more pervasively
>patchwork quilted.
Agreed.
>5) The definition of "university" will begin to blur. There will be more
>specialist institutions providing educational services. (Perhaps
>English101, Inc. will be brought in on a contract basis to handle the
>freshmen.)
Agreed.
>6) Courseware will become like interactive books that we have now...will
>alternate directions of emphasis available according to the whim of the
>student.
Agreed.
>6) The main obstacles to all of the above will be from the professional
>unions and associations, such as the ABA, APA, NEA
Not so sure for higher education. I suspect that the main resistance
will be from the institutions themselves. Suggest the "campus pass"
idea I mentioned above to your faculty senate and see the reaction.
The main push for all of this will be from businesses who need highly
trained workers to make money, and state governments that want to
attract said businesses.
Some other predictions....
State public university systems will be much more tightly integrated
to the point where we aren't comparing universities, but rather state
university systems.
Tom Head
> >Agreed -- at least 250 more. I would hazard, in fact, that there will be
> >over 500 total MBA programs available at least mostly via distance
> >learning by the end of year 2010.
>
> I'm not so sure. What happens in most new industries (automobiles in
> the 1920's or microcomputer in the 1980's) where there is pent-up
> demand followed by a drop in barrier to entry is that there is
> initially a huge number of players which compete with each other until
> they get whittled down to a few large players.
I don't think we're even close to saturation, though -- if nothing else,
look at the average cost of an MBA program vs. the fairly standardized
nature of the curriculum.
> Based on how other industries behave there will be two trends. One is
> for "general MBA" programs to consolidate into a few large players.
> The other is for lots of small "speciality MBA's" to exist (i.e. MBA
> for computer professional interested in international business).
Now, I do see the latter happening -- and it's already beginning to
happen, IMHO. Drexel University is very smart, for instance; strong
graduate programs in technology, so rather than offering the standard MBA
it's offering an MBA in Technology Management. Southwestern Assemblies of
God University would be well served to switch its general MBA to a MBA in
Church and Nonprofit Administration if applications start to dry up.
"There's lots of specifity to go around."
> What I think is highly unlikely is for there to be many "general MBA"
> programs to exist. There probably will be some sort of shakeout in
> which MBA programs start dropping like flies around 2008.
I think the general MBA programs may very well start dropping like flies
well before 2008, but I think we'll still see more than 500 DL MBA
programs in 2010.
Kevin Stewart
Bill Highsmith wrote in message
<7Hlv4.4700$aH.3...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
snipped
>I think that the current model of education is doomed. There will be a
>major push to reduce the cost and efficiency of educational institutions.
snipped
Maybe we'll wise up and start/return to expecting 12 yrs of education to
leave something in the minds of our young beside memories of dodging
bullets. Maybe the rote and needless repitition method will be dropped in
favor of giving some meaning to "progressive" education. Hell, we may
actually have colleges continue from 12th grade, rather than review the last
6+ grades, dropping all the 'been there, done that" crap and have basically
new material from the get-go.
Maybe I should go back to lurking the ULC'ers for another week.
Kevin
CAESAR: "The Ides of March have come."
SOOTHSAYER: But they have not yet gone!"
- a slaughtered paraphrase of Shakespeare's "Julius Caesar"
Kevin Stewart
Thomas C. Head! I had such hopes for you, old son! You. . . you. . . you
conformist, you!
1.) Education doesn't leave one educated ipso facto. (I'd say this is an
ideal.)
2.) Education does not mean better jobs/income/etc. The most financially
rewarded person from my old 'hood is a $40,000+ garba...sanatation engineer
with a high school diploma. See also Steve Levicoff, PhD-teamster.
3.) 'Everyone' having degrees has yet to prove benefical. It simply means
the uniformity comes with a similar number of yrs *paying* the seat rental
more directly.
4.) Human capital seems to be increased just++ as readily by the 'failures'
of society, quiters like Gates, Dell, Fuller, Henderson, Ford, etc.
5.) The "essential liberal arts" as seen in college is little more than the
meat and potatoes of K-12.
6.) There has been some talk of jobs in the future not needing college, in
large part due to the growth of technology.
7.) Power and knowledge are rarely presented as mutually inclusive, (whereas
education and knowledge are usually -- though erroneously -- linked).
8.) Education is rather widely available now, using this and similar modes
of delivery and a diverse assortment of financial aid. I don't know if it
has made as large a difference in the *use* of education.
9.) Nor do I see any reason to believe that the increased role of computers
will have any positive result in the pursuit of education. We seem set on
making things easier for students, setting standards according to the
'weakest link', eliminating courses and programs that 'expect' "much" of
students, having 'menus' etc on computers (thankfully!!!). Computers, IMO,
will not negate these things. (Their use seems to be more for entertainment
or to 'get through' homework. Imagine how needing to know Discrete
mathematics or a rigorous programming language would impact computer use!)
That's my Cassandra-like POV anyhow.
Kevin
Tom Head wrote in message ...
snipped
And as these
>people earn degrees and become more educated, they gain power on a social
>level - the power to increase their human capital and with it their
>standards of living, the power to approach problems with a solid
>background in essential liberal arts, and so forth. In other words, I
>think this marvelous little media is going to put everyone's words in
>everyone else's face, give us cheaper and more manageable forms of
>education (both formal degree-granting and informal study), and make
>everyone just a little bit smarter in the process.
snipped
Tom Head
> AAACCCCCKKKKKK!!!!
>
> Thomas C. Head! I had such hopes for you, old son! You. . . you. . .
> you conformist, you!
*gasp* Blasphemer!
> 1.) Education doesn't leave one educated ipso facto. (I'd say this is
> an ideal.)
Yes, much in the same way as expecting a low-fat diet to make one lose
weight. Some people decide not to do it and reap the same benefits through
exercise, and some people who do it don't benefit -- yet _most_ people who
stand to benefit from the approach, and try it, do benefit at least a
little bit (provided, of course, that they do it right).
> 2.) Education does not mean better jobs/income/etc.
No, and dieting doesn't mean that one will lose weight -- but it's a nice
approach towards that end. (Exercise, of course, being just as important,
but either approach, properly emphasized, usually works.)
> 3.) 'Everyone' having degrees has yet to prove benefical.
As is to be expected, since it hasn't happened yet.
> 4.) Human capital seems to be increased just++ as readily by the
> 'failures' of society, quiters like Gates, Dell, Fuller, Henderson,
> Ford, etc.
I wouldn't call them "failures," with or without the quotes.
> 5.) The "essential liberal arts" as seen in college is little more
> than the meat and potatoes of K-12.
Depends on the college, the K-12, and the form of the essential liberal
arts. If you're looking at a bad college vs. an unusually good high
school, I might agree. Most colleges aren't bad, though, and most high
schools aren't unusually good.
> 6.) There has been some talk of jobs in the future not needing
> college, in large part due to the growth of technology.
I'll believe this when I see it, though of course I've mentioned before
that I think a certification-based approach in all fields would be a good
substitute for degrees. I don't feel passionate about this idea, but I
don't think it would necessarily be a bad thing.
> 7.) Power and knowledge are rarely presented as mutually inclusive,
> (whereas education and knowledge are usually -- though erroneously --
> linked).
See also: dieting and losing weight.
> 8.) Education is rather widely available now, using this and similar
> modes of delivery and a diverse assortment of financial aid. I don't
> know if it has made as large a difference in the *use* of education.
I'm not sure what you mean by this, so I'll let you explain it in more
depth.
> 9.) Nor do I see any reason to believe that the increased role of
> computers will have any positive result in the pursuit of education.
We'll see.
Kevin Stewart
Tom Head wrote in message ...
snipped
>> 8.) Education is rather widely available now, using this and similar
>> modes of delivery and a diverse assortment of financial aid. I don't
>> know if it has made as large a difference in the *use* of education.
>
>I'm not sure what you mean by this, so I'll let you explain it in more
>depth.
Just that videos and the web have enhanced opportunities for education and
that the addition of new means of delivery are joined with a plethora of
funding options. These improvements haven't made education any more useful,
nor it's acquisition as coveted as one might think it should be. Improved
means have little to do with improved enrollment or greater use.
Kevin