The recent American Federation of Teachers report on How Unions Can Harness the Technology Revolution on Campus issued several recommendations on how to improve technology decision-making and use at U.S. institutions of higher education. Included among the recommendations is a call for faculty and faculty unions to become more involved in the technology selection and purchasing process, focusing on using technology for the "enhancement of student learning." Accordingly, the report also calls for more research and evaluation of both distance learning and on-campus instruction in which technology plays a part, to ensure that information received through a technological interface is as "good" as that delivered in a traditional student-teacher relationship.
At the same time, the report recommends examining more closely how technology dollars are spent, paying attention not only to the cost of acquisition, but also the ongoing maintenance and built-in obsolescence costs. The report stresses that investing in technology without investing in training for faculty and students is a waste of money. Training should be an integral component of any educational technology endeavor.
And finally, the report calls on faculty unions to be actively engaged in employment issues related to technology on campus, including staffing levels, compensation, privacy, health and safety, and balancing intellectual property rights with fair use for educational purposes.
We asked Larry Gold, director of higher education for the American Federation of Teachers, and Jim Mingle, executive director of the State Higher Education Executives Officers, to give us their views on some of the more controversial issues raised in the AFT report.
Educom Review: The AFT took the position in its report that no undergraduate degree programs in their entirety should be offered "at a distance." What was the rationale for this position?
Larry Gold: First, permit me a moment of realism. Except for a relatively small number of true believers, the vast majority of legislators, bureaucrats and administrators beating the drums for distance learning are not doing so because they think it constitutes better education. (I'll believe that when they stop sending their own children to traditional campuses and sit them in front of a TV screen instead.) They're beating the drums for distance learning because they think it will save money, pure and simple, that it will enable them to get more diplomas into more hands for less bucks. That's not a terrible goal, but it means that it is very important for someone - for faculty - to be at the table asking a simple question, "Does this make sense educationally?"
Our task force looked closely over the distance learning terrain and reviewed much of the research concerning it. We found many creative things being done with interactive video, and we're impressed with video's capacity to expose students to coursework not available on their own campus and to reach students unable to get to a campus. This should be continued as long as the faculty on campus maintain quality control.
We also found research indicating that distance learning students under some circumstances can do as well on a test as students who took the same course on campus. But that's just not the end of the story. It doesn't tell us the circumstances when distance learning will work and when it won't. And it certainly doesn't tell us if distance learning can offer enough interchange with faculty and peers to give students the depth of understanding they need to take their place among other college graduates and to function effectively as knowledge workers over the long haul.
So let's keep working on distance learning, but let's also keep studying it and let's make sure we're not making today's students unwitting guinea pigs in a failed experiment. Let's make sure faculty retain academic control over the instruction to guarantee that the course is top quality, that it fits into the overall college curriculum, and that regular and frequent, formal and informal opportunities are provided for students to talk with faculty and one another about the content of their classes, their educational and career goals, and their research.
The task force spoke from deep conviction when it stated: "All our experience as educators tells us that teaching and learning in the shared human spaces of a campus are essential to the undergraduate experience and cannot be compromised too greatly without rendering the education unacceptable." So let's continue distance learning, but let's not put all of our students' eggs in this basket just yet.
Mingle: Actually, Larry, "legislators and bureaucrats" have come to support distance learning with some reluctance and rather late in its development. It is only with new technologies that dramatically improve the level of interaction in distance education, that there has been any real support. Institutional enthusiasm and student demand have far outpaced political support.
Granted, student enthusiasm is considerably less among traditional-age students looking for the warm fuzzies of the campus. And you are right, Larry, about the motivation of many legislators. They come to this question with a concern first about costs and access. Why shouldn't they? These issues are their fundamental responsibility. What a tragedy if state systems have to impose enrollment caps or raise tuition to unaffordable levels because university faculties are unwilling to consider alternative delivery systems! If, for example, a state system wishes to expand the capacity of the public university to accommodate, say 25,000 new students over the next five years, the state must expand on a per-student basis much more than the incremental cost of adding instructional services. This is because there are many responsibilities built into the workload assumptions that the AFT so jealously guards, namely research and public service. In contrast, if a state wants to expand its electronic access, there are significant upfront investments to be made but the incremental costs of adding students and maintaining the system are far less than funding the traditional "multi-purpose" model. The incremental cost of adding an additional student in the British Open University is essentially zero. Founded in 1969 (hardly a new experiment, Larry) the British Open University currently educates about 150,000 baccalaureate degree seekers and has a worldwide reputation for high quality.
There are numerous examples of well-respected, well-established distance learning programs in the United States as well. Interestingly, these programs received little attention from faculty groups and accrediting bodies when they were a modest part of the market. But the growth in demand apparently has created considerable concern among some faculty. Underlying this concern and reflected in the AFT report are some assumptions about the impact of technology on faculty and faculty jobs which, I believe, are mistaken. The infusion of new capital into higher education in the form of ubiquitous broadband networks will increase, not lessen, demand for the intellectual resources of faculty. In other words, the distance learning market is an expansion of educational choice, not a substitution for the campus experience. It will of course significantly change the nature of faculty work - something which many faculty fear while others embrace.
Admittedly, it is difficult for faculty to accept the transformation of higher education from a producer-dominated to a consumer-dominated enterprise. Actually, it doesn't much matter whether legislators, or accrediting bodies, or parents, or faculty, prefer one delivery mode over another - for we are not fully in control. It will be the marketplace that will decide whether "distance learning" will thrive or die. This of course doesn't mean that professionals should abdicate their responsibilities to exercise quality control and establish integrity in our educational programs. It just means we have to negotiate our views with some powerful new groups - students and employers mainly - who have a whole new set of choices.
ER: What about the needs of adult working students, or people who live far away from college campuses? Don't we owe an education to them, especially those who are looking for a less generic, more focused, skill-oriented program of studies?
Gold: When we take peoples' tuition money and promise them a college education, what we owe them, first and foremost, is a real college education. A real community college education, university education, whatever. If we're not giving the student something of equivalent value, it would be terribly wrong to pretend otherwise. So while no one denies that distance learning courses can convey information, and that telephone and e-mail are valid ways to communicate, the question still remains whether it's the same. Our belief is that it's not the same, that it can be a valid part of the educational experience but that it is no substitute for interchange in the same time and place among faculty and students. Research could prove us wrong, but it hasn't; technologies could be developed to make the education equivalent, but we don't believe that's the case today.
What worries me is that state officials and college administrators, wishing that this is an equivalent education, will just proceed as though it's so. Not for the best students, not for the children of their most affluent residents (who won't accept anything less than a traditional education), but for others. And I worry further that a lot of potential students will embrace it on that basis - people burdened with problems of distance, time and money, understandably seeking a more manageable route to success. But will it give them a true college education that serves them well in the long run? We doubt it and we're honor bound to say so.
Mingle: The question boils down to choice. When the academy defined a "real education" as the small liberal arts experience of the colonial college, the level of participation in postsecondary was minuscule as compared to today. At the same time it is a harsh reality of today that some of us have more choices than others. For a working mother in a small town in Maine, the creation of a distance learning network that she could access at a local school was an explosion of choice - because before she had none. For a working professional in Manhattan, with apparently many choices, but little time, the advent of online programs at New York University makes his options all the richer. And as best as I can tell from the testimony of students themselves engaged in distance learning, they don't feel deprived, but enriched.
ER: The AFT report appears to be supportive of technology but concerned about its application. Is the choice between the campus or living room couch?
Mingle: Not at all. The British Columbia Open Learning Agency offers many nonresidential distance degrees. But students typically may take only two or three courses from the institution. And the students aren't found in the wilds of British Columbia but in the city of Vancouver. They are enrolled in other institutions and using the Open Learning offerings because they apparently like the contact they get on the campuses and the convenience they get from the Open Learning Agency. The "short course" is also a major growth area for distance learning providers, like National Technological University, rather than traditional degree programs.
Which raises another issue. The best way for traditional campuses to combat distance learning competitors is to figure out how to get on a seven-days-a-week, twelve-months-a-year schedule instead of the current 32-week, Tuesday/Thursday lockstep. Maybe governors and legislators would be less inclined to opt for the distance learning options if they saw more productivity from the traditionals. For example, faculties could create more space on their residential campuses by adopting a goal of 25% of the course offering and degree requirements in an electronic, asynchronous mode.
Gold: Who knows? Maybe tomorrow, the classic debate about "teaching v. research" will be replaced by "couch v. campus"? I hope not; that would be a case of one silly rhetorical dichotomy taking the place of another. Programs that creatively combine distance with on-campus learning can be just fine; all we've said is that distance learning should not entirely supplant on-campus interchange in a college education. As for Jim's other points, AFT is working actively to strengthen undergraduate teaching and we all need to think of ways to make college-going less "lockstep." But it would be equally rigid to set a goal of 25% for "electronic asynchronous instruction" out of context. New learning technologies offer unbelievably exciting prospects for enhancing the college experience; let's just be sure that we use them to enhance that experience, not simply overhaul it.The recent American Federation of Teachers report on How Unions Can Harness the Technology Revolution on Campus issued several recommendations on how to improve technology decision-making and use at U.S. institutions of higher education. Included among the recommendations is a call for faculty and faculty unions to become more involved in the technology selection and purchasing process, focusing on using technology for the "enhancement of student learning." Accordingly, the report also calls for more research and evaluation of both distance learning and on-campus instruction in which technology plays a part, to ensure that information received through a technological interface is as "good" as that delivered in a traditional student-teacher relationship.
At the same time, the report recommends examining more closely how technology dollars are spent, paying attention not only to the cost of acquisition, but also the ongoing maintenance and built-in obsolescence costs. The report stresses that investing in technology without investing in training for faculty and students is a waste of money. Training should be an integral component of any educational technology endeavor.
And finally, the report calls on faculty unions to be actively engaged in employment issues related to technology on campus, including staffing levels, compensation, privacy, health and safety, and balancing intellectual property rights with fair use for educational purposes.
We asked Larry Gold, director of higher education for the American Federation of Teachers, and Jim Mingle, executive director of the State Higher Education Executives Officers, to give us their views on some of the more controversial issues raised in the AFT report.
Educom Review: The AFT took the position in its report that no undergraduate degree programs in their entirety should be offered "at a distance." What was the rationale for this position?
Larry Gold: First, permit me a moment of realism. Except for a relatively small number of true believers, the vast majority of legislators, bureaucrats and administrators beating the drums for distance learning are not doing so because they think it constitutes better education. (I'll believe that when they stop sending their own children to traditional campuses and sit them in front of a TV screen instead.) They're beating the drums for distance learning because they think it will save money, pure and simple, that it will enable them to get more diplomas into more hands for less bucks. That's not a terrible goal, but it means that it is very important for someone - for faculty - to be at the table asking a simple question, "Does this make sense educationally?"
Our task force looked closely over the distance learning terrain and reviewed much of the research concerning it. We found many creative things being done with interactive video, and we're impressed with video's capacity to expose students to coursework not available on their own campus and to reach students unable to get to a campus. This should be continued as long as the faculty on campus maintain quality control.
We also found research indicating that distance learning students under some circumstances can do as well on a test as students who took the same course on campus. But that's just not the end of the story. It doesn't tell us the circumstances when distance learning will work and when it won't. And it certainly doesn't tell us if distance learning can offer enough interchange with faculty and peers to give students the depth of understanding they need to take their place among other college graduates and to function effectively as knowledge workers over the long haul.
So let's keep working on distance learning, but let's also keep studying it and let's make sure we're not making today's students unwitting guinea pigs in a failed experiment. Let's make sure faculty retain academic control over the instruction to guarantee that the course is top quality, that it fits into the overall college curriculum, and that regular and frequent, formal and informal opportunities are provided for students to talk with faculty and one another about the content of their classes, their educational and career goals, and their research.
The task force spoke from deep conviction when it stated: "All our experience as educators tells us that teaching and learning in the shared human spaces of a campus are essential to the undergraduate experience and cannot be compromised too greatly without rendering the education unacceptable." So let's continue distance learning, but let's not put all of our students' eggs in this basket just yet.
Mingle: Actually, Larry, "legislators and bureaucrats" have come to support distance learning with some reluctance and rather late in its development. It is only with new technologies that dramatically improve the level of interaction in distance education, that there has been any real support. Institutional enthusiasm and student demand have far outpaced political support.
Granted, student enthusiasm is considerably less among traditional-age students looking for the warm fuzzies of the campus. And you are right, Larry, about the motivation of many legislators. They come to this question with a concern first about costs and access. Why shouldn't they? These issues are their fundamental responsibility. What a tragedy if state systems have to impose enrollment caps or raise tuition to unaffordable levels because university faculties are unwilling to consider alternative delivery systems! If, for example, a state system wishes to expand the capacity of the public university to accommodate, say 25,000 new students over the next five years, the state must expand on a per-student basis much more than the incremental cost of adding instructional services. This is because there are many responsibilities built into the workload assumptions that the AFT so jealously guards, namely research and public service. In contrast, if a state wants to expand its electronic access, there are significant upfront investments to be made but the incremental costs of adding students and maintaining the system are far less than funding the traditional "multi-purpose" model. The incremental cost of adding an additional student in the British Open University is essentially zero. Founded in 1969 (hardly a new experiment, Larry) the British Open University currently educates about 150,000 baccalaureate degree seekers and has a worldwide reputation for high quality.
There are numerous examples of well-respected, well-established distance learning programs in the United States as well. Interestingly, these programs received little attention from faculty groups and accrediting bodies when they were a modest part of the market. But the growth in demand apparently has created considerable concern among some faculty. Underlying this concern and reflected in the AFT report are some assumptions about the impact of technology on faculty and faculty jobs which, I believe, are mistaken. The infusion of new capital into higher education in the form of ubiquitous broadband networks will increase, not lessen, demand for the intellectual resources of faculty. In other words, the distance learning market is an expansion of educational choice, not a substitution for the campus experience. It will of course significantly change the nature of faculty work - something which many faculty fear while others embrace.
Admittedly, it is difficult for faculty to accept the transformation of higher education from a producer-dominated to a consumer-dominated enterprise. Actually, it doesn't much matter whether legislators, or accrediting bodies, or parents, or faculty, prefer one delivery mode over another - for we are not fully in control. It will be the marketplace that will decide whether "distance learning" will thrive or die. This of course doesn't mean that professionals should abdicate their responsibilities to exercise quality control and establish integrity in our educational programs. It just means we have to negotiate our views with some powerful new groups - students and employers mainly - who have a whole new set of choices.
ER: What about the needs of adult working students, or people who live far away from college campuses? Don't we owe an education to them, especially those who are looking for a less generic, more focused, skill-oriented program of studies?
Gold: When we take peoples' tuition money and promise them a college education, what we owe them, first and foremost, is a real college education. A real community college education, university education, whatever. If we're not giving the student something of equivalent value, it would be terribly wrong to pretend otherwise. So while no one denies that distance learning courses can convey information, and that telephone and e-mail are valid ways to communicate, the question still remains whether it's the same. Our belief is that it's not the same, that it can be a valid part of the educational experience but that it is no substitute for interchange in the same time and place among faculty and students. Research could prove us wrong, but it hasn't; technologies could be developed to make the education equivalent, but we don't believe that's the case today.
What worries me is that state officials and college administrators, wishing that this is an equivalent education, will just proceed as though it's so. Not for the best students, not for the children of their most affluent residents (who won't accept anything less than a traditional education), but for others. And I worry further that a lot of potential students will embrace it on that basis - people burdened with problems of distance, time and money, understandably seeking a more manageable route to success. But will it give them a true college education that serves them well in the long run? We doubt it and we're honor bound to say so.
Mingle: The question boils down to choice. When the academy defined a "real education" as the small liberal arts experience of the colonial college, the level of participation in postsecondary was minuscule as compared to today. At the same time it is a harsh reality of today that some of us have more choices than others. For a working mother in a small town in Maine, the creation of a distance learning network that she could access at a local school was an explosion of choice - because before she had none. For a working professional in Manhattan, with apparently many choices, but little time, the advent of online programs at New York University makes his options all the richer. And as best as I can tell from the testimony of students themselves engaged in distance learning, they don't feel deprived, but enriched.
ER: The AFT report appears to be supportive of technology but concerned about its application. Is the choice between the campus or living room couch?
Mingle: Not at all. The British Columbia Open Learning Agency offers many nonresidential distance degrees. But students typically may take only two or three courses from the institution. And the students aren't found in the wilds of British Columbia but in the city of Vancouver. They are enrolled in other institutions and using the Open Learning offerings because they apparently like the contact they get on the campuses and the convenience they get from the Open Learning Agency. The "short course" is also a major growth area for distance learning providers, like National Technological University, rather than traditional degree programs.
Which raises another issue. The best way for traditional campuses to combat distance learning competitors is to figure out how to get on a seven-days-a-week, twelve-months-a-year schedule instead of the current 32-week, Tuesday/Thursday lockstep. Maybe governors and legislators would be less inclined to opt for the distance learning options if they saw more productivity from the traditionals. For example, faculties could create more space on their residential campuses by adopting a goal of 25% of the course offering and degree requirements in an electronic, asynchronous mode.
Gold: Who knows? Maybe tomorrow, the classic debate about "teaching v. research" will be replaced by "couch v. campus"? I hope not; that would be a case of one silly rhetorical dichotomy taking the place of another. Programs that creatively combine distance with on-campus learning can be just fine; all we've said is that distance learning should not entirely supplant on-campus interchange in a college education. As for Jim's other points, AFT is working actively to strengthen undergraduate teaching and we all need to think of ways to make college-going less "lockstep." But it would be equally rigid to set a goal of 25% for "electronic asynchronous instruction" out of context. New learning technologies offer unbelievably exciting prospects for enhancing the college experience; let's just be sure that we use them to enhance that experience, not simply overhaul it.