Noble
(1998)
Noble,
D.F. (1998) ‘Digital diploma mills: the automation of higher education’
[online], First Monday, vol.3, no.1, http://firstmonday.org/ htbin/ cgiwrap/ bin/ ojs/ index.php/
fm/ article/ view/ 569/ 490
Nothing
like a unionist to get your blood pumping, whether you agree or disagree.
("essential reading for faculty union activist", one review states.)
Noble presents us with a diatribe on the evils of universities moving towards
automaton. One can see where he might be coming from, as certainly while I was
at University in the late 1990s, technology was rarely used (I even used to
write assignments by hand).
For
noble there is a fear that teachers are losing control over what they teach,
the potential for the erosion of intellectual property rights, and insecurity
at the future of jobs. (agreements made in all walks of life at the introduction
of something new). There is very much a
them (administrators) versus us (faculty and students).
There
are some interesting points to note, however, that we have seen before or heard
in other debates....
- the lowering of labour costs by marketing online
courses
- "shift from the burden of paying for education
from public purse to private individual consumer
- " ..the wealthy go on campus...everyone else
online...."
For
me the article feels like the situation calls for better change management. The
faculty are naturally opposed to something that seems to have happened without
their consultation or knowledge. This may just be the rhetoric of a good
speaker, but bears an important point when thinking about reform - change works
best when we involve its stakeholders.
Have
these visions been borne out since 1998? Probably - in some quarters. There is good
online learning and bad. There is good face to face and bad. People see
something new and jump on it. Those who think through, do it well. Students are
paying more from their own pockets for education - but actually paying for
their face to face education. Establishments, like the Open University, learn
to be better at what they do. Free ware courses from places like MIT - well,
although it's good to have availability, I am not sure of their value to the
learner, when we consider that there is debate about whether students can
develop the skills for learning on their own.
Hara and Kling (1999)
Hara
and Kling's paper looks at the frustrations of students undertaking an online
course, highlighting that little research has taken place in this area. The
three areas that were prominent being:
- lack of
prompt feedback
- ambiguous
instructions
- technical
problems
What is interesting, and has been pointed out by
other students, is that although at the start they point out that the course
they have chosen has nothing remarkable about it, it actually turned out to be
a bit of a disaster, as the tutor running it was substituted.(maybe not such a
great course to use after all...) Also, the course was transposed to on online environment
without any thought about whether it's format should change, and the tutor did
not receive any extra tuition to aid them in tutoring in an online environment.(Now
everyone here at MAODE knows that's not the best approach to take!)
However they do point out that the frustrations of the
students echo those in a face to face environment. After all, as human beings
we all need something to complain about (and often the cleverness from those
managing is in making sure that the things that can be frustrating don't affect
the important elements!). It is always so hard to truly adapt to every student
on your course - whether on or offline.
Have we had similar frustrating experiences -
probably. I get less frustrated with technology not working properly, maybe
because I have more experience of this happening. However if the technology is
a big part of the task, then I can understand being frustrated. Linking with
the unclear instructions - I actually really liked the compendium tool - once I
figured out how to use it. The instructions were not so coherent for me. Ambiguous
instructions happen all the time in face to face training, which is why we
check in on group work or use facilitators. Sometimes it seems there is more of
a 'liassez-faire' attitude to actual doing the activities, than there is the
instructions - which leads on to the point about prompt feedback. Does it
matter if we don't complete the activities? Do the activities suit each person?
Clearly, all students being different, and the fact that most students chose
online learning so that they have the flexibility to do it whenever and
wherever they want, there can be tension here. For me the frustrating elements are
the collaborative elements - it would be good to finish the tasks set, and have
more completion each week. Whether that makes the learning experience any less
- who knows? In a masters situation, we are mostly studying for ourselves. In
my work context, there is a necessary sharing of knowledge, so understanding
how to overcome, support or share some of these frustrations is important -
there is a need for a good facilitator/pastoral support.
Should they have cancelled the course? This is
something that we often have to make a decision on - normally because there
aren't enough numbers, rather than that the tutor is indisposed. In some cases
- I do feel that nothing is better than something. (As often the something
really does cause more problems.)
Cuban
(2001)
Cuban, L.
(2001) Oversold and Underused: Computers in the Classroom, Cambridge,
MA, Harvard University Press, ch.4.
The
main thrust of Cuban's article, is that despite the technology increasing, the main
vehicle for teaching remains the lecture. He presents us with images of now
defunct tech labs where the button son the desks still remain , but are not
used (partly reminiscent of Wesch's image of the empty lecture halls). Although
a fairly drawn out chapter, I enjoyed reading this and paralleling the development
of technology in Stanford, which adoption and use elsewhere. There are some
universal echoes.
1960/70s- automaton of administrative tasks and
data analysis; those who are more aggressive got better or more technology;
individuals adopting personal technologies for their own use (much like the
students in week 13/14 research).
1980s - personal computer trumps main frame;
critical mass building; administrators spent time enhancing infrastructure -
networking
1990s - easy access to technology
1996 - 3 out of 4 students had own computer
Some
key points:
- academics tend not to be technophobes, but most used
computers to help with 'admin' tasks; research, writing, classroom prep
- few professors innovative and using technology to
improve teaching
- split of governance between administration and
faculty at Stanford
- ongoing tensions of how faculty time should be spent
- recognised from the outset that adapting technology
would incur continuing costs and needs to update
- developments in technology keeps outpacing ability
of university powers to set policy
"Stanford and other private
and public universities have sought to strike a balance between maintaining
stability and encouraging innovation as they negotiated their path through
turbulent, unpredictable times. Such a balance has become increasingly difficult
to reach in an information-based society in which students expect quality
teaching, corporate leaders call for more applied research, public officials
seek advice from university experts, and parents want prestigious diplomas to
open doors to highpaying jobs for their sons and daughters."(page 109)
Not knowing what
university teaching is like nowadays, I can only guess that it is still the same,
and lectures form the most part of the methodology. Certainly when I was at
University, 90% of my face to face were lectures. Even in my own context, I
have attended training where I was told I had to lecture - that participants
wanted to hear from the expert at the front. I have discussed before about
perceptions of teaching, and how one is enculturated to the norm. It is much
easier for smaller organisations to rapidly change and be innovative - as Cuban
points out, the establishment policy making takes too long. However, there will
be pockets of innovators within, who can work the system, introducing and
trying things out in different ways.
Mostly, in the article, it was
interesting to note that just as students adopt technology that helps them, so
do professors - it's an entirely personal thing.
Brabazon
(2001)
Although this article spiralled into
hyperbole in some sense,(and is as single-minded as Noble) I really enjoyed
reading it. The rhetoric, use of stories and anecdotes, resonate with me in a
literacy style.
Brabazon is telling us basically that
teachers are the biggest losers, students don't know how to learn, and have
unrealistic expectations(expect tutors to be on call 24/7), and the
establishment is relying on the good will of people to further developments
(another thing that happens in lots of other establishments/industry). The
internet increase workloads, creates more emails to answer and less time for
creativity.
Key points:
- Australian
government wanting to harness education to drive economy, increase
productivity and competition - crisis pushes technological approach
- "scholars
have not been trained to work the educational mall"
- Challenge
of students seeking satisfaction, but not realising that the need to be
challenged and provoked in order to learn - "satisfaction is not the
basis of social change"
- shifts
from the 'ivory tower' to the 'real world'
- 'cyberspace'
- as the font of all knowledge decentres place and expertise of academics
- "educators
must be given credit for expertise, rather than market rate for
knowledge"
- "to
teach well in the current system is to administer marking criteria"
- "internet
based learning is a response to consumerism and reduction in government
funding"
- In
an online learning environment power is removed from the teacher - as they
have no control over it
For me one of the most interesting
points is the commentary about student expectations. there seems to be a
tension over what student based learning is - ie. the student making more
decisions on their personal learning; and the need from students for more
support and face to face time. Have we actually educated our students in the fact
that our idea of learning has changed? Do they no longer understand what it
means to learn? Again thinking back to weeks 13/14, students said in the research
that they expect universities to guide them in how they should study and what
they should use. Looking back at my education, it would have been so much
better if I had realised the importance of self study. At school you went to
class and that was pretty much it - so how was I to know that Uni was not just
about going to lectures?
