Four Readings

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....

1. the lowering of labour costs by marketing online courses
2. "shift from the burden of paying for education from public purse to private individual consumer
3. " ..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, N. and Kling, R. (1999) ‘Students’ frustrations with a web-based distance education course’ [online], First Monday, vol.4, no.12, http://firstmonday.org/ htbin/ cgiwrap/ bin/ ojs/ index.php/ fm/ article/ view/ 710/ 620 

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:

1. lack of prompt feedback
2. ambiguous instructions
3. 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)

Brabazon, T. (2001) ‘Internet teaching and the administration of knowledge’ [online], First Monday, vol.6, no.6, http://firstmonday.org/ htbin/ cgiwrap/ bin/ ojs/ index.php/ fm/ article/ view/ 867/ 776 

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?