"The minimum viable class size for on-line teaching is 1000
students" (attributed to a Federal Minister for Education)
"By 2002 there will be one world-wide provider of First Year
Chemistry in English. Unless you are a
Harvard able to throw $3 Million at it, you will not compete" (science
lecturer at on-line forum at the University of New England)
Are we facing a fundamental revolution in education? These quotes suggest the end of teaching - and universities - as we know them. We know that the impact of the internet on education will be large, but as with e-commerce we don’t know how large, or in what ways or how quickly these changes will occur. At this stage we are yet to see the phenomenon of a "dot.com" university make any real headway - but that's not to say that it won't become part of the education scene in the future.
Before we can explore the implications of change in this area, we need to have some idea about what we are selling. Education differs from most other products in that it involves more than the transmission of product from producer to consumer, with consumer choice and satisfaction ratings being the sole determinants of both what is supplied and its quality. Instead, education is created by the quality and nature of the interaction between the educator and the student. Through that interaction, both learn; both "become educated".
That interaction has traditionally been face to face, but may also occur through other media such as print, audio-visuals and now the internet. Another distinguishing feature about education is that the most effective education may not be that chosen by the student. Many students, in reflecting on their education place considerable value on those aspects which, at the time, they though boring or irrelevant. Thus we have the concern, expressed by many educators, that the "commodification" of education - the seeing of education as just another consumer product in the marketplace - is actually selling society – and students - short.
What are the implications of commodification of education, through the use of web-based technologies? A scenario could be developed for (say) town planning education which might look something like this:
A private entrepreneur decides to enter the planning education market in Australia and New Zealand. They achieve accreditation in the deregulated market from the Federal Government as an education provider, and from the Australian Planning Institute (the Royal having been dropped) for professional recognition. They purchase the services of the top 10 planning academics (there are only a hundred or so in Australasia) by offering 3-4 times the salary of a "bricks and mortar" university. These academics work from home (or anywhere else they choose). Courses are developed using an on-line teaching development environment, and then delivered solely on line. There is no campus, no library, no offices - all material is delivered via the internet. Assignments are submitted on-line, and marked using interactive self-assessment on-line. Students interact on-line with each other through internet voice/print chat rooms, bulletin boards and the like. There are no regular semesters. People can enrol any time - from anywhere - and pay over the net for each course via their credit card. Once a sufficient number of courses have been completed at an appropriate "pass rate" an award (degree, diploma or certificate) is issued. The project manager for the entrepreneur runs the whole program from a home office over the net. By cutting out the "physical campus" the entrepreneur is able to realise a 40% profit on turnover whilst charging no more than a traditional university. The program is marketed as providing "academic excellence, together with the ultimate in learning flexibility" and captures some 40% of the total market.
So what are the implications of proceeding down this line? There are a number of related questions here which need to be addressed.
Firstly, what does teaching mean in this environment? Note that the role of the academic staff under this scenario is purely one of course development. There is no actual contribution to face-to-face or even on-line interaction. Of course, if the 1000 minimum students scenario comes true, there is no way that a single academic could maintain any meaningful interaction with individual students. The students would, effectively, be left to sink or swim on the basis of random contacts with fellow students, and the resources of the internet.
Of course it is acknowledged that self-directed learning can be effective, and that individuals can create this thing called education without facilitation or mentoring by an academic. That, after all, is the goal of "life long learning" to which universities subscribe. But how do students develop the skills of "self-education"? The role of teacher is, I believe, critical - and it is the reason that the concept of "teacher" is very firmly entrenched in human culture. At the risk of defending my own employment, I believe that interaction with a teacher can assist the student to maximise the value of an educational process, and can render it significantly more effective - particularly in development of self-education skills. Thus to remove the teacher as a direct actor in the process is to run the risk of developing an educational system that is significantly less effective than might otherwise be possible.
The main lack, I feel, in the notional scenario outlined is in the "human" face of effective education - that quality of personal interaction between teacher and student and between groups of teachers and groups of students, that enriches both and leads to better, more rounded people. This interaction is what leads to the concept of "a community of scholars". Can individual academics, albeit acknowledged experts in their fields, continue to move forward the intellectual endeavour, continue to create new knowledge, if they are working in isolation from their peers and their students? Can electronic communication substitute, and how well? Does the maintenance of good teaching require an effective commitment to research? These questions require addressing if the "virtual university" is to be more than a rapidly outdating information dissemination bureau for a group of self-educating students.
There is a dynamic interchange between researchers and teachers which facilitates learning and which is an integral part of a University environment. Electronic interactions are a partial, but not a complete substitute. They advantage the locationally disadvantaged (compared to their previous state of no interaction), but do not replace face-to-face. The synergistic working of teachers, researchers, practitioners and students in a physical university will be difficult - if not impossible - to maintain electronically.
There is also a profound and substantial relationship between teaching, practice and research. The nexus between practice and research is a critical one - the one must inform the other. It is ultimately through practice that research outcomes get tested and that new research questions emerge. Teaching, to be effective, needs to be grounded in both practice and research. It is the linking of theory and practice, with the one used to illuminate the other, that provides the most effective teaching strategy. In the virtual scenario outlined, effective collaborative research would need to occur outside the virtual program. Presumably some of the academics involved, through natural curiosity alone, would continue with individual research. Yet without a research culture and research environment I suggest that over time the commitment to research would wane and teaching would progressively diverge from the cutting edge of thinking about the discipline. In fact it is the “research overhead” which forms a considerable part of the running costs of a university - and notwithstanding recent statements by American philanthropists, it is unlikely that on-line education can become "free" as development costs are very significant.
The next class of issue to address is what technology do we use and why? Leading edge technology is often referred to as "bleeding edge" technology, and with good reason. It is expensive and often unreliable. High technology is also highly exclusionary. Unless students have adequate bandwidth, computing equipment and late version software, they will struggle to use video, audio and some interactive features. On-line education will mainly be for the rich. In fact, we are in the situation where the former rich/poor divide based on wealth is being replaced by a divide based on access to information - although it is wealthy people who have best access.
We also have the problem that too often technology is being used because it is there - not necessarily because it adds to the educational experience. A further consideration with the technology is that of ease of use. Computer literacy is still far from widespread in our society. For example, in 1999, some 30% of second year planning students at the University of New England had not used the internet for any purpose prior to their university studies. In addition, many of these technologies are not easy to set up and operate, requiring users to add devices to their computers and negotiate complex installation procedures. User interfaces are also often far from intuitive, with "technophobia" being an issue for a substantial number of students - not always mature aged! Finally, technology, if used inappropriately, can separate teachers from students, and students from each other, by encouraging an isolationist approach.
The view that “one size fits all” and that a single on-line delivery, in which sufficient has been invested to make it a superb experience is seductive. Yet even if we make the particularly arrogant assumption that English is the only language of instruction, there will always be cultural differences to consider. Neither is a multi-language version likely to be the answer. In many Asian cultures, for example, the emphasis is on the transmission of knowledge and understanding from the teacher to the student. The student metaphorically sits at the feet of the master, not seeking to challenge, but rather to absorb and remember. In some Western countries the emphasis is on problem solving – on learning by doing. It is acceptable to challenge teachers and their views and to argue alternative cases.
Certainly the examples above are gross generalisations. But they are sufficiently accurate to establish the point that the cultural context within which an educational experience occurs is critical to the success of that experience. On line education – indeed all educational materials – are “culturally grounded”. In other words they take certain cultural assumptions for granted about learning style, cultural knowledge and understanding and prior education. These assumptions are rarely explicit – indeed we are so immersed in our own cultures that it is often difficult to see our own assumptions. Similarly, these assumptions also make it difficult for many to grant legitimacy to other cultures. They “don’t fit in”. Even within Australia, the considerable diversity within our own population provides a range of cultural backgrounds for which a “standard” educational framework often inappropriate. Consider the cultural differences between indigenous and western approaches to learning and understanding, for example.
This suggests that on-line products will need to be developed that are appropriate for the context in which they are to be used – or at the very least, accompanied by interpretive material to relate the teaching to the local experience. There will be room for many products, targeted to specific cultural and educational needs.
The scenario presented at the outset is not the only scenario. Whilst that model is possible, will doubtless be tried, and will provide some students with a satisfactory educational experience, there are other uses of these technologies which are felt to be of greater benefit, at the current state of play, and given what we know about effective teaching.
This approach uses technologies, appropriately, to supplement other teaching methods and strategies. It focuses on the single biggest potential attributes of the internet - the delivery of relevant information to the desktop; and the ability to engage in real-time or close to real time exchange irrespective of distance, and at minimal cost.
As an academic, the greatest revolution for the author has been the ability to access journal articles on line. Physical searches that would previously have taken days, often after travelling to a major city where libraries have better holdings, or by expensive document delivery, can now be performed in a morning with the results delivered to the PC in electronic form. For the researcher, this means time efficiency - for the student, it may well mean the difference between access to information or no access to information. Remoteness, provided one has a phone line and a computer, is no longer a barrier to access to information, at least in Western economies.
Where remoteness also restricts interaction, the internet can again assist. Bulletin boards and chat rooms provide interaction opportunities, as does the ubiquitous email. The use of these, however, needs to be seen as a less than perfect substitute for face to face interaction. If it were superior, why is business air travel growing at a rapid clip as on-line communication does the same? The other essential point is that these modes of communication replicate small group and one-on-one interactions. They are not feasible tools for a class of 1000 unless that class is broken down into smaller units. Even then, one-on-one interaction with a lecturer becomes overwhelming, and additional instructors will be required.
The supplementation model also addresses the role of the internet in the development of targeted material for particular groups or cultures. The on-line material can supplement the “main stream” educational experience where this is failing to meet student needs. Here, we see the use of the internet as a cheap delivery tool – perhaps a single module may suit people from a similar cultural background over a wide area.
Educationally the internet is nothing special. It is merely another delivery mechanism which allows the exchange of information and ideas between educator and student. It offers distinct advantages for the technologically aware with suitable access who otherwise would either need to travel long distances to access interaction and information or do without – relying instead on a limited range of printed material.
Teaching over the internet, like any form of teaching, requires sensitivity to its cultural context. One size will never fit all. Academics will continue to be required to undertake the work of “cultural translation” both within and between countries, whether that is by way of customisation of an on-line product itself, or supplementing it by other local teaching methods and materials.
Finally, the notion of a “community of scholars” requires a type and quality and intensity of interaction that is not yet (and may never be) available purely “over the wire”. Face to face contact continues to be a vital part of the educational experience – and a preferred part of that experience – for the majority of students. Will this change in the future? Possibly. Despite our best efforts the future remains largely unknowable. The key is to continue to enquire, to test, to experiment, to research and to improve opportunities for learning.
Angus Witherby is a
Senior Lecturer in Urban and Regional Planning at the University of New
England. He has been teaching on-line
for 4 years, and two of his units can be taken completely on-line. A number of overseas students are currently
studying using on-line only access.
Angus is a former director of the Centre for Local Government at UNE and
has a particular interest in the impacts of technology on organisational
change.