There was a recent stir in Inside Higher Ed about a forthcoming U.S. News and World Report college ranking survey which focuses on on-line learning. Amidst rebuttals by some in Higher Ed as to the validity of the survey U.S. News developed, they say themselves that their methodology is not complete. Arguments are being made that the inclusiveness of the survey is flawed - others are saying that it does not look at outcomes. One question which is NOT be3ing raised and should be is: "what do you consider on-line learning?" (Operationalize that for me!)


The subject comes up frequently in both The Chronicle and Inside Higher Ed. Some universities and colleges which have been losing ground over the last several year are looking at the on-line environment as their chance at revitalizing their institutions. My own experience with on-line learning has been very positive and has given me enough knowledge about the area to raise a few questions I thought interesting and which I hope you will enjoy pondering as well.

First:

There are many different "flavors" and "shades" of on-line classes. One which is probably well familiar to us, given its surge in popularity in the local market, is the "hybrid" class. In a hybrid, the students meet part time with their instructor and on-line.

The hybrid is distinct from the "on-line lab" variety (don't know the technical term for it) which is in most respects very similar to a brick-and-mortar class excepting only that a majority of the required homework 'out of the box' so to speak, is completed by the students on-line.

We then have the "straight on-line" format but there are at least two main varieties of this. In one, the class structure is reflective of hte traditional semester format - where the class roster changes every semester (and, subsequently, the student peer-group). In cohort-format on-line courses the students progress in lock-step with a cohort.

Any of these (and a variety of others - most of which are simply off-shoots of one of these) could be classified as "on-line." So, a study which aggregates for each would be much more revealing of the reality of the effectiveness of on-line learning and how effectively Institutions of Higher Learning are leveraging this new resource.

The real problem with the issue of on-line learning, however, is one of the relationship we form with IT.

It has been well documented that IT professionals have severe communication issues with non-IT professionals. Their assumptions about IT are completely different. One critical failure in IT inititatives (and the platforms and solutions implemented in them) is caused by just exactly this. (The Standish Group's 2001 CHAOS report "Extreme CHAOS" mentioned this and it is consistent in almost all of their annual reports.) When steering committees don't understand 'IT-speak' and the assumptions of IT professionals, often the result is a solution designed and implemented from the perspective of the designer - not that of the end-user. The latter, in our case, is students and instructors. Instructors themselves are another key point of failure in rolling out IT-driven learning environments. The on-line environment relies on the same competences of instruction as the brick-and-mortar, namely securing student engagement and facilitating discourse which revovles around course objectives. The on-line revolution is still in its infancy and it has arrived so quickly that there are many instructors who are not fluent enough with the environment, culture and assumptions about IT to translate their in-class practices to the new environment. It may not always be the students at fault and we need to be aware that Faculty need support in optimizing ROI of on-line learning both for the institution and the students.

Another critical point of failure is in how we solve the problem of explosive demand for such offerings. Namely, that we don't. Often when the demand is so high and awareness of IT assumptions so low, we borrow best practices and platforms from other institutions. The easy solution for the administration when faced with an urgent need is to see what other people are doing. "Well they use this platform at Harvard so we'll use it too because it must be good and it's working well for them!" -And true it may be but no two universities will have the same student culture and no two cultures have the same relationship and history (or lack thereof) with technology. But we have to provide a solution to the demand and that's our best shot. The students at, say, Front Range may have a completely different cultural competence with technology than do the students of, say, Truman State. To think the same platform will have the same results "here" as it does "there" is to dismiss, outright, the needs of our unique student body. So, the amount of research and development that goes into a given institution's solution - while not an indicator of its success - would be interesting to take into account.

It is quite common for IT technologies to be mismatched with the culture of their organizations - this happens in industry all the time (and is one of the leading causes of failure in such initiatives). And, obviously, if we are going to pursue the on-line frontier it is important that we equip our faculty with the knowledge and skills they need to successfully deliver content there.

Another consideration, and, it seems an easy fix - killing two birds with one stone - to accommodate the increase in traffic in remedial courses (due to the overall increase in access to higher learning) through on-line teaching. It seems so humanitarian too...so ethical. We are giving busy students the opportunity to further themselves. But the reality is that college is a learned behavior - the habits required to succeed in academia are not engrained in the overall population and students in remedial classes are not necessarily known for embodying these habits. There is a freedom that comes with on-line learning...but with freedom comes responsibility for one's self and, well, this is something that is increasingly lacking in American society (of course, the word "responsibility" is nearly impossible to operationalize so it's a tough one to discourse productively about). Not all students are ready to succeed with that level of freedom.

Finally, what's good about on-line learning? Well, whether reflective of industry or contributing to it (chicken and the egg) the cultural assumptions about mastery of knowledge are changing some in our field would say, and I'd agree with them. We are, more and more, equivocating mastery of knowledge with breadth of fields - not only depth in a field. In industry, more and more American companies are out-sourcing linear, easily structured, functions off-shore and focusing local competences to the more profitable and better paying jobs which require the ability to think abstractly, creatively and out-of-the-box. Knowledge emphasis in industry is shifting to questions of "fuzzy logic." In order to be marketable we need to expand our known assumptions in our respective fields. No format, I believe, does this better than the on-line cohort format. In such an environment we inherently expand our assumptions to include those of other cultures and regions. Our ability to aggregate practices and solutions is strengthened. In addition, it provides us that covetted asset in gaining employment - a professional social network. This alone increases our value-proposition to students, if we can match pedagogy, delivery and technology to our unique cultures of assumptions at our respective institutions. These are just some of my thoughts. This is an important topic for us to dialog about because we are the ones who are going to inherit the current solutions and practices of the academy and take them to a more optimal level.


Thanks
David Dorr