ONLINE
EDUCATION: WHAT’S ON THE LINE?
This was the basic question addressed at a provocative, international conference on Online Education held this past November in Montreal. The conference was the result of an unprecedented collaboration of five student and professor federations from Canada and the United States. The Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT), Fédération Québecoise des Professeures et Professeurs d’Université (FQPPU), Canadian Federation of Students (CFS/FCEE), Fédération Étudiante Universitaire du Québec (FEUQ), and, American Association of University Professors (AAUP) sent delegates to discuss issues relevant to participants at all levels of post-secondary education. The plenary and workshop format of the conference, in both French and English, succeeded in encouraging open, reflective discussion amongst an eclectic group of university and college professors and administrators, graduate students from various disciplines, as well as, union officials and representatives. The plenary speakers represented a wide range of experience and support for online education. The conference provided the opportunity to press the “pause” button to reflect on the direction of post-secondary education and the impact of online delivery of educational programs.
Many questions and concerns were raised throughout the weekend during question periods and workshops. Advantages and disadvantages of technological advances were presented and discussed, with a resulting call for moderation. We need not blindly embrace online education as a panacea for all educational ills, but we need not run wildly away either.
Defining what is meant by online education was proposed as an initial step in addressing the issues. However, the rapid pace of change combined with a sometimes blind support for “technological progress” makes it difficult to define terminology, set goals, and state the purpose of changes. Those who have been offering distance education for decades without Internet technology considered a distinction between distance education and courses online. Online education was discussed as ranging from an entire university existing online to simply using PowerPoint to present lectures or providing lecture notes on the web. No strict definition of online education was agreed upon, but participants were encouraged to consider the topic within their own institutions.
The focus of the conference was threefold: faculty control of content and curriculum in online education; workload and cost implications; and, responding to the challenges and moving forward. The tone of discussion during the workshops evolved across the weekend from a defensive protection of intellectual property in light of online education to an offensive assault on the erosion of academic freedom, as we know it.
Debate in the workshops I attended initially addressed concerns about administration taking advantage of the opportunity to “package” intellectual property in the form of online courses and present it through less-experienced, untenured and less costly instructors. Paul Jones, professional officer, CAUT, suggested that “if you sell your course, you sell your job.” Some delegates expressed concerns that online education has the potential to undermine what it means to be a faculty member, that the research-teaching connection will be lost to students and faculty and knowledge merely disseminated across a computer screen. Once the intellectual property is packaged and presented there is little control left in the professor’s hands. Other delegates saw online education as a means of improving teaching and allowing professors to reach a greater number and variety of students. It was argued that the purpose of online education is not clear and that a shift in public policy to a “consumer attitude” in education will use technology to “provide a service” in the “cheapest” way possible. It is important that long-term planning take place, that we explore options, and that we evaluate educational technology as it is being used and is intended to be used.
Discussion of workload and cost again brought us back to defining vision. To measure costs and benefits we need to know why we are doing something, to what end. Financial parameters surrounding online education include production, audiovisual equipment and technical support, dissemination costs, as well as review and management costs. Teleuniversity in Québec reported lower costs for online courses while representatives from Acadia University, where all students are required to rent a laptop computer as part of their program, pointed to increased tuition for students, expensive equipment costs for classrooms and very few cost-saving benefits. It seems that the financial evaluation of online education has yet to be refined.
Union officials made the point that we cannot afford to “let it play out”. The expectations of faculty and support staff surrounding online education have not been worked out over time. There need to be limits and support structures in place now.
The pace of change, the expectation of immediate feedback when using e-mail communication, the increase in class sizes, the training requirements, the loss of spontaneous talk and conversation in hallways and lounges as we retreat behind a computer screen, were all discussed as costs and additions to the workload of a profession that is already facing increasingly heavier workloads.
It is important that the benefits to students be weighed into the equation as well. Students from distance education courses spoke about accessibility issues. Professors who are successfully using the Internet to provide notes and for communication reported stimulating discussion amongst students who might not otherwise have an opportunity or desire to speak in a class of 200 or more. Ingrid Banks, professor of Black Studies, Virginia Tech, cautioned against removing the student from the classroom and enthusiastically supported the need to fight for smaller classes rather than put courses online to save costs and space. She firmly believes that students need the face to face contact to “grapple with differences” and experience the passion of the subject.
The final day of the conference recognized the costs and implications of online education as well as its inevitability. The focus shifted to protecting academic freedoms, the right to speak and be heard, and the necessity of limitations to workload and class size. Speakers and delegates searched for a way forward. Pam Grimm, Marketing, Kent State University, fully supports technology within the classroom but recommended that a Distance Education representative be on every bargaining committee to offer experience regarding workload and ownership issues.
Heather Menzes, author and lecturer, Carleton University, presented the paradox, that as a result of computer technology, we are more “connected” to people but increasingly isolated. She stated the need for a community of learners, suggesting that we need to reclaim the primacy of the teacher/learner relationship by negotiating class size and courseware.
Although the potential and benefits of computer technology are quite visible, it is important that students and faculty alike protect the avenues of free speech and academic freedom that currently exist. The mission and value of a university education should not be compromised in “corporatized” attempts to cut costs. If online education is being presented as a way to improve or even change the way we educate and learn, then it should be evaluated and criticized by those involved in making it happen.
This conference was an initial step in what should be a long-term, on-going evaluation of higher education and its place in the “technology age.”
Julie Mueller,
M.A. Candidate in Social/
Developmental Psychology
Wilfred Laurier University
Canadian Federation of Students, Local 56
* A note of recognition for the Ontario Federation of Students and Laurier’s GSA who sponsored my attendance at this conference.