Hi
On Tue, 14 Sep 1999, Rick Adams wrote:
> The current attitude concerning distance education's perceived
> inferiority to traditional education is pure prejudice based on personal
> bias not on any rational factual basis. Of _course_ there are poor
> distance programs--there are also poor traditional ones. But overall the
> record of success for distance programs has been just as good as that for
> the typical traditional one.
Notice Rick that your last sentence is a positive statement about
the record of success for distance education programs being as
good as that for the typical traditional one. Making such a
statement implies that you have factual evidence for this claim.
My asking for that evidence does not constitute a justification
for your wanting to see the evidence to the contrary nor your
taking the (possible) lack of such evidence as support for your
claim. It is simply a matter of whether you have sufficient
evidence to warrant your statement (not whether Lynne has it or
you think it exists somewhere). I'll say a bit about the
evidence you did present shortly.
As to your other claim that questioning the effectiveness of
distance education must be due to prejudice and lacks any
"rational factual" basis, I'll have to disagree. With respect to
the rational basis for this query, it should be self-evident.
There are certain things that do not or are less likely to occur
with distance education than in regular instruction. For
example, I previously mentioned interactions outside the
classroom with other students. The latter has been shown by
Astin and others to be an important educational experience (and
would be even more important I think for graduate education).
When I think about what happens in my classes, some of the things
that I cannot easily see happening in distance education are:
looking at students and seeing that they are not understanding
what I am saying, taking a query from a student and turning it
into an analogy that helps the entire class, modelling for the
students how I would go about solving some statistical problem
(often including false starts and errors), making a real mess on
the board as I build for students my "semantic network" of
material that we have covered over the past few weeks, having
students point out my errors on the board and identifying the
probable source of the error, and so on. Based on my teaching
experience, understanding of human cognition, and knowledge of
educational research, I think it is perfectly rational to suspect
that such qualities are important for learning and to wonder
whether educational experiences that lack or have less of such
experiences are as good as traditional education. For me, it is
_almost_ like questioning whether people's brains work as well
when deprived of oxygen. I feel a strong need for positive
evidence for such claims.
What about the factual part? Here it is somewhat trickier, but I
feel the onus is on those trying to educate at a distance to
document the efficacy of that approach. Of course, looking for
such positive effects might reveal shortcomings as well. I say
"might" because the studies could be done in such a way as to
preclude obtaining the negative results (e.g., not considering
dropouts, only looking at successful graduates). Moreover, the
best evidence would that which met the kinds of standards that we
tell our students are important for drawing causal inferences,
and that is unlikely to happen (e.g., random assignment).
You cited two sorts of evidence. One your own case, which you
correctly noted was anecdotal. The second was ...
> A good example: The Union Institute (a distance learning institution)
> lists over 500 graduates who earned their Ph.D.s there and who are now
> working as faculty members at major traditional institutions. Included
> among those institutions are Yale, Stanford, The University of California
> (several campuses including Berkeley), Northeastern, Duke, Purdue,
> Dartmouth, Cambridge, and dozens of other top institutions.
This is slightly better than a single case (but see below),
assuming that we could in fact verify the validity of the claim.
Part of the difficulty for me is that many of the players who
present such claims have a vested interest in promoting their
product. So it would be nice to see an independent, objective
study of _all_ students starting programs in distance and
traditional education systems and tracking them (more on why
_all_ shortly). It really isn't just a coincidence that computer
companies are promoting computer education, is it?
Are you (and
> Jim) seriously arguing that these individuals are not as qualified as
> their colleagues academically? If you aren't, then how is it possible that
> an "inferior" approach to education managed to prepare them academically
> for those positions?
My position does not imply this in the least. That is, these
individuals might very well be qualified academically (although
being hired by a university, prestigious or not, these days does
not necessarily imply that). The question in my mind concerned
the effectiveness of the programs. That some people can succeed
under these circumstances does not mean that the programs are as
effective as other modes. For example, I have students in
statistics who could be given the text at the start of the year
and take the exam at the end and do well. That such students
exist should not be taken as a testimonial for textbook-only
instruction (cheap as that would be, we better not tell the
administration).
More importantly, one cannot conclude that the students learned
as much as if they had gone through the traditional system.
Similarly for distance education. That some students (perhaps
exceptional ones) meet some level of success does not mean that
they have learned as much as they would have by traditional
means. To use your case as an example, Rick, we simply do not
know how better or worse your preparation would have been if you
had attended a regular on-campus program. This is the classic
difficulty of doing validity studies (e.g., of the GRE) when some
selection process is operating. It is also the sad reality of
having to make decisions in life.
> Distance education is not for everyone--nor is it the "wave of the
> future" that many advocates claim it to be. But a good institution with a
> carefully planned program offers every bit as sound and well rounded of an
> education as any traditional school is capable of providing.
The "not for everyone" is part of what I was saying, and I would
like us to be cautious until we know who it is for so as to not
ruin too many lives. I'm still waiting to hear credible evidence
to support your second sentence ("every bit as sound and well
rounded of an education as any traditional school is capable of
providing"). But I suspect that such evidence does not exist and
that such claims should be toned down until the results are
available.
Now off to design that study to show that reindeer can't fly!
Should I use a tall building for the "manipulation?" I might
have troubles with the ethics committee on that one, especially
with all the concerns about specism (or should it be speciesism?)
these days.
Best wishes
Jim
============================================================================
James M. Clark (204) 786-9757
Department of Psychology (204) 774-4134 Fax
University of Winnipeg 4L05D
Winnipeg, Manitoba R3B 2E9 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CANADA http://www.uwinnipeg.ca/~clark
============================================================================
