Disrupting College

From Aristotle to phenomenology and contemporary philosophy of technology it has been recognized that making and doing (poiesis and praxis, art/technology and human action) are different, even fundamentally different. The question, then, is whether education is human action or whether it is technological.

If education is fundamentally personal, then it is actional rather than technological. And then Kevin Carey and Clayton Christensen are both guilty of what a philosopher would call a category mistake. In rhetorical terms: ignoratio elenchi. To put that more directly and less flatteringly, out there in English: they are missing the point. The argument they offer is thus irrelevant.

For a phenomenologist’s account of the educational difference between the personal and the technological—in a book dedicated to explaining the limits of higher education delivered by the Internet—see Hubert Dreyfus, “On the Internet” (2d edition 2008), especially chapter 2. I’d suggest, too, that the difference helps explain why the analysis of the economics of higher education presented by Robert B. Archibald and David H. Feldman in their new book, “Why Does College Cost So Much?” is more on the mark than Christensen’s.

The untouched issue in this is the fact higher education developed to provide experience within a community – hence its tradition of special ceremonies marking the beginning and ending of its different stages and the ranking of membership by degrees, etc. Online education, as it is generally promoted, is antithetical to that as a result of its encouragement of isolation and a solitary pursuit of information. There is no doubt that learning can and does occur in the process. However it is geared to the notion of acquiring a skill set, rather than to the idea of creating and sharing knowledge. It is in short part of an industrial way of thinking that traces its origins to packaged correspondence courses and programmed instruction. The real challenge that it represents to higher education is by way of getting educators to think in terms of its standards of fierce market competitions for opportunities to deliver of information for a fee rather than in terms of encouraging aspiration to membership in the community. Of course, the values of the community have been subject to erosion through the nonsensical claim that aspirants to membership in it are simply customers who can dictate just what the community is and should be. Trustees, politicians and others influencing decision making to this have provided the basis for these claims in terms of their worship of the “bottom line.” The question that current events are posing to us is – do we want communities of scholars and aspiring scholars to be part of our society, or do we simply want to replace them with information servers?

I’ve read and re-read this post – as well as trolled through the larger pub. Here’s my problem:

The focus is on cost. And anytime the focus is on cost, we end up drifting towards the question of “how do they do this in the business world.” The authors of the report point out that the fastest growing sector in higher ed is the for-profit, online sector. And since that’s the fastest growing, we should be paying attention to it. And I actually agree with that, but for different reasons.

We should be paying attention to it and looking at a) why is it the fastest growing and b) is that fast growth resulting in any substantive benefits for students? And then we can talk about whether it’s something that IHEs should invest time and energy into.

Yes, there is some evidence to suggest (and I use that term hesitantly) that online learning is “as good” as traditional. But is it really “as good?” There is evidence to suggest that some types of learning can be done online – in particular certain skills-based classes, things that require simple memorization and little critical thinking (I’m thinking things like languages, computer programming, etc.). Something like philosophy is so dialogue based, real-time, I just don’t see it being as successful.

But I don’t think that’s really the point. I think the issue is this primary focus on cost over learning. Academically Adrift just came out and should be some kind of indicator that we *still* don’t know how to measure learning in IHEs. But that doesn’t seem to be as pressing an issue as COST. Because even though most IHEs are supported by tax dollars (some more than others), and even though they are supposed to be mission-driven institutions, and even though most of them are supposed to act like “not for profit” they keep getting pressured to act like “for profit.”

If we really want to competitive – from an educational perspective, not economic – then we need to start the conversation at “what is educationally necessary” or “what do we want our students to know,” and then worry about the costs.

Having spent 20-plus years in and around IHEs and nonprofits, I have come to one conclusion on this: there’s always money, so stop worrying about that piece, and focus on what it is you want to actually achieve.

Next time someone tells you there isn’t enough money to do something in higher ed because they don’t have enough money, go and find out how much the CEO of Strayer University makes. Then find out how much of Strayer’s income comes from federally guaranteed student loans. Then tell me again why we can’t afford something different in the public support of higher education.

Online programs may be disrupting higher education, but that doesn’t mean the disruption results in a better outcome for individuals or society.

I think part of the reason of the success of online education is that it’s a lot easier for students to engage in academic dishonesty and a lot harder for faculty to certify what students have actually learned.

I’m still not convinced that most online courses are constructed well enough to match the environment provided by a knowledgeable, experienced, committed professor teaching face-to-face in a reasonably-sized class. The professor can tailor his or her approach to the students on the fly. He or she can read the face and body language of the student and be wise enough to know whether to push hard or gently encourage that student. The professor can see that the light bulb has not turned on and try another of the six or seven different ways to explain something on the spot. (I’m also arguing here for converting the part-time, exploitive adjunct/instructor positions to more full-time positions.)

I believe the face-to-face dialog is far more efficient for these things than an isolating, asynchronous arrangement. I believe students (and society) are much more likely to get their money’s worth in a face-to-face environment. What I’m reading about neuroscience, learning theory, and social intelligence reinforces my belief.

To be fair, I’m sure that some online courses are better constructed and better taught than some face-to-face courses which are poorly taught or taught by burned-out instructors/professors without sufficient knowledge of the subject or more focused on research or service. And less anyone think I am technophobic, I hold and undergraduate degree in computer science and a Ph.D. in information systems, and have been an early adopter of forums, chat and teleconferencing sessions, online course management systems, and social networking. I am keenly aware of both the possibilities and limitations of technology.

But what troubles me most is that online courses usually don’t have very good ways of telling who is actually taking the course, doing the assignments, taking the quizzes/exams, and what unauthorized resources are being used. Face-to-face classes don’t guarantee academic honesty either but certainly has a lot more techniques for minimizing cheating.

I see little commitment on the part of most online programs to academic integrity (and transparency). Some programs are using lock-down browsers for quizzes/exams, plagiarism detectors like Turnitin, and occasional face-to-face visits, but few are using remote proctor technology, fingerprint scanners, or other techniques for authenticating the student and verifying original work. These approaches can be more expensive and time-consuming, so institutions and instructors just take a pass on using all of these safeguards.

I know face-to-face instruction by experienced, knowledgeable, committed faculty and small class sizes isn’t cheap or easy. And I know that we as a society have scarce resources to distribute and multiple objectives to attain. Research and the production of new knowledge is important, too, and can keep faculty up-to-date in their field.

I just oppose any system that makes it easy for students to let someone else do their coursework for them (in part or in whole).

Some day I’d like to read an article stating “In the last academic year, no NCAA “student-athletes” or any of their coaches were involved in a scandal.”
Fat Chance.

Go Torreros. USD is supposed to be a moral catholic institution. These days with priests abusing children it seems the Church is one of the most immoral of institutions.