The Chronicle: Colloquy Live Transcript

March 30, 2000

David Noble on Technology

Is technology paving the way to help more students or is it destroying the "sacred space" of the classroom?

Read a related story on this topic.

A transcript of the chat follows.

Jeff Young (Moderator):
Hi everyone, and welcome to the debut of Colloquy Live, the Chronicle's real-time discussion forum. I'm Jeff Young, a reporter here covering distance education, and I'll be moderating the discussion. Today we're talking with David Noble, who has been one of the most outspoken and controversial critics of distance education. He argues that corporate interests, and not student needs, are dictating many of the decisions being made to support distance education, and that faculty rights are being eroded in the process. During the next hour, you can send in questions for Mr. Noble by following the link on this page. Many readers have sent in questions in advance, which we will draw from as well. We'll do our best to get to as many of the questions as possible. As Mr. Noble responds to each question, we'll post his answers here. We hope to add something new every few minutes during our discussion, and afterwards we'll make a transcript of the event available. Mr. Noble is joining us by telephone from his office at York University in Canada, and a Chronicle reporter will be typing his responses. Thanks for being here, Mr. Noble.

David Noble:
It's a pleasure to be here.

Question from Jean Smith, small community college:
Does David Noble feel that there is actually something more authentic or genuine about a classroom? I understand his belief about corporate interests in education, but chances are the classroom was built by a corporation too. It seems like this is a catch 22 if the only argument is whose interests are at stake.

David Noble:
Yes there is something more authentic about the classroom because it allows for genuine interpersonal interaction. And this is not a controversial issue. Ask anyone to tell you about what they remember about their education and they will talk not about courses or information imparted, but about the people they encountered. Especially the teachers who changed their lives.

Question from Don Smith, Xerox Corporation:
Mr Noble, I agree that technology is being oversold in the interest of profit but surely there must be some benefit to be had from using these new technologies in education. Must we ignore technology altogether? What kind of a plan would you propose to utilize technology approriately for educational purposes?

David Noble:
No one is proposing to ignore technology altogether. It's an absurd proposition. Human beings are born naked; we cannot survive without our inventions. But beneficial use demands widespread and sustained deliberation. The first step toward the wise use of our inventions would be to create a social space where these can be soberly examined.

Question from Kevin Gormley, University of Minnesota:
I am a specialist in the area of international education and international development. I am deeply concerned by the growing interest and use of "state of the art" forms of computers to deliver education. If this form of instruction becomes more of the norm, what will happen to those communities/societies that have limited access to such technology? It seems to me that distance education posses a severe risk toward monopolizing knowledge in those countries that have the resources to continually update their computer technology. Those communities/countries/regions of the world that do not have these resources will simply fall farther behind. Please let me know not only your opinion, but what the critics of this opinion say. Thank you.

David Noble:
The argument is that with this technology that it will allow faculty greater access, not less. But the truth is that, as he suggests, that it will enlarge the gap between the haves and have nots. It's more likely to enlarge the gap. With all the technology before us, it is worth remembering that more than half of the world's population has never made nor received a telephone call.

Question from Mary Beth. PhD student, Research I University:
Much criticism exists on the part of industry and from the paying public that higher education is NOT preparing students for the "real world" workplace yet efforts towards even stronger linkages and connections with industry are often critiqued for moving universities closer to the market place. This whole discussion (including distance education) begs the question of higher education's mission. What is and/or what should be the mission of higher education?

David Noble:
The mission of education is self-knowledge, the understanding of one's place in society and the universe. It is not to create a labor supply for industry. Insofar as people are interested in employment, they would do best to learn how to read, to write, and to speak rather than to become compliant to software designers.

Question from Farhad Saba, San Diego State University:
Dr. Noble makes reference to how technology has impacted social institutions in the past, and is making inference about how education as an institution might behave in the future. Impact of technology on society has always been non-linear, and as such unpredictable with unforeseen secondary consequences. How does being informed about the history of technology in a completely different context, informs us on its behavior in the future? Other than making sensational text for journalists, what is the benefit in historization of the impact of technology?

David Noble:
Let me just say this. While there are certainly unintended consequences, most consequences are intended by design and by deliberate decision. While by definition we cannot know the unanticipated consequences, we would do well to be fully informed abou those we can anticipate.

Question from Diana Kelly,Dublin Institute of Technology Ireland:
I have the same question for all "critics" of online learning: Have you tried it? My own experience in the "Online Teaching" program offered entirely online by UCLA was very positive. But that's because the program was very well designed and included on-going (mostly asynchronous) interaction between students and teacher (and among students). The discussions were lively and enriching because the students were educators from around the USA and the world -- something not usually possible in a face-to-face class. It was also a very rigorous program. Most importantly, I learned what I needed to learn! Please try online learning as a learner first, in a well-designed program, before criticizing!

David Noble:
I'm a historian. And historians, by trade, work to understand worlds that they cannot experience first hand. I have written, for example, about the middle ages, and I have not lived there. There is much we can understand without direct experience. I have no quarrel whatsoever with the claim that online educational experiences can be rewarding. And indeed, I count some of the pioneers of online education as my friends. But they insist that the benefits depend upon the use -- In particular, a very low student to teacher ratio and intensive interaction. This is available only at the higher end of offerings. The bulk of online education aims at increasing rather than reducing the student to faculty ratio in the interest of cutting labor costs. So the economics and the pedagogy of online education are in contradiction.

Question from Elizabeth:
I'm hearing analysts who say that education is the last huge sector of the economy that's not been touched by private enterprise. The education sector, for example, contributes 8 to 10 percent of the GNP, but it accounts for only 0.2 percent of market capitalization. Do you agree with predictions that the next 10 years things will get a lot tougher for traditional higher education because private capital will be moving in they way it has moved in and transformed the health-care industry.

David Noble:
There is no question whatsoever that Wall Street perceives education as the successor to health care as the major target for investment. It's for that reason that they talk about EMOs (educational matienance organizations) as the analog to HMOs. As all Americans know, any analog to HMOs will be a disaster. The intentions are clear and, indeed, explicit, but I don't accept the future that they propose. And so I don't use the language of "trends." The future will be what we decide we want it to be, which is why I spend as much time as I do fighting these agendas and trying to forge a different one.

Question from Chris Smith-Mits UBC:
Why do you think some professors are so insecure about posting their courses on the Internet? Does this reflect on their poor teaching skills and a fear of "change" that sometimes accompanies old age?

David Noble:
Why is it that technophiles so often perceive wisdom as fear? Faculty are correctly wary about putting their expertise in the hands of their employers. This is particularly true in that there is at present no guarantee that the faculty will be able to retain ownership and control over these materials. Once the material is lost, their jobs will be in jeopardy, and the quality of higher education will be in doubt.

Question from David Unfred, Texas Tech:
I congratulate you for your arguments that tend to make those of us caught in the euphoria of Web-based education at least pause to consider. However, I do not see opposition derailing this fast moving train. Perhaps the best you can hope for is "I told you so."

David Noble:
He might want to choose a different metaphor. The fast-moving train, the locamotive of history, are images that induce paralysis. What I see is a lot of mindless, ill-considered, and unsuccessful efforts at online education, without compelling evidence of a pedagogical advantage, economic viability, or effective demand. These efforts, I believe, can be slowed or stalled altogether, given the understanding and the will.

Question from David B. House, Saint Joseph's College of Maine:
Despite the obvious advantages, the value of today's communication technologies seem to be overrated. I believe that Americans are infatuated with what is a relatively early phase of communications technologies. Our current attitudes vis-a-vis internet-delivered education appear to be somewhat comparable to the way the public regarded television in the late 1940s. Television is still with us and is ever more ubiquitous, but not necessarily in the promising ways that were predicted 50 years ago. I would appreciate your thoughts and comments on this.

David Noble:
I agree, and we can add to television radio, motion pictures, and other media that were perceived as a panacea for education and an eclipse of established educational institutions. But the most appropriate antecedent was the correspondence movement which began in the 1890s with much the same farefare as today's online education. It ended in a debacle. We would be wise to understand that earlier episode in the commodidization of higher education. (See "Digital Diploma Mills Part IV" -- an essay Mr. Noble wrote that is available online)

Question from Mike, Student, Employed-Full-Time:
Wouldn't you agree that Distance Education may just be the answer for full-time workers, like myself, who do not have the time to physically go back to school?

David Noble:
An answer for what? If what you are seeking is certification for advancement, or some particular skill, I would agree. If what you are seeking is an education, I would disagree.

Question from Doug Klein, Union College (NY, USA):
A few minutes ago you said: "No one is proposing to ignore technology altogether." Can you offer some examples of the use of technology in education of which you approve?

David Noble:
(Pause) Well, I have seen computer technology used in interesting ways, for example to enable students to read each others' work before class, although that can also be acheived without the technology. Also I think that long distance that is covering different geographical regions has some advantages. I also think that for those individuals or communities that have no alternative access to higher education, it can bring them something that is better than nothing. But I would insist that in all cases, the technology must be at most a supplement to face-to-face interpersonal engagement, rather than a substitute for it.

Question from Karen Middleton, eCollege.com, formerly U. Denver:
Who is higher education going to serve in the 21st century? The nature of higher education must once again change as we evolve from an industrial to an information society. Baccalaureate and advanced degrees were an exclusive opportunity for the property class at the beginning of the last century -- now most employers require them. I would suggest that the classroom has already changed because of who is in it. The academe is already being forced to serve a population it may not consider its intellectual ideal. If the audience has changed this dramatically, doesn't it suggest that the delivery of higher education must also evolve? If the broadening of the audience has occurred, should the delivery of education broaden as well? In my experience administering graduate education, the students have already demanded this shift... How can you decry online education and not also be guilty of excluding people from the opportunity to learn?

David Noble:
There have been no studies to date (incredibly so!) of student demand. It is assumed, rather than demonstrated. The voodoo demographics that have been used has so far led to a number of disasters, such as the demise of the Western Governors' University, the demise of the California Virtual U., and other such efforts. To date, no distance-education operation has been making any money. I believe that the changes this person is talking about are more assumed than demonstrated, and constitute wishful thinking on the part of a company -- formerly real education -- that is trying to gain a share of a market that might be in fact much smaller than imagined.

Jeff Young (Moderator):
We're about half way through our discussion. Keep those questions coming.

Question from Peter, Research University:
"The bulk of online education aims at increasing rather than reducing the student to faculty ratio in the interest of cutting labor costs. " Where do you get your statistics on "the bulk of online education" This sounds like opinion more than fact...

David Noble:
Let me begin by saying that it is striking how many of the respondents here are not identifying themselves or their insitutions. This betrays an insecurity that delimits open discussion. As to the question, there is absolutely no doubt that the agenda is to increase the productivity of faculty by raising the number of students served. Indeed, as Gregory Farrington, president of Lehigh University, wrote recently in "EDUCAUSE," increasing the student to faculty ratio is the sine qua non (meaning, without nothing) of economically viable use of online education.

Question from Paul T. Henley, Western Montana College:
I'm still waiting for a question from an area of real need, rural higher education, so I'll ask one. Many of our current and potential students are bound by circumstance...some 200 miles from the nearest workable college. In cases like this, the options are distance learning...or nothing. Isn't this one area where the use of technology is an asset?

David Noble:
Absolutely. And I applaud any efforts to extend access by any means. However, better than nothing is just that. It is not the equivalent of face-to-face education. The danger is that politicians and administrators will utilize this technology as a way of avoiding needed investment in extended staff and facilities. The irony is that this might turn out to be more, rather than less, costly.

Question from Wendy Lowe, Ryerson Polytechnical University:
Mr Noble said: "The bulk of online education aims at increasing rather than reducing the student to faculty ratio in the interest of cutting labor costs. So the economics and the pedagogy of online education are in contradiction." I would counter that there are no statistics to show this: in fact, many who comment and research Distance Education make the point that economy of scale is extremely difficult to achieve, since good online courses require a lot of intervention from faculty, but in ways which maximize their expertise and help students build their own learning experience.

David Noble:
I agree that pedagogically effective use of this technology demands an intensification of labor, rather than the reverse. But there is no indication that institutions are prepared or intend to make any such investment -- quite the contrary. The intention, in the long run, is to utilize this technology to reduce their dependence on academic labor.

Question from Michael, large state university:
If state's sponsor the devlopment of on-line universities and the normal governance processes, which include professors selecting their colleagues, can disappear, is there reason to believe that the politicization of course content will be dependent upon the party in power in the state house or legislature? Are there safeguards? Can you imagine the governor or the speaker of the house determining the content of econ 101 and choosing the instructor?

David Noble:
I am less concerned about political interference with academic decisions about educational content than I am with commercial interference. The real danger is that universities are collaborating with private vendors to whom they are granting exclusive distribution rights to their courses. It is altogether conceivable that these vendors will urge administrators to insure that their academic offerings comply with commercial-market demands. If faculty are coerced or volunteer to surrender their copyright over course materials to their employer, this liklihood of commercial dicatation of course content will become a certainty.

Question from Jonathan Anderson, University of Alaska SE:
Your reply to Chris Smith about "control" shows what we are really talking about. Who will control the content and dissemination of knowledge. Academia is notorious for trying to control who has access, the definitions and the legitimacy of knowledge and its disseminators. We feel we know best of course. How can we conceive that those who do not have PhDs could possibly understand "truth."

David Noble:
Academics do not have a monopoly on knowledge or truth. What they do have is a unique institution dedicated to the pursuit of both. There is no other space in our society so constructed. There is no other place in our society in which people are encouraged and expected to spend considerable time in thought and critical reflection. It is not the monopoly of academics that is at risk here, but a precious and irreplaceable public resource.

Question from Richard Brown, Walden University:
To get a feel for where you are coming from, do you think tenure is something we need to protect or a concept that is no longer useful?

David Noble:
I was fired from MIT for political reasons because I had no tenure. I would have been fired for political reasons from several other jobs had I not had tenure. Tenure enables individuals to pursue the truth, and tell it like it is. Sadly, the vast majority of tenured faculty assume no such responsibility for this privilege. My motto regarding tenure is "Use it or lose it." I believe it is the obligation of tenured faculty to be in the vanguard of public reflection, debate, and civic action, and that that is why the institution of tenure exists. It is also their obligation to tell their student the truth without concern for consequences. That is also why tenure exists.

Question from Peter, Research Univesity:
I have been working in online education for four years and in that time we have seen enrollments grow at incredible rates.(From 400 to 14,000) How can you say there is no "effective demand"

David Noble:
I would have to know more about his experience, and he has to be specific about the institution, the course offerings, the demographics. It's impossible to have this discussion in the abstract.

It's striking, not only the wish for anonymity, but that the vast majority of people who have identified themselves are men. this is puzzling, because it appears to me as I travel around North America, that the area of online and distance education has become a niche for women for career advancement even into the highest administrative echelons. So far as I know, this fact has not been noted. Perhaps women who have encountered obstacles to advancement in the core of the institution have found it in this realm. The tragedy here as I see it is that they have thereby developed a career investment in an academic dead end.

Question from John Eggers, North Georgia College & State University:
One argument that "technophiles" promulgate is that while today's technology may not allow "personal" interaction, someday it will (via videoconferencing, or some other technology we haven't seen yet). What are your thoughts on this point?

David Noble:
It is still technology-mediated, and therefore not the same as face-to-face. Secondly, such broadband delivery is prohibitively expensive, and will remain so. Therefore, it will be limited to only the high end of educational offerings, namely executive MBA courses for which private corporations will bear the cost, rather than individuals.

Jeff Young (Moderator):
We're nearing the end of our live discussion. We have time for just a couple more questions.

Question from Angela Benson, University of Georgia:
Dr. Noble, I find that I agree with about everything you've said thus far. Surprisingly, I hear most of your comments not as indictments of distance education but rather as a "call to arms" for those who would want to have a say in what constitutes good education. I see this as a much bigger issue that whether we do or don't do distance education and I fear that that central message gets lost in the noise of technology-good-bad debate. Am I correctly understanding your position?

David Noble:
You are indeed. This is precisely why, in my fourth "Digital Diploma Mills" article, I concentrated on digital correspondence courses in which the only technology was the postal service. My intention was to get us away from the fruitless (because mindless) debates about technology in order to focus on the politica economy of education. That is, the commodidization of higher education. I have written several books -- in particular, a book called "Progress Without People" and "The Religion of Technology" -- in which I have tried to understand the historical roots of our irrational enchantment with things technological. Unfortunately, given our cultural and ideological inheritance, we in the West are simply incapable of being rational about this presumably most rational of endeavors. The critical point, as you insist, is that those who are most centrally engaged and thus, most knowledgable about education -- namely students and teachers -- have been completely marginalized from decisions about the future of education and in particular, about the use of instructional technology. In almost every institution, all decisions are made exclusively, typically in secret, by administrators and their private-sector collaborators. Faculty and students are out of the loop. All of my efforts have indeed been a call to arms to those who have been excluded to take these important matters into their own hands, where they belong. This is the only way that quality education can be preserved and extended.

Question from Victoria Marietta, student, UCLA:
I was opposed to online courses, but found I was forced to take one because of logistical reasons. It turned out to be better than I could've ever expected. I tend to be shy and reserved and asking questions in lectures or trying to fight off the many students waiting for office hours was too overwhelming for me. In my online course, I spoke freely and engaged in numerous interactions with both instructor and student. I feel that I have learned and retained more in my online class than any traditional class. I can't imagine I'm the only student like this, don't you see how online classes can benefit?

David Noble:
There is no question that people who have difficulty engaging in the public arena can find online engagement a solution to their problem. But it is in reality not a solution, but an avoidance of the difficulty. Victoria says that she spoke -- but she didn't speak, she wrote. Speaking eloquently, persuasively, passionately, is essential to citizenship in a democracy. How, when, and where is she to learn this essential ability if not in a university? If she leaves the university as ill-equipped for democratic participation as she entered it, then the institution has failed her and the democracy it should serve.

Jeff Young (Moderator):
Mr. Noble has agreed to stay with us for a few more minutes. Stay tuned....

Question from C.J. DeSantis, eLearners.com Inc.:
Many learners do not learn best in the traditional classroom setting because of their learning style or special needs. What are your thoughts on the potential of the online classroom to satisfy various learning styles and needs simultaneously through a variety of media interaction formats?

David Noble:
The vocabulary of online education is that is it learner-centered, and the teacher pretty much drops out of the equation, except as some sideline coach. In my 30 years experience as a teacher, I know for a fact that at least 90 percent of students in college are not self-directed enough to chart their own educational course. Would that they were! The primary task of an educator is to aid students in the formation of their identity through validation, encouragement, and interpersonal exchange. The nature of this exchange varies from individual to individual. The real danger with online delivery, as with correspondence education before it, is that while it claims to be meeting the individual requirements of students, it is in fact isolating them from the teacher and hence, from what I believe, is essential to the educational process. It is for this reason that the dropout rate in correspondence courses has historically been over 80 percent, and that the dropout rate for online courses is considerably higher than that for face-to-face instruction.

Question from David Cunningham, Yale University:
Most instututions of higher learning have very specific policies on copywritten material, usually giving copywrite solely to the author. Do you have statistically valid evidence that these rights are being threatened by the development of high tech instructional tools? If so, what can faculty and students do to preserve thier rights?

David Noble:
First, one ought not be inordinately concerned with university policies. This might come as a surprise to many in academia, but universities do not write the law. That is done by Congress. The copyright act of 1976, which is rooted in Article I of the U.S. Constitution, assigns copyright to the author, not to Yale U. Universities throughout North America are currently in the process of trying to subvert the intentions of the authors of our copyright law through claims that the university owns course material, that what faculty produce is "work for hire," and the like. This is happening everywhere. I can give you very detailed evidence. For start, he should look at "Digital Diploma Mills Part II", which describes some of these efforts. Ultimately, this is a matter that will be resolved in the courts, not in the administrative offices of universities, and one must only hope that the courts will continue, as they have in the past, to uphold faculty rights to course material as the essential guarantor of academic freedom and hence, of universities as we have known them. Once these rights are appropriated by employers, the universities will in a stroke be fundamentally transformed for the worst.

Question from Peggy Harvey St. Petersburg Junior College:
I am a woman and my peer just read your comment to me - What are you trying to say about women? Most women don't have time to read this discussion. I don't understand the point about women. Why single us out?

David Noble:
I wrote a book called "A World Without Women," which is a 2,000 year history of the exclusion of women from the centers of learning in the West. It has only been in the last 150 years that women have gained a foothold in institutions of higher education. Sadly, as numerous recent studies have confirmed, women are still being excluded in higher numbers than men from the higher reaches of the academy. It is no accident, therefore, that women have found new possibilities in the expanding realm of online education. I believe that this is tragic, first because they must support and endorse, for career reasons, forms of education which they might not fully believe in, and second, because they have staked their fortunes on a realm that is headed for collapse.

Jeff Young (Moderator):
Thanks to everyone who joined us today. I'm afraid we didn't get to all of the thoughtful questions that were submitted-- In fact, we had more than 225 questions sent in. But we did our best to cover as broad a range of questions as possible.

Jeff Young (Moderator):
Thanks again to David Noble for agreeing to participate in our chat forum (as we noted, he joined us by phone).

David Noble:
This has been a valuable exercise, but it is important to note that by conducting this conversation online, The Chronicle has narrowed the potential participation to those who are online and are comfortable online. Perhaps The Chronicle might do better to collaborate with a public radio station for a fuller airing of these issues, and I would be delighted to participate.

David Noble:
It's been a pleasure, and I would be happy to receive the full list of questions.