To the Editor:
One of the interesting current questions in fundamental physics is whether or not we live in one of many parallel universes. My first reading of Robert Zemsky and William F. Massy’s “Why the E-Learning Boom Went Bust” (The Chronicle Review, July 9) led me to speculate that I might have encountered evidence of at least two such parallel universes: the authors’ and mine. In theirs, the e-learning boom apparently has gone bust. In mine, it is steadily gaining momentum.
On further study, I concluded that what Zemsky and Massy mean by the term “e-learning” is primarily the incorporation of information technology into conventional classroom environments in conventional colleges and universities. That is in fact proceeding apace at most institutions, albeit more slowly than many of its early prophets expected or predicted. Zemsky and Massy attempt to explain why that is so. In my view, it is so because the incorporation is affected not only by the rapid advance of technology, but also by the much slower rate at which professorial and institutional behavior changes. The former occurs on a time scale of years, the latter on a time scale of decades, if not generations.
It is useful to remember that in the case of an earlier technological revolution, some decades passed between Karl Benz’s first automobile and Henry Ford’s widely used Model T. ...
In my universe there is also the advance of fully Web-based degree programs, called by some “distance education” and by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation -- which has led in their development -- “asynchronous learning.” There have been well-publicized efforts by leading conventional institutions to launch their undoubtedly superior instructional products onto the Web, efforts that have gone bust in various spectacular ways. This too I find unsurprising. To return to the example of the automotive revolution, I am unaware of any cases in which successful buggy-whip makers made the transition to successful manufacturers of automobile-engine starters.
Meanwhile, some unconventional institutions are writing a different story. The University of Maryland University College now counts something like 125,000 enrollments annually in its many Web-based degree programs (an enrollment is defined as one student enrolled in one course). A recent survey conducted by the Sloan Consortium indicates that millions of U.S. students have taken at least one Web-based course, that a majority of academic leaders believes the present quality of such courses is comparable with the quality of conventional classroom courses, and that many of those leaders believe the quality of the former will soon exceed that of the latter. That doesn’t look like a “bust” to me. ...
Though we are still only in its early stages, the e-learning revolution is surely coming.
Donald N. Langenberg Chancellor Emeritus University System of Maryland Adelphi, Md.
***
To the Editor:
One problem with the appraisal of e-learning by Robert Zemsky and William Massy is their use of that term to encompass almost any instruction that utilizes a computer.
While many faculty members continue to struggle with -- and some are even intimidated by -- efforts to adapt aspects of the computer to their classroom-based courses, this is hardly an indictment of online courses, which should be judged on their merits. Zemsky and Massy do not sufficiently distinguish between learning that is done almost entirely outside the classroom and learning that is essentially classroom-based. An appraisal of this sort requires sharper distinctions.
Online learning has had its failures and its successes. ... These failures and successes, however, have little to do with some of the points that the authors make.
Gene I. Maeroff Senior Fellow Hechinger Institute on Education and the Media Teachers College Columbia University New York
***
To the Editor:
The authors of “Why the E-Learning Boom Went Bust” observe that using digital tools has not changed faculty members’ teaching practices; rather, professors present familiar material in digital forms using Blackboard, WebCT, and PowerPoint.
That observation is accurate. It does not follow, however, that a “dominant design” for learning objects will lead to genuine electronically mediated teaching or learning. On the contrary, the design imposed by Blackboard, WebCT, and PowerPoint has been a stumbling block to serious, widespread faculty exploration of innovative digital teaching practices. A dominant design may make using learning objects easier, but design consistency can also restrict more-creative curricular exploration. ...
The authors also observe that Adobe Photoshop and Macromedia Dreamweaver MX are some of the best-selling software packages purchased by students -- another accurate observation. But the assumption that students use or purchase this software primarily to “soup up” assignments is unwarranted. Students -- as reported in the article -- use computers to be connected and entertained; many students are deeply involved in complex digital social systems made possible in part by self-designed cyberspaces that reflect the individuality of their creators and require proficiency in software like Photoshop and Dreamweaver. “Souped up” assignments are merely a byproduct of students’ learning to use tools to create their own digital worlds. I disagree that using this software is primarily about “showing off”; rather, it is about developing and expressing a digital self.
It may be that students do not take to e-learning like ducks to water because faculty members have done little more than put traditional courses into digital formats, develop computerized simulations, or create animated learning objects. Students seek authenticity. They often experience authentic engagement face-to-face in a classroom with a faculty member who has spent decades refining his or her work in that space. But most faculty members are not interested in understanding and creating digital communication spaces and have not developed authentic digital selves. ...
As the article notes, administrative practices do little to encourage meaningful faculty engagement with technology. And IT-support structures often provide an expert to design course materials, reducing the role of the professor to technology consumer and subject-matter expert. ... E-learning may have to wait until members of the Nintendo generation, now entering the profession, are the majority on our faculties. When the norm in most classrooms becomes a faculty member with an authentic digital self, e-learning will naturally take center stage.
Starla Stensaas Associate Professor of Graphic Design Dana College Blair, Neb.
***
To the Editor:
It is perhaps too early in the game to make a final judgment about e-learning. But although Robert Zemsky and William Massy may reject the characterization, they have described the classic cycle of the academic fad: initial enthusiasm by a cadre of true believers, followed sequentially by extravagant claims, data that refute the claims, and disillusionment. They follow the classic model even further with their rationalization that failure was due not to weaknesses in the innovation, but to faulty implementation or the improper attitudes of others (i.e., “the full potential of electronically mediated instruction will not be realized unless and until large numbers of faculty members come to believe that they should substantially improve the educational quality of their instruction”). ...
The real question, of course, is whether efficiency, “dominant designs,” or better user interfaces have much to do with educational quality or, even more important, with learning. It may be, as Zemsky and Massy argue, that the short-term failure of e-learning does not prove it is a bad idea. But isn’t it equally plausible that the long-term success of traditional teaching suggests that it may be more effective than its critics are willing to admit? The goal of “learning anytime anywhere” may be facilitated by technology, but I suspect that even more important to lifelong learning is a liberal education, mediated by what William James referred to as interaction with the “contagious human characters” of teachers and fellow students.
Robert Birnbaum Professor Emeritus of Higher Education University of Maryland College Park, Md.
http://chronicle.com Section: The Chronicle Review Volume 51, Issue 2, Page B17