ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1996, Roanoke Times
DATE: Saturday, June 15, 1996 TAG: 9606170048
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-9 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: CHARLES J. HURST
IT SEEMS to me Matthew J. Franck (May 11 letter to the editor, ``Can the `university of the future' deliver as promised?'') took a very negative and, in many ways, limited view of what is happening and may happen in the "distance learning" environment. He raised many questions that I feel need answers different from the ones he implied.
I speak from some knowledge of the problems of remote instruction. During my 28 years of teaching mechanical engineering at Virginia Tech, I taught classes in almost every type of situation, including remote senior-level elective and graduate courses. Looking back, I can see from the subsequent successes of the students I taught (many of whom I still know) that real education did take place in the courses I taught remotely, despite often severe difficulties posed by earlier technologies.
I agree with many of Franck's statements and observations about the advantages of personalized instruction. The ideal instructional situation is often the one he calls "the classroom" - a small group of interested students in close personal discussion with a teacher. Those of us on faculties need to struggle to preserve this environment whenever we can.
But we need to face the fact that soaring educational costs and enrollments, combined with decreasing public support of educational institutions, are placing this ideal situation out of the reach of many.
In particular, the ideal instructional environment often is beyond the reach of many students now trying the "remote learning" approach. The "remote student" is often constrained in ways that prevent coming to a campus and becoming a "traditional" student. The student is often older, and may have a family to support and a job to hold. (And the job may not be related to what he or she wishes to study.) It may not be economically feasible for the student to pull up stakes and spend a year or more on a traditional campus. Should we simply turn away with a shrug from the educational needs of this student?
On the positive side, I've found that students in the remote-learning locations often bring to the classroom those most precious of attributes - experience and a hunger for knowledge. With these attributes, all things educational are possible.
Franck talks about the need for a community of learners to enhance the educational process. I agree, but point out that there are many ways in which a "community" can be formed.
The Internet has formed many communities of users that transcend geographical locations. In my experience, a group of students taking a course at a given remote location always forms an educational community. I've even found it possible to foster some bonds between students on campus and those off campus taking the same course. Some personal contact with the instructor (during site visits, for example) helps. Sure, it takes work. Some of the work is quite different from traditional "teaching" activity. But you can forge the helpful communities of learners if you concentrate on the students' needs.
As for educational resources, it's easy to be too restrictive in one's thinking about this. The need for physical access to the campus library as an adjunct to the educational process is rapidly decreasing. Access to an electronic library catalog is only a small part of what is now available.
With each passing day, the amount of actual text and graphical material available electronically increases. Properly done, electronic browsing can often turn up the same serendipitous findings as a trip to the library. Furthermore, a student at a remote location may have other libraries available. The explosive growth of the World Wide Web has made available information resources to remote students that weren't available even three years ago. In the physical sciences, access to laboratories poses problems. But with planning and thought, even this may be overcome in most cases.
As for those valuable contacts made outside of the classroom, sure, informal contacts by "remote students" with faculty will be more limited. It's hard to generalize about other informal contacts and cultural opportunities open to remote students because a lot depends on where they're located. They may or may not be equal to what's available on campus.
I think Franck has overreacted to some of what's happening in the educational world today. I don't think that the university as a "place" is about to become extinct for many of the reasons he mentions. But the world is changing, and institutions of higher learning - particularly those supported by taxpayers - need to be thinking about serving the educational needs of all students, not just those with the freedom to come to campus. To do that, we need to move forward and learn how to use the technologies available to us as teachers. Some technologies won't work and will be abandoned. Others may work just fine, and some will exceed our expectations. But if we don't try them out, we'll never know what we can do.
Does a "remote learning" degree need to connote a second-class accomplishment? Not unless we at the universities let it.
Charles J. Hurst of Blacksburg is a retired professor of mechanical engineering at Virginia Tech.
LENGTH: Medium: 91 linesby CNB