Search Our Essay Database

Essay Instructions: The Critique Essay
Writing Assignment #1 will be a critique essay.
Courses that fulfill the General Education Requirements (GERs) at UMUC all have a common theme?technological transformations. In following this theme this semester in WRTG391, you will be critiquing an author on her views on online writing courses.
The critique essay asks you to look at a source with a critical eye and discuss its strengths and weaknesses. It will incorporate source material summary into its discussion but will also evaluate that source material.
Kiefer, K. (2007). Chapter 8: Do students lose more than they gain in online writing classes? In, Brave New Classrooms (pp. 141-151). Peter Lang Publishing, Inc.


Chapter 8
Do Students Lose More than They Gain in Online Writing Classes?
Why do we teach writing in relatively small classes? Certainly there are practical reasons with having to do with workload and classroom management issues, but most of our issues flow from pedagogical and theoretical concerns. Pedagogically, we know that students are likely to learn most effectively from multiple opportunities to practice with timely feedback on their effectiveness in writing. Even more important, the most influential theories of language use and development posit the situatedness of language?how it is shaped by and shapes its users and contexts of its use. Cultural, rhetorical, and sociocognitive perspectives all emphasize the construction of meaning in context. Our goals in teaching writing explicitly include helping students become aware of writing as situated communication. The rhetorical principles embodied in most widely used writing texts consistently encourage writers to adapt to the specific writing context. Contemporary writing theory and language theory (as well as much cultural criticism) develop in even greater detail the crucial roles of language in context: for identity formation, for cultural work, and for community building. Little wonder, then, that teachers of writing insist that students are best able to learn to write most effectively when they can create and respond to specific language contexts in small groups of students (15?25 students in the class as a whole, with smaller groupings of 2?5 students working on targeted collaborative activities).
Do these theoretical assumptions about language preclude teaching writing online? Proponents of online writing courses argue that textual interactions can immerse students more fully in situated writing than face-to-face courses in which few classroom interactions involve writing. But despite what could be an advantage, online classes often fail students precisely because all interactions are
142 Online Writing Classes
textual. Unless students are sensitive to or willing to examine the different functions of text in an online class, they can be trapped by their constrained understanding of writing and finish the course with less awareness of the contexts of writing than their counterparts in a traditional classroom.
Admittedly, my view of the potential shortcomings of online writing instruction is in the minority. In 1992, Gail Hawisher summed up a prevailing positive view of electronic discourses and their extension into virtual classrooms: ?As a result of our work with computers over the past decade, we can begin to imagine teaching and writing in a virtual age where a meeting of the minds might well occur without the physical presence of students and teachers.? Minock and Shor (1995) discuss at length an example of a curriculum that exploits all the positive elements of computer-mediated discussion, even for students in a hybrid class which typically meets in face-to-face settings for a few sessions, and at most once per week, during the term and functions as an online course the rest of the term. Similarly, Fey (1998) reports her research on a ?distance? collaboration that effectively paired college and high school students in a critical inquiry about gender roles, and Faigley (1999) offers an example of what he calls ?the best possible learning environment with technology? that shows ?students who use telecommunications across different geographic locations are more motivated and learn more? (138). In these instances, online textual interactions not only enhanced individual learning about substantive issues but also created opportunities for students to practice writing for specific rhetorical contexts.
Off-setting these positive results are concerns about flaming and other negative power differentials that emerge in some electronic conversations (among others, Faigley 1992; Janangelo 1991), crushing all possibility for positive student?student interactions. Furthermore, the work of Gaddis et al. (2000), who note that the online students in their study were more independent as learners and tended to value collaboration to a lesser extent than students in their on-campus classes, suggests that students may reject opportunities to interact meaningfully even when it might otherwise contribute to positive learning outcomes.
Despite this apparent lack of consensus among teachers and researchers about whether online classes can function as learning contexts equivalent to traditional classrooms for students, political and economic realities are pushing more and more students into online education. In many cases, questions about the efficacy of online education have been ignored in the face of pressures to offer a quick response to student demand and to attract the largest possible number of students to online classes. In some places, like in my state of Colorado as part of a Western Governors? initiative, legislative action is pending
Kiefer 143
to reward community colleges and four-year institutions that attract large number of online students. (The clear implication is that institutions with largely on-campus instruction might well suffer in future budget allocations from the state.) Yet we do not have large-scale, objective evidence that writing teachers can maintain key instructional techniques and values in the writing classes we teach online.
Our emphasis on the situatedness of writing has long moved teachers of writing beyond the immediate classroom context. Scholars as varied in their theoretical perspectives as Miller, Moffat, Elbow, and Freire have pointed out that writing instruction cannot succeed when students do not engage in writing for at least one of several non-academic goals?personal expression, social consciousness, post-academic writing in the disciplines or in a workplace, critical literacy, or lifelong learning. More recently, pedagogies that emphasize service learning or community action have continued this trend toward focusing on writing beyond the classroom. As a profession, our history in the last 50 years has emphasized the importance of engaging students in more than individual, iterated practice of formulaic academic responses. But when we move the classroom online, are we actually expanding the boundaries of the classroom to take advantage of the larger world of varied rhetorical contexts? Or does the focus of instruction in online courses differ so greatly from that of face-to-face courses that it diminishes the richness of interactions among class members?
Deficit 1: Classroom Support Software
Anyone who has taught a distance education writing course with widely available classroom support software knows that such software, WebCT and Blackboard, was not designed with writing teachers in mind. Rather, assuming that lecture courses were the norm for higher education, most classroom support software was designed to support lecture classes. WebCT, for instance, provides a number of ways for teachers to post lecture material?as readings, notes, PowerPoint slides, or links to other textual material or websites. Materials that are created within the electronic course can be ?released? to students with set starting and end dates and times so that students can be encouraged to stay on track with the syllabus. Similarly, teachers can use a test bank of questions to create randomized multiple choice quizzes and examinations that, again, are available to students for only a set amount of time. Students see only their own scores on quizzes and grades on papers or examinations. It is possible for online courses, then, to exist as individual tutorials in which students have no sense that the course exists for anyone else.
144 Online Writing Classes
Understandably, most online course designs transferred from lecture classes feature instruction that requires almost no interaction between students. Students can retrieve the assigned materials, read and study them, take online quizzes or tests, and even write a paper without engaging other students in the course in any sustained or significant conversation. The computer in this instance not only wipes out any sense that students in the course might be ?other,? but also that other students in the course even exist. Students have no way of knowing how many other students are even enrolled in the same course, unless they are savvy enough to count the number of students on the class email list or pay very careful attention to discussion forum postings, should any be required.
But assume that a teacher does not want to organize the class as a ?lecture? or a correspondence course with no interactions except those between the teacher and each individual student. The typical classroom support system modeled on lecture courses also includes a chat room, an asynchronous bulletin board or discussion forum, and an internal email system for communicating with all members of the course. Using the chat room requires that all students be able to log into the ?classroom? website at the same time, a remarkably difficult chore given constraints on students? time (see below). And the asynchronous bulletin board is not necessarily a friendly community forum for posting messages. In WebCT, for instance, the threaded discussions on the asynchronous bulletin board are difficult to negotiate. My students have told me that they are often confused about how to read postings, and they can respond to only one posting at a time because WebCT has no option for opening two screens at the same time to view multiple texts. As it was not designed for groups of students interacting about texts, lecture-modeled classroom support software can make student dialog or other textual interactions needlessly difficult.
Furthermore, although it is possible to work around the design of WebCT to create discussion forums for smaller working groups of students, the software provides no easy way for students to exchange drafts of papers except to attach the papers to forum postings or email messages. Email at least has the advantage of being private within most classroom support software. Only the designated recipient within the class can read the email, so students who use this method of exchanging papers can comment on each other?s work without worrying about who else might be reading their comments. Papers attached to bulletin board postings are available to all unless the teacher sets up privacy restrictions required for each separate bulletin board for a pair or group of students, an awkward solution at best.
Kiefer 145
Downloading from even the best classroom support software can be time consuming, moreover, if the school server is overloaded, as ours often is. Sometimes, our server is so busy that students cannot log on at the times they have available to work on a computer. At other times, the load on the server is such that any new request to the server takes a minute or more to execute (on a high-speed line on campus; access time is often tripled for students working at a distance over modems). Retrieving a paper attached to a forum posting or email can take students up to 20 minutes, often time that students do not have to sit staring at an unresponsive computer screen. So my students have tried to work outside WebCT by exchanging papers through other email programs. Almost all my students have discovered, at one time or another, that email programs have limits on the size of attached files. They try to send a draft of a paper to me or to a peer reviewer only to have the attachment deleted from the email because it exceeds size restrictions.
While it is true that some students experience stumbling blocks in our face- to-face classrooms and thus we should not assume that physical environments are all and always ?student-friendly,? the limitations built into lecture-modeled classroom support software make it much less welcoming than the worst physical space to students of writing. In short, many online classroom ?environments? work against the notion of a writing class as a nexus of situated interactions through and about writing.
Deficit 2: Students? Time Constraints
Students? situations differ, of course, but most of my students work full-time and take one or two online courses at a time. Due to the other commitments, my students tend to work on their courses on weekends, often only on Sundays. (When I first started teaching online writing courses, I did not realize this trend until well into the first semester. I have since revised my syllabus and work plans to accommodate this student reality.) I still advise students to work in smaller chunks of time, even if they have to do the week?s worth of reading and writing on the weekend, but students tell me they often only have one large block of time for completing the work on my course.
Imagine, then, the frustrations students face. First, they need to retrieve the assigned texts from their classroom management software?typically in my classes a short introduction to the week?s work, several student samples, and a specific writing task, sometimes to be completed immediately and sometimes to feed into a longer paper or portfolio collection. Students log onto the classroom support system, download the texts, and either save them to read on the screen or to print later. They log off to complete the reading and any preliminary


Considerations for this Essay:
You are taking WRTG 391 in hybrid format. You are involved significantly in online instruction in your class.
Kiefer argues in her essay that writing courses may not work well online. She provides various reasons for making her argument.
You might agree with her. Or you might agree with her on some points but question her on other points. Or you might disagree with her entirely. In this essay, you will evaluate her arguments and critique them.
In this essay, you will do the following:
? Introduce the topic and introduce the author and essay. Then state your thesis.
? Summarize the author?s argument or arguments. Your opinion is not included here. You simply summarize the author?s points.
? Critique the author.
? Evaluate the author?s argument or arguments.
? Respond to the author. Note what you agree with and what you disagree with. You will incorporate at least two other sources into this evaluation and response.
? Conclude the essay.

Essay Instructions: PROFESSORS NOTES:
Research design section: A description of the proposed research design to include the research questions, rationale, instrumentation, and methods for both data collection and analysis

That is the description, but let me provide some more specifics.

Typically this section is three to five pages. You should include the information requested above.

Research questions: List the question(s) - one or two major research questions.

Rationale: why did you decide that the research design (quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methods - or even a specific subsection of one of these three such as a narrative study) for this study?

Instrumentation: what instruments would you use if you were to actually conduct this research? An established survey? An established IQ test? An interview protocol? These are some examples of instruments.

The specific methods: this is clearly tied to the instruments. Examples include interviewing, administering tests, and surveying a particular group.

STUDENTS NOTES:
This is a three page paper. I am placing sections 1 and 2 of the assignment below. Be sure all citation is in proper APA format. You should gear the paper toward the grounded theory as it has already been accepted by the professor. If you have any questions please email me. I usually check my email several times a day. Also please use

Creswell, J. W. (2005). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

as methodology research citation.

SUBMITTED ASSIGNMENTS 1 & 2
Introduction
Education is changing due in large part to computer technology. From computers in grade school rooms to higher education?s internet based courses, educational opportunities for Americans are expanding. The explosion of computer technology and the ?age of the internet? have impacted our lives socially, economically and politically. (Levin 2002) This paper will investigate the opportunities and consequences that computers technology has brought on the field of education for educators.
There a many different areas that studying the effects of computer technology on education can explore. The primary focus of this paper will center on computers technology and its affects on educators. However, general comments will be made relating to the broader subject area as appropriate to the subject. .

Education is experiencing new era of expansion with new opportunities due in part to the introduction of computer technology, like internet based courses. This makes it very important educators to study and understand the underlying benefits and consequences of technologies use in instruction.

For working adults, the flexible environment of internet based courses, or online courses, is meeting the scheduling needs of a hectic life. Moreover, learning opportunities via computer technology has increased comfort level with technology in general. More education or just education in general, is believed to allow individual to increase their skills, therefore their position in their workplace and society. Capitalists and experts in human resources often endorse more formal education and training programs as an economic stimulator benefiting both personal and national interests. However, social commentators like Livingstone (1987) disagree noting that the ranks of the under- and unemployed have always been filled with educated, skilled workers.

For educators, the implications of computer technology and online courses are different. Author Herb Thompson (1999) notes that accomplishing learning via internet based courses is a matter of good pedagogy, not the technology. Thompson asserts: "When learners use computer tools in ways which pay attention to the attributes of concepts and their interrelationships, then they are employing contextual thinking and learning." (pg. 32) Thompson contends it more important for the instructor to impart knowledge and critical thinking than how to use the computer itself.
Instructors are also confronted with multicultural classrooms filled different skill levels. For instructors and academic institutions using computer based technology these issues are presenting an increasing challenge to keep not only the curriculum relevant to but to facilitate learning as well. . Knowledge in this area will allow educators and policymakers can improve effectiveness, curriculum and online course offerings.

It has been noted that online courses actually requires a larger effort in time and resources for faculty than traditional the classroom, or face to face. (Cissell, Cissell, & Murphy 1999) The Division of Labor Studies online program housed at Indiana University can be an example of amount of resources and requirements on instructors. According to W. Mello (personal communication, Apr. 13, 2006), online course hours per week average 8 to 15 hours a week per course and increase often with the course level. This contrast with the 2 to 4 hours based in traditional face to face. Mello also notes that training on software and hardware is required periodically.

Introductory Conclusion:
One could conclude that while there have been studies on the issues of the impact of computer technology and the internet on education, there is a deficiency in the evidence that warrant further research.

Literature Review
A new era of educational instruction has resulted from the revolution in information and communication technology brought on by globalization. It is crucial that leaders update their skills and begin to incorporate technology into their leadership methods as this technology becomes more and more commonplace. In the business world, the ability to utilize technology to increase productivity is seen as being a professional and a leader. It is believed that technology drives down administrative tasks while providing a valuable growth tools for both employees and leaders. This literature review examines the current state of research and reviews the reality of technology for instructors. .
For instructors the growing need to educate themselves has led to some educational institutions to develop and implement technological training programs. In response to the Goals 2000: Educate America Act of 1994, the InTech Professional Development Program was the established by the state of Georgia Skills taught include the use of email, word processing programs, and Internet searches as well as software installation and evaluation (Brooks et.al., 2001). Program participants are also required to read articles about technology and to plan and implement technology-training lessons for their colleagues.
In Georgia, teachers who had completed the InTech program were certified to redeliver, or train their colleagues at their school sites. Studies conducted assessed how teachers felt about the different programs, the methods employed by the teachers to implement InTech training in classrooms, and the factors that enhance or create barriers to technology use (Brooks et.al. 2001).
A study was conducted on a variety of teachers from three elementary schools who had completed the InTech program (Brooks et.al. 2001). They posed questions such as whether the administrator supported the integration of technology in the classroom; whether additional training would increase the teacher?s comfort level as they incorporated technology into lessons for the students; and whether the technology trainer influenced the teachers' use of technology.
The study indicated that there were two significant factors that had an impact on integration of technology in the classroom. The first factor was that teachers' computer proficiency increased after taking the InTech training program; the second factor was that technology trainers had a significant impact on teachers' learning. Teachers trained at the university-based programs had more positive experiences than those trained at the local level. Their findings allowed the researchers to recommend that the schools be supplied with more software and equipment to improve technology instruction.
The study results also indicated that the reported barriers to technology integration within classrooms included planning time, classroom management using the computer, and time restrictions because of scheduling conflicts. This agrees with a finding from the National Center for Education Statistics that, next to a lack of computers, lack of release time for teachers to learn technologies and lack of class time for students to use computers are barriers to teachers' technology use (Ezarik, 2001).
A review of the literature reveals that most instructors face these challenges in the implementation. The ability of administrators to provide training for educators that is intellectually stimulating and pleasurable is also a challenge. Brody?s (1995) research recognized several components including the reputation of the trainer, the rewards available to the participants, both tangible and intangible, and the support of the administration, all qualities that should be considered when developing skills training for educators. Secondary issues in the traditional face to face training such as location, space, and travel, can also be overcome by using web based courses in educator?s technological skill development. In addition to increasing comfort levels with technology, Bintrim (2002) notes internet based training also allows educators to establish their pace by logging on when it is convenient for them.
Indeed using technology to train educators can have an impact on the educator?s views on technology?s use in education. A study was conducted about teacher?s preferences to technology training. The study by Cole and Styron (2005) asked whether teachers were more likely to prefer online methods in lieu of traditional face-to-face methods of obtaining training on various topics pertaining to technology.
Cole and Styron (2005) also researched educator?s readiness to incorporate technology into their classrooms after participating in online technology training. The results revealed that a majority understood technology benefits to the educational process after they had participated in the online training. The results also indicated ?that the preferred method of delivering this training is through online professional development with 89.1% of the teachers willing to participate in another online module through TeacherLine and 85.5% willing to participate in any form of online professional development.? (Cole and Styron 2005, 6)
Ineffective habits of technological staff development have also been studied. According to Poole and Moran (1998) cited lack of administrative support, inadequate expensive one-shot workshops with no follow-up or support and a general unaware of technology use and availability.
Finally, the majority of the literature on the topic indicates that the adoption of the Internet as a learning tool will require a shift in the educational paradigm that will empower the Internet as a relevant learning and teaching tool.

Reference:
Bintrim, L. (2002). Redesigning professional development. Educational Leadership, 59 (6) 96-98.

Books, J., Cayer, C., Dixon, J., Wood, J. (2001). Action Research Question: What Factors Affect Teachers' Integration of Technology in Elementary Classrooms?Retrieved April 28, 2006 from http://www.goenc.com.

Brody, P. J. (1995). Technology Planning and Management Handbook: A Guide for School District Educational Technology Leaders. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

Cissell, W. B., Cissell, M. E., & Murphy, L. (1999). Evaluating the texas woman's university distance education program: A case study. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 2(3), 84-90. Retrieved April 11, 2006 from http://www.ifets.info/journals/2_3/cissell.pdf

Cole, M. & Styron, R. (2005). Traditional or Online Methods Development: What DoTeachers Prefer? Retrieved April 28, 2006 from
http://www.center./uoregon.edu/ISTE/uploads/NECC2005/KEY_6213764/

Ezarik, M. (2001). Charting the Technology Explosion. Curriculum Administrator, 37, 36-40.

Gahala, M. (2001). Critical Issue: Promoting technology Use in Schools. Retrieved
April 28, 2006 from http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/methods/technology/te200:htm

Levin, Y. (2002, fall). Politics after the internet. Public Interest, 149, pp.80-95. Retrieved on April 11, 2006 from EBSCO HOST Research Database

Livingstone, D.W. (1987). Upgrading and Opportunities. Critical Pedagogy and Cultural Power South Hadley, Mass.: Bergin & Garvey Publishers.

Poole, J. J., & Moran, C. (1998). Schools have their computers, now what? T.H.E Journal [Online]. Available: http://www.thejournal.com/magazine/vault/A2008.cfm

Thompson, H. (1999). The Impact of Technology and Distance Education: A Classical Learning Theory Viewpoint. Journal of Educational Technology & Society 2(3), 25-40. Retrieved April 11, 2006 from http://www.ifets.info/journals/2_3/herb_thompson.pdf

Essay Instructions: You are to write a 2-page paper. Read the editorial below and then summarize the editorial. Do Not Use Outside Sources.

Editorial: Technology-Driven Change: Where Does it Leave the Faculty?

In the 1997-98 academic year, just over one third of the approximately 5,000 two- and four-year postsecondary institutions in the U.S. offered distance education courses, while another fifth planned to do so (U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 1999). Nearly 80% of the public, four-year institutions and over 60% of the public, two-year institutions offered distance education courses. Overall, U.S. higher education institutions reported 1,661,100 students enrolled in distance education courses. The most popular delivery technologies used were asynchronous Internet instruction (58%), two-way interactive video (54%), and one-way prerecorded video (47%). Institutions also reported that, in the future, they would be concentrating on Internet technologies and two-way interactive video more than on the other technologies.
In its conclusion, the report stated that "the support and adoption of distance education has led to the emergence of a number of policy issues," namely,
• equity of access;
• the cost of program development and implementation;
• accreditation and quality assurance;
• copyright and intellectual property rights;
• changes and challenges facing the role of faculty;
• pressures on existing organizational structures and arrangements.
At the time I was reviewing the NCES report (my assessment: a useful statistical snapshot, though already out-of-date, that is not too diminished by the authors' limited knowledge of the literature), I received a paper from Prof. Jack Simmons of Savannah State University. It gave an insightful analysis of the "changes and challenges facing the role of faculty" that follow the growing popularity of Internet-based distance education-particularly among university administrations. Prof. Simmons's paper arrived at a time when I was also mulling over the "challenges and changes" facing my own faculty. Let me elaborate a little on this first, and then return to Prof. Simmons.
At our university, like many others represented in the NCES report, we are rapidly developing courses for delivery via the Internet. Since we hope to draw our students from a global market, we call our new delivery system the World Campus (see http://www.worldcampus.psu.edu). In order to design a course for the World Campus, I, like other professors, have been released from teaching my two residential courses. During each semester that my Internet-based course is offered, I will play the role of online instructor, and I will be relieved of one residential course. When the enrollment exceeds twenty-three students, I will be given an assistant instructor. Together with four other professors, I am required to design and deliver seven such courses.
At this point, the questions begin to suggest themselves. For example, what will be the impact of teaching these online courses on our other responsibilities, particularly on what we can offer in our residential program and on our research and service, when all the faculty are teaching online? Will the university hire a considerable number of new professors to undertake the residential teaching, or will this be done by adjunct professors? Will the distance learning courses replace the residential? What will be the effect on staffing if the online courses are modestly successful or if they are very successful? Will we appoint seven assistant instructors in the first case, or multiples of seven in the second? Where will we find these instructors in a small college town? Will we hire people "at a distance" with whom we do not interact face-to-face? What will be their terms of service? How will they participate in faculty governance?
Prof. Simmons has given these and other such questions a great deal of thought, and he is worried. He is especially worried about the effects on academic freedom caused by the division of labor between those who prepare content and those who teach it. To describe what he sees as the "real danger" posed by distance learning, Prof. Simmons cites faculty roles at the British Open University (BOU), the University of Phoenix, the University of North Florida, Florida Gulf Coast University, and the University System of Georgia. He refers to speeches by the BOU's Sir John Daniel to show that distance education, in Simmons's words, "is not merely a tool to reach non-traditional students. Distance learning is fundamentally a financial tool: a means by which universities may reduce their costs while increasing their enrollments." Costs are reduced because "having developed the course, the faculty developer need no longer be present," and income is increased because "online courses are not physically limited to the size of a lecture hall. Hence, thousands of students may simultaneously enroll in a single course." It is the "high tech approaches to education [that] improve efficiency in the simplest manner. By replacing labor with technology, they reduce the labor force."
Prof. Simmons cites Steffan Heuer to explain the economics further:
Teaching a course online gives you economies of scale which are usually only to be found at software vendors. Distribution over an existing network is almost free, no matter how many users are in the virtual classroom-behold the miracle of increasing returns in education, a profession that once prided itself on a low teacher-student ratio. Paying for famous professors to give their name and seal of approval to a course and its curriculum is now a one-time cost. The edu-enterprise can save overhead for real estate and tenured faculty; online teaching and tutoring can be done by assistants and qualified temps anywhere in the world from a simple laptop with a modem.
Andrew Feenberg reiterates this concern, explaining that what remains after faculty roles are restructured "are a few highly paid, content experts acting as stars. The rest of the faculty have little more than adjunct responsibilities and privileges."
While I believe that much of Prof. Simmons's analysis is correct, he and I differ in that I think the scenario he describes is much to be desired. I do not believe it is possible to sustain high-quality distance education unless there is a rationalization of the human and technical resources that are now inefficiently fragmented into a system based on industrial principles, particularly division of labor, high front-end investment, and economies of large-scale production. I do not think that "facilitating" is a menial occupation, inferior to content ownership. On the contrary, I think people should be trained to make a profession of "facilitating," as some others make a profession of content development, and yet others develop expertise in media design and production. This will, I believe, provide better quality distance education to more people at a lower cost. I am not saying such methods would result in better quality residential education; I do not think that is the case. I am talking about distance education. The views of Sir John Daniel that Prof. Simmons regards as representing the "real danger" of distance education are the ones that I personally consider enlightened and progressive, laying out a path that I hope we will follow.
The reason I am featuring Prof. Simmons's ideas in this editorial is that, like him, I am concerned and surprised that the majority of our colleagues seem to think so little of the significance of what is going on here. My own colleagues seem to think that the problems we have to deal with in staffing the World Campus courses are merely administrative. They believe that once we staff the courses with adjunct faculty, then their own academic lives will continue in the 2000s not so differently from how they did in the 1990s. I think this is very unlikely. Indeed, there seem to me to be only two possible scenarios for the future. One is that the university's interest in applying Internet technology to distance education will wane (particularly if the demand for courses is lower than hoped) and that, as a result, it will scale back or abandon its distance education initiatives. Just as experts tell us to expect many e-businesses to fail as electronic commerce matures, so can we expect some universities to leave the Internet scene once the cost/benefits of the distance education programs become apparent.
The second scenario is one in which the university does not give up Internet technology and, instead, responds to the challenges posed by other players in the market-which is, let us not forget, a global market. In that scenario, only those universities that adopt the industrial model that Prof. Simmons fears-with division of labor and economies of scale-are likely to succeed. What is not likely is that a university will be able to compete in this world market without changing its organizational structures, including the roles of its faculty. There is, in other words, little room for blending traditional staffing structures and industrial delivery methods. That is not to say there is not room for both traditions to coexist-with some institutions excelling in providing the conventional, face-to-face, labor-intensive, largely tutorial method wherein some faculty teach on the basis of their personal research, and other institutions specializing in industrial-type distance education. It is even conceivable that both approaches could coexist within the same institution, though it would take unusually expert leadership to manage them.
Now, I can hear the protests. Why may there not be a middle way, a continuation of the common arrangement we currently have, in which each faculty member retains control of both content design and facilitation of learning, both face-to-face and at a distance? The reason is that institutions delivering distance education courses as an "add-on" to traditional teaching will eventually be overwhelmed by the higher quality of design and by the facilitation provided by distance education specialists, not to mention the price advantages accruing to systems that benefit from the economies of large-scale production. Until now, this specter of competition from high-quality, dedicated distance education systems has been only a theoretical concern. Prof. Simmons, however, thinks that such a system is, at this moment, being developed on his doorstep. Plans at the University System of Georgia Board of Regents call for the entire first two years of the university curriculum to be available over the Internet by the fall of 2000 and for complete degree programs in all the traditional disciplines to be available by 2002. One curriculum will be offered to every student in the state. The board will select faculty members (approximately eight per course) from throughout the state university system to construct each core course. There will be a designated instructor/facilitator for each course, and students will submit assignments to that instructor for evaluation. According to Prof. Simmons, The University System of Georgia distance learning curriculum is being modeled largely on the Open University (Sir John Daniel spoke at the Board of Regents meeting on April 12, 1999, to convince them of the financial advantages of distance learning). He also pointed out to the board at that time that while the Open University has over 150,000 students, they employ only 800 full-time faculty and 7,600 adjunct faculty, who function as facilitators and graders. Facilitator faculty have no academic freedom regarding the courses they teach. The course material will be standardized across the University System of Georgia. Furthermore, their freedom, with regards to research, will be in jeopardy. I suppose university administrators could use distance learning to free up their faculty for research, but my fear is that a reduction in professional responsibility will lead to a reduction in professional autonomy, rather than an increase. Based upon the Open University model, there is no reason to believe that distance learning will improve the lot of the faculty.
I will neither report more of Prof. Simmons's views here, nor give further criticism of them. I hope I have said enough to stimulate some of you to read his article and to become engaged in a debate over the issues he raises. We are entering a critical period, and it would be unfortunate if faculty were not centrally involved in the decisions that will determine the future direction of higher education. For me, there is no great dilemma. I understand that there is likely to be a rationalization of labor and capital, i.e., there will be fewer subject specialists-an elite group of "stars" with the majority of the faculty functioning as supporting facilitators. Institutions will have to close areas in which they do not have a comparative advantage and invest heavily in delivering programs to a global market in subjects in which they do. Eight hundred full-time faculties and 7,600 adjunct faculties for 150,000 students is fine with me. But, I ask, how do YOU feel about this scenario?

Essay Instructions: Choose a colleague to interview. Create 8-10 guiding questions, and try to elicit rich, relevant information based on the questions you created. Topics may include (but are not limited to) professional and collegial experiences, experiences with online courses, etc. In your paper, include all questions and answers. Also, include an introductory paragraph stating the topic of your interview and how you prepared. Include a closing paragraph including how you documented the data and your overall experience (positive and negative) with the interview process.