NORTHCENTRAL UNIVERSITY ASSIGNMENT COVER SHEET
Learner: Stephen W Watts
THIS FORM MUST BE COMPLETELY FILLED IN
Please Follow These Procedures: If requested by your mentor, use an assignment cover
sheet as the first page of the word processor file. The assignment header should include the
Learner’s last name, first initial, course code, dash, and assignment number (DoeJXXX0000-1)
justified to the left and the page number justified to the right.
Keep a Photocopy or Electronic Copy of Your Assignments: You may need to resubmit assignments if your mentor has indicated that you may or must do so.
Academic Integrity: All work submitted in each course must be the Learner’s own. This
includes all assignments, exams, term papers, and other projects required by the faculty mentor.
The known submission of another person’s work represented as that of the Learner’s without
properly citing the source of the work will be considered plagiarism and will result in an
unsatisfactory grade for the work submitted or for the entire course, and may result in academic
dismissal.
EL7001-8
Dr. Stephen Law
Principals and Practices in e-Learning
7 Challenges of e-Learning
Assignment: Read Andrew Feenberg’s article. Select points that you agree with or maybe
disagree with. Discuss what you can do in the implementation of an e-Learning program to avoid the
pitfalls that Feenberg points out. Utilize supportive literature from at least 3 different sources to defend
your suggestions. Length: 5-7 pages.
Faculty Use Only
Very nice work Stephen! Well organized and well documented.
Dr. Law
Dr Stephen Law
100
95
1/10/2012
Running head: CHALLENGES OF E-LEARNING
Challenges of e-Learning
Stephen W. Watts
Northcentral University
1
WattsSEL7001-8-7
2
Challenges of e-Learning
In higher education Feenberg (1999) identifies two polar positions regarding the
implementation of e-learning. This finding of polarity is also found in businesses offering elearning according to Horton (2001). Both Feenberg and Horton detail a contretemps between
“administration” or “management” and “faculty” or “teachers,” and both argue most persuasively
from the position of those who are the agents of learning. The purpose of this paper is to identify
actions that can be taken when implementing an e-learning program that will realize the
underlying and necessary goals of both camps.
Administration and Management
Milton Friedman (1970) eloquently stated that the purpose and responsibility of business
is to “increase its profits” (para. 33). Feenberg (1999) complains that the administrations motive
for pursuing distance learning is to deprofessionalize and de-skill professors and teaching staff.
Horton (2001) I believe comes closer to the mark. He says that companies are leaning more
toward e-learning because it saves them thousands and millions of dollars in their training
budgets if the company is receiving the training, and potentially makes companies thousands and
millions of dollars if they deliver the training. Both Feenberg and Horton identify money as a
factor in moving education and training toward distance education.
The job of the administration in higher education and of the management team in a
business is to look for and find means to increase revenue. Generally this can be done in one of
two ways, by increasing revenue or decreasing costs or preferably both. This is what is meant by
increasing profits. Most business schools teach, and a look at current news stories confirm, that
for most businesses the ends justify the means in arriving at this profit. Feenberg (1999) justly
accuses that “for too many administrators the big issues are not educational” (“Education and
WattsSEL7001-8-7
3
economics”, para. 2) and rightly so – it is not their job to fret over the learning, that is and should
be the professors responsibility. It is just as questionable for Feenberg to state that
administrators should not be pursuing a course to increase revenue and decrease costs, as it
would be for an administrator to come to him and ask him not to teach so well. Poor
performance in any job, whatever that job may be, could cost the benefit of that job.
The five interests depicted by Feenberg (1999) regarding the implications of distance
learning appear to be in line with administrator responsibility. First, he claims that they want “to
use new technology to finesse . . . spending” (“Education and economics”, para. 2), which would
help decrease costs. Second, Feenberg claims that they want to use e-learning to “accommodate
exploding enrollments of young people and returning students” (para. 2), which would
potentially increase revenue. Third, he claims administrators want to use videoconferencing or
automation to “improve quality . . . while cutting costs” (para. 2). Fourth, he decries that fewer
physical structures will need to be built because of more virtual classrooms, increasing revenue
and decreasing costs. Finally, Feenberg portrays that by packaging and marketing certain
courses the administration could generate “a continuous revenue stream without further
investment” (para. 2), which potentially increases revenue and eliminates costs.
Professors, Adjuncts, and Instructors
The position of professors, adjuncts, teachers, and instructors also has important and
valid points that both Feenberg (1999) and Horton (2001) elaborate. Feenberg has a high
opinion of his profession and his colleagues as well as a high regard for the sidereal learning that
can take place when human beings are collocated and have the opportunity to interact face-toface. He lists five advantages that accrue to learners in a physical environment, or disadvantages
that come from a virtual environment.
WattsSEL7001-8-7
4
Feenberg (1999) wonders how teachers are to “duplicate the learning experience of a
highly interactive classroom on an electronic network” (“Education and economics”, para. 8),
and provides the answer in other sections of his article. In his first adventure in e-learning
Feenberg notes that despite limitations with the technology he was able to “explore a Socratic
pedagogy based on virtual classroom discussion that proved quite successful” (“My adventures”,
para. 5). He articulates well the argument that distance education is best implemented with an
emphasis on writing, which position is supported by many (Cabrera-Lozoya, Cerdan, Cano,
Garcia-Sanchez, & Lujan, 2012; Ke & Hoadley, 2009; Pigliapoco & Bogliolo, 2008; Sinclair,
2009). Second, Feenberg laments the loss of “informal human contacts that add so much to
education on a campus” (para. 8). Third, he remonstrates that the online experience can rob the
student of “the intense moments of human interaction which mark our memories and our lives”
(para. 8). Fourth, he suggests that teachers are generally poor performers and “boring to watch”
(para. 8). Finally, Feenberg criticizes that the programs that teachers and students need to use in
order to have online learning “are often difficult to use or even incomprehensible” (para. 8).
In my opinion Feenberg (1999) protests too much. Every student has had at least one
experience with a teacher who did not encourage interaction, and probably more than one who
was boring to watch in person. Feenberg in making his argument makes the logical fallacy that
all teachers teach the same, subscribe to the same principals, and have the same motivations. For
every “star” teacher there exists hundreds who are less driven. He also makes the logical fallacy
that all learners learn the same way. Has he never seen a student slink into class at the last
minute, slump in his or her chair in the back of the room, barely appear to be breathing for the
entire session, and just as quickly leave at the end without every engaging in informal contacts or
interact in any way? Feenberg concludes that “there is little reason to take [automation of the
WattsSEL7001-8-7
5
educational process] seriously” (“Conclusions”, para. 1) but paints it as the boogey man who can
eliminate “half of community college and 35% of four-year college enrolments” (“Education and
economics”, para. 6). His arguments, while in some cases valid for some teachers and students,
ring of a man who has a vested interest in the outcome and doesn’t like what he sees.
Avoiding the Pitfalls
Both Horton (2001) and Feenberg (1999) realize that the party that controls the purse
strings is the one that has the power. Horton identifies that while “e-learning has no fixed
classrooms, . . . [it] does not eliminate teachers, but it does fundamentally redefine their roles”
(p. 5). This seems to be the crux of Feenberg’s argument that this redefinition deprofessionalizes
teachers and robs them of hard won face-to-face teaching skills. Horton states:
In the classroom, teachers trigger learning experiences in the minds of students,
but it is the students themselves who do the learning. Teachers simply provide the
environment and resources necessary for learning to take place. In e-learning,
there is no instructor; but, there is a designer who triggers the same learning
experiences. This designer, perhaps aided by a facilitator must do all the things
done by a classroom instructor – but by remote control. (p. 6)
Feenberg acknowledges this when he identifies that technology is “an environment, an empty
space faculty must inhabit and enliven” (“The question”, para. 8). The field of higher education
and training are constantly being restructured, because needs change, but the specific need of
teaching whether it be face-to-face or online is an exceptional teacher who can engage the
learner by “inhabit[ting] and enliven[ing]” (para. 8) the space in which the learning takes place.
Finally, faculty and instructors are not without power. In a market-driven economy the
consumer lifts up products that are good, are priced well, meet some perceived need, and have a
WattsSEL7001-8-7
6
good marketing plan. The consumer also destroys products that are not good, are not priced
well, do not fit a perceived need, or have an execrable marketing plan. Faculty and instructors
need to be strident in their voice that education and training have to be of good quality, and meet
the needs of students. Faculty and instructors are in a better position because of their interactions
with the students who are educational and training consumers. Administration needs to focus on
pricing the offering well and creating an excellent marketing plan. If administrators delve too
much into what should be offered, or what they “think” students want, in a market-driven
economy their plan will fail, and it will be the administrator looking for a job.
Conclusion
Management and instructors, administration and professors need to work together in a
symbiotic relationship. While one has the power of the budget, the other is closer to the ultimate
consumer, and is more likely to recognize the needs of the student. Revenue is not endless or
boundless, and the income from an institution of higher education, or a business engaging in
professional development needs to be allocated in ways that tend toward growth. Management
and administrators will make mistakes in that allocation at times, but it is the job of those
individuals to seek to increase the bottom line. If they are not successful in their endeavors
neither they, nor the instructors and professors who collect a paycheck will continue to do so.
On the other hand, if the professors and instructors do not consistently produce the engaging and
interactive learning situations propounded by Feenberg (1999), and this becomes consistent
across an organization it is likely to have the same result. The only constant in life is
paradoxically change, both management, administration, professor, and instructor need to be
adaptable and do the best that they can with the resources that they are given to enlarge upon
their stewardships.
WattsSEL7001-8-7
7
References
Cabrera-Lozoya, A., Cerdan, F., Cano, M.-D., Garcia-Sanchez, D., & Lujan, S. (2012). Unifying
heterogeneous e-learning modalities in a single platform: CADI, a case study. Computers
& Education, 58(1), 617-630. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.09.014
Feenberg, A. (1999). Reflections on the distance learning controversy. Canadian Journal of
Communication, 24(3). Retrieved from http://www.cjconline.ca/index.php/journal/article/viewArticle/1110/1016
Friedman, M. (1970, September 13). The social responsibility of business to increase its profits.
The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.colorado.edu/studentgroups/
libertarians/issues/friedman-soc-respbusiness.html
Horton, W. (2001). Leading e-learning. Alexandria, VA: American Society for Training &
Development.
Ke, F., & Hoadley, C. (2009). Evaluating online learning communities. Educational Technology
Research & Development, 57(1), 487-510. doi:10.1007/s11423-009-9120-2
Pigliapoco, E. E., & Bogliolo, A. A. (2008). The effects of psychological sense of community in
online and face-to-face academic courses. International Journal of Emerging
Technologies in Learning, 3(4), 60-69. Retrieved from EBSCOhost
Sinclair, A. (2009). Provocative pedagogies in e-learning: Making the invisible visible.
International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 21(2), 197-209.
Retrieved from EBSCOhost