Distance Learning and a Well Rounded Education:
A Dichotomy?

All who have meditated on the art of governing mankind
have been convinced that the fate of empires
depends on the education of youth.
Aristotle          

Preface

New technologies, and in particular, the Internet, have transformed our society and our institutions. Indeed, the impact of these new technologies has been so prodigious that many have labeled the phenomenon as a revolution, the digital revolution. These technological advances have also influenced education: colleges and universities across the country are quickly designing and developing new modes of delivering education, now known as distance education. In doing so, many observers have begun to debate whether the traditional core values espoused by education can be sustained in the distance learning medium.

Values of Education

Colleges and universities pride themselves on providing enlightenment through high quality learning opportunities: the holistic education. The concept of developing the well rounded student, the citizen leader, articulate and well versed in didactic reasoning is central to such edification. Intrinsically, most scholars will insist that these concepts capture the fundamental essence of holistic education that colleges strive towards. Educators will vociferously insist that the collegiate experience is more than merely passing courses and earning degrees.

In their epic book How College Affects Students, Pascarella and Terenzini (1991, p.1) indicated that Americans expect their colleges and universities to accomplish several lofty goals:

1. transmitting the intellectual heritage of western civilization
2. fostering a high level of verbal and mathematical skills
3. developing an understanding of political, social and cultural institutions
4. facilitating reflective, analytical, critical and evaluative thinking
5. developing value structures and moral sensibilities
6. facilitating personal growth and self-identity
7. fostering a sense of career identity and vocational competence

It is precisely because of these lofty notions of academia that, like the African proverb, it takes everyone on a campus to work together to provide the breadth and depth of learning. Today’s ideal institutions have structured themselves into specialized areas &endash; divisions that provide in-class instruction; working side-by-side with a host of student support areas to provide structured out-of-class learning opportunities and services &endash; both working harmoniously towards a common goal: student learning.

The Role of Student Affairs

Educators organized through divisions of student affairs provide much of the out-of-class learning at colleges and universities. In recent years, achievement of these educational outcomes has been a focus of much scrutiny and discussion: Boyer (1987. p2) chided educators to pay attention to the intellectual and social quality of the undergraduate experience. In 1990, he entreated educators to develop coherence between the in-class and out-of-class activities. Similarly, the Wingspread Report chided higher education for its lack of emphasis on student learning:

Professional organizations such as NASPA and ACPA have joined this call to pay attention to student learning outcomes and have cooperatively developed discussion papers and projects promoting the emphasis of student learning in the profession. The Student Learning Imperative (1993) is an example of this initiative. Evans, Forney and Guido-Dibrito (1998) theorize that student development is one of the main goals of student affairs and that "for the sake of our students we must help the academy recognize the value of the whole person concept." (p. 14). Nuss (1996) suggests that two concepts define the profession: "the development of the whole person and the fact that student affairs was established to support the academic mission of institutions of higher education." (p. 39). She suggests that these two concepts are at the heart of the future evolution of the field.

In their report on "Powerful Partnerships: A Shared Responsibility for Learning" (1998) the American Association for Higher Education (AAHE) urges us to work cooperatively across all divisional boundaries to achieve common student learning outcomes. "We ask that administrative leaders rethink the conventional organization of colleges and universities to create more inventive structures and processes that integrate academic and student affairs; align institutional planning, hiring, rewards, and resource allocations with the learning mission…" (p. 15).

In a recent book on Good Practice in Student Affairs, Schroeder (1999) maintains that the creation of seamless learning environments must be a priority for student affairs (p. 134). "Addressing this issue is not an option for student affairs, but an obligation."

Boyer (1990) also urged colleges to be actively involved in building community on campuses, suggesting that the dynamics of support and collaboration that a community provides should be an outcome that we actively seek. Tinto (1993) emphasized the importance of interaction between individual students and the campus communities, suggesting that these will enhance student success and persistence. Similarly, Astin (1984) proposed that students' involvement in their academic environment has a direct impact on their success in college. This theory, the Involvement Theory is another mainstay of student development theories.

Yet, other concepts that define the student affairs profession include concepts of civility and diversity. "A college education should include being aware of cultural and class differences and societal reward structures." (King, 1996). Yet other outcomes are encapsulated by concepts of citizenship, leadership and experiential learning.

Terenzini and Pascarella (1994) summarized most of these views by claiming that both academic affairs and student affairs are central to the educational mission of colleges; "academic affairs tends to students’ cognitive development while student affairs ministers to their affective growth." (p. 32). They claim that the real quality of undergraduate education depends on factors such as the institution’s educational climate, social involvement, peer interactions and co-curricular experiences (p. 29).

Two thing seems clear from all of this literature: there is an explicit set of theoretical expectations that guide the profession, and the concepts of student learning and out-of-class experiences are inextricably tied to the heart of professional practice in Student Affairs.

The Effect of The Digital Revolution on Education

These demands and challenges on higher education are somewhat exacerbated by the advent of the Internet age and the expectation that the Internet must be incorporated into the learning and research environment (Palloff & Pratt, 1999; Van Dusen, 1997). This new era is driven by the rapid rate of innovation in Internet and computer technology, and the creation of new and growing cybernetworks which in turn, serve as catalysts in the knowledge revolution that promises to affect virtually every aspect of life in the future. The Internet is rapidly proliferating our daily lives, and knowledge networks and Internet technologies have quickly moved from the research stage of development towards consumer utilitarianism.

The dramatic transformation of our culture as a result of digital technologies have, in turn, created demands that higher education include these new technologies in their daily business (Palloff & Pratt, 1999). Colleges and universities are beginning to determine how they use Internet technologies to fulfill their mission and are grappling with the paradigmatic shift from organizing themselves as institution focused to student centered (Van Dusen, 1997).

Already, educators are engaging in a growing trend in education termed "distance education." Colleges across the country are in a race to develop "online classes" where instruction is delivered across the Internet instead of the classroom. Citing cost benefits and other trendy concepts such as "student centered" education, new courses, and even universities are being rapidly created. Assuming that online education is merely a teacher-to-student web based interaction is too simplistic a view, and akin to a sellout of all the noble values educators have cherished, nurtured and practiced for so long. It challenges our very assumptions about what a college education should be, with little provision for the rich out-of-class interaction that is so essential to our current concept of a well-rounded, holistic education.

And, even as we observe this phenomenon, we are beginning to witness the formative years of a new network, the Internet2. While the Internet2 will be between 100 and 1,000 times faster, this next generation of the Internet is more than just a faster web service. It will enable completely new possibilities such as digital libraries, virtual laboratories, and tele-immersion, all of which can be transmitted in seconds, in real-time, and will little or no degradation of quality. Concepts such as real-time videoconferencing, virtual reality simulations, 3-D imaging, multicasting, gigaPoPs will become conversational terms of the future, just as dot-coms, portals and the web currently are. The Internet2 will provide a convergence of multimedia capacities, with services such as telephone, radio, television and other multimedia technologies becoming standard practice on the net. And just as the current version of the Internet has done, the Internet2 will certainly further impact society, and in turn, our system of education.

Education’s Response

Higher education must respond to the digital revolution quickly and harness these technologies to meet the challenges and opportunities of the future. Clearly, it must find ways to provide the holistic education ideals through the alternative medium of the Internet. Much of student affairs’ online interests and presence has revolved around essential support services. Little, if any, emphasis has been placed on developing online mechanisms to develop community or provide out-of-class experiences. For example, registration, admission and financial aid processes have been provided on the web at many colleges and universities. Student life, student activities and other such services have yet to make the transition to providing actual experiences on the Internet, and use their websites much as one would use a bulletin board outside one’s office.

Smallen (1993) proposes a test to determine the effectiveness of Internet use and information technology applications within the context of the higher education mission:

Successful applications of technology to the learning process, at any institution, will be ones that address variances from the ideal learning environment. Technology applied in a manner oblivious to these variances will not improve teaching and learning, and will waste critical institutional resources (p. 22).

Unfortunately, there is currently a lack of vision and imagination about how these new Internet technologies could be used to improve the quality of learning (Bates, 2000, p. 58). Rather than a comprehensive strategy, various departmental units and individuals within each institution have adopted an independent, entrepreneurial approach to creating their own web presence. As a collective, what we have is a piecemeal approach to the digital revolution. Each departmental has gallantly taken on the "Lone Ranger" approach and done the best job they could with the resources available to them. What we need is a collective vision, an approach to harness the digital age as a strategic asset. What we need is a vision to use technology to bring distance learners a taste of the richness and variety of a traditional on-campus learning experiences.

Policy Recommendations

The Internet is merely an alternate medium for student affairs to conduct its work. Technology is not the antidote for organizational and leadership woes. Dyson (1999) points out that it will not solve existing organizational problems, nor will it change operations sufficiently to make the dysfunctualism in institutions become less significant. "It is a fallacy to believe that the technology is automatically going to change culture…. Information age technology won't fly if it is hobbled by industrial age organizational cultures (p. 144)."

Bates identifies several components of quality in providing technologically based learning services. One of these is content (p. 65). He also suggests that the same objectives sought by educators on campus could be achieved in the virtual environment (p. 199).

Colleges and universities must begin to develop ways to provide the intentional learning opportunities, they are charged with creating, in the Internet medium. They must concentrate on information and knowledge transmittal, and use the Internet as a tool to deliver the co-curricular learning experiences called for by our profession.

To achieve these goals in the online environment, some of the policy considerations that an institution must identify include:

1. How does the use of the Internet achieve the overall learning mission of the college and contribute to institutional renewal? How can all student affairs’ departments begin to use the Internet to actually provide the same level of services online as they do on campus?
      
2. How does the college assess the total learning of the student &endash; especially in terms of the overall quality of undergraduate education outcomes of its graduates?
      
3. What are the organizational barriers that need to be addressed? Internet users are less likely to understand campus-based organizational boundaries, and may be more interested in functionality than the department(s) that offer the service. As such, special attention should be paid to the navigation system student affairs web sites offer. Essentially, online students would be better served by a navigation system that was based on functional need clusters than some type of departmental directory system.
       
4. How can departments begin to conceptualize the Internet as another medium for the provision of services? And then, what must they do to provide this content using the Internet.
        
5. How can the college, and in particular the division of Student Affairs, assume responsibility for its students' technological preparedness? How can this become another goal in a college’s endeavor to graduate well-rounded citizens?

Illustration

There are some examples of how colleges and universities could provide leadership in providing meaningful on-line opportunities. All of them require them to do a paradigm shift, where they learn to use the web as a strategic asset rather than as a bulletin board outside their office door. The trick is to conceive of an online presence in much the same way as they think of campus based service. Let us examine what is possible:

Boyer (1990) urged colleges to be actively involved in building community on campuses, suggesting that the dynamics of support and collaboration that a community provides should be an outcome that we actively seek. Tinto (1993) emphasized the importance of interaction between individual students and the campus communities, suggesting that these will enhance student success and persistence. Student activities units are largely responsible for developing interventions that contribute to building this sense of community.

Yet, one of the most frequent criticisms heard about the push towards online education is about the lack of community in the virtual world. It is almost as though people perceive there is a barrier, and simply define the concept of "community" to be outside of any virtual presence. This is not correct. While colleges and universities’ virtual presence provides new challenges for creating community, educators can not expect their strategies of yesterday to provide solutions for tomorrow. It requires some innovative, creative thinking, and perhaps even some trial an error.

Let us examine one solution: a virtual bulletin board (often called a forum!). If it is setup as an electronic student lounge, it could be an opportunity for students to engage in community building, networking and information sharing using the electronic medium as a tool. In practical terms this provides an opportunity for students to share ideas, voice concerns, make friends and network with other students, faculty and staff. The proposed initiative seeks to create an online community of learners interacting with each other to discuss shared college experiences. This solution is truly an imperative for commuter-based campuses who can use this technology to alleviate the commuter syndrome by making it easier for students to network, share and collaborate.

Discussion board topics could vary from the general (discussions about student interest, student life issues) to the specific (such as ride-sharing, off-campus housing, and peer-advice). Note that this is not a call for a "chat-room" rather for a hierarchical discussion board archived for a period of time and open to use by any student - with or without passwords or login scripts. Imagine the potentially lively debate about student government issues, extensive campus questions, and other collaborative ventures.

Conclusion

The possibilities are endless; only limited by educators’ imagination and willingness to "think" in the new medium. Student organization accounting services, leadership education sessions, networking possibilities with alumni and prominent professionals in various academic fields, virtual reality narrations of campus based traditions, and online data bases offering information about service learning opportunities and matching student interests with service opportunities. There are just some of the other possibilities. The potential is as exciting as it is endless, and in reality, they are relatively easy to implement.

The trick, clearly, is to engineer a paradigm shift in the way educators conceive and offer student affairs possibilities online. Until that happens, educators will continue to use technology as a burden, rather than harnessing its potential as a strategic asset.

The question then finally becomes simple: "do we want to do better?" Should we be satisfied by a patchwork quick fix that looks great in reports, but probably is too short sighted to give us the long term benefits educators want, or magically expect the digital revolution to provide itself?

The digital era has begun. Educational institutions need to catch up with the rest of the world and use technology as a strategic asset rather than merely reacting to it!

References

American Association for Higher Education (1998). Powerful Partnerships: A Shared Responsibility for Learning. Available at http://www.aahe.org/assessment/joint.htm [1999, November 10.]

Astin, A. W. (1984). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. Journal of College Student Personnel, 5, pages?

Bates, A. (2000) Managing technological change: Strategies for colleges and university leaders. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Boyer, E. (1987). College: The undergraduate experience in America. New York: Harper and Row.

Boyer, E. (1990) Foreword. In Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, Campus life: In search of community (pp. xi-xiii.). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Evans, N. J., Forney, D., & Guido-DiBrito, F. (1998). Student development in college: Theory, research and practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

King, P. (1996, May/June). The obligations of privilege. About Campus, 1(2), 2-3.

Nuss, E. (1996). The development of student affairs. In S. R. Komives and D. B. Woodard (Eds.). Student services: A handbook for the profession (pp. 22-39). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Pascarella, E., & Terenzini, P. (1991). How college affects students: Findings and insights from twenty years of research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Palloff, R., & Pratt, K. (1999). Building learning communities in cyberspace. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers

Schroeder, C. (1999). Forging educational partnerships that advance student learning. In G. Blimling and E. Whitt, E., Good practice in student affairs: Principles to foster student learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Smallen, D. (1993). Reengineering of student learning? A second opinion from Camelot. In Reengineering teaching and learning in higher education. Edited by Heterick, R., Jr. Professional Paper Series, #10. Boulder, Co: CAUSE ED 359 921.

The Student Learning Imperative Project of the American College Personal Association (1993). The student learning imperative; Implications for student affairs. Washington, D.C: ACPA.

Van Dusen, G. (1997). The virtual campus: Technology and reform in higher education. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report Volume 25, No. 5. Washington D.C: The George Washington University, Graduate School of Education and Human Development.

Welty, J. (1994). Achieving curricular objectives through residence halls. In C. C. Schroeder and P. Mable (Eds.), Realizing the educational potential of residence halls (pp 70 &emdash; 92). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Wingspread Group on Higher Education (1993). An American imperative: Higher expectations for higher education. Racine, WI; Johnson Foundation. Available at http://www.johnsonfdn.org/library/foundpub/amerimp/index.html [1999, November 15]