Distance learning is a topic to which scholars have recently devoted a great deal of attention. In our view, a crucial but neglected question about online education is raised, albeit implicitly, in Neil Postman’s work, Amusing Ourselves to Death (1985). According to Postman, television, an image-based medium, necessarily imposes an entertainment modality upon cultural institutions, including educational ones. This is neither a conscious process nor one with sinister motivations. Rather it is a problem built into the very structure of image-based technology institutions, and the cognitive assumptions people hold when they encounter these institutions. This paper argues that the practice of using the computer as the main instructional medium in distance learning courses may similarly have the unintended consequence of reducing academic content to the level of mere entertainment. While Postman’s objections are not leveled specifically against online learning, we believe many of his criticisms regarding the use of television as an instructional source apply to the use of computers in distance education ventures as well.
Distance education is an educational enterprise in which entire courses of instruction take place in cyberspace. To distance educate, a student may go online and learn anytime. Professors’ lectures can be viewed or downloaded by students who (let’s say) are at their home computers in the middle of the night, or sitting on a beach with a laptop on a summer Sunday afternoon. Students can communicate with their professors and each other through e-mail, and professors can also use email to evaluate student work. Distance education students may never set foot into a traditional brick and mortar classroom during their entire university careers. Clearly, living and learning in today’s media age raises interesting questions for educators.
Many of today’s college students were raised in front of television sets. In an age of half-hour shows where complicated mysteries are solved in time for regularly scheduled commercial breaks, viewers’ attention spans seem to be getting shorter. If anything is perceived to be the slightest bit boring, then, one can change channels on the remote control without even getting off the couch. Instructors interested in teaching today’s students through computers or videos may find that they need to teach with these assumptions in mind.
Today’s lessons have to be entertaining. Matters are complicated further by the fact that a screen is often used as the primary medium for transmitting knowledge. The student may now be considered the equivalent of a viewer who can quickly become bored and lose attention. Furthermore, the assumption may be that knowledge itself is merely a product to be presented or downloaded. More complicated models of education may therefore not be considered. Researchers in the field of distance education have proposed various strategies for dispelling these concerns, which we will examine later in this paper. Our argument, however, is that these strategies cannot work without sacrificing other important educational objectives.
In discussing online learning, it is certainly important not to romanticize traditional classroom settings. Postman (1985) laments the proliferation of video, television, and the computer in the classroom, along with the downplaying of the written word and personal interaction to effectively transmit knowledge. He argues further that it is difficult today for a traditional classroom and the printed word to compete for students’ attention with the new media and their novel approaches (e.g., television, computers, etc). However, classroom education often appears to be ineffective. Is this to say that classrooms are now generally lifeless and stale learning environments in comparison with television and computers? Or have traditional classrooms been experienced this way well before the advent of new technologies? Although some excellent educational experiences have taken place in traditional classrooms, more pronounced are recollections of just how mindless and boring the rote learning of mathematics and languages can be. As authors, we suspect much classroom learning still suffers from uninspired instruction.
Postman (1985) also offers numerous statistics to show that education offered on television results in less factual retention and recognition than traditional textbook-based education. How much factual information, though, does the average college student remember from high school biology, or any other subject area? Quite obviously, the average student does not remember much. A little entertainment perhaps can be quite powerful in the classroom. Postman, however, is speaking of television as a more insidious force, a medium that is antithetical to the entire enterprise of critical thinking. How does this critique apply to distance learning ventures in which students complete entire degree programs online, communicating with their instructors and classmates solely through the computer?
Many experienced faculty have argued that teaching should involve some type of entertainment and humor to lessen the intensity associated with the teaching and learning process. Nevertheless, it is still unclear whether it is the simultaneity of entertainment and intellectual engagement or something else that accounts for teaching and learning efficacy. In any case, it seems to us that there are excellent educational programs on television. One can learn a great deal from Civil War documentaries on The History Channel. Watching these shows is quite a different sort of experience than watching The Jerry Springer Show. It is important, however, to identify the cognitive assumptions with which students enter the traditional classroom setting. Educators also need to ascertain how these assumptions differ from the cognitive assumptions of students exposed to a video production, or a computer screen in a distance learning course.
The process of learning with the computer involves staring into a computer screen. When a student sits in front of a screen, does he/she automatically assume a passive intellectual stance? Operating and interacting with a computer certainly involves more effort than watching television, the latter being more or less a passive experience (Mander, l978). We intend to qualify this position, however.
First, all television viewing is not entirely passive. Television viewing can sometimes induce active listening. Second, the cognitive assumptions involved in reading information on a computer screen do not differ substantially from those involved in the process of reading the same information off a printed page. Third and final, many students do not positively utilize their experience in the traditional classroom setting. Even the best classroom teacher has had the frustrating experience of trying fruitlessly to engage shy or uninterested students. However, because many online courses require all students to post responses to assigned material, this lack of classroom participation can be resolved through distance learning. Online education can at times be more interactive than many traditional classroom environments.
Furthermore, many introductory classes at sizeable research universities consist of an instructor on a stage, behind a lectern, and lecturing through a microphone to three hundred students or more. How much interaction or education is taking place in this sort of environment? Even the process of evaluating student work in the traditional college classroom setting seems contrary to the goals of critical thinking and interactive education. Consider the typical situations in which multiple-choice examinations are returned to students after the instructor has graded them. In many instances, the exams are returned with only a few comments indicated in the margins, along with a grade circled on the top. In other cases, term papers are returned with minimal comments and isolated letter grades. Does this really constitute quality education?
Postman’s analysis of education and entertainment presupposes an ancient distinction between sensation and cognition, along with the idea that cognition is superior to sensation. For instance, the mind of a student reading a book may be actively engaged, as opposed to viewing a computer screen, where the learner becomes a mere receptacle of knowledge. As discussed earlier, however, there may be instances when receiving sensations can be an active process. Moreover, the faculties of cognition and abstraction are not necessarily superior to those involved in sensory data processing. In some cases, watching a film can instigate a richer and more active cognitive process than merely reading a book. To what degree then is this ancient prejudice against the validity of sensory perceptions an underlying concern in Postman’s analysis?
Postman’s critique also points to a prejudice against entertainment. It seems to us, therefore, that Postman is correct in arguing that an entertainment modality is currently saturating contemporary American education. Could this concern then be seen as a specifically American phenomenon? The impulse towards entertainment has actually been present throughout human history, and education. In this sense, Postman’s critique is not particularly novel. What may be novel about his critique is the renewed awareness he may have created as a result of his leveled concerns. A number of intellectuals, too, have been complaining about the watering down effect of education (whether by over-entertainment of students or something else) for quite some time. In ancient Athens, for example, one of Plato’s criticisms of democracy in his Republic was that it was more easily susceptible to the powers of oratory and persuasion than to substantive thought. We intend for education to retain its integrity to assure the improvement of human civilization.
Postman (l985) argues that quality education is not just about being presented with information, and that the educational process also involves the construction and critical evaluation of arguments. Postman (l985) asserts also that any worthwhile education must involve some sweat, perseverance, and ‘the imposition of some restraint’ (p. 146). The educational process is not always fun, novel, or entertaining. In most cases, learning something new can be an extremely difficult endeavor.
Because of the logistical issues involved in dealing with sophisticated technology, many distance educators have realized that educating students online is often more labor intensive than teaching the same material in a traditional classroom (e.g., Willis, l995). Thus, instructors have to be practical about how much material can be effectively delivered in an online course (Willis, l995). Exactly what does this mean, however? If this means simply that the instructor should have to spend more time to deliver exactly the same amount of material, then, it appears innocuous. If it means, however, that there should be less content delivered in an online course than in a traditional class, then, it becomes problematic. The problem is that online instructors may need to simplify course content in order to accommodate logistical problems. Does course content ever have to be simplified (or compromised) to be delivered online? If so, then, it would seem that technology limits the value of education, and does not advance it.
We must also examine the educational assumptions presupposed by the designers and purveyors of distance learning courses. The philosopher Calvin Schrag (l982) describes the tendency of many educators to define the educational process in terms of ‘communication of knowledge’ (p.108). How should educators define the concepts of ‘communication’ and ‘knowledge’? Can ‘knowledge’ be defined as ‘information’ and can ‘communication’ be defined as ‘transfer of information’?
Educational contexts involve a number of processes and relations that are more complex than they appear to be. For example, Schrag (l982) describes a scenario in which an instructor finds him/herself engaging in a slow, difficult process of ‘eliciting’ or ‘drawing out’ the material from the learner (p. 108). Schrag (l982) further describes this educational process as somehow ‘letting’ (p. 113) the student understand how certain patterns fit together, in order to arrive at the correct answer. This teaching approach reflects the work of Martin Heidegger. The degree to which this process can be achieved online is crucial to the success of distance learning as a learning experience. In this case, however, communication and instruction over a computer screen might be hard pressed to substitute for the subtleties of a direct human interaction. Similar processes occur in terms of students learning from each other, and also in how instructors learn to teach. Learning exchanges in the traditional classroom typically involve subtleties such as gestures, voices, and attitudes that may be hard to duplicate online. From a pedagogical perspective, the powerful effects of these subtle sorts of communications cannot simply be left out of the equation.
According to Paolo Freire (1970), knowledge does not consist of a set of objective facts communicated by instructors to passive students. Knowledge is rather constructed through a complex system of social discourse. This process involves relations between teachers and students, and among students themselves (Freire, l970). Online education, however, is computer-mediated learning. Distance education students are thus unable to experience a live and direct interaction with teachers and other students. Because sitting at a computer is a solitary experience, online learners have to make efforts to understand and ‘construct’ the meaning of the relevant course information by themselves. In general, education is certainly one of the more complicated forms of human discourse. If distance educators ignore or minimize the complexities of the educational process, the end product will inevitably be an impoverished experience for learners.
Researchers and practitioners in the field of distance education are aware of these criticisms of distance learning as an educational enterprise, and are seeking ways to resolve them (Conrad, Donaldson & Knupfer, 2001). These researchers and practitioners are sensitive to the idea that merely imitating lecture style classroom environments online will lead to a high dropout rate (Conrad, et al, 2001). Several online learning researchers agree that the retention rates for distance education courses are generally lower than for on-campus courses (Chyung, 2001, Kember, l995). It appears, therefore, that a fundamental goal of distance educators is to engage online learners in a more interactive experience (Palloff & Pratt, 2001).
Other researchers have in fact addressed the theory of constructivism in connection with distance education (Chamberlain & Vrasidas, 2001), with an overall strategy of establishing an interactive online community. These researchers have attempted to establish an online community by assigning exercises at the end of each unit of instruction, in which students provide feedback to the instructor and classmates about their shared experiences. Hence, one influential guideline for online teaching uses an ‘instructor as facilitator’ model (Conrad et al., 2001). This model recommends that professors encourage their students to perform the following exercise:
Take a few minutes to reflect upon your reactions to this week’s class. What individual word or 2-3 word expressions come to mind? Enter each word or brief expression into the subject line of a discussion board thread. Post as many words or expressions as you can think of in a five-minute period of time. This is not the time to analyze your input, just key and post. Wait 24 hours and review the responses of your peers. Choose one word or expression that ‘speaks’ directly to you. Post a response to your peer and instructor explaining why this word has special meaning in defining the class to you (p. 106)
Certainly, the goals outlined above are meaningful for the establishment of online community. We find a danger, however, in posting two or three word reactions to complex material in a five-minute time period. Although the goal may be a positive one, this strategy may have the unintended consequences of oversimplifying difficult issues and reducing complicated academic material to simplistic phrases. Furthermore, what about classes which are strongly content-driven and which involve difficult technical material? Is this approach really adequate in such cases?
Another approach to this problem (Palloff & Pratt, 2001) is that of shifting the educational paradigm from that of an instructor teaching to students to a “more collaborative learning partnership, wherein the instructor acts more as a guide to the learning process rather than its director”(p. 286). Palloff and Pratt (2001) argue further that:
Often, we are asked how instructors can ‘teach’ the content that is the core of the class. Our response is to reframe the way in which content is delivered. When students are encouraged to embark on a process of discovery with one another, rather than being told what they need to memorize or know, the outcome is a deepening of the learning experience and satisfactory achievement of learning objectives. In general, when students evaluate a class, it is the interactivity that they have had with the instructor and with other students that they often cite as the most important aspect of the class. For the online student, this is where the learning occurs… Faculty and student roles need to change. In order for a high degree of interactivity to occur in a course, faculty need to let go of the control of the course and empower students to take responsibility for the learning process (p. 287)
We agree that interactivity should be promoted in both the traditional classroom setting and online environment. The stand and deliver model of teachers lecturing to passive students does not work well in traditional classrooms, and its computerized equivalent seems to have its own problems, as was discussed earlier. Many students, however, clearly lack both pedagogical experience and knowledge of course content. In these situations, instructors may find it necessary to lead the direction of the course, simply to prevent the classroom learning environment from degenerating into chaos.
If the course involves difficult technical materials, then this question becomes an even more serious one. The complexities of the educational process cannot be ignored or minimized in order to compensate for the logistical limitations characteristic of computer technology. Educators need to strike a balance between interactivity and content delivery. The problem can only be addressed properly where those involved in the development and promotion of distance learning ventures critically examine the fundamental educational assumptions and implications involved in this enterprise.
Also, many educators fear that commercial rather than educational considerations are the real forces behind the movement toward online education (Noble, 2001). Technological corporations and related businesses have considered distance learning to be an effective profit mechanism (Noble, 2001). Consequently, many universities may envision distance learning as a way to increase student enrollments without a correspondent increase in the hiring of faculty (Noble, 2001). As critics, we wonder whether the influence of industry and business has led to the commercialization of education and the lowering of academic standards.
The process of the commercialization of education has been occurring for quite some time. This claim is evidenced by the ever-increasing trend towards vocational training in many colleges and universities, and the accompanying downsizing of the traditional liberal arts and sciences in favor of the markets, and technical education. Online education may be taking this phenomenon to an even higher level. Singer (2000) describes the processes involved in the production of online materials as including efforts to import producers and other creative thinkers from Hollywood to develop the educational product. Is there not a distinction to be upheld between education and entertainment?
Implementing new technologies in educational practice will involve both costs and benefits. We have offered a number of arguments that distance learning may constitute an impoverished educational experience. A more comprehensive cost/benefit analysis should be performed to determine whether the costs for developing distance learning courses outweigh the benefits, or vice-versa.
Acknowledgements: This paper benefited from valuable comments made by Prof. Steve Cresap of Metropolitan College of New York and by Prof. Phil Washburn of the General Studies Program at New York University. Helpful conversations were also had with Prof. Neil Postman of New York University and with Dr. Stanley Rosner. Thanks to the reviewers and editors at Radical Pedagogy for their insightful criticisms and suggestions, especially in deepening our knowledge concerning the theory of social constructivism in connection with online learning. Finally, thanks to Kevin Curley, Stephen McCluskey, Carol Rosner and Deb Spohnheimer for editorial and technological assistance.
Chamberlain, R., & Vrasidas, C. (2001). Creating Engaging Online Instruction. Proceedings of the 17th Annual Conference on Distance Teaching and Learning (pp. 79-83). Madison: University of Wisconsin System.
Chyung, S.Y. (2001). Conducting Learner Analysis to Adjust Online Instruction for Your Faceless Learners. Proceedings of the 17th Annual Conference on Distance Teaching and Learning (pp. 85-89). Madison: University of Wisconsin System.
Conrad, R.M., Donaldson, A., & Knupfer, N.N. (2001). Activities to Engage the Online Learner. Proceedings of the 17th Annual Conference on Distance Teaching and Learning (pp. 103-107). Madison: University of Wisconsin System.
Freire, P.(l970). Pedagogy of the Oppressed (M.B. Ramos, trans.). New York: Continuum Publishing Company.
Kember, D. (l995). Open Learning Courses for Adults. New Jersey: Educational Technology.
Mander, J. (l978). Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television. New York: Quill.
Noble, D.F. (2001). Digital Diploma Mills: the Automation of Higher Education. New York: Monthly Review Press.
Palloff, R. & Pratt, K. (2001). Lessons from the Cyberspace Classroom. Proceedings of the 17th Annual Conference on Distance Teaching and Learning (pp.285-288). Madison: University of Wisconsin System.
Postman, N. (1985). Amusing Ourselves to Death. New York: Penguin.
Schrag, C.O. (l982). The Idea of the University and the Communication of Knowledge in a Technological Age. In M. Hyde, (ed.), Communication Philosophy and the Technological Age (pp.98-113). Alabama: University of Alabama Press.
Singer, K. (2000). Distance Learning Ventures Propel Top Universities into For-Profit Sector. Matrix, vol. 1, #4. http://www.matrix-magazine.com.
Willis, B. (l995). Distance Education at a Glance. Retrieved 7-15-02 from the World Wide Web: http://www.uidaho.edu/evo/distglan.html.
© Radical Pedagogy