E-Commerce and Higher Education - The Debate Over E-learning

THE DEBATE OVER E-LEARNING

The increasing presence of the Internet and e-commerce in higher education sparked heated disagreement over its appropriateness and effectiveness. Given a dearth of rigorous studies of the trend, few definitive conclusions have been reached and policy recommendations have been difficult for governmental agencies and educators to formulate.

Proponents argue that Internet technology facilitates expanded communication among faculty, students, and administrators. They state that in-class lectures are enhanced by the incorporation of online graphics, audio, and visual displays. Furthermore, students gain instant access to lecture notes, readings, and links to relevant external sites without even entering a library or classroom. The Internet also provides sophisticated interactive learning and assessment tools for teachers and students.

The flexibility and accessibility of online learning appeal to many students, particularly working adults pursuing additional professional education. Studies based on students' perceptions of the value of e-learning indicate that many felt they experienced more interaction with teachers than in face-to-face classes. Students who were intimidated in regular classrooms contributed more freely to online discussions.

E-learning supporters characterize cyber-learning as a democratizer of higher education because geography no longer prevents learners from enrolling in courses offered by premier institutions. E-learning can also accommodate the myriad students who desire continuing education, but are unable to take advantage of it because of job or family responsibilities, as e-learning tends to occur at the student's convenience.

Supporters also applaud the Internet's role in increasing the commercialization of higher education. They argue that traditional institutions remain bastions of privilege and financial inefficiency, with under-worked, tenured professors drawing large salaries for little effort in the classroom. They also decry the waste of costly campus buildings and equipment. As they point out, online institutions offer benchmark products tailored to the needs and desires of educational consumers and delivered with very little investment in labor or physical plants. In 1998, Washington Governor Gary Locke pronounced that online courses eventually could replace all public university faculty.

In contrast, critics fear that as online education expands, administrators gain much greater control over faculty performance and course content, endangering academic freedom. Opponents question elearning's unproven track record. Students must be disciplined and motivated, because virtual classrooms lack the supervision, interaction, and encouragement that physically present instructors and classmates supply. The quality of online offerings varies greatly and program retention rates range from 20 to 97 percent. The lack of accredited programs may indicate that many online institutions are little more than "degree mills." One of the most prominent concerns voiced by skeptics of e-learning is the lack of information regarding acceptable educational standards for online education. The American Federation of Teachers (AFT) proposed that a set of quality standards for college-based distance education programs be developed.

In response to arguments that the Internet equalizes access to higher education, critics cite a College Board study entitled "The Virtual University and Educational Opportunity," which indicated that the increasing digitization of education actually can intensify the problems of unequal educational opportunities since lower-income students often lack computer skills and Web access. Additionally, accredited online institutions often charge slightly more than traditional colleges and universities, putting their offerings further out of poorer students' reach.

Critics also worry about the effects of the virtual education trend on academic freedom and on faculty. Whether professors own the intellectual property rights to their online courses, and whether their institutions or private companies can dictate what and how they teach, remain unsettled issues. Existing legal standards regarding "fair use" exceptions to copyright protection for scholarly and educational purposes may not hold up in cyberspace. The licensing arrangements that govern the purchase and use of online courseware also are indeterminate. Finally, libraries' right of "first sale," which permits them to purchase items and then lend them to borrowers, may be imperiled. An American Federation of Teachers survey of distance instructors revealed that one-half said they received no monetary compensation or release time in exchange for the extra time required to develop online courses, which 90 percent said required more preparation time than traditional classroom courses. This places adjunct part-timers in a particularly vulnerable position. State administrators see a switch to online education as a means of cutting costs while expanding the reach of their educational systems. Finally, critics state that the e-learning trend has been promoted by administrators, courseware vendors, and e-learning corporations, with little or no involvement of faculty and students.