December 1998 — Features
Print this article | Email this articleClick here to receive your FREE subscription to T.H.E. Journal
Digital Classrooms: Some Myths About Developing New Educational Programs Using the Internet
The Efficiency Myth
There are many myths and tacit assumptions about computer-mediated learning that can be explored in the Fielding context. Much has been written about technological efficiency and the potential of the Internet as an educational medium to save time and money or increase productivity. The author's experience inspires a healthy skepticism in this regard. Having taught students in conventional classrooms for two decades, I experienced the computer-mediated mode of instruction as more time-consuming, at least initially, both from the standpoint of up-front course design and later, painstaking, labor intensive hours online - designing messages for the classroom forum, reading and downloading from the screen, posting new material, providing feedback, checking community bulletin boards, e-mailing student comments and grade reports, etc. In fact, there were many times when I felt torn between my real life and my virtual life on-screen, in an identity challenging "Turklesque"[4] sort of way, simply because there did not seem to exist enough hours in the day to do justice to both. This was the case even in an "asynchronous" environment where I had the flexibility to conduct electronic office hours in my bathrobe over morning coffee or post feedback in the dead of night.
Moreover, absent face-to-face contact and ordinary non-verbal clues, even very mature students on the Internet demand more frequent interaction and reassurance in dialogue with their professors, an observation confirmed in student course evaluations. Students demand more feedback; and the more feedback they receive, the more interaction they want. There are at least two possible interpretations of this phenomenon: One is that it reflects the way students compensate for the lack of face-to-face interaction. Or, it may be that this medium disinhibits student communication, thereby stimulating the message exchange process. As the intellectual excitement of these conversations grows, so d'es the amount of interactivity in the virtual community.[5]
I estimate this mode of instruction requires roughly 40% to 50% more work on the teacher's part in comparison with conventional classroom delivery. For example, where I might put approximately 36 hours of work per week routinely into a regular course load with a total of 120 students in four traditional class sections at a large public university, online instruction at Fielding required 50 hours or more per week - with only 24 students in just three sections of my digital classes. It also takes longer for faculty members and administrators to reach consensus in electronic group meetings.
The economics of this situation are fundamentally different when the educational product is a premium one, delivered to a select group of adult professionals, many of whom receive corporate reimbursement for their tuition. Moreover, teaching online is far more intense and absorbing from the instructor's point of view and, therefore, simultaneously more exhilarating and more exhausting mentally. The amount of mental effort expended can be tremendous. Meanwhile, the economic efficiency of this model of instruction is clearly contingent upon institutional assumptions.
