comments on networked pedagogy

FORUM: CRITIQUE

Comments on Networked Pedagogy

RICHARD L. HANNAH

My first reading of Robert Hauptman’s “Networked Pedagogy” stirred me to respond at two levels, but I have thought better of the allotted space and dismissed the temptation to wax esoteric but for one exception. As a professional economist I consider many of the systemic problems pointed out in Hauptman’s essay traceable to market failures or the lack of individual discipline in resource allocation. That said, I shall heretofore stick to pragma- tism and concentrate on responses to the specific categories Hauptman addresses.

I suggest enhancements of our Internet productivity rather than lamenting its negatives. That a true Luddite would wince and rankle from the irony, possibly proclaiming absurdity, in my embrace of the networked learning environment is not lost on me. But I believe the irony well reasoned in that unlike the machines and their derivation of labor abuse of the industrial age, the Internet offers social participation capable of mitigating the human clash with technology. In a way the significant difference of these ages is that the Luddites of the past were enmeshed in the difficulties of the human relationship to technology, while the Internet is far more about redefining social interaction, with the case at hand defined as networked interaction for learning purposes.

Hauptman states that the Internet has “positive and useful aspects accompanied by detriments” and describes five examples: email, catalogs, commercial databases, the web, and listservs. Like the good seduction the Internet teases with extraordinary possibilities often contradicting common sense if not the laws of nature. But human nature demands progress. In this spirit I propose more positive perspectives than what I read in Hauptman’s essay.

1. Email

My experience on the Internet has not been as saturated with waste as Hauptman’s, especially when I consider the interaction within academia in contrast to the rest of the cyberworld. For an academic to lament the lack of intellectual content in student communications via email networks is most peculiar. If disciplined thought expressed in electronic

Direct all correspondence to: Richard L. Hannah, Middle Tennessee State University, Economics and Finance Department, Box 27, Murfreesboro, TN 37132. E-mail: [email protected].

The Internet end Higher Education l(3): 235-238 ISSN: 1096-7516

Copyright Q 1998 JAI Press Inc. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

236 HANNAH

communications is what we want, then that is what we should demand-whether in inquiry/response mode, email tests, or electronic document submission.

There are, however, useful divisions of the levels of rigor expected of students by faculty in email communications. On the informal level these range from developing a bit of rapport with individuals to a sense of institutional community. For example, the latter is particularly important when teaching at remote sites or maintaining contact with students after they have completed a course. At the formal level the same standards of content and presentation are generally applicable. To observe as does Hauptman that “. . .these mes- sages as well as student papers composed in the context of this medium are riddled with organizational ineptitudes, grammatical errors, and stylistic infelicities” is to remark on the failure of academia. This is not the result of some perverse Internet influence.

With respect to the ease and speed of the multiplier effect of email dribble, this electronic downside is more easily managed than intrusive snail mail and solicitation telephone calls. Anonymous remailers, filters, the delete key, and in some cases a bit of electronic confrontation are efficient and effective-and all of very minor consequence relative to the networked learning enhancements afforded by email.

The lack of email system security and privacy are real, but not disproportionate in the spectrum of electronic eavesdropping. Most disconcerting about email is the potential for unlimited electronic archiving, ease of retrieval, and ethical standards of access. Academic institutions should get these items out in the open for discussion. However, perspective is also important in this matter. Even in states with open records laws, I seriously doubt that most faculty members have taken the time to review what is in their own personnel files.

2. Catalogs and Their Progeny

While I have used a number of systems from different institutions, I profess no studied familiarity with this topic. My comments are more indirect. There are two categories of detriments mentioned by Hauptman. One is lost individual time if the system is congested or experiencing technical breakdowns. My personal experience in economics or business related research is that the convenience and time saved by having multiple access points have thus far outweighed the access delays. In retrospect, perhaps because of my own research vagaries, I have often had no better luck finding hard print documents at the pre- cise time I was looking for them.

The other detriment is the potential loss of archived knowledge in the event of a total or partial failure of the academic networked environment. I’m not smart enough to propose technical solutions, but I’m not a subscriber to catastrophic thoughts either. This is, pardon the slight lapse, an economic problem. The high cost of hard print journals is driving the switch to electronic options. I think the potential for catastrophe lies more in failure to manage uncertainty in the electronic environment than in clinging to an academic publish- ing industry structure that is not economically sustainable.

3. Commercial Databases

I agree with the observation that most of these databases are traditional information funneled in electronic form, When I originally started thinking about this industry segment a few years ago, my conclusion was that the activity based on repackaging government information would disappear. That conclusion was based on the massive government doc-

COMMENTS ON NETWORKED PEDAGOGY 237

umentation and data coming online with a zero market price. But professionals still need help sifting through the material related to professional activities. Internet information intermediaries are alive and well.

With regard to the broader context, I am quite convinced that the networked learning environment should be more tightly linked with online government resources. Since these resources are freely accessible and reproducible, the packaging and integration of such material with other instructional resources makes sense.

4. The World Wide Web

“The Internet is just a convenience-for those who prefer computers; for those who do not wish to leave home; and for those who may be incapable of using traditional sources because of psychological or physical impediments.” I find this statement by Hauptman shortsighted. The Internet is a convenience, but can be much more. With particular regard to the web, a networked pedagogy is achievable. Furthermore, we can consider what can uniquely be accomplished in the web environment. Let’s consider an example.

Curricular reform in today’s environment requires extending the idea of excellence in individual course content. The fit of the content of courses into an integrated program must be conveyed to the institution’s constituencies-e.g., students, employers, donors, etc.. . .If nothing else the intellectual grasp of the curriculum is greatly facilitated in a properly designed electronic environment, especially if one can drill down to detailed learning resources and objectives. I maintain that much of the disjointed and duplicative nature of courses and programs can be corrected by this approach.

Finally, convenience should not be a pedestrian word in the higher education environment. For students who work, commute, have families, or have other time and location constraining commitments, convenience is decisive. From the institutional perspective a clarity of the cost-effectiveness of resources allocated to online activities and the rigor of quality in the learning process are counterweights to a wispy educational convenience mantra.

There is another reason I would not so casually dismiss the idea of convenience. This touches on the power relationship between faculty, or their representative institutions, and student or corporate constituencies. For better or worse the many forms of electronic media have shifted the balance of power a bit to the demand side of the educational market. The rise of corporate universities, corporate-university partnerships, and customized education are representative examples of where online learning architectures could, or should, be demanded. Nor are individual students left powerless, especially those who exploit the online resources afforded by the Internet while their instructors have no clue of the related learning achievements.

5. Listservs

Hauptman has struck close to my forte on this topic. Anyone with listserv subscriber experience will identify with the disappointment of networked leaning in this environment. Again, I think the failing is human. Most academic and even many practitioner listservs that I have followed in the past 5 years were founded and managed by faculty members, in no small part because of the idealism and the availability of virtually unlimited networked

238 HANNAH

computing power. This very idealism dampened any strong assertion of list discipline by the academic manager.

Even successful lists have been somewhat damned by their popularity because success begets yet more subscribers and the sheer quantity of posts drives off would-be contribu- tors. I am still very taken by listserv possibilities, but the activity has to move from listserv to list service and to accepted mechanisms of ensuring participative quality. The degrada- tion of lists is a problem of the sociology of discourse. The elevation of lists to a networked learning status is a very labor intensive effort--somewhat akin to teaching a class that is open to students drifting in and out at any time. The topical cohesion and the vision of the list manager are essentially the only channeling of the list dynamics.

CONCLUSION

The best advice given by Hauptman is in his conclusion that we must exercise judicious care in helping students navigate to the information treasures on the Internet. However, this still doesn’t get us all where we want to go with a networked learning environment. Even if we minimize the negatives of the Internet, we must still ask if we have raised the bar of learning quality with electronic pedagogy. Perhaps we should first aspire more modestly and find ways to do this on a case by case programmatic basis.

For example, a colleague and I are currently piecing together what we call an online knowledge base for a Master of Arts in Economics. Our objectives include online program integration, course resources, and student learning portfolios. Such efforts are appealing models of practicality. In the recent past I have cursed the slowness of my colleagues to inspect the learning possibilities of the Internet. I am now more hopeful because of the ele- vated level of individual interest in this medium. But individual interests do not aggregate to systemic change. There remains a mild crisis of academic leadership in effecting Internet learning strategies to fit institutional missions. Were I yielding a Luddite hammer I’d pound away at institutionalized obstructionist thought in academia that inhibits a networked learning agenda. This is a far more important and realistic expenditure of revolutionary fervor than smashing electrons.

comments on networked pedagogy

Documents