this discovery of yours will create forgetfulness in the learners. they will be hearers of many...

This discovery of yours will create forgetfulness in the learners. They will be hearers of many things, will appear to be omniscient, and will generally know nothing.

This discovery of yours will create forgetfulness in the learners.They will be hearers of many things, will appear to be omniscient, and will generally know nothing.

(Socrates, talking to Phaedrus on the superiority of enquiry and debate over the then new technology of writing, Plato’s Dialogues)

But what about positive educational outcomes? On balance, there are probably none. The research shows us the internet is probably making us dumber. It allows us to access millions of facts but does nothing to improve our problem-solving and cognitive capabilities. While screen-based learning can enhance visual-spatial intelligence, it weakens our higher-level intellectual functions.

(Bagaric, M. (2011) Flood of bad decisions from Gillard, The Australian, January 31, 2011, p.14, Retrieved from http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/flood-of-bad-decisions-from-

gillard/story-fn59niix-1225997082458)

48% of US faculty who have taught online courses conclude that they are inferior to conventional face-to-face instruction and only 15% rate online learning as superior to face-to-face instruction.

The Chronicle of Higher Education (2010, October 31). Faculty views about online learning. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/Faculty-Views-About-Online/125200

Some employers place restrictions on the amount of online work that can be applied toward degrees and some American universities are rejecting job applications from academics with online degrees - even if they offer those degrees themselves.

However, many universities offering online courses do not state that their courses will not be accepted for those applying to transfer to other universities or further their studies.

Shrock, J. R. (2009). US: No job if you only have an online degree, University World News, 10 May 2009. Issue: 0075. Retrieved from http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=20090508115810625

‘We do not accept online coursework’ statements are appearing on more and more websites of such institutions as the University of California, University of Southern California, University of Colorado and University of Wisconsin, all of which now exclude transfer credit for ‘online laboratory courses.

(Shrock, J. R. (2010). US: marks from online courses being rejected. University World News, Issue: 142. Retrieved from http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=20101002100346835)

These are confusing times for distance education. On the one hand, increasing numbers of students are choosing this mode of study and few tertiary institutions do not now offer some programmes by this means. But on the other hand it appears to be under threat as never before. The International Council for Open and Distance Education (ICDE) is investigating a rising tide of restrictive legislation and practices. How should legitimate distance education providers react to this seeming contradiction?

Sir John Daniel (2010) Distance Education under Threat: an opportunity? Keynote address at Anadolu University IDOL & ICEM 2010 Joint Conference and Media Days, Eskisehir, Turkey, 6 October 2010. Retrieved from http://www.col.org/resources/speeches/2010presentation/Pages/2010-10-06.aspx

Some examples of restrictive legislation and practices by governments: •In 2010 the Ethiopian Ministry of Education announced that all distance education provided by private and public institutions would cease, claiming that it was no longer necessary.

•In India, growing concerns over the quality of distance education have led the Minister for Human Resource Development to recently propose that no new university should be permitted to offer off-campus programmes for five years.

•The Chinese government restricts the Open University of China (OUC) from offering anything more than two- or three-year junior college degree programmes, condemning many hundreds of thousands of open entry students to a low prestige qualification, whatever the quality or potential of their work.

•Some governments legislate for the percentage of a degree course that must be provided in face-to-face mode; Brazil says 80 percent, Japan 52 percent and Malaysia 20 percent.

•Some governments and professional associations insist that degrees and diplomas mention the modality in which they were taken and refuse to employ graduates who have gained their qualifications through distance study.

•In many countries, there is a perception that the curricula are being dumbed down, that the quality of teaching, learning and awards has fallen, that the qualifications awarded by institutions lack equivalency, and that the quality of some of the new private, for-profit providers is questionable.

•There are also calls for better regulation of online offshore education and more attention to entry standards for transnational providers.• •Poor quality in only a few institutions or programs can impact adversely on open, distance and online learning as a whole through media exposure.

•It is important to establish sound regulatory systems to counter hostility towards the values and methods of ODL and remove any bad apples from the barrel (Daniel, 2010).

•However, not all governments or institutions have yet established systems to assure quality in ODL, not all ODL providers meet or even aspire to meet the highest standards, not all providers are bona fide, and not all countries, cultures or institutions are ready to embrace the openness, transparency and accountability required in QA.

How should QA be managed?

•Applying the same measures to on-campus and distance and e-learning?

•Taking account of the different entry systems, intakes, organization, logistics and scale and nature of operations?

•Assuming that e-learning means the same thing in all cultures/contexts?

•Focusing on the inputs or outcomes? Using a ‘quality in’ model or a ‘quality out’ model?

•Focusing on the knowledge and skills the graduates need to do their jobs or more generic attributes?

•External control or internal self-review/ a quality culture?

•Assuring standards or improving standards?

I hated the term ‘University of the Air’ because of all the nonsense in the Press about sitting in front of the telly to get a degree. I knew it had to be a university with no concessions, right from the very beginning. I knew the conservatism and vested interests of the academic world. I didn’t believe we could get it through if we lowered our standards.

(Jenny Lee, cited in The Open University, 2010)

I came to The Open University from a wholly traditional background . . . I had heard about the University of the Air, but I regarded it as a political gimmick unlikely ever to be put into practice. . . I began to think seriously about the proposal and the challenge it presented. It wasn’t that I had any deep-seated urge to mitigate the miseries of the depressed adult; it was that I was persuaded that the standard of teaching in conventional universities was pretty deplorable. It suddenly struck me that if you could use the media and devise course materials that would work for students all by themselves, then inevitably you were bound to affect – for good – the standard of teaching in conventional universities. I believed that to be so important that it overrode almost everything else. And that is what I said in my application.

(Walter Perry, cited in The Open University, 2010)

Providers should no longer simply be concerned with trying to prove that their products and services measure up to the standards of conventional education.

They should have the confidence – and the evidence – to show that their systems and methods are superior to many of those in conventional education and are particularly well suited to the new needs of the knowledge society and Information Age.