By “thwarted” we do mean that e-learning has not lived up to its expectations. At least not yet. That is what our study shows and that is what we believe. We are pleased that the Editorial recommends that people read the study carefully.
The expectations called for a revolution in teaching and learning, both on campus and in distance education. There has been real progress, but hardly a revolution. Most on-campus e-learning applications have been of the “bolt-on” variety. For example, established course structures have been enhanced through PowerPoint presentations, e-mail, and the posting of assignments and course packs on the Web. A true revolution would reconfigure courses and course modules—for example, through the use of imported learning objects—and rethink the roles of faculty in relation to learners.
E-learning has narrowed the gap between face-to-face and distance learning. A few decades ago distance learning meant correspondence courses mediated by snail mail, which were characterized by unwieldy paper piles and long time lags. Making materials accessible instantaneously on demand, with high production values, now is not only possible but routine, and learners and professors can communicate either synchronously or asynchronously as called for by the situation. Some might call this a “revolution” and indeed it is in some ways, but few believe the dream of bringing distance learning to parity with face-to-face has been achieved—or can be achieved, given Homo sapiens’ need to smell each others’ pheromones. But whether the dream is attainable or not, too many institutions lost too much money chasing e-learning's dot.com hype. Many such ventures did in fact “fail”—if failure is defined as not being financially viable and having to close down—and the failures have made gaining support for future ventures all the more difficult.
Our three conclusions cited in the critique are that: (1) the e-learning market has not lived up to its expectations; (2) e-learning has not trumped kids’ desires for entertainment and social interaction; and (3) e-learning has not transformed how professors teach. We challenge out critics to present evidence that refutes any of these conclusions. In fact, most people who have commented on our work say the conclusions resonate with their experience.
We take issue with the characterization of our statement, “E-learning will become pervasive only when faculty change how they teach—not before,” as “same-old same-old.” First, the statement describes exactly what many e-learning advocates hoped for, and still hope for. It is a vision with real meaning and one that should be attainable in the long run. Second, the two of us are part of a movement that seeks to reform higher education's approach to teaching and learning using all means possible—including but not limited to technology. The statement may have been made thousands of times but that does not make it any less meaningful for those who are laboring in the vineyards.
Our study certainly does have its limitations, and these are clearly stated in the report. We sought to pilot a method for tracking elearning's impact on teachers, learners, and institutions, and we have done so. We would have liked a larger sample that was sustained for a longer time, but the sample we could afford was sufficient for our purposes and produced some interesting insights. The approach to the direct tracking of student opinions required a midcourse correction, but we got plenty of information from faculty and staff. (The recent ECAR study corroborated our findings about student opinion using conventional survey methods, by the way.) We would like to see the Weatherstation methodology applied on a broad scale and sustained over time, but that does not mean our current results should have gone unreported.
We are puzzled by the Editorial's assertion that the “slide into recession” is an “unsupported statement”—does anyone doubt there was a recession? (Needless to say, we feel its assertion that our research has been “thwarted” is, at best, unsupported.) We are also quizzical about the implied criticism that our writing is “catchy” and, of all things, “readable.” We want people to remember what we write—else why write at all? We would welcome presentations of evidence that contradicts ours, hopefully presented in an equally readable style. That is the way knowledge gets advanced. (Dewey or someone doubtless said so too, but that does not trivialize the idea.)
We conclude with this thought about the reaction of some in the e-learning community to our work: If we're wrong—if there has been a revolution in faculty and student behavior, and if the e-learning investment boom did not go bust—then you have nothing to worry about. Just bring forth the evidence and set the record straight. But if we are right, or even partly right, then you have learned something that may prove useful. To reiterate a phrase in the report, we count ourselves among e-learning's advocates. Let us all get on with the revolution.
