StraighterLine Revisited
On 31 March 2009, the online Journal of Higher Education published an article entitled “Revolt Against Outsourced Courses” in which it describes the efforts of a 2nd year grad student protesting Fort Hays University’s implementation of StraighterLine’s courses. The article provided, once again, the same old uninformed arguments proponents of Distance Learning have had to endure from day-one. It serves as a stark reminder that far too many faculty live under the mistaken belief that it’s “all about them,” what they what, and what they think is best for their students. Like so many before it, the article quotes the lamentations of tenured faculty that they will lose “control” of what is taught and how it is taught using the myth of academic freedom.
To those faculty I say: You’ve had control for so many years and look what it got us. “Autopilot” distance learning that provides nothing but a series of multiple-choice tests to evaluate whether learning has occurred. Videos of “talking heads” giving the same old lectures, despite the fact that a long history of research has concluded such delivery is the least effective. But enough about me. My response to this Journal of Higher Education article appears below…
Hats off to Provost Gould and Fort Hayes for taking a lead in answering the growing demand for online education. Shame on “…the students who argue that StraighterLine is devaluing their university and higher education in general.” Change a couple of words and you have the very same narrow-minded outcry that was the headline of innumerable newspapers when desegregation was enforced in 1957.
What I find most interesting in this article is the continual reference to what the faculty wants; I include Mr. Van Horn in this group by virtue of his being a graduate student. Is there any mention of what learners want? Is there even a single quote from a student who participated in one of StraighterLine’s offering? Equally as important, where in the article or in any of the comments to it do you find the words “I have seen one of StraighterLine’s offerings.”
I have been in the Instructional Design, Educational Technology, and Distance Learning field for 20+ years. During that time my involvement has been on both sides of the computer monitor; Developer, Facilitator and Student. I have personally seen and reviewed StraighterLines offerings and would stake my reputation on both their quality and rigor. I would have no hesitation to put them side-by-side in comparison with any course developed by any institution, anywhere. No, I did not “drink the kool-aide,” but took the time to investigate both sides of the issue.
Student’s today want and demand flexibility in their educational pursuits. This flexibility includes the ability to participate anywhere at any time. These student’s are working folk who don’t have the privilege of attending a class at 9:00AM. They are business people who’s responsibilities take them on the road too often to consistently attend an on-campus course. They are also the Service men and women who are never stationed at one location long enough to complete a degree at a single college or are deployed to some forsaken country where a shower is considered a luxury.
According to this article, however, these student’s can’t pursue a higher education unless it is in the form that has burdened them, and society, for over 100 years simply because some faculty member has not even reviewed a StraighterLine offering yet feels informed enough to condem them. It is precisely this type of “we’ve always done it this way and always will” thinking that will eventually turn an institution into a ghost town.
StraighterLine is offering a “product” that institutions temselves can ill afford to develop. A quality online course takes many, many hours to develop and equally as many to analyze, evaluate, and improve. The DIY model is simply not an option in today’s cash-strapped institutions as time spend in development of an online course is time away from the students. In addition, few faculty members possess the instructional design skills necessary to produce a quality online course. The end result is nothing more than uploaded Word documents and PowerPoints in a vane attempt at duplicating the face-to-face experience. The end result of such efforts is a bad experience for the student and the instructor alike.
Nowhere in the article did I read that any of Fort Hay’s students are being forced to participate in any StraighterLine course. There is no mention of any coercion or threats to the student body that they must take an online course. If these student’s feel they need the discipline of regularly scheduled class sessions, then let them have them. If they feel they need to participate in fraternities and sororities, so be it. If they believe that “Home coming” is a life defining moment, go for it. They need to understand and accept that there is a segment of society that cares nothing for such things and whose focus is solely on the learning.
I feel sad for Mr. Van Horn. A graduate student in education who demonstrates, even before he officially joins the community of professional educators, that he is unwilling to accept any form of learning that doesn’t involve a lecturer, whiteboard, and overhead projector. If he is to succeed upon graduation, he will certainly have to change his “tune” during the job interview for his first teaching position.
“Would I get on an airplane if [I] knew the pilot became qualified by a correspondence school?” Absolutely not. The task of successfully flying a real airplane with real passengers cannot be taught online, by StraighterLine or anyone else. The more intelligent question is: “Would you get on an airplane if you knew the pilot passed English Composition I through a correspondence school.”
Fort Hays is a fully accredited college. They had to have gone through the process of a “substantive change” in order to accept, for credit, StraighterLine’s offerings. So if Fort Hays is to be condemned than logically one must condemn all schools accredited by the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools.
Resistance to StraighterLine’s offerings, or any others, is reminiscent of the protests of Gas Station Attendents upon the installation of the first self-service pump. “Only I am capable of checking your oil.” “Only I am capable of filling your gas tank.” So apparently then only degreed faculty are capable of teaching? I don’t think so….
Before condeming the efforts of StraighterLine, and other to come I’m certain, take the time to do what professional educator have an inherent responsibility to do; investigate all sides. Take the time to “work the numbers” and you will quickly discover that they are truly on to something here.
