Despite all the pontification about how learning online is “THE FUTURE OF EDUCATION,” this SNL sketch (as well as the comments section on any article regarding online education) certainly points to a continuing belief that anything short of a face-to-face education is somehow second-rate.

This is rather curious, seeing as the University of Phoenix (the logo of which is spoofed in the sketch) is the largest institution of higher education in the U.S. by enrollment. Add to that Kaplan University’s brilliant ad campaign arguing for education on-demand and the popularity of the state-supported, entirely online Western Governors University.

I bring this up mainly to compare it with my own recent experience at a large public university. The mix of classes between online and face-to-face was roughly 50/50, and I honestly wouldn’t give an edge to one or the other. This despite the pretty obvious bias I have favoring the online side (given both my academic concentration and the content of this blog).

I’ve never taken a class at an entirely online university, but I highly doubt this fact is necessarily an indicator of quality. Many state schools even tout the fact that they have entire academic programs online to appeal to those who live too far to commute to campus.

The thing about the SNL sketch that really caught my eye was the bit about them sending your diploma via email. A few days after my graduation this summer, I got an email with a link to a website where I could see my diploma in a choice of lovely yet ridiculously overpriced frames. Of course, the company that made this website used a CSS trick to try and keep me from downloading it.

I’d rather have the printable diploma, but I guess I should just be happy they made the university font legible. Thanks University of Mumblemumble!

So no blog posts for nearly 3 months… but no one really seems to read this, so I don’t think I’ve really let anybody down. This is an assignment I just finished for my Issues in Multicultural Education course, it’s a reaction to an article on Inside Higher Ed that profiles self-proclaimed “White advocate,” University of Vermont professor Robert S. Griffin.

My curiosity was rather piqued by this article, which led me to seek out the writings of Robert S. Griffin. What perturbed me most is his frequent references to his position as a tenured professor and his apparent devotion to scholarly debate and teaching. He repeatedly makes clear that he is not a racist and does not harbor ill-will towards people of other races. In his own words: “Those who know me realize that being a white analyst, advocate, or activist does not mean I harbor ill will toward other people. I sincerely wish every human being on this planet well” (Griffin, 2009). Such statements make him sound like a used car salesman who repeatedly reassures you that you can trust him. Attempts to soften extremist viewpoints is also a tactic recently adopted by many hate groups in order to grow their influence (Conant, 2009).

Even more appalling is Griffin’s constant reminder that he is an objective reporter of the views of “racially conscious” Whites. To borrow his phrase, even a cursory review of his writings will demonstrate to you that he sympathizes with his subjects. Though he writes from the perspective of a third-party observer (he never directly states what he believes, and precedes nearly all statements that could be considered controversial with “white racialists believe…” or “these whites believe…”), his lack of critical examination of the extremist opinions he puts forward make it rather obvious that he shares them. I found this passage to be particularly demonstrative of this:

With blacks, white racialists disapprove of, and have contempt for, their illegitimacy rate, their violent crime rate, the way they fail to keep up the areas in which they live, their educational and work performance, their welfare dependency, and their tendency to hold others responsible for their negative conduct and demand double standards and racial preferences. These whites point out that that 90% of interracial crime is black on white, and are enraged that blacks rape 20,000 white women a year (versus a couple hundred the other way around), and are convinced that these realities are suppressed by those who control the information flow in America (Griffin, 2007).

For Griffin to write that his invented statistics reflect “reality” in any way, shape or form is utterly absurd, and to toss around his credentials only serves to make a mockery of them. Additionally, Griffin justifies his stance by writing about how people of other races share a similar viewpoint and he is subjected to a double standard: “I’m an advocate for whites for the same reasons that others support blacks and Hispanics and other groups… If I advocated for any other group but whites, using the exact same language and rationale, I’d be applauded and rewarded.” (2007). What he fails to mention is that non-Whites with similarly extremist viewpoints have been equally shunned by the American mainstream (such as Rev. Jeremiah Wright during the 2008 presidential campaign).

Unlike the student in the article, I would not feel “awkward” were I to find myself in his class. I would be beyond disgusted and set a speed record for class withdrawal. I would be similarly appalled were I assigned his article Rearing honorable White children (2001) and told it was a “provocative and unorthodox” work. The article paints the portrait of several families who have eschewed the mainstream education system because they feel it has let down White students. According to one of the parents quoted in the article: “Schools are brainwashing white children to feel guilty about their heritage and turn away from it. Our children’s heritage includes Homer, Plato, Michelangelo, Shakespeare, and Beethoven.” Instead such important figures have been entirely replaced: “Now, our idols are being wiped out and replaced by people like Martin Luther King.” Griffin takes no effort to point out that the addition of Martin Luther King has not displaced any of the aforementioned White historical figures.

I cannot, however, say that I entirely disagree with him or the University of Vermont’s decision to defend his right to freedom of speech. Despite his apparent dislike for ethnic diversity, his studies have taught him to “value intellectual diversity and not shun people who do not accept today’s conventional thinking” (2007). Whether this is an honest statement or simply lip service won’t be revealed until some of his students come forward. Nevertheless, some of my best educational experiences have come with instructors who shared very different viewpoints from my own – though to my knowledge, none of them publicly held such fanatical views.

Conant, E. (2009, April 25). Rebranding hate in the age of Obama. Newsweek. Retrieved June 26, 2009 from http://www.newsweek.com/id/195085

Griffin, R. S. (2001, October). Rearing honorable White children. American Renaissance. Retrieved June 25, 2009 from http://www.amren.com/ar/2001/10/

Griffin, R. S. (2007). On the New McCarthyism. Retrieved June 25, 2009 from http://www.robertsgriffin.com/NewMcCarthy.pdf

Griffin, R. S. (2009). Replies to a White racial activist. Retrieved June 25, 2009 from http://www.robertsgriffin.com/RaceRepliesA.pdf

Lee, S. (2009, June 17). The (pro)-White professor. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved June 25, 2009 from http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/06/17/professor

When I heard a story on NPR last week about the use of “clickers” to engage students in college classrooms, my opinion of the technology swung wildly: when they teased the story, I thought it was idiotic. “Clickers?” Isn’t that what they use to train pets?

When I heard how they were used in the class, I thought it was brilliant. Students, instead of just passively absorbing content, are forced to interact – primarily through answering multiple choice questions. Answers are then graphed out so the instructor can see what percentage of students is understanding the material. At the end of the story, they go into some detail about the more “advanced” clicker that allows for open-ended responses.

Wha? I’m sorry, that last sentence seems kind of odd to me, seeing as I was able to type it on a laptop, which if you enter a college classroom, everyone seems to have. Which makes me wonder why on earth these developers are trying to reinvent the wheel. Cole Camplese had a post on his blog recently about using Twitter in the classroom. Wouldn’t that be so much simpler (and cheaper) to implement? And wouldn’t it allow you to do more than just pick from a predefined set of answers?

Ah yes, I forgot. The point of higher education is to get students to think, but not too hard. They are, after all, preparing us to enter a challenging world where how far we go in life is determined by how well we answer multiple choice questions.

My mistake. Does this mean I don’t get a treat?

This is a bit of a follow up to the paper I wrote last semester that I posted a few weeks ago. I’m going to go off on a bit of a rant (like I didn’t vent enough in the comments of a post on ReadWriteWeb) about a research study by McKinney, Dyck, & Luber at SUNY-Fredonia about the effectiveness of iTunes U in delivering lectures to an introductory Psych course. The title of the paper is provocatively titled: “iTunes University and the classroom: Can podcasts replace Professors?”

In this study, two groups of students listened to a 25 minute lecture. One group listened in class, the other listened via podcast. When given a test on the subject, the podcast group scored 71% and the in-class group scored 62%. Within the podcast group, those that took notes while listening scored significantly better than those that didn’t (who performed more or less the same as the in-class group). The study generated significant controversy among their colleagues because “the podcast condition was not used to enhance a college lecture (perhaps giving students who attended the actual lecture a chance to listen to it again), but rather was in place of attending the lecture.”

On the one hand, this study engages the issue of podcasting in a serious manner. Lots of investment is being made in this area by universities, which is strange given the lack of research or data regarding its effectiveness. In comparison to some of the other studies I’ve read, it’s incredibly thorough.

On the other hand: Stop it.

Just stop it. For the love of god, it means nothing. Why must we continually have these studies where professors take old ways of teaching, dress it up with technology, and ask if technology is really worth our time? About half the time, the results go towards the technology, half the time they don’t. Does it really matter? You’re still talking at students and seeing how good they are at regurgitating it back to you. All these professors are getting up in arms because students can use the podcasts to avoid going to class. News flash: not having podcasts has never stopped them before.

So who cares? Why must people keep doing the same damn media comparison studies over and over again? Why the same old lame questions asking if technology will replace teachers? All these things ever seem to do is bring out the same comments:

“Technology is crap, you’ll never replace a teacher!” (goodbye, tenure) or

“We have to change the way we work to accommodate digital natives!” (so they can be bored with technology too) or

“Podcasts are great because you can rewind them!” (as if rewinding is the panacea for all our educational woes).

I’m not trying to disrespect the lecture as a way to deliver instruction. I’m not trying the disrespect the podcast as a medium to deliver instruction. In fact, a couple days ago I listened to a podcast lecture by Michael Wesch that blew my mind it was so awesome. The reasons I liked it had nothing to do with my ability to rewind it or listen to it on my commute.

The reasons I did like it were three-fold: the content, the speaker, and the access. The fact that the lecture took place a month ago in a different location, and required attendees to pay some exorbitant registration fee did nothing to prevent me from hearing it.

Technology is a game-changer, but these researchers are still playing the same old game.

I heard an interesting story this morning on NPR regarding academic freedom in China. Professor Yang Shiqun of East China University of Political Science and Law was accused of discussing the Falun Gong sect in his class by some of his students. He denies ever doing so, and suspects his students made his accusation because of his questioning of the value of ancient Chinese culture. There was also some controversy about a blog posting he made, asking why such a thing could be happening.

After a brief Google search, I was able to find a translation of some slides for his class at China Digital Times. Here’s one of the slides:

“Suspect all” is a motto of Karl Marx’s. People tend to accept answers rather than to examine the process of searching for answers. Many simply accept other people’s conclusions. They don’t think hard about how the conclusions are reached and whether they are valid. Thus the knowledge they get is superficial, or might even be fake.

So to understand a complex issue, you need to get a large amount of information, and carefully consider it, especially when it contains opposing opinions.You also need to be ready to challenge the way of thinking indoctrinated by traditions and the education system.

Nothing too out of the ordinary here. In fact, it sounds like a very good description of the skills necessary in our information overloaded society (skills clearly lacking in many of the people in our own supposedly enlightened nation).

Something that gives me a bit of hope is the comments on Yang’s blog (that he apparently took down after being flooded with attacks) translated at The Foreign Expert. Here in the US we’re lead to believe there is no freedom of expression in China, but the discussion taking place seems to show that there is at least some room for dissenting voices.