Except that this dream does not happen for millions of people, because educational inequality is real and manifests in several ways. Localized funding for school systems means that poor areas have poor schools, while wealthier areas can provide students with all the tools they need to succeed, perpetuating social and economic inequality through educational systems.

This is even more evident now that education has become more reliant on technology. A year ago, the “digital divide” worried educators interested in expanding opportunity through online education. If students or schools could not afford enough computers to provide access to online programs, it didn’t matter how fancy the program or ground-breaking the learning technology – some students were going to be left behind, creating inequalities most likely to hurt those already suffering from poor educational opportunities. Students in low-income areas or at colleges and universities with low funding were shut out from many of the newest and most innovative advances in online learning.

Unfortunately, the real problem of ensuring access to online education is only now becoming evident. While it certainly is true that online programs can be shared by many more students than could ever fit into a single classroom, the actual network capacity of a home or school limits access to online learning. Increasingly, wealthier schools can afford higher Internet speeds and more bandwidth, which is the amount of information that can be shared over an Internet connection, than can lower-income schools, and therefore can support more sophisticated programs for their students. This means that some students are once again getting a better education than others.

Today it’s not so much the “digital divide” that creates inequality, but the “bandwidth divide”: the inability to provide sufficient tech support for internet technologies to students, specifically the amount of bandwidth a school has. This is true from kindergarten all the way through college. Is it possible that more accessible mobile technologies can address some of those inequalities?

How Does the Bandwidth Divide Affect Education?

Jeffrey R. Young explained in The Chronicle of Higher Education how the bandwidth divide can cause real problems. He explains that “only about 66% of American adults have broadband access at home, according to a survey last year by the Pew Internet & American Life Project. And only one-fifth of elementary- and secondary-school teachers in the United States said that all or most of their students have access to the digital tools they need at home.” The results, he explains, are clear when we examine what happened to a school district outside Washington, D.C. when it first used e-textbooks:

“The e-textbooks used in the project, run by the Fairfax County Public Schools, worked only when students were online-and some features required fast connections. But it turns out that even in such a well-heeled region, many students did not have broadband access at home and were unable to do their homework, sparking complaints from parents that led the school system to approve the purchase of $2-million in printed textbooks for those who preferred a hard copy.”

All that investment in e-textbooks fell short because the school mistakenly assumed that all its students could afford fast internet connections. That was a big mistake.

The broadband divide must be considered when planning any online learning initiatives because broadband access is an indicator of the successful adoption and sharing of technology. A simple comparison illustrates this. Researchers at the University of California, Santa Barbara recently concluded a study of broadband access in rural sub-Saharan Africa and discovered similarities that might at first be surprising, given the vast differences between African and American society, culture, and technological prowess. The authors of “The Bandwidth Divide: Obstacles to Efficient Broadband Adoption in Rural Sub-Saharan Africa” (International Journal of Communication 6 (2012), 2467-2491) discovered

“significant association of content generation with user-reported accessibility of Internet access. This is well aligned with a previous study (Davis, 1989) that identifies perceived ease of use as one of the key factors for the acceptance of information technologies. Limited bandwidth is the main hurdle for full-fledged Internet access in rural Zambia, and 41.5% of the interviewees mentioned it as one of the reasons that they do not spend more time online. Limited bandwidth was a strong differentiator between those who do and those who do not generate content in the United States during the transition period from dial-up to broadband connections (Horrigan, 2006). Thus, to stimulate content generation and sharing in rural areas, it is crucial to provide support for bandwidth-hungry applications.”

In other words, in all societies, lack of appropriate bandwidth prevents online participation and in particular results in a decrease in user-generated content. User-generated content in academia includes course assignments, participation in online discussions, and communication with instructors. Students without enough bandwidth to support online learning can fall behind.

Using Mobile Technology to Bridge the Gap

Though groups like Broadband for America are “dedicated to ensuring every American citizen has high quality access to the Internet” and lobby Congress for funding and legislation to support this goal, it may be a long time before greater access is achieved. Until that time, students in poor, rural, or otherwise under-supported areas may continue to be left out of the Internet revolution in education.

However, there may be one way to address the broadband divide, and that is to move online learning away from bandwidth-centered technologies and more toward mobile technologies such as smartphones, e-book readers, and tablets. The March 2013 “Teens and Technology” study conducted by the Pew Internet and American Life Project found that teens and students have greater access to mobile technology than to bandwidth. Not only do 78% of all teens have a cell phone, “one in four teens are ‘cell-mostly’ Internet users, who say they mostly go online using their phone and not using some other device such as a desktop or laptop computer.” It makes sense, then to reconsider the format through which educators hope to expand online learning by refocusing on mobile learning, with its greater numbers of devices and larger accessibility.

Certainly the move toward mobile learning is already well underway. According to The ECAR National Study of Undergraduate Students and Information Technology (2011), a majority of students use their smartphones to email professors, look up information on the Internet, text or email fellow students about coursework or check their grades. Some students (from 20-30%) also register for courses, research information for schoolwork, and conduct other related tasks on their phones.

Recent evidence suggests that it would be fairly easy to transition students to mobile technologies for academic use, too. A more recent study shows that among students at the United States Naval Academy and the Naval Postgraduate School polled in the past year, for example, “an overwhelming majority of respondents stated that they had not used mobile learning on their handheld mobile device in the past (92% of USNA undergraduates and 87% of NPS graduate students). At the same time, solid majorities in both populations (74% at USNA and 61% at NPS) ‘agree’ or ‘strongly agree’ that they would use mobile learning on their hand-held devices if it were available in their curriculum.”

Clearly, there is an opportunity here, and some colleges are already taking steps to incorporate more mobile learning options. In “Accommodating Mobile Learning in College Programs,” Jay Alden writes that there have been three primary methods of doing this: schools have either modified their courses, developed smartphone apps, or distributed mobile devices. Sometimes they have combined some or all of the three. Students reported in interviews that they appreciated the flexibility that allowed them to keep up with coursework while going about their other work and personal life responsibilities. They do not have to be tied to a desk but can access their courses anywhere.

The cost of mobile learning may also be significantly lower, because cell phone and Internet access can be much less expensive than purchase of a desktop computer and separate Internet service. This means that mobile learning can be integrated into education more because more students at least have greater economic access to it. This can result in higher user content-generation and participation, two of the pillars of successful online learning.

Instructors themselves are not the only ones who suffer; students who receive some or most of their education from adjunct instruction are often adversely affected by the conditions in which adjuncts work. Adjuncts typically lack office space, supplies, and adequate communication from the administration or their departments about curriculum updates, requirements, and student issues. The current system of employing mostly adjuncts has a deleterious effect on higher education, and online education in particular.

Low Success Rates in Online Education

Certainly it is difficult to make generalizations about the quality of any form of education, especially online education, given the wide variety of experiences provided across online programs. As the authors of one peer-reviewed study of online faculty reviews point out,

“Teaching quality among university instructors is notoriously difficult to observe. Unlike primary and secondary schools, the academy does not generally utilize incremental standardized testing as a means to calculate student progress (teacher effect).”

But that does not mean that we cannot draw some conclusions from both some widely-known characteristics about online higher education and some new research results. For example, college graduation rates in the United States are already low: the National Student Clearinghouse Research Center’s March 2013 report indicated that nearly 30% of all new college students since 2006 have dropped out. Success rates are even lower in online programs and among students who take some of their courses online. A working paper recently published by the Community College Research Center at Columbia University’s Teachers College, “Adaptability to Online Learning: Differences Across Types of Students and Academic Subject Areas” points out this difference:

“Regardless of their initial level of preparation…students were more likely to fail or withdraw from online courses than from face-to-face courses. In addition, students who took online coursework in early semesters were slightly less likely to return to school in subsequent semesters, and students who took a higher proportion of credits online were slightly less likely to attain an educational award or transfer to a four-year institution.”

This data runs counter to the argument that was popular a few years ago, based on a government study, that students in online courses often do better. Rob Jenkins counters that argument in The Chronicle of Higher Education:

“That study has serious flaws, especially as it pertains to community colleges. In the ‘Effectiveness of Fully Online Courses for College Students: Response to a Department of Education Meta-Analysis,’ Shanna Smith Jaggers and Thomas Bailey of the Community College Research Center at Columbia University point out that only 28 of the 99 studies examined in the Education Department report focused on courses that were fully online. Furthermore, only seven looked at semester-long courses, as opposed to short-term online programs on narrow topics, “such as how to use an Internet search engine.”

In addition, most of those studies only measured the students who completed the course. They did not-and this is crucial-include those students who dropped out of their online courses. In other words, those studies do not hold up well in the face of scrutiny. Online college success rates are lower than those of traditional colleges, period.

What Does This Have to Do with Adjuncts?

It would be very tempting to simply write that poor educational quality, low graduation and high drop-out rates are the fault of adjunct professors because, after all, they are the majority of the educators in today’s higher education system. It’s not that simple, though. Audrey Williams June succinctly summarized the real problem in The Chronicle of Higher Education, when she wrote that the higher percentage of adjunct instructors than full-time tenure-track professors hurts student achievement. She wrote,

“The shift can also affect students. Studies show that they suffer when they are taught by adjuncts, many of whom are good teachers but aren’t supported on the job in the ways that their tenured colleagues are. Many adjuncts don’t have office space, which means they have no place on campus to meet privately with students. And some adjuncts themselves say their fears about job security can make them reluctant to push students hard academically. If students retaliate by giving them bad evaluations, their jobs could be in jeopardy. Many adjuncts are also cautious about what they say in the classroom, an attitude that limits the ways they might engage students in critical thinking and rigorous discussion.”

In discussions with adjunct faculty who teach online, they note that the above situations are relevant to them, too, though they may not have the problem of being able to meet students face-to-face on campus.

This situation has a simple solution: improvements in the quality of online higher education can be achieved by reconsidering and reallocating instructional processes in a more fair and just way. But most schools have not taken the necessary steps to do so. One suggestion is to actually eliminate all adjunct instruction and instead hire full-time and fully-supported faculty members. However, this is unlikely to happen given the expense involved, which cuts into profits. Those of us who are concerned with educational quality both on- and off-line are left to wonder if there’s anything that can be done to improve educational outcomes.

How can colleges and universities improve their support for adjuncts and thereby improve online programs?

Colleges and universities can take several steps to improve their educational programs and outcomes simply by respecting their adjunct instructors enough to treat them like the professionals and qualified colleagues that they are. There are a number of ways to do this:

1. Give adjuncts time to learn the school culture: In my own discussions with adjunct instructors, both online and traditional, it’s not uncommon for an adjunct instructor to be let go after one course, especially if that course does not go well. This is certainly not the case with full-time faculty members, who are usually given the benefit of the doubt and are evaluated based on the aggregate results of their teaching. Adjunct instructors are often juggling many different positions at various colleges, with different learning managements systems, different institutional goals, and different student bodies. A teaching method that works with one class may not work with another. They deserve a real chance to determine which methods work best before they are shown the door.
2. Refocus retention efforts: Administrators need to listen to their instructors, not student evaluations. Students may complain that a course is “too hard,” but instructors may have valuable information about those very students, including their level of academic preparedness. If a student is underprepared for college-level material and fails a course, rather than assuming that this is the result of poor instruction, administrators should ask adjunct instructors-and all instructors-whether or not those students were prepared. It may be helpful to require that adjuncts copy a representative sample of all student work, so that administrators can see just exactly what the instructor has had to work with. Sometimes the administration expects instructors to make a silk purse out of a pig’s ear, as the old saying goes, and when that doesn’t happen, they blame the instructor no matter how talented or hard-working.
3. Provide adequate instructional support: Adjunct faculty members are often the first point of contact new students have at any school, and they are the most at risk for dropping out. Adjuncts should receive training that will allow them to help their students effectively. This means that adjuncts should be allowed to participate in professional development activities having to do with advising, teaching methodologies, financial aid information, and other relevant issues. But like all professionals, they should be rewarded for advanced training: they should be paid for such extra work.
4. Pay adjuncts more: This is a no-brainer, and it’s the most important way we can improve the quality of instruction. There is such a wide variety of adjunct pay rates that it can be difficult to generalize or come to a consensus on what constitutes fair compensation, but it’s safe to assume that if an instructor has to teach six courses a semester just to make a living wage, then they are also not going to have the time needed to be the most effective instructor they can be. It’s a simple formula: time, expertise, and thoroughness = better class instruction.

Adjunct faculty members have tried to address the problems that result from under-supported adjunct instruction by trying to unionize and creating lobbying groups like New Faculty Majority. This has failed to stem the tide, as more and more schools expand their online offerings and more online-only colleges are created. That’s because the relationship between adverse adjunct working conditions and lower quality education is not due to any specific characteristic of adjuncts themselves, but is instead a systemic problem rooted in an institutional commitment to cost-cutting, profit maintenance, and misguided retention efforts (in which poorly-prepared students are enrolled and advanced regardless of academic standards.)

These priorities lower the quality of college education in general, but are specifically evident in online education, which relies heavily on adjunct instruction. The only way to improve this is to reassess and reorganize with greater appreciation for the work of adjunct faculty.

Follow Dr. Rooney on Twitter and Google+ for more higher education news and commentary.

This new rebellion against online education at some of the nation’s most prestigious colleges runs counter to the embrace of online learning and MOOCs by other top American colleges, including Harvard, MIT and Stanford, and by education reformers, who see online learning as a way to democratize access to college and lower costs. But before everyone starts to criticize Amherst and Duke faculty as dusty, tradition-bound Luddites, we should pause to consider that these faculty may have something very important to contribute to the dialogue about online education. It would be a mistake to dismiss the concerns of Duke and Amherst professors, because these concerns point to significant flaws in current online education and can offer insight on some of the best ways to improve it.

Resistant Faculty Cite Quality Concerns and Lack of Control

It’s no secret that many college professors are openly cynical about or even hostile toward online learning in theory and practice. According to the Babson and Inside Higher Ed 2012 survey of faculty opinions about online education, it’s the quality of the education being offered that raises red flags for instructors:  “professors, over all, cast a skeptical eye on the learning outcomes for online education. Nearly two-thirds say they believe that the learning outcomes for an online course are inferior or somewhat inferior to those for a comparable face-to-face course.” As a professor, I too share these concerns and worry about the quality of the online courses and programs currently available.

In addition, over the past few years faculty have expressed concern about other aspects of online education:

• Academic integrity may be compromised due to cheating and plagiarism
• Significant investments of time and money for developing online education at traditional colleges may not benefit on-campus students
• Lack of consistency in content between online and face-to-face courses
• Lack of academic rigor in online courses Low success and graduation rates

However, the study also reports that instructors indicate a slightly higher rate of optimism about the potential of online learning. This openness to its potential points to one very real possibility: many college instructors may not necessarily be opposed to all online learning. They just may think it’s more important to emphasize the long term consequences of online learning rather than the financial bottom line, and may consider factors such as pedagogy, the nature of learning, the importance of rigor, and the need for meaningful assessment also vital to discussion before any online program begins.

This is clear when we consider that one possible reason for faculty concern over quality may stem from a lack of control over the planning and development of online learning programs. The Babson study found that faculty members do not feel that their schools are ready to develop such programs; survey results suggest that faculty would like more time and control over the process:

“About one-third of faculty members report they think that their institution is pushing too much instruction online, compared to fewer than 10 percent of administrators. Over all, fewer than one half of all professors believe that their institution has good tools in place to assess the quality of in-person instruction, while only one-quarter say the institution has good tools for assessing online instruction.”

This last concern, about faculty control, certainly played a role in the Duke decision. Professor Thomas Pfau said that that the university’s initial plan to offer courses through 2U was “symptomatic of the top-down approach to managing the intellectual fortunes of this university and it’s produced – certainly among faculty in the humanities and social sciences over the last few years — intense discontent.”

A Bigger Role for Faculty

In my experience-and it seems to be representative-there are two main problems that prevent faculty from supporting online course development:

• The decision to create online programs, and participation in the development of such programs, has been an administrative one in which faculty was not consulted. This is largely because online education is often seen as a way to earn easy money and fill in the financial gaps where funding cuts have slashed a school’s budget. At community colleges, professor Rob Jenkins pointed out in The Chronicle of Higher Education, “online classes constitute the proverbial cash cow.”
• In nearly every situation I’ve participated in, colleges have hired specific curriculum designers to come to campus and implement the online programs. These experts are well-armed with educational theory and/or computer programming and design training, but usually do not possess any discipline-specific content knowledge. Faculty members are simply presented with a predesigned format and told that they have to build their course content around that. This is certainly the case at for-profit online colleges, which first create the courses and then hire the content experts-faculty-to teach them. The result is often a disjointed effort in which individual disciplines are all treated the same regardless of the content and its specific instructional needs. This creates many of the faculty concerns about quality and rigor.

Interestingly, these two problems are also easily remedied when faculty members are made part of the process of online course and program development. First, faculty should take the lead in developing their institutions’ online programming-and that institutions listen to the criticisms and concerns raised by their faculty members. These people are the instructors who will, after all, administer the courses and programs, were hired in the first place presumably because they were subject-matter experts and professional educators, and at accredited colleges and universities are, in fact, supposed to drive all aspects of curriculum development. It makes sense that faculty be given more control over the design and implementation of online programs.

The irony is that not enough colleges ane universities have done this, even though it’s a lesson right out of any Education 101 course and echoes one of the most popular ideas of education reform: if you give the students control over the assignment, they will be more invested and perform better. If we allow professors to drive the online development, better results will emerge.

The president of Boston University certainly thinks this is so. In April 2013, BU President Robert A. Brown authorized seed grants for faculty through the college’s Council on Educational Technology and Learning Innovation, to help them develop innovative online programs for both distance students and on-campus students. One of the most important requirements of these grants is that they be used by faculty to develop online technologies, including courses, that will take advantage of “assets that are unique to BU,” such as “courses that use Boston and its offerings as a field classroom.” Those members of a college community best equipped to create and lead such experiences are the local faculty- not outside experts contracted to design or administer online programming.

Ultimately, the real problem that many faculty have with the way that colleges and universities have implemented online courses and programs is that the reliance on outside contract work is dismissive of the hard work that a school’s faculty has already done to create high quality academic programs. Students and accountants are not the only stakeholders in a college’s success or failure. The dedicated faculty at every school should not be disregarded but should, instead, play an active and defining role in the creation of online programs. The result will be a stronger and more integrated academic program in all majors.

Follow Dr. Rooney on Twitter and Google+ for more higher education news and commentary.

As a college professor, one of my responsibilities is advising, and I have had many long conversations with students who want to avoid their computer course requirements, apply for substitutions for those courses, or generally put them off until the last minute, sometimes delaying their graduation in the process. They protest that they “don’t need” these courses because they use computers all the time already and that the requirement is a “waste” of their time that prevents them from moving more quickly toward graduation and an eventual career.

Unfortunately for them, that argument doesn’t wash with me. I totally agree with Edutopia’s 2008 argument that students need technology incorporated into their academic curriculum because “technology is ubiquitous, touching almost every part of our lives, our communities, our homes.” General education courses equip students to master the world around them; it’s natural that knowledge of technology basics be included in their core curricula. Edutopia also argued that technology deepens the learning process, allowing students to master course material in newer and sometimes more effective ways.

I also believe that students need to learn technology not just for academic reasons (to help them learn better), but also to expand their employment opportunities. As we struggle to emerge from the Great Recession, students need myriad new skills in order to cast the widest net possible to establish their careers upon graduation-and they need to know that in most jobs today, knowledge and familiarity of use with information technology can open doors for them in ways they do not realize.

So while I understand my students’ anxiety about working toward their chosen professions quickly, I also think that these students are operating on a misunderstanding about what is meant by “technology knowledge” and how vital technology skills are to their planned careers regardless of the field. It’s true that young people today are certainly more tech savvy than previous generations-but the ability to text on a cell phone or comment on Facebook is not the same as the technology know-how required in many employment fields. Students should take-and degree programs should require- at least introductory coursework in basic computer technology skills.

Computer Skills Translate to Many Careers

The evidence that computer skills can help college graduates in their careers regardless of their manjor cannot be more clear. Shana Lynch, writing for the Silicon Valley Business Journal, reports that,

“According to a new Dice Report, which tracks requested skills on job postings, software development “is beyond compare” in today’s tech job market. As of Oct. 1, the number of postings for this skill hit 14,616, far greater than any other category. Dice points out that many companies are seeking developer candidates for non-engineer positions because they could be better project managers for various products.”

Software development is only one of the many different areas of digital literacy the new economy requires. For example, in Forbes’s “Top Ten Jobs for 2013,” software developer is ranked number one-but every other job in the list involves some level of technological knowledge and digital literacy, including accountants and auditors, computer systems analysts, marketing analysts, network and computer systems administrators, information security analysts, human resource managers, mechanical and industrial engineers. Further, of “The Ten Skills that Will Get You Hired in 2013,” three were directly related to digital technology: computers and technology, programming, and operations and systems analysis.

Essentially, this list underscores the reality that any professional position requires a level of familiarity with technology that is much greater than at any other time in our history. Even a job like teaching, which may be the world’s second oldest profession, regularly involves the use of many different kinds of software applications, including Excel to create grade spreadsheets, PowerPoint to create presentations, etc.  That’s why students in all disciplines should consider adding one or more technology courses-they will help you acquire skills that could land them the job of their dreams.

And even if you are not a current college student, you can beef up your resume by demonstrating your familiarity with computers by taking a free online course or assessment. Minnesota’s Northstar Digital Literacy Project, for example, offers a free online computer literacy test that you can use to evaluate your own skill level, and you can even print out a certificate of completion to include in your employment portfolio. You never know where your skills will take you!

Even though I majored in History, I wrote this on a computer, then added the code so that it could appear on this webpage, ’cause that’s what I’m talkin’ about! Follow me on Twitter and Google+ for more higher education news and more such dazzling displays of technological wizardry.

In other words, your professor, if he or she is anything like me, is subject to the same daily stresses, joys, and woes as students. That means we have good and bad days-we’re human, and we make mistakes. While I’ve managed to avoid a public breakdown, like the unfortunate professor at Michigan State University whose humanness became all too evident last fall, there have been a few times when I’ve unintentionally upset a student, or came across as dismissive of a student’s question, which I regret and suffer agonies over.

Thankfully, those tired and irritable days are a rare occurrence. But I think that students would be very surprised by what goes through my head during one of my lectures, or while I’m watching them work on a group activity or take an exam-surprised because it’s not so different from what you think about as a student. So here’s my list of the top five ways your professors may be more like you than you realize:

1. We’re insecure sometimes. Speaking in front of an audience-any audience-puts you in the spotlight, and even those of us who are most practiced at it have our nervous days. When you laugh, giggle, and whisper, our basic human insecurities make us wonder if we are what you’re laughing at. We think things like, Why are they laughing? Is my fly undone? Is the back of my skirt tucked into my underwear? Do I have spinach in my teeth?  So please try not to whisper and giggle too much. Follow the basic rules of college etiquette and save us from our neuroses!
2. We can’t believe how much textbooks cost, either. This is a frequent topic of discussion among me and my colleagues. In my field, History, I can find very low cost books that meet my course goals, but in some fields, such as science and technology, there are not that many lower-priced alternatives. That’s one reason why some professors put their textbooks online or choose free online resources. But if you have to purchase an expensive book for a course, and can’t afford it, talk to your instructor. They often know of resources that can help you manage this dilemma.
3. We get frustrated by some students in the class, too. Sometimes I am flabbergasted by the number of times I have to answer the same questions over and over again from students who have either not come to class regularly or not paid attention in class. It’s my personal opinion that those students unfairly take up class time as they try to catch up-and from the look on my students’ faces, I know that they’re frustrated with classmates like that as well. So if you haven’t been to class in a while, ask me your questions outside of class-do not take up the entire class’s time. Another variation of this is frustration with students who try to monopolize discussion. These students forget or don’t care that other people in the class want to participate. If you are in a class with one of these students, don’t give up. Keep trying to make your point or speak to the professor about your frustration.
4. We also want you to succeed. When a student who doesn’t normally participate raises his or her hand to ask a question, I am pulling for them. I want them to have a great experience so that they will participate again, because as Douglas Duncan of the American Astronomical Society points out, “Students need to feel that it is psychologically ‘safe’ to participate, to try out ideas, to be wrong as well as right.” I use several encouraging strategies when students get the answer wrong, but I still I hate it when students take a big risk and it doesn’t work out. So don’t be afraid to take that risk and join in the conversation. We will do our best to help and encourage you.
5. Sometimes we don’t want to be in class, either. Like most people- including students -there are days when I don’t feel well and wish I was home resting. But I can’t call in sick unless I’m very ill, because I only have so many class meetings a semester and we need to cover all this material. I have a responsibility to the students who have paid tuition and are trying to learn skills necessary to graduate and go on to a career. So if you notice my energy flagging or that I’m sniffling and coughing a lot, remember that I’m here because I care about meeting your learning needs. We know that you have days like this, too. We’re all in the learning project together.

I could go on, but I think you get the picture. Instead of thinking as your professor as an adversary, some stranger who doesn’t understand you and your situation, try to remember that we were students once, too-and that’s why you can learn from us.

Follow Dr. Rooney on Twitter and Google+ for more higher education news.

“Academic senate leaders from all three public higher ed systems – UC, Cal State and the California Community Colleges — now outright oppose the efforts, though their full senates have yet to take formal votes… In particular, faculty representatives are concerned California lawmakers are preparing to hand over untold thousands of students to for-profit companies that have not proven their courses can pass muster.”

The plan, now Senate Bill 520, is the brainchild of California State Senate Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, who wants to address the current failure of California’s state universities to meet the demand for general education courses. Typically, large numbers of students are denied enrollment in much-needed courses, because budget cuts have caused colleges to offer fewer course sections. This especially affects students in the state’s community colelge system, which PBS reports is “the largest higher educational system in the country.” Steinberg believes that online courses, from both accredited and unaccredited schools, either free or with a price tag, will allow students to fulfill curriculum requirements and proceed with their degree programs.

Offering these students the option to enroll in free online courses that can then be transferred to their degree programs at the state’s universities is an interesting idea, but it does raise significant concerns among California’s college faculty-concerns that I share. These are the two main issues of faculty concern:

• The philosophy and practices of for-profit companies do not align with those of state-funded, in many cases less expensive, public colleges and universities. In March, the University of California’s Academic Senate wrote in a letter that the “clear self-interest of for-profit corporations in promoting the privatization of public higher education through this legislation is dismaying.” Faculty members are concerned that the courses offered by such companies are designed with profit motive rather than educational goals as the primary incentive.
• There is no mechanism for quality control. Typically, a course must be approved by faculty committees; it must be vetted and examined for its ability to fulfill program goals and graduation requirements. If students simply take courses from unaccredited online providers, and those credits are transferred to a college or university, there is no way to guarantee that those courses have met the program goals that the degree represents. Under Steinberg’s plan, a 9-member panel will evaluate courses, but Diana Guerin, chair of California State University’s academic senate believes that such a small number of faculty evaluators could not possibly have the expertise to evaluate courses across such a wide range of disciplines.

These issues may not have occurred to President Pro Tem Steinberg, who is an attorney and has done some admirable things while holding political office, including working to create free literacy programs and improve mental health funding in the state. But he’s not an educator, has no teaching experience, and clearly does not understand the importance of curricular cohesion, and he does not seem to have consulted educators on the effect such options might have on student learning. According to the UC Academic Senate, “We were not consulted in the writing of this legislation, which purports to address course access problems experienced by students in public higher education.”

But it’s important to have faculty involvement- in fact, most regional accreditation boards require that colleges and universities they approve for operation be run under a system of faculty governance, especially when it comes to curriculum. That’s because a degree is not merely a collection of discrete course experiences. It is supposed to represent a unified body of learning that has been created with attention to how each course builds upon a specific discipline or field of expertise, and certifies that the graduate has met the requirements of that field. If the college or university awarding that degree cannot certify that the student has, in fact, succeeded in that task, the degree becomes worthless. This affects not only the future fortunes of the student, but the reputation of the school.

What should students do?

At the moment, the bill is under consideration and has not yet been voted on, so students do not currently have to decide whether or not to go ahead and enroll in a MOOC or other free online course because they cannot, at this time, transfer the credits. But it is time to ask whether or not you want your degree to reflect something meaningful and that you have taken courses that have been evaluated for quality. For some students, merely having the degree is the key to entering the workforce and moving on with their lives. For others, the quality of their programs is just as important. That is up to each student individually. What is very clear is that Senate Bill 520 will not solve the dilemma faced by California’s once highly-praised public education system, as it tries to maintain its commitment to low-cost, high-quality public education.

Follow Dr. Rooney on Twitter and Google+ for more higher education news.

The Features of Synchronous Online Learning

In its most basic definition, synchronous courses are those in which you log on and participate at a specific time along with all the other students in the course. In other words, synchronous learning takes place in “real time” as you videoconference, chat, or participate in online activities as the same time as the professor and other students. In this format, educator Tom Worthington states, “the on-line event emulates a traditional classroom, where the teacher and students are at one location, able to speak to each other and share learning materials.”

Students who appreciate the interaction of the traditional classroom may prefer this approach, for a variety of reasons. For example, in a study by Heather Zink of Rasmussen College, students reported that they liked synchronous courses because they ”keep you more connected to the class and other students than the discussion posts” and that live interaction with the professor helped them get answers to their questions effectively. One student said, “I really liked that because when I didn’t understand how to do something, it was like you had the teacher in class.”

You should consider enrolling in synchronous courses if you:

• Work better on a regular, pre-determined schedule. For example, you might be able to manage an already-established babysitting or work schedule if you know exactly when and where you are required to log on and participate in your courses every week.
• Enjoy and learn from direct interactions with other students. Though there is disagreement over whether or not there are “learning styles,” many students are extroverted and can benefit from what some call “social learning.” Supporters of this format argue that “the interconnected, interactive nature of social learning exponentially amplifies the rate at which critical content can be shared and questions can be answered.”
• Prefer to get answers to your questions quickly. For some students, it’s important to follow a train of thought or idea through to the end in order to fully understand it. For these students, concentration and/or comprehension can be affected if questions are left unanswered for too long. If you are one of these students, it’s important to get answers to questions right away to facilitate your learning.

The Features of Asynchronous Online Learning

Deb Peterson provides a good definition of asynchronous learning on About.com:

“Asynchronous learning is considered more flexible than synchronous learning. The teaching takes place at one time and is preserved for the learner to participate whenever the time is most convenient for him or her. Technology such as email, e-courses, online forums, audio and video recordings make this possible. Even snail mail would be considered asynchronous.”

In other words, the professor or instructor establishes the course framework and students interact with the material, other students, and the instructor on their own time. For example, the professor will ask a discussion question, and students respond to the question and to the answers provided by their colleagues in the course not in actual time but in what some have called “delayed time.” It is common to watch pre-recorded lectures in this format, for example.

Many students prefer asynchronous learning because it optimizes the flexibility of Internet technologies and allows them to complete their academic goals in a less structured way.

You should consider enrolling in asynchronous courses if you:

• Have an erratic work and personal schedule or variable demands on your time. Let’s say that you are waiting tables to put yourself through school. Generally, you only find out your shift schedule a week at a time. This would make it difficult to participate in a course with set meeting times, but an asynchronous course will allow you to participate in your course on a variable schedule.
• Are able to work independently and possess personal discipline. For students who are easily distracted or enjoy the freedom to control their own schedule, asynchronous courses can facilitate their learning because it is more self-directed. If you can build disciplined habits, this choice might be right for you.
• Are goal oriented or internally-motivated. Students in asynchronous courses may not have much direct real-time interaction with other students, so if you are able to focus on your goals and do not require regular encouragement or support, you might do well in an asynchronous course.

Almost every student can find an online format that works for them, and some courses are even offered as hybrid or blended courses in which instruction can take place both synchronously and asynchronously. Regardless of which you choose, remember that online learning always takes commitment, just like traditional face-to-face learning.  You may also want to experiment and take all of these options, to see what works best for you. Go for it!

Follow Dr. Rooney on Twitter and Google+ for more higher education news.

Check out some of these financial opportunities if you want to contribute to the growing field of education technology:

1. The Google Anita Borg Memorial Scholarship is named for the founder of the Institute for Women and Technology and aims to “encourage women to excel in computing and technology and become active role models and leaders in the field.”
2. The International Technology and Engineering Education Association (ITEEA) offers a number of scholarships for both education students and practicing teachers interested in expanding the use of technology in education. For example, the Foundation for Technology and Engineering Educators offers a scholarship to “an undergraduate student majoring in technology and engineering education teacher preparation.”
3. The Texas Computer Education Association (TCEA) offers three different kinds of scholarships every year, for Graduate Students Studying Educational Technology, Undergraduates Studying Education, and Professional Educators Seeking Continuing Education. The scholarships “encourage and enhance the learning of technology skills for practicing and pre-service educators.”
4. Robert Half Technology, the professional staffing service that Fortune magazine has included on its list of the “World’s Most Admired Companies,” partners with the Association of Information Technology Professionals (AITP) to offer two scholarships every year to students interested in information technology. Applicants must be members of AITP to be eligible.
5. The Bluewolf Technology Scholarship is sponsored by the technology staffing service Bluewolf for high school student in New York, and “is open to seniors who have shown achievement in the fields of computer science and technology and who demonstrate financial need.”
6. The Vanguard Women in Information Technology Scholarship Program is one of the heftier scholarships, offering up to $10,000 to female college juniors or seniors who want to become computer scientists, computer engineers, web designers, or work in other areas of IT.
7. The Technology Student Association (TSA)’s motto is “Learning To Live In A Technical World” and to that end it offers a Teach Technology Scholarship “to support the technology education profession by encouraging TSA students to pursue careers as K-12 technology teachers.” At $500, it’s one of the smaller scholarships available, but don’t discount it-there’s a short application, and $500 can buy a number of important textbooks!
8. Microsoft offers four different kinds of undergraduate scholarships: General Scholarships, Women’s Scholarships, Minority Scholarships, and Scholarships for Students with Disabilities. According to the website, a Microsoft scholarship “provides a leg up so you can pursue undergraduate studies in computer science and related technical disciplines. You’ll join a community of scholarship recipients from the United States, Canada and Mexico who share your passion for technology and academic excellence. It all adds up to achieving your primary goal-making a real difference in the software industry.”
9. The National Center for Women and Information Technology (NCWIT) recently partnered with computer security company Symantec to award $9,000 “in seed funds to student-run programs that aim to increase the numbers of women studying computer science and related technology disciplines.”
10. Individual Colleges and Universities often provide funding for educational technology majors in their own programs. For example, both Indiana University of Pennsylvania and Northern Illinois University include grants and scholarships in these fields as part of their financial aid programs. Check with your college to see what it has to offer.

This is just a sample of the many opportunities available. Bear in mind that some of the organizations that offer scholarships require students to join in order to be eligible for the funding, or even to apply for the funding. Contact your high school guidance department or your college’s financial aid office for help identifying more funding sources and crafting the most persuasive and accurate applications.

Follow Dr. Rooney on Twitter and Google+ for more higher education news.