24/7/365: IMPLICATIONS OF ANYTIME, ANYWHERE
Joyce D. Meyer
Parkland College, Champaign, USA, <jdmeyer@ix.netcom.com>
Internet courses are no longer rare or even unusual -- indeed, at some institutions, they're quite common. Thus, we're at a unique developmental crossroad. As such, we have a special opportunity and responsibility to evaluate the usage of online courses. The innovative and beneficial quality of such courses are becoming well known, and benefits of "anytime, anywhere" access are obvious, many, and surely still being discovered. Quality, however, is a word not to be taken lightly, and therefore it's useful to step back and take stock of what we've done. How are we doing? For better or for worse, what transformation of expectations has occurred? What should it mean to have continuous access to a course? What commitment demand must be anticipated by individual instructors and the institution in general, and what, if any are reasonable limitations? While not an attempt to put the genie back in the bottle, this presentation proposes guidelines for setting better parameters in online courses and recommends considerations for instructors and administrators who want to better understand and harness the online course experience.
The phrase "anwhere, anytime" has certainly proliferated, and a cursory search reveals several recent articles with that theme (e.g.,Mickey, 2001; Porter, 2000; Vowler, 2000; Woonough, 2001). In fact, I found I was echoing Porter, who, though discussing the internet in general, began, not surprisingly, to make his points with a similar comment:
| No longer is it a novel use of technology to infuse curriculum with technology and the World Wide Web. Today's schools use computers in teaching, record-keeping and as a key component of administrative management. Each year our schools discover new ways to use computing tools. However, the rapid rate of equipment purchase, technology integration, staff training and deployment creates problems that are overwhelming.... (Porter, 2000) |
Porter goes on to say that there is help on the way due to a new software development, and beyond that his focus is quite different than mine. I would like to return to the latter portion of his comment above, however, and take even that in another direction.
We find his points do apply to courses specifically taught on the internet. Indeed, because online courses have themselves become quite common at some institutions, we are at the proverbial "fork in the road" and we must take the time to evaluate the some less-examined aspects of online course usage. The innovative and beneficial quality of internet courses are at least fairly well known, but the advantages of "anytime, anywhere" access should be balanced against the disadvantages, and those of us who are champions of the medium need no longer politically hold back our critiques for fear of discouraging others from exploring it. It is here, we've gotten used to it, and this is the time for honest appraisal.
The overwhelming nature of the process to which Porter alludes is a recurring theme. Brown (1999) references the ideas of Halal as follows: "The time-saving aspects of new technologies not only free employees for more sophisticated tasks, but also place increased pressure on them to develop new skills that will enable them to participate in the knowledge revolution that reflects the changing nature of the workplace." I find myself reflecting (when I have the time to do so!) on how this affects the self-esteem of all involved, the general quality of the work environment, and even institutional memory. Now that we are in the midst of the Post-industrial Revolution, it is useful to remember, as we all well know from studying the Industrial Revolution, the last major social shift of this kind, that this extremely rapid pace of social change we are experiencing can lead to severe alienation and some resultant and very troubling social ills. Thus, this has extraordinarily serious implications. Bursky (2000), coming from a more technical orientation, notes, "I sometimes wonder if, in some cases, we are overdosing on information to the point that productivity will start to decrease. How much can we absorb before we're overloaded?" If even the tech people are saying this, what must the layperson be experiencing?
While I myself vastly benefit from the online experience, the singular pace that is embodied by the internet concerns me. We must find some way to rein this in.
QUALITY
Quality should not be taken lightly. Certainly some quality issues, mostly related to content (at least on the surface level, have been explored. Indeed, because of online courses' unique features and permanence-yet-impermanence (course content is mainly in writing and can mostly be printed out, but the same URL can become different content or disappear altogether), internet courses can and do seem to be examined and evaluated in unprecedented ways and, out of that fearful place that only administrators know, much more frequently than ever occurs for face-to-face courses. What, in my view, we _don't_ need to worry about as much is the quality of the course, i.e., that it need be thought of as any less of a course in terms of its content, level of interactivity, overall instruction, etc. -- only the elitists are still holding onto that one. (Of course, as with face-to-face courses, there are better and worse methods being used, but that is a different issue.) What I _am_ here specifically including is the issue of quality in terms of the quality of life for those of us who live and work a significant amount of time in cyberspace.
As one user who found herself a course dropout rued,
| How could this have happened to me? I wish I could point to the class and blame it for turning me off. I can't. The things that made me a dropout are the same things that make the Web so compelling. The beauty of 'anywhere, anytime, whenever you want,' too readily turns into not now, maybe later, and often not at all. Lacking a dynamic instructor, powerful incentives, links to the job and fixed schedules, Web learning is at a dramatic disadvantage in capturing and holding attention. In my pajamas, near computer, phone, refrigerator, cats, and pals, it was just too easy to do everything except my Web class. (Rossett, 2000) |
Rossett's comments indicate that to a great extent, the core issue is still that of the quality of the instructor/instruction. The trouble is, we're still figuring out what that means for an online course. Anecdotally, what we may be finding is that though it is still possible to infuse an online course with components of the particular instructor's personality, good techniques of engagement, and so forth, when combined with content, efforts at such preparation and execution may be much more time consuming in the online setting than in the way it perhaps more naturally occurs in the face-to-face setting. I would also argue that a factor contributing to this is the more continuous, boundaryless nature of the internet course. Because an internet class is not timebound in the way face-to-face classes are, it is being held all the time during the given semester (if kept within a given semester). Class never really ends, and that adds up.
ACCESS & SUPPORT
It is time to step back and take stock of what we've done. We must examine more closely the infrastructural needs and institutional support available for online courses and the expanding expectations of instructors who teach over the internet. There has been a transformation of expectations, and we must explore this in general as well as, in particular, what it means to have continuous access to a course, what differences in commitment that may entail on the part of students, the instructor, the support staff, and the administration.
What should it mean to have continuous access to the course? Does that mean continuous access to the instructor? What is the comparable worth of the extra work that may be involved in teaching online courses, and how can this be quantified? What commitment demand must be anticipated by individual instructors and the institution in general? What are reasonable limitations? Is it desirable -- or even possible -- to re-set some of the boundaries? When might it be appropriate to "close" the course? For example, do internet courses have the same holidays and breaks? Should they, or is a part of the advantage that they need not? Furthermore, once identified, can problems in the process of happening still be remedied?
While I don't presume to have all the answers to these questions, I do want to see them put "on the table" in a way I haven't seen before. I will suggest some guidelines below, but these questions are obviously not easily answered. The main assertions I would make in response to these questions at this point would be as follows:
- Continuous access to the course should not always mean continuous access to the instructor, though that may sometimes be necessary in ways it is not expected for face-to-face courses. Expanded outreach is perhaps a key component of online courses and should be.
- This does mean extra work for the instructor, and we must find new ways to quantify this.
- The additional labor intensity involved in an internet course should be made explicitly clear to both instructors and students who attempt to become involved in the online environment, and all parties should be helped to examine realistically their true willingness and ability to be so involved in such an enterprise.
- Some of the boundaries probably can and should be re-set, and there is some ability for the instructor to control this at the individual level.
- While evening and weekend times are commonly used for internet courses, this should be revisited. Expectations for what will occur during what is traditionally "off" time should be clarified and boundaries placed where necessary on a course-by-course basis.
- Internet courses should keep the same break and holiday schedule as the rest of the institution, though there may as usual be additional opportunities for students to catch up during these times. It may, however, be possible and sometimes appropriate for students to _submit_ work during these periods due to newer electronic functions that did not previously exist (electronic mail, electronic bulletin boards). Still, an instructor should not be expected to receive or acknowledge work or otherwise have the same level of interactivity as when school is in session. Again, these boundaries are important to have and to clarify.
- What about technical support during any of these traditional downtimes? I can't definitively answer this, but there is obviously an increased expectation that, like television, these functions (various servers, email, etc.) will work whenever we turn them on, surf to them, or what have you.
- At the risk of stating the obvious, problems in the process of happening and/or otherwise unforeseen should be handled as well as possible for all involved. In turn, that will take -- on the part of the student, the instructor, the support staff, the administrator -- all those affected -- additional patience, sincere understanding, innovative and creative compromise, and an overall compassion for one another's humanity as we all make our way in what is still a brave, new world. Rigidity has no place here as well all try to do the best we can, though we must also, as always, maintain educational standards and further guard against being "conned" in situations where someone is truly trying to avoid placing responsibility where it belongs.
Perhaps needless to say, there are other issues of access, namely those for people with disabilities. Whose responsibility is it to code documents such that it can be read by a reading instrument for students or instructors with visual impairments? Who runs each page through Bobby? Is that the instructor's ultimate responsibility, or the institution's?
There are also issues of the digital divide and beyond To what equipment must the instructor have access? When? At all times? Where? For home use? Is that to be provided by the institution or personally available through the means of the instructor? How technically proficient must the instructor be? Similar questions must be asked regarding the student, and that's arguably even more important when it comes to course satisfaction -- and student retention altogether.
What if the instructor is not technically proficient or simply already has a full load and desires not to teach internet classes? Will that person be compelled to teach online? If not, are those who are primarily online students not denied access to certain instructors and their particular materials? If there is a compelling reason for those students to have that instructor's content, is there not a way to facilitate this? How is that going to be done, and who's going to do it? Further, who is going to be responsible for copyright and other intellectual property concerns?
SPECIAL ISSUES
Beyond the concerns above, I would like to include here briefly some of the more specialized issues. Each topic has its own body of literature, but all are intrinsically related to what I have tried to address and are areas which beg further exploration in light of the proliferation of internet courses.
Addiction
It is striking that a recent study showed "[t]he greatest incidence of Internet addiction... occurred among middle-aged women and currently unemployed men and women" (Fisher, 1999). How like the profile of the "typical" returning student at the community college is this! We must be even more on guard for this in the particular population with which most of us are involved. Assuming we have methods in place at our given institutions for dealing with other addictions, we can begin to adapt those procedures for intervening as appropriate in cases of student internet addiction.
Burnout
This lies, of course, at virtually the other end of the spectrum from addiction and is even more profoundly related to some of the concerns already addressed earlier. Prevention, which is possible, is the key. One way to do this is to have interested parties involved in planning process at every step along the way. This encourages people to be stakeholders in the process as they have some ownership as well. Ongoing communication is also essential. Thus, none of us is simply met with (to us) meaningless mandates and the resultant inevitable frustrations (Herring, 2000; Johnson, 2000; Tunick, 2000).
Bottom line: Beware of an environment consisting of the efficacy-impaired and the foresight-lacking leaders who cause them.
Time Management
How's this for a cautionary tale? "Archer was vacationing in Mexico when he just happened upon a local cybercafe. 'I wanted to pop into the cafe for a quick second, but I stayed for 45 minutes answering work-related e-mail'..." (Zbar, 2001).
Is this is a good thing? No, it clearly is not -- yet it has begun not to feel as acceptable to stay away from work when it is so "easy" to gain access, when one doesn't have to do much to get there. Heavily related to the issue of burnout above, I can easily make the commonly known case for taking breaks and leaving work. Not only is this part of a healthier lifestyle, but, as if that's not enough, it also creates a more satisfying, more productive, and more efficient work situation.
Indeed, though, what should students be able to expect, or even demand, from instructors in terms of responsiveness? The most reasonable guideline I've heard is that students should be able to expect a response within 48 hours (Estabrook, Estabrook, and Ramage, 1999). The main thing is to be clear about what you can handle. Be careful -- realize institutional policies that govern such matters may already be in place. Be honest with yourself about whether you can meet the requirements, and consider working to change these policies if they are outdated, naïve, or otherwise impractical.
Beyond this, Gunn (2000) has some especially enlightening observations:
| It isn't that these tasks are not real. They are. But by themselves they have no power to harry us. It is only when we give them power by focusing on them that we feel stressed out. For example, suppose your boss asks you to ferret out the answer to a vital question. Quickly, you respond that you will have it done by tomorrow morning, forgetting, in your eagerness, a report that is also due, your kid's soccer game, and a scheduled afternoon meeting. In a heartbeat, keenness turns to discouragement. This is a moment of truth. We face a choice--to stay with the feelings of eagerness about exploring an interesting issue or to dwell on dispiriting thoughts of the commitments that stand in the way. Most of us give in to negative, busy-minded thoughts. Our minds get caught up in finding excuses for being unable to get everything done, in apologizing for being too busy to devote quality time to an issue, or in fretting over how many tasks must be accomplished in so little time. In short, we pay too much attention to our heads and too little to our hearts. Once we start thinking analytically, we begin looking for what is wrong with the picture instead of waiting to be touched by what feels right. (Gunn, 2000) |
SUGGESTED GUIDELINES
Though I've already proposed some initiatives above, I'd like to propose formally some more specific guidelines for setting better parameters in online courses. Along with the bulleted comments in the section on access and support, the following can serve as recommendations for the consideration of instructors and administrators who want to better understand and harness the online course experience.
A key issue, in my view, is the need for better screening for the student's readiness to take an online course. This screening should absolutely contain elements that as accurately as possible assess all of the student's existing skills, familiarity, and comfort with computers. This has a strong relationship to student success and, not surprisingly, the corresponding relationship to student retention, a concern for many at the community college level.
As a side note here, however, I should add that Brown includes a warning for those of us (whether instructors or students) who assume that technical expertise will guarantee anyone anything. She includes a reference to a 1997 piece by Boutwell, who "is pessimistic about the employment potential of those engaged in high-tech training. He contends that 'the need for a greater supply of high quality workers is a myth perpetuated by the vested interests of business' (p. 110)" (Brown, 1999).
Be that as it may, then, here are the most essential points:
- Planning: Involve all pertinent players in the online scene -- and assume all are pertinent players. The process doesn't have to be unwieldy, but too much input is still better too little in terms of the investment in the human element.
- Guiding: Decrease frustration for students and faculty alike by having
- screening &
- placement
based on existing computer skills. (This is not unlike assessments done for reading & math skills. The ability to use the computer should by now be considered one of the basic skills necessary as prerequisites for further learning (on the internet, at least).
- Committing: Think idealistically but commit realistically. Let students and others know honestly when you can be reached and how soon they can expect a response. A good guideline is 48 hours as an outside limit (Estabrook, Estabrook, and Ramage, 1999). Decide the reasonable limits for yourself here, be sure you're aware of any pre-existing policy on the matter, and remember ultimately it's no one else's job but yours to take care of yourself.
- Informing: Provide information on how often you check email, work on the course bulletin board, and so forth (Foust, 2001).
- Orienting: Consider mandating, when possible, at least one more traditional (in person or by phone) form of appointment or orientation session for online students. Among other things, this will help you make sure the assessment tool used to screen people for computer skills was relatively accurate.
- Scheduling: Lean toward making scheduled appointments and away from encouraging drop-in expectations online or in person.
- Resting: Get away from it all for sustained periods of time. Have at least one full day a week when you're not on the computer at al
REFERENCES
Brown, B. L. (1999). Knowledge workers. ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult, Career, and Vocational Education. Trends and Issues Alert No. 4. ERIC Issue 9/99, 1-4. Retrieved February 26, 2001, from ERIC (ED 429210) on the World Wide Web: http://www.edrs.com Also available http://www.ericacve.org/tia.asp
Bursky, D. (2000, November 20). Internet addiction? Or is drinking from a fire hose safe? Electronic Design, 48 (24), 54. Retrieved March 21, 2001, from ProQuest on the World Wide Web:
http://proquest.umi.com
Estabrook, B., Estabrook, D., and Ramage, T. (1999, October 22). Web-based team teaching at multiple institutions. Presentation at the Conference on Information Technology, Chicago, IL.
Fisher, A. (1999, December). 'It's an addiction!' Popular Science, 255 (6), 45. Retrieved March 21, 2001, from ProQuest on the World Wide Web: http://proquest.umi.com
Foust, J. (2001, March 19). Professor of Psychology, Parkland College, Champaign, IL. Personal communication.
Gunn, B. (2000, October). Busy as a bee. Strategic Finance Magazine, 82 (4), 14-16. Retrieved February 26, 2001, from OCLC FirstSearch (WilsonSelectPlus, BBPI00082667) on the World Wide Web: http://newfirstsearch.oclc.org
Herring, E. (2000, September 18). How to swim with the sharks--and come out ahead. InfoWorld, CTO FirstMover Supplement, S49+. Retrieved March 21, 2001, from ProQuest on the World Wide Web: http://proquest.umi.com
Johnson, K. (2000, October 5). 'Internet time' is no mitigation for doing a poor job. Marketing, 33+. Retrieved March 21, 2001, from ProQuest on the World Wide Web: http://proquest.umi.com
Mickey, B. (2001, February). Content anywhere, anytime. EContent, 24 (1), 20+. Retrieved February 26, 2001, from Gale Group Database (Expanded Academic ASAP, Article A69551608) on the World Wide Web: http://web6.infotrac.galegroup.com
Porter, G. (2000, September/October). Anyone, anytime, anywhere learning. Leadership, 30 (1), 32-33. Retrieved February 26, 2001, from OCLC FirstSearch (WilsonSelectPlus, BEDI00025685) on the World Wide Web: http://newfirstsearch.oclc.org
Rossett, A. (2000, August). Confessions of an e-dropout. Training (Minneapolis, MN), 37 (8), 100, 99. Retrieved February 26, 2001, from OCLC FirstSearch (WilsonSelectPlus, BBPI00069949) on the World Wide Web: http://newfirstsearch.oclc.org
Tunick, J. (2000, December). Preventing burnout. Civil Engineering, 70 (12), 66-67. Retrieved March 21, 2001, from ProQuest on the World Wide Web: http://proquest.umi.com
Vowler, J. 2000, November 30). Now it's anytime, anyplace, anywhere. Computer Weekly, 11/30/00, 117+. Retrieved February 26, 2001, from Gale Group Database (Expanded Academic ASAP, Article A67641967) on the World Wide Web: http://web6.infotrac.galegroup.com
Woonough, R. (2001, January 11). Any service anytime, anywhere. Computer Weekly, 1/11/01, 68+. Retrieved February 26, 2001, from Gale Group Database (Expanded Academic ASAP, Article A69294608) on the World Wide Web: http://web6.infotrac.galegroup.com
Zbar, J. D. (2001, January). Dare to disconnect. Home Office Computing, 19 (1), 92+. Retrieved February 26, 2001, from ProQuest on the World Wide Web: http://proquest.umi.com
TCC Online Conferences
Kapi`olani Community College
University of Hawai`i
Honolulu, HI