PLEASURE AND DANGER IN ONLINE TEACHING AND LEARNING

Academe, Nov/Dec 2006 by Chisholm, Julie K

Trends in teaching technology are dividing tenured and untenured faculty and threatening academic freedom.

These days, most newly hired faculty are, like me, appointed on a part- or full-time non-tenure-track basis. The AAUP has reported that between 1975 and 2003, full-time tenure-track positions increased by only about 16 percent, while full-time non-tenure-track positions grew by 178 percent, and part-time appointment rose by 189 percent.1 In 2003, the National Center for Education Statistics reported that 44 percent of faculty at all institutional types worked part time.

This new contingent workforce raises serious issues of labor politics on campus. Yet tenure eligibility is not necessarily the most important aspect of the generation gap separating newly hired non-tenure-track faculty and the tenured professors with whom we teach. Our association with pedagogical technology, especially online instruction, divides us to an even greater degree. Contingent faculty and teaching assistants are far more likely to be involved in aggressive distance education initiatives that limit faculty agency and operate on a market model. Even though tenured faculty may participate less often in these initiatives, the way many colleges and universities are introducing new educational technologies threatens the control of all faculty members over their pedagogy. It's thus time to bridge the technology gap and work together to take charge of online educational technologies at our institutions.

Generation Gap

I came to technology and pedagogy at an interesting moment: when computers in classrooms were widespread but course-management systems such as WebCT and Blackboard hadn't yet gotten a foothold. It was a fertile, if short-lived, period. From 2002 to 2004, as a postdoctoral fellow in computers and writing at a large public research university, I trained teaching assistants in WebCT and coaxed faculty into teaching in our writing center's state-of-the-art computer classrooms.

I noticed that my colleagues' attitudes toward technology depended on where they were in the age-career spectrum. Tenured faculty (generally those over forty) seemed genuinely interested in technology, but they also depended heavily (dare I say too heavily?) on my help. Few wanted to teach exclusively online; most aimed to use computers in their classrooms and make course Web projects. Every semester, one or two taught courses such as "The Real Middle Ages" or "Human Resource Management" in our lab classrooms, which was terrific.

When I left my position, however, few of my faculty "partners" continued their course projects. They just didn't have much incentive. They had established themselves as experts in their fields (English, history, and even hotel and restaurant management) long ago and were at the top of the academic food chain; they had the luxury of time but didn't want to reinvent their careers or put in the long hours that teaching with technology requires.

Interestingly enough, I didn't work with one faculty member on the tenure track during my postdoctoral fellowship. Although my tenure-track colleagues (who were mostly in their late thirties) often had the most innovative ideas about teaching in a computer classroom, they couldn't seem to commit to long-term projects. It's simple to see why. As Neal Strudler, associate professor of educational computing and technology at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, points out in a 2003 issue of the Journal of Research on Technology in Education, "Designing and implementing technology-based learning activities in school can be likened to learning to fly an airplane while it's being built." When so much time and energy are spent hanging onto the controls, you can easily forget your destination.

Moreover, developing courses for computer classrooms can put other aspects of a faculty job (a book on sexual politics in Emily Dickinson's poetry, for example) on hold, a dangerous risk for those trying to get retained or promoted. A survey by Stanford University education professor Larry Cuban and graduate students Heather Kirkpatrick and Craig Peck published in 2001 in the American Educational Research Journal reported that teachers just don't have the time to research and evaluate software and do their jobs at the same time. As a result, we've witnessed the advent of the "instructional designer," a person who consults with and trains faculty. But often, the products the instructional designers recommend aren't appropriate, or the training takes place on the wrong day or during the wrong part of the semester. Cuban's survey findings imply that even focused technology training often leaves a bad taste in teachers' mouths.

At my previous institution, even faculty who had been hired with technology experience hesitated to become too involved with technology in the classroom because our university offered no formal reward (credit toward tenure or promotion) for pedagogical forays into the wired classroom. Ultimately, for those on the tenure track, being innovative with technology can be complex, time-consuming, and thankless. For many, it's simply not worth the risk.