Humanities, Online Instruction, and Disappointment

The Council of Independent Colleges (CIC) recently published an Evaluation Report for First Course Iteration that documents the interim results of a study designed to address three goals, including building capacity for online humanities instruction, using online instruction to improve student learning outcomes, and determining whether institutions can more effective use resources and reduce costs through online humanities instruction. This initiative is certainly well intentioned.  There is no doubt that the humanities (and the liberal arts generally) need an overhaul in American higher education.  The infusion of online and virtual resources is central to this revitalization.  However, the takeaways in the Evaluation report highlight an overall lack of awareness among the participating institutions that characterizes the current state of humanities instruction.

As someone who has been steeped in the humanities for decades, I find it the report disheartening. There is one fundamental flaw that dooms the report to redundancy and impotence, namely that it perpetuates the faux distinction between classroom-based (i.e., physical) instruction and online.  Higher education has generally lagged behind the rest of society in integrating virtual resources.  However, the humanities, as evidenced in this report, are sluggish to the point of obstinacy.  The efficacy of infusing education with virtual resources has been borne out for over a decade. The literature is rife with examples.   Other service industries have readily recognized and adopted the advantages provided by infusing technology into their basic DNA.  Yet, inexplicably, higher education remains largely unconvinced and resolute in its resistance.

My use of the term “infusing” here is intentional. Higher education sees online instruction as an “add on.”  It is viewed something extra that can “enhance” traditional instruction. This runs counter to the seamless experience that now characterizes the retail and banking industries, as two examples. These latter two cases in point embody the spirit of “people when you want them, technology when you don’t.” Knowledge is now generally accessible to learners through a variety of channels.  The physical classroom and the virtual classroom are only two. If we cannot make these channels accessible and relevant, both the channels and those who populate them (read: faculty) will become irrelevant to the process of acquiring knowledge. In short, there is no distinction between face-to-face and online education. There is only EDUCATION.  Missing this basic point undercuts the report.

In my next post I'll deal with some of the specific "findings" of the report.