Diana Bang's ETEC 531 e-portfolio

As this week’s readings and interactivities boldly remind us, educational institutions at their very core are business industries and the growth of e-learning has led to the rise of their e-commerce (Diotalevi, 2003; Noble, 1998; Petrina, 2005; Winner, 1998). Langdon Winner’s (1998) satirical take on the “Automatic Professor Machine” cites some of the forces shaping education include: commodification, globalization, privatization and digital transformation. Although, Winner’s “Automatic Professor Machine” sounds far-fetched, some of his points appear to be valid. For example, in terms of students’ needs for education to be flexible, user-friendly, and accessible on demand. However, his simplistic and artificial definition of education to be “the transfer of knowledge from point a to point b through the most efficient, low cost link possible” leads me to wonder whether the increasing trend towards automation through e-learning initiatives by educational institutions will ultimately be dictated by their bottom dollar (revenue) or a higher cause (i.e. goals to improve learning and to provide fair, equitable, universal access to all)? Is Noble (1998) correct in his stance that this is an epic, ongoing battle between students and professors on one side and university administrations and companies with “educational products” to sell on the other?

Additionally, is the continued rise of virtual universities just a matter of time- isn’t it already happening now? However, will it ever get to the point where virtually no f2f contact is necessary? Take for instance this quote by Cunningham, Tapsall, Ryan et al. (1998): “Picture a future in which students never meet a lecturer face to face in a class room, never physically visit the on-campus library; in fact, never set foot on the campus or into an institutional lecture-room or learning center. Such is the future proposed by the virtual university scenario” (as cited in Dutton & Loader, 2002).

As well, the increasing commercialization of e-learning leads us to question who has the authority to their ownership? As Petrina (2005) illustrates with his example of UBC’s MET program development, the university assumed that faculty members would surrender their academic freedom, and intellectual property rights as the university would ultimately be the sole owner and retain the copyright to all MET program materials. It’s no wonder that automation has affected not only course materials but also the number of adjunct teaching staff vs. faculty that teach the courses. Is this the way of the future as we know it? Are Cunningham, Tapsall, Ryan et al. (1998) merely predicting what’s in store for the evolution and automation of education?

References

Diotalevi, R. N. (2003). An education in copyright law: A primer for cyberspace. Library Philosophy and Practice, 6(1), 1-21.

Dutton, W. H., & Loader, B. D. (Eds.). (2002). Digital academe: The new media and institutions of higher education and learning. London: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. Retrieved from http://gen.lib.rus.ec/get?nametype=orig&md5=1c6042526c2d99752d58066aca8a0731

Noble, D. F. (1998). Digital diploma mills: The automation of higher education. First Monday, 3(1-5). Retrieved from http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/569/490

Petrina, S. (2005). How (and why) digital diploma mills (don’t) work: Academic freedom, intellectual property rights, automation and UBC’s Master of Educational Technology program. Workplace: A Journal for Academic Labor, 7(1), 38-59.

Winner, L. (1998). The automatic professor machine. Retrieved from http://guinevere.icme.rpi.edu/wvx/lcw/apm.wvx