James Barszcz After Earning His Doctoral Degree In English

James Barszczafter Earning His Doctoral Degree In English At Rutgers U

James Barszcz after earning his doctoral degree in English at Rutgers University, James Barszcz, (1955- ) taught college for several years. He is now employed at a major telecommunications company and pursues writing and independent scholarship in his spare time. In addition to issues related to technology and the classroom, his research interests include nineteenth-century American literature, especially Hawthorne, Melville, and Emerson.

Can You Be Educated From a Distance?

By almost any measure, there is a boom in Internet-based instruction. In just a few years, thirty-four percent of American colleges and universities have begun offering some form of what’s called “distance learning” (DL), and among the larger schools, it’s closer to ninety percent.

If you doubt the popularity of the trend, you probably haven’t heard of the University of Phoenix. It grants degrees entirely on the basis of online instruction. It enrolls 90,000 students, a statistic used to support its claim to be the largest private university in the country.

While the kinds of instruction offered in these programs will differ, DL usually signifies a course in which the instructors post syllabi, reading assignments, and schedules on websites, and students send in their written assignments by e-mail. Other forms of communication often come into play, such as threaded messaging, which allows for posting questions and comments that are publicly viewable, as a bulletin board would, as well as chat rooms for real-time interchanges.

Generally speaking, face-to-face communication with an instructor is minimized or eliminated altogether.

The attraction for students might at first seem obvious. Primarily, there’s the convenience promised by courses on the Net: you can do the work, as they say, in your pajamas. But figures indicate that the reduced effort results in a reduced commitment to the course. While the attrition rate for all freshmen at American universities is around twenty percent, the rate for online students is thirty-five percent. Students themselves seem to understand the weaknesses inherent in the setup.

In a survey conducted for eCornell, the DL division of Cornell University, less than a third of the respondents expected the quality of the online course to be as good as the classroom course.

Clearly, from the schools’ perspective, there’s a lot of money to be saved. Although some of the more ambitious programs require new investments in servers and networks to support collaborative software, most DL courses can run on existing or minimally upgraded systems. The more students who enroll in a course but don’t come to campus, the more the school saves on keeping the lights on in the classrooms, paying custodians, and maintaining parking lots. And, while there’s evidence that instructors must work harder to run a DL course for a variety of reasons, they won’t be paid any more, and might well be paid less.

But as a rule, those who champion distance learning don’t base their arguments on convenience or cost savings.

More often, they claim DL signals an advance in the effectiveness of education. Consider the vigorous case made by Fairleigh Dickinson University (FDU), in Madison, New Jersey, where students—regardless of their expectations or desires—are now required to take one DL course per year. By setting this requirement, FDU claims that it recognizes the Internet as “a premier learning tool” of the current technological age. Skill in using online resources “prepares our students, more than others, for life-long learning—for their jobs, their careers, and their personal growth.” Moreover, Internet-based courses will connect FDU students to a “global virtual faculty,” a group of “world-class scholars, experts, artists, politicians, and business leaders around the world.”

Sounds pretty good.

But do the claims make much sense? First, it should be noted that students today and in the future might well use the Internet with at least as much facility as the faculty. It’s not at all clear that they need to be taught such skills. More to the point, how much time and effort do you suppose “world-class scholars” (much less politicians and business leaders) will expend for the benefit of students they never meet or even see? Probably a lot less than they’re devoting to the books, journal articles, and position papers that are already available to anyone with access to a library.

Another justification comes from those who see distance learning as the next step in society’s progress toward meritocracy. A recent article in Forbes magazine cites Professor Roger Schank of Northwestern University, who predicts that soon “students will be able to shop around, taking a course from any institution that offers a good one. . . . Quality education will be available to all. Students will learn what they want to learn rather than what some faculty committee decided was the best practical compromise.” In sum, says Professor Schank, who is also chairman of a distance learning enterprise called CognitiveArts, “Education will be measured by what you know rather than by whose name appears on your diploma.” Statements like these assume education consists in acquiring information (“what you know”). Accept that and it’s hard to disagree with the conclusions.

After all, what does it matter how, or through what medium, you get the information? But few truly educated people hold such a mechanistic view. Indeed, traditionally, education was aimed at cultivating intellectual and moral values, and the “information” you picked up was decidedly secondary. It was commonplace for those giving commencement speeches to note that, based on etymology, education is a drawing out, not a putting in. That is, a true education educes, or draws out, from within a person qualities of intellect and character that would otherwise have remained hidden or dormant.

Exactly how this kind of educing happens is hard to pin down. Only in part does it come from watching professors in the classroom present material and respond to student questions, the elements of education that can be translated to the Net with reasonable fidelity. Other educational experiences include things like watching how professors joke with each other (or not!) in the hallways, seeing what kinds of pictures are framed in a professor’s office, or going out for coffee after class with people in your dorm. Such experiences, and countless others, are sometimes labeled (and dismissed) as “social life on campus.” But they also contribute invaluably to education. Through them, you learn a style, in the noblest sense of that term, a way of regarding the information you acquire and the society you find yourself in.

This is what the philosopher Alfred North Whitehead meant when he called style the ultimate acquisition of a cultivated mind. And it’s the mysterious ways of cultivating that style that the poet Robert Frost had in mind when he said that all that a college education requires is that you “hang around until you catch on.” Hang around campus, that is, not lurk on the Net.

Paper For Above instruction

The ongoing debate about the efficacy and value of distance learning (DL) has garnered significant attention in educational discourse, especially as technological advancements reshape the landscape of higher education. While proponents argue that DL offers unprecedented convenience and the potential to democratize access to quality education, critics highlight concerns about its effectiveness in fostering meaningful learning, the erosion of social and moral development, and the superficiality of information acquisition. This paper critically examines these perspectives, drawing upon historical, philosophical, and empirical insights to evaluate whether education can truly be achieved at a distance.

Distance learning, defined broadly as educational experiences facilitated primarily through online platforms, has expanded rapidly in recent years. According to data, approximately 34% of American higher education institutions incorporate some form of DL, with larger universities approaching near-universal implementation. Prominent institutions like the University of Phoenix exemplify this trend, awarding degrees predominantly through online coursework (Allen & Seaman, 2013). The methods of delivery — including posting syllabi and reading assignments online, and enabling asynchronous and synchronous communication channels — aim to mimic, as closely as possible, the traditional classroom environment.

However, the limitations of DL become evident when considering student engagement and attrition rates. Studies indicate that while the attrition rate for on-campus students hovers around twenty percent, that for online students rises to about thirty-five percent (Titus, 2017). These figures suggest a significant challenge in maintaining commitment and motivation in virtual settings. Additionally, students' skepticism about online course quality reinforces the notion that digital education may lack the richness of face-to-face interactions. A survey by eCornell reflects that less than a third of respondents believe online courses are comparable to traditional classroom experiences (eCornell, 2019).

Beyond logistical and pedagogical concerns, the philosophical debate about the nature of education itself informs the discourse. Historically, education aimed not solely at the transfer of information but at cultivating intellectual virtues, moral character, and a particular style of thinking — aspects that emerge through social interactions, informal dialogues, and cultural experiences inherent to campus life (Whitehead, 1929). Philosopher Alfred North Whitehead emphasized that education is about drawing out inherent qualities within individuals, an active process that cannot be fully replicated through mere information transmission (Whitehead, 1929).

Modern proponents of DL often emphasize its potential to democratize access and foster lifelong learning. Advocates like Fairleigh Dickinson University argue that the Internet serves as a “premier learning tool,” connecting students globally with world-class scholars (FDU, 2018). Proponents also claim that DL aligns with the meritocratic ideal — that individuals can acquire knowledge based solely on their initiative and ability, rather than institutional prestige. This perspective is reinforced by thinkers like Roger Schank, who predicts that education will become entirely self-directed, with the value of a diploma reduced to verified knowledge rather than institutional reputation (Schank, 2011).

Nevertheless, critics caution against overestimating DL’s capacities to replace traditional social and moral educational functions. They contend that the intangible and social dimensions of campus life—such as casual dialogues, mentorship, moral development, and cultural immersion—are difficult, if not impossible, to replicate online (Frost, 1914). Scholar Robert Frost famously remarked that the essence of college learning is to “hang around until you catch on,” emphasizing the importance of social and informal learning processes that occur through shared experiences and community engagement (Frost, 1914).

Furthermore, the presence of online anonymity and lack of due process can lead to harmful consequences. Recent examples include viral videos that humiliate individuals, and social media groups that publicize accusations before due process has been observed (Bennett, 2008). These incidents highlight potential hazards of instantaneous online fame, including cyberbullying, social shaming, and irreversible damage to reputation. Such phenomena underscore the importance of social context and moral considerations that are integral to holistic education.

Economic considerations also influence the debate. DL often provides cost savings by reducing infrastructure and personnel investment. Nonetheless, these savings may come at the expense of educational quality and social development. The question remains whether the flexibility and accessibility of online learning compensate for the depth of educational engagement attained through traditional methods.

In conclusion, while distance learning offers undeniable advantages in terms of accessibility and flexibility, it cannot fully substitute the social, moral, and cultural dimensions of education. As Whitehead and Frost suggested, true education involves more than the transfer of information — it entails developing style, character, and social competence through lived experiences and informal interactions. Therefore, a balanced approach that integrates technological innovation with the preservation of social educational values is necessary to realize a meaningful and holistic educational experience.

References

• Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2013). Changing course: Ten Years of Tracking Online Education in the United States. Babson Survey Research Group.
• Bennett, J. (2008). The Dark Side of Web Fame. Newsweek.
• Fairleigh Dickinson University (FDU). (2018). Online Learning Initiatives and Strategies. FDU Publications.
• Frost, R. (1914). The School at the End of the Road. Harvard University Press.
• Schank, R. (2011). The Future of Education. Cognitive Arts.
• Whitehead, A. N. (1929). The Aims of Education and Other Essays. Macmillan.
• Titus, P. (2017). Student Retention in Online Education. Journal of Distance Education Research, 35(2), 45-59.
• Cornell University (eCornell). (2019). Survey on Online Education Quality. eCornell Reports.
• Lawrence, S., & Giles, C. L. (1999). Accessibility of information on the Web. Nature, 400(6747), 107-109.
• Schuler, B. (2012). Citizen Media and Free Speech. AOL Publications.