Hi Achim - On the matter of when the troops ate with Bush's phony turkey, we are in Plato's cave again. This is what I found: Some troops not happy with historic visit By Sandra Jontz <mailto:[log in to unmask]> , Stars and Stripes European edition, Friday, December 5, 2003 ARLINGTON, Va. — Amid the fanfare of his surprise visit to Baghdad on Thanksgiving, some soldiers were not all that happy with the President Bush’s pop-in, and some felt gypped out of a Thanksgiving meal. One soldier wrote to Stars and Stripes voicing displeasure that those under his command were told that during the president’s visit at the Baghdad International Airport for a quick meal and meet-and-greet, they weren’t allowed in. “Imagine [my soldiers’] dismay when they walked 15 minutes to the Bob Hope Dining Facility, only to find that they were turned away from their evening meal because they were in the wrong unit,” wrote Sgt. Loren Russell in a letter to the editor, published Wednesday. For security reasons, only those pre-selected got into the facility during Bush’s visit. But not one was denied their meal that day, according to Lt. Col. Mark Olinger, deputy chief of staff for Logistics for the Army’s 1st Armored Division. For six months, Army planners coordinated and prepped for the holiday, and picked the Bob Hope Dining Facility at the Baghdad International Airport because it would allow the maximum number of soldiers to participate, he said. Other locations could accommodate 100 soldiers at most. “Over 600 soldiers attended the event, who cheered and jumped to their feet when he entered,” Olinger said. The soldiers who dined while the president visited were selected by their chain of command, and were notified a short time before the visit, said Olinger and Capt. David Gercken, a 1st AD spokesman. “The hours for the dining facilities were published and publicized well prior to Thanksgiving,” Gercken said. “In particular, the dining facility at the airport maintained the same hours it posted prior to the president’s visit. The meal for the president was an additional meal.” At the airport, two facilities served main dinner meals from noon to 3 p.m. Hours were extended at the Hope facility until 4 p.m. and reopened at 8 p.m. for another serving, Olinger said, staying open for more than five more hours. “We did not close that facility until 1:30 a.m. I believe soldiers had multiple opportunities to have a traditional Thanksgiving dinner and I know of no soldiers being turned away,” he said. In his letter, Russell acknowledges that his soldiers were told they could return later for their meals, and chose not to. “Regardless, my soldiers chose to complain amongst themselves and eat MREs, even after the chow hall was reopened for ‘usual business’ … As a leader myself, I’d guess that other measures could have been taken to allow for proper security and still let the soldiers have their meal,” Russell wrote. In Baghdad, soldiers celebrated Thanksgiving dinner at 32 locations throughout the city. Army cooks or Kellogg, Brown & Root employees prepared the meals and “quality was the same throughout the division task force,” Olinger said. -----Original Message----- From: Teaching Breakfast List on behalf of Koeddermann, Achim ([log in to unmask]) Sent: Wed 11/19/2003 10:59 PM To: [log in to unmask] Cc: Subject: Re: The Evolution of Distance Learning in Higher Education If Jim is right, and if we are aware of Joannes' warning, hown do we avoid to loose control over our courses? Isn' this a copyright issue as well? Could the Union do something about it in the next round of negotiations? Achim -----Original Message----- From: Teaching Breakfast List on behalf of Nepkie, Janet ([log in to unmask]) Sent: Wed 11/19/2003 11:47 AM To: [log in to unmask] Cc: Subject: Re: The Evolution of Distance Learning in Higher Education As Joanne says, we might easily be overwhelmed by the many extra hours required for DL work. We also might EASILY find that we have created an onerous past practice for ourselves and all our colleagues. If we take on extra work without compensation, this can become a valid expectation for future work load. Janet Dr. Janet Nepkie Professor of Music and Music Industry State University College Oneonta, NY 13820 ph: (607) 436 3425 fax: 607 436 2718 ---------- From: Teaching Breakfast List on behalf of Curran, Joanne ([log in to unmask]) Reply To: Teaching Breakfast List Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2003 9:51 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: The Evolution of Distance Learning in Higher Education We need to be afraid of the amount of work involved that is not compensated. Our faculty who are teaching on-line find that students are learning but they also find that they are spending significantly more time on the course. Unless we carefully look at the workload of providing courses on-line, we may find ourselves overwhelmed. Joanne -----Original Message----- From: Teaching Breakfast List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Koeddermann, Achim ([log in to unmask]) Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 5:07 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: The Evolution of Distance Learning in Higher Education Jim asked an intersting question at the UUP meeting - what do you think - do we have to fear DistantLearning? Achim TBers, The posting below (a bit long) gives a quite complete look at the beginning of distance education, its present, and the author's predictions for the future. It is Chapter 1, The Evolution of Distance Learning in Higher Education, in Distance Education: The Complete Guide to Design, Delivery, and Improvement by Judith L. Johnson. Published by Teachers College Press, [http://www.teacherscollegepress.com/] 234 Amsterdam Avenue, New York, NY 10027. Copyright © 2003 by Teachers College, Columbia University. Reprinted with permission. The Evolution of Distance Learning in Higher Education Distance learning's past has emerged into a new entity. In the past decade, higher education has taken on tools for learning faster than at any other time in its history. Here we look at the beginning of distance education, its present, and our predictions for the future. The Past Distance education, in some form, has been around for decades. Before 1900, the communication system of the Roman Empire set the stage for distance learning, long before the idea of such a phenomenon was conceived. Inventions during this time of the printing press and the postal service made possible the printing of many copies of learning materials to be distributed to many individuals. Correspondence education began toward the end of the 19th century, and in the 20th century, radio, telephone, cinema, television, programmed learning, computers, and the Internet all became tools of the new method of distributing education (Daniel, 2000). Australia and New Zealand In the 1930s, radio was first used to broadcast educational programming to schools. Television became a medium of choice for distance education in the 1960s, and today with the power, speed, and versatility of the Internet, courses are offered anytime, anywhere. During the 1930s radio as a medium was used to deliver educational programming in Australia and New Zealand by the Australian Broadcasting Company (ABC). In addition to program broadcasts, the ABC provided financial assistance to the schools for the purchase of radio receivers. "In 1935,21 percent of all Australian schools were making regular use of radio. . . [programs]. By the mid 1950s usage had risen to 90 percent" (Teather, 1989, p. 504). In 1956, television was introduced in Sydney and Melbourne to deliver educational programming to schools. The programs were used by teachers to supplement their curricula and to provide access to experiences that were beyond the resources of the schools (Gilmour, 1979). More comprehensive pro- grams ill math and science were developed and broadcast to schools to address a teacher shortage in these subjects. In the 1960s and 1970s, television broadcasting in Australia increased significantly, and by 1972 more than 90% of all schools in Australia were receiving and using both enrichment and subject-specific television programs. In the 1960s, when the Open University (OU) was being developed in the United Kingdom, Australia had four universities that were providing opportunities for part-time higher education study using distance learning. At Massey University in New Zealand, approximately 12,000 students were en-rolled in several hundred courses. In the 1980s, more than 35,000 students were taking distance education courses in Australia from approximately five universities and 30 colleges. In 1961, due to a short supply of evening classes at the University of New South Wales, lectures were broadcast over radio to part--time adult students in their homes. Problems arose with this arrangement, however. The University's radio station obtained a license to broadcast, but the "transmission frequency allotted . . . was beyond the tuning range of an ordinary radio receiver, so students had to have their receivers modified" (Teather, 1989, p. 506). But this did not solve the problem completely. The power provided to the University radio station (which was about half the power of a nearby non-University station) did not allow for clear transmission of the audio. Thus, students ended up hearing only half of the transmission. To remedy these problems, the University established centers where students could gather to listen to broadcasts and have discussion groups afterward. Those who could not attend the sessions were mailed broadcast tapes. By 1966, the University added television programming to its radio programming to offer courses to extension centers. The courses were delivered using a combination of the two media and supplemented by notes and diagrams that were mailed to students before the broadcasts. Student-led discussions and live seminars supported the learning activities. This arrangement became known as the Division of Postgraduate Extension Studies, and by 1982 more than 2,300 students were enrolled in the broad-cast courses. An additional 2,700 participated in courses in which audio- and videocassettes of the same courses were offered. Eventually distribution of higher education courses in Australia and New Zealand became satellite-based. In 1985 and 1986, domestic Austra-lian communication satellites were launched and educational networks were established. The United States Educational broadcasting in the United States evolved in a similar fashion. In the 1920s, unsuccessful attempts were made to develop broadcasting for educational and cultural purposes and to reserve some radio channels for educational uses. It wasn't until the 1950s, when states were faced with shortages of teachers and school facilities, that instructional television was seen as a way to ease these problems. "Local and state educational authorities established stations using the reserved channels" (Lyle, 1989, p. 516). The broadcasts were used to support classroom instruction, and most programs were developed and produced by local teachers. With the passage of Title VII of the National Defense Education Act of 1958, educational broadcasting increased and appropriations by the legislature provided support for projects in education. However, when school enrollments began to decline in the 1970s and teachers were in surplus, the broadcast medium for instruction declined as did local production of programs for schools. With respect to higher education, universities were among the first to have radio stations back in the 1920s. University extension programs were broadcast using these radio stations and have continued ever since. Television became the medium of choice for the broadcast programs in the 1960s. Many college and university systems developed televised curricula to provide access for more individuals and to reduce pressure on the physical plants. Systems and consortia alike cooperated to deliver courses to the public. A 1979 survey by the Corporation for Public Broad-casting (CPB) and the National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES) "found that 25 percent of the nation's colleges and universities offered courses for credit over television and 36 percent of them used broadcast television to supplement instruction" (Lyle, 1989, p. 516). A major turning point in the distance education enterprise came in 1981 when Walter H. Annenberg announced his $150 million gift over 15 years for the development of university-level television programming. The CPB was chosen as the agency to oversee the planning of the programming that would be funded under this gift. The United Kingdom While these developments were occurring in the United States and Australia, the United Kingdom officially opened the Open University in 1971 (Cathcart, 1989). Primarily a correspondence institution, OU used correspondence materials and text-books as its major resources along with television broadcasts. The institution was open to any and all who wished to partake of its educational opportunities. Working closely with the British Broadcast Corporation, au paid for its own production costs using revenue from the government's department of education and science. When the United Kingdom's Open University achieved higher ratings for its teaching of Engineering than Oxford, Cambridge, and the Imperial College, London, it was a sign that what had begun 30 years earlier as a radical and suspect initiative for second--chance students had now become a well-respected university. (Daniel, 2000) Other Countries The success of OU prompted other countries to adopt its model and establish their own open universities. For example, in 1972 Spain created the Universidad de Educación a Distancia using radio broadcasts. Holland offered multimedia courses to its citizens via television, and in 1977 Norway established an Institute for Distance Education that coordinated and produced integrated multimedia courses on topics of concern to its citizenry. Eventually Norway's live broadcasts were recorded and distributed to interested constituencies on cassettes. Their purpose came to focus more on- the materials than on the broadcast. Likewise, Sweden's Utbildningsradion, established in 1978, became responsible for preparing learning systems and producing audiovisual educational media. Its main priority was to produce programming for underserved, disadvantaged groups (e.g., the mentally and physically challenged and individuals with limited education). In addition to its broadcasts (both television and radio), all programs were available on cassette, along with educational materials to make up learning packages. These were distributed to learning resource centers across Sweden. These efforts and others were part of the foundation for today's distance education, an evolution in the making. While some of the programs and projects in broadcast education may not have been deemed overly successful at the time, "research and experience leaves no doubt that educational broadcasting can, particularly within multimedia systems, be an effective educational instrument" (Lyle, 1989, p. 516). As Sir John Daniel (2000), Vice Chancellor of Britain's Open University, asserts: . . . whereas in 1990 only a small proportion of tradi-tional universities offered any distance learning courses, by the year 2000 very few did not have such offerings. Today no self respecting university president can admit to not offering courses online. (For a comprehensive account of early educational broadcasting, see chapters by Inquai, Hurst, Teather, Lyle, Hill, Cathcart, and O'Brien in Eraut, 1989.) Today Distance learning is the most significant phenomenon occurring in higher education today. Everywhere one looks, whether in community colleges, 4-year institutions, Ivy League colleges, research institutions, or technical colleges, distance education is on the rise, and the rise is occurring at a rapid pace. Distance education and technology are major factors in the contribution to current and expected changes in the postsecondary education enterprise. Distance education is expected to grow at a compound annual growth rate of 33 percent, according to Inter-national Data Corporation. Analysis predicts that distance education demand will increase from five percent of all higher education students in 1998 to 15 percent by 2002. [Indeed] . . . the reported growth rates (from 1999-2000 to 2000-2001) range from 200 percent (Pennsylvania State University's World Campus) to over 1,000 percent (University of Mary-land's University College) today. (Oblinger, Barone, & Hawkins, 2001, p. 11) Never before in the history of higher education has there been a change that has had such an impact on those involved in this enterprise. According to Peter Drucker, "Universities won't survive. The future is outside the traditional campus, outside the traditional classroom. Distance learning is coming on fast" (Gibson & Herrera, 1999, p. 57). The idea and advent of distance education have been instrumental in producing a range of emotions in those involved in higher education. Many faculty are resistant; some are confused; others are excited about the new realm of possibilities for their teaching. Some worry about the future of their livelihood; others see this change as an opportunity to expand their pedagogy and teaching opportunities. Critics of distance education say that this mode is inferior to the more traditional face-to-face, campus-based learning, where discourse is spontaneous and inter-active, and where the faculty can see the students and pick up nonverbal body language such as facial expressions. Skeptical faculty argue that part of the learning experience is the connection made between student and student, and student and professor, or the experience of community. However, "in all fairness, there are few studies that measure the effectiveness of textbooks and lectures as an educational delivery system" (Oblinger, Barone, & Hawkins, 2001, p. 19). But because of the newness of technology and the uncertainty of its use in educating students, institutions are held captive by questions related to its use. Proponents of distance learning, on the other hand, argue that distance education technologies allow for increased access to a variety of courses. Distance education offers the student more convenience in scheduling classes, decreases travel time to and from a campus, and allows for student control over when participation in classes will occur (Johnson, 1999a). Furthermore, distance learning technology, such as the Web, is the first medium that honors the notion of multiple intelligences-abstract, textual, visual, musical, social, and kinesthetic. Educators can now construct learning environments that enable [a student] to become engaged in learning any way the student chooses. The anytime, anyplace nature of the Web allows students to spend as much time as they need searching for in-formation, running simulations, or collaborating with peers. (Oblinger, Barone, & Hawkins, 2001, p. 5) Some have found that this new way of delivering higher education is just as good as traditional ways, and maybe even better (Daniel, 2000; Johnson, 1999b). In fact, as Sir John Daniel (2000) stated in a speech to attendees at the Taiwan Conference on Distance Learning: Open universities have learned how to carry out distance education successfully at scale and I emphasize that this is not merely a technological success. Through the principle of course team we have become better at teaching than conventional universities, on both academic and pedagogical grounds. Some say that students in distance education courses are more engaged with the learning process and that interaction happens more than in traditional face-to-face courses (Carnevale, 2000b; Marchese, 2000). Researchers also have found that distance education is "more effective than the classroom lecture and the traditional relationship between student and faculty member" (Oblinger, Barone, & Hawkins, 2001, p. 6). A large body of research touts that there are no significant differences between the learning out- comes of distance education and those of classroom-based education (Epper, 1996; Oblinger, Barone, & Hawkins, 2001; Weigel, 2000). [But] why [argue some] hold up lecture-based class-room education as the benchmark for evaluating new educational delivery systems? . . . If there is no significant difference between distance education and class-room-based education, advocates of distance education should hardly trumpet this claim; they should be deeply troubled by it. How could they think of making the status quo the standard for evaluating learning technologies that have so much more to offer? (Weigel, 2000, p. 12) With distance learning technologies, teachers can develop new teaching methodologies rather than adapting old pedagogy to their distance courses. The Web is a "fundamentally new medium for education with the potential to birth new pedagogical methods" (Weigel, 2000, p. 12). Charles M. Cook, director of the New England Association of Schools and Colleges' Commission on Institutions of Higher Education, comments on distance learning. He asserts that this mode of delivery "can provide a more active learning environment for students than traditional education by engaging the student with interactive technology, instead of relying on a professor's lecture" (Carnevale, 2000d). He feels that this type of educational delivery is more learner-centered than traditional delivery. In fact, in a survey of faculty, findings revealed that they "believed web-based courses do a better job of giving students access to information, helping them master the subject, and addressing a variety of learning styles" (Oblinger, Barone, & Hawkins, 2001, p. 19). ' The Web . . . can also be a great new medium for deeper forms of learning. . . . The beautiful thing is that today's technologies, with their incredible abilities to connect, search, engage, and individualize, to prompt performance and assess understanding, are--in the hands of a teacher with the right ambitions--terrific enablers for [deep learning]. (Marchese, 2000, p.4) , Distance education serves the needs of not only the traditional-age college student, but also the most rapidly growing segment of the population, adult learners over the age of 35 years who have full-time jobs, families, and limited discretionary time. A re-port by the American Council on Education Center for Policy Analysis and Educause (Oblinger, Barone, & Hawkins, 2001) cites seven distinct audiences for distance learning: corporate learners, professional enhancement learners, degree-completion adult learners, college experience learners (or the traditional student), precollege (K-12) learners, remediation and test-preparation learners, and recreational learners (Oblinger, Barone, & Hawkins, 2001). Distance education has touched a majority of institutions of higher education in the United States over the past 5 years. USA Today (Snapshots, 2000) reports that 75% of U.S. institutions of higher education now offer distance education courses and pro-grams, and 35% have accredited distance education programs. It appears, however, that public institu-tions are using the distance mode of delivery much more than are private institutions. In 1997, 79% of public 4-year institutions and 72 % of public 2-year institutions offered distance education courses, compared with 22 % of private 4-year institutions and 6% of private 2-year ones (Carnevale, 2000a, p. A57). Currently, institutions with more than 10,000 students (87%) are more likely to offer distance education courses than those with between 3,000 and 10,000 students (75%), or those with fewer than 3,000 students (19%) (Carnevale, 2000a, p. A57). These numbers are likely to increase substantially over the next decade with all the advances in technology and the growing demand by the public for convenient and flexible educational opportunities. In this age of technology, future college students (e.g., today's children) have and are using computers in their schools. "Today's students, increasingly comfortable with technology, expect online resources (a digital library, Web resources, simulations, video) as part of the learning tools and learning experience" (Green, 1997, p. 4). In fact, colleges and universities of today are "dealing with the first generation of students who have never known life without PCs (created in the '70s) or the Internet (largely a '90s phenomenon)" (Oblinger, Barone, & Hawkins, 2001, p. 26). Students entering higher education today have the knowledge and skills to use technology that exceed those of faculty and staff working in higher education (Bleed, 2000). Students are not only computer literate, they are "technophilic" (Cini & Vilic, 1999, p. 38). Over the past 2 decades, communication using information technologies has gone from using over-head projectors, audiovisual media, slides, and the viewing of prerecorded public television programs, to the delivery of instruction using interactive technologies and asynchronous modes, with degree pro-grams offered to students worldwide. Changes in technology today are constant, and faculty, staff, and administrators must keep pace with new technologies to ensure that their students receive the best that education has to offer. REFERENCES available on request.