Anthropology News • January 2007

28

I N F O C U S

In an attempt to approach some of these issues I designed a course that navigates the multiple inter-sections between commonly used dichotomies of virtual and the real worlds, online and offline contexts, remote and face-to-face interactions, and brings together elements from cultural theory, methodology and digital technology. Students in this course learn to question if these commonly used dimensions are adequate, consider the implications of the dual nature of the Internet as both a different context and a new tool for doing ethnography, and review theoretical approaches that may help to understand phenom-ena of virtual communities.

New Modes of InteractionAs new technologies enter the classroom, old ways of teaching are questioned. “Web 2.0,” the popu-lar though ill-defined term for a suite of Web-based tools to facili-tate collaboration, is designed to foster a learning environment that immerses students in exploration and discovery that extend well beyond the walls of the classroom.

Such tools have both benefits and problems as I learned from experiences in various anthropolo-gy courses. We used shared multiple visual displays to help archaeology students to develop 3-dimension-al models and support scientific reasoning. Collaborative concept-mapping tools engaged students

in discussions and the comparison of concepts in social and cultural theories. Desktop videoconferenc-ing allowed Stanford students to discuss assigned readings with Clifford Geertz in Princeton.

However, our lack of knowledge about the “academic value” of these experiences is problematic. How can we engage with and take seriously criticism of the technology “hype”? What are ways to ensure that the learning outcomes truly contribute to equip students for a career as anthropologists and scholars?

The move towards digitization and mobile technologies is only part of a larger picture of changes of the landscape of anthropology. The debate thus needs to emerge from the larger picture of that changing landscape. While debates in the subfields are certainly appro-priate and necessary, I propose the following questions to transcend those areas: What are major aca-demic trends in the field, partic-ularly those related to emerging technologies? What are appropriate learning objectives that respond to and take into account these trends? Do emerging technologies impact the way anthropology is studied, and if so, how? Finally, how might anthropologists, anthropology pro-grams and the AAA best adapt new technologies to the needs of anthropologists?

Claudia A Engel teaches in the depart-ments of anthropological sciences and cul-tural and social anthropology at Stanford University. She is moderating a debate on learning anthropology in the digital age at www.stanford.edu/~cengel/cgi-bin/anthro-space/debate/.

Digital AgeContinued from page 27

“Teaching is what most anthropolo-gists do most of the time,” suggested AN Contributing Editor Susan Sut-ton, who helped initiate this AN se-

ries on Anthropology and Teaching. Among the issues emerging in teaching and anthropology, AN and its contributing editors invited readers to comment on distance and online learning. This month AN offers three contributions by an-thropologists who have engaged this new trend.

D I S T A N C E L E A R N I N G A N D A N T H R O P O L O G Y

I N F O C U S

An Informal Survey of Distant Education in Anthropology

How Should It Be Administered?Another issue relates to the per-centage of distance education classes. Can an instructor satisfy all teaching obligations with distance education classes? What about the level of classes? Are distance edu-cation classes acceptable for larger, introductory courses, but not more advanced ones? What about grad-uate courses—can distance educa-tion replace traditional seminars?

What about office hours and location? Should distance educa-tion instructors still keep regular, physical office hours? If distance education classes are remote, does the instructor have to be based at their home institution?

ALAN H SIMMONS

U NEVADA, LAS VEGAS

D istant education is a growing trend, merit-ing coverage in many national magazines. A

complex issue, my purpose here is not to debate it. Rather, I was curi-ous to see how it is affecting anthro-pology. Accordingly, I conducted an informal survey.

Several issues are involved with distance education. Some of the more salient ones include:

Is It Valuable?A primary issue can be boiled down to a single question: Do distance education classes offer the same educational value as traditional ones? Responses are far from sim-ple, however. Many traditionalists argue the answer is “no”—nothing can replace the face-to-face inter-action encountered in the class-room. Others argue that distance education classes are equivalent to classroom ones, while still others suggest that distance education classes are superior.

Is It Easier?Some assume that distance educa-tion classes are “easier,” both for faculty and students. There is a perception that teaching such a class involves less time than teach-ing a live class. Part of the reason for this is that distance education classes frequently are taped and re-used, with the resulting criti-cism that content is not updated. Associated with the concept that distance education classes are somehow inferior is the implica-tion that those teaching them are not “cutting edge” scholars.

C O M M E N T A R Y

What Is the Target Audience? Originally, many distance educa-tion classes targeted students living in remote areas with no physical access to a campus. Increasingly, however, many local students take distance education classes because they do not want to come to cam-pus for a variety of reasons, such as work schedules or parking.

Is Anthropology Unique? To begin addressing issues related to distance education for anthropology I posed the following question to departmental chairs by email: “I’m wondering if you could contribute to an on-going debate in our depart-ment and university. If your univer-sity offers ‘distant ed’ or similar elec-tronic or media-based classes, do you have a policy on how many of these a faculty member may teach per se-

Anthropology and AAA Go DigitalPUBLISHING ECONOMICS Deadline: Jan 9, 2007

What are the economic and political challenges scholarly societies like the AAA arefacing given changes in scholarly publications and research? How should the AAArespond to these challenges?

OWNERSHIP AND ACCESS Deadline: Jan 16, 2007

What are the intellectual property, cultural rights and preservation issues in transitioning to digital publishing and communications? How are they best addressed?

ONLINE ANTHROPOLOGY RESOURCES Deadline: Feb 15, 2007

How are anthropologists best using technology in their research, teaching and public outreach, and how has and does anthropological research inform the development of online resources?

Email research reports and news articles (600–800 words) and commentaries (800–1400 words) on thematic topics to Anthropology News Managing Editor Stacy Lathrop, slathrop@aaanet.org.

AN

CA

LL F

OR

PAP

ER

S

January 2007 • Anthropology News

29

I N F O C U S

mester or year—can a faculty mem-ber teach all of their classes online, or is this even an issue?”

Responses from 66 of the 80 departments I emailed ranged from short comments to long, and fre-quently quite impassioned, state-ments. One thing is clear: the over-whelming majority of anthropology departments polled do not engage in distance education to any great degree. Nearly 50% of the respon-dents do not offer distance educa-tion in anthropology, and less than 10% allow faculty to teach unre-stricted distance education classes.

State Universities Undertake More Distance EducationPerhaps more interesting is that distance education is regularly un-dertaken only at state universities. Somewhat surprising is that the highest percentage of institutions offering distance education in an-thropology are tier one state uni-versities, whereas I expected this to be more common at tier two state universities.

Most tier one state universities put an emphasis on research rather than teaching, and thus I would have expected them not to be too involved in distance education. One possible explanation might be that distance education requires less time than regular classes, and thus is preferred by productive research-ers. This, however, requires accept-ing an unverified assumption that distance education indeed is less time consuming, something vigor-ously denied by those who do it.

Institutions like state universi-ties with large enrollments might also actively engage in distance education as a way of keeping enrollment high while at the same time reducing the physical impact on campuses, many of which are faced with space shortages.

A Slow Start?Perhaps the most opposition to dis-tance education is from elite and private institutions. Although there are probably many reasons why this is so, I imagine such institutions feel that distance education is somehow inherently inferior, and that stu-dents, who are paying large sums of tuition, want to interact with real rather than virtual professors.

While few institutions allow a regular faculty member to teach all of their classes via distance education, many do offer distance education courses, often taught as only a part of one’s teaching load or as an overload. Sometimes only non full-time faculty teach dis-tance education.

One might also expect that institutions in more rural areas,

Institution Unrestricted Distance Ed Permitted

Limited Distance Ed Permitted

Adjuncts Teach Distance Ed

Distance Ed Allowed As Overload

Distance Ed Allowed as Continuing Ed

No Distance Ed

No Distance Ed, But not opposed

Total (N=66) 6 (9.1) 12 (18.2) 7 (10.6) 5 (7.6) 2 (3.0) 32 (48.5) 2 (3.0)

Elite 4 (6.1)

State 1 5 (7.6) 4 (6.1) 7 (10.6) 3 (4.5) 2 (3.0) 15 (22.7) 1 (1.5)

State 2 1 (1.5) 8 (12.1) 1 (1.5) 4 (6.1) 1 (1.5)

Private 1 (1.5) 9 (13.6)

Anthropology Programs’ Response to Distance EducationA tabulation of the results of the informal survey of distant education in anthropology conducted by Simmons (numbers in paren-thesis are percentages). Eighty departments were polled and 66 responded, a high 82.5% response rate. The sample was coded by institution type: tier one state universities (a state’s major institutions, N= 37 [56.1%]), tier two state universities (“second-ary” institutions, N= 15 [22.7%]), private institutions (private but not Ivy League, N=10 [15.2%]), and “elite” institutions ( “Ivy League” or similar, N=4 [6.0%]). Sometimes coding was subjective; for example, major state universities that might be considered “elite” were put into the “state university tier one” category. This leaves “elite” institutions in the “private” category, but the former were separated from “less prestigious” private institutions. No community colleges were polled.

Responses were divided into seven categories: 1) allows unrestricted distance education; 2) limited distance education (often only introductory classes); 3) only adjunct, retired or graduate students teach distance education; 4) distance education only taught as an overload; 5) distance education only taught through continuing education; 6) no distance education taught in anthropology; 7) no distance education taught in anthropology but no problem with the concept.

By Type of Institution

or at least in towns, might have more distance education courses to serve outlying populations. Yet no such pattern emerged when I coded the 66 institutions who responded to the survey by geo-graphic location: 24 urban, 38 town and four rural. Of the six institutions that allow unrestrict-ed distance education, only one was rural, two were urban and the remaining four were located in towns.

So, what does this informal sur-vey suggest about the role of dis-tance education in anthropology? One obvious conclusion is that, for whatever reasons, it has not caught on too strongly. While some might argue these data show that the majority of anthropologists do not place much faith in distance edu-

cation, others might point out that anthropology simply is lagging behind on the bandwagon, and that those departments that do actively engage in distance educa-tion are in fact trend-setters.

While distance education contin-ues to be debated, with no simple or obvious answers to the issues, it does appear it is an inevitable future trend in higher education. Where anthropology stands on this remains to be seen.

Alan Simmons is chair of the depart-ment of anthropology and ethnic studies at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. An archaeologist, he specializes in early food production, focusing on the Near East. He has a forthcoming University of Arizona Press book on the Neolithic. In the interest of full disclosure, he has never taught a distance education class.

NANCY KONVALINKA

NATIONAL U DISTANCE EDUCATION, SPAIN

I t is generally agreed that the pursuit of knowledge should be open to everyone, regardless. Yet university systems are usu-

ally based on full-time programs re-quiring class attendance. This leaves

out many who want to go to univer-sity but are prevented because of fam-ily or professional obligations, or diffi -cult personal circumstances. Distance learning can serve these individuals.

A Distance Learning PathMy own educational and profes-sional path demonstrates this. My two undergraduate degrees, one

in the US and another in Madrid, were both at traditional universi-ties with in-class teaching; I did most of the five-year degree in Madrid while working full-time.

Some years later, wishing to follow my passion for anthropology, I con-sidered doing a doctorate. A friend suggested the National University of Distance Education (Universidad

Serving Motivated Students Through Distance Learning in Spain

Nacional de Educación a Distancia, UNED), for it would accommodate my full-time job and family respon-sibilities. I signed up, finished my doctoral courses in two years, and am now, several years later, finish-ing my dissertation—work and life keep getting in the way of fieldwork and writing. I am also in my fourth year as a tutor at the UNED and my second year teaching in the depart-ment, gaining experience daily with distance education.

See Motivated Students on page 30