This version is an improvement over previous editions. It would seem
that further delay is not warranted, but that the version settled on now
should be released ASAP. Despite the improvements, I still think that
significant additional improvements can be made. These are discussed
below.
1. The report is still too "Web-centric," to use Greg Jackson's term.
I agree with almost all of what Greg says, esp. the need to describe
differences of opinion within our committee as a vehicle for
highlighting unresolved important issues. The report cannot paint a
picture of unanimity across the committee where none exists (distance
learning being a prime example).
2. The report has no beginning, meaning no introduction that frames the
issues, the problems and the approaches taken. It should restate the
precise charge to the committee, describe the committee's workings and
indicate what the committee hoped to accomplish with this report and
what it leaves to future generations (committees, individuals, etc.)
3. "About this Report" should not be part of the Foreword. As such,
the technology again gets in the way of the message. Instead, the
technology should rise to the forefront less glaringly as the vehicle
for conveying the message. The "About this Report" section could be
re-labeled "Navigating through this 'Document'" and relegated to an icon
(in the Foreword) that one clicks on to open the detailed page.
4. Strategic vision. Still seems to be lacking. The speech about
large opportunities and large risks should be early on in the report, as
should be the speech that says that M.I.T. does not have the luxury of
deciding whether it wants to "play in this game." The whistle has blown
and the game has begun. The fact that these technologies are changing
so rapidly suggests that any M.I.T. investment now must be made with an
awareness of new and even better things coming down the road. We must
also be aware of probable rapid obsolescence, high rates of depreciation
of hardware and software, and yet the need to join the game.
5. The hazards of thinking by extrapolating from the status quo: The
new technologies represent a sea change in educational delivery systems,
both local and distant. They facilitate doing things we have not done
before. That does not necessarily mean we should do all such newly
feasible things, but to ignore them or to trivialize them as not in
keeping with the spirit of the Cambridge MIT experience is to place
blinders on our strategic thinking. The somewhat long paragraph about
"no substitute for the human experience" is not a unanimous feeling
across the committee; it reads somewhat like a defensive argument for
the labor intensive, non-leveraging, comfortable status quo. There is
some evidence, for instance, that Multimedia language learning CD ROM
products offer better learning experiences than most live human guided
classrooms.
6. There should be a glossary of terms, including plain ole
"multimedia." Parts of the glossary could be hyperlinked elsewhere, say
to the Mech. Eng. hypermedia project and its definitions and terms.
7. MIT students and student organizations have been fantastic in
participating on the WWW. We should link to them at every chance. The
AI Lab publishes stock market statistics and charts that are referenced
worldwide; let's link to it.
8. The contributions of the photo-copier. While not to knock Xerox, TV
and videotape have played a positive role in education already. For
instance, several states in the U.S. (Maine being a notable nearby one)
successfully use TV to reach hundreds of distant locations where
students can come to learn and seek degrees. Mentioning this does not
mean we are saying that the experience is equivalent to a
Cambridge-based MIT education. But not mentioning it is to do a
disservice to the many fine distance learning programs that are
currently in place. And interactive TV is "around the corner." And
let's not forget Sesame Street!
9. The 3 rather limited "new markets' mentioned for distance education
(newly admitted, lifelong, and our students who are temporarily off
campus) are -- in my view -- far too restrictive. The position taken is
also in contradiction to points 5 and 6 under medium term
recommendations.
10. Finally, we do not risk our academic credentials by labeling the new
technologies as potentially revolutionary with regard to their impact on
education, higher education as well as K-12. As academics, we have a
right (some would say a duty!) to be skeptical. That means that we
should identify each and every alternative plausible scenario for MIT,
and follow its logical path utilizing the best information available.
We should examine the potential risks and rewards associated with each
path. If the new technologies are potentially revolutionary, then so
too should our collective thinking about their impact on M.I.T. A
Richter 8 technology should be matched with equal energy thinking and
imagination.
What will naturally follow in the months (and years) ahead will
most likely be heated debates engaging many MIT faculty around the
issues that have caused lack of concensus in our own committee.
Illustrative issues: The advantages and disadvantages of classroom
"chalk and talk" delivery vs. higher tech alternatives; the need for
on-scene human assistance and the required level of credentials for that
assistance; the non-academic rewards (and costs) of a Cambridge based,
on-campus experience by "market type," i.e., undergraduate, continuing
education, cooperative education, engineers and/or managers desiring
"educational upgrades;" the likely profound changes that MIT would
experience if it were to enter in a serious way the "distance education"
markets; the likely scenarios imposed upon MIT by "electronic
competition."
Best regards,
Dick Larson