From: TK0JUT1@NIU.BITNET (Jim Thomas (tk0jut1@niu.bitnet))
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.qualrs-l
Subject: Re: Participatory Action Research
Date: 6 Oct 92 04:06:00 GMT
              <QUALRS-L@UGA.BITNET>
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU

As the initiator of the query about the Deakin course, let me
refresh our collective memories with my initial post:

   >Is it just me, or does anybody else have problems with soliciting
   >$2,000 (US) for a course as recently described by a poster,
   >apparently from Deakin U, as odd, offensive, and (judging from
   >the description of the course) pedagogically offensive?  I'm not
   >sure that a bitnet newsgroup is a forum to advertise for what
   >appears to be primarily a revenue-generating enterprise.
   >Comments???

Following a series of responses, I posted a second note clarifying the
issues that bothered me. It was 64 lines, so I'll not repost. But, it
laid out in broad brushstrokes my concerns.  While the language was
not particularly tactful, I do not believe it particularly harsh. I
made it clear in that second note that, while I was *highly*
uncomfortable with the course *AS DESCRIBED* in the original Deakin
note, I was uncomfortable with criticizing it as well, and made it
clear that *I HOPED TO BE DEMONSTRATED IN ERROR!* I am not yet
convinced. In fact, I'm disappointed by the responses that don't
address any substantive issues and remain at the level of "gee, what's
wrong with the Deakin course?"

I recognize that policies may be more lax in education than in other
disciplines, so perhaps I am guided by norms that those in education
don't share. Yvonna's comments suggest a way to link this discussion
to broader issues:

1) WHAT ARE THE BOUNDARIES THAT DEMARCATE A SOLICITATION FROM A
LEGITIMATE BIT OF INFO IN A NEWSGROUP SUCH AS THIS?  A one-line "the
post violates no rules" type of response is not sufficient to clarify
the issue. I obviously have my own views, but I'll simply pose it here
as a question.

2) WHAT DISTINGUISHES AN ACCEPTABLE COURSE FROM "THE OTHER KIND?"

3) FOR WHAT KINDS OF ACTIVITIES SHOULD CREDIT BE GIVEN, AND FOR WHICH
KIND SHOULD RECOGNITION FOR "WORKSHOP" OR SIMILAR EXTRA-CURRICULAR
ACTIVITY BE GIVEN INSTEAD?

4) HOW DO WE EVALUATE EXPERIENCES THAT MIGHT BE APPROPRIATE FOR COURSE
CREDIT?

5) BY WHAT CRITERIA CRITIQUE/DISCUSS COURSES/EXPERIENCES?

Thanks to Robin for joining the dialogue, and perhaps we can all
participate in a way that will strengthen their offering, even if we
disagree with it (*as described*). Because we (I) disagree hardly
means that I wish them ill, and careful readers of my two previous
posts will note that I raised questions about the course, not the
proposers of the course. There was nothing particularly passionate in
my (or others') comments, and most of those raising questions provided
a number of entry points for discussion. To accuse the questioners of
excessive passion, importune criticism, or personal attacks is both
inaccurate and begs the questions.

My understanding of the course is this: People pay the fee, but are
not actually enrolled in Deakin. The obtain credit from their
university. How does this differ from a workshop?  I recognize that
the curricular norms in education are a bit more lenient than in some
other disciplines, but under what conditions do most universities
accept correspondence courses that do not require a student to be
enrolled, ever meet with an instructor or have no mechanisms to assure
that the student him/herself ever did the work, especially at the
graduate level?  I suggested possibilities for abuse (i didn't list
them, but will be happy to in a subsequent post). I also questioned
the pedagogical soundness of a course in which there was no screening,
no control mechanisms, no f2f contact, and no prior experience with
the student. These are not necessarily insurmountable problems, but
they can't be dismissed as easily as some have done.  A rather
arrogant (and perhaps inflated) admonitory response that PhD students
ignore the work of Deakinites at their own risk is hardly rationale
most would consider adequate. The same could be said about hundreds of
scholars/sites.

I was explicit in a previous post: I fully believe that a net course
can be given, and cited Frank Schmalleger as an archetype. But, this
hardly means that all net courses are equal.

Perhaps what's really at stake here is what counts as a for-credit
course in education, and how it differes from other disciplines.  I
fully agree with Yvonna that the various discussions on QUALR-S have
been invaluable, and my comments will hopefully be interpreted as
generating dialogue.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU