In 1857, at the dedication of Washington University, Mr. J. D. Low proclaimed a new perspective on education, “In establishing a course of instruction, it has been our aim, as far as possible, to combine practical and theoretical knowledge. We are aware that in this practical, money-making age, many are solicitous for what is called practical education; by which is meant… an education designed to fit us for the specific duties and callings of life” (Everett). It was the start of a new era of education at the highest level: the beginning of the age of education, in which the granting of a degree was meant to provide life-long proof of one’s qualifications to practice their career. This education was meant to be enduring for the life of the doctor, the lawyer, and the college professor as well.
It was also the beginning of a new age of instruction, as those intended to deliver this material began to move from the idea of philosophical lecture, to the realities of the practicum. But even this evolution from theory to practice was nascent into the mid 20th Century, during which massive revolutions occurred in understanding the way that students learned, the techniques which offered the greatest breadth of understanding and which worked best as they related to the kind of information being imparted. As stated by McKeachie & Kulik, “the teacher and his methods are rightfully perceived by students as crucial elements in determining their learning,” (1975). By 1975, education had moved from an idea that students needed to have practical application to the belief that the form of that instruction was crucial to instructional effectiveness.
Post-secondary education has only become more complex over time. Institutions have emerged to fill gaps that traditional colleges and universities were failing to meet. The ITT Technical Institute opened its doors in 1969 to offer post-secondary adult opportunities in technical careers, which have increased dramatically in scope over the Institute’s history. The University of Phoenix, founded in 1976, sought to offer adult education and re-training for professionals. Likewise, community colleges moved from normal colleges (for teachers) and added greater technical and re-training roles, as well as offering foundational academic courses.
The educational innovations not only changed the methods of practice in education, but also affected its methods of delivery. As early as 1951, school programs began broadcast via the radio in Alice Springs, Australia. From radio to television, and eventually to internet, education has spread using every technology platform possible, as they have come available.
But this has spread the academy. In most college settings, within each program there are a number of faculty which hold similar degrees, but varying specializations. This makes sense: colleges don’t want faculty who all do the same thing, they need variety in order to extend the course offerings they can provide to students. This means that faculty are often the only one within their department who can teach the specialized courses at the highest level. Even at the community college level, the tendency is to hire faculty who have sufficiently varying specializations to cover all the possible courses within a field. This means that even if the department members were located centrally, and the faculty had offices located together, the habit of sharing research and teaching materials might be limited. If we move this issue into the modern context, in which institutions have extended their borders to include satellite campuses and distance learning, one can see why the tendency of faculty to form a core of shared materials within their field becomes unlikely.
This is the problem: faculty themselves have moved away from the creation of learning communities for their own professional lives. One might think that because technological innovation has extended and expanded the problem of professorial isolation that the solution might lie with repudiation of that technology. This paper, and this presentation, argues the opposite: e-learning technology has the ability to resolve and actually to greatly benefit the academy, to restore learning communities for faculty, and to create new repositories for future educators through the use of knowledge management techniques.
It has been said that, “Schools are the cradles of innovative knowledge, and they have a rich collection of intangible assets,” (Cheng & Chen, 2008). The point that is made here is that the knowledge teachers have, the learning environments they create, the activities they generate, the assignments, assessments, and the methods for performing all of their many varied tasks exist. Much of this exists in tangible form which can be shared directly. Other portions of this knowledge are intangible and require interaction amongst members of the academy for its transfer. So, any solution which would allow the sharing of the learning documents would necessitate a platform which has interactive capacity. And even then, the expectations within a college could not be a single, one-size solution, “Because of the variety of contexts in which teaching occurs… expectations will necessarily be institution, department, and to some extent instructor and course specific,” (Johnson & Ryan, 2000). This means that even using a single e-learning instrument, the actual interaction with the platform will necessarily require thoughtful design for real, practical application amongst college departments and their faculty.
The key lies in the particular formulation of the tools. “Knowledge management offers a systemic strategic approach to managing complex organizations. This system sets up an infrastructure that makes it possible to integrate interactions and complex structures, occurring on different, even separate levels in the organizations an dints environment,” (Senge in Shoham & Perry, 2008). The solution being provided here, then is the ability for all faculty to see all the materials, lectures, audio & video files, etc… on which their colleagues build their own courses. It would allow faculty to rate and poll on materials within a collection, and offer new faculty vast resources for inclusion in their courses.
This is not just a matter of creating a database, “Knowledge management offers higher education an infrastructure for planning and managing innovation and change powered by cooperation, collaboration and transmission of knowledge, as part of the organization’s activity,” (Shoham & Perry, 2008). With this solution, the e-learning platform is not only a place for the dissemination of knowledge, but also for collective creation of knowledge assets. Thus, faculty who may meet only once per year in person, may be able to gain access to the entire collections of materials used by their colleagues. It would offer the place to discuss these resources, the most current research, the administrative and pedagogical topics necessary in all colleges, and the ideas of their field.
The effect is intended to extend the knowledge into a shared resource. The value is inherent in the interaction as, “One way to encourage learning communities and communities of practice is the development of department and institutional cultures that view teaching as ‘community property’ that is shared, discussed, and evaluated within a community of scholars,” (Shulman in Johnson & Ryan, 2000). So, the use of e-learning platforms to create knowledge management solutions for faculty offers not only the ability to create tangible shared resources, but also a sense of community.
Perhaps the most important aspect of the e-learning platform’s use as a knowledge management tool, is the creation of that community of practice in which faculty are able to go beyond their own interaction with their specializations, but also to see and experience the broader contexts within which their field’s topics exist. The idea behind this concept has been described as finding a group’s “Ba” or the idea of a common understanding which is generated from resource concentration and sharing (Nonaka & Konno, 2008). Knowledge creation and sharing within this e-learning environment would necessarily require exposure to this broader context.
Knowledge is an asset (Peloquin, 2001). But knowledge atomized into the constituent independent individuals within an organization is knowledge that may be lost to the next learner. E-learning platforms are offering an opportunity to collect, collaborate, and disseminate knowledge not only between faculty and students, but within the faculty of college departments. The potential result is the reinvigoration of the academy and the recreation of cohesion amongst teaching academics.
Citations
Cheng, Kai-Wen & Chen, Yu-Fen. 2008. The Process of Integrating “Knowledge Management” into Teacher’s “Teaching Resources” – A Case Study on the Hospitality College. Journal of Instructional Psychology. Dec. Vol 34 Issue 4, pp380-386.
Everett, Edward. Academical education: An address delivered at St. Louis, 22d April, 1857, at the inauguration of Washington University of the state of Missouri. Retrieved from: http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=hvd.hn2iyv;view=1up;seq=15
ITT Tech. About Us. Retrieved from: http://www.itt-tech.edu/about.cfm
Johnson, T.D. & Ryan, K.E. 2000. A Comprehensive Approach to the Evaluation of College Teaching. New Directions for Teaching and Learning. No. 83, Fall pp. 109-123.
McKeachie, W.J. & Kulik, J.A. 1975. Effective College Teaching. Review of Research in Education, Vol. 3 pp. 165-209.
Nonaka, I. & Konno, K. 1998. The Concept of “Ba”: Building a foundation for knowledge creation. California Management Review. Vol 40. No 3, Spring pp. 40-54.
Peloquin, J.J. 2001. An Essay on Knowledge as a Corporate Asset: Building the case for human capital. Thought Leadership from The Performance Paradigm.
School of the Air. Visitors Centre. Retrieved from: http://www.assoa.nt.edu.au/visitors-centre/
Shoham, S. & Perry, M. 2008. Knowledge management as a mechanism for technological and organizational change management in Israeli universities. High Educ. Vol. 57 pp. 227-246.
University of Phoenix. History. Retrieved from: http://www.phoenix.edu/about_us/about_university_of_phoenix/history.html
Pepper and Pear Instructional Design, LLC 