Arun-Kumar Tripathi (tripathi@amadeus.statistik.uni-dortmund.de)
Fri, 11 Dec 1998 09:09:05 +0100 (MET)
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 09:09:05 +0100 (MET) From: Arun-Kumar Tripathi <tripathi@amadeus.statistik.uni-dortmund.de> Subject: [ifets] Re: [RRE]Digital Diploma Mills, Part III
Dear IFETS Forum Members,
The members of this foum might be interested in this article written by
Professor David Noble..Thanks.
On Thu, 3 Dec 1998, Phil Agre wrote:
> [Dave would be happy for you to forward this article to anyone who might
> be interested. He can be contact at the phone number given at the bottom
> of the article.]
>
> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> This message was forwarded through the Red Rock Eater News Service (RRE).
> Send any replies to the original author, listed in the From: field below.
> You are welcome to send the message along to others but please do not use
> the "redirect" command. For information on RRE, including instructions
> for (un)subscribing, see http://dlis.gseis.ucla.edu/people/pagre/rre.html
> or send a message to requests@lists.gseis.ucla.edu with Subject: info rre
> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>
>
>
> DIGITAL DIPLOMA MILLS, PART III
> The Bloom Is Off the Rose
> (c) by David F. Noble, November, 1998
>
> Preamble
>
> Abe and Moe run into each other on Flatbush Avenue.
> "Boy, have I got a deal for you" Moe," says Abe.
> "I've got these fancy new university courses,
> computers and everything, you can take it right
> from your own living room. What do you think?"
> "Sounds nice," says Moe, "How much?"
> "For you, my friend, a bargain," says Abe,
> "Only three hundred dollars."
> "I'll take it" says Moe.
>
> Four months later they run into each other again.
> "Hey Abe, you crook," says Moe, "Remember that
> course you sold me?"
> "Sure," says Abe, "what about it?"
> "It was lousy," says Moe, "I didn't learn a thing."
> "Moe, you dummy, of course you didn't," says Abe.
> "That was a buying and selling course,
> not a learning course!"
>
>
> Far sooner than most observers might have imagined, the
> juggernaut of online education appears to have stalled. Only a year
> ago, it seemed there was no stopping it. Promoters of instructional
> technology and "distance learning" advanced with ideological bravado
> as well as institutional power, the momentum of human progress
> allegedly behind them. They had merely to proclaim "it's the future"
> to throw skeptics on the defensive and convince seasoned educators
> that they belonged in the dustbin of history. The monotonal mantras
> about our inevitable wired destiny, the prepackaged palaver of silicon
> snake-oil salesmen, echoed through the halls of academe, replete with
> sophomoric allusions to historical precedent (the invention of writing
> and the printing press) and sound-bites about the imminent demise of
> the "sage on the stage" and "bricks and mortar" institutions. But
> today, alas, the wind is out of their sails, their momentum broken,
> their confidence shaken.
>
> At countless campus forums on the subject throughout North
> America, the burden of proof has squarely shifted from the critics to
> the promoters. Though still amply funded and politically supported,
> it is they who are now on the defensive, compelled, in the wake of
> repeated failures and in the face of mounting skepticism, to try
> to buttress their still lame arguments with half-baked data about
> pedagogical usefulness, economic return, or market demand. Attendance
> at campus events has multiplied an order of magnitude as faculty and
> students have finally become alert to the administrative agendas and
> commercial con-games behind this seeming technological revolution.
>
> Off campus, the scene is much the same. Study after study
> seems to confirm that computer-based instruction reduces performance
> levels and that habitual Internet use induces depression. Advertisers
> peddle platinum Mastercards and even Apple laptop computers by subtly
> acknowledging that "seven days without e-mail" is "priceless" and that
> being in touch with your office from anywhere anytime is a "bummer".
> Meanwhile, all the busy people supposedly clamoring for distance
> learning - who allegedly constitute the multi-billion dollar market
> for cyberinstruction - are curling up at night with the New York Times
> top bestseller, Tuesdays with Morrie, a sentimental evocation of the
> intimate, enduring, and life-enriching relationship between a former
> student and his dying professor. "Have you ever really had a teacher?
> One who saw you as a raw but precious thing, a jewel that, with
> wisdom, could be polished to a proud shine? If you are lucky enough
> to find such teachers, you will always find your way back". So much
> for distance learning.
>
> Above all, a spectre is haunting the high-tech hijackers of
> higher education, the spectre of faculty (and student) resistance.
> Last Fall this Digital Diploma Mills series began with the
> juxtaposition of two events. The first, UCLA's Instructional
> Enhancement Initiative (and partnership with The Home Education
> Network), signalled the commoditization of instruction and
> commercialization of higher education by means of digital technology.
> The second, the unprecedented two-month strike by faculty at York
> University, represented the first significant sign of opposition to
> this new regime and the unholy alliance among academic administrators
> and their myriad corporate and political partners. In this new age
> of higher education, I wrote then,"the lines have already been drawn
> in the struggle which will ultimately determine its shape". Over the
> last year, this struggle has intensified.
>
> At UCLA, the widely-touted Instructional Enhancement Initiative,
> which mandated web sites for all 3800 arts and sciences courses, has
> floundered in the face of faculty recalcitrance and resistance. By
> the end of the academic year, only thirty percent of the faculty had
> put any of their course material online and several dozen had actively
> resisted the Initiative and the way it had been unilaterally inspired
> and implemented. UCLA Extension's partnership with The Home Education
> Network (which changed its name in the Spring to Onlinelearning.net)
> ran aground on similar shoals when instructors made it clear that they
> would refuse to assign any of their rights in their course materials
> to either UCLA (the Regents) or the company. In already up to their
> necks, the partners decided simply to claim the rights anyway and
> proceed apace, flying without wings on borrowed time. While the
> strike at York awakened the faculty there to a new vigilance and
> militancy with regard to the computer-based commercialization of the
> university, it also emboldened others elsewhere to do likewise. At
> Acadia University, for example, which had linked up with IBM in hopes
> of becoming the foremost wired institution in Canada, the threat
> of a faculty strike forced the administration to back off from some
> of their unilateral demands for online instruction, and faculties
> at other Canadian institutions have been moving in the same
> direction. And even within Simon Fraser University's Department
> of Communications, home of the recently refunded Canadian flagship
> Telelearning Research Center, serious faculty challenges to the
> virtual university enterprise have emerged and gone public.
>
> In the United States as well, resistance is on the rise. Last
> year faculty and students in the California State University system,
> the largest public higher educational institution in the country,
> fought vigorously and effectively against the California Educational
> Technology Inititiative (CETI), an unprecedented deal between CSU and
> a consortium of firms (Microsoft, GTE, Hughes, and Fujitsu), which
> would have given them a monopoly over the development of the system's
> telecommunications infrastructure and the marketing and delivery of
> CSU online courses. Students resisted being made a captive market
> for company products while faculty responded to the lack of faculty
> consultation and threats to academic freedom and their intellectual
> property rights. In particular, they feared that CETI might try to
> dictate online course content for commercial advantage and that CSU
> would appropriate and commercially exploit their course materials.
>
> Throughout the CSU system, faculty senates passed resolutions
> against CETI, tried to obtain an injunction to stop the deal, and used
> the media and public forums to campaign against it. Together with
> students, faculty participated in widely publicized demonstrations;
> at Humboldt State University in northern California, students
> demonstrating against the deal altered the sign at the campus entrance
> to read "Microsoft University", a creative act of defiance which
> caught the attention of media around the country. Through the efforts
> of the Internet activist group NetAction, the controversy over the
> CETI deal became a cause celebre, galvanizing opposition and leading
> to high-profile government hearings and legislative scrutiny and
> skepticism. Opposition to the deal from California-based business
> competitors such as Apple, Netscape, and Sun (none of the CETI
> partners were California-based) also contributed to the erosion
> of legislative support for the half-baked deal (which was seen as
> probably unconstitutional under state law). Before long, Microsoft
> and Hughes dropped out, then GTE, and the deal was dead. A new deal
> is in the works but is sure to encounter determined and well-organized
> opposition.
>
> Further north at the University of Washington in Seattle, a
> campus with little recent history of faculty activism, four hundred
> faculty members attended a February forum on "digital diploma mills"
> sponsored by the local chapter of the AAUP. Later that Spring,
> Washington governor Gary Locke and Wallace Loh,his chief advisor on
> higher education, gave speeches extolling the virtues of the "brave
> new world of digital education" and outlined plans for statewide
> initiatives in that direction. The AAUP immediately drafted an
> open letter to the governor vigorously opposing this vapid vision
> and circulated it among the faculty. Within two days, seven hundred
> faculty from across the campus, from slavic studies to computer
> science, had signed the letter - surely a record for concerted faculty
> action of any kind. Another two hundred signatures were later added
> and the letter was made public, in early June. Within a week, this
> bold and eloquent faculty protest had made headlines around the
> country.
>
> "We feel called upon to respond before quixotic ideas harden
> into disastrous policies," the faculty wrote the governor. "While
> costly fantasies of this kind present a mouth-watering bonanza to
> software manufacturers and other corporate sponsors, what they bode
> for education is nothing short of disastrous. . . . Education is
> not reducible to the downloading of information, much less to the
> passive and solitary activity of staring at a screen. Education is
> an intersubjective and social process, involving hands-on activity,
> spontaneity, and the communal experience of sharing in the learning
> enterprise. . . . We urge you to support learning as a human and
> social practice, an enrichment of soul and mind, the entitlement of
> all citizens in a democracy, and not a profit-making commodity to be
> offered on the cheapest terms to the highest bidder. The University
> of Washington is a vital resource to our community, not a factory, not
> a corporation, not a software package. Its excellence and integrity
> are not only assets that we as a community can afford to maintain, but
> also assets that we cannot afford to squander".
>
> The widespread academic and media support engendered by this
> letter compelled the governor to meet with a faculty delegation
> and ultimately to retreat somewhat from fully embracing the virtual
> education agenda, at least for now. "We're not unique," history
> professor Jim Gregory, one of the organizers of the letter campaign,
> told the press. "We just may be a little more mobilized at this
> particular moment". He was right. All the way at the other end
> of the continent, near Ft. Myers, Florida, similar sentiments
> were emerging. The Florida Gulf Coast University (FGCU) , the new
> tenth campus of the state higher education system, was advertised
> as the "university of the future," "built as a testing-ground for
> Internet-based instruction," where faculty are hired on short-term
> contracts without a tenure system. In recent months the FGCU faculty
> and their union the United Faculty of Florida have begun openly to
> question the pedagogical value of online education, protest against
> the increased workload entailed in distance learning - a major
> complaint everywhere, resist the university's attempt to appropriate
> their intellectual property, and lobby for a standard tenure system
> rather than have to reapply for their jobs every two years.
>
> In an administration survey, more than half of the faculty -
> who were hired on the understanding that the new campus would
> specialize in distance education - opposed increasing the proportion
> of distance-learning classes from 16 to 25 percent of classes. "Some
> professors say they remain unconvinced of the method's effectiveness,"
> the Wall Street Journal reported in July. The questionable economic
> viability of existing distance education classes has also been an
> issue. "Some observers say significant savings can be achieved only
> if the size of distance-learning classes increases," the newspaper
> reported, but enlarging the classes only undermines the pedagogical
> promise even more.
>
> Intellectual property issues are at the center of faculty concerns.
> Faculty became especially alarmed when the Dean of Instructional
> Technology Kathleen Davie was quoted in a Chronicle of Higher
> Education article saying that, with regard to faculty course materials
> "the first rights belong to the university". A new draft policy on
> intellectual property, formulated without faculty involvement by Davie
> and her associates, is explicit on this point: "IP developed by FGCU
> employees (faculty, staff, and students) under university sponsorship
> or with university support shall belong to the university. University
> sponsorship or support means the work is conceived or reduced to
> practice: as a result of the employee's duties; through the use
> of University resources, such as facilities or equipment; or with
> university funds, or funds under the control of or administered by the
> university". In a response to a faculty member's query about this,
> Dean Davie summed up the university position: "For the most part, the
> university holds the copyrights for instructional materials created as
> part of one's compensated workload".
>
> The creator of one course has already complained about
> the university's efforts to seek outside sponsorship without his
> permission. Chuck Lindsay, the president of the FGCU Faculty Senate,
> noted in a letter to the Chronicle of Higher Education that the
> faculty had not been involved in the formulation of the policy and
> emphasized that "we do not subscribe to the notion that online course
> materials are, as such, a product of work for hire. . . .We hold
> that any policy that attempts to lay down across-the-board levels
> of ownership and revenue sharing for new online course materials
> reflects a perspective that ascribes an inferior status to original
> instructional creations and a work for hire mentality; both are
> contrary to the mission and guiding principles of FGCU.
>
> FGCU is not alone in moving in this direction, of course; draft
> policies of the University of California, the University of Victoria,
> the University of Kansas, and Penn State, to name a few, reflect
> similar intent. But here the unionized faculty have kept themselves
> abreast of the situation, have gone public with their concerns,
> and have begun to mobilize their resources for the struggle. The
> administration is on the defensive. In an interview this summer, Dean
> Davie acknowledged that she had personally declined a faculty request
> that I be invited to the campus to hold a forum on these issues, out
> of fear of jeopardizing her position.
>
> The faculty actions at CSU, the University of Washington, and
> FGCU are not isolated events. There is similar ferment throught
> academia. This became apparent at the international Digital Diploma
> Mills conference held at Harvey Mudd College in Claremont, California
> in April. The conference attracted well-informed faculty and student
> participants and an audience of campus activists and rank and file
> union members from throughout the United States and Canada, as well
> as Mexico. (The keynote speaker was Mary Burgan, general secretary of
> the AAUP, who suggested that "distance makes the heart grow colder".)
> The two days of sessions critically examined the political economy,
> pedagogical value, and economic viability of online education and
> explored the implications for faculty and students, while those
> in attendance used their free time to compare notes, make contacts
> and extend their networks. The Chronicle of Higher Education ran a
> two-page story on the conference, which ended on an revealing note,
> pointing out that "officials at Harvey Mudd took pains to distance
> themselves from the event".
>
> At the same time, faculty and student activists have been
> holding similar forums on their own campuses. I myself have
> participated in many such events at campuses such as the University
> of Pittsburgh, Alma College, James Madison University, Embry-Riddle
> University, George Mason University,the University of Western Ontario,
> the University of Wisconsin, the University of Washington, the
> California State University campuses in Sacramento and San Bernadino,
> California Polytechnic University in Pomona, and the University
> of California campuses at Irvine and Los Angeles. Increasingly,
> and everywhere, faculty and students alike are waking up to the
> realization that it is High Noon for Higher Education. They are
> overcoming their traditional timidity and parochialism to make
> common cause with like-minded people across the continent, to fight
> for their own and the larger public interest against the plans and
> pronouncements of peddlers and politicians who in general know little
> about education. Having learned that they are not alone, faculty
> are displaying a new-found confidence in their own experience and
> expertise, and thus in their rightful capacity to decide what is a
> good education. Socrates, they have reminded themselves, was not a
> content provider.
>
> In the wake of this resistance, the media has caught the scent,
> publicly validating and magnifying its message. After several years
> of puff pieces and press releases about the wonders of wired learning,
> the media is finally beginning to give the matter more scrutiny and
> critics their due. "Virtual Classes Trend Alarms Professors," the
> New York Times reported in June; a front page article in the Wall
> Street Journal in August carried the headline "Scholarly Dismay:
> College Professors Balk at Internet Teaching Plans;" describing what
> it called the "backlash against virtual education," the Christian
> Science Monitor carried another summer story entitled "Professors
> Peer Doubtfully into a Digital Future;" the Industry Standard, "The
> Newsmagazine of the Internet Economy," began its feature article
> "Academics Rebel Against an Online Future" with the words : "Hell no
> - we won't go - online. . . .The backlash has begun".
>
> The San Francisco Chronicle, the Seattle Times, the Los
> Angeles Times, the Boston Globe - all have run critical articles
> examining the commoditization and commercialization of university
> instruction. In June the Industry Standard's cover story was "Ideas
> for Sale: Business is racing to bring education online. Now academics
> fear they're becoming just another class of content provider". The
> headline for the article read "Higher Earning: the Fight to Control
> the Academy's Intellectual Capital". In response to the open letter
> to the governor from University of Washington faculty that same month,
> The Seattle Times ran an editorial entitled "Potential Pitfalls,"
> noting that "Signs of high tech corporate corruption are already
> sneaking into higher education classrooms". Indeed.
>
> If the media-annointed "backlash" against virtual education
> has prompted a bit more skepticism on the part of reporters and
> editorial writers, so too has the pitiful performance of the virtuosi
> themselves, whose market appears to have been a mirage. After several
> years of high-profile hype and millions of dollars, the flagship
> Western Governors' Virtual University opened for business this Fall,
> offering hundreds of online courses. Expecting an initial enrollment
> of 5000, the WGU enrolled only 10 people, and received just 75
> inquiries. Intended to put a positive spin on this disaster, WGU
> marketing director Jeff Edward's doubletalk unwittingly hit the nail
> on the head: "it points out that students are pretty serious about
> this". Serious enough, that is, to know crap when they see it.
>
> It's pretty much the same story at Onlinelearning.net, the UCLA
> partner that describes itself as "one of the leading global supplers
> of online continuing education". The company lost two million
> dollars in its first year of business and was unable to pay UCLA the
> anticipated royalties. According to insiders, it is currently losing
> about $60,000 a month. John Kobara, the president of the company and
> former UCLA vice chancellor for marketing acknowledged at a company
> event this month that it is indeed a very risky business. Kobara
> noted that most apparent successes are misleading: at the Universities
> of Colorado, Washington, and Arizona, the great majority of allegedly
> "distance learning" customers "are in the dorms" while most online
> programs, such as those at Berkeley and Vanderbilt, have retention
> rates of well less than 50%. "Retention is the challenge," Kobara
> explained. Getting people enrolled is one thing, and difficult
> enough. Getting them to remain enrolled and complete their courses
> is another thing entirely. A November 2nd article in the New York
> Times entitled "More Colleges Plunging Into Uncharted Waters of
> On-Line Courses," confirmed that these were not isolated experiences.
>
> Distance learning administrators are keeping their chins up and
> issuing upbeat press releases which are increasingly hard to believe.
> Officials at WGU, which recently joined forces with Britain's Open
> University in an attempt to improve its prospects , the Southern
> Regional Electronic Campus (SREC) which coordinates distance learning
> courses in sixteen southern states, and the California Virtual
> University, which coordinates the online offerings of one hundred
> California campuses, have all expressed optimism about the future
> of distance learning. "We feel confident that there is tremendous
> interest, especially in the non-traditional student environment,"
> said WGU's Jeffrey Xouris. "Figures indicate significant interest
> in distance education," said CVU's Rich Halberg. "The dirty little
> secret," Gerald Heeger, dean of Continuing and Professional Studies
> at NYU, told the New York Times, "is that nobody's making any money".
>
> Great expectations have yielded great expenditures, that is the
> story so far. The high-tech hallucinations of new revenue streams
> that so enchanted administrators everywhere were conjured up by
> voo-doo demographics, which mistook distance for demand. What was
> left out of the equation was whether or not people, on the basis of
> convenience and computer gimmickry, would be willing to pay more for
> less education. Apparently not.
>
> In time-honored fashion, the purveyers of this dismal product
> have turned to the taxpayer to bail them out. They are placing their
> bets on the Distance Education Demonstration Program contained in
> the education bill recently approved by Congress and signed by Bill
> Clinton, which waives classroom requirements for federal student
> aid eligibility for distance learning customers, thereby priming
> the distance education market and providing an indirect subsidy to
> vendors. According to existing law, students must spend a specified
> number of hours in a classroom to be eligible for student aid.
> Vendors have been lobbying for some time, against strenuous opposition
> from traditional academic institutions and unions, for a waiver
> of such requirements, which would render their customers eligible
> for student aid and them eligible for a handsome handout. The new
> legislation grants such a waiver for fifteen organizations engaged
> exclusively in distance learning, including the Western Governor's
> University. But, even fattened with such pork, it is unlikely that
> the distance-learning market will materialize on anything like the
> scale dreamed up by the wishful thinkers of Wall Street.
>
> An inflated assessment of the market for online distance
> education has been matched by an abandonment of financial common
> sense, as officials recklessly allocated millions of (typically
> taxpayer) dollars toward untested virtual ventures. Suckered by
> the siren-songs and scare-tactics of the silicon snake-oil salesmen,
> university and college officials have thrown caution to the wind and
> failed to full cost their pet projects. As former chief university
> financial officer Christopher Oberg warned at the Harvey Mudd
> conference, administrators have suspended normal accounting practices
> at their peril, and the returns are in. (Little wonder, perhaps, that
> the presumably more sober Certified Public Accounts Review program
> at Northern Illinois University has broken off its partnership with
> online vendor Real Education, citing questionable business practices.)
>
> In the face of faculty and student resistance, increasing media
> skepticism, and notably lackluster performance, some university
> administrators are beginning to break ranks. It is perhaps no
> surprise to hear a note of caution emanating from an elite private
> institution, which must retain some semblance of genuine education
> for its privileged clientele even while competing for their favors
> with high-wired acts. Yet it is nevertheless remarkable to find it
> coming from one of the nation's premier technical institutions, which
> famously foisted all of this technology upon us in the first place.
> Last year Michael Dertouzos, director of M.I.T.'s Laboratory for
> Computer Science - home of the World Wide Web - waxed eloquently about
> the virtues of non-virtual education. "Education is much more than
> the transfer of knowledge from teachers to learners. As an educator
> myself, I can say firsthand that lighting the fire of learning in
> the hearts of students, providing role models, and building student-
> teacher bonds are the most critical factors for successful learning.
> These cardinal necessities will not be imparted by information
> technology. . . . teachers' dedication and ability will still be
> the most important educational tool". And now, Dertouzos' boss,
> M.I.T. president Charles Vest, has added his voice to the chorus.
> "Even though I'm from M.I.T., I'm not convinced technology is the
> answer to everything," Vest conceded. In particular, the relationship
> between teacher and student "is an experience you can never replace
> electronically". Echoes of Tuesdays with Morrie.
>
> More striking still is the recent inaugural address of J. Bernard
> Machen, the new president of the University of Utah. The University
> of Utah is located in Salt Lake City, the headquarters of the WGU, and
> among the distinguished guests at the inauguration was Utah governor
> and WGU co-chairman Michael Leavitt, who once proclaimed that "in the
> future an institution of higher education will become a little like a
> local television station". Formerly the provost at the University of
> Michigan, Machen forcefully decried the vocational emphasis of online
> learning and the shifting allocation of public higher education
> resources toward virtual instruction at the expense of traditional
> campus-based education. "Let us not succumb to the temptation to
> force a college education to its lowest common denominator," Machen
> insisted. "It inherently limits the broader, more interactive
> aspects of a university education. Spontaneous debate, discussion,
> and exchange of ideas in the classroom are essential in developing
> the mind. Poetry must be heard, interpreted and discussed, with
> professors and classmates. Learning about the different professions
> and academic disciplines available at the University of Utah requires
> personal involvement, and that is only available on our campus, and
> it can only be experienced by being here. . . . The kind of education
> I am describing is not the cheapest, but it is the best".
>
> Predictably, Machen's remarks were derisively dismissed by
> governor Leavitt's office. "It is not the first time that we have
> heard a kind of fearful, skeptical reaction of the higher education
> community," one aide to the governor remarked, in a condescending
> manner all too familiar to faculty critics. But they are not
> listening carefully, for this is not what they have heard before.
> The tune may be the same, but the tone has changed, dramatically. No
> longer are students and faculty (and the rare administrator) speaking
> up for quality education out of fear and defensiveness in the face of
> a preordained and prematurely foreclosed virtual future. Emboldened
> by recent experience (and forewarned by the diastrous demise of public
> health care), their voices now resonate with new-found conviction
> and resolve, with the confident and joyful determination to forge
> a different future. No time for complacency, to be certain, to
> abandon vigilance or vital preparation for critical battles to come
> (especially the battle over intellectual property), but the tide
> appears to have turned. Indeed, it is now the tired response of the
> governor's office that appears time-worn and out of touch, the damning
> words strangely hollow without the weight of history behind them. The
> bloom is off the rose.
>
> * * *
>
> David F. Noble teaches at York University. He is currently visiting
> professor at Harvey Mudd College in Claremont, California and can be
> reached there at (909) 607-7699.
>
>
Warm Regards
Arun Tripathi
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARUN KUMAR TRIPATHI,c/o Braun,Luetgenholthauser Strasse 99
44225,Dortmund,Germany EDUCATOR: WEB SITE REVIEW WRITER
My short bio at http://www.bfranklin.com/gld98/tripathi.htm
Volunteer cum List Manager on Global Learn Day II Project
Join GLD-II Ship at http://www.bfranklin.com
Member, World Association for Online Education: http://www.waoe.org
Internet in Education: http://www.gsh.org/wce/archives/tripathi.htm
E-mail: <tripathi@amadeus.statistik.uni-dortmund.de>
Research Scholar, Internet Search Expert, Department of Statistics
University Of Dortmund, EDRESOURCE Listserv Moderator
MEMBER, IEEE Computer Society: http://www.computer.org
------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------
Forum website: http://zeus.gmd.de/ifets/
Email address for sending message to everyone on the list ifets@gmd.de
Forum's contact person ifets-info@gmd.de
Join/Leave Digest or Normal List http://zeus.gmd.de/ifets/maillist.html
---------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Fri 11 Dec 1998 - 09:38:35 MET