Low Residency Programs in Higher Education:
A Bridge Between Distance Learning and the Traditional Classroom
Anita Ytuarte Oelkers
Fordham UniversityGraduate School of Education
Online learning, or distance learning, even in light of tremendous growth in recent years, has had its skeptics. Unflattering comparisons between “correspondence courses” of the mid-twentieth century paint distance learning programs with the same broad brush, assuming that they are degree- or certificate-granting factories where people work in isolation before sending their minimally guided work to a virtual post office in exchange for second-rate validation or accreditation (Grant, 2002). Faculty, administrators, and prospective students express fear that learners will be left on their own without a connection to a learning community, and will lose their energy and interest, not to mention the valuable connections made through networking, peer support, and collaborative work.
Detractors have strong feelings about online learning, even when softened by the hybrid construction of low-residency models. A scathing commentary on National Public Radio by author and writing professor Andrei Codrescu expresses skepticism for the ability of online methods of communicating to express “emphasis, shades of irony, significant stresses or tongue-in-cheekisms” There are undoubtedly many who share the opinion that without the physical presence of peers and professors, the message is one-dimensional. Codrescu further states that without the physical signals of sweat, fear, tensing of facial muscles, and so on, “The trouble with low-residency world dominion is that the deals will be made of nothing but language; language in the absence of the body is dry dust” (as cited in Siegel, 2001).
Yet, even in the face of these doubts, low- residency programs have begun to take hold as a practical solution for all parties. By designing various programs that combine virtual classrooms with short, intensive face-to-face meetings on college campuses, higher education institutions have begin to bridge the gap—and the perception—of low-residency as inferior to the traditional on-campus degree program. The most common low-residency programs taking hold in higher education institutions in the U.S. are in the purview of Master of Fine Arts degrees. MFA programs in writing and visual arts are the fastest-growing area for low-residency programs, followed by various kinds of professional certification programs in business, medicine and health, science and (not-surprisingly) technology. Although degree completion programs for adults are offered through many traditional universities, there are a few who have added the “hybrid” and “low-residency” options to combine the independence and flexibility of online classes with the more traditional relationship-building venue of the face-to-face seminar (Waits & Lewis, 2003).
Much of this discussion is concentrated on MFA programs, particularly writing and visual arts degree programs. These have the longest history in college and university settings, and have produced enough graduates to generate a fair amount of literature for review. The first low-residency MFA program was a writing degree program created by poet Ellen Bryant Voigt in 1976 at Vermont’s Goddard College. From these modest beginnings, according to David Fenza of the Association of Writers & Writing Programs (AWP), MFA writing programs grew to more than 300 in North America by 2004. (Hurtes, 2004).
The general constructs of these programs have changed and metamorphosed with the advancement and ubiquity of technological tools, but the general model for writing programs has become standard. Students combine on-campus intensives, usually seven to ten days in length, with writing mentorships off campus. The off-campus components can take many forms, and the use of technology varies enormously. It was surprising to learn that many of these programs use technology simply for the purpose of sending documents back and forth between students and teacher/mentors, with limited use of web boards or web-based teaching modules such as Blackboard. This represents the “old school” model for a low-residency program, the isolated student/mentor process (Grant, 2002).
As students and institutions adopt and embrace technological advancements, white-boarding, synchronous web seminars and online presentations by “visiting” experts have been added. Class discussion boards, whether in the form of a class blog or a delivery system such as Blackboard, take the place of the traditional writing workshop, the cornerstone of face-to-face MFA programs, where students read and critique each others’ work. The use of a web board as a “virtual workshop” begins with the connections made in the learning community during the short residency periods, and continues to build these communities throughout the term. According to Andrew Gray, director of the University of British Columbia at Vancouver’s MFA writing program, the low-residency model is closer to the reality of a working professional, “As a writer, in the end, you are working alone, though connected to a larger community” (as cited in Dreifus, 2005).
The advantages to institutions are enormous, as low-residency programs are much less costly to develop and run than face-to-face programs. Although the hiring of tech support personnel as well as hardware and software purchase and maintenance is a necessary investment, the use of adjunct and non-tenured teaching in most low-residency programs more than balance these expenditures. The need for special campus facilities is minimal in hybrid low-residency programs, as on-site meetings take place in either summer months, before the start of fall classes, or in early January before traditional spring terms have begun. The requirements for housing, classrooms, libraries and meeting spaces at these times does not necessitate the creation of new spaces whenever a program is added; they simply use existing facilities when traditional residential programs are on break. In addition, the availability of visiting professors from other institutions is increased, so that collaboration between content areas and institutions, both public and private, is simplified. Additional teaching responsibilities don’t have to take away from students in the regular academic calendar terms, and faculty can give low-residency students the intense focus required by such programs.
Another advantage to both students and institutions is the ability to employ experts and working professionals in a given field. Rather than requiring instructors to spend an entire semester teaching, presentations and meetings can occur during the on-campus “intensive” weeks, or alternatively, through online interactive presentations or podcasts. Costs to institutions and students are minimal, especially when travel and lodging expenses are considered. Program directors agree that one of the main reasons students choose a particular MFA writing program is the desire to work with writers they admire; low residency programs broaden the selection of such writers. Many well-known published writers participate in these programs as mentors and part-time faculty members. Students benefit by having access to these field experts in a flexible time-frame, as well as enjoying the opportunity to learn with role models of their own choosing (Johnson, 2003).
In researching this topic, I discovered a new low-residency program in my own institution, a liberal arts college that has been stubbornly resistant to including emerging technology in their curricula. Although Sarah Lawrence’s MFA writing program is world renowned, this was not the program to break new ground in the low-residency realm. Instead, a certificate program in Public Health Genomics was needed for both students in the Genetics field and our own Human Genetics Graduate Program. Developing the program was difficult for the College to afford, even with a grant from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. As it turned out, the low-residency model provided a solution. It enabled the university to employ one part-time faculty member from another state as well as a local program coordinator, while using its own campus experts and working professionals to teach the seminars and lectures during ten-day intensives. Although the College did not invest in technology systems such as Blackboard or other web board options, students took matters into their own hands by creating class blogs and using Skype to communicate within their learning community. Future modules will include a web board, online conferencing, and other technologies as the “students and faculty drove home the need to bring more technology into the teaching model,” according to program coordinator Kara Sheridan (2008). She also points out that employers are more willing to pay for or assist with tuition when they do not need to grant substantial “release time” for training. The program is taught in three independent modules, so that students can enter at any point without having to consider sequence. A capstone project, in (mostly electronic and telephone) consultation with an advisor who students meet and select during the residency period, incorporates all three modules’ content areas and, after review, completes the certification. (Grob, Lieber, Wolman & Dolan, 2006).
In addition to the time and place flexibility offered to students in such programs, they have the luxury of continuing in their own homes without sacrificing family life or current employment while pursuing degrees. Rosa Irigoyen, a student in the MEA visual art program at Norwich University in Vermont, is a Cuban-born resident of Puerto Rico. A working artist and private art instructor, her goal was to obtain an MFA in order to teach in higher education settings, but the option of moving to the U.S. for two years was impossible. She expresses the wonderful compromise she found in a low-residency program. The work is isolated for a time, but never unguided, and the on-campus residency recharges her batteries when exhaustion creeps in “You get a new burst of energy about halfway through the week” (Polston, 1994, p. 26). Although technology is trickier for visual arts programs, digital photography and video is used to convey works in progress, and to develop the final thesis: a portfolio, either analogue or digital. Instruction is offered by video feed and live conferencing, even white board technology has been utilized for instruction in drawing (Polston, 1994).
The diversity of adult learning participants is increased when residency does not limit by location or mobility, and individual needs, contexts, and modes of learning are more easily accommodated by technological interventions. The shift to learner-centered program and the multiplicity of information sources enriches the overall experience for adult learners (White & Bridwell, 2004). In residency periods, students work with faculty and advisors to create their own bibliographies and negotiate guidelines and expected outcomes according to their own learning objectives. Bonds formed in the physical proximity of the residential periods carry through even after the group disperses. This interactive and student-centered model creates a rich and empowering learning experience (Palloff & Pratt, 1999).
Empowerment is a theme revisited in the scholarship on mentoring, and mentoring is at the center of MFA programs in both Writing and Visual Arts. Sarah Mitchell’s dissertation uses adult and feminist learning theory, as well as human development theory to describe mentoring relationships between faculty-mentors and adult women students. She draws on current research and years of experience teaching in low-residency programs to describe how the “dialogic relation of presence rather than distance” cultivates the empowerment and growth of these learners (Mitchell, 1996, p.5).
In addition to the many benefits to students and institutions, faculty members often prefer low-residency teaching for a variety of reasons. Many working professionals, (whether artists, writers, health care workers, or other content experts) do not want to fall into the position of making teaching a full-time “fall back” career. Although they enjoy their work as mentors and facilitators, they wish to pursue their own work in private practice. Low residency programs allow such experts to continue with their own creative pursuits, private practice, or research while supplementing their incomes by teaching. Their work can take them where it leads without the constraints of having to be physically present, save for a few weeks annually, in a given university’s location. Peter Turchi describes his delight in low-residency teaching opportunities:
A Bridge Between Distance Learning and the Traditional Classroom
Anita Ytuarte Oelkers
Fordham UniversityGraduate School of Education
Online learning, or distance learning, even in light of tremendous growth in recent years, has had its skeptics. Unflattering comparisons between “correspondence courses” of the mid-twentieth century paint distance learning programs with the same broad brush, assuming that they are degree- or certificate-granting factories where people work in isolation before sending their minimally guided work to a virtual post office in exchange for second-rate validation or accreditation (Grant, 2002). Faculty, administrators, and prospective students express fear that learners will be left on their own without a connection to a learning community, and will lose their energy and interest, not to mention the valuable connections made through networking, peer support, and collaborative work.
Detractors have strong feelings about online learning, even when softened by the hybrid construction of low-residency models. A scathing commentary on National Public Radio by author and writing professor Andrei Codrescu expresses skepticism for the ability of online methods of communicating to express “emphasis, shades of irony, significant stresses or tongue-in-cheekisms” There are undoubtedly many who share the opinion that without the physical presence of peers and professors, the message is one-dimensional. Codrescu further states that without the physical signals of sweat, fear, tensing of facial muscles, and so on, “The trouble with low-residency world dominion is that the deals will be made of nothing but language; language in the absence of the body is dry dust” (as cited in Siegel, 2001).
Yet, even in the face of these doubts, low- residency programs have begun to take hold as a practical solution for all parties. By designing various programs that combine virtual classrooms with short, intensive face-to-face meetings on college campuses, higher education institutions have begin to bridge the gap—and the perception—of low-residency as inferior to the traditional on-campus degree program. The most common low-residency programs taking hold in higher education institutions in the U.S. are in the purview of Master of Fine Arts degrees. MFA programs in writing and visual arts are the fastest-growing area for low-residency programs, followed by various kinds of professional certification programs in business, medicine and health, science and (not-surprisingly) technology. Although degree completion programs for adults are offered through many traditional universities, there are a few who have added the “hybrid” and “low-residency” options to combine the independence and flexibility of online classes with the more traditional relationship-building venue of the face-to-face seminar (Waits & Lewis, 2003).
Much of this discussion is concentrated on MFA programs, particularly writing and visual arts degree programs. These have the longest history in college and university settings, and have produced enough graduates to generate a fair amount of literature for review. The first low-residency MFA program was a writing degree program created by poet Ellen Bryant Voigt in 1976 at Vermont’s Goddard College. From these modest beginnings, according to David Fenza of the Association of Writers & Writing Programs (AWP), MFA writing programs grew to more than 300 in North America by 2004. (Hurtes, 2004).
The general constructs of these programs have changed and metamorphosed with the advancement and ubiquity of technological tools, but the general model for writing programs has become standard. Students combine on-campus intensives, usually seven to ten days in length, with writing mentorships off campus. The off-campus components can take many forms, and the use of technology varies enormously. It was surprising to learn that many of these programs use technology simply for the purpose of sending documents back and forth between students and teacher/mentors, with limited use of web boards or web-based teaching modules such as Blackboard. This represents the “old school” model for a low-residency program, the isolated student/mentor process (Grant, 2002).
As students and institutions adopt and embrace technological advancements, white-boarding, synchronous web seminars and online presentations by “visiting” experts have been added. Class discussion boards, whether in the form of a class blog or a delivery system such as Blackboard, take the place of the traditional writing workshop, the cornerstone of face-to-face MFA programs, where students read and critique each others’ work. The use of a web board as a “virtual workshop” begins with the connections made in the learning community during the short residency periods, and continues to build these communities throughout the term. According to Andrew Gray, director of the University of British Columbia at Vancouver’s MFA writing program, the low-residency model is closer to the reality of a working professional, “As a writer, in the end, you are working alone, though connected to a larger community” (as cited in Dreifus, 2005).
The advantages to institutions are enormous, as low-residency programs are much less costly to develop and run than face-to-face programs. Although the hiring of tech support personnel as well as hardware and software purchase and maintenance is a necessary investment, the use of adjunct and non-tenured teaching in most low-residency programs more than balance these expenditures. The need for special campus facilities is minimal in hybrid low-residency programs, as on-site meetings take place in either summer months, before the start of fall classes, or in early January before traditional spring terms have begun. The requirements for housing, classrooms, libraries and meeting spaces at these times does not necessitate the creation of new spaces whenever a program is added; they simply use existing facilities when traditional residential programs are on break. In addition, the availability of visiting professors from other institutions is increased, so that collaboration between content areas and institutions, both public and private, is simplified. Additional teaching responsibilities don’t have to take away from students in the regular academic calendar terms, and faculty can give low-residency students the intense focus required by such programs.
Another advantage to both students and institutions is the ability to employ experts and working professionals in a given field. Rather than requiring instructors to spend an entire semester teaching, presentations and meetings can occur during the on-campus “intensive” weeks, or alternatively, through online interactive presentations or podcasts. Costs to institutions and students are minimal, especially when travel and lodging expenses are considered. Program directors agree that one of the main reasons students choose a particular MFA writing program is the desire to work with writers they admire; low residency programs broaden the selection of such writers. Many well-known published writers participate in these programs as mentors and part-time faculty members. Students benefit by having access to these field experts in a flexible time-frame, as well as enjoying the opportunity to learn with role models of their own choosing (Johnson, 2003).
In researching this topic, I discovered a new low-residency program in my own institution, a liberal arts college that has been stubbornly resistant to including emerging technology in their curricula. Although Sarah Lawrence’s MFA writing program is world renowned, this was not the program to break new ground in the low-residency realm. Instead, a certificate program in Public Health Genomics was needed for both students in the Genetics field and our own Human Genetics Graduate Program. Developing the program was difficult for the College to afford, even with a grant from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. As it turned out, the low-residency model provided a solution. It enabled the university to employ one part-time faculty member from another state as well as a local program coordinator, while using its own campus experts and working professionals to teach the seminars and lectures during ten-day intensives. Although the College did not invest in technology systems such as Blackboard or other web board options, students took matters into their own hands by creating class blogs and using Skype to communicate within their learning community. Future modules will include a web board, online conferencing, and other technologies as the “students and faculty drove home the need to bring more technology into the teaching model,” according to program coordinator Kara Sheridan (2008). She also points out that employers are more willing to pay for or assist with tuition when they do not need to grant substantial “release time” for training. The program is taught in three independent modules, so that students can enter at any point without having to consider sequence. A capstone project, in (mostly electronic and telephone) consultation with an advisor who students meet and select during the residency period, incorporates all three modules’ content areas and, after review, completes the certification. (Grob, Lieber, Wolman & Dolan, 2006).
In addition to the time and place flexibility offered to students in such programs, they have the luxury of continuing in their own homes without sacrificing family life or current employment while pursuing degrees. Rosa Irigoyen, a student in the MEA visual art program at Norwich University in Vermont, is a Cuban-born resident of Puerto Rico. A working artist and private art instructor, her goal was to obtain an MFA in order to teach in higher education settings, but the option of moving to the U.S. for two years was impossible. She expresses the wonderful compromise she found in a low-residency program. The work is isolated for a time, but never unguided, and the on-campus residency recharges her batteries when exhaustion creeps in “You get a new burst of energy about halfway through the week” (Polston, 1994, p. 26). Although technology is trickier for visual arts programs, digital photography and video is used to convey works in progress, and to develop the final thesis: a portfolio, either analogue or digital. Instruction is offered by video feed and live conferencing, even white board technology has been utilized for instruction in drawing (Polston, 1994).
The diversity of adult learning participants is increased when residency does not limit by location or mobility, and individual needs, contexts, and modes of learning are more easily accommodated by technological interventions. The shift to learner-centered program and the multiplicity of information sources enriches the overall experience for adult learners (White & Bridwell, 2004). In residency periods, students work with faculty and advisors to create their own bibliographies and negotiate guidelines and expected outcomes according to their own learning objectives. Bonds formed in the physical proximity of the residential periods carry through even after the group disperses. This interactive and student-centered model creates a rich and empowering learning experience (Palloff & Pratt, 1999).
Empowerment is a theme revisited in the scholarship on mentoring, and mentoring is at the center of MFA programs in both Writing and Visual Arts. Sarah Mitchell’s dissertation uses adult and feminist learning theory, as well as human development theory to describe mentoring relationships between faculty-mentors and adult women students. She draws on current research and years of experience teaching in low-residency programs to describe how the “dialogic relation of presence rather than distance” cultivates the empowerment and growth of these learners (Mitchell, 1996, p.5).
In addition to the many benefits to students and institutions, faculty members often prefer low-residency teaching for a variety of reasons. Many working professionals, (whether artists, writers, health care workers, or other content experts) do not want to fall into the position of making teaching a full-time “fall back” career. Although they enjoy their work as mentors and facilitators, they wish to pursue their own work in private practice. Low residency programs allow such experts to continue with their own creative pursuits, private practice, or research while supplementing their incomes by teaching. Their work can take them where it leads without the constraints of having to be physically present, save for a few weeks annually, in a given university’s location. Peter Turchi describes his delight in low-residency teaching opportunities:
I call it a luxury not because the work is easy or overpaid, but…
one in which each faculty member works with a very few students.
We aren’t driving a bus or even a taxi; we’re walking alongside our
students. (2004, p. B5)
When learners and mentor-teachers walk side by side, faculty, educational institutions and students benefit equally. Teachers are able to pursue independent career goals and varied areas of interest, students pursue programs suited to their individualized learning objectives, and institutions are able to develop programs at lower cost with more freedom to experiment and to engage experts as guest lecturers, mentors, and instructors. The low-residency model presents an opportunity to build a bridge between distance and face-to-face programs for those who seek a balance between the public and the personal, the individual and the academe, the technology-driven convenience of distance learning and the familiar social constructs of the traditional classroom.
References
Dreifus, E. (2005, March/April). The lowdown on low-residency programs. Poets & Writers. 33, (2). Research Library pp. 77-80.
Grant, D. (2002, November 10). If you can’t draw this… New York Times, pp. A4, A13.
Grob, R., Lieber, C., Wolman, F& Dolan, S. (2006, November 4-6). Poster session: Advancing Public Health Science for Education, Practice and Research: The 134th Annual Meeting & Exposition. Interdisciplinary educational opportunities in public health genomics: Sarah Lawrence strikes again.
Hurtes, S. (2002, November/December). How to choose a writing program. Poets & Writers. 32, (6); Research Library p. 54-63
Johnson, S.A. (2003, November). Too Busy for an MFA? Writer. 116,(11), p. 12-14.
Mitchell, S.l. (1996) Penelope’s daughters; Women mentoring women: The value of relational dialogue in adult learning. Ph.D. dissertation, The Union Institute, United States, Ohio. Retrieved June 3, 2008, from Dissertation & Theses Full Text database.
Palloff,R. & Pratt,K. (1999) Building learning communities in cyberspace. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Polston, P. (1994, September). Earning an M.F.A. your way. American Artist, 58 (6). P. 26.
Sheriden, K. (personal communication, June 4, 2008).
Siegel, R. (2001, July 18). Commentary: Low- or no-residency writing classes. All Things Considered (NPR)
Turchi, P. (2004, December 3). An itinerary for guiding our students. The Chronicle of Higher Education. 51, (15), p. B5.
Waits, T. & Lewis L. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2003) Distance Education at Degree-Granting Postsecondary Institution: 2000-2001, Washington, DC.:NCES
White, B. & Bridwell C. (2004). Distance Learning Techniques. in M.W. Gailbraith (ed.) Adult learning methods :A guide for effective instruction. Malabar, FL.: Krieger.
one in which each faculty member works with a very few students.
We aren’t driving a bus or even a taxi; we’re walking alongside our
students. (2004, p. B5)
When learners and mentor-teachers walk side by side, faculty, educational institutions and students benefit equally. Teachers are able to pursue independent career goals and varied areas of interest, students pursue programs suited to their individualized learning objectives, and institutions are able to develop programs at lower cost with more freedom to experiment and to engage experts as guest lecturers, mentors, and instructors. The low-residency model presents an opportunity to build a bridge between distance and face-to-face programs for those who seek a balance between the public and the personal, the individual and the academe, the technology-driven convenience of distance learning and the familiar social constructs of the traditional classroom.
References
Dreifus, E. (2005, March/April). The lowdown on low-residency programs. Poets & Writers. 33, (2). Research Library pp. 77-80.
Grant, D. (2002, November 10). If you can’t draw this… New York Times, pp. A4, A13.
Grob, R., Lieber, C., Wolman, F& Dolan, S. (2006, November 4-6). Poster session: Advancing Public Health Science for Education, Practice and Research: The 134th Annual Meeting & Exposition. Interdisciplinary educational opportunities in public health genomics: Sarah Lawrence strikes again.
Hurtes, S. (2002, November/December). How to choose a writing program. Poets & Writers. 32, (6); Research Library p. 54-63
Johnson, S.A. (2003, November). Too Busy for an MFA? Writer. 116,(11), p. 12-14.
Mitchell, S.l. (1996) Penelope’s daughters; Women mentoring women: The value of relational dialogue in adult learning. Ph.D. dissertation, The Union Institute, United States, Ohio. Retrieved June 3, 2008, from Dissertation & Theses Full Text database.
Palloff,R. & Pratt,K. (1999) Building learning communities in cyberspace. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Polston, P. (1994, September). Earning an M.F.A. your way. American Artist, 58 (6). P. 26.
Sheriden, K. (personal communication, June 4, 2008).
Siegel, R. (2001, July 18). Commentary: Low- or no-residency writing classes. All Things Considered (NPR)
Turchi, P. (2004, December 3). An itinerary for guiding our students. The Chronicle of Higher Education. 51, (15), p. B5.
Waits, T. & Lewis L. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2003) Distance Education at Degree-Granting Postsecondary Institution: 2000-2001, Washington, DC.:NCES
White, B. & Bridwell C. (2004). Distance Learning Techniques. in M.W. Gailbraith (ed.) Adult learning methods :A guide for effective instruction. Malabar, FL.: Krieger.
No comments:
Post a Comment