According to a recent New York Times article by Steve Lohr, “Study Finds That Online Education Beats the Classroom,” an analysis conducted for the U.S. Department of Education found that on average, students completing some or all of a course online rank in the 59th percentile in tested performance, compared with students completing a course in a traditional classroom who score in the 50th percentile. The SRI International meta analysis of case studies included college and adult continuing-education programs of various kinds, from medical training to the military, as well as some K-12 programs. This report counters a prevailing sense that traditional lectures are automatically more effective than online environments: “The study’s major significance lies in demonstrating that online learning today is not just better than nothing — it actually tends to be better than conventional instruction,” say Barbara Means. Lohr continues, “The real promise of online education, experts say, is providing learning experiences that are more tailored to individual students than is possible in classrooms.”

In his article, “Technology Has Its Place: Behind a Caring Teacher,” Pepperdine University Provost Darryl Tippens asks, “What is wrong with higher education? How will technology transform it? What new direction will it take in these difficult times?” Such questions merit discussion, but do not address the underlying question, one seldom directly asked: What is college for? If we cannot articulate the purpose or value of college, then how can we seek to address the “problems” in higher education? And, without a firm grasp of purpose, how can technology be effectively employed?

Tipton writes, “Some things technology does with astonishing success. Some things it does poorly. Astute educators recognize the difference.” He further argues that community is a cornerstone of higher education. “At the center of an effective educational system is a vibrant community in which learners not only think together but also engage in learning practices together."

Tippens also asserts that physical presence is an important part of the college experience, and that iteratively, one’s perception of its importance can impact the framing of many of these questions. “If we decide that college is simply an instrument to transfer objective data from one brain to another, without serious reflection on the big questions of life, or if we think essential knowledge can be reduced to a set of easily digested facts, then modes of delivery are not especially important.” While some will suggest this is a role of college, Tippens has a different view.  He quotes Michael Polanyi by saying “if college is about reflection, exploration, discovery, and self-discovery, then engagement with a mentor or guide in a lively community of learning is essential.”

Lohr does not believe that online learning will completely replace traditional classes. Can online classes ever replicate the community knowledge that is referenced by Tippens? Instead, Lohr sees newer ventures having that potential. “Until fairly recently, online education amounted to little more than electronic versions of the old-line correspondence courses. That has really changed with arrival of Web-based video, instant messaging and collaboration tools.” He references Philip R. Regier, who says, “The technology will be used to create learning communities among students in new ways. People are correct when they say online education will take things out the classroom. But they are wrong, I think, when they assume it will make learning an independent, personal activity. Learning has to occur in a community.”

Will the advancements in technology surrounding virtual communities allow for the recreation of the community aspect of college? Can that environment ever be fully recreated? Is it as important as some think it is?