Introduction

This paper presents a discussion of the course team and Fordist debates in distance education (DE).  After describing each debate, the paper will identify the players in each debate, their viewpoints, and the heart of each debate.  Next, this writing will suggest solutions to quell the debates and then explore threads common to the debates. Finally, this paper will evaluate the vitality remaining in each debate.

Analysis

Players, Issues, and Resolutions

        The Course Team Debate

The course team debate focuses upon who should drive course development – the lone academic or a team comprised of experts in the subject matter and in course design and development.  The debaters include a staff tutor, an instructional developer/educational technologist, lecturers/professors, a dean of faculty, and a director of a part-time higher education center.  They hail from higher education institutions including The Open University UK (OU UK), University of Queensland, and Athabasca University.  Perspectives are drawn from course development experiences, including as managers or production “chairs” of a course team, as a one-man “team,” and as a consultant on group processes within the course team. 

          According to Costello (1979), Drake (1979) opened the floor for lively debate.  As a team chair, Drake describes the course team as a curse on academia.  He does support the use of the team when technical expertise is needed for delivery by means perhaps unfamiliar to academics, including radio and television.  While he specifically criticizes course teams for containing too many academics, his writing appears to reveal that his experience left him with distaste for the team concept itself.    

Drake (1979) characterizes course teams as dysfunctional, admittedly in part from academics’ inability to make decisions and meet deadlines.  Drake depicts the course team as a group of academics engaged in circular debate that can only yield a course that reflects conflicts among its members.  

Another debater who served as course production chair has a different view.  Stringer’s (1980) typical lean team contained only a handful of members, with one academic among experts in instructional and visual design, editing, and other technical aspects.  While one-academic teams can be functional, the author admits that breadth of subject matter perspective is sacrificed.  Even though conflicts still arise in the smaller team, Stringer asserts that the lean team yields better efficiency, thereby justifying the sacrifice of breadth.

Drake also claims that course teams are “detrimental to research” (p. 52). He fears academics will stray from their research mission because team discourse will quench the research appetite.  Costello (1979) refutes this position by asserting that course team discussion can promote new ideas for research. Blowers (1979) hopes that academics will realize that, as the “synthesis and communication” (p. 56) of research, teaching can enhance and stimulate research. 

Even though Stanford (1980) sees advantages in working on a one-man “team,” he admits that there are benefits from the multi-member approach.  A one-man operation can produce a course that reflects no inconsistency in content or design.  The one-man approach obviously does not present the management or efficiency challenges of the course team.  Stanford also believes that the one-man approach can be better for students because there is no question about who is accountable to them.  On the other hand, Stanford admits that one-man courses may not be as impressive as team-produced courses and that production capacity of the one-man team is limited.

This writer agrees with Blowers’ (1979) subtle suggestion that the course team debate is really driven by many academics’ preference to work alone.  Blowers hints that many academics think that time away from the isolation of research, including in course teams, is time wasted.  Stanford (1980) thinks that courses produced by one academic are better for students and he does not point out any benefits of the team approach for students.  Even Stringer (1980) who fancies course teams suggests a limit of one academic per team.  Stanford and Stringer both point to the one-academic approach as a detour around course team roadblocks.

According to Nicodemus (1984) it is important to determine the cause of team conflict.  Diagram A attached to this paper is a “multiple cause diagram” that depicts some of the potential causes for conflict, as well as some suggestions regarding the overall ineffectiveness of course teams.  The diagram was inspired by Rumble (2006).

As a group process consultant, Nicodemus (1984) observed a variety of reasons for course team discord, including confusion about roles and responsibilities and battles for control.  Similarly, Costello (1979) suggests that the problem with course team is not the concept itself, but with conflicts that arise within the team.  He further suggests that the conflicts may not be readily resolved because the academics on the team generally are inherently inept managers.

Following this line of reasoning, it makes sense that effective management of course teams can prevent internal conflicts while still encouraging academic discourse.  Tight (1985) suggests that institutions should assign course team members who are “manageable,” – efficient, effective writers and editors who can meet deadlines.  Tight also suggests that institutions appoint a course production manager with management skills and who is not necessarily an academic. This writer suggests that the course manager should be adept at avoiding and resolving conflict.  Keeping internal team conflicts at a minimum should improve team efficacy and perhaps quiet the debate. 

The Fordist Debate

Raggatt (1993) describes Fordism as a system characterized by mass production of a limited range of products by workers who are trained only for the specialized tasks for which each is responsible.  Field (1994) describes post-Fordism as a system producing customized products via flexible methods by workers who possess multiple skills.  In DE, Fordism is manifested in centralized production of courses designed for the masses and a long shelf life.  Post-Fordism is characterized by a flexible approach to course production that responds, often quickly, to particular markets.

The focus of the Fordist debate is somewhat more elusive.  Campion and Renner (1992) instruct us that the debate has included the expected discussion regarding which is approach better for DE.  They further instruct us that debaters’ opinions also differ about the effects of post-Fordism on DE.    

The debaters hail from the OU UK as well as institutions in Australia and Ireland.  Their discussions touch upon how a post-Fordism economy has perhaps influenced the infiltration of post-Fordist processes within DE institutions and how post-Fordism may be a catalyst for consumerism in DE.  The debaters also dub post-Fordism as a form of social control or, conversely, as an incentive for learners’ pursuit of self-directed, lifelong learning.

Raggatt (1993) endorses post-Fordism as a necessary, flexible approach to course production to improve competitive opportunities for DE institutions in a post-Fordist economy.  Workers in the post-Fordist economy in highest demand are those who are multi-skilled with the will and ability to continue their education to adapt to changing markets, products, and processes.  Raggatt points out that DE institutions must be nimble to respond to the changing needs of the post-Fordist workforce.  A DE institution can only position itself well in a post-Fordist economy if the institution moves away from Fordist course production methods and implements a flexible post-Fordist to approach.          

On the contrary, Edwards (1991) does not see post-Fordism within DE institutions as a panacea for the post-Fordist workforce.  While such flexibility may cater to workforce training needs, Edwards shares others’ apprehension about the potential of governments and employers having too much influence over decisions regarding course offerings and production.  While agreeing that a shift to post-Fordism might be necessary, Edwards is troubled that the shift reflects the treatment of the learner as a consumer.  He is also concerned that not all learners will have the opportunity to consume continuing education and that the shift will afford only the appearance – not the reality – of a solution for workers’ survival in the post-Fordist economy.        

While Field (1994) does not necessarily agree that institutions’ changes regarding continuing education are merely a response to a post-Fordism economy, he acknowledges the shift to consumerism in higher education.  Field does not find the concept of learner as consumer necessarily problematic, but finds that “it is more problematic to regard the cultural processes of communication which surround adult education as simple examples of ‘consumer culture’” (p. 7).  The author is troubled by aligning education with some consumer behaviors, thus blending “learning with entertainment” (p. 9).

 Farnes’ (1993) view of the learner-centered, post-Fordist DE institution is more positive.  He sees as an inspiration for lifelong learning post-Fordism’s flexibility that allows students to craft their own learning.  The flexible approach will permit a wider variety of course offerings.  Interestingly, in Farnes’ opinion, course teams will be essential in offering the variety of courses demanded by learners in the post-Fordist economy. 

In this writer’s opinion, Campion and Renner (1992) reach the true heart of the Fordist debate – shifting course and learning decisions away from the academic.  The authors comment that changes in course production have significantly changed and will continue to change the way in which DE institutions produce courses.  Edwards (1991) worries that government and employers will control course decisions.  Edwards and Field (1994) worry that satisfying the learner’s consumer appetite will be a standard course goal.

One solution to perhaps quell the debate lies with Reid (1999).  He suggests that the decision whether to adopt a particular approach should be based upon the needs and resources of the institution.  He also recommends flexible implementation of technology and flexible management strategies.  In short, Reid appears to instruct us that there is no one solution that fits every institution. 

Common Threads

          Common threads between the debates that became apparent to this writer relate to roles and responsibilities and academics’ control.  Farnes (1993) points out that one change resulting from post-Fordism is the utility of the course production team.  As discussed in the course team debate section above, some academics would rather work alone, keeping control of and taking responsibility for the entire course and its production.  Farnes also points out that post-Fordism changes allow learners to gain more control over their learning.  This is in stark contrast to students being “processed . . . as though they were raw material on a production line” (p. 14).

          Also common to both debates is the nature of the solutions that may somewhat quiet dissent.  With both debates, effective management is essential.  Tight (1985) recommends choosing both good team managers and manageable members for course teams.  Reid (1999) suggests effective evaluation and management of institutional resources when choosing course production methods.

Future Vitality of the Debates

          In this writer’s judgment, further debate about use of course teams is futile.  According to Ellis and Phelps (2000), the team approach is essential for DE courses.  The authors’ opinion in the year 2000 – fifteen to twenty years after the writings of the debaters discussed above – was that DE courses are better developed with the collaboration of individuals of varied experiences and talents, including instructional design.  According to the Occupational Outlook Handbook published by the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, job opportunities for instructional designers are projected to grow at a rate much faster than the average through the year 2016.  http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos269.htm  Data that suggest rapidly increasing demand for instructional designers suggest an ever growing acceptance of the course team approach.  Thus the debate regarding whether to utilize course teams likely will have little momentum as time marches on.  However, this writer is confident that there remains much food for thought about management and other aspects of the course team.

          The Fordist debate in one shape or form appears to have a good chance of survival.  If as Reid (1999) suggests, there is no one correct approach for all of DE, there is plenty of fuel for further debate.  However, this writer sees potential for the debate theme to shift from production methods, especially if the course team approach becomes more accepted and institutions flexibly implement technology.  Academics may concede some control over the process, but they are not likely to permit consumerism to drive the DE train. According to Rumble (2001), consumerism was still a concern in 2001, several years after the Fordist debaters’ writings discussed above.  Therefore, the consumerism theme of the Fordist debate likely will live on.

Conclusion

Scholars have not been short on opinions regarding either debate discussed in this paper.  Neither debate is likely to fade away. That is good news since debate reflects a continuing interest among academics in their pursuits.  When it comes to critical academic issues, silence is never golden.  

References

Blowers, A. (1979). Carry on course teams.  Teaching at a Distance, 16 (Winter 1979), 54-57.

Campion, M., & Renner, W. (1992).  The supposed demise of Fordism: Implications for distance education and higher education.  Distance Education, 13 (1), 7-28.

Costello, N. (1979).  The curse of the course team: a comment.  Teaching at a Distance, 16 (Winter 1979), 53-54.

Drake, M. (1979).  The curse of the course team. Teaching at a Distance, 16 (Winter 1979), 50-53.

Edwards, R. (1991) (2000).  The inevitable future?  Post-Fordism and open learning. Open Learning, 6 (2), 36-42.

Ellis, A. and Phelps, R.  Staff development for online delivery: A collaborative team-based action learning model. Austrailian Journal of Educational Technology, 16 (Fall 2000), 26-44.

Farnes, N. (1993).  Modes of production: Fordism and distance education.  Open Learning, 8 (1), 10-19.

Field, J. (1994).  Open learning and consumer culture. Open Learning, 9 (2), 3-11.

Nicodemus, R. (1984).  Lessons from a course team. Teaching at a Distance, 25 (Autumn 1984), 33-39.

Raggatt, P. (1993).  Post-Fordism and distance education – a flexible strategy for change. Open Learning, 8 (1), 21-31.

Reid, I. (1999).  Beyond models: Developing a university strategy for online instruction.  Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 3 (1), 19-31.

Rumble, G. (2001).  Just how relevant is e-education to global educational needs?  In G. Rumble (Ed), (2004), Papers and debates on the economics and costs of distance and online learning, (pp.53-66). Oldenburg,Germany: Bibliotheks-und Informationssystem der Carl von Ossietzky Universitat Oldenburg.

Rumble, G. (2006).  Diagramming (pp. 1-20). (OMDE601/OMDE609 Course developed reading.)

Stanford, J. (1980).  The one-person course team. Teaching at a Distance, 18 (Winter 1980), 3-9.

Stringer, M. (1980). Lifting the course team curse. Teaching at a Distance, 18 (Winter 1980), 13-16.

Tight, M. (1985).  Do we really need course teams? Teaching at a Distance, 26 (Autumn, 1985), 48-50.