Introduction
The introduction of online education systems has triggered the development of controversial issues regarding the succession of on-campus studies by online ones. These two perspectives have been addressed by Neem who argues that theorists forget the importance of institutional culture when delivering instructions. This paper presents a critical analysis of the article written by Neem.
Individualist fallacy
Neem responds to the prevailing application of internet to facilitate distance learning by defending the core attributes of on-campus education. He argues against the assumption that traditional campus studies should be displaced by online education. This misconceived notion that traditional on-campus studies should be replaced has been termed as “individualist fallacy” within the student’s learning and professional teaching. Neem applied this model to present the ideology of misconceived individual claims by people targeting to market and nullifying the baseline of education. Neem’s presentation is a critical and relevant suggestion in the current education system. Ideally, this assumption lies outside the borderline of appropriate claim. Neem informs that, “most successful individuals depend heavily on the cultural, economic, legal, political, and social contexts in which they act” (Leem par. 2). Like rich and successful people rely on culture, economy, politics and society to retain their status, online education is just another way of delivering instructions from the other approaches available. Neem appeals to the audience by making a logical presentation convincing them that without institutional learning, the maintenance of online learning itself is obsolete. Therefore, he calls it individualist fallacy and uses it to refute the arguments presented by the advocates of online education in that manner.
Institutional culture
The importance of on-campus education precedes fallacies provided by the advocates of online education. Neem argues that these advocates forget the purpose of institutional culture that nurtures students. He urges that colleges do not only provide access to educational information, but also develops a positive attitude towards knowledge attainment. Essentially, the on-campus studies are different from online ones under virtual and physical presence of the instructor and learner. Neem appeals to the readers by presenting an example on differences of the two cases. By using the religion to exemplify the vitality of learning context, Neem clarifies that physical presence of students is different from the virtual one. He informs that students perform other activities during their stay in school including participating in games, interactions and recreation activities. On the other hand, distance learning nullifies the possibilities of institutional culture by discouraging extended physical interactions that facilitate community outreach and group activity. Colleges avail cultures unique from the other learners’ lives. Neem appeals to the advocates of online learning to remember that colleges do not only have the large lecture courses, but also the small interactive ones in the same institution. He uses facts and logical concerns to fight the assumption of his opponents. For instance, he refutes the assumption that classroom presence has no relevance in learning by stating that the argument, “dismisses the energy of being in a classroom, even a large one, with real people when compared to being on our own” (Neem par. 7). In this regard, the author manages to deliver convincing explanation about the importance of institutional culture in education.
Technology
Technology has changed how people receive instructions in the education system. Neem clarifies that computers are developed to facilitate the work of people. He argues that “technology is a tool” to present information to learners but not the actual managers of human proceedings (Neem par. 4). Computers facilitate the delivery of education by availing the books and making them accessible to more people freely without the need of making restrictions where people sell books since they are in their stores. Online reading definitely has its position in facilitating updated information and presenting insight to the people in order to foster knowledge in the future. However, the foundation of education, culture, and teaching and learning practices developed within physical classes can never be replaced by virtual studies. Technology will remain a tool of fostering education because it is designed to work within the frameworks of human directions. They cannot be curious about the surroundings and other issues unless people program them (Neem par. 11). Neem develops these arguments decisively and convincingly by providing evidence from literal works and logical analysis. If online education exempt the traditional setup of education, then the arguments updated by professors would cease due to use of unreliable materials present over the internet (Neem par. 14). In this manner, the author appeals to the advocates not to nullify the vitality of on-campus education. He, therefore, meets his goal to relocate the position of technology in the education system.
Conclusion
The requirement of student when seeking education may vary depending on the locations, technologies, and occupation. The use of technology may allow some student located in long distance place to receive education service without moving. In this respect, students do not have to be in traditional classes to receive instruction. They may choose online schools to receive education of their convenience.
Works Cited
Neem, Johann. "Online Higher Education's Individualist Fallacy." Inside Higher Ed. 2011. Web. 08 Mar. 2016. <https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2011/10/06/neem_essay_on_limits_of_online_education_in_replicating_classroom_culture>.
