How the internet necessitates a rethink of multimodal education

How the Internet necessitates a rethink of multimodal education A Wentzel* and G Jacobs Rand Afrikaans University Abstract Research conducted in the late seventies and early eighties argues that learners conceptualise information differently, if it is offered through various (multiple) instructional methods (modes). Thus the term multimodal education was created ± nowadays a familiar educational approach. With the appearance of the Internet, the potential for disillusionment with multimodal education has become a possibility. This article considers the different kinds of multimodal education, as illustrated through a case study of a course where the Internet was introduced as an additional mode. The article demonstrates that the so-called channel view of multimodal education (channeling information to students through a variety of unique modes) is encompassed by the broader and more appropriate communication-view. According to this view, modes communicate different messages about the world and learning. This means that modes can easily convey inconsistent messages to learners. An awareness of potential inconsistencies is crucial to ensuring that multimodal education leads to higher quality learning. INTRODUCTION Multimodal education has been around for a long time (Dunn, Dunn & Price 1985). Research conducted in the late seventies and early eighties on learning and individual differences argues that learners conceptualise information differently if it is offered via various (multiple) instructional methods (modes). Thus the term multimodal education was created ± nowadays a familiar educational approach. With the appearance of the Internet, the potential for disillusionment with multimodal education has become a possibility. Educators have the choice either to disregard the changes brought about by the Internet, or to reconsider their views of multimodal approach. The purpose of this article is to consider the different kinds of multimodal education, as illustrated through a case study of a course where the Internet was introduced as an additional mode. The article starts with a discussion of a particular view of multimodal education which, given the lack of clarity about the nature of multimodal education, was the unexamined view that the authors initially held. Reflection on the problems encountered in the course, which is the subject of this case study, revealed a different view of multimodal education as suggested by *Contact person: Arnold Wentzel, Department of Economics, RAU University, PO Box 524, AUCKLAND PARK, 2006 Tel: +27 11 489 2615 e-mail: [email protected] 322 SAJHE Vol 18 No 1 2004 ISSN 1011±3487 # Unisa Press pp. 322±335 How the Internet necessitates a rethink of multimodal education multiliteracies theory. This different view necessitated a reconceptualisation of multimodal education, and a framework is provided to structure this rethinking. MULTIMODAL EDUCATION: VARIOUS CHANNELS TO LEARNING? If one defines educational modes as channels through which learners access information, one could say that multimodal education has existed since the days that teachers supplemented their instruction with additional sources (e.g. documents) or methods (e.g. apprenticeships). Seeing modes as channels leads one on to a particular view of multimodal education which we have called the channel view. The channel view of multimodality assumes that by exposing students to divergent teaching modes and thus information, students are `cognitively, physically, emotionally and psychologically' stimulated (Ip 2003). This channel view is inconsistent with constructivist views of education, but this view is explained here as it was initially adopted by the lecturer in the case study under discussion. A channel view of multimodality perceives modes as channels to information and learning, and the more channels that are available, the more likely it is that quality learning will take place. One of the author's students expressed this succinctly: `The more information that is available to people in different ways the better, as different people respond better to different presentations of the same information'. This statement, however, should elicit a cautionary response, because quality of learning is not directly related to the quality of teaching and the modes chosen (Cross & Angelo 1988). This perception of multimodal education, echoed in the literature on neurolinguistic programming (NLP) and education (compare Beaver 1998; Buzan 1995; Jensen 1995), is implicit in numerous course offerings, since teachers regard lectures, textbooks, learning guides, popular publications, tutorials, formative assessments, and so forth as unique catalysts of meaningful learning. Each mode makes a unique learning contribution compared to the other modes. An important idea that the channel view communicates is that the various modes are interdependent. The usefulness of one mode depends on the quality of design of the other modes ± modes should ideally support each other or at least not duplicate one another (compare table 1). Table 1: Mode contributions and interdependencies Mode Unique contribution Benefits dependent on Lecture Creating strong positive emotion and creating clarity well-written textbook, well-stocked library Tutorial Opportunity for dialogue on learner's construction of knowledge clear and exciting lecturers, wellwritten textbook, popular publications Textbook Providing detailed content Clear lectures 323 A Wentzel and G Jacobs Mode Unique contribution Benefits dependent on Library Environment for further exploration and collaboration exciting lectures, availability of publications Publications Expose to popular application and interpretations well-stocked library, exciting lectures, well-written textbook Social gatherings Explore personal interests of the learner clear and exciting lectures, wellstocked library Assessment Feedback on learner progress or get them to direct their own learning all modes being consistent with greater learner ownership of the learning process Learning guide Organising and integrating the modes a wide range of modes being used according to their unique contributions Figure 1 illustrates diagrammatically this channel view of multimodal education. Six modes are shown and each mode acts as a channel to deliver a unique contribution to the learner's educational experience. Lectures Textbook Assessments Emotion Course content Application LEARNER Feedback Organisation Context Tutorials Learning guide Magazine LEARNING Figure 1: A channel-view of multimodal education The narrow focus of the channel view becomes obvious when a new element is added to the multimodal approach, for example, the Internet. By adding a new element (mode) one changes the nature of the system (the multimodal approach) itself. It is not just new intermodal relationships that have to be formed, but the 324 How the Internet necessitates a rethink of multimodal education perspectives of both lecturers and learners need to change as well, which may cause such lecturers to perceive the nature of ideal multimodality (perhaps) for the (very) first time. THE INTERNET CHANGES THE MULTIMODAL APPROACH The radical changes that take place when the Internet is added as an educational mode is illustrated by the following case study involving one of the authors (Arnold Wentzel) in the role of lecturer. A puzzling learner reaction In July 2000, I was given the task of designing a semester course to introduce second-year BA (Graphic Design) students to the world of business. It seemed like an excellent opportunity to introduce the Internet as an additional educational mode. The Internet's unique contribution was to act as an integrative mode in a course that should promote self-directed learning (where the aim is greater learner autonomy by encouraging individual learners to accept responsibility for the planning, implementation and assessment of their own learning (de Bruin & de Bruin 1999)). The initial idea was that the course would have an overarching practical learning outcome aimed at students constructing (and constantly revising) their personal conceptual and knowledge frameworks regarding the context of a business. The students needed to develop a plan for a business they would like to start. They would develop their plans as the semester progressed. The plan provided the learners with a framework within which they could organise the information (and reconstruct the knowledge) they gained during the semester. The next step was to provide them with the fundamentals of Economics and Business Management. The curriculum depended on what the class wanted to learn ± they had to tell me what they needed to know to advance towards the learning outcome and I would provide it (or at least organise its provision). The class was divided into groups. Every week, each group had to decide what they needed to know, and submit a list of three to five questions. I would then categorise the questions, prioritise them and post them on the course website. If any questions were answered during the week, I moved them from the `Questions not yet answered' category of the course website to the `Questions answered' category. Over weekends, I prepared the material for the week ahead based upon the priority questions. As I answered the questions for the following week's lectures, new questions would arise. If I could not answer a question immediately, I requested that the question be submitted at the end of the week. The `Questions not yet answered' category soon grew faster than the `Questions answered' category, which led to 325 A Wentzel and G Jacobs friction between the class and myself. In response, I tried to assist them in finding answers, by providing references and posting links to possible sources on the website. The main problem that I experienced was resistance from some students. Many wanted me to follow the more conventional teaching approach. The most common reason they expressed for their response was that they were not studying Graphic Design to start a business. The resistance surprised me, because for the first two weeks I had thoroughly explained the new teaching approach to the class and started each lecture over the following four weeks with a discussion of the approach. Each time students raised their concerns, I tried to make adjustments if appropriate. About six weeks into the fourteen-week semester, the point of no return was reached. Until then I had been willing to make amendments to, or even to discard, the approach completely. However, in the seventh week, about 40 per cent of the class stated that they wanted me to abandon the approach completely. By this time I felt that it was not possible, but this nevertheless forced me to deviate from the ideal I had in mind in order to prevent conflict in class between those who supported the approach and those who where against it. Worthwhile experience is usually gained from unexpected outcomes as in this case. It was not so much the learners' resistance itself that was unexpected, but rather the intensity and nature of the resistance. Instead of becoming self-directed, many learners actually became even more insecure and lecturer-dependent. The new multimodal educational approach delivered exactly the opposite of what was intended. In the process of trying to analyse this problem, the authors gained various insights regarding the role of the Internet in multimodal education. Two possible approaches to technology-engaged multimodality Lankshear, Peters and Knobel (2000:33±36) suggest that the Internet enables `multimodal truth' and thus extends the possibilities created by multimodal education. There is, however, no clear agreement on how multimodal education should be approached when information and communication technology, such as the Internet, is engaged. Standish (1999) identifies two groups with different approaches: the so-called conservatives and the progressives. In this article, the approach of the `conservatives' is called the `channel approach'. The channel approach is associated with the view of technology as an instrument to control learning. Using technology, specifically the Internet, within such an approach as an `instrument of control', could involve the imposition of hierarchy on the inherent network structure of knowledge found on the Internet (Standish 1999). The channel approach diverts attention away from the focus on learning as continuous making of meaning, something which of greater importance to the so-called `progressives'. The `progressives' take an approach which is called the `communication view' in this article, since it views the Internet more as `a range of technologically 326 How the Internet necessitates a rethink of multimodal education mediated spaces of communicative practice' (Lankshear et al. 2000:20). Technology in education is seen as enabling a flow of meaning (not information) that affects the lecturer, the learner, what is learnt as well as the relations and boundaries between them. In short, technology alters our mode of being and offers new ways to be (Peters 2003). The Internet in a channel approach If the Internet were introduced to a channel-based approach to multimodal education, the logic would be to find the unique contribution it makes (compared to other modes). The unique contribution of the Internet does not lie in providing content (Lankshear et al. 2000). The flawed idea that `content is king' seems to have its origins in the transmission approach to education and was echoed in the influential Hambrecht Report (Weggen 2000) on e-learning. Behind this idea of `content is king' are the assumptions that: firstly, content is the only differentiator between educational institutions and, secondly, content is created mainly by lecturers and; thirdly, that the Internet is best suited to being a medium (a channel) for modes that offer content. All these assumptions are questionable: . The recent move by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) to provide all their course material free of charge on the Web (see MIT 2002) shows that they do not regard content as the main differentiator between educational institutions. De Long (2002) states MIT's view that `the core of an MIT education is the interaction between students and faculty in an environment that invites and supports inquiry and questioning'. So it would seem that quality of interaction, and not content, is the main differentiator between institutions. . The growth in, and increased acceptance of, learning communities and constructivism in education recognise that content is not only created by lecturers in educational institutions. Instead, knowledge creation is often the result of interactive cognitive and social processes that are facilitated by, but not solely within, educational institutions. . Based on a study of how people use communication technology such as the Internet, Odlyzko (2001) concluded that the Internet is best suited to providing `connectivity' or opportunities for greater interaction between people. He found that the delivery of content has always played a very small role in the use of any communication technology. In addition, Palloff and Pratt (2001:152±153) state that even for purely online classrooms `course development needs to focus on interactivity, not content'. The unique multimodal contribution of the Internet appears to lie in its capacity to create opportunities for interaction. In many educational institutions this 327 A Wentzel and G Jacobs contribution tends to be limited to enhancing learners' interaction with the course content. Within a channel view of multimodal education, however, the Internet's unique contribution is much broader. The experience derived from the case study suggested that four kinds of interactions are made possible by the Internet: 1 2 3 4 Lecturer±content: The lecturer constantly had to update the question database and add answers to some of the questions either in the form of links, references to other sources or short notes based on the lectures. In the process, the course content became dynamic; changing as the needs of the learners changed. Learner±content: Learners had to access the Website regularly to see what had been answered and what new questions had appeared. They could consult the answers at any time to help with developing their plan. They could also add their own answers to the questions. By interacting with the content, learners became active learners, and even knowledge-creators. Lecturer±learner: The whole Website represented a memory of the interaction between lecturer and learners. The Website could have been enhanced to allow learners to post further questions or to make comments on the discussion forum. Learning would therefore not stop, when lectures were not in session. Learner±learner: With further additions to the Website, learners could have been allowed to reflect on and rate one another's answers, and respond to comments. They could also use the Website to leave messages or reminders and use it as a tool for collaboration within their groups. Through this interaction, learners would have been able to learn from one another and, in addition, learn how to judge the quality of their own and their peers' learning. While the channel view would certainly assist a lecturer in making the most of the Internet, it is not sufficient to explain the unexpected resistance from the learners in the case described. We argue that by adopting the channel view of multimodality, most lecturers would be unable to predict the consequences of the introduction of a new mode. A broader view perhaps needs to be taken. Broadening the view of multimodality The Internet will probably replace modes if it is used to duplicate (or imitate) the perceived unique contributions of these modes. This seems to have been anticipated by Heidegger (in Standish 1999) when he stated that technology alone has the power to displace all other modes of revealing. For example, many university teachers have found that if they post the content of their lectures as lecture slides on a course Website, while their lectures also merely focus upon content delivery, then class attendance drops significantly. If the Internet can replace other modes it can, unlike other modes, act as a medium for most other modes. For example, the Internet can be used to deliver lectures, guides, texts, tutor sessions and assessments. It may be more accurate to 328 How the Internet necessitates a rethink of multimodal education describe the Internet not as an educational mode, but rather as a meta-mode: a mode for modes. It is this conception of the Internet as a meta-mode that provides a more appropriate view of multimodal education. The Internet is not just an empty `channel' ± it is more like a coloured lens. When shining light through a coloured lens, the light itself changes, and similarly, when delivering any mode through the Internet, the mode itself mutates. This happens, because the Internet adds its own benefits while it simultaneously weakens some of the unique benefits of other delivered modes. For example, a live lecture streamed through the Internet weakens the sense of personal contact between learners, but offers more opportunities for online interaction between learners during the lecture. Such a streamed lecture is still a lecture, but its nature has changed. If the Internet duplicates other modes, for example, by delivering just the content of lectures, it can convey the message that the lecturer controls learning and learners even more intensely. It could be argued that most of the modes, not just the Internet, used in a conventional lecture-centred approach, convey a message of `lecturer as authority' or `institutional power'. However, as soon as a unique contribution is sought for the Internet (as in the case study), the message it conveys changes. A greater focus on interaction makes learners realise that there is more to learning than simply receiving content through a channel. This also gives learners their first experience of their own authority as co-learners, relative to the lecturer and the previously `infallible' course content. The Internet subverts previously held ideas about the allocation and degree of `power' ± it conveys the message that academic authority (and `power' in that sense) is decentralised and is found in the knowledge network and those who are enabled to participate in its creation (i.e. the learners themselves). Postman and Weingartner (1968) anticipated the idea that the mode itself conveys a message, long before the Internet was established. They postulated that McLuhan's aphorism, `the medium is the message', is as true in education as it is in communication. So, not only the Internet, but each medium, or educational mode in this case, conveys a different message to learners. Different modes offer divergent perspectives on a course. Textbooks, for example, can communicate different perspectives from tutorials, and they may communicate alternative messages about the purpose and methodology of a course. The idea that modes themselves convey messages suggests that in defining multimodal education one may need to draw upon communication theory. According to multiliteracies theory (compare Weiss 1999; Lamberti 1999), multimodality combines more than one communication (or semiotic) system. One could thus expand the definition of a mode from that of a mere channel to that of a mode of representation (a specific meaning system) and its material form of expression (Kress 1994). Different modes are not equivalent ± each offers a different way of seeing and making sense of the world as well as a distinct way of knowing (Lamberti 1999). 329 A Wentzel and G Jacobs Seeing each mode primarily as a meaning system and secondarily as a channel, is a more appropriate perspective for lecturers wishing to implement or adopt a multimodal approach to teaching and learning. Such a perspective may make lecturers aware that every mode communicates a different message and that these messages interact in ways that can create conflict or create synergy. Furthermore, it will reveal that participants in any educational context play different roles depending on how the multimodal approach is designed. Table 2 shows possible messages conveyed by different modes. It also shows that the messages of the same mode can be different, depending on the lecturer's overall approach. Table 2: The channel vs communication views of multimodality Mode A likely message conveyed by the channel-view A likely message created within the communication-view Lecture Lecturers have superior knowledge and therefore have the right to control the learning. Lecturers have acquired knowledge and thinking skills that make them useful resources to learners. Tutorial Learners have little interest in learning and must be shown the relevance of their newly acquired knowledge. Knowledge can be created and new applications found when people think together. Textbook Knowledge is given and static. It changes only when the subject authorities make that decision. Knowledge is as limited and fallible as the author and needs to be supplemented with other sources. Library This is a quiet place where you can study; the books are there for decoration. To learn one needs to draw from many sources. Reading books is but one way of doing so. Assessments The lecturer knows when the learner is ready. The learner should please the lecturer. An important part of learning is being able to judge the quality of your own learning. Learning guide Lecturers know best how learners should organise their learning and this is how you should do it in this subject. There are many ways to approach learning and here are some suggestions proven by experience to work well. 330 How the Internet necessitates a rethink of multimodal education Of course, the messages listed in the table are not the only ones that can be conveyed. Communication theory suggests that messages do not depend only on the medium (mode) used, but also on what the sender and the recipient of a message bring (cognitively and psychologically) to the communication process. The messages as stated in Table 2 are therefore not merely conveyed, but to a large extent created by the lecturer or designer of the course and, to some extent, by the learners involved. The messages found in Table 2 are the created messages that we have come across through our own teaching experiences. The potential for problems and confusion now becomes clear. The modes in the two different approaches to multimodal education convey different messages. These messages could be in conflict with each other. Such conflicts can become quite severe if a lecturer combines the two approaches. This happened in the case study. The lecturer, by encouraging self-directed learning via the Internet, appeared to align himself with the communication view, while continuing to adopt the channel view regarding other modes. The confusion can be aggravated by the potential for learners and lecturers to create their own messages. The kind of inconsistencies created when one is not aware of the mixed messages being created or conveyed to learners, can be sufficient to incapacitate even those lecturers with the best intentions. Inconsistencies created by the Internet within a channel view If different modes are really different meaning systems communicating and creating different messages, it can explain the disruption (such as the resistance described in the case) caused by the addition of more modes. The messages likely to be created with the addition of the Internet as an educational mode are inconsistent with the channel view of multimodal education. If the messages are not consistent, lecturers will find that the Internet makes no difference or that they spend a lot of time containing resistance, because learners perceive inconsistent messages. As an illustration, several inconsistencies can be identified from the case study: . Inconsistency with regard to espoused and actual teaching style: in the case study, students were required to participate in designing the curriculum and some elements of the learning experience, mainly through the Internet. However, lectures mainly resembled the conventional transmission (`talk-andchalk') method. A lecturer, who tries to continue being the master of the learning process while ostensibly expanding opportunities for interaction, will not fool the learners. In an attempt to eliminate their confusion, learners will simply ask the question: `What do you really expect from us?' again and again (until clarification is given). . Inconsistency with regard to authority and responsibility: while greater responsibility was expected from the learners in the case study, the lecturer 331 A Wentzel and G Jacobs still assessed the final assignment without any contribution from the learners. This effectively defeated the purpose, and made the learners feel insecure. On the one hand, they were expected to do more in a different way, but on the other hand, their authority and responsibility remained unchanged. This violates the well-accepted managerial principle of parity, which states that when people are given more responsibility, their authority must increase proportionately to enable them to execute their tasks effectively (Smit & Cronje 1997:248±249). This may explain the learners' observed dependency ± the real `power' was still vested in the lecturer. . Inconsistency between courses: if one course is taught in a multimodal manner, while all other courses in a study programme employ the conventional textbook-and-lecture approach, it will have little effect. This loss of effectiveness may happen because the benefit that learners gain from the multimodal approach in one course may be counteracted by what is happening in other courses. Another problem is that learners may become dissatisfied with the courses that do not use the multimodal approach effectively, causing the lecturers of the other courses to impede further multimodal efforts and experimentation. . Inconsistency with the university culture: a multimodal approach requires that lecturers have the freedom to experiment with different modes and combinations of modes. Institutional intolerance of mistakes will discourage any further multimodal initiatives. Unfortunately, the institution involved in the case described, had a system of lecturer evaluation that encouraged lecturers to keep learners happy by continuing with practices that had worked in the past, for example, by giving them extensive notes and pre-packaged information. Under this pressure the lecturer felt increasingly insecure whenever learners complained, and therefore he felt compelled to make significant adjustments to his envisioned approach. Creating a safe environment is essential for effective education (Vella 1994:6±8). In the case study, the inconsistencies created insecurity for both the lecturer and students, and prevented all participants from experiencing the full potential of the multimodal approach. Lack of awareness of these inconsistencies within the socalled channel view of education, will create conflict between lecturers and learners and limit the Internet's role to little more than a content channel. From the case study it may appear as if inconsistencies appear only if the Internet is added to a multimodal approach. However, inconsistencies appear with the addition of any new mode to a multimodal approach, either when different combinations of modes are tried or when a change in one of the modes (for example in assessment practices) is introduced. The inconsistencies that emerge as modes are added or changed suggest, as in the case study, that such changes do not change the multimodal approach as such; it merely reveals a different aspect of multimodality. One could go as far as saying with Dreyfus (2001:1) that the 332 How the Internet necessitates a rethink of multimodal education Internet `brings out the very essence of technology' and that technology in turn brings out the very essence of multimodality. STRIVING TOWARDS HIGH QUALITY LEARNING Few authors have articulated the overarching purpose of higher education as elegantly as Barnett (1992:58). In his explanation he describes certain capacities that students should possess in order to `form and substantiate independent thought and action in a coherent and articulate fashion'. These capacities include various kinds of competencies, which, in their entirety, define quality learning. According to Nightingale and O'Neil (1994:53±55), high-quality learning is characterised by learners being able to . make new discoveries (not in the sense of original contributions, but something new to the learner, e.g. via internet searches); . relate `old' to `new' knowledge (as their conceptual frameworks become clearer); . apply their knowledge and interpersonal skills to identify and resolve problems (for example, to formulate relevant research questions, as in the case study); . communicate their knowledge to others; and . become lifelong learners, that is, wanting to know more (having inquisitive minds). In essence, high-quality learning occurs when learners give personal meaning to public knowledge, constantly revisit their meaning making, convey their interpretations to others and want to continue learning. Based upon the lessons learnt though this research, a thoroughly planned multimodal learning experience could be an ideal catalyst of such quality learning. SOME LESSONS LEARNT Individual lecturers or designers of multimodal (Internet-based) approaches could consider the following as noteworthy: . Do not decide on an approach beforehand and then try to convince learners to accept it. Rather ensure that learners understand the rationale behind a different approach. A pre-course needs assessment with peers and the learners could offer valuable insights in this regard. . Do as much as possible in the beginning to make the learners feel secure. This includes a review of the messages communicated by the individual modes and the educational situation as a whole, as well as identifying and eliminating possible inconsistencies. Such action needs to be taken in advance, since a feeling of uncertainty and lack of safety cannot be eradicated easily once it has taken hold. 333 A Wentzel and G Jacobs . Active learner involvement in the design of assessment strategies is critical. Such involvement can even be extended to the kind of assessment where learners define for themselves what constitutes quality learning and then assess themselves and their peers accordingly. This is similar to genuine selfassessment where learners are involved in the design of the assessment and the setting of criteria (Boud 1995:12). Institutions could consider the following as noteworthy: . Consistency in teaching-learning strategies should be encouraged amongst lecturers, departments and faculties. Even if lecturers follow divergent approaches, they should not erode what others are doing. For example, if some lecturers `pre-package knowledge' for their students, this could easily cause students to resist adopting the more constructivist perspective engendered by the so-called communication-view of multimodal education. . Be more tolerant of experimentation and create research-based opportunities for it. When exploring knowledge and approaches that are unfamiliar to both the lecturer and learner, effective and innovative practices are found only through experimentation (for example through action research). If innovation is not rewarded, or if risk-taking is not supported, one can expect most lecturers to continue with existing methods and practices. CONCLUSION One way of viewing multimodal education is to regard it as channeling information to learners through a variety of unique modes. However, as this article demonstrates, this view is encompassed by the broader and more appropriate communication view. According to this view, modes communicate different messages about the world and learning. This means that modes can easily convey inconsistent messages to learners. An awareness of potential inconsistencies is crucial to ensuring that multimodal education leads to higher quality learning. REFERENCES Beaver, D. 1998. NLP for lazy learning: Superlearning strategies for business and personal development. Shaftesbury: Element Books. Boud, D. 1995. Enhancing learning through self-assessment. London: Kogan Page. Buzan, T. 1995. The mindmap book. London: BBC Books. Cross, P K and Angelo, T A. 1988. Classroom assessment techniques: a handbook for faculty. University of Michigan: National Center for Research to improve postsecondary teaching and learning. de Bruin, K and de Bruin, G P. 1999. The learning society: The role of individual differences in personality traits in self-directed learning. Improving University Learning and Teaching, 24th International Conference, 5±8 July 1999, Brisbane, Australia. 334 How the Internet necessitates a rethink of multimodal education de Long, P. 2002. OpenCourseWare: Simple idea, profound implications. Syllabus Magazine January. Available at www.syllabus.com/syllabusmagazine. Accessed 27 May 2002. Dreyfus, H L. 2001. On the Internet. London: Routledge. Dunn, R, Dunn, K and Price, G E. 1985. Learning styles inventory. Lawrence: Price Systems. Ip, Y K. 2003. Facilitating students' learning: Co-operation or competition? Ideas on teaching 1:22±23. National University of Singapore: Centre for Development of Teaching and Learning. Jensen, E. 1995. Brain-based learning and teaching. North Riding: Lead the Field Publishing. Kress, G R. 1994. Learning to write. London: Routledge. Lamberti, P. 1999. From word to world: A multiliteracies approach to language, literacy and communication for curriculum 2005. MA dissertation, University of the Witwatersrand. Lankshear, C, Peters, M and Knobel, M. 2000. Information, knowledge and learning: Some issues facing epistemology and education in a digital age. Journal of Philosophy of Education 34(1):17±39. Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). 2002. MIT OCW fact sheet. Available at: http://web.mit.edu/ocw/ocwfactsheet.html. MIT see Massachusets Institute of Technology. Nightingale, P and O' Neil, M. 1994. Achieving quality learning in higher education. London: Kogan Page. Odlyzko, A. 2001. Content is not king. First Monday 6(2), February. Available at: www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue6_2/odlyzko. Palloff, R M and Pratt, K. 2001. Lessons from the cyberspace classroom: The realities of online teaching. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco. Peters, M A. 2003. Technologising pedagogy: The Internet, nihilism and phenomenology of learning. Simile, February 2003. Postman, N and Weingartner, C. 1968. Teaching as a subversive activity. New York: Delacorte Press. Smit, P J and CronjeÂ, G de J. 1997. Management principles: A contemporary edition for Africa. 2nd edition. Juta, Kenwyn. Standish, P. 1999. Only connect: Computer literacy from Heidegger to cyberfeminism. Educational Theory 49(4):417±435. Vella, J. 1994. Learning to listen, learning to teach: The power of dialogue in educating adults. Jossey-Bass, San Fransisco. Weggen, C C and Urdan, T A. 2000. Corporate e-learning: Exploring new frontiers. WR Hambrecht + Co. Available at: www.wrhambrecht.com/research/coverage/elearning/ir/ir_explore.html. Weiss, F M. 1999. Die multi-modale onderrigteks gerig op 'n multi-kulturele, tersieÃre studentegroep. MA thesis, RAU University. 335