Women Studying in Distance Education:
|
VOL. 5, No. 1, 20-37
We discuss the design and implementation of a women's studies course in order to link four issues: graduate level learning, distance mode design and delivery, the andragogy debates, and feminist principles of teaching and learning. A critical analysis of the actual learning process from the course leader's perspective is provided, and we conclude with recommendations for future women's studies courses in distance education.
L'objet de notre enquête est le développement et la mise en oeuvre d'un cours faisant partie d'un programme pour les femmes afin de relier les quatre questions de l'enseignement au niveau supérieur, du développement et de la mise à execution de l'éducation à distance, des débats sur l'andragogie, et des principes féministes de l'enseignement. Nous offrons une analyse critique du procédé pédagogique du point de vue de la coordonatrice de cours, et nous concluons avec des recommendations portant sur de nouveaux cours à distance d'un programme pour les femmes.
In January, 1989, the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (OISE) offered its first graduate course in women's studies, a sociology course entitled "Women and the Educational System," through distance mode. In this article, we will discuss the design and implementation of the course in order to link four key issues in higher education: graduate level learning, distance mode design and delivery, the andragogy debates, and feminist principles of teaching and learning. We will present a critical analysis of the actual learning process from the course leader's perspective and conclude with recommendations for future distance courses in women's studies.
From our reading and experience, we can summarize the following requirements as generic to master's degree courses: learners have to know the principles and techniques of their discipline; they have to make personal sense of their work and life experience by using relevant conceptual frameworks and theoretical approaches; they have to generate their own implicit theories and to compare them critically to the explicit theories of others; and they have to examine existing operational principles and issues and develop their own approaches to field practice (Stewart, 1988; OISE Bulletin, 1990/91). Informed critical reflection and the generation of personally relevant theories for action are typical process goals for the practising teachers, nurses, social workers, and others undertaking master's degree courses at OISE. According to some OISE students interviewed recently, graduate learning involves the following: in-depth studies, relating theory to practice; having real choices in learning, and doing independent research. Other students have referred to these outcomes of their master's degree studies: "helps you make sense of things," "legitimizes our experience," "what you learn is secondary to what you do with it," "builds bridges out from your own prior learning," "see patterns and wholes" (Burge, 1989).
Distance mode learning design and delivery of courses present complex problems to educators for three reasons. First, there is renewed interest and debate concerning the extent to which early andragogical approaches (Knowles, 1980) and later learner-centred models (Maclean, 1987; Burge, 1988) may be implemented in courses not characterized by reliance on fixed-time or fixed-place visual classrooms. Distance education is now better defined in terms of what it is not - that is, one physically defined visual space holding all course members - than what it is - that is, any version of a wide range of delivery formats planned and implemented by an institution. In the course under review here, for example, various student configurations were established: working alone, working in a small group, participating in a full class linked by audio conferencing, and attending face-to-face weekend workshops. With such a mix of activities, the learning designer and course leader needed to have a well-defined teaching model and a clearly developed plan for its implementation. For example, there would be distinct differences in appearance between a teacher-centred and a learner-centred model, as well as in the level of responsibilities that each places on learner and leader alike (Fales & Burge, 1984).
Second, the availability of interactive real time (audio-based) and delayed time (computer-based) two-way communication technologies has given distance learning designers unparalleled opportunities to create dynamic and productive "spaces" for learning (e.g., White, 1989; Mason, 1988; Harasim, 1987). But many educators, feminists in particular, warn against high-technology-driven decisions that do not place the learner's needs first (Faith, 1988a). Furthermore, there is little research investigating gender differences in learners' approaches to various high-tech modes.
Third, the increasing awareness of feminist issues in educational circles is now becoming apparent in distance education. For example, 1988 saw the first published anthology of case studies detailing the experiences of female distance educators and learners internationally (Faith, 1988a) and the first public discussion of gender issues at the annual conference of the Canadian Association for Distance Education/l'Association canadienne pour l'enseignement à distance. It is reliably estimated that over half the several million learners who make up the world's distance education population are women. Emerging writing from Germany, Australia, the United Kingdom, and Canada, for example, shows strong, broadly based concern for women's learning (Coulter, 1989; Faith & Coulter, 1988; von Prummer & Rossie, 1988; von Prummer, Kirkup, & Spronk, 1988; Coulter, Delehanty, & Spronk, 1983; Rowland, 1982). Gill Kirkup (1988) from the UK presents an elegant and ambitious summary of the goals of feminist distance educators:
We don't simply want to make higher education a place where more women are more comfortable; we want to change the nature of what has previously constituted the disciplines so that we are in the content as well as in the institution, in the lecture as well as in the lecture theatre. Or in the case of distance education, in the text as well as in the armchair studying it. (p. 287)
Two related problems emerge regarding women's access to and successful participation in distance mode courses: the traditionally male construction and ownership of knowledge, and the invisibility of women in course materials. In the particular case of our women's studies course, we also needed to consider the overt and covert effects of societal assumptions about women's studies courses and women's learning needs (Faith, 1988b). As Elizabeth Minnich (1983) explains, feminist approaches challenge fundamental assumptions about women and learning: women's studies classes "are more like intensely moving conversations than like workshops where masters train apprentices."
Excellent women's studies distance courses have been designed and implemented before ours (as discussed, for example, in Sturrock, 1988; Kirkup, 1988), and so our case study fits into a developing web of feminist practice. OISE's work in distance education, however, is exclusively at the graduate level, and so there are additional formalized demands for critical abilities and informed explorations of theoretical frameworks and real world constructs.
These two issue areas are interrelated, although the terminology makes the relationship somewhat confusing, especially when the term "feminist pedagogy" is also used. In over ten years of scholarly writing on feminist teaching and learning, the term "andragogy" has rarely been used (Klein, 1987; Culley & Portuges, 1985; Davis, 1985b; Bunch & Pollack, 1983; Fisher, 1981; Rich, 1975). It could be argued that the differences between andragogical and feminist principles are minimal and that feminist teaching is just "good" or learner-centred teaching. We will argue, however, that the differences are significant.
Faced with these confusions in the literature, our own beliefs about women and learning, and the value we placed on a learner-centred approach, we had to establish some conceptual clarity before we proceeded with the course design. Three questions emerged from the literature and from our own experiences as teachers and learners:
We will now address each of these questions.
First, one of us had already analyzed the limits of the original Knowlesian guidelines for andragogical classrooms (Knowles, 1980) and the subsequent writing on learner-centred views (Brandes & Ginnes, 1986; Maclean, 1987) in order to develop four sets of guidelines for learner-centredness in distance education (Burge, 1988). We felt relatively secure about selecting those generic principles and assumptions regarding adult learners, and so we generated the following responsibilities for the course leader:
We then addressed the second question: is feminist pedagogy the same as learner-centredness? As defined by a progressive adult educator, pedagogy refers to learner-centred learning and facilitation activities appropriate for pre-adult learners; this is distinct from andragogy, which refers to facilitation behaviours appropriate for adult learners (Davenport, 1987). We accepted that distinction. Although feminist educators have rarely used the term "andragogy," it is clear that andragogical and feminist teaching principles share several common characteristics: a comfortable, cooperative, and respectful class climate; mutually negotiated learning objectives and activities; and validation of the learner's personal experiences as a resource for herself and for others. These characteristics are important elements of a learner-centred view. (Whether it is valid to view the learner as inherently self-directed is still debatable; see Pratt, 1988; Burge, 1988). Hence, we concluded that feminist principles of teaching and learning are indeed learnercentred.
Third, we needed to examine what, if anything, is distinctive about feminist teaching and learning. Are the generic principles of adult learner-centredness sufficient for a feminist classroom? We believe that they are not.
What feminists have termed "feminist pedagogy" goes beyond andragogy, because it takes the specificity of women's experience into account. Female learners come to class with specific personal histories, learning styles, and expectations that are shaped, to varying degrees, by their experiences as girls and women in a society characterized by male power and privilege. In addition to the barriers posed by sex discrimination, many women are doubly or triply disadvantaged as members of racial/ethnic minorities, as working class women, or as members of other marginalized groups (Bunch & Pollack, 1983). Many have been targets of male sexual violence; some have had their self-worth eroded and their hopes and ambitions shattered by these experiences (Rockhill, 1987). When these women, each with her personal history of struggle, enter higher education, a learner-centred approach that is gender- neutral does not generate the woman-centred, transformative learning experience envisioned by feminists.
Three interrelated issues emerge from women's specific learning needs: difference and diversity among students, the social relations of learning, and the potential for women's empowerment in the feminist classroom. Topics arising from these three issues include political differences between "new" and "old" feminists; the effects of race, class, sexuality, and regional differences; male students and interpersonal dynamics; and the question of authority in the feminist classroom. Along with the discussion of these topics, we will develop an ongoing analysis of women's empowerment.
Barbara Davis (1985a) addressed issues of difference and diversity as they are manifested in the social relations of the feminist classroom. Specifically, she discussed the difference between "new" feminists - traditional women who are only now discovering feminism - and "old" feminists who have been politically active for some time. As she explained: "the majority [of traditional students] do not know how to support people whose pain is over factions in the women's movement instead of housework" (p. 248). (There are parallels in racially diverse classrooms, where white women may have difficulty understanding why some black women identify first and foremost with their black brothers and not their white sisters; see, for example, Amos & Parmar, 1984.)
To acknowledge such diversity in learners' experience and backgrounds, and to make the bridging process between different groups explicit and conscious, is crucial to successful feminist teaching. In order to meet the intellectual and emotional needs of "new" and "old" feminists, Davis proposed that the instructor act as a "simultaneous translator," taking the experiential and anecdotal contributions of the "traditional" students and conceptualizing them in feminist terminology. She assumed that there will be at least a few "old" feminists in the class who share some common ground with the instructor and thus can help in the bridging process. We assumed that most of our students would be "new" feminists and our assumption proved correct; only one student had some experience in the grassroots women's movement. Contributions of the anecdotal or experiential kind were common, but there were at least two students who, although new to feminist analysis, had well-developed reflective and analytical skills at the outset, and their contributions often helped the bridging process.
Regional differences produce vastly different priorities and concerns among women, and outside of large urban centres, numbers alone frequently preclude the formation of single-issue feminist organizations that characterize urban women's movements. Women in rural and remote regions of Canada have long been engaged in their own, often unique, political struggles for equality and justice, and factors such as the farm woman's triple workday, or the native woman's double oppression (race and sex) further complicate their lives.
In planning our course, we were aware that women from small northern Ontario centres did not share the same experiences as Toronto women, and that they might have different priorities and positions on political issues in general, and on feminist issues in particular, from their urban counterparts. These differences became apparent on the first night of the course. Because of the exigencies of rural courier deliveries, most students did not receive the course materials ahead of time. Some of them said later that without the opportunity to do prior reading and reflection, they felt during the first class that they were experiencing the "sink or swim" approach to feminism. The group exercises involved discussion of the feminist frameworks underlying various kinds of feminist activism; these included the women's peace encampment at Greenham Common, the National Action Committee on the Status of Women, non-sexist day care centres, and job training for former prostitutes - quite a mixed bag that introduced a wide range of controversial feminist topics on the first night!
This made for very lively discussion, of course, but was not especially conducive to conceptualization and analysis. However, students certainly became emotionally and cognitively engaged in the course from the outset. As class discussion progressed, they were able to see the links between content and process and between the personal and the political - key elements of the feminist classroom. The woman-centred body of knowledge itself helped to generate a learning process that was empowering and transformative, once students successfully met the various affective and cognitive challenges posed by this content (Register, 1979). The facilitator was a participant in, as well as a facilitator of this process. Class discussion, therefore, was designed to validate the experiences of individual women and to generate a sense of collective identity and solidarity, while at the same time honoring difference and diversity within the group (Clinchy et al., 1985). This presented a unique challenge for the audio classroom.
In this women's studies course, differences became evident as soon as topics such as racism and homophobia appeared in the readings and class discussion. Some rural students, like some of their urban counterparts, believed that these issues were outside their realm of experience, although subsequent discussion revealed, not surprisingly, that discrimination based on race or sexuality could be identified within their own communities. Commonalities among students were evident from the start and gave students a much needed sense of security and agency. For example, since every woman in this course lived in a traditional nuclear family where she did the lion's share of the housework, the sexual division of domestic labor was a hot topic, and discussion of this issue was a source of bonding.
There is a clear link between the social relations of education and women's personal and political empowerment that is unique to the feminist classroom. As feminist teachers and learners, we are by definition engaged in a political project; by virtue of both content and process, the feminist classroom is one of the sites of women's conscientization, resistance, and struggle (Lather, 1988). There is, as well, an organic relationship between feminist teachers and students and the women's movement itself, although, given the diversity and the divisiveness in the movement, that relationship is neither static nor predictable (Fisher, 1981, 1987). In distance education, this relationship is further complicated by the different women's movements in which course leaders and students locate themselves, both geographically and politically.
So, inevitably, the feminist facilitator has to deal with political differences and conflict in the classroom. Some facilitators may be reluctant to use power in ways antithetical to feminist process (Friedman, 1985; Maher, 1985) with the result that misogynist, racist, or homophobic views expressed by some students may pass unchallenged. This latter situation is not in the best interests of feminist students, since an understanding of the links between the various kinds of oppression experienced by disadvantaged and marginalized groups in society is a crucial component of all feminist analysis. As a basic precondition for group discussions in this course, the course leader expected all students to respect the feminist perspective that animated the class and to refrain from wasting class time with futile challenges to basic feminist principles: e.g., "Women aren't oppressed"; "women are their own worst enemies"; "this course is biased against men."
Male students in women's studies classes, if they come prepared to learn rather than to challenge, will find the experience illuminating and transformative. Although there are no restrictions on male participation in women's studies courses at OISE, our course was unapologetically woman-centred:
The women's studies class is a place where we learn, and a place were we relearn and unlearn. Traditional definitions of knowledge and learning have ignored women's experience. Women's studies puts women first and foremost. For many of us, this is a new experience! (Learner's manual, p. 5)
On the question of authority in the feminist classroom, Freire's insights, and those of other adult educators (e.g., Brundage & MacKeracher, 1980), make it possible to distinguish between authoritative behavior that is justified by the course leader's intellectual authority and authoritarian behavior that is an abuse of power. For example, in our course, Helen spoke authoritatively on the validity of fundamental feminist principles and on the need for anti-sexist, anti-racist andragogy. While some students looked to her to deal with confrontations and challenges, she expected all class members to share the responsibility for the group dynamics and discussed this expectation at the beginning of the course. Such shared responsibility presents special challenges in audio classes, where the loss of paralinguistic cues may make it difficult for students and facilitators to predict who will support attempts to identify and challenge prejudiced attitudes and assumptions.
Debates and disagreements are not, of course, unique to the women's studies classroom, but they are more likely to be carried on at a cognitive level in other courses. In women's studies courses, it has been our experience that initial exposure to feminist perspectives literally shakes some students' worldviews and evokes profound feelings, ranging from excitement and exhilaration to confusion and panic. As a former student once wrote to the course leader: "Thank you for opening up a whole new world for me." It is difficult for us to think of an area in malestream postsecondary education that would engage the learner's mind and spirit in such a personally empowering manner. Mezirow's (1981) definition of "perspective transformation" pales by comparison!
This new way of seeing - itself a vital step towards empowerment - is often accompanied by a new determination to challenge sex discrimination at every turn. One distance student, for example, gave the class a detailed account of how she confronted a male colleague who had ignored her contribution to a discussion. Over the duration of the course, she kept us informed of her progress in dealing more assertively with her male colleagues in a community college, and we shared in her triumphs as well as her frustrations.
Given these issues of difference and diversity in the feminist classroom, the social relations of learning and the potential for women's empowerment, our challenge was to develop, in addition to our earlier list of learner-centred principles, a list of feminist teaching and learning principles. These are shown in the following excerpts from the course objectives:
– we will gain a critical consciousness of the conditions of women in society by reading, reflecting and sharing personal experiences and knowledge with other women.
– we will understand and respect our commonalities and our differences as women of different racial/ethnic groups, different regions and social class backgrounds, and different sexualities.
– we will develop strategies for dealing with sexism, racism and other forms of oppression in our public and private lives." (Learner's manual, p. 6)
In terms of the facilitator's behavior, our principles focussed on promoting respect for diversity and difference among women, maintaining the unequivocally feminist content and process of the course, and supporting students whose worldviews were challenged or transformed.
It is now time to analyze in some critical detail the actual implementation of the course, examining in particular content, context, and process.
The course content was divided into four sections: feminist theories; what women bring to education; system responses in curriculum and program; and feminist alternatives in schools, universities, and the community. The second section was further divided into the following topics: women's ways of knowing and approaches to moral issues; women's friendships and heteroreality; female physicality and sexuality; and girls' and women's experiences of male violence.
The course leader provided criteria for a feminist analysis, using a checklist format that operationalized four key concepts: gender, race/ethnicity, social class, and sexuality. A detailed course overview, using a question/answer format, elaborated on the major issue areas in the course, and served as a model of integrative feminist analysis (Miles, 1982). The learner's manual also included guidelines for developing learning logs (Modra, 1989; Berry & Black, 1987), a glossary of terms, and a supplementary reading list.
Eleven students (ten female, one male) met at five Northern Ontario local sites. An established communications network was used to facilitate audio-conferenced classes from 6:00 to 9:00 p.m. weekly. Audio bridging technology enabled the facilitator to organize small work groups within and between sites, using either on-line or off-line time-limited discussions. Such discussions were not overheard by the facilitator, and thus the interactive technology itself promoted autonomous learner behavior.
Students were expected to arrive at class each week having completed the appropriate readings and individual exercises from the learner's manual, on which most class exercises and activities were based. They were able to choose from several questions or exercises for the in-class small group activities, or to generate their own discussion topics arising from the readings. Exercises combined experiential, affective, creative, and cognitive dimensions of learning, with a particular focus on linking the personal and the political and exploring the implications of these links for women and/in education.
The following guidelines from the learner's manual will further clarify our articulation of roles and responsibilities in the feminist classroom:
Course leader's responsibilities: – to facilitate the process of meeting our collective goals – to challenge participants to think critically and analytically – to bridge the gaps between experience (what we do), knowledge (what we know), and analysis (how we explain what we know and do) – to promote a safe, nonjudgemental climate for talking about lives – to ensure that our experiences as women are validated. Participants' responsibilities: – to engage in open, honest communication – to come prepared in terms of prior reading before class – to participate in discussion – to share the time equitably, with no one either dominating or withdrawing – to maintain confidentiality within the group when members share personal experiences. (Learner's manual, p. 6)
Students were advised to keep a personal log to allow them to respond to each reading and class discussion. Among the questions to be considered were: "How can I link the readings to my own past or present experience?" "Were any of my personal values or beliefs challenged?" The entries were entirely confidential, although it was suggested that students could incorporate some sections into their written assignments where appropriate; some chose to do so.
It was clear from these students' reflections, as well as from class discussion, that they felt alternately threatened, confused, enlightened and validated by the course. One student who was on leave from work because of serious health problems experienced the course as therapeutic; it was a high point in her week. Others' experiences were less positive: some women told us that they were exhausted after a day's struggle in school administration or other male-dominated settings and had little energy to bring to the evening's audio-conference, where they found that the format itself was more demanding than a face- to-face discussion. The course leader did not, of course, push these women to participate beyond their capacity during the audio-conference and was satisfied that they did participate more freely in the less structured off-line small group discussion.
Because of winter weather conditions, some students had the option of phoning in from home rather than travelling to the local site. Several expressed a preference for the convenience of staying at home, but one was reluctant to do so because of interruptions from her seven-year-old daughter. Another student with an infant daughter always called from home and only experienced a few interruptions. The special conditions of women's lives are an important consideration in making courses accessible to female students.
Two basic approaches were used. The first was ongoing, as the course leader sought informal participant reactions and suggestions in each class and modified learner configurations and other arrangements as appropriate. A short mid-term written assessment also enabled changes to be made during the course.
The second approach took the form of an end-of-term questionnaire mailed to all students. An existing format that modelled a learner-centred approach was modified slightly to take the feminist nature of this course into account. We sought opinions on what factors helped and hindered frank discussion of feminist issues and the effects of reduced cues on comfort levels for disclosing personal information. In total, 53 questions were posed in the instrument, 6 of which were open-ended.
Of 11 participants, 8 returned the questionnaire. For five students this was their first distance mode course. In general, the satisfaction level with the whole course experience was rated as "very satisfied" (7 out of 8) and "satisfied" (one respondent).
More specifically, ratings of "excellent" were given by most or all the respondents in their assessment of the clarity of course objectives, structure of topics, quality of the manual, class activities, readings, and interaction among participants and between participants and course leader. The one component rated as "fair" was access to library services. Nearly all the respondents marked the "almost always" category to rate how often they experienced 17 key aspects of the learner-centred learning process, including speaking openly, feeling that the course leader respected and used the personal experiences of participants, feeling successful, using critical analysis skills, asking questions to test assumptions and clarify issues, experiencing a variety of activities, matching of activity with preferred learning style, and relating new information to existing frameworks. The one aspect that attracted three respondents (rather than two or fewer) for the "often" category was the match of learning activities to learning style preference.
Six out of the eight regarded the course workload as "heavy." Six rated their level of satisfaction with the facilitator's class responses as "very satisfied" and four indicated "satisfied" as their response to her written feedback. Four thought that their critical thinking ability had "developed very significantly."
One detailed question sought students' opinions of the effects of reduced cue load, i.e., the absence of visual cues, on all class members. Seventeen conditions and processes of learning were listed and respondents had to indicate for each process/condition one of three kinds of effect: "facilitative," "no discernible effect" or "inhibitive." A "not sure" response was also available. According to a majority of respondents, the audio- only content produced a "facilitative" effect in these areas: the amount of learning, reducing distractions, and feeling comfortable with disclosing personal information. The reduced cue load was felt by four or more respondents to have an inhibitive effect on these processes: knowing what others thought of class contributions, synchronizing responses in free discussions, taking turns, and developing social relationships. Nine other processes were rated at the "no discernible effect" level of impact.
We had some difficulty interpreting responses to the open-ended questions regarding discussion of feminist issues; some respondents appeared to be offering generic prescriptions rather than reflecting on their course-specific experience. However, it is clear that the majority of respondents most frequently identified the course leader and small group work as factors facilitating frank and open discussion of feminist issues. Regarding the inhibiting factors, a small minority identified the presence of a male as a barrier, and some individual responses listed biased resources, rigid assignments, and lack of experience with feminist ideas. As indicated already, some students seemed to be responding to the question in a general way, since their responses to other questionnaire items showed satisfaction with the resources and assignments in this particular course.
Seven out of the eight respondents had little or no difficulty adjusting to the distance mode format and commented positively on the easy adaptability to the audio equipment, their helpful classmates and the convenience of reduced travel. During the course, too, several students expressed appreciation for the friendly and efficient bridge operator, who was no doubt a factor in helping new students to feel comfortable with the distance mode format.
While a paper-and-pencil questionnaire of this kind has its limitations, the results corresponded fairly closely to the assessments made by the course leader and in the ongoing class discussion of the learning process. The course leader's prior teaching had been exclusively in face-to-face classrooms, and she initially found the absence of visual cues a problem in facilitating discussion of controversial topics. It was difficult to judge students' cognitive and affective boundaries from verbal cues alone: how much pushing and probing was needed? when was confrontation appropriate? which students needed encouragement and nurturing? These are not necessarily new questions for the distance educator, but they take on new meanings in feminist classrooms.
Like some students, the course leader found that the presence of a male student changed the class dynamics. Predictably, there were occasions when his forthright, but not hostile, opinions served as graphic illustrations of malestream thought; these were quickly challenged by other students. However, this man became more receptive to feminist ideas after only a few weeks, and it was gratifying to observe his personal growth over the three months of the course.
Many of the female students demonstrated dramatic changes in the ability to integrate feminist analysis and practice into their work and private lives; this intellectual and personal growth was evident in written assignments and class participation. A few students experienced problems with access to library materials needed for their research papers. However, since no student chose to do an exclusively library- researched paper, and since they were encouraged to use personal experiences and observations as data for critical feminist analyses, this was not a particularly serious problem.
We have examined the specific learner-centred issues of the feminist classroom and analyzed our experiences in designing and implementing a distance mode women's studies course. The results confirm that female distance students have specific learning needs that are most effectively met by woman-centred as well as learner-centred approaches. We have also shown that the content of women's studies courses does indeed have the potential for empowerment, even though the learner's progress towards this goal may be neither smooth nor linear.
While we are satisfied that this course was a valuable and empowering learning experience for the majority of students, there are some aspects that need modifying in the future. The content of the resource materials, for example, needs to reflect the experiences of women who live in smaller towns or in rural areas. This is not to suggest that readings on urban women or on global feminism should not be included; rather, the readings would reflect the great diversity in women's living conditions, needs, and experiences.
It is clearly a challenge to promote distance mode women's studies courses. The potentially large target group needs to be identified through the usual distance education networks as well as through the women's movement networks such as feminist newspapers and periodicals, women's centres, professional women's organizations, and grassroots women's groups in small towns and rural areas. Given the enthusiastic response of on-campus women to the strong women's studies focus offered by OISE and other universities, it seems reasonable to expect an equally keen response from off-campus students to the opportunities for validation and empowerment offered by feminist courses.
There are implications, too, for woman-centred teaching outside of women's studies programs. Whether or not the content of the course is explicitly feminist, gender analysis of that content, along with the recognition and validation of female learners' specific life situations and experiences, need to be integrated into the teaching and learning process. To achieve the goals of woman-centred teaching in the face of various forms of institutional and societal hostility to feminism, these teachers need to use, and to strengthen, feminist networks both inside and outside the academy.
Amos, V., & Parmar, P. (1984). Challenging imperial feminism. Feminist Review, 17, 3–19. Berry, E., &
Black, E. (1987). The integrative learning journal (or, getting beyond `true confessions' and `cold knowledge'). Women's Studies Quarterly, IV(3 & 4), 59–74.
Brandes, D., & Ginnes, P. (1986). A guide to student-centred learning. Oxford: Blackwell. Brundage,
D.H., & MacKeracher, D. (1980). Adult learning principles and their application to program planning. Toronto: Ministry of Education.
Bunch, C., & Pollack, S. (Eds.). (1983). Learning our way: Essays in feminist education. New York: Crossing Press.
Burge, L. (1988). Beyond andragogy: Some explorations for distance learning design. Journal of Distance Education, 3(1), 5–23.
Burge, L. (1989). Interviews with distance students. Clinchy, B.M., Belenky, M. F., Goldberger, N., &
Tarule, J. M. (1985). Connected education for women. Journal of Education, 167(3), 28–45. Coulter, R.,
Delehanty, R., & Spronk, B.J. (1983). Distance education and women's studies. Paper presented to the Annual Meeting of the Canadian Research Institute for the Advancement of Women, 11–13 November, 1983, Vancouver.
Coulter, R. (1989). Women and distance education: Towards a feminist perspective. In R. Sweet (Ed.), Postsecondary distance education in Canada: Policies, practices and priorities (pp. 11–22). Edmonton: Athabasca University.
Culley, M., & Portuges, C. (Eds.). (1985). Gendered subjects: The dynamics of feminist teaching. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Davenport, J. (1987). Is there any way out of the andragogy morass? Lifelong Learning, 11(3), 17–20.
Davis, B. (1985a). Teaching the feminist minority. In M. Culley & C. Portuges (Eds.), Gendered subjects: The dynamics of feminist teaching (pp. 245–252). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Davis, B. (Ed.). (1985b). Feminist education [Special Topic Edition]. The Journal of Thought, 20(3).
Faith, K. (Ed.). (1988a). Toward new horizons for women in distance education: International perspectives. London: Routledge.
Faith, K. (1988b). Naming the problem. In K. Faith (Ed.), Toward new horizons for women in distance education: International perspectives (pp. 3–18). London: Routledge.
Faith, K., & Coulter, R. (1988). Home study: Keeping women in their place? In D. Sewart & J. Daniel (Eds.), Developing distance education (pp. 195–197). Oslo: ICDE.
Fales, A.W., & Burge, E. J. (1984). Self direction by design: Self directed learning in distance course design. Canadian Journal of University Continuing Education, 10(10) 68–78.
Fisher, B. (1981). What is feminist pedagogy? Radical Teacher, 18, 20–24.
Fisher, B. (1987). The heart has its reasons: Feeling, thinking and community-building in feminist education. Women's Studies Quarterly, 15(3 & 4), 47–57.
Friedman, S. (1985). Authority in the feminist classroom: A contradiction in terms? In M. Culley & C. Portuges (Eds.), Gendered subjects: The dynamics of feminist teaching (pp. 203–208). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Harasim, L. (1987). Teaching and learning on-line: Issues in computermediated graduate courses. Canadian Journal of Educational Communication, 16(2), 117–135.
Kirkup, G. (1988). Sowing seeds: Initiatives for improving the representation of women. In K. Faith (Ed.), Toward new horizons for women in distance education: International perspectives (pp. 287–312). London: Routledge.
Klein, R. D. (1987). The dynamics of the women's studies classroom: A review essay on the teaching practice of women's studies in higher education. Women's Studies International Forum, 10(2), 187–206.
Knowles, M. S. (1980). Modern practice of adult education: From pedagogy to andragogy (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge Books.
Lather, P. (1988). Feminist perspectives on empowering research methodologies. Women's Studies International Forum, 11(6), 569–581.
Learner's Manual: Course 1973. (1988). Women and the educational system. Toronto: OISE.
Maclean, H. (1987). Linking person-centred teaching to qualitative research training. In D. Boud & V. Griffin (Eds.), Appreciating adults learning: From the learners' perspective (pp. 28–41). London: Kogan Page.
Maher, F. (1985). Classroom pedagogy and the new scholarship on women. In M. Culley & C. Portuges (Eds.), Gendered subjects: The dynamics of feminist teaching (pp. 29–48). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Mason, R. (1988). Computer conferencing: A contribution to self-directed learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 19(1), 28–41.
Mezirow, J. (1981). A critical theory of adult learning and education. Adult Education (USA), 32, 3–27.
Miles, A. (1982). Introduction. In A. Miles & G. Finn (Eds.), Feminism in Canada: From pressure to politics (pp. 9–23). Montreal: Black Rose.
Minnich, E. (1983). Friends and critics: The feminist academy. In C. Bunch & S. Pollack (Eds.), Learning our way: Essays in feminist education (pp. 317– 329). New York: Crossing Press.
Modra, H. (1989). Using journals to encourage critical thinking at a distance. In Critical reflections on distance education (pp. 123–146). London: Falmer.
OISE Bulletin. (1990/91). Graduate degrees in education (p. 46). University of Toronto: The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.
Pratt, D. D. (1988). Andragogy as a relational construct. Adult Educational Quarterly, 38(3), 160–172.
Register, C. (1979). Brief, amazing movements: Dealing with despair in the women's studies classroom. Women's Studies Newsletter, 7(4), 7–10.
Rich, A. (1975). Toward a woman-centered university. In F. Howe (Ed.), Women and the power to change (chap. 1). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Rockhill, K. (1987). Literacy as threat/desire: Longing to be somebody. In J. Gaskell & A. McLaren (Eds.), Women and education: A Canadian perspective (pp. 315–332). Calgary: Detselig.
Rowland, R. (1982). Women's studies courses: Pragmatic and political issues concerning their establishment and design. Women's Studies International Forum, 5(2), 487–495.
Stewart, H. B. (1988). The development of graduate studies in Ontario universities between 1960 and 1985. Toronto: Council of Ontario Universities.
Sturrock, J. (1988). Canada: The west coast. In K. Faith (Ed.), Toward new horizons for women in distance education: International perspectives (pp. 25–38). London: Routledge. von Prummer, C., &
Rossie, U. (1988). Gender in distance education at the FernUniversität. Open Learning, 3(2), 3–12.
von Prummer, C., Kirkup, G., & Spronk, B. (1988). Women in distance education. In D. Sewart & J. Daniel (Eds.), Developing distance education (pp. 57–62). Oslo: ICDE.
White, B. (1989). Personal communication with L. Burge.
Elizabeth Burge is the head of the Instructional
Resources Development Unit of the Ontario Institute for Studies in
Education, which is the Graduate School of Education of the University
of Toronto. She is the learning designer for OISE's audio-conferenced
M.Ed. courses and she is researching the impacts of computer mediated
communication on graduate level learning. Liz was the founding chair
of the Women's International Network of the International Council for
Distance Education.
Helen Lenskyj has taught women's studies in the
departments of Sociology and Adult Education at the Ontario Institute
for Studies in Education since 1986. She is the author of two books:
Out of Bounds:Women, Sport and Sexuality and Women, Sport
and Physical Activity: Research and
Bibliography.