Face-to-face vs. Distance Learning

There are many advantages of the face-to-face learning system and some of these are dependent on the accessibility if the course instructors as well as the consistency if classes. Face-to-face leaning not only has the advantage of enabling students to develop a culture of teamwork, but it also enables them to actively participate in the lecture. Professors are able to directly influence their students by teaching them the ideas which are propagated by their various schools of thought. It is for these reasons that the following statement comes true:

Students who prefer the traditional format (face-to-face) do so for several reasons, but they most commonly cite a preference for the instructor presence and the learning advantage of face-to-face interactions.

(Daymont, 2011: 156)

There are various disadvantages of face-to-face learning despite the fact that it is still the most popular mode of learning. Some of these disadvantages stem from the need for there to be an instructor present in order for lectures to take place and this added to the cost of transport imposed on the students may limit their access to education. Although it is emphasized by many that face-to-face learning is preferable, it is still quite limited:

For example, the learning outcomes of students in a traditional face-to-face system may be considered to be better than those of students learning in a distance learning system but the latter has the advantage of permitting greater access to education.

(Henry, 1998:117)

The distance learning system has an advantage over the face-to-face system because it enables many people to have access to education at their own convenience. This system is currently used by adults who, because of their busy schedules, cannot attend lectures frequently and their best and fastest option is to do so online. It is to the advantage of these students for them to have distance learning that is easier for them to cope with:

Factors that predispose undergraduates towards taking online classes were examined and it was found that the risk factors for non-completion of their degree prefer distance education courses since distance educations courses provide students with more convenient and flexible class schedules.

(Moore and Kearsley, 2011:150)

The distance learning system also has some disadvantages which face-to-face learning does not. Distance learning does not require the presence of a professor or instructor and this leads to less interaction between them. Furthermore, it is very difficult for a student to gain a full understanding of what the instructor is saying because responses to queries take a very long time to get. A further disadvantage is that it is very hard for the students being taught a course through distance channels to develop the necessary skills that are needed for teamwork, an advantage that face-to-face learning has over distance learning. Research has shown that many students still prefer face-to-face learning to distance learning because they feel that it is a better way of getting instruction from their professors. A study undertaken on various distance learning students showed:

Surprisingly, more students would like to have more turns when interacting with the instructor and this seems to contradict their earlier assertion that they did not want to focus more on listening and speaking.

(Zi-Gang, 2012: 291)

Cited Works

Daymont, T. and Blau, G., 2011. Deciding Between Traditional and Online Formats: Exploring the Role of Learning Advantages, Flexibility, and Compensatory Adaptation. Journal Of Behavioral & Applied Management, 12 (2), pp.156-175, Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost, viewed 15 August 2012.

Henry, M., 1998. Using IT Effectively: A Guide To Technology In The Social Sciences. Oxon, United Kingdom: Taylor and Francis.

Moore, M.G. and Kearsley, G., 2011. Distance Education: A Systems View of Online Learning. Andover, United Kingdom: Cengage Learning.

Zi-Gang, G., 2012. Cyber Asynchronous versus Blended Cyber Approach in Distance English Learning. Journal Of Educational Technology & Society, 15(2), pp.286-297.

Google

Google was created in 1998 by Larry Page and Sergey Brin as a website for conducting internet searches based on the popularity of websites. As organizations grow, they face the challenge of attracting and retaining top talent, and it is this problem that Google is currently facing as it continues to grow and the interpersonal environment which helped build it slowly dissolves. In this paper, we shall discuss these challenges among others and what Google is doing or should be doing in order to contain them.

According to Girard (165) by the beginning of 2007, Google had more than six times the number of employees it had only three years before. Google should be commended for employing such a large number of people but this comes with a lot of challenges. The large number of employees tends to slow down the decision making process within the organization and it makes it harder for individuals within it to feel like they are making an impact. In the process, this may lead to some of the top talent at Google to lose interest in working within the organization and being attracted by the more conducive atmosphere that can be found among Google’s rivals. Rival internet companies to Google are maturing enough to attract the top technical talent and offer a real opportunity of making plenty of money by from offering stock or selling to larger companies. The close proximity of these companies to Google makes it easier and faster for them to poach top technical staff from Google.

The growing aspirations of its top talent can be a very big problem within any fast growing company. In the case of Google, it should encourage its top talent to pursue their aspirations by funding their personal projects and by giving them the freedom to develop within the company without any interference. Flexibility should be encouraged, more opportunities for career growth should be created and individuals should be allowed greater decision making and planning for their career paths within the organization. This will not only be beneficial to these employees but it will also benefit Google because it will have a new range of products to put into the market and it will also be able to retain its top talent.

A reason why employees leave Google is the relatively low pay to what they could be earning elsewhere.  Within the internet search industry, Google is considered to be one of the most underpaying companies and although it still presents itself as an organization whose employees are not that interested in the money but rather to the benefit of working within the organization, this is no longer true. Saporito (48) suggests that Google’s growth has been so fast and so many employees have been hired that it is difficult to continue with the close relationship and understanding which characterized it at its founding. As it grows in size and continues to spread its tentacles all over the world, the large amount of money it makes will negate its need for giving low salaries to its employees. If Google does not reform its salary structure in favor of its employees, then it will only be a matter of time before there is an exodus of its top talent to other companies.

The stock option system at Google ensures that some employees are compensated for their low salaries. However, this system only applies to the older employees of the company. Google may suffer from new employees envying the older ones, some of whom have a stake in the company worth millions. This will lead to inefficiency within the organization because some employees may opt to leave to take up other opportunities in newer upcoming companies, and those who choose to stay will have very little morale for innovation because they will see no reward in it. Google should ensure that a more balanced system of payment is introduced to make its entire employees feel like being part of a large family.

O’Rooke (251) states that Google has over the past few years faced several legal issues from around the globe ranging from non censorship of content uploaded on its site to matters of copyright infringement. I believe that Google should start a new policy of negotiation with copyright owners to ensure that it does not break any copyright laws which may damage its reputation. Furthermore, it would be prudent for it to enforce a strict censorship of the content posted on its website in order to ensure that the content posted is not offensive to anyone, and also that it does not infringe on anyone’s right to privacy. If these two steps are seriously undertaken by this organization, then it will see a huge reduction in the legal problems that are currently plaguing it.

In conclusion, Google is one of the largest and most influential multinational organizations in the world and over the past decade, its influence has reached almost every corner of the globe. It is the preferred search engine for many people in the world especially for academics who find its resources very useful. Its other products such as Gmail, Google Books, and many others have become a part of the daily lives of millions and they would in fact be lost without them. Such use of a single organization’s products give this organization great power, and with power comes responsibility. It is the responsibility of Google to ensure that it gives the best quality of services to its customers and to ensure that it helps to keep their rights secure from being violated by using its website.

Cited Works

Girard, Bernard. The Google Way: How One Company Is Revolutionizing Management as We Know It. San Francisco, California: No Starch Press, 2009.

O’Rooke, James S. The Business Communication Casebook: Notre Dame Collection. Andover United Kingdom: Cengage Learning, 2007.

Saporito, B. “Refreshing Google.” Time 177.5 (2011): 48 – 49.

The Vietnam War: Were the lessons learned?

The United States was involved in the Vietnam War for about twenty years and this resulted in the loss of many American as well as Vietnamese lives. There are many lessons America learned from this war and the most significant of these were in the areas of diplomatic negotiations, presidential leadership and finally, cultural relations. It is these lessons which have influenced the determination of American foreign policy since the end of the Vietnam War to the present time. Therefore, we shall discuss some of these issues in this paper.

According to Cavagnol (2007), the end of the Vietnam war saw a change in the foreign policy of the United States, which moved from an aggressive and militaristic one to one of diplomatic negotiations. The American failure and massive loss of life in Vietnam may have influenced this because of the negative public opinion that came out of the Vietnam affair. Furthermore, an anonymous article in the Tribune Business News (2010) states that the Vietnam War had made the American government very unpopular not only among the American people but also in the world because of such atrocities committed by its forces against the Vietnamese people. The shift to diplomatic negotiations was a move to help rehabilitate the image of America in the world stage in order to maintain its position of leadership. The move to diplomatic negotiations enabled the United States to achieve its foreign policy goals without the need of resorting to military aggression.

There were also changes in presidential leadership in the United States especially in matters of foreign policy. Bradford (2005) suggests that the decision to end the war in Vietnam saw a turn in presidential leadership in America from one which did not listen to public opinion to one which did. It was the first time that an administration since the beginning of the Vietnam war that had followed a policy different from the administration before concerning this war. Each president since nineteen seventy four has attempted to avoid the kind of situations that happened in Vietnam due to their disastrous effects and have instead moved towards policies which are more peaceful and have only used military action as a last resort as seen during the Gulf War and the War on Terror.

In the cultural context, the American government and people have come to accept that the American way of life is not necessarily the best way for other people in the world. Werner and Huynh (1993) state that the attempt to enforce American values and ideologies in Vietnam ended in complete failure due to the fact that America was giving its support to a very unpopular government. The American government, since the end of the Vietnam War until very recently, had pursued a policy of letting every country have its own system of government, cultural and social system without resorting to forcing them to conform to the ideals of the American way.

In conclusion, the Vietnam War taught many lessons to America, not only concerning how to handle foreign policy, but also to appreciate other people’s cultures as well as accepting the right of the people of foreign nations to self determination. Moreover, the experiences of this war saw a radical change of American policy towards other countries especially in the Third World from one of aggression to place pro-American governments in power, to one of diplomatic negotiations with regimes which it did not necessarily approve of. It is therefore an important thing for America to have learned from its Vietnam experience and to avoid making such mistakes in future.

Cited Works

Bradford, D. (2005). From people's war to people's rule: Insurgency, intervention and the lessons of Vietnam. Special Warfare,18(1), 44-45. Retrieved from http://0-search.proquest.com.alice.dvc.edu/docview/199400574?accountid=38376

Cavagnol, R. M. (2007). Lessons from vietnam. Marine Corps Gazette, 91(3), 16-19. Retrieved from http://0-search.proquest.com.alice.dvc.edu/docview/221462197?accountid=38376

Forum examines lessons from vietnam war.(2010, Mar 14). McClatchy - Tribune Business News, pp. n/a. Retrieved from http://0-search.proquest.com.alice.dvc.edu/docview/458477176?accountid=38376

Werner, J & Huynh, L D. (1993). The Vietnam War: Vietnamese and American Perspective. Armonk, New York: M.E. Sharpe Inc.