Excerpt from the full-text article:

There appears to be a battle that heretofore has been a brushfire incursion, but what may now have the possibility of becoming something more involved. This is the raging debate between "traditional" scholars and those now committed to off-campus or experiential learning. Historically, there has always been disagreement over what constituted learning or how to evaluate what was learned. Now the area of disparagement appears to be over the legitimacy of off-campus experiences as learning and, secondly, how to evaluate these experiences as academic enterprises. As always seems to be the case in debates such as these, both sides tend to overstate their case. The traditionalists hold fast to the tenets of on-campus learning stating that the off-campus projects are too often visceral in nature, guided by good hearts rather than strong minds. I believe there are several points to be made for both sides, and each could learn from the other if lines of communication could be opened up. What I have in mind is describing the academic department I am with and illustrating the manner in which both on-campus and off-campus learning experiences are interfaced.