We were presented with a variety of definitions, thoughts, and predictions regarding distance education, especially regarding the form most applicable to our training, that of college-level courses being taught in an on-line format. Instead of merely defining what is meant by “distance education”, many of the definitions we studied contrasted distance education with traditional “face-to-face”, classroom learning as part of the definition. It seemed that this was an important point to many of the researchers: distance education is clearly different than traditional teaching. For example, an excerpt from Collins’s (2002) definition reads, “The fundamental method [in on-line teaching] to unite the distance learning instructor with the distance learner is the network.” Teaster and Blieszner (1999) explicitly state that distance learning’s “. . . primary distinction is that the teacher and learner are separate in space and possibly time.” Further, Greenberg (1998) offers a more inclusive definition of distance learning: “. . . a planned teaching/learning experience that uses a wide spectrum of technologies to reach learners at a distance. . . “. I had not previously considered separation of teacher and student in time, to be as important to this definition as separation in space, but of course it is.
Upon reflection of these ideas, it is obvious that distance learning requires separation of teacher and student. Crucially, however, all of the definitions we studied include an instructor in the definition. Distance education is fundamentally different than simply doing research or reading someone’s scientific paper (which is also a distance learning experience); distance education requires an instructor (an expert in what is being learned). The instructor’s role in distance education is to have a plan, a path that he or she deems the best road for students to go down in order to achieve a desired learning goal. Additionally, the instructor walks down the path with the student, offering positive and negative feedback along the way. It is clear to me that this differentiates distance education from simple research, where a learner is pursuing unstructured, unguided investigation. The rapid evolution of technology in computers is central to reality of distance education today. Without easy and affordable access to the internet and computers, the rapid rise in on-line education that has been reported the US and World New Report (alongside many other studies) would not be occurring. I was surprised to learn that correspondence learning had occurred as early as the 1700’s, but shudder to think of how tedious that must have been, and how the crucial guidance a teacher provides his or her students must have been affected. A correspondence learner then would have to perform work virtually independently, mail that work in (were mail routes reliable in the 1700’s?), wait a period of time, and then receive feedback from their “instructor”. After the waiting period, would the student remember all the concerns they had at the time of completing the work? Clearly, the age we live in makes distance learning a much more real possibility. Today, if a student has questions regarding assignment instructions, for example, a simple email to the instructor provides near instant-contact with their “learning guide”.
It is difficult to see the pace of growth in on-line education slowing, at least in the near future. It seems that students and faculty, as well as their respective institutions, are growing more comfortable with use of the internet to facilitate distance learning. The University of Phoenix (and other on-line learning institutions) boasts impressive numbers of students: 438,000 in 2010 for the University of Phoenix. In many ways, these “on-line universities” have pioneered modern distance education. Even though these schools are often spoken of derisively in the hallways of more traditional colleges and universities, their methods of education are beginning to be examined seriously by these same traditional schools. The most-respected institutions in our land, such as Harvard and Yale, now offer some on-line programs. In my own experience, Elmhurst College (Elmhurst, IL) has begun the process of looking into offering distance education courses, despite reluctance by many faculty to do so. Earlier, we listed some of the advantages of distance education---the flexibility of work to accommodate busy schedules, the saved stress and gasoline costs of commuting to school, the saved classroom space and cost “of keeping the lights on” for institutions, etc. . . . Given the many advantages, and the momentum that on-line education has (even I am training to become a distance educator!), I do not see the growth in this educational field slowing soon. While concerns about the on-line format remain (rigor and accreditation were listed in this class), I predict a continued rise in on-line learners.
Finally, we were asked to compare the “invention” of on-line learning to the invention of the stirrup which drastically changed warfare on the Asian steppes and medieval Europe. The piece argued that the feudal system in Europe arose to support expensive mounted knights, which were necessary to combat large numbers of Asian invaders that were able to wield weapons on their horses due their invention of the stirrup. While I am sure that there were a great many factors that led to development of the feudal system, I have not studied European history well enough to judge how important the stirrup was to the evolution of this social system. I will take the author’s argument for granted here and attempt to correlate the advent of on-line education to it.
I am not sure that on-line education is a good corollary to the stirrup. The stirrup seemed to make warriors more effective; in other words, it represented progress, a step forward in the evolution of a warrior. Asian horsemen with stirrups were better at their jobs than Asian horsemen without stirrups. Using metal stirrups instead of leather ones, made European knights able to carry larger weapons and heavier armor (be better) than their counterparts. With on-line education, I have not seen evidence (or much discussion for that matter) that it makes students learn more effectively than in traditional classroom setting. Many studies seem happy to point out the students learn as well as classroom students, but not better. While I am coming around to the idea that the best on-line learning experiences may be equivalent to the best classroom learning experiences, I do not think we are talking about better learning here. I do not see (yet, perhaps) how distance education will produce a more knowledgeable employee, a more rounded student, a better horseman so to speak.
A counterpoint to this is that the piece about the stirrup argued that one reason that Asian warriors became better is that the stirrup made it easier to ride on horseback, so their numbers increased. While the stirrup made it easier to carry weapons and armor (to become “better”), it also increased the accessibility to this kind of combat. In this way, distance education could be seen as analogous to the stirrup. Those with mobility issues, those with no access to transportation (but with access to a computer and the internet), and those with crazy schedules that do not allow for traditional classroom work are able to participate in college courses through on-line learning. On-line education may increase the numbers of “horsemen”, as the stirrup did, but I have not yet seen evidence that it makes them better “warriors”, as the stirrup did as well.
Upon reflection of these ideas, it is obvious that distance learning requires separation of teacher and student. Crucially, however, all of the definitions we studied include an instructor in the definition. Distance education is fundamentally different than simply doing research or reading someone’s scientific paper (which is also a distance learning experience); distance education requires an instructor (an expert in what is being learned). The instructor’s role in distance education is to have a plan, a path that he or she deems the best road for students to go down in order to achieve a desired learning goal. Additionally, the instructor walks down the path with the student, offering positive and negative feedback along the way. It is clear to me that this differentiates distance education from simple research, where a learner is pursuing unstructured, unguided investigation. The rapid evolution of technology in computers is central to reality of distance education today. Without easy and affordable access to the internet and computers, the rapid rise in on-line education that has been reported the US and World New Report (alongside many other studies) would not be occurring. I was surprised to learn that correspondence learning had occurred as early as the 1700’s, but shudder to think of how tedious that must have been, and how the crucial guidance a teacher provides his or her students must have been affected. A correspondence learner then would have to perform work virtually independently, mail that work in (were mail routes reliable in the 1700’s?), wait a period of time, and then receive feedback from their “instructor”. After the waiting period, would the student remember all the concerns they had at the time of completing the work? Clearly, the age we live in makes distance learning a much more real possibility. Today, if a student has questions regarding assignment instructions, for example, a simple email to the instructor provides near instant-contact with their “learning guide”.
It is difficult to see the pace of growth in on-line education slowing, at least in the near future. It seems that students and faculty, as well as their respective institutions, are growing more comfortable with use of the internet to facilitate distance learning. The University of Phoenix (and other on-line learning institutions) boasts impressive numbers of students: 438,000 in 2010 for the University of Phoenix. In many ways, these “on-line universities” have pioneered modern distance education. Even though these schools are often spoken of derisively in the hallways of more traditional colleges and universities, their methods of education are beginning to be examined seriously by these same traditional schools. The most-respected institutions in our land, such as Harvard and Yale, now offer some on-line programs. In my own experience, Elmhurst College (Elmhurst, IL) has begun the process of looking into offering distance education courses, despite reluctance by many faculty to do so. Earlier, we listed some of the advantages of distance education---the flexibility of work to accommodate busy schedules, the saved stress and gasoline costs of commuting to school, the saved classroom space and cost “of keeping the lights on” for institutions, etc. . . . Given the many advantages, and the momentum that on-line education has (even I am training to become a distance educator!), I do not see the growth in this educational field slowing soon. While concerns about the on-line format remain (rigor and accreditation were listed in this class), I predict a continued rise in on-line learners.
Finally, we were asked to compare the “invention” of on-line learning to the invention of the stirrup which drastically changed warfare on the Asian steppes and medieval Europe. The piece argued that the feudal system in Europe arose to support expensive mounted knights, which were necessary to combat large numbers of Asian invaders that were able to wield weapons on their horses due their invention of the stirrup. While I am sure that there were a great many factors that led to development of the feudal system, I have not studied European history well enough to judge how important the stirrup was to the evolution of this social system. I will take the author’s argument for granted here and attempt to correlate the advent of on-line education to it.
I am not sure that on-line education is a good corollary to the stirrup. The stirrup seemed to make warriors more effective; in other words, it represented progress, a step forward in the evolution of a warrior. Asian horsemen with stirrups were better at their jobs than Asian horsemen without stirrups. Using metal stirrups instead of leather ones, made European knights able to carry larger weapons and heavier armor (be better) than their counterparts. With on-line education, I have not seen evidence (or much discussion for that matter) that it makes students learn more effectively than in traditional classroom setting. Many studies seem happy to point out the students learn as well as classroom students, but not better. While I am coming around to the idea that the best on-line learning experiences may be equivalent to the best classroom learning experiences, I do not think we are talking about better learning here. I do not see (yet, perhaps) how distance education will produce a more knowledgeable employee, a more rounded student, a better horseman so to speak.
A counterpoint to this is that the piece about the stirrup argued that one reason that Asian warriors became better is that the stirrup made it easier to ride on horseback, so their numbers increased. While the stirrup made it easier to carry weapons and armor (to become “better”), it also increased the accessibility to this kind of combat. In this way, distance education could be seen as analogous to the stirrup. Those with mobility issues, those with no access to transportation (but with access to a computer and the internet), and those with crazy schedules that do not allow for traditional classroom work are able to participate in college courses through on-line learning. On-line education may increase the numbers of “horsemen”, as the stirrup did, but I have not yet seen evidence that it makes them better “warriors”, as the stirrup did as well.
A response from one of my classmates
David,Your write-up is very well organized, liked your reflection for some of the ideas. "distance learning requires instructor" and well said that it is not just reading an article. When reviewing this Chapter, I was analyzing why some words were included in the definition, such as formality and institution, and trying to come up with my answers but probably did not elaborate on it. You covered many points very well.
Usha
Usha
Another response. . .
David, I agree with your expressed reservation about the difficulty of making a concrete correlation between the advent of the stirrup and the emergence of the feudal system. Michael's post helped round-out the perspective presented in our book in an interesting way. It can be hard to comment on cause and effect [of the stirrup producing the feudal system] if a person has questions about differing conclusions drawn by different historians or observers. With that conflict of conclusions in mind, I found myself (before reading your post) following a similar train of thought as did you. It caused me to think of distance learning as more of a numbers game, or as you put it, "increased numbers of "horsemen", but not necessarily better warriors.". Based on what was discussed in Unit 2, and on your summary of various aspects of that unit, your conclusion would seem to provide the best guess about expected outcomes with distance learning. After watching the video of Jane McGonigal’s presentation on Gamification, however, I found myself questioning if it may not prove to be true, at some point in the future, that there can be an improved quality of educational outcomes. Various types of technology might eventually go beyond mere delivery of information and bridge intellectual distance in a way that could lead to measurable change in the learner. Maybe I’m too hopeful, or maybe I am dreaming, but regardless, the future of distance-learning seems very bright. I still have to read information Dr. Stanciak posted in an announcement about game-based and brain-based learning, so maybe my thinking about the qualitative effect that distance learning might or might not produce will be more correct once I've been exposed to that information. I enjoyed your post! Tammy
My Expanded Thoughts Distance Education Later in the Course
After reading and reviewing many definitions of what distanced education is and ought to be my perspective on this topic has deepened considerably. All authors on this subject agree that distance education is the physical separation of the teacher and student in space, and often time as well. Instead of delivering information to a classroom full of students, an instructor produces educational objectives and materials that are useful in achieving those objectives. These materials are often of a mixed variety, ranging from writings, PowerPoint presentations, and links to various recordings, videos, etc. . . . One component of this type of education that I have come to see is of great value, is that allows the student to stop and pause whenever they need to. During traditional classroom lectures, the student has no control of the pace of instruction. Ideally, traditional courses are composed of other self-paced activities, such as labs and homework assignments; however, during lecture, which is often the primary means of delivering information in a college-level class, there is no option for a student to stop in the middle. No option to stop and do additional research on something that is central to what the professor is talking about. No option to stop and reflect a moment and to reconcile what the professor is currently saying with previous knowledge. No option to stop and go to the bathroom! The founder of the Kahn Academy spoke of this phenomenon critically, that teachers are forced to proceed through instructions whether all of their students understand and have mastered the previous concept or not. Wedenmeyer, in his theory of independent learning, makes this idea a central concept of his as well. Critical of the status quo in higher education, Wedenmeyer argues that real learning is achieved when the student can be flexible in their approach, that they can control the pace of instruction themselves. Wedenmeyer’s theory presupposes that a student can and will take this kind of responsibility for their own learning, but this capability of pausing (and re-playing for that matter) of the instruction is central to the concept of distance education to me.
I must admit I cringed a little when learning about Peters’s (1988) comparison of education to an industrial process. I am not suggesting that Peters is all wrong here---I can see these analogies for myself. The production of “learning materials” by an instructor or a small team of “experts”, the organization of a curriculum for a set of major “core requirements”, the student (i.e. the “product”) proceeding through the “assembly line” of courses and requirements deemed necessary for him or her. Keegan would point out here that if the “product” wasn’t assembled properly at one of these stops along the assembly line that there is no way to go back and fix it. Finally, the student gets the “product-certified” label in the form of a diploma or certificate to indicate that the process is complete. This analogy has been largely manifested in the Fordist approach to education (especially on-line), where mass production and low labor requirements are central (Simonson et al., pp.55). When our class was asked to predict the advantages of distance learning, many highlighted cost-efficiency on their lists. Just as I do not completely disagree with Peters’s assessment of education, I am not arguing that every on-line course needs to necessarily stray far from the Fordist model. The cost-effectiveness of mass production may be perfectly adequate for training programs, where broad perspective is not essential (or even desired), and learners simply need to learn a set of specific skills. For instances in which deeper appreciation and learning is desired (as in general education courses, which are supposed to develop more “complete” citizens of the world), I would argue that the industrial educational approach is severely lacking.
Keegan argues that in order for distance education to be successful, educators need to develop formal theories of on-line instructional delivery. I support Keegan’s assertion fully, and suggest that now is truly the best time for this to occur. As we have listened to, read, and saw in a variety of sources, on-line education is a very rapidly growing field. It is not brand new anymore, so there should be a wealth of experience and opinion in the educational field on the strengths and weaknesses of distance education techniques. In other words, the pilot study in this area has been completed. All of the institutions that are now entering the on-line education arena should not need to re-invent the wheel; the objectives and supported hypotheses regarding distance education should be clearly stated and discussed within the community.
Keegan further asserts that for distance education to be successful, there must a reintegration of the teaching and learning process. In other words, distance education cannot be reduced to a simple instructor-produced set of materials that are downloaded and completed by the student, then returned to the instructor for assessment. Instead, Keegan argues that the instructor needs to be present in the educational life of the student, like one typically is in a traditional classroom. Keegan’s view is decidedly post-Fordist. The distance educator has an important role to play throughout the learning process. Even though the educator and the student may be separated by time and space, they are still in an educational relationship. In this relationship, the educator provides feedback, assesses student progresses, and individualizes instructions as much as he or she can in order to meet the needs of the students. Clearly Keegan’s mandate becomes more labor-intensive for the instructor, which is a characteristic of the post-Fordist model (Simonson et al. pp.55). In science especially, many in the field highlight the need for “inquiry-based methods” that teach students how to do science and not just a lot of scientific facts. This idea finds its roots in constructivist theories, that a learner to a large degree must build their own education through their learning experiences.
I find myself agreeing strongly with Keegan’s ideas here. My teaching philosophy emphasizes the development of the teacher-student “relationship”, in which the student develops trust in that the teacher has their best educational interests in mind. This trust is essential so that expectations are clear, assessment is valuable, and communication about objectives and student needs flows freely. The challenge in an on-line format is to develop this relationship in a face-less, written word only kind of way, so that the student knows that there is a caring, thinking teacher on the other side of the computer screen. It seems clear that if an on-line course aspires to provide an equivalent “learning experience” , then an on-line course must be much more than a set of materials with matching assignments to complete.
I must admit I cringed a little when learning about Peters’s (1988) comparison of education to an industrial process. I am not suggesting that Peters is all wrong here---I can see these analogies for myself. The production of “learning materials” by an instructor or a small team of “experts”, the organization of a curriculum for a set of major “core requirements”, the student (i.e. the “product”) proceeding through the “assembly line” of courses and requirements deemed necessary for him or her. Keegan would point out here that if the “product” wasn’t assembled properly at one of these stops along the assembly line that there is no way to go back and fix it. Finally, the student gets the “product-certified” label in the form of a diploma or certificate to indicate that the process is complete. This analogy has been largely manifested in the Fordist approach to education (especially on-line), where mass production and low labor requirements are central (Simonson et al., pp.55). When our class was asked to predict the advantages of distance learning, many highlighted cost-efficiency on their lists. Just as I do not completely disagree with Peters’s assessment of education, I am not arguing that every on-line course needs to necessarily stray far from the Fordist model. The cost-effectiveness of mass production may be perfectly adequate for training programs, where broad perspective is not essential (or even desired), and learners simply need to learn a set of specific skills. For instances in which deeper appreciation and learning is desired (as in general education courses, which are supposed to develop more “complete” citizens of the world), I would argue that the industrial educational approach is severely lacking.
Keegan argues that in order for distance education to be successful, educators need to develop formal theories of on-line instructional delivery. I support Keegan’s assertion fully, and suggest that now is truly the best time for this to occur. As we have listened to, read, and saw in a variety of sources, on-line education is a very rapidly growing field. It is not brand new anymore, so there should be a wealth of experience and opinion in the educational field on the strengths and weaknesses of distance education techniques. In other words, the pilot study in this area has been completed. All of the institutions that are now entering the on-line education arena should not need to re-invent the wheel; the objectives and supported hypotheses regarding distance education should be clearly stated and discussed within the community.
Keegan further asserts that for distance education to be successful, there must a reintegration of the teaching and learning process. In other words, distance education cannot be reduced to a simple instructor-produced set of materials that are downloaded and completed by the student, then returned to the instructor for assessment. Instead, Keegan argues that the instructor needs to be present in the educational life of the student, like one typically is in a traditional classroom. Keegan’s view is decidedly post-Fordist. The distance educator has an important role to play throughout the learning process. Even though the educator and the student may be separated by time and space, they are still in an educational relationship. In this relationship, the educator provides feedback, assesses student progresses, and individualizes instructions as much as he or she can in order to meet the needs of the students. Clearly Keegan’s mandate becomes more labor-intensive for the instructor, which is a characteristic of the post-Fordist model (Simonson et al. pp.55). In science especially, many in the field highlight the need for “inquiry-based methods” that teach students how to do science and not just a lot of scientific facts. This idea finds its roots in constructivist theories, that a learner to a large degree must build their own education through their learning experiences.
I find myself agreeing strongly with Keegan’s ideas here. My teaching philosophy emphasizes the development of the teacher-student “relationship”, in which the student develops trust in that the teacher has their best educational interests in mind. This trust is essential so that expectations are clear, assessment is valuable, and communication about objectives and student needs flows freely. The challenge in an on-line format is to develop this relationship in a face-less, written word only kind of way, so that the student knows that there is a caring, thinking teacher on the other side of the computer screen. It seems clear that if an on-line course aspires to provide an equivalent “learning experience” , then an on-line course must be much more than a set of materials with matching assignments to complete.
Peer Responses to these Expanded Thoughts:
David,
Before reading your post, I wrote mine which also agrees with Keegan's definitions. I particularly connected with his concept on reintegration of learning and teaching as well. The importance of assessing the learners' completed materials must be coupled to a strong relationship between learner and teacher where information is shared. This results in a blurring of teaching and learning where the two become almost indistinguishable. It is a savvy learner who is capable of recognizing the need for reintegration. Unfortunately, some simply do not have the level of maturity or the life skills to be an able online learner.
I also agree with your assessment of classroom pace control. You are right! There is no pause control in the classroom. A student may leave to go to the bathroom, but important material presented by the teacher is missed.
Your post was very thoughtful.
David,
I liked your post. It was well-thought out and articulate, and I agree with some of Keegan's ideas.
Online education has proved to be just as good as traditional education in the Carnegie study, because the root of the study has not changed. It depends on the student’s desire, interest, and ability to learn the specific topic. Online or in a classroom, I will prove to do well in an English or computer class, because I enjoy those subjects. However, online or traditional classrooms cannot teach me calculus and I’ve tried both ways. Why? Because I am not mentally geared toward mathematics and because I don’t have the true desire to excel in math. So, all in all, the subject matter or the method of delivery do not really matter, only the student who must create his/her own learning path based on what the student wishes to achieve. Another example of choosing an education path: even if you're smart, capable, and a logical thinker, yet get sick at the sight of blood, you really shouldn't be a doctor even though you would do well on the tests
David--I can also see how the cost-effectiveness of mass production can also be adequate for certification as well. Many companies provide certification in an area of expertise that assist one's employment potential. However, many courses that prepare one for certification will often 'teach to the objectives' not straying far from the central topics. This can be hazardous for the student when presented with a real-world problem that wasn't in the certification objectives. I believe this supports your argument of how the industrial approach is severely lacking--in this case, real-world examples.
David...it is clear from your definition that you are committed to student centered learning, which is essential to all learning experiences, whether distance or face to face. Your paragraph that addressed the pace of the face to face learning environment was very insightful; I was able to relate those ideas to the class I present each week...which is a five hour session. Although I try to incorporate as many active learning strategies as I can into that time, I know that some students are lost if they can't keep up with the pace of the activities. For that reason, the distance learning format might be more advantageous for that course and content.
Before reading your post, I wrote mine which also agrees with Keegan's definitions. I particularly connected with his concept on reintegration of learning and teaching as well. The importance of assessing the learners' completed materials must be coupled to a strong relationship between learner and teacher where information is shared. This results in a blurring of teaching and learning where the two become almost indistinguishable. It is a savvy learner who is capable of recognizing the need for reintegration. Unfortunately, some simply do not have the level of maturity or the life skills to be an able online learner.
I also agree with your assessment of classroom pace control. You are right! There is no pause control in the classroom. A student may leave to go to the bathroom, but important material presented by the teacher is missed.
Your post was very thoughtful.
David,
I liked your post. It was well-thought out and articulate, and I agree with some of Keegan's ideas.
Online education has proved to be just as good as traditional education in the Carnegie study, because the root of the study has not changed. It depends on the student’s desire, interest, and ability to learn the specific topic. Online or in a classroom, I will prove to do well in an English or computer class, because I enjoy those subjects. However, online or traditional classrooms cannot teach me calculus and I’ve tried both ways. Why? Because I am not mentally geared toward mathematics and because I don’t have the true desire to excel in math. So, all in all, the subject matter or the method of delivery do not really matter, only the student who must create his/her own learning path based on what the student wishes to achieve. Another example of choosing an education path: even if you're smart, capable, and a logical thinker, yet get sick at the sight of blood, you really shouldn't be a doctor even though you would do well on the tests
David--I can also see how the cost-effectiveness of mass production can also be adequate for certification as well. Many companies provide certification in an area of expertise that assist one's employment potential. However, many courses that prepare one for certification will often 'teach to the objectives' not straying far from the central topics. This can be hazardous for the student when presented with a real-world problem that wasn't in the certification objectives. I believe this supports your argument of how the industrial approach is severely lacking--in this case, real-world examples.
David...it is clear from your definition that you are committed to student centered learning, which is essential to all learning experiences, whether distance or face to face. Your paragraph that addressed the pace of the face to face learning environment was very insightful; I was able to relate those ideas to the class I present each week...which is a five hour session. Although I try to incorporate as many active learning strategies as I can into that time, I know that some students are lost if they can't keep up with the pace of the activities. For that reason, the distance learning format might be more advantageous for that course and content.