The future of Distance Learning
George Siemens declares that,
“Distance education benefits corporations by allowing them to interact with
different offices around the world” (Laureate Education Inc., n.d.). This is a well-known fact that is embraced
with confidence in the corporate sector.
Conference calling, Telepresence ™, screen sharing, and proprietary
software are all used to simulate two-way communication and provide the ability
for collaborative work to be done virtually in both an asynchronous and
real-time format. People are working
remotely more than ever, moving to often-exotic destinations and able to carry
out the functions of their roles in the workplace. Companies are saving millions on airline
costs; reducing travel for employees.
Corporate training and development is quickly being transformed into
scalable e-learning packages and asynchronous delivery. In fact, the enthusiasm and demand for
e-learning development far outstrips the available supply of people with the
competency to develop it…” (Moller, Foshay, & Huett, 2008a, p. 71). This is the new reality of the future for
corporate distance learning, and the educational sector is following suit at a
rapid pace.
Perhaps this rush to distance
learning is because of speedy technology development, or perhaps the change is
because of the changing needs of neo-millennial learners (Dede, 2005), but
whatever the case may be, in the future, the web will be facilitating the
lion’s share of distance learning and instruction. Public perception however is still developing
an opinion around the value ad for distance education. George Siemens believes that this is due to a
level of comfort with the technologies employed, stating, “If we manage with
learners to bridge that gap of comfort…so that they experience the environment,
they’ll take to it” (Laureate Education Inc., n.d.). Dede (2005) on the other hand believes that
shifting learning styles because of technology use in other areas of life will
prompt significant shifts in the desires of learners for a “mediated immersion”
experience (p. 7). Not only do learning
styles call for change says Dede (2005), but also, “Increasingly, people want
educational products and services tailored to their individual needs rather
than one-size-fits-all courses of fixed length, content and pedagogy” (p.
8). Dabbagh (2007) affirms this cultural
shift in describing the needs and attributes of successful online learners. She states that increasingly people learning
in online spaces have a “need for affiliation”, and therefore seek out
opportunities for collaboration and social presence while on the web, as
opposed to the former notion of the independent distance learner (p. 220).
Because of this shift, I believe
that the higher learning industry will lead the way in ushering in a
significant change in perceptions about distance learning for the education
sector. As organizations such as MIT,
Stanford, and Yale begin to provide more Massive Online Open Courses and the
call for validation of user participation is heard, I think we’ll see less
notoriety being afforded to degrees from only brick & mortar institutions,
and more respect for varied certifications.
Other universities will continue to jump on the distance-education and Open-Courseware
bandwagon not only to compete with each other but also with the growing number
of private online-universities that are taking a large portion of the student
population that is looking for ways to save and finding that distance learning
is a huge value. Right now, the main
barrier to changing public perception is still around the ability for
distance-education to compete with face-to-face education in the area of
communication and interaction (Schmidt & Gallegos, 2001). As more effort moves that direction however,
the active learning opportunities afforded in distance education could be a
game changer for the public’s perception and the higher education industry as a
whole. Moller, Foshay, and Huett (2008b)
declare that “distance education could
eventually be the point of leverage to develop and to propagate
performance-based quality standards throughout post-secondary education” (p.
67). If that happens—where public
perception is that not only are distance education platforms providing better
active-learning pedagogy, similar sense of social presence through
communication technologies, and a cheaper and more convenient way to educate--
then brick & mortar universities are going to have to mothball most of
their buildings and invest in server space.
A lot of the debate of whether this
will happen or not rests on the instructional designer. Can the ID’s, and the institutions that
employ them learn from the gaming industry for aesthetics and the creation of
learning based MUVE’s? Can ID’s take lessons from social networking to create
fluid virtual collaboration spaces? Can
ID’s take advantage of growing bandwidth and open-source content to provide
excellent multi-media content that is as engaging for the purposes of learning
as it is entertaining? Can rich and
engaging problem-based learning modules be created that motivate learners and
build relevance in their work? It is up to the ID to adapt to these changing
“pedagogical underpinnings” of distance-learning interfaces, and not to become fixated
on the technology, thus invoking Clark’s (1983, cited by Simonson, Smaldino,
Albrecht and Zvacek, 2012) “technology as vehicle” warnings (Moller, Foshay,
& Huett, 2008b). “Thus, a major
challenge for the
ID field is to get faculty and learners to recognize the
value of sound instructional design regardless of the medium of delivery or the
theoretical framework used to define it” (p. 220).
Whether it be Michael Moore’s idea of “transactional
distance”, Keegan’s idea of “intersubjectivity”, or Borje Holmberg’s “emotional
involvement”, almost all of the prominent distance-learning theorists recognize
that the essence of what makes education different from instruction is a level
of social interaction that promotes and support cognitive development. (Simonson
et. al., 2012) For all that
distance-learning platforms are becoming, this one area alone stands to be the
difference maker of whether distance education
take root and perceptions change about the value of distance learning in the
education sector. As an educator myself
who has experienced the “common zeal” (Keegan, 1996, cited by Simonson et. al.,
2012, p. 54) in the face-to-face classroom, I’m waiting to experience it from a
distance. As a future instructional
designer, I can change perceptions by how I utilize emerging technologies in
course design to increase the level of two-way communication so that learners
are “affiliated” (Dabbagh, 2007), and connected in ways that come as close to
the face-to-face experience as possible.
Through the promotion of the blended learning environment, which I think
is the best of both worlds, or by designing interactive synchronous distance
experiences, I feel that I can at least try and improve the learner’s sense of
social presence. By providing timely
feedback to student work as a facilitator, I can help maintain motivation for
the learner and add value to the distance learning experience.
This course has given me a solid theoretical framework with
which I have synthesized a great number of the issues and “pedagogical
underpinnings” unique to distance education.
I feel more confident in my own distance education as a result, and more
willing to promote the experience to others.
References:
Dabbagh, N. (2007). The online learner: Characteristics and
pedagogical implications.Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher
Education [Online serial], 7(3). Available: http://www.citejournal.org/vol7/iss3/general/article1.cfm
Dede, C. (2005). Planning for neomillennial learning
styles. Educause Quarterly, 28(2), 7-12.
Schmidt, E., & Gallegos, A. (2001). Distance learning:
Issues and concerns of distance learners. Journal of Industrial
Technology, 17(3).
Simonson, M., Smaldino, S., Albright, M., & Zvacek, S.
(2012). Teaching and Learning at a Distance. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon
Laureate Education Inc., (n.d.) The Future of Distance
Education [video]. Author: George Siemens.
Retrieved from
https://class.waldenu.edu/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab_tab_group_id=_2_1&url=%2Fwebapps%2Fblackboard%2Fexecute%2Flauncher%3Ftype%3DCourse%26id%3D_2818555_1%26url%3D
Moller, L., Foshay, W., & Huett, J. (2008a). The
evolution of distance education: Implications for instructional design on the
potential of the web (Part 1: Training and development). TechTrends,
52(3), 70-75.
Moller, L., Foshay, W., & Huett, J. (2008b). The
evolution of distance education: Implications for instructional design on the
potential of the web (Part 2: Higher education).TechTrends, 52(4),
66-70.
