A final reflection on the future of distance learning

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.