The Current and Future Perceptions of Distance Learning

     I did not experience quality instruction in the first distance education class I participated in but I stuck with it because it was the only option for me. Distance learning was just beginning to be widely available so my poor experience was likely due to lack of skill rather than the medium used (Laureate Education, n. d.). According to Borje Holmberg’s theory of Interaction and Communication or “guided didactic conversation”, interaction can be simulated but must be present for learning to occur (Simonson, Smaldino, Albright & Zvacek, 2012). Anderson goes on to say “Deep and meaningful formal learning is supported as long as one of the three forms of interaction (student–teacher; student-student; student-content) is at a high level. The other two may be offered at minimal levels, or even eliminated, without degrading the educational experience” (2003, p.4). 

     Future advances in technology will help instructional designers develop ways to interact in distanced education courses. The increase in online communication such as e-mail and video calling as well as a growing level of comfort with the technology has helped individuals connect with people all over the world. Distance education can incorporate simulation, games and interaction with other students and instructors better than ever. As technology continues to evolve and change and learners become more comfortable, distance education will likely also expand (Siemens, n. d.). 

     Performance outcomes and programmatic outcomes should be established in advance so that planners and/or the team can ensure the project they are delivering meet the needs (Moore, Lockee, & Burton, 2002). It is best to use several options to evaluate a program which are appropriate for the situation (Simonson, Smaldino, Albright, & Zvacek 2012). In order to improve, we must begin to use evaluation to enhance the quality of our courses (Moller, Foshay, & Huett, 2008). In order to take advantage of this, we will need to prepare our educators and trainers to work in the online environment. As the quality of distance education increases, the perception of its value will also go up. 

     Distance education in the corporate setting will make learning more accessible to staff much like the increased accessibility of formal institutional education we have seen. Adult learners seek educational opportunities that are relevant and meaningful and are typically motivated by acquiring knowledge they can easily apply to their work (Simonson, Smaldino, Albright, & Zvacek, 2012). Discussions are a very effective way to allow learners to share the knowledge of their fellow classmates and explore ways to get what they need personally from the course (Simonson, Smaldino, Albright, & Zvacek 2012). Millennials often feel comfortable with the technology involved in distance education (Dede, 2005), however many adult learners did not get exposed to distance learning until their college years. With distance learning becoming more common in elementary and high schools (Moller, Foshay, & Huett, 2008), asynchronous discussions may be more sought after. Right now, my company does not have a way to offer asynchronous discussion but I already see a growing desire for it by the instructors. This is one area that I will be investigating during our next budget proposal to increase the interaction opportunities in online learning. My hope is that by incorporating a technology that is already available but we are not taking advantage of, the organization will be ready when the next big thing comes along in education. 

     Instructional Designers and course instructors must also arm themselves with the knowledge to provide quality learning experiences. Interactions such as simulations and games require technological proficiency in software that many educators currently don’t have. In my company, we use a Learning Management System to deliver e-learning to staff but we have not explored delivering anything synchronously using technology or even involving instructors or trainers past the point of designing the content. Most of the courses consist of many pages of reading with a test at the end which students must pass. The idea of interaction, either synchronously or asynchronously, is not unique to distance learning; in fact, I often hear this argument from subject matter experts; they feel their content could not adequately be conveyed to the learner using a computer. This idea of distance education likely comes from what our company has presented to the learners so far and is not representative of a proper scholarly view of distance education. As Clark states, distance learning is the vehicle that delivers the content (1994). Our educators are skilled in the traditional classroom model however don’t currently have expertise or comfort using technology; meaningful learning using distance education will require some drastic changes.


References

Anderson, T. (2003). Getting the mix right again: An updated and theoretical rationale for interaction. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 4(2).

Clark, R. E. (1994). Media will never influence learning. Educational technology research and development, 42(2), 21-29.

Dede, C. (2005). Millennial Learning Styles. Educause Quarterly, 28(1).

Huett, J., Moller, L., Foshay, W., & Coleman, C. (2008). The evolution of distance education: Implications for instructional design on the potential of the web (Part 3: K12). TechTrends, 52(5), 63–6 7

Laureate Education, Inc., (n. d.). Multimedia Program: "Distance Learning Timeline Continuum"

Moller, L., Foshay, W., & Huett, J. (2008). 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.

Moore, M., Lockee, B., & Burton, J. (2002). Measuring Success: Evaluation Strategies for Distance Education. Educause Quarterly, 25(1), 20-26.

Siemens, G. The Future of Distance Education. Walden University Laureate Inc.

Simonson, M., Smaldino, S., Albright, M., & Zvacek, S. (2012). Teaching and learning at a distance: Foundations of distance education (5th ed.) Boston, MA: Pearson.

Converting from a Traditional Classroom to a Distance Learning Format

Changing the format of a class you have taught for many years and are comfortable with may seem like a daunting task, but with so much demand for online learning both from company leaders and participants, instructors need to prepare themselves for the requests.  This information will help you get started.

 

Download the printable checklist [PDF]

References

Anderson, T. (2003). Getting the mix right again: An updated and theoretical rationale for interaction. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 4(2).

Durrington, V., Berryhill, A., & Swafford, J. (2006). Strategies for enhancing student interactivity in an online environment. College Teaching, 54(1), 190–193. Retrieved from http://www.redorbit.com/news/technology/433631/strategies_for_enhancing_student_interactivity_in_an_online_environment/

Kumar, S. (2008). Online Course Development – Where do we start?. In J. Luca & E. Weippl (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2008 (pp. 3440-3444). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.

Moore, M., Lockee, B., & Burton, J. (2002). Measuring Success: Evaluation Strategies for Distance Education. Educause Quarterly, 25(1), 20-26.

Simonson, M., Smaldino, S., Albright, M., & Zvacek, S. (2012). Teaching and learning at a distance: Foundations of distance education (5th ed.) Boston, MA: Pearson.

 

Open Source Learning: The Opportunities and Pitfalls

I have never taken an open course before but the idea has intrigued me ever since I first heard about them.  I probably would have explored more if I wasn’t already enrolled in a Master’s program.  Honestly, I find myself pretty busy with the demands of the courses I am paying for so I tend not to distract myself too often with other things, especially more learning.  If I need a break from school for a while, I usually pick something that doesn’t require much brain power.  

For this assignment, I decided to explore the Harvard site first (http://www.extension.harvard.edu/open-learning-initiative) because it would be fun to say I took a course from Harvard.  Being a prestigious Ivy League school, I thought the Harvard Open Learning initiative would provide many great examples of learning opportunities.  I must say I was pretty disappointed.  There were only a handful of course topics and none of them particular appealed to me.  I selected one anyway only to find that it was nothing more than short video recordings of a professor.  Motivation of the learner is important after all (Simonson, Smaldino, Albright & Zvacek, 2012) so I quickly moved on to another site.  Staying completely away from the prestigious schools on the list, I visited the open culture website http://www.openculture.com/.  The list of options is quite extensive but I still didn’t really see any topics that a felt a great desire to explore more but the variety certainly made my inner constant scholar happy.  

I chose “Quantum Physics Made Relatively Simple: A Mini Course from Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist Hans Bethe”, (http://www.openculture.com/2013/11/quantum-physics-made-relatively-simple-by-hans-bethe.html) a course offered by Cornell.  How many people can say they took a course on Quantum Physics let alone one taught by a Nobel Prize winner?  Again it was predominately videos of course lectures.  Again, the course was not what I expected.  Maybe I need to reconsider my expectations of a “free” open course. 

The website is visually appealing and easy to navigate so you can move around with little to no training.  Unfortunately, besides being able to comment on the lecture video, the learner has no way to contact anyone for assistance as this is not covered anywhere on the site.  There are no examples of experiential learning either.  At a minimum, I would have expected to see a list of suggested reading to further explore the topic.  Anderson explains learning interaction this way:  “Deep and meaningful formal learning is supported as long as one of the three forms of interaction (student–teacher; student-student; student-content) is at a high level. The other two may be offered at minimal levels, or even eliminated, without degrading the educational experience” (2003, p.4). Video alone does not allow for any type of interaction and therefore it seems the designers have not taken full advantage of this educational opportunity.  

The learning objectives were also missing.  Clearly, the plan for this course was designed around the live audience in a classroom setting; not the online learner (Simonson, Smaldino, Albright & Zvacek, 2012).  If there was any pre-planning for delivery in the online environment at all it was to compress the videos for optimal playback and to account for multiply playback options so that the videos played different ways using different technology.  This exploration has not really helped to entice me into further exploration of free online courses.  I am sure I will explore more in the future, but nothing I saw tonight got me excited enough to dive into it right now.  Perhaps in time, designers will re-work the course and add in more activities for the learners.  For now, I am afraid that you get what you pay for and in this case, we paid nothing. 

Reference

Anderson, T. (2003). Getting the mix right again: An updated and theoretical rationale for interaction. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 4(2).

Open Culture, retrieved April 4, 2014 from http://www.openculture.com/

Harvard Open Courses: Open Learning Initiative, retrieved April 4, 2014 from http://www.extension.harvard.edu/open-learning-initiative

Simonson, M., Smaldino, S., Albright, M., & Zvacek, S. (2012). Teaching and learning at a distance: Foundations of distance education (5th ed.) Boston, MA: Pearson.