What is the future of distance education?
In the “Equivalency Theory” and “Distance Education: The Next Generation” videos, Simonson contends that distance education is not identical to face-to-face instruction, but that it is equivalent to it. Simonson defines distance education as formal education in which the learning group is separated by geography and potentially time. According to Simonson, distance education must provide the same learning outcomes of any traditional face-to-face classroom with equivalent learning experiences to meet those outcomes.
In reflecting on the role of distance education in the future, Simonson contends that distance education will not replace traditional educational institutions, but be does insist that distance education is nearing what he calls critical mass in that it has become widely accepted and needs to be nourished. More importantly, distance education offers significant motivational, accessibility, and return on investment to traditional classrooms for the institutions, instructors, and students.
In “The evolution of distance education: Implications for instructional design on the potential of the web,” Moller, Huett, Foshay, and Coleman examines the concepts of needs assessment and return on investment as it relates to distance education, suggesting that many businesses that use online training do so because it is cheaper than traditional training methods, and that in fact, there is a need for better assessment capabilities for distance education training overall, since there is still some question about the merits of online training. The authors insist that there is a danger that poorly constructed distance education materials will stigmatize distance education as a whole, since learners are not able to tell the difference between high quality e-learning and poor quality content and delivery, and there are currently inadequate tools for assessing the quality of online training.
The authors suggest that “In examining the potential of web-based learning, the focus must contain capabilities not possible or at least highly impractical
in a traditional classroom,” which seems to agree with Simonson’s view that there needs to be an equivalency tests when comparing face-to-face classrooms with online courses. The authors further suggest that instructional designers of online curriculum must come to understand “how learners interact with the various e-learning instructional models and the contexts in which they do so.”
The authors state, “Many contemporary approaches assert that while most traditional instruction does well to control and to manage the educational experience, it does little to maximize, and may even inhibit, natural human learning abilities (Marshall, 1997),” suggesting that distance education standards may someday come to define standards for all learning environments.
So, what is the future of distance education?
There is real promise in distance education for aiding instructional designers, corporate trainers, and online educational institutions in providing truly significant learning experiences. I agree with Moller, Huett, Foshay, and Coleman’s cautions that “much of real promise is buried under the hyperbole of a quick fix, much like a TV commercial that makes exaggerated claims of losing weight while one sleeps.” Distance education has great potential, but those designing, delivering, teaching, and taking online courses must stop comparing online courses to face-to-face classrooms, since such a comparison is an illusion. Online education must be an outcomes-based, assessment-based, learner-centered, connective experience. The potential for online education lies not just in the convenience and motivation inherent in online courses; it is instead more relevant that online courses have the potential to create true educational standards while providing individualized interactive learning experiences for students. We as distance educators must be examining how and why students interact with technology and online learning modules.
I agree with Simonson that technologies will be integrated into all learning experiences and expect the traditional institution of today to vanish as we know it. Existing communication technologies have changed the way that we interact with each other, and the Internet is rapidly becoming a blend of the distance and local communities of the future. As traditional institutions adopt these technologies and integrate them into what they do, the face of the institution will become virtual worlds unto themselves.
Laureate education, Inc. (Executive Producer). (2008). Principles of distance education: Equivalency theory. [Motion Picture].Baltimore, MD: Laureate Education, Inc.
Laureate education, Inc. (Executive Producer). (2009). Principles of distance education: Distance Education: The Next Generation. [Motion Picture].Baltimore, MD: Laureate Education, Inc.
Moller, L., Foshay, W., & Huett, J. (2008, May/June). 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. (2008, May/June). The evolution of distance education: Implications for instructional design on the potential of the web (Part 2: Higher education). TechTrends, 52(4), 66-70.
Huett, J., Moller, L., Foshay, W., & Coleman, C. (2008, September/October). The evolution of distance education: Implications for instructional design on the potential of the web (Part 3: K12). TechTrends, 52(5). 63-67.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Kim,
ReplyDeleteYour summaries of the resources were clear and succinct. How long do you think it will be before distance education out numbers or replaces traitional settings? I do not see this in the near future al at. I just wanted to add that my distance education experiences have involved me more in comminuty and provided better learning outcomes beyond any face to face education I have had. I am interested what your experience has been when comparing your virtual and traditional learner experiences.
Sandy
Kim,
ReplyDeleteWhat you have to say gives lots of food for thought. Online education must indeed be learner centered to meet the needs of those students seeking an online education. However, we know that it will not take the place of a face-to-face classroom.
I teach a high school online math class for a private school that is basically landlocked and wants to meet the needs of its students. It is almost without fail that unless the students have a support system at home, they will not do well. These high school students mostly lack the self-discipline to get online each day and keep up with the fast pace of an online course. They tell me they miss the socialization of being in a class on ground.
Ginger Harper
Kimberly
ReplyDeleteIn your reflection, you call on professionals to stop comparing Distance Learning to Face to Face instruction. I agree that this is a critical step in order for Distance Learning to realize its promise. When Dr. Simonson described the state of Distance Learning (Laureate Education, 2009) as approaching “critical mass,” he meant to illustrate how Distance Learning was growing rapidly. Another change theorist, Michael Fullan, explained the need for those involved in adopting a new innovation to agree on its “meaning” (Fullan, 2007). What is Distance Learning? What are the best practices involved? These are pertinent questions. I believe that one of the points being made by Moller, Foshay, & Huet (2008) is that unless this meaning is defined soon by those qualified to do so, others less qualified will perpetuate ineffective iterations of the model. This will lead to Distance Learning being discredited and chalked up as one of those interesting innovations that never really worked well. The danger that the Distance Learning faces is in the proliferation of efforts to use it that are too heavily influenced by the need to make a profit. You are therefore right. Distance Learning professionals must move away from comparisons of Distance Learning and traditional models and begin to clearly identify it, so that it is easy to see when entities are deviating from best practices.
Huett, J., Moller, L., Foshay, W., & Coleman, C. (2008, September/October). The evolution of distance education: Implications for instructional design on the potential of the web (Part 3: K12). TechTrends, 52(5). 63-67
Fullan, M. (2007). The new meaning of educational change (4th ed). New York: Teachers College Press
Laureate education, Inc. (Executive Producer). (2008). Principles of distance education: Equivalency theory. [Motion Picture].Baltimore, MD: Laureate Education, Inc.
Moller, L., Foshay, W., & Huett, J. (2008, May/June). 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. (2008, May/June). The evolution of distance education: Implications for instructional design on the potential of the web (Part 2: Higher education). TechTrends, 52(4), 66-70
Gregory,
ReplyDeleteI have noticed an interesting thing about proprietary schools. While many are concerned that the quality of education will diminish as companies seek a profit, I have seen the opposite effect, since the need to provide quality education is a very competitive market. Students are well aware of what they are paying for, and the schools providing that education are necessarily pushed to improve the services they offer and the quality of training for their instructors and their courses.
Kimberly
Hi Kimberly,
ReplyDeleteWhile proprietary schools seek to attract certain students based on potential profit,they must still offer a quality education.The Internet is contains a wealth of information on the reviews for the schools and information, therefore a proprietary school must be competitive on the market.