Some Final Thoughts on the Future of Distance Education

          As I sit here at my computer and contemplate my assignment to consider the future of distance education, I can't help but think of my grandmother.  My sister and I are the fourth generation of teachers in our family.  Our grandmother was a teacher for thirty years, and easily had the greatest influence on both of us deciding to become educators.  Truth be told as I would go to my grandma's classroom and help her decorate or clean, or whatever she needed, I really couldn't imagine myself being anything else.  I loved her classroom, and I wanted one just like hers.  My grandmother's very first teaching job was in a one-room schoolhouse that served the farm kids of southern Michigan.  She was teacher, custodian, woodchopper, school nurse, and principal.  For her, distance education meant the number of miles students would walk in order to get to school.  I often wonder what she would think of education today.  What would her thoughts be on the subject of distance education and its future? 

            I had an excellent opportunity this week to explore the question of the future of distance education with some of my fellow teachers, and when I reflect on that conversation, I realize though distance education has a bright future, there is much that will need to change in terms of perceptions as to its validity, improvement in design, and implementation that can reach into every level of education. 

            Distance education is not a new concept.  There has been some form of distance education for well over a century (Tracey, & Richey, 2005).  However, distance education has seen incredible growth over the past several years due to advances in technology (Tracey, & Richey, 2005).  These advances in technology have led to greater awareness and acceptance of degrees and achievements gained because of distance learning.  Reasons beyond awareness for this greater acceptance include, a greater number of people having experiences with distance education (Siemens, n.d.), greater practical experience with technology commonly used in the practice of distance education (Siemens, n.d.), expanded ideas of how people can interact and increase discourse using advanced technology (Siemens, n.d.), and a greater understanding in the private sector as to the cost benefits of increasing communication world-wide without having to increase travel budgets (Siemens, n.d.).  As technology continues to quickly advance, it would be practical to think distance education will gain even more acceptance in the very near future, and may one day be thought of with equal reverence as traditional face-to-face education. 

            There are those who feel distance education can never be as effective as a traditional face-to-face learning environment.  Opponents of distance education point to studies that show high incompletion rates in distance education (Larson, 2011).  Others point to qualitative data that documents student dissatisfaction with distance education due to a lack of interaction with instructors and fellow classmates (Simonson, Smaldino, Albright, & Zvacek, 2012).  Granted, there is much in distance education that is still a work in progress.  For instance, distance education is seen by some as a cure all for every ill in education.  Unfortunately, those who make policy in education are implementing programs in distance education without really understanding the theory behind sound distance learning practice (Huett, Moller, Foshay, & Coleman, 2008). 

            With colleges and universities racing to become a part of the trend toward distance education, some have taken short cuts when it comes to developing their distance programs (Moller, Foshay, Huett, 2008).  They have relied on faculty and staff to use a craft approach to developing distance programs (Moller, et al, 2008).  Unfortunately, this craft approach lacks effective application of distance theory (Moller, et al, 2008).  If distance education is to reach its full potential, it must be designed by those with a strong knowledge base in distance learning theory and instructional design for distance education in combination with subject matter experts.  The role of the instructional designer in the acceptance of distance education cannot be overlooked.  Distance education that is created with the principles of systematic well planned design, implementation and evaluation will be the difference in the success of online education.  It will be instructional designers who help subject matter experts and instructors make better decisions about content and delivery methods (Simonson, et al, 2012).  With better practices in place, learner satisfaction and outcomes from distance education will improve.

            As distance education continues to grow, it would seem that its potential and impact on education will be immense (Beldarrain, 2006).  The emergence of new technologies coupled with growing positive perceptions will bring about disruptive change in education (Grush, 2012).  As an instructional designer in distance education, it will be my job to ensure the change is brought about in ways that will ensure best practices.  The result of this theory driven systematic approach to design will be positive, effective distance learning experiences for instructors and learners.  

           

References

Beldarrain, Y. (2006). Distance education trends: Integrating new technologies to foster

            student interaction and collaboration. Distance Education, 27(2) 139-153.

Grush, M. (2010, May 26). Josh Baron on education technology and disruptive change.

            Retrieved from http://campustechnology.com/Articles/2010/05/26/Josh-Baron-on-

            Education-Technology-and-Disruptive-Change.aspx?Page=1.

Huett, J., Moller, L., Foshay, W., & Coleman. (2008).  The evolution of distance education:

            Implications for instructional design on the potential of the web (Part 3:K12). Tech

            Trends, 52(5), 63-67.

Moller, L., Fshay, W., & Guett, J. (2008). The evolution of distance education: Implications

            for instructional design on the potential of the web (Part 2: Higher Education). Tech

            Trends 52(4), 66-70.

Siemens, G. (Writer) (n.d.) The future of distance education [Web]. Retrieved from http://

          sylvan.live.ecollege.com/ec/crs/default.learn?CourseID=6493362&Survey=1&47=

          8884161&ClientNodeID=984650&coursenav=1&bhcp=1.

Simonson, M., Smaldino, S., Albright, M., Zvacek, S. (2012). Teaching and learning at a distance: 

          Foundations of distance education (5th ed.) Boston, MA: Pearson.

Tracey, M., Richey, R. (2005).  The evolution of distance education. Distance Learning 2(6),

          17-21

Hey all,
Well here is is at last my week seven application assignment.  It's been quite a day.  I'm pretty sure I am having my Friday the 13th on Sunday the 15th instead.  Anyway enough about me.  The assignment for this application is a best practice guide for an instructor who wants to convert a classroom course into a blended classroom/online course.  My focus for this assignment was to establish which theory to use as a foundation (Holberg's theory of Interaction and Communication, 1995), then move on to key considerations for pre-planning a move to a blended learnening environment.  The considerations included contextual, learner, and instructor considerations.  The guide concluded with a recommendation for the instructor of the course to work closely with an instructional designer to insure the best possible design result.

The link to the pdf can be found below

http://www.mediafire.com/view/?0ekr6u6ggxflx8h

Open for Business

While watching one of my programs the other night, a commercial came on touting the slogan that "free was better".  I think it was a commercial for some sort of tax software, or tax preparation service.  To be honest I am not entirely sure what the product was, because I was busy thinking, "yes, free is better".  So with this slogan in my head, I started thinking about this slogan and how it relates to instructional design and the concept of open source software and open courseware for distance learning.  I know that seems like a pretty big jump. Free tax software to open courseware for distance learning, but that is just the way my mind works these days.  So let's dig in to the impact of open courseware on distance learning. 

Let's start with a discussion of the differences between open source software, and open courseware.  Open source software is software that is freely shared (Simonson, Smaldino, Albright, & Zvacek, 2012).  The code for the software is made available, and can be used by anyone.  There are some licensing restrictions, and some costs associated with open source software, but there are also ways in which the software is available for free (Simonson et al, 2012).   Some examples of open source software include Moodle™ which is an example of an open source learning management system (Simonson et al, 2012), OpenOffice™ which is an open source suite for word processing, presentations, graphing etc ("Why openoffice.org", n.d."), and Google Chrome© which is an open source web browser ("Why use google", n.d. ).  Open courseware is different from open source software.  The authors of "Open Courseware vs. Open Source Software-A Critical Comparison" (2002) define open source software as being "a computer program for a specific purpose" (Baldi, Heier, & Stanzick, 2002, pg. 1379).  They go on to define open courseware as "teaching knowledge both in content and structure" (Baldi, et al, 2002, pg. 1379).  Some examples of open courseware are the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Open Course, the Open Yale courses, and Open Culture© which is a web site that features collections of open courseware ("Open course websites", n.d. ). 

All right, now that we have a clearer picture of open courseware, let's look at a particular open course and look at the role instructional design has played in creating and implementing the course.  This will be done by answering a series of questions in relation to a course found on the Open Culture© web page.  The course in question is "Darwin's Legacy" which is a lecture series through Stanford University and can be found at http://youtu.be/fysSblKjjvA.  The course is a ten part lecture series that highlights Charles Darwin, his work, discoveries, writings, and the impact of his ideas on the evolution of the human brain ("Darwin's legacy," 2008). 

Does the course appear to be carefully pre-planned and designed for a distance learning environment? How so?
The course on "Darwin's Legacy" does not appear to be carefully pre-planned for the distance-learning environment.  The lecture series presents course goals, a syllabus, a schedule of extra events, and a list of speakers throughout the series.  Though these pieces show evidence of planning for the course (Morrison, Ross, Kalman, & Kemp 2011), they are only available to the learners who are present in the lecture hall for the series.  They are not available to the distance learner.  This is a sign the lecture series was not planned with the distance learner in mind. 

Does the course follow the recommendations for online instruction as listed in your course textbook?
If we look at the course text, and compare this lecture series with the recommendations for online instruction provided in the text, it is easy to see this course does not follow those recommendations.  The authors of Teaching and Learning at a Distance: Foundations of Distance Education (2012), recommend that lecture courses be "re-tooled" (Simonson, et al, 2012 pg. 153) for online delivery.  This course is not re-tooled, it is simply recorded and uploaded to YouTube® and iTunes® in order to be viewed or heard by the public.  This brings us to another recommendation by the authors, which is to avoid the practice of "shovelware" (Simonson, et al, 2012, pg. 134) where classroom content is directly placed on the web.  This Darwin course is very much an example of this practice.  The Darwin course also does not follow recommendations for course organization in terms of requirements, assessments or outcomes for the distance learner (Simonson, et al, 2012).  The course does follow recommendations when it comes to using the power of the web (Simonson, et al, 2012).  Though the lecture series does not use web 2.0 technologies to its full potential, by posting the lecture series on YouTube®, thousands can access the content. 

Did the course designer implement course activities that maximize active learning for the students?
The answer to this question is straightforward.  The short answer is no, the designer did not implement course activities that maximize active learning for the students.  However, there is no evidence that any sort of design went into this course in terms of distance learning.  What we do have evidence of in the paragraphs above is a fascinating lecture series presented by Stanford University.  A lecture series about a topic that has fascinated and divided people for one hundred and fifty years.  This is a series Stanford wanted to share with the public and did so by making the series open and available using web 2.0 technologies.  It is a very interesting series, but for the distance learner, there is no evidence of active learning.  The learning is instructor directed lecture with no opportunity for the distance learner to interact with the students in the classroom or the instructors.  It is possible a distance learner could contact one of the presenters via email, but there is nothing in the lecture that specifies this option ("Darwin's legacy," 2008). 

In recent years, open courseware has taken distance learning by storm.  The open course on "Darwin's Legacy" is one type of open course.  In this case, the course content is made available, but little effort is made to make the distance learners more than viewers of the content.  In recent years, open courseware has shown a shift in this paradigm.  One of the most renown open courses, and one that is changing the face of open courseware was presented by Stanford professor Sebastian Thrun, and Google® executive Peter Norvig.  (Kolowich, 2011).  This course does show greater evidence of design intended to make distance learners active participants.  In their series of computer science open courses, students not only can see the lectures, but they can complete homework, take quizzes, and take part in virtual office hours (Kolowich, 2011).  In addition, they can receive credit (though not endorsed by Stanford) for the course without having to pay Stanford tuition.  It is difficult to know at this time what open courseware such as the type offered by Thrun and Norvig will have on higher education.  There are those who feel this could greatly affect how institutions of higher learning do business (Kolowich, 2011).  Others feel the impact on institutions will be minimal for the time being (Kolowich, 2011).  It would seem though that open courses that are designed to engage and connect distance learners stand to have significant impact for learners who previously might have been prohibited from these higher education classes.
References

Baldi, Stefan; Heier, Hauke; and Stanzick, Fabian, "Open Courseware vs. Open Source Software - A         Critical Comparison" (2002). ECIS 2002 Proceedings. Paper 1375- 1383http://aisel.aisnet.org/ecis2002/146

Darwin's legacy [Web]. (2008). Retrieved from http://youtu.be/fysSblKjjvA

Kolowich, S. (2011, December 13). Open courseware 2.0. Retrieved from http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2011/12/13/stanfords-open-courses-raise-questions-  about-true-value-elite-education

Morrison, G. R., Ross, S. M., Kalman, H. K., & Kemp, J. E. (2011). Designing effective instruction (6th ed.).
Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Open course websites. (n.d.). Retrieved from     http://sylvan.live.ecollege.com/ec/crs/default.learn?CourseID=6493362&Survey=1&47=888416           1&ClientNodeID=984650&coursenav=1&bhcp=1

Simonson, M., Smaldino, S., Albright, M., & Zvacek, S. (2012). Teaching and learning at a distance: Foundations of distance education (5th ed.) Boston, MA: Pearson.
Why openoffice.org. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.openoffice.org/why/

Why use google chrome?. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.google.com/chrome/intl/en/more/index.html