Reflection of distance learning

Reflection

Twenty years ago distance learning was rare to find in the society. This was the time around which I had just completed my undergraduate qualifications and became a teacher who wanted to integrate technology into the school curriculum through the use of one odd computer for learners to practice and do mathematics. Both learners and teachers were learning how to use simple things such as word document (word perfect at the time) and later on how to use e-mail to send and receive information. Later on in my career I got engaged in the private sector, designing and developing e-learning courses for distance learning. Distance learning had just become a stepping stone for many companies to interact with different offices around the world (Dr. Siemens in Laureate Education Inc., 2010). Employees could learn in their own workplaces and homes without the hassle of travelling. Moller, Foshay, & Huett, (2008) argue that “the growth of online distance learning is explosive in almost all sectors” (p.66). Currently, growth is evidenced all over the society with the high usage of internet in homes, in schools, at workplaces, places of entertainment and in higher education institutions.

Simonson, Smaldino, Albright, and Zvacek, (2012) points out that “distance education will play a central role in-not-too-distant future, as technology delivered curricula will be offered by educational institutions and private corporations on a global basis to anyone, anywhere, at any time” (p.313). Distance education is already playing a role in my life as I am studying for an online degree program, communicating with my classmates who are all over the globe, and at any time of the day. My perception is that in the next five years most of the higher education courses will either be delivered as an online portion or as a hybrid course as a result of the pressure from the younger generation of students who are “more than aware of e-learning’s liberating potential” (Garrison and Anderson, 2003, p.116). The younger generation of students exerts pressure to organizations and instructors to accommodate their multitasking abilities and evolving learning styles. For instance, in a recent follow-up conversation I had with a lecturer, he stated that he “ has a group of rebellious students outside his office almost every day demanding duplicates of what he had taught in class, and the blending of his course to the LMS (Blackboard)” (Telephone conversation, September 2013).  Garrison and Anderson, (2003) point out, “it is the educators and administrators who must liberate themselves and who must climb the learning curve in terms of understanding and designing the kinds of dynamic learning environments that take full advantage of the potential of e-learning”(p.116). Such demands by the students would seem to suggest that the future of distance learning is bright. Bates (2013) forecasts that, “From the periphery to the center: one year 10-30%; three years: 30-50%; five years: 60-80%”. The argument is that “2013 is a terrific year for online learning, where it has moved from being an interesting sidebar, operating on the fringes of an institution’s core, to becoming central to an institution’s operation” (Bates, 2013). This is an indication that in five years’ time; most of the courses offered in higher education will either be online or have an online portion as a blended course. There will be more distance learning in the society by 2018, in part because of the advanced devices such as mobile phones, tablets and many others.

There is enough evidence to suggest that there is growth in the use of e-learning in teaching and learning through distance education. I started working as an instructional designer in a higher education institution in 2012, mainly responsible for motivating instructors to integrate a distance learning portion within their hybrid courses. The graph below shows the growth in module registrations on Blackboard for example.  Out of a total of 6021 modules at the university , 2876 have already been registered to be created within the learning management system for the next academic year (which in our case begin in February, 2014).This has happened even before the end of the present academic year (which ends in December 2013). As an instructional designer, I see it as my role to be innovative in designing distance learning courses that integrate new technology tools in order to draw the interest of students, instructors and facilitators.

Figure 1: The growth in the number of modules with distance learning portion

Garrison & Anderson (2003) argue that “simply replicating face-to-face offerings, or transmitting volumes of information in an e-learning context, is doomed to fail” (116). The positive force for continuous improvement can be done through analysis of current use of distance learning tools and development of plans for better delivery. The tools that are mostly used by faculty at my university include uploading content as documents such as PowerPoint presentations and word documents. 5% of the modules created in the system for the “ABC College” and 9% for the “XYZ College” at my university for example had no activities at all (see pie chart below). With the information I have gained from the present distance learning course at Walden University, I will be in a position to design online orientation courses for lecturers and students as a way of improving the use of other technology tools that our internal research has shown to be in less use within the university (see the pie chart below).

 Figure 2: Use of e-learning tools within the Learning Management System (Blackboard) by ABC College

Figure 3: The use of e-learning tools within the Learning Management system (Blackboard) by XYZ College

References

Bates, T. (06 January 2013). Outlook for online learning in 2013: online learning comes of age. [Blog]. Retrieved 22 October from http://www.tonybates.ca/2013/01/06/outlook-for-online-learning-in-2013/

Garrison, D., & Anderson, T. (2003). E-learning in the 21st century: A framework for research and practice. London, England: Routledge/Falmer.

Laureate Education, Inc. (Producer). (2010). Future of Distance Education [Video webcast]. Retrieved from http://mym.cdn.laureate-media.com/Walden/EDUC/6135/08/downloads/WAL_EDUC6135_07_A_EN-DL.zip

Moller, L., Foshay, W., & Huett, J. (2008). The evolution of distance education: Implications for instructional design on the potential of the web (Part 2: Higher education). TechTrends, 52(4), 66-70.

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 to a Distance Learning Format

To change a course format to a different format requires a rethink of the pedagogy principles that will be applicable in the design, development and implementation of the change. Effective transition should not just be about “dumping’ a face-to-face learning material into a distance learning environment as a way of trying a new delivery method (Simonson, et al, 2012). 

 Click on the link to view the Guide

The Impact of Open Source

Retrieved from http://www.dreamstime.com/royalty-free-stock-photo-3d-man-e-learning-isolated-white-background-image17514425

URL: http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/sloan-school-of- management/15-568a-practical-information-technology-management-spring-2005/projects/

Open source courses are for free, for anyone with internet access and can be shared freely all over the globe (Simonson et al, 2012).  With the open courseware, a person can study at no cost in one of the well-known and highly recognized institutions and/or use the learning material to build their own teaching material with no strings attached.  

The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) http://ocw.mit.edu/index.htm was the website I selected after exploring a number of them on the internet. My search began with courses that are relevant to my personal needs and interest as suggested by Andragogy-Malcolm Knowles theory (Simonson et al, 2012).  On this basis, I finally opted to take Practical Information Technology Management at MIT and use it for my analysis.

The course appeared to be well designed and is organized with different tabs in the website to help access of the learning material in a structured environment. Accessing the learning material and navigating through each component of the course such as the syllabus, calendars, readings, lecture notes and projects was relatively easy. The learning environment of the course had the statement “As Taught In Spring 2005” (MIT website, 2005). I suspected that the course was designed for a face-to-face class eight years ago and has not been adapted for distance learning. The course design is a “shovelware” of a traditional face-to-face classroom setting without addressing important elements of a distance learning environment such as knowing the distance learners who will access the class (Simonson, et al, 2012).

            There was no registration process required for me to be part of the class. There seems to be no way for the instructor to know who is in the class and how many learners have logged in at any particular time. According to Simonson, et al (2012), knowing the “learners in the class yields a more productive learning environment and aids in overcoming separation of instructor and students"(p.154). This recommendation does not appear to have been considered at all with open courseware of MIT as there was no communication tool where students could introduce themselves and share their background information. The physical distance between the learner and the instructor is clearly a big challenge in the course as I observed.

            The course also did not offer the opportunity for the learner to interact with the instructor, with other learners or with the content itself in order to practice what has been learned throughout the course. Sorensen & Baylen (2009) argue that “students need to do more than take lecture notes and memorize facts” (p.71) to be successful in a course. Effective learning involves engaging students in various learning activities within the course. In the example course from MIT, there was a project activity that a student could perform independently, and observe work done by previous students but there is no opportunity for submission in order for the instructor to give feedback. How will the student know whether their performance meets the requirements if there is no assessment?

How useful is a course that provides for no interaction, no communication, no assessment and no token for completion?  Hannum (2008) argues that “quality in distance learning is built through strong instructional design and appropriate pedagogy, not by simply posting existing content over the internet for delivery” (p237). The free availability of the course material does not compensate for the problems of quality when compared to fee paying courses that are well developed and operate within the instructional design principles and distance learning theories.

References:

Hannum, W. (2008). Distance learning. In R.M. Diamond, Designing and assessing courses and curricula: a practical guide (3^rd ed.) pp237-255. John Wiley &Sons, San Francisco.

MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) Open Courseware website, (Spring 2005). Practical Information Technology Management. Retrieved 05 October, 2013 from, http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/sloan-school-of- management/15-568a-practical-information-technology-management-spring-2005/projects/

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

Sorensen, C. K.  & Baylen, D.M. (2009). Learning online: Adapting the seven principles of good practice to a web-based instructional environment. In A.Orellana, T.L. Hudgins, & M. Simonson (Eds.), The Perfect On-line Course: Best Practices for designing and teaching. IAP-Information Age Publishing, Inc.

Selecting Distance Learning Technologies

Example 3: Asynchronous Training
In an effort to improve its poor safety record, a biodiesel manufacturing plant needs a series of safety training modules. These stand-alone modules must illustrate best practices on how to safely operate the many pieces of heavy machinery on the plant floor. The modules should involve step-by-step processes and the method of delivery needs to be available to all shifts at the plant. As well, the shift supervisors want to be sure the employees are engaged and can demonstrate their learning from the modules.

Fig. 1.          Example of biodiesel manufacturing plant retrieved from: http://www.omniventures-sarl.com/BIOFUEL-BIODIESEL.html           

The employees in the example 3 need to learn skills to use many pieces of heavy machinery and shift supervisors (as employers or representatives of the employers) are interested in employees engaging in activities that will demonstrate the knowledge gained. Simonson et al. (2012) argue that “Much of this is possible because of the concept of distance education, which involves bringing learners and the content of instruction together no matter where each is located” (p.27). For centuries, teachers have solved many problems using technology tools that match the context of instructional design or pedagogy (Manning & Johnson, 2011). For example, a mathematics teacher would use stones or bottle lids as tools to teach learners counting skills. In this case, we need to explore which technology tools could be selected to teach a series of safety training modules?

            It would be best to select technology that will serve as a central point to simulate the real learning environment for distance learning employees (Gunes, & Altintas, 2013). The LMS Moodle www.moodle.org  will be selected as a learning technology where asynchronous training will occur. Videos would be placed in each module as a resource, either developed by the instructional designer or using the existing YouTube videos to effectively engage learners in the process of learning step- by-step procedures on how to operate different machines. Videos could be developed using Jing, SnagIt or Camtasia from http://www.techsmith.com/. Jing would be the best option as it is available free of charge and can be used to create short videos limited to the maximum of 3-5 minutes. This is an example that demonstrates how to use Jing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FLsSUTFYyw. Tutorials are often provided to help understand how to use Jing as a technology tool: http://www.techsmith.com/tutorial-jing-taking-your-first-capture.html. The use of video for training has the following benefits as stated by King & Cox (p.69, 2011):

• Available on demand (24/7). The employees would be able to access the videos at any time when they are not on shift.
• Able to retrieve an infinite number of times. Students will have the opportunity to repeat the learning process, until they have mastered the hands-on skill without being limited by the number of times they have to watch the video.
• Able to incorporate visual and audio learning styles. The videos would incorporate images of the machines with the verbal instruction on how to operate it and text highlighting important steps in a process.
• Able to serve the needs of both teacher-centered and self-directed students. The teacher would use videos to introduce and illustrate a concept to be learned. Students would be able to access videos at their own time. Where they will have the independence to pause, replay and stop at any point while learning. Jing is easy and user friendly for the learners to capture their own videos to demonstrate knowledge learned about each piece of the machine and share information with their own classmates.

·      Able to develop 21^st century skill. Giving a student a project, such as to develop their own videos on how to operate any of the machines would integrate the use of technology skills.

            Another distance learning component to be used for an asynchronous training would be discussion forums in Moodle www.moodle.org, to encourage communication among students and with the instructor as they explore the series of modules and wrestle with pertinent questions (Manning & Johnson, 2011). Discussions would develop employee’s writing and critical thinking skills as they participate through writing and responding to each other’s posts (Laureate Education, 2009). The participation in the forum is an exemplary way of engaging distance learners in a gradual process of learning through various stages to more complex tasks while using different learning styles (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2.                Discussion forum with different learning styles

     In conclusion, the selection of the distance learning technologies needs to be driven by each situation that needs training and on the availability of technologies that can be supported by the organization. Beldarrain, (2006) posits that “it is the responsibility of instructional designers, administrators, and technology experts to investigate which tools offers the best solution for the task of providing interaction in asynchronous distance learning training” (p.143).

References

Beldarrain, Y. (2006). Distance education trends: Integrating new technologies to foster student interaction and collaboration. Distance Education, 27(2), 139–153.

Gunes, A. & Altintas, T. (2013). Evaluation of Distance Education Components of e-MBA program – A Case Study. International Journal on E-Learning, 12 (1), 69-80.

King, K.P. and Cox, T.D. (2011). Video development and Instructional use: simple and powerful options. In K.P. King & T.D. Cox (Eds.), The professor’s guide to taming technology: leveraging digital media, web 2.0, and more for learning (pp.67-88).

Laureate Education, Inc. (Producer). (2009). The Technology of Distance Education [Multimedia Program]. 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_3467554_1%26url%3D.

Manning, S. & Johnson, K.E. (2011). The technology toolbelt for teaching. San Francisco, John Wiley & Sons, 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.

Defining Distance Learning

Defining Distance Learning

My earlier definition of distance learning had been built through my experiences of learning over a number of decades. I had initial thought of distance learning as being for adults only, and only those who did not have opportunities to complete their studies. In the late 1970’s my father had studied and completed his high school through correspondence study. With that experience in mind, I then defined distance education in terms of the money exchange with the package of study material, and assignment submissions through mail posting. This was in line with the view of distance learning as a study for “adults with occupational, social, and family commitments” where posting was used as the medium of communication with no physical contact (Simonson, Smaldino, Albright, and Zvacek, 2012). The biggest challenge for correspondence study was time delay in the delivery of the learning material.

As I grew up, my definition of distance learning changed slightly. While I was at university in the late 1980’s, one of my friends had registered for a module through distance learning. She would receive a package with audio cassette and videos. Tracey & Richey, (2005) mention that “radio programming has been used innovatively to either support or supplement print based materials or to carry the majority of the course content”. My definition of distance learning changed slightly therefore to include media which accommodated listening skills for students.  The new definition brought in an element of the face to face classes but still lacked interaction between teachers and students and interaction amongst students. Simonson, Smaldino, Albright, and Zvacek, (2012) points out that “it is important that learners be able to interact with each other, with resources of instruction, and with their teacher” (p.34). My definition of distance learning then evolved to include learning for anyone, at any place and at any time through mail correspondence with learning material that included cassettes and video tapes.

In the mid 2000’s, I personally enrolled with a distance learning university. The scenario was very different from what I had known about distance learning as the audio and video cassettes had largely been replaced with CDs and DVDs “to provide valuable resource materials for distance learners” (Tracey & Richey, 2005). The post medium was still in use, mostly for the delivery of learning material but with an option of submitting assignments online. There were also opportunities of “real-time interaction” with the teachers, through optional tutorial classes, phone calls and emails to supplement the learning material (Moller, et al., 2008). The definition of distance learning changed then to include “flexible learning with increased access and hence more openness” (Bates, 2005). The challenge still remained that of lack of communication with other students.

Fig. 1: Learner as a central point

In 2012, I registered for a Master’s program in Instructional Design and Technology at another distance learning institution. All the classes were now online, with specific weekly discussions and submissions. This university became for me an example of an institution where the distance between teachers and students had been reduced by allowing for interaction with the use of audios, videos, transcripts, and multimedia to present classes, and where there is continuous interaction with the teacher and among students through discussion forums, blogs, and emails. In this setting, learning has different categories of engagement with the learner as the central point and all members of the learning community interact with one another (see Figure 1). According to Morrison et al. (2011), learning design with “instructional design approach considers instruction from the perspective of the learner rather than from the perspective of the content” (p.6). With the new upgrade of the Learning Management System (Blackboard), the distance is almost cut to zero as I can connect in many different ways with my classmates and the teacher.

Fig.2. Mind Map

The University I work for is currently offering a number of distance learning courses, hybrid courses that complement face to face classes with a distance learning component, and has partnerships with other distance learning institutions (Tracey & Richey, 2005). The institution has also invested extensively in “state of the art” infrastructure to support distance education by hiring high profile personnel to support technology for teaching distance learning, using and supporting the use of learning management systems. These changes are based on emerging global trends where various teaching and learning tools that support distance learning have been on the rise.

In conclusion, my definition of distance learning (See Fig. 2) regards it as a method of learning through a variety of correspondence media (post, telephone, radio, video, computers and internet) where students are able to study anywhere, anytime using  various learning styles (reading, listening, discussion, group work) with limited physical contact. Gunes & Altintas (2013) argue that “the most important question on distance education is: ‘How can we improve the learning level, by which media?’ and ‘How can we set a high level interaction between the students and the teacher?’” (p.70). Distance learning has evolved over a 180 years (1833-2013) through the development of delivery media and technology (Laureate Education, Inc., 2009). While “mail correspondence” for example, is still being used today with more options to reduce time delays for delivery to almost zero thus improving the level of learning through distance learning. The levels of interaction can also be set high with the use of current trends in synchronous technology such as Skype.

Fig. 3.   Challenges of distance learning

References

Bates, A.W. (2005). Technology, E-Learning, and Distance Education (2^nd edition). Routledge, Canada.

Gunes, A. & Altintas, T. (2013). Evaluation of Distance Education Components of e-MBA program – A Case Study. International Journal on E-Learning, 12 (1), 69-80.

Laureate Education, Inc. (Producer). (2009). Distance Learning Timeline Continuum [Multimedia Program]. 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_3467554_1%26url%3D.

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 Key Trends in training). TechTrends, 52(3), 70 - 76.

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

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. Retrieved 3 September from http://sloanconsortium.org/

Introductory Message

You are welcome to join me in this blog as we explore Distance Learning issues over the next coming weeks. The blog is part of my submission to the EDUC6135 Distance Learning course for the Master’s program in Instructional Design & Technology at Walden University.