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.