A second major reason is that the Information Age requires workers in all sectors of the economy to be knowledgeable and highly skilled - without interrupting work service for extended periods of time. Workers also need to be able to solve many more problems and more complex problems on their own. And workers must stay up-to-date and knowledgeable in fields that are dynamic and constantly changing. So learning should be continuous and available wherever the people are; learning needs to be just-in-time; learning must be concurrent with work. The widespread availability of information tools promises at least some partial solutions to all these needs.
Quantifying such needs as have just been described is difficult. In Transforming Higher Education: A Vision for Learning in the 21st Century, Michael G. Dolence and Donald M. Norris project that the necessity for new models of distance learning for higher education will expand dramatically in the next century.
Dolence and Norris estimate that the amount of learning required by every Information-Age worker - by the year 2000 - is the equivalent to that currently associated with 30 credit hours of instruction every seven years. This amount of learning requirements will translate into the equivalent of the FTE enrollment of one-seventh of the workforce at any point in time. In the U.S. in one year this could be the equivalent of 20 - 28 million additional FTE in post-secondary education. Projected globally, this could mean 100+ million learners seeking higher education access and opportunities by the year 2000.
If these projections are accurate, every information age worker will require the equivalent of four college credits each year or approximately 4.5 weeks of dedicated learning each year or 45 minutes of learning every work day. Other data support these projections. Davis and Botkin present data to show that formal budgeted employee education grew by 126 million additional hours in 1992 - an equivalent increase in growth in the usual higher education models would have required thirteen new Harvards. We now have institutions such as: Disney U, Motorola U, Hewlett Packard U, and McDonald's Hamburger U- all of whom have evolved to meet the needs of interdisciplinary niche learning markets. McDonald's, for example, trains employees in 65 countries and has accommodations for simultaneous translation for 18 languages on its main American campus.
Thus education across all segments of the higher education markets - undergraduate, graduate, professional, certification, and lifelong learning - is a growth market. To meet these needs - and take advantage of the opportunities we must fund, design and implement new flexible learning programs. The needs are great; and our traditional models are no longer appropriate. How will the Information Age meet this demand for the professional and life-long learning of the information worker? Is distance learning the answer ?
Another major reason for the renewed interest in distance learning is the cost factor. Our current models of higher education are very resource-intensive, in terms of people, space, content development, and time for learners. The budget will not be expanding sufficiently to meet the knowledge requirements of the future using our current models. Can the technologies help? Can distance learning help to reduce the cost of teaching and learning?
There is a widespread perception that distance learning models can reduce the cost of teaching and learning in the higher education and professional markets. This is a dangerous perception. There can be real cost savings in certain areas, this is true. For example, if students do not spend as much time on campus, there can be real cost savings in terms of physical structures and maintenance. If employees do not have to spend time away from their work or spend time and money on travel, there can be real cost savings. Also, part-time students tend to bear a higher proportion of the costs of their education - unless they are fortunate to be among those being reimbursed by their employers.
However, other costs associated with distance learning programs can quickly offset some of these savings. To compensate for the lack of presence of a faculty in the classroom, programs should be planned and designed well in advance, so the programs can stand on their own. Also, quality distance learning programs still provide a certain amount of interaction and mentoring with faculty and tutors on-line or in person. So, while there will be some savings in the long term, significant investments are generally required upfront. But, more on this later.
There are also some immutable - at least, for now - constraints on the part of student's time. Until the chemistry of our brain changes, it does take time to learn. Well-designed materials and programs can significantly reduce the time to effectively present the content, but students must still take the time to construct the knowledge structure in their heads, and develop strategies for effective use of the databases and the quick retrieval of input knowledge. The human person is still responsible for applying judgment in how the data/knowledge is used. Developing that intuition, knowledge and wisdom does take time.
Let us now take a brief look at what distance learning has been in the past and where it is today. We will then look at where it might be going in the future, and the impact that this movement might have our universities.
Before going further, it is important to differentiate distance learning from other types of learning. Let us turn to the definition used by the U.S. Congress in a 1992 Office of Technology Assessment report, as a starting point.
"Distance education can be broadly defined as the transmission of education or instructional programming to geographically dispersed individuals or groups." (p.7)Given this generalized definition, distance learning has been in existence for decades. The correspondence course, considered the earliest form of structured distance education, began in the mid - late 19th century in England. The world's first university distance learning program is said to have been offered through an extension division from the University of Chicago in 1992 under the direction of William Rainey Harper. More recently, radio and instructional television were much-touted distance learning delivery models in the 1950's and 1960s. However, instructional television, together with earlier technologies, fell short of expectations. Perhaps today's telecourses - designed as a content resources and combined with interaction and communication with the faculty member and other students via the Internet - can become a more powerful delivery model and meet more of the great expectations.
Because it is important to explore the role of technology in distance education, let's also consider the definition from Barry Willis' 1993 book which sets the purpose of the use of technology in distance learning.
"At its most basic level, distance education takes place when a teacher and student(s) are separated by physical distance, and technology, that is, voice, video, data, and print, is used to bridge the instructional gap." (p.4)Willis goes on to caution that even though it is technology that is opening the doors to so many new distance learning models, the use of technology in distance education should remain transparent and user-friendly, allowing the instructor and students to concentrate on the processes of teaching and learning. Otherwise, we get into a situation where the tail (insert "technology") is wagging the dog (insert "effective teaching and learning").
The accompanying table gives a birds-eye view of the past and current generations of technologies in distance learning. What is indisputable is that the trend is accelerating for distance learning programs to use a broad mix of techniques, methodologies, and media. Some of the major questions facing us today in defining the new generation of distance learning programs are:
Distance learning in higher education evolved to provide access. It has provided access where it might not have been, due to constraints of geography, time, family, or money. Distance learning programs have often been structured for use in homes or small geographically distributed study centers, reducing the need for travel and also reducing the dependency on specific spaces and times. The early generational models of distance learning have traditionally been perceived as less costly - for students, faculty and institutions, and, in many cases, they have been. The great need for the benefits of increased access and lower costs per student are some of the reasons driving this rebirth of interest in distance learning. The cost of the new current models of distance learning that are highly dependent on technology will be addressed later.
Over the years, traditional distance learning programs have provided opportunities for people in large unpopulated states in the U.S., such as Iowa, Maine, Nebraska, Oregon, and Wyoming, across large sparsely populated continents such as Canada and Australia, and unindustrialized areas in the third world. Distance learning programs have also provided options for individuals who desire to combine work and learning experiences, and for those individuals who decide to return to school later in life. Many of these individuals may have demanding job and family responsibilities and find that the only way they can complete higher education degree programs is through distance learning programs. Students who use distance education do so, not necessarily because they want to or because they believe it is a preferred alternative to on-campus instruction, but because it provides a way for them to reach their personal goals despite constraining personal circumstances.
We have thus far mentioned the primary benefits of distance learning programs. Are there any negatives? Despite all their benefits distance learning programs have been perceived, and generally still are perceived, as a second class version of on-campus learning programs. Distance learning experiences are often considered "less than" and "not as good as" on-campus programs at producing quality educational outcomes.
Thus, degrees from institutions that are highly dependent on distance learning technologies and where much of the education occurs off- campus and off-hours are sometimes viewed with suspicion, skepticism, and occasionally, disdain. This is a perception by many, despite a wealth of studies documenting that students at a distance learn as much or more as on-campus students, and do as well or better in specified learning outcomes. A recent 1992 report by Russell on comparative media studies has again reaffirmed this...
...no matter how it is produced, how it is delivered, whether or not it is interactive, low-tech or high-tech, students learn equally well with each technology and learn as well as their on-campus, face-to-face counterparts, even though students would rather be on campus with the instructor, if that were a real choice. (Pp. 2-4)
The skeptic in me finds the perception of second class learning somewhat ironic, as the goal of determining the desired outcomes of an on-campus experience is still somewhat elusive. Some institutions have defined students' desired outcomes in accord with their specific institutional mission; however, as a nation, we are far from a consensus of what it means to be an educated person or the process necessary to achieve this goal. So we proceed with the feeling that something must be missing from distance learning experiences.
This perception may have its roots in the belief that educators and others hold that much peripheral learning or culturation of a person happens during the course of on-campus experiences that are not part of the explicit course activities, goals and objectives. Even though these components of the learning experiences have never been explicitly defined, it is judged that off-campus students who do not participate in informal discussions and activities are less likely to incorporate the values, and the perspectives that often are part of the osmosis or environment of learning. Yet the comparative evaluation studies hold up, because assessments do not address the peripheral or culturative learning or the deep relationships that develop due to physical proximity and regular interaction.
Do the new technologies possibly offer an effective response to this need and this perception - at long last? Let's take a look at the technologies that are now available for distance learning and consider what impact the substantial leap in power of these technologies may have for distance learning in particular and, by extension, to education in general.
The technologies used in distance learning have paralleled the technologies used for communication, news and entertainment. This was and is an obvious cost-effective strategy, as the infrastructure for the technologies can be constructed and paid for by the other public-private institutions, and then directed as appropriate to educational needs and opportunities. This has been the case with mail, radio, television and audio and videotaping technologies. The same may hold true for the infrastructure essential for the new generation of technologies characterizing the Information Age.
For now, the parallel may stop there, as the costs for the receiving and sending devices are proportionately higher. However, this is probably a temporary situation. The next five years will see the rapid development of new categories of computing and communication products - or network appliances - that may serve the educational needs. Some of these types of products are already being licensed and marketed. For example, Oracle and Apple Computer are each developing and licensing new environments that serve the specific purpose of accessing and communicating via the World Wide Web. A Japanese company Bandai Entertainment is already marketing a device based on Apple technologies at the price of $650 that includes a keyboard, and CD player for accessing the net. This network appliance uses a television set for its display, enabling the development of a new price point for web access and communication. This may well be the key to enable the shift to a web-centric teaching and learning paradigm. Such a new home appliance combined with telecourse material may support the evolution of a much more highly interactive model for distance learning.
One of the goals of this paper is to assist in planning for the design, delivery and support of distance learning programs - whether the programs are half-way across campus or half-way around the world. As was mentioned above, it is quite clear that the new generation of distance learning programs will use a broad mix of techniques, methodologies, and media. As in other areas of society, a new educational technology does not always replace an old educational technology. A more common impact is that the new technology takes its place among the range of technologies for meeting a particular set of needs. Or a general technology may have an extended phasing-in period and then settle in for a long period of serving a small niche. The radio is a good example of a technology that was used for distance learning when it was the only technology widely accessible; now radio is still here, but is used almost exclusively for other communication and entertainment needs in the U.S.
The attached table on the Generations of Distance Learning Technologies clearly shows that the mix of media to be used in designing distance learning programs has become very complex as the technologies have expanded. The table describes the generations of distance learning technologies according to five characteristics: (1) the media and the technologies, (2) communication features, (3) student characteristics and goals, (4) educational philosophy and curriculum design, and (5) infrastructure. (See attached table.) Let's briefly consider how each of these characteristics may impact the evolving interactive distance learning models.
The Media and the Technologies. One of the key differentiating characteristics of the communication technologies is whether the technologies provide one-way, two-way, or multiple way communication, and whether the "ways" are broadband or narrowband, and whether the return rate is fast or slow. For example, the postal service can be broadband carrying print, audio, and videotapes, but the return rate can be painfully slow. The telephone is a good technology for two-way audio conferencing, but predominately aural, rather than visual. If one is having an audioconference it is essential that any visual supporting material be on site for all participants. The rapid deployment of the fax machine is facilitating effective audioconferencing by addressing the visual component.
The technologies predominately used in distance learning in the early and mid 20th century such as print, radio and television have been primarily broadband in one direction - fitting the educational model of education as an information transfer or "dump" between faculty and student. This is the "open head of student, fill head by teacher" educational model or in more educational terms, the tabula rasa or blank slate philosophy. With this as a teaching philosophy, institutions and teachers could feel confident preparing packaged or canned materials that structured content into appropriate-sized chunks for learning. The printed page or the television "talking head" takes on the role of the faculty member in transferring information into the brains of the students.
Time and expertise was and is needed to prepare materials for delivery in this stand-alone mode. This delivery mode did not generally incorporate any two-way interaction between students, and provided minimal interaction between the faculty and the student. Another major drawback of this generation of technology is that the television is also used primarily as a family or group entertainment or news technology. It can be difficult for students to shift from an entertainment mind set to an active learning mode. Also, family members may still have to study at unusual times to gain access to the remote control and have concentrated study time.
Lack of a two-way audio-video broadband communication with the television or print media restricted the dynamic interchange between the faculty member and the students. This constraint also restricted the type of instruction that could be delivered, as the students could not effectively collaborate with each other across distances. Completing a full course and all its components was primarily an individual experience; it was difficult to form study groups, for example, to discuss ideas and to share other's thoughts.
A related constraint of some of the broadband one-way technologies is their time-dependency. Many of these programs are broadcast only once and a student needs to be certain to be listening or watching in at those specific times - as in the Sunrise Semester. A big leap forward in access occurred with the technologies of audiotapes and videotapes that enable timeshifting of the broadcast portion of the telecourses, or alternatively, tapes could be delivered via mail to be used at a time of the student's choosing. For example, students can now tape programs and view it at other more convenient times. These new technologies also meant that distance learning programs could be developed with a variety of prepackaged media, such as print, audio, and video components. Students then would have full flexibility in when and where to take the course. Some of these programs in the 1980's also had computer-based education (CBE) components. CBE materials are powerful in the interaction and simulation richness that they can provide and thus represent a major technological advancement. These materials best support the dialogue between students and resources, and when future advancements complete their development, will effectively support collaboration between students.
The distance learning programs that are almost totally prepackaged or "canned" have - in the past - used a relatively slow response technology such as letters or phone. Because of this lack of dynamism and spontaneity, there has often been little interaction or communication with the faculty member or mentor. While the phone technology is a very good technology for interaction, it can carry a significant expense and require synchroneity from the participants.
Thus, a major constraint of the broadband one-way technologies is that it is difficult to create a meaningful relationship between a faculty member and isolated students, or to develop a community of learners among the faculty and the possible cohort of students. The technologies of the third and fourth generation - the electronic mail, chat rooms, bulletin boards and desktop videoconferencing - now make possible the development of learning communities across time and distance.
Communications Features. The primary differentiating feature among the distance learning technologies today versus previous generations is the ability for timely and personal interaction, the basis of most satisfying relationships. The technologies now provide choices that enable the delivery of distance learning programs almost anytime, anywhere. (The next generation of technologies that will extend the communication features beyond today's capabilities will include wireless technologies so that one does not need to be tethered to access communication features. We are all still constrained by battery technology which is still relatively brief, and frustratingly heavy.)
Today's technologies enable synchronous communications across long distances and with large groups - providing the perception of "almost being there" no matter where one is. New categories of media events are evolving - an on-line interactive interviews with rock stars, for example. Will we soon have on-line interactive interviews with a famous astronomer as part of a cohort-based astronomy degree program?
Today's technologies enable rapid response asynchronous communications - very different from the mail. A student can post a question for a faculty member or for other students and receive a reply in hours, and sometimes minutes. This capability also creates new communication patterns and expectations. A faculty member can manage a course using a variety of social and intellectual spaces on the net. Linda Harasim from Simon Fraser University in Canada has been teaching on-line since 1985. She has designed a communication structure on-line with the following kinds of spaces:
These new technologies also enable faculty, students, and support staff to handle all recruiting, admission, registration and fees, and student life on-line. We can predict with some certainty that we will soon have student life equivalents of all social spaces on the Internet. We know we have become infonauts (information-age workers) if we find ourselves wondering, "Why can't I do this on the Net?"
At this time it is too early to say if these technologies will truly supplant most of the face-to-face contact desired by people in educational programs. I suspect that, again, given the multiplicity of needs and people, that multiple program designs will be successful - some with a high percentage of face-to-face contact and some with little or none.
Student Characteristics and Goals. Students who successfully complete distance learning programs are generally very motivated, highly disciplined, and with a clear vision of the goals that they want to accomplish. Successful distance learning students also generally have the skills to be independent learners, and are comfortable in the realm of textual materials. Most students with this set of characteristics also tend to be mature adult students. The young adult who was not successful in high school does not fit this profile.
Mature student characteristics will always be important indicators of success in learning, but they will be less important in the future. The new distance learning technologies enable faculty to hold meetings, stay in touch, provide structure, and provide frequent response and interaction. It enables faculty or support staff - with time - to provide some much needed guidance, encouragement, and hand-holding with students who need such assistance. However, there will still be students, particularly younger students, for whom distance learning programs are not a good match for their learning needs and levels of learning skills.
All students want some support and individual attention from a faculty or mentor. The British Open University has always had a system of tutors designed into their distance learning programs. They do not see this design element changing. In their strategic plan, Plans for Change 1996 - 2005, they state their continuing belief in the need for individualized contact between faculty and student. ".. individualized student support whether delivered face-to-face, through new technology , or other means, will remain fundamental to learning success." (p. 10)
Educational Philosophy and Curriculum Design. Another key differentiating factor of the latter generations of distance learning is the view of the student and the design principles of curriculum development. In the early 1900s the student was viewed as an empty vessel into which the faculty member "poured" knowledge. In this model, the faculty member was the "one who knew all" and students came to the faculty member with a yearning to know what the faculty member knew. With this philosophy the goal of distance learning was to "get the knowledge content" out to the student. So the curriculum designers analyzed the knowledge content, divided it into appropriate size chunks, and structured readings, and video, to teach the knowledge objectives in the chunks. This sounds like a reasonable approach. What has changed?
Our view of the student is now quite different, and it is reasonable also to say that students are qualitatively different as well. Our understanding of the teaching and learning process is more advanced; and we know that the students need to be actively processing and integrating information for learning to occur. The focus is changing for the curriculum designers as well. Designers still must analyze the knowledge content, and determine appropriate-size chunks; but designers must also analyze the skills to be developed and incorporate complex real-world problems into the content materials. Seldom will the problems that are at the end of the chapter have easy answers, or even any answers at all. Additionally, students may bring applied knowledge to the teaching and learning event that is new to the faculty member. In these cases, the role of the faculty member changes from the font of all knowledge to the mentor who helps to interpret information in the light of the discipline and his/her more comprehensive perspective. For effective learning today, designers must plan for interactive collaborative events among faculty, students, and other resources. The pace of knowledge development may require input from students as well as from the faculty member - especially in the applied fields.
Infrastructure. One possible definition of infrastructure is that it is the set of technologies in an environment that supports the mission of an institution. In the case of the early generations of distance learning the infrastructure requirements for student support consisted of what we now view as fairly straightforward technologies - the postal service, radio, television, and audiocassettes. The list of infrastructure requirements for distance learning programs based on computers, computer networking, databases of digital information, the Internet is daunting. EDUCOM, a consortium of universities and companies formed to support the building of a networking infrastructure for research and learning, launched a new initiative in 1993 called the National Learning Infrastructure Initiative. This organization has a new goal of defining the components needed for a comprehensive teaching and learning infrastructure, and to form alliances and coalitions to support the development of the components of such an infrastructure.
Research data on the number of students who currently have access to computers support a view that the critical mass of dissemination has been reached and that it is only a matter of time before computer technology, including access to the Internet, is widespread. Curriculum designers must know what resources students will have access to while designing distance learning programs. While designers cannot assume access today for all populations of students, many distance learning programs are moving forward by stating computer and computer network access as a requirement for participating in certain distance learning programs.
{Insert Generations of Distance Learning Technologies Chart Here.}
The new computing and communication technologies may now offer an opportunity to close the gap, be it perceived or real, between the effectiveness of the experiences of on-campus students and those of distance learning students. The new technologies enable faculty and students and cohorts of students to dramatically increase the amount of interaction and communication during a course experience, whether students are on campus, at home, at the office, or hundreds of miles away. The new technologies offer a way to do that which we have not been able to do before even with on-campus students. We can now design for more active and collaborative learning. We can design for more active interaction between students and the resources, more interaction between the faculty and the students, and more interaction with external resources such as professionals and experts around the world.
The Information Age is making the virtual lecture classroom possible by connecting students and faculty across space and time. Videoconferencing with phone, cable, or satellite transmissions enable the faculty member as lecturer to be connected in real time across states, nationally and globally - if one doesn't mind the difference in time zones.
The technologies of the World Wide Web and the Internet and the infrastructure of fiber, cable, and phone lines can now provide real-time, 30 frame-per-second, two-way audio and video communications. With these technologies readily available to at least 10% of the population, it is time to rethink the role of distance education and its role in higher education. The educational and updating needs of the workforce and the population in general are growing rapidly. These technologies are here none too soon. We must find a way to use them effectively.
Whenever there is about to be a great change in an institution, it is wise to examine the underlying mission and processes of an institution. The mission of higher education - in the past - has been to create, disseminate and preserve knowledge. Is this still a valid mission?
Recognizing that it might be time to reconsider the mission of a university, Jaroslav Pelikan wrote a book (1992) reexamining John Henry Newman's nine discourses on the idea of a university. In Newman's fifth discourse "Knowledge Its Own End" Newman states that a "University is a place of teaching universal knowledge." In his analysis of this discourse, Pelikan observes that teaching universal knowledge - given the sheer quantity of information - as an ideal is obviously no longer a realistic goal for any one university, "but it is in considerable measure realistic as a goal for the university community worldwide." (p. 41). This statement seems to suggest that global alliances and partnerships among universities are essential if the goal of teaching universal knowledge is to be attainable in the information age. As we are beginning to understand - building such partnerships, at some level, are, in fact, critical to a university's well-being and future.
From the perspective of the teaching mission, then, it is likely that the mission will remain; but this mission will need to be increasingly explicitly defined. Some of the questions we will need to answer will be: What courses and degree programs will we be teaching? Who will our students be? Where will our students be? What will our students bring to the experience? Which models of (distance) learning will we be using? And last, but not least, How do we develop the infrastructure to support the answers in the other questions?
Each university will need to answer those questions to prioritize the allocation of resources. You may well ask, at this point, what does all this have to do with distance learning. The impact of these decisions is that each university will become more specialized in some areas, and that universities will collaborate to maximize both their strengths and their weaknesses. It will be those strengths and weaknesses that will guide the development of distance learning programs and partnerships. Some universities may well choose to specialize in being generalists in some areas.
Distance learning programs, if well supported and delivered, will also enable universities to forge close bonds with its students throughout their lifetimes. As Pelikan predicts, "The university will increasingly take upon itself a major responsibility for a complete life of learning as an integral part of its central education mission. Thus, the future of the university .. will be closely tied to how it performs in cultivating this lifelong bond and in carrying out this lifelong mission for each of its several overlapping constituencies. (p. 182)
Decisions as to mission clarification and specification will guide universities into the programs and alliances of the next century.
Thus, the new teaching and learning paradigm will impact the institutions in significant ways. It will require examination of an institution's mission; and require changes for the institution's processes, for faculty, students, staff, and curricula. We will take a brief look now at each of these areas and how they might be impacted by the distance learning opportunities and technologies.
It is time to rethink education and distance learning in the light of the new technologies. It is my hope that the next sections will assist in this process by examining the teaching and learning processes - and the people who participate in and support these processes. I am still searching for my own crystal ball; but in the best tradition of a futurist philosophy according to Alan Kay, the more we determine and move forward on our own priorities and principles, the more likely that we can make our own version of the future the probable one.
The next sections will address the following topics:
The early nineteenth century philosopher and educator - John Dewey has much to say that is relevant to the development of distance learning programs. Dewey's writing and thinking spanned the late 19th and through the middle 20th century. At a time when life-long learning is one of everyone's concern, it is good to reflect on John Dewey's words that "The goal of education is growth. And the goal of growth is more growth." And that, "Education is not a preparation for life; education is life itself." Dewey based his philosophical thought in education on the experiences that the learner has, that is, in the combination of thought and social interaction.
Dewey also believed that an effective educational experience required two key processes - interaction and the continuity of interaction. He believed that such interaction was unique to individual learners. Each unique learning experience built on a student's own previous unique experiences. But the goal of such individualization and customization for the students was an elusive and impossible dream; it is still a dream today, but a more attainable one. Dewey had the vision of the experience of effective interaction education in the early 1900s; in the late 1990's we may finally have the tools to begin to implement this vision.
As to the role of the student in the educational experience, Dewey was steadfast in his belief in the need for active participation by students. In his words, "There is, I think, no point in the philosophy of progressive education which is sounder than its emphasis upon the importance of the participation of the learner in the formation of the purposes which direct his activities in the learning process, just as there is no defect in traditional education greater than its failure to secure the active cooperation of the pupil in construction of the purposes involved in his studying." (p. 67) Note that this statement goes beyond the requirement of the learner as an active participant in his/her own learning; Dewey specifies that the learner needs to be an active participant in the "formation of the purposes" of the learning." Where are the tools and processes to support this philosophy, if we believe it should be supported?
We know more about the processes of learning now than Dewey did in the 1930s. Research has confirmed the need for students to be active learners, and to participate in the formation of goals for their learning. Also, students must "act on" the available information in some way. Learning is not a process of soaking up information. Occasionally, children are described as soaking up knowledge as a sponge, - this is usually said of very fast learners, who can, perhaps, construct or add-on to their existing knowledge structures very quickly. Learning, however slow or fast it is accomplished, is a constructive process, as in the often-used analogy of the Lego blocks. The process of learning is a building of knowledge structures, of making connections and creating new nodes of information, of differentiation of similar ideas, and becoming aware of patterns and relationships. Collaboration is also important to learning as the very process of collaboration requires the acting on, working with knowledge. That action facilitates the development of knowledge structures.
It might be said, for example, that the more we develop our brain structures, the more we can learn. And the more one learns, the more one can learn. It also might be said, for example, that all learning occurs at the edges of one's knowledge - as we are always adding on to our nodes and structures. (Note: this is one reason why scholastic standards and expectations can never be more than minimalist. We can and should identify an elemental set of knowledge and skills for students. But good teachers and good learners increase the differences between students; because as each student learns, the more that they can learn.)
Dewey spent a great deal of his time and thought on encouraging mankind to move away from the either-or mentality of traditional or progressive education. We find ourselves in the similar situation today, focusing on the need to move away from the dualism of on-campus or off campus (distance) learning. In fact, just as the technologies are converging, so are the on-campus and off-campus programs. Where a person is located most of the time will simply not matter. A faculty member at Penn State who was physically weak and unable to meet his class on campus in 1992 still functioned very successfully as a teacher using the Internet. Students reported feeling closer to this teacher and more competent in the subject matter than in other more traditional on-campus classes. Similarly, the experiences of Linda Harasim (1990) who has been teaching in "on-line" environments for over ten years, finds that "students anywhere in the world can be part of a single class. Teachers can be anywhere in the world and still team-teach a class."
But, returning to the teaching and learning processes, what is the essence of the educational experience? If we strip away all the accouterments of our educational institutions and structures, we find that a major constant among educational experiences is that of dialogue and communication.
Let's focus on the meaning of the word - dialogue. A dialogue implies a conversation or an exchange of ideas and opinions between two or more people. In our rush to industrialize our schools over the last 100 years, we have been systematically reducing and almost eliminating this dialogue. The dialogue that remains today in higher education between faculty and student is primarily found in the intense relationships between faculty and students at the master's and doctoral level programs. What about the dialogue at the undergraduate degree level? At the high school level? Can the new technologies shift the pendulum back to increased dialogue in our educational models?
The Processes of Education - Dialogue and Collaboration. The dialogues in educational experiences today, in classes or cohorts of students, is generally based on one of three dyads: the dialogue between the faculty and the students, the dialogue between and among students, and the dialogue between a student and the instructional resources, such as books, films, reference materials, research data, and experts. These three dialogues serve as the foundation of instructional strategies and practices. So, all desired outcomes may be said to be achievable by a combination of any of the dialogues. And the array of communication and computing technologies now available are powerful enablers of these dialogues. For example, the dialogue between the faculty and students might be facilitated via:
The Gathering Place for Instruction. The key change in the new teaching and learning paradigm that is coming will be the single most significant change to occur in education in hundreds of years. This is the move away from the physical classroom as the "Framework for Interaction" or Gathering Place to the World Wide Web as the point of departure for a learning experience. WWW sites are now as easy to develop as word-processed documents. Support may be needed for the linking and the Internet placement, but the web is becoming a friendly place to see and to be seen. It is a good place for the faculty member to introduce himself or herself to new cohorts of learners; it is a place where much of the normal communication of a course can be conducted. The web is also the place where faculty and students can do much of their dialoguing. Some of this dialogue will be synchronous (at the same time) and others will be asynchronous (at different time).
With the development of the technologies that promise quality real time video-conferencing, some dialogue will be synchronous, but in the virtual classroom, rather than the physical classroom. Does this mean that our classrooms will be as useless and covered with dust as the room with Ms. Haversham's wedding feast? No, it simply means that rather than being the primary place for interaction, the classroom will become secondary - one of many choices for course activities and interaction.
It is an easy leap to see that our campus buildings in the future may look and feel much more like a combination of today's television production studios and conference centers. People will come together for longer periods of "class time" for specific goals and objectives, that truly cannot be done in any other way. Despite the rapid pace of technology and the ability to move digital bits rather than people across geographic distances, people will still want to occasionally come together for events and hand-shaking and hugging.
With a move to widescale use of interactive strategies and materials in higher education and offering of courses in virtual space and time, instructional design becomes more critical to ensure quality of outcomes.
For most classroom teachers, the concept of instructional design is at the same time, very familiar, and yet very foreign. Faculty are generally unconscious competents in instructional design. Faculty are competent in that they have been designing instruction for years; yet they are unconscious in that they cannot articulate the principles of instructional design. This situation is not particularly troublesome as long as the environment in which they are teaching does not change significantly and they are available to correct any misconceptions. However, change the environment and their teaching role, and it becomes critical that faculty develop knowledge of instructional design or alternatively, be supported in instructional design in some way.
Fortunately, most faculty who enjoy teaching and having their students succeed resonate quickly with instructional design principles. In instructional design, the core questions that must be answered are:
When we know the desired outcomes of education, and when we can measure those outcomes, we can be comfortable requiring individuals to pass a competency test, such as a driver's test, real estate appraisal test, etc.
When the desired outcomes are a set of complex cognitive, behavioral and attitudinal skills, we have traditionally turned to a time-based-model of education - with a measure of competency exams at regular intervals. This model says the following: We are not quite certain about the exact nature of the educational outcomes, and we are not quite certain how to measure these outcomes, but the students need to develop a very complex and rich set of skills and experience, and traditionally, if students have spent a certain amount of "time-on-task" with appropriate interaction with knowledgeable faculty and resources and performance on faculty exams, students have generally performed the expected tasks in society in an acceptable fashion. And, of course, the time we have traditionally agreed upon varies for a bachelor's degree, a master's degree, or other professional degrees.
Thus, in the higher education and professional arenas, we often require a time-based experience coupled with a competency-based demonstration, i.e., the bar exam, the nursing exam. In other fields, we combine a time-based experience plus a set of products, such as the series of innovative research projects required for a Ph.D. in science, or , a portfolio of art or writings.
Let's look at how we might apply these instructional design perspectives to distance education. We can design distance learning courses from the viewpoint of a time-based model or a competency-based model, or some combination of these two. In practice, most courses, including distance learning courses, are designed with a merging of these two models. However, it is important to differentiate the assumptions behind these models as we move into distance learning experiences. State regulations and accreditation models that specify a certain number of required "contact hours" for a three credit undergraduate course, for example, assume a bias toward a time-based model. But as we have just discussed, a dominantly time-based model focuses on an outcome that is often irrelevant to the specified outcomes. The time-based model does have a certain amount of validity because we know that learning requires time, but regulations based on time regulate outcomes indirectly and superficially.
We need to design instruction with the knowledge that while time for learning is necessary, time alone is not sufficient to ensure success. We need to design instruction that recognizes that the where and how of that time can be quite open and flexible. Also, we need to design instruction knowing what tools students need to have to be successful in the learning experience.
Most faculty and instructional designers begin planning for a course by specifying a structured body of knowledge for a semester. A concurrent step is to answer the questions above to specify the desired student outcomes. This is the competency-based approach - merged with the time-based-model.
Given this context, here are some of the principles or guidelines that might be adopted for designing interactive distance learning courses.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To support this type of interactive learning, we need to be developing the kinds of resources that facilitate these types and levels of learning experience. For example, on-line reference materials, CDs, and databases - in addition to books - are needed for the basic learning of concepts. Comprehensive, multi-layered discipline and interdisciplinary databases are needed to accommodate the experiences students need for various levels of content interaction and application.
To facilitate the problem-solving experiences needed by students, we need real-life scenarios and situations in which complex skills can be applied. In many areas, this means complex simulations; in other cases, we need learning that will include internships addressing real problems. These needs can also support the needs of society for additional skilled resources to solve real problems. The conservatory approach to learning has been a grand tradition in the arts; we now are at a point where we should be establishing regular internships and conservatories in other fields as well. At Florida State, the Instructional Systems department regularly provides internships for instructional design students working with faculty on contract projects solving real problems. This helps the faculty and external groups with real problems, and gives students real life experiences.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Real-time interaction in various-sized groups with structured instructional activities in virtual or real environments | 2 | 5 | 5 | 10 | 22 |
| Real-time and asynchronous interaction without structured instructional activities in virtual or real environments | 6 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 36 |
| Individual or group interaction with fixed content resources in virtual or real environments | 2 | 20 | 20 | 0 | 42 |
| Individual or group interaction with dynamic content resources in virtual or real environments | 5 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 35 |
| Total Hours | 15 | 45 | 45 | 30 | 135 |
| Content Type | Faculty Development | Purchased Resources (Books, CDs, journals, etc.) | Dynamic & Spontaneous Content - by Faculty and Student | Total Hours |
| 1. Fixed Content of Core Principles and Concepts | 20 | 20 |
|
40 |
| 2. Fixed Content for Applying/PS Core Principles and Concepts | 5 | 20 | 0 | 25 |
| 3. Dynamic Content on Core Principles and Concepts | 5 | 5 | 5 | 15 |
| 4. Dynamic Content for Applying/PS on Core Principles and Concepts | 5 | 5 | 5 | 15 |
| 5. Course Level Instructional Strategies/directions | 15 | 0 | 5 | 20 |
| 6. Individual Help and Direction | 5 | 0 | 15 | 20 |
| Total Hours | 55 | 50 | 30 | 135 |
In our current on-campus models, faculty are expected to design and develop for the classroom-centric model in the amount of time they have assigned for delivering a three-credit course. So, our current on-campus models merge the cost of design and delivery. With interactive distance learning the goal is to transform courses in two complementary ways - a move from the classroom to the World Wide Web and the accommodation of students wherever they are. Given that this transformation of the course and the content is a significant task, faculty need additional time to accomplish this successfully.
At Florida State, we are investing in three major types of interactive distance learning courses:
For those courses that are part of a full degree program using full two way audio/videoconferencing (the Candid Classroom Model) for about 50% of the contact hours, we are estimating the cost of summer salary and one semester release for each three credit course. For a master's degree program of 36 credits, that means an investment of about $205,000 for faculty salaries alone or about $17,000 of faculty salary for a three credit course. Other personnel costs such as instructional design, multimedia and graphic development and technical support must also be factored in; plus non-personnel costs of equipment, copyright, and infrastructure costs must also be added to the faculty investment. These additional costs will range from about $20,000 to $25,000 per three credit course, depending on the level of the infrastructure already on campus, and the cost of existing content. (Again, some of these costs are unavoidable for moving into the information-age, whether or not one chooses to go interactive.)
As part of the master's degree program development, faculty are being ensured access to appropriate technologies and training, technical support and other services needed to ensure appropriate support for the students. This approach supports on-campus excellence and the move to the information-age university by all the faculty. This means an impact on all other courses taught by this cadre of faculty. With this strategy, interactive distance learning begins to transform the campus.
However, for such degree programs to be cost-effective over the long term, institutions must develop programs with some economies of scale, either substantially increasing the numbers of students, or alternatively, using the same development efforts to produce many related programs, such as professional updating and continuing education programs and life-long learning. Building and marketing components of the developed programs as small components to be integrated into other programs will also be considered.
The other two strategies for investment are well-known strategies: using teaching and learning innovation dollars to fund single course projects, with the anticipation that prototype projects will attract other funding, and to create an environment and a support structure that encourages innovative faculty to transform their courses on their own.
How will all this fit into our institutions? It will not be easy. To respond to the information age, we need people with the "new minds" that William Carlos Williams believed was possible in his comment - "All that is needed for a new world is a new mind." Let's look at our institutions from the perspective of the entire system.
Today's computing and communication technologies cannot be adopted in a piecemeal fashion. They require change at the systemic and institutional level. The roles of students, faculty, and administrators are changing; the roles of our institutions are changing, and I believe, expanding if one chooses to expand one's mission. The needs are so great that additional private institutions will be established to target certain market segments.
This change at the systemic level was predicted in 1982 by Albert Bork, a computer scientist from the University of California at Irvine. He said, "The impact of the computer will not produce an incremental change...but will lead to entirely different learning systems." We are starting to see some of these new systems emerging now. We need new institutional processes, new support structures, and new teaching and learning resources.
Many of the trends now occurring in higher education are symptomatic of these large systemic changes on the horizon. These trends can help to provoke our thoughts about higher education in the 21st century. Some of these trends - modified from Willis (1994, p. 33-35) and expanded - include:
In the late fall of 1994, the vice-president of the 17 Commonwealth campuses Robert Dunham, decided that the time was right to move forward with a project that fully empowered faculty and students. The goal was to move away from the largely passive lecture teaching environment and create an active and collaborate teaching and learning environment that is now possible with the interactive communications technologies. To enable anytime, anywhere collaboration and communication it was determined that all project faculty and students would have a high function multimedia laptop computer. The nine faculty were then challenged by Dr. Dunham to prepare and deliver in the next year, 1995-96, four first-year courses in which the World Wide Web, and other electronic communication tools would be a significant component of the course delivery design. The other half of the challenge was that the faculty would not use the lecture mode. A primary goal of the elimination of the lecture mode was to avoid encouraging students to be in a passive mode, experiencing the lecture situation described many years ago by Socrates that "like a bathman, (lecturers) pour their speech in a flood over our ears." )
The faculty could meet with their students, but not lecture. They could meet with their students, sixty ( twenty from each of three campuses) in various size groups, but the purpose of the meetings would be to discuss ideas, concepts, themes, and to share stories and experiences. These face-to-face meetings would also supplement the on-line communication. The project was designed so that all faculty and students shared a common core of software. The groupware package that was used, FirstClass, provided for threaded discussions, so that students and faculty could discuss themes, ideas, etc. on-line, and watch and analyze how their ideas and thinking&emdash;and perhaps the faculty members' thinking, evolved.
This project could not have been launched without significant investment from the university, from Bell Atlantic, and from IBM. Investments helped to fund faculty support and training, faculty release time, staff support, additional technical support personnel, physical renovation of learning studios, the laptop computers (IBM Thinkpads) and evaluation.
The decision to go with a portable computer rather than a desktop was a critical decision. There were two compelling reasons. One, with the laptop, students are encouraged to integrate the computer into their daily activities. If teaching and learning takes place in classrooms, in libraries, in dorm rooms, in social spaces on campus, it is important that the students have the tools of learning with them at all times, very much like a book. In fact, these new tools are becoming the students' books, notebooks, and pencils. Where would students be without these tools? Another key reason is that this was a project to define the teaching and learning paradigm of the future. In the future, students will have their computers with them.
However, this decision did increase the complexity of the project, and reinforced the concept that extensive use of technology requires systemic change. Project Vision targeted the entire context and infrastructure of teaching and learning on each of the three campuses that were participating. Project Vision required some changes that the future environments might not require. A classroom was transformed into a Learning Studio with 30 network outlets and 30 electrical outlets so that there was a place where all students and faculty could link into the network simultaneously; and where all students could unobtrusively recharge the batteries of their laptops. (The room was often hazardous, however, with all the cables and cords linking in to the network.)
As technologies continue to evolve, especially wireless solutions and battery technologies, the requirements for physical spaces will change. At this point, the future is foggy on this issue. For now, we are tied to these rooms to ensure network availability and connectivity. As always, however, there are benefits. The Learning Studio enhanced the socialization and collaboration by providing students and faculty a physical meeting place for face-to-face dialogue and project work. This was particularly important at one of the campuses - the Delaware County campus, which has no residence halls, and as a consequence, all 20 students were commuter students.
Project Vision was also very useful in dramatically highlighting the need for dynamic Internet Protocol (IP) addressing for the network to truly enable anytime, anywhere learning. The Office of Telecommunications had been reluctant to move quickly to provide this. However, the need was emphasized when the students and faculty needed to learn how to make do with multiple IP addresses. Project Vision was also useful in highlighting the woeful inadequacy of the technical support structure on these campuses. Additional investments of personnel and training of that personnel accompanied this project.
In summary, this project involved cooperation, commitment, and vision of administrators, faculty, and support staff (technical, librarian, etc.) at three campuses. It had impact on the curricula, the content material, the students, and the learning environment at three campuses. This was truly a project that led the entire system forward.
We must proceed on many fronts, in experimenting with the impact of the new technologies on the teaching and learning process. The demands of education are too great to meet with our old models. We need to design a new teaching and learning paradigm that "fits" the power of the technology and the demands of our society where knowledge is expanding at an ever-increasing rate, and people need just-in-time learning and other expert and performance support systems.
"Enroll in the University of the World...Learn from the greatest experts in the world." Is this an ad in the not too distant future?
Many have suggested that the new technologies will enable students nationally and globally to "take" courses from "the" expert on a subject or from the faculty member who is the most entertaining "showman" in the classroom. While this may be an approach that will be used by some universities or private companies, it is worth noting that this approach assumes the basic educational philosophy that students "take or receive information in a one-way direction" rather than participate interactively in a two-way interactive dialogue. So, the Expert approach assumes the "classroom" or lecture model. It also represents the first response of a group towards a new technology&emdash;taking what we are doing and doing it the same way&emdash;only with technology. The new technologies enable us to do more. The new technologies enable some "packaging" of experts, but more importantly, the new technologies enable the capturing of many experts in various size video segments. All these segments can be used to create a dynamic and ever-growing database of experts, and world views, and using those materials to design and deliver an interactive experience. Imagine a holodeck of the future where we can talk with experts and our current mentor!
There is no doubt that the role of the faculty will change. The cost factor is an important one. Models will evolve with greater differentiation among the faculty to reduce the personnel cost. We actually have defacto differentiation today, we just don't say that we do. In the new models, we will have tutors and mentors to support the students, and provide interaction. We will also have faculty "personalities" that do entertaining demonstrations and programs. We may have a Biology 101 Helpline online. And we will have some seminar models that look very much like some of our current models - only all the interaction will be on line. What will remain constant is having some person in the role of a support person, a mentor, a coach. The most enjoyable learning is learning that is done together as a shared experience - effective teaching and learning models will incorporate that type of interaction.
Evolution of the Faculty Role. The role of the faculty member has already been evolving in this century. The oft-said phrase - the Sage on the Stage mimics the lecture mode. The Guide on the Side captures the wave of programmed learning and stand-alone materials, and in some ways, the model of telecourses, and the British Open University. The group discussion modes so popular in the last decade are part of The Guide on the Side is a "Call me if you need me." Or, "I'll be stopping by" mode.
Let me propose another model - for the information age. This is a model that encourages students to do their best, a model that encourages students to prepare for and reach out for their dreams. This is a model called - Mentoring like Merlin. Let's look at the role of a teacher through the eyes of Merlin and consider how technology might support this intense teaching and learning model.
Consider the strategies used by Merlin to teach young Arthur. Many of these strategies hold promise for us today. Merlin had the awesome task of teaching a "once and future king." We have the task of preparing our students for many new worlds - worlds that we do not know. What might it mean to "Mentor like Merlin?"
Merlin encouraged, inspired, guided, and loved his student. He philosophized with his student, telling him that the very best antidote to being sad was to "learn something." He told him to "Learn why the world wags and what wags it." Merlin may have been the first teacher to use "virtual reality", turning young Arthur into a hawk, into a fish, into a bird - so that Arthur could intimately experience the world from other perspectives, and thus develop a broad understanding, a perspective about being human, and compassion. Merlin read and discussed with Arthur some of the Great Works in a mini-world of Socratic dialogue. From these dialogues and his experiences, Arthur developed a core of critical knowledge of history, psychology, and physics. Merlin used the world and its inhabitants so that Arthur could "experience" the world.
Merlin also inspired Arthur to experiment. When King Arthur was about to go into battle with his son Mordred for King Arthur's kingdom, Arthur was old, discouraged, and ready to give up. He was discouraged that none of the Great Ideas - Chivalry, the Round Table, seemed to have been successful. Merlin replied that they were but Ideas, rudimentary Ideas, and that all thought begins with action. That these Ideas were experiments, and that experiments lead to new Ideas. Thus progress was being made, despite temporary setbacks.
For today's students we may need to use all the "magic" at our disposal. We know some of the characteristics of good teaching and learning. We could do worse than mentor like Merlin. Good teachers stimulate, encourage, guide, and challenge students. Good students are mentally active, involved, and experiment and involved in the real world. The magic that technology brings can support the creation of the experiences needed to build knowledge, perspective, and compassion. And all this can be done with the use of the interactive technologies, anywhere and anytime.
Students in higher education vary a great deal - even within the traditional college-age population of the 18 - 24 year olds. Not surprisingly, some of these students are technologically ready for interactive distance learning and some are not. Let's look at a few facts about the students and their access to computers in general and then look specifically at distant learning populations and programs.
Across the traditional population in four year institutions and including comprehensive research institutions, the data suggests that approximately 50% of students own/or have access to personal computers most of the time. Data (1994) from one research institution - Penn State - indicates that student ownership of computers averaged 50% across all 23 campuses. More recent data (1995) from Florida State University suggests that student ownership might be as high as 70%, although that figure is still being verified.
Also, over the last few years, a number of institutions have required that all students have their own personal computers and have ensured this by including the cost of a computer in tuition. In 1995, Wake Forest University took the bold step of increasing tuition by $3000 each year to cover the cost of a new computer in students' first and third years. Requiring that students have access to computers means that the faculty could assume that access as part of the teaching and learning curriculum - and consequently design it into their course requirements and experiences.
In 1995, there were 21 institutions known to be requiring student ownership for the year 1995-96. (Chronicle of Higher Education, May 5, 1995) Of these 21 institutions, four were military institutions, a number of others were technology institutes or engineering-focused institutions, and others were mainly smaller liberal arts institutions. It is worth noting that two of the 21 institutions were branch campuses of large land-grant institutions - the Crookston, Minnesota campus of the University of Minnesota, and the California State -Sonoma campus.
The article made related points of interest. One institution that formerly had required students to own computers had backed off the requirement because they felt the faculty did not require the students to make sufficient use of the computer. Another institution retreated because they did not have the staff "to answer all the student's questions or to fix the computers." Given the progress that has been made in ease of use, some such concerns may be outdated. However, these two stories reinforce the importance of faculty support and student support in the use of information technologies in instruction.
What about distance learning students and their access to computing? In addition to some institutions requiring student ownership at an institution-wide level, the practice of requiring students at a department or program level is common. Many business schools and engineering schools have been making access to computers mandatory and including the cost of such access in the tuition for those programs. Two recent examples include the new Global MBA program at Duke University and a new Master's degree program in Open and Distance Learning from the British Open University.
It is easy to predict now that within the next five years, the percentage of students that can be assumed to have sufficient access to computing to take courses that are centered on the web will grow dramatically, and approach 100%, in many programs. Two technological trends support this. One trend is the standardization of communications access. The Internet and the Web can be accessed with any type of computer. The next generation of programs on the Web will simply be downloading the required tools for the use of the "course resources." We had been waiting for years for standardization of computing and it is here. It looks differently than we expected, but it is here. The second major trend is the decrease in the cost of ownership of the basic communication and computing software to fully participate in interactive programs. While the costs are still significant, they are not overwhelming. In some cases technology costs can be offset by transportation and time costs and other costs, such as child care.
Thus, as distance learning programs are developed, one requirement that can be made is that students, particularly in graduate and post-graduate programs be responsible for their own access and support of the technologies.
Supporting Distance Learning Students. Regarding the learner and their approach to distance learning programs, substantial research has been conducted to demonstrate "no significant difference in achievement levels between distant and traditional learners. However, the same research reveals a considerable variance in student attitudes and satisfaction levels. (Johnstone, 1991)
Some of the variance in student attitudes and satisfaction can be attributed to the variance in the amount and quality of support and guidance available during their distance learning experience. Three services have been found to contribute to successful distance programs----timely student feedback; on-site support; and access to library materials. But, the key variable appears to be the on-site facilitator. A majority of students indicate that success in the course requires access to library materials.
What does all this mean for our higher education campuses? At a general level, our campuses need to be technology-friendly and supportive to students, faculty, and staff. The technology infrastructure will become increasingly important as the desire to access people, processes, and resources anytime, anywhere becomes more widespread.
For example, students and faculty will have their own desktop or portable computers or access appliances. Thus campus buildings and spaces - wherever students and faculty are - the unions, the classrooms, the office buildings, the "gathering places" and learning studios will all need to be linked to the information highway. Additionally, access from people's homes and offices will be a key component of the infrastructure.
Even more substantive changes will be needed in our physical buildings. What new types of teaching and learning spaces will we want to support the new teaching and learning paradigm that is still evolving? If students and faculty come together less frequently (2-3 times a semester) but for longer periods of time (8 hours - 3 days) what impact does that have on the design of our "classroom" buildings? Will we need mini-conference facilities instead? If the average age of the students changes due to the continual professional updating and life-long learning, will we want to change the overall ambiance of our buildings to more appropriately meet the needs and expectations of older adults? What about the technology requirements? Will we need or want mini-production studios wherever we have seminar rooms and auditoriums today? Should these facilities provide for ways to have meetings and seminars with a portion of the group in the rooms and others in remote locations providing full two-way audio/video, so that one can truly "be there - almost." Will we need more large rooms with access to many smaller rooms for break-out sessions? It appears that we will need facilities that accommodate course launching meetings, celebration events and standard discussion and debate meetings.
As is obvious, there are many more questions than answers. To summarize, it looks as if we will need more campus spaces that accommodate the new teaching and learning paradigms. And that probably means that we don't need any more "regular" classroom buildings.
In addition to the physical spaces, social and intellectual spaces will be needed on the Web. This will require high volume fast servers, significant storage spaces and webmasters to manage and ensure accuracy and timeliness of content. Faculty will need web sites for their materials, digital libraries will need to be in place. Data will need to be maintained; and the best place for many of these servers will be close to where the data stewards will be. We will need alliances with publishers for access to databases of content. The National Information Infrastructure will have access points everywhere, not unlike the telephone systems today.
Just as the new paradigm of interactive distance learning depends on a mix and match of technologies, so too a variety of physical and virtual spaces will be needed. A key characteristic of the new paradigm will be one of choice and design. We will need conference centers, learning studios, seminar rooms, videoconferencing rooms and production studios.
With the increase in the dependency on information technologies in the new teaching and learning paradigm, more technical support will be needed. One may well question the large discrepancy between personal computer ownership of 35% and the 8 - 10% figure of Web use. Might one significant barrier be the difficulty of configuring one's system and keeping it in synch with the network systems?
Many people that I know that use their computers and modems at home have had to rely on professional setup help - and set it as a top priority for a week in order to get it done. Then many of us panic and sweat profusely if there is an appearance of a problem. I spent the greater part of an hour one Sunday afternoon trying to diagnose a problem with a modem that "had just been working perfectly fine" before I figured out that it was not a problem with my modem at all, but a problem with the phone line - I had left my phone off the hook in the kitchen! I felt foolish, frustrated, and exhausted after diagnosing the problem.
How do we address this barrier with a population that cannot learn how to program their VCRs ? I know this may be an outmoded analogy; but some of the difficulties seldom mentioned is not the technology and the interface itself, but the need to physically get down on one's hands and knees with a flashlight and magnifying glass while trying to read the manual. With an aging population, these are significant barriers. I think that one of the reasons children can do this more easily is that they have better eyesight, are shorter, and have smaller fingers. Never mind that they can't read - somehow they just know what all those symbols mean. I am personally much more comfortable with a device that is at eye level and is better lit - with more room for my fingers!
Other type of support is needed for the new technologies of videoconferencing, and television courses. Using these kinds of facilities requires a new set of etiquette tools, and new approaches to teaching to ensure that students - even at remote sites - feel involved and part of the "class." The challenges faced by the faculty at a distance are imposing. Willis (1994) offers a few thoughts. Faculty need to develop a level of comfort and proficiency in using technology as the primary teacher-student link; faculty need to learn to teach effectively without the visual control provided by direct eye contact. Many of the more sophisticated classrooms currently have camera operators to make the most of the faculty member contact with the students at multiple sites. Some of the new technologies are reducing this dependency on people; but some support is necessary to handle troubleshooting of the inevitable problems.
So, people support is absolutely essential. People primarily need help in getting started. The first setup is the most difficult. The learning curve is steep, and adults who are focused on the goal of getting work done, do not want to stop and learn a lot "just in case" they need it. People want to get on with their work and only want to learn something if they need it at that time. So, "Just-in-Time" support is required. And this is the type of help that is needed whether one is on campus or off campus, whether it is 2:00 in the afternoon or 2:00 in the morning. We need systems in place to provide that type of support for the use of the technology while the technology is being reengineered to be easier.
There are ways to reduce the number of support people - by setting up and supporting structures that help people to help each other. There is fairly good data to indicate that the first strategy used by people who need help is to ask a colleague, friend, or virtually anyone who happens to be around. And this strategy is popular because it is highly effective. The next strategy is to try to "look it up" with the on-line manuals, world wide web resources, etc. Both of these strategies may be effective. So, calling a help line is not the first action to solve problems. Simple posted instructions with technology in the classroom or labs is often useful as well.
There also needs to be an appropriate balance between central support facilities and college or department support people and facilities. The balance of people and facilities at each of the major levels within an institutions will vary depending on the institution. The key principle is that some type of support is needed at the institution level - providing a focal point for the technology support. Then this support needs to be rippled out, with support at the college or department or institute or program level.
Although it is true that distance education provides many institutional opportunities, its inherent fluidity tends to create numerous challenges in the process. Nowhere are the challenges more pivotal than in the area of the faculty and their support. Faculty members and administrators must work together in identifying and resolving the issues, policies, and biases that inhibit systemic use of distance education in meeting academic goals. Yet there can be no doubt that the ultimate success or failure of distance learning is inextricably tied to the enthusiasm and continuing support of the faculty. This support must begin with faculty training, as it is critical to the success of any distance education program. In fact, designing, creating, and implementing effective in-service training of the faculty is the most efficient pathway to the long-term success of distance education. (Willis, 1994)
Regardless of the noble motivation, change is something we humans resist. Thus, going into a program of distance teaching and learning will evoke reactions from the participants in ways that are hard to rationalize. Which is the point: many reactions or responses are not rational. But, we should be prepared for them and ready to work through them. Lack of know-how, loss of control, and loss of privacy are grounds for educators' reluctance to embrace distant learning programs.
We are launching a number of initiatives at Florida State University within a framework for distance learning. Here is a brief summary of the plans at our institution. Each institution will need to find their way through the change process to embrace the changes that the new teaching and learning paradigm will bring.
Planning for distance learning at Florida State began in 1991 with the formation of a Distance Learning Council. That Council produced a comprehensive report and vision at the end of 1993 with the key recommendation of launching of an office to serve as a focal point for distance learning - the Office of Distance Learning. This distance learning initiative gained momentum in mid 1995 with the establishment of that office. The office soon changed its name to the Office of Interactive Distance Learning to encourage design and implementation of distance learning programs that maximize the intellectual interactions between faculty and the students.
This section summarizes the vision and goals of the interactive distance learning initiative at Florida State University. It includes a description of the initial strategies for design, development, and delivery of interactive distance learning courses. (Note: Portions of this paper is from the White Paper on Interactive Distance Learning adopted by the Distance Learning Council of Florida State University on April 18, 1996. The members of that council are acknowledged in the bibliography section. A copy of the paper in its entirety is available at:: https://mailer.fsu.edu:80/~lsi/DisLearning/DistanceLearning.html.
The vision and the goals of Interactive Distance Learning at FSU are that:
Interactive distance learning is a powerful way to meet these objectives. The Council offers the following definition of interactive distance learning.
Interactive distance learning is an educational philosophy for designing interactive, responsive, and valid information and learning opportunities to be delivered to learners at a time, place, and in appropriate forms convenient to the learners.This philosophy of interactive distance learning assumes a mix and match of technologies based on an analysis of student needs, content requirements, and costs. It assumes a design based on a range of interactions
Beginning the move to distance learning requires significant institutional change. One strategy is to establish a task force of highly influential, dedicated individuals with a period of planning to develop a shared vision. The development of a shared vision takes time, work and consensus-building. It must include elements of a top-down communication process as well as the development of a grass roots movement from those who will be the ones primarily responsible for the change in the teaching and learning paradigm - in this case, the faculty. The development of a shared vision in a university also must have its roots firmly planted in educational theory and practice. The Interactive Distance Learning initiative at Florida State has its educational roots in the experience -based and interactive theories of John Dewey. In many respects, John Dewey had the vision in the early 1900's of effective learning; in the 1990's we now have the appropriate communication and computing tools to make this vision a reality The Interactive Distance Learning initiative at Florida State also is firmly rooted in Instructional Systems Design, guiding the design and development of instruction at the student, faculty and system level.
The characteristics of the new teaching and learning paradigm will likely evolve rapidly over the next decade. For now, we can predict that some of its key characteristics will be as follows:
Active. Learners participate in a variety of new forms of learning that include thoughtful and engaged activity.Learning is set within a context of a mentoring relationship among learning communities of faculty and students. The model also assumes access to a rich, information-age library including databases, electronic journal access, and interactive high-quality instructional resources.Collaborative. Interactive Distance Learning includes and facilitates discussion and exchange among students.
Customized and accessible. Interactive Distance Learning fits the needs and requirements of students in terms of time, career goals, levels of preparation, and learning styles.
Excellent quality. Courses are designed with a learner- focus, enabling learners to achieve desired goals and objectives. This type of learning generally will include communication with faculty members and other students, and include quick and easy access to high quality instructional resources.
Lifestyle-fitted. Interactive Distance Learning accommodates lives of students, affording cost-effective educational opportunities anywhere, anytime, and at a reasonable speed.
The new information technologies provide a quantum leap over the technologies previously used to deliver distance learning. Previous distance delivery emphasized print materials, audiotapes and videotapes, and CD-ROMs which by their very nature are one-way communication and primarily single media. The wave of new technologies offer interactive two-way communications - synchronous and asynchronous - and offer the ability to integrate many forms of media, supporting more complex and dynamic types of communications. These technologies also offer multi-way communications, enabling interactions equivalent to coffee houses, student unions, and conferences with participants distributed across time and space.
The recommended initial major initiatives to promote this venture are the following:
Strategic Planning and Needs Assessment Initiative. The Strategic Planning and Needs Assessment Initiative requires the continuous definition and improvement of Interactive Distance Learning objectives and systems. This initiative will support the assessment of a quality program based on clearly defined priorities and comprehensive strategies and tactics.
Prototype Degree Programs Initiative. The Prototype Degree Programs Initiative will launch a limited set of new IDL programs. These programs will enable Florida State University to meet some immediate needs plus design and implement prototype models of the Interactive Distance Learning paradigm. For example, there are a number of Master's Degree programs that are currently being delivered off-campus by faculty driving or flying to remote sites. An immediate goal is to redesign these degree programs for Interactive Distance Learning. A mix of technologies will be required to offer a quality and useful learning experience, regardless of time or space differences including: videoconferencing, Internet/World Wide Web, multimedia resource materials, and technology-smart learning studios and spaces. Resources will be required for designing, developing, and delivering these courses. Additional resources needed for this new delivery model include: instructional design and multimedia development expertise, delivery of degree programs, and marketing and positioning of these degree programs.
Faculty On-Line Initiative. The Faculty On-Line Initiative is a university-wide strategy to empower and support all faculty members in the use of network information resources for instruction. This initiative develops the larger university community and institutional processes to provide the physical and procedural infrastructure for on campus or off campus Interactive Distance Learning. It will include the provision of: university-wide access to the Internet and the WWW; personal computers; ClassNews, electronic bulletin boards, and the equivalent of electronic listservs; databases and servers; multimedia and programming tools; and support staff. As is readily obvious, this initiative is not unique distance learning; rather, it supports the University as a learning organization in the information age.
In order to accomplish these three initiatives, it is imperative that funding, support, and plans be adequate for their successful development and implementation. Development of partnerships and alliances at many levels will be developed to assist with development and defraying costs. Some potential partnerships and alliances will be public-private partnerships, as well as alliances at the local, regional, national, and global level. Implementation plans and action steps for each of these three initiatives are available from the Office of Interactive Distance Learning.
Creating an appropriate learning environment and providing the necessary support services will enable the University to implement a more responsive delivery environment for all students on campus or off campus.
The new teaching and learning paradigm will develop in the midst of our current models. In many cases, the process will be almost seamless and transparent - following a gradual shift to active and collaborative learning, and increased communication between faculty and students and between students, and more active involvement of students with real-world complex problems.
The new teaching and learning paradigm will have the following characteristics:
Every field has its own network for sharing information. The speed of technical change, the breadth of potential applications, and the absence of a profile of professional qualifications to manage distance education programs are some of the major obstacles to remaining "on top" of distance education trends and the distance education community.
To help fill this void, the following list of resources is intended as a starting point for further exploration in distance learning trends and thinking.
American Journal of Distance Education
Editor: Michael G. Moore
American Center for the Study of Distance Education College of Education, The Pennsylvania State University 403 South Allen Street, Suite 206, University, Park, PA 16801-5202
Journal of Distance Education
Canadian Association for Distance Education (CADE) 205-1 Stewart Street,Ottawa, Ontario Canada, K1N 6H7
DEOSNEWS (Distance Education Online Symposium) The Pennsylvania State University, College of Education 403 South Allen Street, Suite 206, University, Park, PA 16801-5202
Although the World Wide Web is changing constantly, here are a few sites that focus on distance learning. Even if the addresses have changed, the names provide a starting point for exploration.
American Center for the Study of Distance Education. This is located at Penn State. https://www.cde.psu.edu or https://www.cde.psu.edu/ACSDEDistance Education Clearinghouse at the University of Wisconsin. https://www.uwex.edu/disted/home.html
Lucent (AT&T) Center for Excellence in Distance Learning: https://www.lucent.com/cedl/
Sloan Center for Asynchronous Learning Environments (SCALE) at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. https://w3.scale.uiuc.edu/scale/
Judith Boettcher, Alleen Deutsch , Dennis Duke, Susan Fell, Donald Foss, Barbara Foster, Owen Gaede, Carole Hayes, Roger Kaufman , Joseph Lannutti, Fred Leysieffer, Dale Lick, Alan Mabe, Kim Maddox, John Mayo, Jack Miller, Robert Morgan (Chair), Earl Morrogh, Robert Reiser, Jane Robbins, Robert Simerly, and Fred Simons
First Generation Distance Learning* |
Second Generation Distance Learning |
Third Generation Distance Learning |
Fourth Generation Distance Learning |
|
Primary Feature |
Predominately one technology | Multiple technologies without computer | Multiple technologies including computers and computer networking | Multiple technologies including the beginning of high band-width computer technologies |
Timeframe |
1850s to 1960 | 1960 to 1985 | 1985 to 1995 | 1995 to 2005? |
Media |
Primarily one-way communication
Interaction between faculty and student by telephone and mail Occasionally supplemented by on-site facilitators and student mentors |
Primarily one way communication
Interaction between faculty and student by telephone, fax, and mail Occasionally supplemented by face-to-face meetings |
Significant broadband communication from faculty to students
via print, computer programs, and videoconferencing.
Two-way interactive capabilities provide asynchronous and synchronous communication between faculty and students and between students. Internet is good for text, graphics and video snippets, |
Two-way interactive real-time capabilities of audio and
video is commonplace
Asynchronous and synchronous communication between faculty and students and between students Full 30 frame per second digital video transmission with databases of content resources available via the Internet and World Wide Web. Lengthy digital video programming available on-demand, and downloadable |
Student Characteristics and Goals |
Student generally isolated from faculty member and other
students
Students must be highly motivated and disciplined. Mature. Generally working on core educational requirements or life-long enrichment. Occasionally used for large isolated groups of students with site monitor, or mentor. |
Increased contact between faculty and students by telephone
and occasional face-to-face meetings.
Student generally still primarily isolated, studying in home often at unusual times by self. Must be highly motivated and self-disciplined. Generally working on core educational requirements, advanced degrees, or life-long enrichment. Occasionally used for large isolated groups of students with site monitor, or mentor. |
Increased contact between student and faculty via CMC
Increased contact and collaboration between students in the same program. (More cohort delivery of programs) Technologies support the development of a learning community between the students and the faculty. Increased face-to-face meetings often for longer periods, such as 4 hours to 14 hours may be incorporated. May be working on core education requirements, advanced degrees, professional rectification, or life long learning. More faculty direction and support is possible, and can support less disciplined learners. Goal is to develop skills, knowledge, and attitudes. |
Increased contact between student and faculty via CMC
Increased contact between other students in the same course or program. (More cohort delivery of programs) Technologies support the development of a learning community between the students and the faculty. Increased face-to-face meetings, often for longer periods, such as 3 hours to 14 hours, but also face-to-face contact with desktop videoconferencing May be working on core education requirements, advanced degrees, professional rectification. More faculty direction and support is possible, and can support less disciplined learners. Still must have a high degree of self-motivation. Goal is to develop skills, knowledge, and attitudes. Materials must still be highly structured and designed, but interactive technologies can provide for more ad-hoc support of learners. Materials may vary from 100% prepackaged to about 30% prepackaged. The less prepackaged, the more faculty or mentor direction and support is needed. View of student as active learner, participant and contributor |
Infrastructure Components |
Postal Service for delivery of print materials
Radio technology in home Radio and television broadcast stations and towers Instructional program designers, developers, producers Significant upfront investment Faculty tutors, or site facilitators--depending on model. |
Widespread television in homes and schools (1960)
Widespread audio and videocassette technology (1980) Instructional program designers, developers, producers Significant upfront investment Faculty tutors, or site facilitators--depending on model. |
Widespread use of computers and multimedia
Critical mass of ownership of computers with on-line services (In 1996, about 8% in U.S. are on World Wide Web.) User-friendly technologies are needed to ensure access Instructional program designers, developers, producers Significant upfront investment Faculty tutors, or site facilitators--depending on model. |
Critical mass of ownership of computers with on-line services
User-friendly, affordable multimedia Internet technologies User-friendly technologies are needed to ensure access Instructional program designers, developers, producers Significant upfront investment Faculty tutors, or site facilitators--depending on model. Improved development tools for complex media design and development |