Over the course of the last hundred years the definitions and perceptions of distance learning have changed rapidly. Variations have sprung from advances and diversity in technology, legitimacy from major institutional involvement, and the training and educational offerings that can and have been developed for business and education. Initially upon beginning the class on Distance Education, I felt like I had a very good understanding of the broad range of opportunities and implementation models that were defined in education at a distance. The course text provided a very basic definition for us that went something like this: Institutional education where the learning group is separated by time, or geography or some combination of those factors (Simonson. 2008, pp 10). I have to admit, I figured that was a pretty broad but accurate categorization of what distance learning encompassed. As in all things, when we look closer, we can begin to understand that distance learning is an iceberg with a well defined, easily seen form on the surface; but much, if not most of what distance learning is, lies beneath the surface where you must look at a greater depth to understand.
In the advent of the technology explosion since the 80s, distance education has quickly found a niche and its best tool. The world wide web and the outpouring of mobile technologies and the pervasive availability of even basic technology, in addition to software developed to enhance communication and collaboration have been embraced by forward thinking developers to reach and teach students and staff in a variety of settings. As the technology evolved, so did the course design and delivery of content. The changes in design and delivery embraced a new pedagogy of instructional theory to present and interact with concepts and content in a new way. Some classes had hard copy books and used email to deliver papers. As the technology developed, management systems became more organized and sophisticated. Collaboration was possible among students at a distance in web chat sessions and delivery could contain learning objects, animations, video and sound files which enhanced and engaged learners. Technologies evolved to the degree that mobile and hand held devices could be used to deliver content "on demand", software and web tools have evolved to provide student consumers with 3D diagrams, video and audio feeds that can be uploaded, saved and replayed; interactive designs allow students to engage with the material and manipulate and transform it, discuss and collaborate with other users in real time or via discussion threads..and all this can be done with products like Edu2.0, Google docs, Secondlife, or Thinking Worlds. These tools bring the content to life and allow student to engage and interact with each other and with the material anytime anywhere. There is a pervasive school of thought in current writing that express the idea that students of this generation (cleverly titled Digital Natives) are tuned-in and hard-wired for this highly device-oriented, media rich, technologically integrated model of instructional delivery.(Prensky.2001)
One thing that began to appear differently in distance education was that designers did not replicate the face to face classroom in the courseware. The developers began to create new models based on innovative instructional theories and emerging technologies. Moller 2008 in the article from the series Evolution of Distance Education tells us merely "recreating the present [classroom experience]in a more efficient manner seems wasteful when the status quo is of questionable effectiveness" technology together with distance learning designs have given freedom to students to access classes in an anytime anywhere manner. Design models were developed that offered combinations of access, engagement, and delivery. Synchronous and asynchronous models were developed, and variations upon those concepts were derived. The approach that engages non-traditional and at-risk students is not the teacher-centered approach commonly delivered in the face-to-face classrooms. In my experience, at the secondary level, the traditional approach for many learners is so ineffective that we are losing a high percentage of our students because of apathy, lack of academic success, and limited flexibility in design and delivery. The concept of instructional connectivism blends technology with authentic products and meaningful instructional approaches, and the emerging technologies that can be used for course delivery allow for flexibility in scheduling and delivery "on demand". Perhaps the type of intervention that can be provided by distance learning can proactively address these students' educational needs before we lose them. That is the pervasive thinking in many schools where (RTI) Response to Intervention and NCLB's influence is pressuring schools to address students who are at-risk; and these students' rising attrition negatively affects the bottom line. This bottom line in per pupil funding for attending students can make all the difference in funding resources for struggling districts in these days of disappearing dollars.
Interestingly enough another element in the exploding popularity of distance education was created at the post secondary level as Major Universities jumped in with both feet to this potentially progressive and effective means of reaching out to students who otherwise could not connect with college level classes. The internet provided the vehicle and Universities began to develop online course modules designed for working and remote users to participate in professional development and degree programs at a distance. From this, concepts began to develop like iTunes U and Secondlife, TED and Academic Earth where universities post course lectures and materials for general interest and consumption. You can sit in on a Philosophy lecture from Harvard University, or learn Java script from an instructor at MIT. The world of education at a distance has not only broken down the walls of the classroom, but the fact that major universities have embraced it and endorsed it has lent credibility to the content and delivery which in the past has held a dubious reputation. So, where will it go from here? What could be next and how has the perception of distance education changed?
Personally I see that there will always be a place for the teacher and the traditional classroom. Not all students want or will are good candidates for distance learning. That being said, I think that education at the K-12 level will change dramatically. Schools that have been complacent now have very strong competition for students. Many will resist6, but some will transform. I have seen the development of schools that have begun to embrace distance education within their traditional setting. This allows the schools to provide a greater range of courses, facilitated by highly qualified teachers, and It allows them to meet the needs of non-traditional students and hopefully, retain them through graduation. I am very intrigued by the emergence of problem-based instructional designs and by the game-based designs beginning to appear in the secondary setting. These are very rich medias, very engaging- and by nature designed to allow students to learn, transform and apply content. This is a research –based best practice that may create higher levels of engagement and deeper levels of understanding. Distance education will only be restricted by the limitations of new technologies and their availabilities in mass.
References
Moller, L., Foshay, W. R., & Huett, J. (2008). The Evolution of Distance Education: Implications for Instructional Design on the Potential of the Web. TechTrends: Linking Research & Practice to Improve Learning, 52(4), 66-70. doi:10.1007/s11528-008-0179-0
Huett, J., Moller, L., Foshay, W. R., & Coleman, C. (2008). The Evolution of Distance Education: Implications for Instructional Design on the Potential of the Web. TechTrends: Linking Research & Practice to Improve Learning, 52(5), 63-67. doi:10.1007/s11528-008-0199-9
Moller, L., Forshay, W. R., & Huett, J. (2008). The Evolution of Distance Education: Implications for Instructional Design on the Potential of the Web. TechTrends: Linking Research & Practice to Improve Learning, 52(3), 70-75. doi:10.1007/s11528-008-0158-5
Prensky,Mark.(2001.
Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants, Part II: Do They Really Think Differently? From On the Horizon (MCB University Press, Vol. 9 No. 6, December 2001) Retrieved from Gpogle Scholar November15, 2010
