|
In many ways distance education is seen as the American educational
system’s response to the growing market and need for providing
alternative educational opportunities without increased budgets.
Distance education is defined as a situation where both the teacher
and student(s) are separated by physical boundaries, and technology
(i.e. voice, video, data, and print) is used to bridge the instructional
gap. The main impetus for distance education programs is to provide
adults with a second chance at a college education, reach those
disadvantaged by limited time, distance, or physical disability,
and update the knowledge base of workers at their places of employment.
One of the great questions educators have of distance education
is if distant students learn as much as students receiving traditional
classroom instruction. The effectiveness of distance education at
the university as compared to traditional classroom forums of learning
will be critically evaluated and be the focus of the issues discussed.
Research comparing distance education to traditional
classroom instruction indicates that teaching and studying at a
distance can be as effective as traditional instruction, when the
method and technologies used are appropriate to the instructional
tasks, when there is student-to-student interaction, and when there
is timely teacher-to-student feedback. Although technology
plays a key role in the delivery of distance education, educators
must remain focused on instructional outcomes, not the technology
of delivery. Daniel Peraya claims in
“Distance Education and the WWW,” that distance
education has naturally been promoted through the changing dynamics
of traditional classroom teaching. Peraya feels that teachers “gradually
become advisors, managers and facilitators of learning rather than
providers of information. Necessarily, distance education has been
involved by this evolution.” With this notion of modeling
expert practice being held as a measure of proficiency, the implementation
of distance education is ideal to accommodate an array of students.
The key to effective distance education is focusing on the needs
of the learners, the requirements of the content, and the constraints
faced by the teacher, before selecting a delivery system.
Typically, this systematic approach will result
in a mix of media, each serving a specific purpose: a strong print
component can provide much of the basic instructional content, course
text, readings, the syllabus, and day-to-day schedule; interactive
audio or video conferencing can provide real time face-to-face (or
voice-to-voice) interaction, including guest speakers; computer
conferencing or electronic mail can be used to send messages, to
receive and distribute student
assignments, assignment feedback, and other targeted communication;
pre-recorded video tapes can be used to present class lectures and
visually oriented content. Dr. Barry Willis, in his guide, “Distance
Education at a Glance,” carefully outlines successful
routes of implementing distance education: “Without exception,
effective distance education programs begin with careful planning
and a focused understanding of course requirements and student needs…In
fact, successful distance education programs rely on the consistent
and integrated efforts of students,
faculty, facilitators, support staff, and administrators.”
Therefore, every distance education program and format must be different,
tailored to the specific needs and specializations of the participants,
evolving over time through the hard work and dedicated efforts of
many individuals and organizations.
When examining the importance and effectiveness
of distance education, Dean Leigh Estabrook poses the looming question:
“Will
Distance Education Destroy the University?” The answer
ultimately depends on whether those in higher education can defend
and sustain the parts of their work that contribute to the public
good in ways that distance education is incapable. In effect, distance
education technologies are fundamentally changing the ways in which
work is assessed and carried out by university faculty. Ultimately,
this begs the question of whether universities will be able to sustain
those activities, such as liberal arts education for the 18-22 year
old and basic research, that are not profit centers. Estabrook
argues that:
Whether Distance Education will Destroy the
University depends in large part on (1) the effect of changes
in the academy in our overall way or working; (2) whether the
public will continue to fund higher education as a public good;
(3) whether higher education can provide a product better in quality
and different in delivery from the commercial market; and (4)
whether students will still be willing to pay to go to school
to become learned human beings.
These crucial factors, according to Estabrook,
are at the heart of university survival and may force universities
to contract with business or other institutions of higher education
to provide courses at a cost below what it would cost the institution
to staff directly. Eventually, the growth and development of distance
education will put increasing pressure on higher education to obtain
outside funding for those activities that are deemed a public good.
To be considered is the reality that distance
education is the fastest growing sector of U.S. higher education,
and is a crucial element in our national competitiveness. David
Noble in “Digital
Diploma Mills: The Automation of Higher Education,” claims
that: “Automation - the distribution of digitized course material
online, without the participation of professors who develop such
material - is often justified as an inevitable part of the new "knowledge-based"
society. It is assumed to improve learning and increase wider access.”
Driving this expansion are three primary factors: the changing demographics
of students, the pace of change, and the advent of the internet.
Over 2 million students are now enrolled in distance education,
up from approximately 700,000 students just four years ago. This
transformation is being forced by the changing demographic of higher
education: more than half of those enrolled in higher education
are older working adults.
No longer is the typical student an eighteen
to twenty-five year old, fresh out of high school, and needing a
college education for preparatory work skills and socialization
into adult life. Rather, today's student is an adult twenty-five
to fifty years old, already established in the world of work, with
home and community responsibilities as well as demands to stay current
in his or her field of endeavor or relocate into a new vocation
of interest. Driving forces such as technological change and globalization
exacerbate this adult educational imperative. These working adult
students simply cannot attend a traditional higher education that
is place-bound, time-restricted, and invests too heavily in a campus
life that is removed from their needs. The facilities and organizations
built for traditional students simply don't fit, such things as:
dormitories, student unions, sports complexes, cafeterias, and museums.
Adult students enroll voluntarily and have a clear focus on the
ends they wish to achieve; they are more experienced, motivated,
and task-oriented than their younger counterparts. Although traditional
institutions of higher education are trying to meet the needs of
this new student population, their design is still based upon the
conventional undergraduate populations coming from high school.
According to Fred Nickols, in his article “Technology
and the Future of Education,” higher education is not
"threatened" but is confronted by challenges and offered
opportunities rooted in technology. The real issue is whether those
who lead our institutions of higher education will recognize and
respond to the challenges and opportunities they face. Unless institutions
of higher education can figure out how to update their curricula
at a much faster pace than seems to be the case today, they will
be displaced by new methodologies that can. Moreover, the shift
from learning through education that is "bunched" early
in life to a process of lifelong learning through continuous education
redefines the market for education and its distribution channels.
Too many factors are in flux for higher education to remain stagnant
and have any hope of surviving without undergoing radical change.
Nickols analyzes the factors that will most greatly force a reshaping
of present higher education:
[It] is a safe prediction that in the next
50 years, schools and universities will change more and more drastically
than they have since they assumed their present form more than
300 years ago when they reorganized themselves around the printed
book. What will force these changes is, in part, new technology,
such as computers, videos, and telecasts via satellite; in part
the demands of a knowledge-based society in which organized learning
must become a lifelong process for knowledge workers; and in part
new theory about how human beings learn.
As a result, Nickols argues, the real challenge
facing higher education is to adapt to changed conditions. Unfortunately,
attempts to change higher education for the better can potentially
fall prey to moves that, in effect, will employ technology to cement
existing paradigms instead of creating new ones that will generate
true educational reform.
In conclusion, distance education is proving
to be a tremendous tool for higher education learning. Its convenience
of time and place allows learners a form of flexibility that traditional
education systems cannot achieve. While traditional education offers
a personal interaction of students and teachers in a learning setting
that distance education cannot match, traditional education’s
cost, inflexibility in form, location, and hours may lead to its
ultimate downfall in popularity among the growing older population
that now seeks higher education. Despite the many radical improvements
offered through distance education, many people would firmly argue
that much of the learning taking place at universities around the
nation exists outside the classroom setting. The relationships,
responsibilities, independence, self-awareness, and basic life-skills
that are cultivated and acquired on the university campus and in
university residences cannot be matched by a distant education.
It might be necessary to ask the question: can potentially university
bound students, the future of American prosperity, afford to neglect
such an integral and valuable part of their development towards
becoming productive members of society? Finally, it will be necessary
to determine whether the mental and emotional costs of student’s
arrested development caused by distance education, outweighs the
financial costs of maintaining a thriving university environment.
Perhaps the best answer is not to “throw out the baby with
the bath water.” Educators and learners, in the end, must
be strategic in selecting the learning environment that best suits
the needs of those to be educated, whether it be a traditional classroom
or the internet.
Additional Links
Brown, John Seely & Duguid, Paul. “Universities
in the Digital Age.” 1996. (http://www.sjedu.cn/Mss/zhenghe/jiaoxueyanjiu/Universities_in_the_digital_age.htm).
Darling, Charles. “Resources for Distance
Education.” Capital Community College: Hartford, Connecticut,
2001, http://webster.commnet.edu/hp/pages/darling/distance.htm.
Farrell, Glen. “The Changing Faces of
Virtual Education.” The Commonwealth of Learning, 2001, http://www.col.org/virtualed/.
Noble, David F. “Digital Diploma Mills,
Part II: The Coming Battle over Online Instruction.” York
University, Toronto. 1998. (http://communication.ucsd.edu/dl/ddm2.html).
Turoff, Murray. “Education, Commerce,
and Communications: The Era of Competition.” Newark, NJ. 1998.
(http://eies.njit.edu/~turoff/Papers/webnettalk/webnettalk.htm). |