End of Course Reflection:
The Current and Future Perceptions
of Distance Learning in Our Society
Winfred
K. Ridley
Walden
University
Dr.
Ronald Paige, Ph.D.
EDUC –
6135 Distance Learning
June 29,
2014
As I consider the subject matter, ideas, and purpose of EDUC-6135,
Distance Learning discovered in reflection, clearly, online learning is a
leading component driving dynamic changes in education and training through K-12,
higher education, and business. There no doubt of the continuing growth and
acceptance of distance education courses by society, especially in the online
community, yet much work remains for instructional designers. This reflection
discusses the future of distance learning, the acceptance by society of online
courses, and the impact of globalization on distance learning course design.
Grounded
in my perception of the future of distance learning is an optimistic view of
society’s intertwined acceptance, necessity, and level of comfort that distance
learning will continue to develop, grow and advance. Past performance is often
an indicator of future behavior, as Allen & Seaman, (2005) shared in its Third
Annual Sloan Consortium report. That report confidently stated that “40% to 60%
of schools with traditional courses also offered online courses and programs.”
This perception is further enhanced by statistics that state the more recent
impact of distance education (Allen, I., & Seaman, J. 2010):
·
The popularity of students learning online
(at least one course) topped 4.6 million during the fall 2008 term (seventeen percent
more than in 2007).
·
At least one course online now appeals to more
than one in four college students.
·
Fluctuating economic influences also traditionally
draw students to distance education.
o
Rising unemployment emboldens more people to
seek education, improving their chances of obtaining a job or advancement their
careers.
o
Demand for face-to-face and online courses is
steadily increasing as reported by academic leaders at all types of
institutions (Allen, I., & Seaman, J. 2010). Tempering the prior statistic whether
by the necessity of politics or maintaining traditional integrity, only eleven
percent of institutions make mention of the dual role of faculty teaching
face-to-face and online courses. Still, students are demanding new online
courses and continuing to enroll in existing courses as reported by 66% and 73%
of institutions respectively (Gambescia, & Paolucci, 2009).
The
varied and challenging lessons covered in our Distance Learning course includes
several strategies for promoting and improving society’s acceptance of online
learning. Instructional design, with attention to both face-to-face and online
education and training environments, presents many opportunities for improving
societal perceptions toward the online learning component. My role in this
continuing paradigm shift is to first recognize the public’s right to receive forms
of pedagogy (teaching) in an environment comfortable for their learning style.
As George Siemens, discusses in The
Future of Distance Education, (Laureate Education (Producer). (n.d.), the
key for instructional design is bridging our learners’ comfort level.
Fortunately, many of these learners are already embracing online resources,
such as learning management systems (BlackBoard, and Desire2Learn), and learning
repositories including MERLOT, Wisconline, and wikis (Smith Nash, 2005). Of
course these resources are only online facsimiles of learning conditions in
face-to-face classrooms unless combined with interactive strategies to enhance
students’ online learning experiences. Whether students are gravitating toward
online experiences due to the academic atmosphere, for convenience, or out of
necessity, interactive strategies such as timely feedback from instructors and
fellow students, supportive respectful engagement, and mediated instruction can
only contribute to positive successful learning experiences (Durrington,
Berryhill, & Swafford, 2006). These strategies work best when designed
around a solid instructional theory such as Holmberg’s Theory of Interaction
and Communication, based on the exchange of questions and responses leading to
feelings of belonging, cooperation, and inclusiveness (Simonson, Smaldino,
Albright, & Zvacek, 2012).
Being a positive force for
continuous improvement in the field of distance learning takes understanding
the impact of the unremitting globalization on distance learning and distance
learning course design. The popularity of Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs)
has played no small role in globalizing online learning. These courses, offered
at little to no cost to masses of self-motivated learners by universities,
non-profits and school consortiums have served as a disruptive innovation in
educational discourse (Flynn, (2013). “Disruptive technology or disruptive
innovation is a technological innovation, product, or service that eventually
overturns the existing dominant technology in the market and alters realities,
world views, thought processes, and interactions with others” (Flynn, 2013).
The disruption here is in the realm of higher education, removing barriers that
precluded millions from seeking extended learning opportunities. In “Critical
minds for a change” Michael Grahame Moore touted that the most significant
aspect of this evolution is that these global learners can now say that [given
the opportunities], they are entitled and able to learn (Burge, (Ed.). 2007).
An adequately trained workforce requires distance learning platform designs
that address multiculturality and interculturality (diverse multicultural
dimensions) (Rutherford, & Kerr, 2008).
Tied to an increased level of globalized
thinking is a “coherent connection of differences” that may be ascribed to one
culture and absent or insulting to another. For example, in the Aboriginal
culture, elders do not automatically share knowledge with younger generations
because of Western cultural influences. As a result, academically, the
requirement to cite resources in academic work is not culturally grounded in Aboriginal
culture. Instructional designers would
do well to recognize these differences even as they apply familiar learning
theories in instructional design. Moore’s Independent Theory of Transactional
Distance takes into account “dialog (two-way communication and responsiveness
(structure)” and would likely work well in multicultural societies, however,
only certain features of Otto Peters Theory of Industrialization, patterned
after the “industrial revolution,” may dovetail seamlessly Simonson, et al, 2012).
For example, standardization, that is, one format for communication, may
manifest anxiety in Arab students when they are faced with unfamiliar
situations or vague directions (uncertainty and avoidance). Or generate fear in
Arab women students, “held responsible for upholding morality and family honor
to make a mistake during interactions in an electronic discussion group”
(Rutherford, & Kerr, 2008). These authors have put forth alternative
instructional models such McLoughlin’s Inclusive Pedagogical Model or
Henderson’s Multiple Cultures Model (Rutherford, & Kerr, 2008) that could
be useful for instructional designers who are involved in multicultural design situations.
As addressed in the opening paragraph of this
reflection, the accelerated pace of distance learning as a significant factor
in the growth of post-secondary education, uniquely positions the field of
instructional design in general, and instructional designers in particular to champion,
advocate, and construct the meaningful and lasting transformation that is online
learning. We are charged then with consistently networking, researching, advising,
designing, and teaching our constituents; and learning from them about the growing
acceptance of online distance education.
References
Allen,
I., & Seaman, J. (2005). Growing by degrees: Online education in the United
States, 2005. Sloan Consortium, 1-24.
Allen,
I., & Seaman, J. (2010) Learning on Demand: Online Education in the United
States, 2009. Newburyport, MA: Sloan Consortium.
Blackboard,
(2014). Retrieved from http://www.blackboard.com/
Burge,
E. (Ed.). (2007). Critical minds for a change. In Crafting the future: Flexible
Higher education. Open University
Press/McGraw Hill Education.
Desire2Learn
Incorporated, (2013). Retrieved from http://www.desire2learn.com/
Durrington,
V., Berryhill, A., & Swafford, J. (2006). Strategies for enhancing student
interactivity
in an online environment. College Teaching, 54(1), 190–193. Retrieved from http://www.redorbit.com/news/technology/433631/
Flynn,
J. (2013). MOOCS: Disruptive innovation and the future of higher education.
Series 3, 10, (1).
Christian Education Journal. Retrieved from
Gambescia,
S., & Paolucci, R. (2009). Academic fidelity and integrity as attributes of
University online degree program offerings.
Online Journal of Distance Learning
Administration, 12(1). Retrieved from
Laureate
Education (Producer). (n.d.). The future of distance education [Video file].
Retrieved from https://class.waldenu.edu
Multimedia
Educational Resource for Learning and Online Teaching (MERLOT), (2012).
Retrieved from http://www.merlot.org/merlot/index.htm
Rutherford,
A. G., & Kerr, B. (2008). An inclusive approach to online learning
environments: Models and resources.
Simonson,
M., Smaldino, S., Albright, M., & Zvacek, S. (2012). Teaching and learning
at
A distance: Foundations of distance education
(5th ed.) Boston, MA: Pearson.
Smith
Nash, S. (2005). Learning objects, learning object repositories, and learning
theory: preliminary best practices for online
courses. Interdisciplinary Journal of
Knowledge
and Learning Objects, 1. Retrieved from http://www.ijello.org/Volume1/v1p217-228Nash.pdf
Wisc-Online
(2012). Retrieved from http://www.wisc-online.com/
No comments:
Post a Comment