The Need to Evolve Distance Education

The growth of distance education has forced educators and businesses to take a closer look at its potential value and ramifications in its’ respective fields.  Moller, Huett, Foshay and Coleman (2008) strongly challenge instructional design professionals to assess what exists today in the distance learning field and create a transformational change to assure that “high instructional quality is recognized and valued. (Moller, Huett, Forshay and Coleman, 2008, p.70). “  Simonson (2000), argues similarly that we need to take advantage of what we know already, to create a course of instruction that best meets the needs of students from different locations and different times.   Both offer reasons to examine the tenets of distance education yet differ on their approaches.

For the corporate world, the motivating factors that support e-learning are driven by economics and access.  Its effectiveness however is not necessarily monitored.  According to Moller, et al., a reason for this might be the lack of evaluation strategies, which results in poor instructional design.  “Many ID principles have observed that one result of this lack of evaluation is that most web-based training products lack effectiveness because they violate basic principles of instructional design. Moller, et al., 2008, p. 71).”  In higher education, distance learning is a way to sustain growth and produce more income.  Competition and concern for quality in distance education are the driving factors that surround the need for an evolution of e-learning and instructional design.  By implementing “cost- effective models”, (Moller, et al., 2008, p. 69), they would, “serve to improve training, course design, delivery and evaluation.  They would also function to improve instruction, to increase all manner of interactions, to provide for appropriate student activities, and consequently, to eliminate some of the course development, and workload concerns of faculty. (Moller, et al., 2008, p. 69).”  In K-12 schools, most of the same trends and predicted improvements apply.  The “virtual schools” offer extended class choices, enable home-schooled students an education from their home, and they provide an option for states that don’t have enough money to build new schools (Moller, et al., 2008, p. 63).  The implications on instructional design include “concern for the student or learner population, research-based approaches, lack of trained professionals and organizational change. (Moller, et al., 2008, p. 64).” 

Siminson (2000) and the Technology Research and Evaluation Group of Iowa State University coined equivalence theory, which proposes that face-to-face learning differs from learning that takes place at a distance.  He noted the positive impact shown by empirical research that distance learning has had with respect to increased access to resources that better meet the needs of the learners.  A student that experiences a lab, lecture, homework, real world applications, and videos does not have the same learning experience as a student who learns at a distance or online.  He continues to say that if the instruction is well designed then it will offer a return on its investment and students will have an increased motivation to learn more. 

Both approaches want to embrace “the capabilities not possible or at least highly impractical in a traditional classroom. (Moller, et al., 2008, p. 74).”  Simonson’s equivalency theory stresses that distance education should not be identical to face-to-face environments.   They both seem think that immediate attention must be given to the instructional design and perhaps as a result students will have a more effective positive learning experience.  Contrastingly, each approach is driven by separate needs.  The first approach focused on the trends that are driving the growth of distance education and its lack of evaluation to produce effective learning situations.  The second approach focused on the need to create effective learning experiences that differ from those implemented in the traditional classrooms. 

I agree with both approaches.  I understand that there is an overwhelming need to address the profound growth in distance education.  As an educator, I wish to be as effective as possible in my teaching strategies.  I only expect that students who learn online should be given the same degree of care and attention as my students who learn in the traditional classroom.  I agree that the model of instruction to be implemented online has to be researched, assessed and evaluated to determine its effectiveness. 

Karen Connell

References

Moller, L., Foshay, W., & Huett, J. (2008, May/June). The evolution of distance education: Implications for instructional design on the potential of the Web (Part 1: Training and Development). TechTrends, 52(3), 70–75.

Moller, L., Foshay, W., & Huett, J. (2008, July/August). The evolution of distance education: Implications for instructional design on the potential of the Web (Part 2: Higher Education). TechTrends, 52(4), 66–70.

Huett, J., Moller, L., Foshay, W. & Coleman, C. (2008, September/October). The evolution of distance education: Implications for instructional design on the potential of the Web (Part 3: K12). TechTrends, 52(5), 63–67.

Simonson, M. (2000). Making decisions: The use of electronic technology in online classes. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 84, 29–34.