Distance learning is the future of education at not only a higher education level, but at a K-12 level as well. In this day and age of advanced communications systems, global economies of scale, and multi-national corporations, the world as we know it gets smaller and smaller by the day. Corporate operations teams are spread across nations, but miss little in the way of communicability. Synchronous communications technologies are at levels previously unimagined, able to reach across vast distances with efficiency and practicality. Education is in a similar place with regard to delivery. No longer is education confined to ivy-covered buildings and hallowed halls, but is accessible to virtually anyone with an Internet connection. Flexibility, accessibility, and convenience are at an all-time high in education, with the only perceivable restrictions residing in the court of public opinion. Distance learning is on the rise, and has been proven to be as effective, if not more effective, than traditional education; but, opinion varies as greatly as the various forms distance learning can take. The future and potential of distance learning resides in this public opinion, and it will be the job of the instructional designer to design, develop, implement, and evaluate effective distance learning, thereby eliciting the buy-in of academia and helping to bring distance education to its full fruition.
Perceptions of distance learning in the near future will change dramatically, and this will be due to the graduation and employment of distance learners. The only way to truly prove that distance learning is just as good, if not better, than traditional education is to show what distance learning graduates can do in the workplace. I think that what society will find is a distance learner that is very well adjusted to operating within a technology-driven environment. Distance learners will be quite accustomed to communicating with coworkers and facilitators across vast differences, and this will prove valuable in wide-spread, multi-national business. Gone are the days of deals being consummated by way of a hand-shake. Corporate America must operate in virtual environments, and who better to do so than folks who have done their learning in these same environments. Once these distance learners have proven what they can do professionally, perceptions of distance learning as a whole will improve.
But what of distance education itself? How can the overall quality be maintained and improved in the short term to produce these new-age wunderkinds? This is the job, now and in the future, of the instructional designer. By adhering to sound instructional design practice, creating student-centered learning environments, and fostering collaborative and informative opportunities for not only students but instructors alike, the instructional designer will guarantee the successful and accepted future of distance learning. Instructional designers must work closely with SMEs, educational facilitators, and communications infrastructure professionals alike to ensure that the instructional message is applicable and practical to conventional professional practice, that facilitators and instructors understand the new role they play in distance learning, and that distance learning is supported by the strongest and most fail-safe systems. At the nexus of these players lies the future of distance education: A well conceived, practical, learner-focused environment that produces savvy, collaborative, and motivated professionals. An instructional designer does not have all the answers, but is well served to act as a project manager and facilitator in her own right of the multiple personalities and opinions in the instructional design process. A healthy, collaborative, and comfortable environment is not just important to learning environments, but in the design environments of these learning systems.
At the end of the day, the successful instructional designer will always first ask the question, “is a learning intervention necessary?” The second question, if the answer to the first question is yes, is “what does the environment that will best serve the learner look like?” If the situation is right for a distance learning initiative, then the instructional designer will further explore the climate and, keeping in mind the needs of the learner, create the best-fitting environment possible. Maybe that environment is asynchronous? If it is, the instructional designer must make sure to communicate the responsibilities of the learner and facilitator alike: That the learner must take responsibility for his own learning, and the facilitator must take a more active role in collaborations (Simonson et al., 2009). If a synchronous environment proves to be the best fit, then the instructional designer must make sure all technological ingredients are available, and if advanced technologies are at the disposal of the instructional designer, that her designs allow for the training of its users, if need be. As long as the end user is considered in all design decisions, then effective distance learning environments will be created. When effective distance learning environments are created, then those learning environments will produce well-trained and confident professionals. When these well-trained and confident professionals hit the workplace and show what they can do, then the perception of distance education will improve dramatically as a result. With this improvement in public perception in place, the sky is the limit for the continued future of distance education as a whole.
Reference:
Simonson, M., Smaldino, S., Albright, M., & Zvacek, S. (2009). Teaching and learning at a distance: Foundations of distance education (4th ed.) Boston, MA: Pearson.
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Monday, October 25, 2010
Week 7: Converting to a Distance Learning Environment
The Application assignment for the week was an interesting one, and one I chose to create in a newsletter style. I felt that short, succinct articles highlighting and describing to essential parts of the assignment would be beneficial to a facilitator looking to convert a face-to-face learning environment. The articles describe best practices, and the newsletter is short, only three pages in length. The size is intentional as to not overwhelm the facilitator and to make a handy guide that can be consulted at any time of the design, development, and/or implementation phase. But, why explain when the document can explain itself? Enjoy.
Sunday, October 10, 2010
Week 5 - The Impact of Open Source
http://oyc.yale.edu/
The idea of free education provided by a prestigious institution like Yale University seems almost too good to be true. In an effort to “make an important contribution to expanding access to educational resources through the use of internet technology (http://oyc.yale.edu/about ),” Yale has made available course content and lectures from an array of undergraduate course offerings. While these materials are provided free of charge online, it is here that the similarities to true distance learning end. Instead of providing an online learning opportunity, Yale is simply distributing course materials for use in other, in-class, synchronous classrooms. Consumers of this material are given a syllabus, links to recorded lectures, and downloadable resources, much of which is incomplete due to licensing difficulties. Learners within Yale’s open course environment are essentially on their own if “auditing” an available class; a better format would be to implement the available syllabus and materials into a traditional classroom. This, however, has nothing to do with distance education; instead, Yale has dumped face-to-face course information online with no structure to learning, and certainly no pre-planning or intentional design for distance education.
Simonson et al. (2009) warn against this dumping practice. “The term shovelware has evolved to describe this practice: Shovel the course onto the Web and say you are teaching online, but don’t think about it much (pg. 248).” This really is precisely what has happened here; a bunch of learning material has been plopped onto an open source site and left to be used in whatever way seems good to an instructor. There is no structure to the learning events, other than a chronological order of topics as described in the syllabus; there is no grading criteria or point structure; nor are there any timeframes within which the course is to be completed in. Is it a semester-based course? A quarter-based course? Can the course be extended over multiple terms, or is it better served to be completed within one term? Suffice it to say that the open courses provided by Yale are not finished products; there is much work to be done once the decision to use the material has been made.
There is no online component to the courses at all. In order to construct distance learning opportunities around the provided materials, an instructor would have to work with an instructional designer extensively to build, from scratch, the entirety of the online learning environment. There are discussion topics described in the learning materials (for example: http://oyc.yale.edu/classics/introduction-to-ancient-greek-history/content/resources/02darkages ) but no platform upon which to conduct the discussions themselves. This requires the incorporation of a threaded discussion forum which will have to be contracted from another source, or built on-site for substantial cost. Regardless, this is a process in and of itself to be undertaken without any suggestions from Yale. Let’s take a look at a few recommendations from Simonson et al. (2009) regarding online learning to illustrate how far away the Yale open courses are from true distance education:
“Students can work at their own pace.”
“Online course materials, once developed, are easy to update, providing students access to current information.”
“The Internet can provide a student-centered learning environment, if the materials and methods are designed to take advantage of the interactivity and resources the Internet provides.”
The Internet promotes active learning and facilitates student’s intellectual involvement with the course content.”
A well-conceived online course provides a variety of learning experiences and accommodates different learning styles.” (pg. 234-5)
The Yale open courses as they stand now offer none of these advantages typically afforded by effective online learning. The structure of the materials is ambiguous and mundane, as well as old-fashioned and teacher-centered. The courses do actually do a good job of offering access to materials anywhere, anytime by allowing for lectures to be downloaded via iTunes to mobile devices, but this is the only interaction the student has with the material; there is no inherent active learning opportunities for “small-group discussions, hands-on experiences with materials available in advance of the class period, or similar types of classroom strategies (Simonson et al., pg. 192, 2009).” While a great idea, the Yale open courses are quite obviously not designed for distance learning. To be transformed into a format viable for distance education, much work will need to be done by instructional designers and course instructors; so much so that a decision needs to be made whether or not to adopt the learning materials in the first place.
Reference:
Simonson, M., Smaldino, S., Albright, M., & Zvacek, S. (2009). Teaching and learning at a distance: Foundations of distance education (4th ed.) Boston, MA: Pearson.
The idea of free education provided by a prestigious institution like Yale University seems almost too good to be true. In an effort to “make an important contribution to expanding access to educational resources through the use of internet technology (http://oyc.yale.edu/about ),” Yale has made available course content and lectures from an array of undergraduate course offerings. While these materials are provided free of charge online, it is here that the similarities to true distance learning end. Instead of providing an online learning opportunity, Yale is simply distributing course materials for use in other, in-class, synchronous classrooms. Consumers of this material are given a syllabus, links to recorded lectures, and downloadable resources, much of which is incomplete due to licensing difficulties. Learners within Yale’s open course environment are essentially on their own if “auditing” an available class; a better format would be to implement the available syllabus and materials into a traditional classroom. This, however, has nothing to do with distance education; instead, Yale has dumped face-to-face course information online with no structure to learning, and certainly no pre-planning or intentional design for distance education.
Simonson et al. (2009) warn against this dumping practice. “The term shovelware has evolved to describe this practice: Shovel the course onto the Web and say you are teaching online, but don’t think about it much (pg. 248).” This really is precisely what has happened here; a bunch of learning material has been plopped onto an open source site and left to be used in whatever way seems good to an instructor. There is no structure to the learning events, other than a chronological order of topics as described in the syllabus; there is no grading criteria or point structure; nor are there any timeframes within which the course is to be completed in. Is it a semester-based course? A quarter-based course? Can the course be extended over multiple terms, or is it better served to be completed within one term? Suffice it to say that the open courses provided by Yale are not finished products; there is much work to be done once the decision to use the material has been made.
There is no online component to the courses at all. In order to construct distance learning opportunities around the provided materials, an instructor would have to work with an instructional designer extensively to build, from scratch, the entirety of the online learning environment. There are discussion topics described in the learning materials (for example: http://oyc.yale.edu/classics/introduction-to-ancient-greek-history/content/resources/02darkages ) but no platform upon which to conduct the discussions themselves. This requires the incorporation of a threaded discussion forum which will have to be contracted from another source, or built on-site for substantial cost. Regardless, this is a process in and of itself to be undertaken without any suggestions from Yale. Let’s take a look at a few recommendations from Simonson et al. (2009) regarding online learning to illustrate how far away the Yale open courses are from true distance education:
“Students can work at their own pace.”
“Online course materials, once developed, are easy to update, providing students access to current information.”
“The Internet can provide a student-centered learning environment, if the materials and methods are designed to take advantage of the interactivity and resources the Internet provides.”
The Internet promotes active learning and facilitates student’s intellectual involvement with the course content.”
A well-conceived online course provides a variety of learning experiences and accommodates different learning styles.” (pg. 234-5)
The Yale open courses as they stand now offer none of these advantages typically afforded by effective online learning. The structure of the materials is ambiguous and mundane, as well as old-fashioned and teacher-centered. The courses do actually do a good job of offering access to materials anywhere, anytime by allowing for lectures to be downloaded via iTunes to mobile devices, but this is the only interaction the student has with the material; there is no inherent active learning opportunities for “small-group discussions, hands-on experiences with materials available in advance of the class period, or similar types of classroom strategies (Simonson et al., pg. 192, 2009).” While a great idea, the Yale open courses are quite obviously not designed for distance learning. To be transformed into a format viable for distance education, much work will need to be done by instructional designers and course instructors; so much so that a decision needs to be made whether or not to adopt the learning materials in the first place.
Reference:
Simonson, M., Smaldino, S., Albright, M., & Zvacek, S. (2009). Teaching and learning at a distance: Foundations of distance education (4th ed.) Boston, MA: Pearson.
Sunday, September 26, 2010
Week 3: Selecting Distance Learning Technologies
First and foremost, here is the example I chose to discuss in this posting:
Example 1: Collaborative Training Environment
A new automated staff information system was recently purchased by a major corporation and needs to be implemented in six regional offices. Unfortunately, the staff is located throughout all the different offices and cannot meet at the same time or in the same location. As an instructional designer for the corporation, you have been charged with implementing a training workshop for these offices. As part of the training, you were advised how imperative it is that the staff members share information, in the form of screen captures and documents, and participate in ongoing collaboration.
It's a fairly well known fact that I am not only a student at Walden but an employee as well. Walden's structure is much like the structure of the example above, in that there are multiple sites scattered all across the country. There are enrollment advisors in all sites, in all time zones, and we often need to learn similar material at different times. While the collaboration of our trainings doesn't match well to the example, I think the Walden model, properly modified, would serve well to act as a template for the development of the training workshop for the hypothetical company.
Since the staff of the hypothetical company cannot meet at the same time at the same location, it would seem that an asynchronous training platform would be a good fit for this workshop. That way, staff can come and go to and from the workshop on their schedules. However, the corporation has also made very clear to me as the instructional designer that collaboration between staff members is essential, that information sharing is crucial, and that this collaboration be on-going. These requirements, to me, scream Web 2.0, and the employment of such technologies would serve the corporation well. "In the early 2000s, a new generation of web applications emerged, tools that are highly participatory and promote collaboration, networking, sharing, and the widespread generation of content (Simonson et al., pg. 244, 2009)." According to that definition, Web 2.0 technologies provide everything I need. But which technology would be the best fit? For my initial design, I will choose the wiki.
"A wiki is an online writing space designed to be created and edited by groups of persons" and "can be an excellent tool for collaborative online writing assignments and group activities compiling information in a single online source (Simonson et al., pg. 245, 2009)." I've had previous experience with wikis in the program here at Walden, and I've found them to be terrifically valuable platforms for document sharing and collaborative document editing. Many people can work with the same documents, edit them, and then post the edited documents to the wiki for further review. This type of platform should be a great fit for a staff information system. As staff rosters change, posted listings can be easily edited to reflect the new staff rosters. If new information needs to be shared with all staff, the documents can be posted to the wiki to be accessed by all. There are also many free wiki sites available, so the wiki would seem to be a cheap way to ensure staff collaboration across all sites.
In addition to the wiki itself, training would need to be designed and implemented to teach the staff of the corporation how to use a wiki. A simple interactive wiki presentation could be built using Adobe Captivate (or MS PowerPoint) defining a wiki, explaining the beneficial uses of a wiki, and allowing learners to experience a wiki first-hand. Then, assuming there are trainers located at each corporate site (like Walden has), an in-class session can be scheduled for the sites, allowing for staff to work with a wiki in the presence of co-workers and a trainer. Once this practical application knowledge is acquired, staff should have no trouble using the corporate staff information wiki.
Wikis have been shown to be effective in this capacity before, and will show more effectiveness in the future. A couple of examples to prove my point:
References:
Gullett, E. & Bedi, K. (2007). Wiki: A new paradigm for online training and development of faculty. Retrieved from http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/singapore07/procs/gullett.pdf.
Simonson, M., Smaldino, S., Albright, M., & Zvacek, S. (2009). Teaching and learning at a distance: Foundations of distance education (4th ed.) Boston, MA: Pearson.
Example 1: Collaborative Training Environment
A new automated staff information system was recently purchased by a major corporation and needs to be implemented in six regional offices. Unfortunately, the staff is located throughout all the different offices and cannot meet at the same time or in the same location. As an instructional designer for the corporation, you have been charged with implementing a training workshop for these offices. As part of the training, you were advised how imperative it is that the staff members share information, in the form of screen captures and documents, and participate in ongoing collaboration.
It's a fairly well known fact that I am not only a student at Walden but an employee as well. Walden's structure is much like the structure of the example above, in that there are multiple sites scattered all across the country. There are enrollment advisors in all sites, in all time zones, and we often need to learn similar material at different times. While the collaboration of our trainings doesn't match well to the example, I think the Walden model, properly modified, would serve well to act as a template for the development of the training workshop for the hypothetical company.
Since the staff of the hypothetical company cannot meet at the same time at the same location, it would seem that an asynchronous training platform would be a good fit for this workshop. That way, staff can come and go to and from the workshop on their schedules. However, the corporation has also made very clear to me as the instructional designer that collaboration between staff members is essential, that information sharing is crucial, and that this collaboration be on-going. These requirements, to me, scream Web 2.0, and the employment of such technologies would serve the corporation well. "In the early 2000s, a new generation of web applications emerged, tools that are highly participatory and promote collaboration, networking, sharing, and the widespread generation of content (Simonson et al., pg. 244, 2009)." According to that definition, Web 2.0 technologies provide everything I need. But which technology would be the best fit? For my initial design, I will choose the wiki.
"A wiki is an online writing space designed to be created and edited by groups of persons" and "can be an excellent tool for collaborative online writing assignments and group activities compiling information in a single online source (Simonson et al., pg. 245, 2009)." I've had previous experience with wikis in the program here at Walden, and I've found them to be terrifically valuable platforms for document sharing and collaborative document editing. Many people can work with the same documents, edit them, and then post the edited documents to the wiki for further review. This type of platform should be a great fit for a staff information system. As staff rosters change, posted listings can be easily edited to reflect the new staff rosters. If new information needs to be shared with all staff, the documents can be posted to the wiki to be accessed by all. There are also many free wiki sites available, so the wiki would seem to be a cheap way to ensure staff collaboration across all sites.
In addition to the wiki itself, training would need to be designed and implemented to teach the staff of the corporation how to use a wiki. A simple interactive wiki presentation could be built using Adobe Captivate (or MS PowerPoint) defining a wiki, explaining the beneficial uses of a wiki, and allowing learners to experience a wiki first-hand. Then, assuming there are trainers located at each corporate site (like Walden has), an in-class session can be scheduled for the sites, allowing for staff to work with a wiki in the presence of co-workers and a trainer. Once this practical application knowledge is acquired, staff should have no trouble using the corporate staff information wiki.
Wikis have been shown to be effective in this capacity before, and will show more effectiveness in the future. A couple of examples to prove my point:
- "At Universitas 21 Global, selected faculty potentials undergo a mandatory three-week online faculty training programme (FTP), which they must successfully complete before they received their official appointment to teach an online class for U21Global (Gullett & Bedi, pg. 358, 2007)." It was noted that due to the length of time of the FTP and the length of time to official appointment, it was easy for faculty to forget the information presented in the FTP. The university implemented a collaborative wiki as a continuing part of its training and development program, allowing for faculty to access previous FTP materials, edit the materials for future use, and build social networks within the school. This example shows well how a wiki can continue a training and development process, allow for staff collaboration, and enhance social networks.
- Innovative Learning Group in Michigan has a five-part series on YouTube extolling the virtues of interactive wikis in corporate training and learning environments. Innovative Learning Group specializes in custom trainings, and for them to focus so much time and energy producing a five-part YouTube series extolling said virtues of wikis in training, says a lot for the increased use of wikis in training environments. Tom Werner linked to this series on his site, workplace learning today; says Werner: "Wikis are probably the most relevant Web 2.0 tool for training because they are all about group contribution to content (http://www.brandon-hall.com/workplacelearningtoday/?p=4342)."
References:
Gullett, E. & Bedi, K. (2007). Wiki: A new paradigm for online training and development of faculty. Retrieved from http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/singapore07/procs/gullett.pdf.
Simonson, M., Smaldino, S., Albright, M., & Zvacek, S. (2009). Teaching and learning at a distance: Foundations of distance education (4th ed.) Boston, MA: Pearson.
Sunday, September 12, 2010
Week 1: Distance Learning Defined
Walden University wasn't my first rodeo when it came to distance learning. I had taken several online classes in my bachelor's program at Metro State University in St. Paul, MN, and even had the pleasure of completing a summer independent study class. I will say, however, that in the years since I completed my bachelor's (I graduated in 2006), distance learning, especially in online learning, has come a long way. With the way Walden integrates media into its online classes, I feel that a richer experience is felt by students. Asynchronicity is a constant between my Metro State online classes and Walden, but to be able to take every class online in an asynchronous format has been realized by me to be very important and crucial to my success at Walden. While my definition of distance learning hasn't changed much since my Metro State days, I will say that the delivery, efficiency, and consistency has improved tremendously.
As technology improves, the world gets smaller and it should then follow that distance learning delivery methods and efficiency increases at a proportional rate. "Advances in electronic communications technology help[s] to determine the dominant medium of distance education (Simonson et al., pg. 38, 2009)." Where the postal system first served as a delivery method for distance education, now the Internet serves as the primary delivery system. Online education allows for learners and instructors to simulate a geographical closeness that is only trumped by in-class learning. What happens to distance education when video conferencing software such as Skype becomes more prevalent? At that point, is there any difference between in-class and online learning? In terms of synchronous learning, I don't think there is much of a difference; the true differences will occur and be seen in synchronous vs. asynchronous learning.
This synchronous vs. asynchronous learning comparison is underscored in Michael Moore's Theory of Transactional Distance. Moore describes transactional distance as being "composed of two elements, each of which can be measured. First is the provision for two-way communication. Some systems or programs offer grater amounts of two way communication than others. Second is the extent to which a program is responsive to the needs of the individual learner. Some programs are very structured, while others are very responsive to the needs and goals of the individual student (Simonson et al., pg. 43, 2009)." Each system of learning has benefits and drawbacks; personally, I find asynchronous learning much more conducive to my particular learning style. The ability to learn at my convenience and when I am ready to learn is the biggest reason for my success thus far in my program. I never liked synchronous learning. I was too depended on the hi-or-miss teaching talents of professors, and I hated sitting in class through discussions dominated by one or two students. These programs were not very responsive to my needs as a learner. Asynchronous learning has fit me like a glove. I can come and go as I please, participate when ready and inspired, and get more out of instructional topics than I ever had before in synchronous environments. Asynchronous learning environments allow me to participate more in class, so the two-way communication I have with my classmates and instructors have greatly increased since my in-class days. According to Moore's Transactional Distance Theory, asynchronous distance learning is positively measured for me in both areas.
I think that technology will be the major driver in the development of distance learning; like I said, it seems that the more technology advances, the smaller the world gets. It is crucial, however, that technology is not employed in distance learning simply because it can be, but that it is employed as a result of sound instructional design practice. For example, Skype is an available technology that could greatly impact distance learning. In the context of Moore's theory, Skype can greatly improve two-way communication in distance learning, and it serves the needs of learners who need face-to-face interaction with instructors and students. However, if Skype were to be integrated in earnest into the Walden experience, these same improvements may not be realized; I know they wouldn't be by me. First, the two-way communication provided by Skype eliminates the asynchronous element of the Walden experience. If I have to sit in front of a computer screen for two hours to attend a lecture, how is that any different that sitting in a classroom? Also, two-way communication is served very well on the threaded discussion boards. Who says that two-way communication must be synchronous and face-to-face? In this example, employment of this available technology would not be rooted in sound instructional design practice. The idea of Walden's asynchronous education is to make education available to busy, working professionals. Introduction of a synchronous communication medium would violate the core design strategy of Walden's programs.
Consult the following Mind Map for a look at my personal take on the structure of distance learning:
Reference:
Simonson, M., Smaldino, S., Albright, M., & Zvacek, S. (2009). Teaching and learning at a distance: Foundations of distance education (4th ed.) Boston, MA: Pearson.
As technology improves, the world gets smaller and it should then follow that distance learning delivery methods and efficiency increases at a proportional rate. "Advances in electronic communications technology help[s] to determine the dominant medium of distance education (Simonson et al., pg. 38, 2009)." Where the postal system first served as a delivery method for distance education, now the Internet serves as the primary delivery system. Online education allows for learners and instructors to simulate a geographical closeness that is only trumped by in-class learning. What happens to distance education when video conferencing software such as Skype becomes more prevalent? At that point, is there any difference between in-class and online learning? In terms of synchronous learning, I don't think there is much of a difference; the true differences will occur and be seen in synchronous vs. asynchronous learning.
This synchronous vs. asynchronous learning comparison is underscored in Michael Moore's Theory of Transactional Distance. Moore describes transactional distance as being "composed of two elements, each of which can be measured. First is the provision for two-way communication. Some systems or programs offer grater amounts of two way communication than others. Second is the extent to which a program is responsive to the needs of the individual learner. Some programs are very structured, while others are very responsive to the needs and goals of the individual student (Simonson et al., pg. 43, 2009)." Each system of learning has benefits and drawbacks; personally, I find asynchronous learning much more conducive to my particular learning style. The ability to learn at my convenience and when I am ready to learn is the biggest reason for my success thus far in my program. I never liked synchronous learning. I was too depended on the hi-or-miss teaching talents of professors, and I hated sitting in class through discussions dominated by one or two students. These programs were not very responsive to my needs as a learner. Asynchronous learning has fit me like a glove. I can come and go as I please, participate when ready and inspired, and get more out of instructional topics than I ever had before in synchronous environments. Asynchronous learning environments allow me to participate more in class, so the two-way communication I have with my classmates and instructors have greatly increased since my in-class days. According to Moore's Transactional Distance Theory, asynchronous distance learning is positively measured for me in both areas.
I think that technology will be the major driver in the development of distance learning; like I said, it seems that the more technology advances, the smaller the world gets. It is crucial, however, that technology is not employed in distance learning simply because it can be, but that it is employed as a result of sound instructional design practice. For example, Skype is an available technology that could greatly impact distance learning. In the context of Moore's theory, Skype can greatly improve two-way communication in distance learning, and it serves the needs of learners who need face-to-face interaction with instructors and students. However, if Skype were to be integrated in earnest into the Walden experience, these same improvements may not be realized; I know they wouldn't be by me. First, the two-way communication provided by Skype eliminates the asynchronous element of the Walden experience. If I have to sit in front of a computer screen for two hours to attend a lecture, how is that any different that sitting in a classroom? Also, two-way communication is served very well on the threaded discussion boards. Who says that two-way communication must be synchronous and face-to-face? In this example, employment of this available technology would not be rooted in sound instructional design practice. The idea of Walden's asynchronous education is to make education available to busy, working professionals. Introduction of a synchronous communication medium would violate the core design strategy of Walden's programs.
Consult the following Mind Map for a look at my personal take on the structure of distance learning:
Reference:
Simonson, M., Smaldino, S., Albright, M., & Zvacek, S. (2009). Teaching and learning at a distance: Foundations of distance education (4th ed.) Boston, MA: Pearson.
Friday, September 3, 2010
Blog Dedux: Back To The Ol' Stompin' Grounds
When I created this blog in EDUC 6115, I had a hard time imagining ever using it again once the class ended. So, upon looking at the first week's assignments in EDUC 6135 today, I was surprised to see that we'd be working with blogs again, and that use of a previously created blog was encouraged. It's always nice to revisit the old neighborhood, so to speak, and it makes it even more enjoyable when that visit is for a purpose. Welcome to my blog! I look forward to engaging in future learning experiences here with all of you in the near future.
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Trouble With Accepting Financial Aid?
Try out this tutorial I created for a group project in EIDT6100:
Accepting Financial Aid
If you do take a look at it, let me know what you think!
Accepting Financial Aid
If you do take a look at it, let me know what you think!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
