Tbers, 

I have a pretty pessimistic view of this issue.  What I mean is, I don't
think it really matters whether DL is good learning or not - it will come
and society will embrace it.  What is a "good" education?  Isn't that
answered in the context of culture?   When our culture accepts these
technologies then so will our institutions - at it is happening very
quickly. 

On 11/18/03 5:07 PM, "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> 
> 
> Jim asked an intersting question at the UUP meeting - what do you think - do
> we have to fear DistantLearning?
> Achim
> 
> TBers, 
> 
> The posting below (a bit long) gives a quite complete
> look at the beginning of distance education, its present, and the
> author's predictions for the future. It is Chapter 1, The Evolution
> of Distance Learning in Higher Education, in Distance Education: The
> Complete Guide to Design, Delivery, and Improvement by Judith L.
> Johnson. Published  by Teachers College Press,
> [http://www.teacherscollegepress.com/] 234 Amsterdam Avenue, New
> York, NY 10027. Copyright © 2003 by Teachers College, Columbia
> University. Reprinted with permission.
> 
>                The Evolution of Distance Learning in Higher Education
> 
> Distance learning's past has emerged into a new entity. In the past
> decade, higher education has taken on tools for learning faster than
> at any other time in its history. Here we look at the beginning of
> distance education, its present, and our predictions for the future.
> 
> The Past 
> 
> Distance education, in some form, has been around for decades. Before
> 1900, the communication system of the Roman Empire set the stage for
> distance learning, long before the idea of such a phenomenon was
> conceived. Inventions during this time of the printing press and the
> postal service made possible the printing of many copies of learning
> materials to be distributed to many individuals. Correspondence
> education began toward the end of the 19th century, and in the 20th
> century, radio, telephone, cinema, television, programmed learning,
> computers, and the Internet all became tools of the new method of
> distributing education (Daniel, 2000).
> 
> Australia and New Zealand
> 
> In the 1930s, radio was first used to broadcast educational
> programming to schools. Television became a medium of choice for
> distance education in the 1960s, and today with the power, speed, and
> versatility of the Internet, courses are offered anytime, anywhere.
> 
> During the 1930s radio as a medium was used to deliver educational
> programming in Australia and New Zealand by the Australian
> Broadcasting Company (ABC). In addition to program broadcasts, the
> ABC provided financial assistance to the schools for the purchase of
> radio receivers. "In 1935,21 percent of all Australian schools were
> making regular use of radio. . . [programs]. By the mid 1950s usage
> had risen to 90 percent" (Teather, 1989, p. 504).
> 
> In 1956, television was introduced in Sydney and Melbourne to deliver
> educational programming to schools. The programs were used by
> teachers to supplement their curricula and to provide access to
> experiences that were beyond the resources of the schools (Gilmour,
> 1979). More comprehensive pro- grams ill math and science were
> developed and broadcast to schools to address a teacher shortage in
> these subjects. In the 1960s and 1970s, television broadcasting in
> Australia increased significantly, and by 1972 more than 90% of all
> schools in Australia were receiving and using both enrichment and
> subject-specific television programs.
> 
> In the 1960s, when the Open University (OU) was being developed in
> the United Kingdom, Australia had four universities that were
> providing opportunities for part-time higher education study using
> distance learning. At Massey University in New Zealand, approximately
> 12,000 students were en-rolled in several hundred courses. In the
> 1980s, more than 35,000 students were taking distance education
> courses in Australia from approximately five universities and 30
> colleges. In 1961, due to a short supply of evening classes at the
> University of New South Wales, lectures were broadcast over radio to
> part--time adult students in their homes. Problems arose with this
> arrangement, however. The University's radio station obtained a
> license to broadcast, but the "transmission frequency allotted . . .
> was beyond the tuning range of an ordinary radio receiver, so
> students had to have their receivers modified" (Teather, 1989, p.
> 506). But this did not solve the problem completely. The power
> provided to the University radio station (which was about half the
> power of a nearby non-University station) did not allow for clear
> transmission of the audio. Thus, students ended up hearing only half
> of the transmission. To remedy these problems, the University
> established centers where students could gather to listen to
> broadcasts and have discussion groups afterward. Those who could not
> attend the sessions were mailed broadcast tapes. By 1966, the
> University added television programming to its radio programming to
> offer courses to extension centers. The courses were delivered using
> a combination of the two media and supplemented by notes and diagrams
> that were mailed to students before the broadcasts. Student-led
> discussions and live seminars supported the learning activities. This
> arrangement became known as the Division of Postgraduate Extension
> Studies, and by 1982 more than 2,300 students were enrolled in the
> broad-cast courses. An additional 2,700 participated in courses in
> which audio- and videocassettes of the same courses were offered.
> 
> Eventually distribution of higher education courses in Australia and
> New Zealand became satellite-based. In 1985 and 1986, domestic
> Austra-lian communication satellites were launched and educational
> networks were established.
> 
> The United States
> 
> Educational broadcasting in the United States evolved in a similar
> fashion. In the 1920s, unsuccessful attempts were made to develop
> broadcasting for educational and cultural purposes and to reserve
> some radio channels for educational uses. It wasn't until the 1950s,
> when states were faced with shortages of teachers and school
> facilities, that instructional television was seen as a way to ease
> these problems. "Local and state educational authorities established
> stations using the reserved channels" (Lyle, 1989, p. 516). The
> broadcasts were used to support classroom instruction, and most
> programs were developed and produced by local teachers. With the
> passage of Title VII of the National Defense Education Act of 1958,
> educational broadcasting increased and appropriations by the
> legislature provided support for projects in education. However, when
> school enrollments began to decline in the 1970s and teachers were in
> surplus, the broadcast medium for instruction declined as did local
> production of programs for schools.
> 
> With respect to higher education, universities were among the first
> to have radio stations back in the 1920s. University extension
> programs were broadcast using these radio stations and have continued
> ever since. Television became the medium of choice for the broadcast
> programs in the 1960s. Many college and university systems developed
> televised curricula to provide access for more individuals and to
> reduce pressure on the physical plants. Systems and consortia alike
> cooperated to deliver courses to the public. A 1979 survey by the
> Corporation for Public Broad-casting (CPB) and the National Center
> for Educational Statistics (NCES) "found that 25 percent of the
> nation's colleges and universities offered courses for credit over
> television and 36 percent of them used broadcast television to
> supplement instruction" (Lyle, 1989, p. 516). A major turning point
> in the distance education enterprise came in 1981 when Walter H.
> Annenberg announced his $150 million gift over 15 years for the
> development of university-level television programming. The CPB was
> chosen as the agency to oversee the planning of the programming that
> would be funded under this gift.
> 
> The United Kingdom
> 
> While these developments were occurring in the United States and
> Australia, the United Kingdom officially opened the Open University
> in 1971 (Cathcart, 1989). Primarily a correspondence institution, OU
> used correspondence materials and text-books as its major resources
> along with television broadcasts. The institution was open to any and
> all who wished to partake of its educational opportunities. Working
> closely with the British Broadcast Corporation, au paid for its own
> production costs using revenue from the government's department of
> education and science.
> 
>    When the United Kingdom's Open University achieved higher
> ratings for its teaching of
>    Engineering than Oxford, Cambridge, and the Imperial College,
> London, it was a sign that
>    what had begun 30 years earlier as a radical and suspect
> initiative for second--chance
>    students had now become a well-respected university. (Daniel, 2000)
> 
> Other Countries 
> 
> The success of OU prompted other countries to adopt its model and
> establish their own open universities. For example, in 1972 Spain
> created the Universidad de Educación a Distancia using radio
> broadcasts. Holland offered multimedia courses to its citizens via
> television, and in 1977 Norway established an Institute for Distance
> Education that coordinated and produced integrated multimedia courses
> on topics of concern to its citizenry. Eventually Norway's live
> broadcasts were recorded and distributed to interested constituencies
> on cassettes. Their purpose came to focus more on- the materials than
> on the broadcast. Likewise, Sweden's Utbildningsradion, established
> in 1978, became responsible for preparing learning systems and
> producing audiovisual educational media. Its main priority was to
> produce programming for underserved, disadvantaged groups (e.g., the
> mentally and physically challenged and individuals with limited
> education). In addition to its broadcasts (both television and
> radio), all programs were available on cassette, along with
> educational materials to make up learning packages. These were
> distributed to learning resource centers across Sweden.
> 
> These efforts and others were part of the foundation for today's
> distance education, an evolution in the making. While some of the
> programs and projects in broadcast education may not have been deemed
> overly successful at the time, "research and experience leaves no
> doubt that educational broadcasting can, particularly within
> multimedia systems, be an effective educational instrument" (Lyle,
> 1989, p. 516). 
> 
> As Sir John Daniel (2000), Vice Chancellor of Britain's Open
> University, asserts:
> 
>    . . . whereas in 1990 only a small proportion of tradi-tional
> universities offered any
>    distance learning courses, by the year 2000 very few did not
> have such offerings. Today no
>    self respecting university president can admit to not
> offering courses online.
> 
> (For a comprehensive account of early educational broadcasting, see
> chapters by Inquai, Hurst, Teather, Lyle, Hill, Cathcart, and O'Brien
> in Eraut, 1989.) 
> 
> Today 
> 
> Distance learning is the most significant phenomenon occurring in
> higher education today. Everywhere one looks, whether in community
> colleges, 4-year institutions, Ivy League colleges, research
> institutions, or technical colleges, distance education is on the
> rise, and the rise is occurring at a rapid pace. Distance education
> and technology are major factors in the contribution to current and
> expected changes in the postsecondary education enterprise.
> 
>    Distance education is expected to grow at a compound annual
> growth rate of 33 percent,
>    according to Inter-national Data Corporation. Analysis
> predicts that distance education
>    demand will increase from five percent of all higher
> education students in 1998 to 15
>    percent by 2002. [Indeed] . . . the reported growth rates
> (from 1999-2000 to 2000-2001)
>    range from 200 percent (Pennsylvania State University's World
> Campus) to over 1,000
>    percent (University of Mary-land's University College) today.
> (Oblinger, Barone, &
>    Hawkins, 2001, p. 11)
> 
> Never before in the history of higher education has there been a
> change that has had such an impact on those involved in this
> enterprise. According to Peter Drucker, "Universities won't survive.
> The future is outside the traditional campus, outside the traditional
> classroom. Distance learning is coming on fast" (Gibson & Herrera,
> 1999, p. 57). 
> 
> The idea and advent of distance education have been instrumental in
> producing a range of emotions in those involved in higher education.
> Many faculty are resistant; some are confused; others are excited
> about the new realm of possibilities for their teaching. Some worry
> about the future of their livelihood; others see this change as an
> opportunity to expand their pedagogy and teaching opportunities.
> Critics of distance education say that this mode is inferior to the
> more traditional face-to-face, campus-based learning, where discourse
> is spontaneous and inter-active, and where the faculty can see the
> students and pick up nonverbal body language such as facial
> expressions. Skeptical faculty argue that part of the learning
> experience is the connection made between student and student, and
> student and professor, or the experience of community. However, "in
> all fairness, there are few studies that measure the effectiveness of
> textbooks and lectures as an educational delivery system" (Oblinger,
> Barone, & Hawkins, 2001, p. 19). But because of the newness of
> technology and the uncertainty of its use in educating students,
> institutions are held captive by questions related to its use.
> 
> Proponents of distance learning, on the other hand, argue that
> distance education technologies allow for increased access to a
> variety of courses. Distance education offers the student more
> convenience in scheduling classes, decreases travel time to and from
> a campus, and allows for student control over when participation in
> classes will occur (Johnson, 1999a). Furthermore, distance learning
> technology, such as the Web, is
> 
>    the first medium that honors the notion of multiple
> intelligences-abstract, textual, visual,
>    musical, social, and kinesthetic. Educators can now construct
> learning environments that
>    enable [a student] to become engaged in learning any way the
> student chooses. The anytime,
>    anyplace nature of the Web allows students to spend as much
> time as they need searching
>    for in-formation, running simulations, or collaborating with
> peers. (Oblinger, Barone, &
>    Hawkins, 2001, p. 5)
> 
> Some have found that this new way of delivering higher education is
> just as good as traditional ways, and maybe even better (Daniel,
> 2000; Johnson, 1999b). In fact, as Sir John Daniel (2000) stated in a
> speech to attendees at the Taiwan Conference on Distance Learning:
> 
>    Open universities have learned how to carry out distance
> education successfully at scale
>    and I emphasize that this is not merely a technological
> success. Through the principle of
>    course team we have become better at teaching than
> conventional universities, on both
>    academic and pedagogical grounds.
> 
> Some say that students in distance education courses are more engaged
> with the learning process and that interaction happens more than in
> traditional face-to-face courses (Carnevale, 2000b; Marchese, 2000).
> Researchers also have found that distance education is "more
> effective than the classroom lecture and the traditional relationship
> between student and faculty member" (Oblinger, Barone, & Hawkins,
> 2001, p. 6). 
> 
> A large body of research touts that there are no significant
> differences between the learning out- comes of distance education and
> those of classroom-based education (Epper, 1996; Oblinger, Barone, &
> Hawkins, 2001; Weigel, 2000).
> 
>    [But] why [argue some] hold up lecture-based class-room
> education as the benchmark for
>    evaluating new educational delivery systems? . . . If there
> is no significant difference
>    between distance education and class-room-based education,
> advocates of distance
>    education should hardly trumpet this claim; they should be
> deeply troubled by it. How could
>    they think of making the status quo the standard for
> evaluating learning technologies that
>    have so much more to offer? (Weigel, 2000, p. 12)
> 
> With distance learning technologies, teachers can develop new
> teaching methodologies rather than adapting old pedagogy to their
> distance courses. The Web is a "fundamentally new medium for
> education with the potential to birth new pedagogical methods"
> (Weigel, 2000, p. 12).
> 
> Charles M. Cook, director of the New England Association of Schools
> and Colleges' Commission on Institutions of Higher Education,
> comments on distance learning. He asserts that this mode of delivery
> "can provide a more active learning environment for students than
> traditional education by engaging the student with interactive
> technology, instead of relying on a professor's lecture" (Carnevale,
> 2000d). He feels that this type of educational delivery is more
> learner-centered than traditional delivery. In fact, in a survey of
> faculty, findings revealed that they "believed web-based courses do a
> better job of giving students access to information, helping them
> master the subject, and addressing a variety of learning styles"
> (Oblinger, Barone, & Hawkins, 2001, p. 19). '
> 
>    The Web . . . can also be a great new medium for deeper forms
> of learning. . . . The
>    beautiful thing is that today's technologies, with their
> incredible abilities to connect,
>    search, engage, and individualize, to prompt performance and
> assess understanding, are--in
>    the hands of a teacher with the right ambitions--terrific
> enablers for [deep learning].
>    (Marchese, 2000, p.4) ,
> 
> Distance education serves the needs of not only the traditional-age
> college student, but also the most rapidly growing segment of the
> population, adult learners over the age of 35 years who have
> full-time jobs, families, and limited discretionary time. A re-port
> by the American Council on Education Center for Policy Analysis and
> Educause (Oblinger, Barone, & Hawkins, 2001) cites seven distinct
> audiences for distance learning: corporate learners, professional
> enhancement learners, degree-completion adult learners, college
> experience learners (or the traditional student), precollege (K-12)
> learners, remediation and test-preparation learners, and recreational
> learners (Oblinger, Barone, & Hawkins, 2001).
> 
> Distance education has touched a majority of institutions of higher
> education in the United States over the past 5 years. USA Today
> (Snapshots, 2000) reports that 75% of U.S. institutions of higher
> education now offer distance education courses and pro-grams, and 35%
> have accredited distance education programs. It appears, however,
> that public institu-tions are using the distance mode of delivery
> much more than are private institutions.
> 
> In 1997, 79% of public 4-year institutions and 72 % of public 2-year
> institutions offered distance education courses, compared with 22 %
> of private 4-year institutions and 6% of private 2-year ones
> (Carnevale, 2000a, p. A57). Currently, institutions with more than
> 10,000 students (87%) are more likely to offer distance education
> courses than those with between 3,000 and 10,000 students (75%), or
> those with fewer than 3,000 students (19%) (Carnevale, 2000a, p.
> A57). These numbers are likely to increase substantially over the
> next decade with all the advances in technology and the growing
> demand by the public for convenient and flexible educational
> opportunities. 
> 
> In this age of technology, future college students (e.g., today's
> children) have and are using computers in their schools. "Today's
> students, increasingly comfortable with technology, expect online
> resources (a digital library, Web resources, simulations, video) as
> part of the learning tools and learning experience" (Green, 1997, p.
> 4). In fact, colleges and universities of today are "dealing with the
> first generation of students who have never known life without PCs
> (created in the '70s) or the Internet (largely a '90s phenomenon)"
> (Oblinger, Barone, & Hawkins, 2001, p. 26). Students entering higher
> education today have the knowledge and skills to use technology that
> exceed those of faculty and staff working in higher education (Bleed,
> 2000). Students are not only computer literate, they are
> "technophilic" (Cini & Vilic, 1999, p. 38).
> 
> Over the past 2 decades, communication using information technologies
> has gone from using over-head projectors, audiovisual media, slides,
> and the viewing of prerecorded public television programs, to the
> delivery of instruction using interactive technologies and
> asynchronous modes, with degree pro-grams offered to students
> worldwide. Changes in technology today are constant, and faculty,
> staff, and administrators must keep pace with new technologies to
> ensure that their students receive the best that education has to
> offer. 
> 
> REFERENCES available on request.
> 

Mr. James B. Greenberg
Director Teaching, Learning and Technology Center
Milne Library 
SUNY College at Oneonta
Oneonta, New York 13820

email: [log in to unmask]
phone: 607-436-2701

"Ignorance is curable, stupidity lasts forever"