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"