The Next Generation of Distance Education
A common theme in this week’s readings and video lectures is that distance education is on the cusp of exploding with growth across all levels of education. Simonson compares distance education today to use of the microcomputer in the early 1980’s in that through consistent promotion the innovation will enter the self-sustaining portion of the s-curve (Laureate Education, Inc., 2010). Simonson believes that as distance education reaches its critical mass it will not radically change or replace traditional education (Laureate Education, Inc., 2010). Likewise, Huett, Moller, Foshay, and Coleman (2008) believe that distance education (virtual learning) is growing at a rapid rate across multiple levels of education. In a k-12 environment virtual schools are offered in one of two formats: site-based (which is a part of traditional school), or virtual high schools (seen as an alternative to traditional schools).
“Distance education initiatives may serve the least homogenous group of learners of any other modality or learning environment” (Huett, Moller, Foshay, and Coleman, 2008). There are legitimate concerns in education that virtual learning or distance education environments could become a holding tank for undesirable students (Huett, Moller, Foshay, and Coleman, 2008). In order to prevent dumping undesirable students into virtual environments the instructional design of these courses should evolve to highlight the benefits of distance education while maintaining legitimate rigor. The evolution of distance education must also include an influx of instructional design teams that have been trained to create distance education environments.
I do agree with the positions espoused by this week’s readings. I am in particular agreement with the notion that instructional designers need to be specifically trained to create class environments that are intended solely for distance education (Huett, Moller, Foshay, and Coleman, 2008). I strongly believe that paying more attention to design will move distance education towards a level of self-sustainability. Many non-trained designers will try to provide equal activities and experiences for face-to-face and distance education students. It is more realistic to aim for equivalency rather than equality when designing distance education activities (Simonson, 2000).
References
Huett, J. Moller, L., Fosay, W. & Coleman, C. (2008). The evolution of distance education: Implications for instructional design on the potential of the Web (Part 3: K12). Tech Trends, 52(5), 63-67.
Laureate Education, Inc. (2008). Principles of Distance Education. Baltimore: Author.
Simonson, M. (2000). Making decisions: The use of electronic technology in online classes. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 84, 29–34.
