The minute somebody flipped the “on” switch to the internet, our lives changed irrevocably. This includes how we socialize, shop, learn, and more. In one of our discussion posts we were asked to consider the differing positions of Peters (2010) and Garrison (2009) regarding the affordances of online learning. Peters waxed eloquently about how the internet and digitized learning would create a “pedagogy of enablement” (p. 153). Garrison wasn’t quite as excited about the possibilities – he argued that online discussion boards haven’t quite panned out regarding “continuous enrolment and self-paced instruction.”

Actually, I think there’s a bigger question here – to paraphrase Terry Anderson who quotes Daniel and Marquis (2003, para. 1) – what IS the best mix between independent study and interactive learning strategies and activities in distance education? When Anderson spoke of the challenge to define when “an interaction has pedagogical or educational value” I pulled out my pom-poms. Anderson and his colleague Garrison (1998) described several types of interactions in distance education (student-student, student-teacher, student-content, teacher-teacher, teacher-content and content-content). He further pointed out that advances made in this digital environment have raised the bar on possibilities to the extent that your head could explode trying to envision them all! But he argues that this isn’t necessarily a field of dreams situation. Just because we CAN use technology to create these enhanced interactions, must we?

My “a-ha” moment during this module was reading Anderson’s (2003) equivalency theorem, which states the following:

"Deep and meaningful formal learning is supported as long as one of the three forms of interaction (student-teacher; student-student; student-content) is at a high level. The other two may be offered at minimal levels, or even eliminated, without degrading the educational  experience. High levels of more than one of these three modes will likely provide a more satisfying educational experience, though these experiences may not be as cost or time effective as less interactive learning sequences" (para. 10).

My personal learning style is such that I learn the most through student-teacher and student-content interaction. Perhaps other learners relish student-student communication. These differences could be a reflection of culture, or differences in learning style.

This idea of a flexible three-legged stool holds tremendous appeal for me. My original definition of distance education was “a situation where the learner and the teacher are not in the same space/time continuum” but an in-depth analysis of the evolution of distance education has shown me that this is an enormous understatement. In fact, the introduction of the internet and digitalization has even thrown the term “distance education” into question – should we simply be referring to online learning? But to bring this full circle, just because we CAN put a man on the moon, does this mean we should all go to the moon? Just because we HAVE mind-boggling technology now to enhance every possible permutation of interactions (think 10 factorial!) – should we?

My take-away from this can be applied to my own work environment in education. I will be developing a graduate certificate program, and perhaps even a master’s program in palliative care over the next couple of years. I would like to operationalize Anderson’s (2003) idea of equivalency, but instead of ME picking which form of interaction would predominate, I would like to create a menu of learning opportunities, where the LEARNER could decide where they would like to place the emphasis – on student-teacher, student-student, student-content, picking one, two or all three if so desired. I realize this sounds like a LOT more work for me as the teacher, but I would certainly be catering to my learners needs. Something to think about!

Anderson, T. (2003). Getting the mix right again: An updated and theoretical rationale for interaction. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning (IRRODL), 4 (2). Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/149/230

Garrison, R. (2009). Implications of online learning for the conceptual development and practice of distance education. Journal of Distance Education, 23(2), 93-104. Retrieved fromhttp://www.jofde.ca/index.php/jde/article/view/471/889

Peters, O. (2010). Digitized learning environments: New chances and opportunities. In O. Peters, Distance education in transition: Developments and issues (5th edition) (pp. 141-153). Oldenburg, Germany: BIS-Verlag der Carl von Ossietzky Universität Oldenburg. Available from http://www.box.com/shared/ktx7ipccetotqrr11mct

As we continue our journey in distance education, I can’t say we left wave 1 behind (e.g., correspondence education), but it was joined by the second wave which ushered in the era of a systems approach to education. The way our group’s grid is laid out it is clear to visualize how the forces that drove distance education led to the prevailing theories of understanding distance education. This in turn drove institutional reactions and how they developed programs and models of education that reflected the prevailing teaching/learning theories and technologies of the era. I felt that Hall’s observations (1996, p. 10) regarding the paradigm shift in the fundamental way we think about knowledge and learning during this wave were very accurate. They are as follows (1996, p. 10):

·       From teaching children and adolescents to teaching adults,

·       From the admission of small to much larger numbers of students,

·       From traditional types of students to new types of students,

·       From oral communication to mediated communications, and

·       From traditional functions of higher education to new function.

Complimenting this was Peter’s seven principles that represented the new pedagogical approaches of the era, including the following (2010, p. 66):

·       Principle of egalitarianism

·       Principles of equality of educational opportunity

·       Principle of lifelong and ubiquitous learning

·       Principles of flexible curricula

·       Principle of learner-orientation

·       Principle of autonomous learning

·       Principle of learning through communication and interaction

I conducted a fairly in-depth analysis of both the Open University (OU) of United Kingdom and the University of South Africa (Unisa) for this class, and I can clearly identify all the elements described by Hall and Peters as described above. Clearly both of these mega-universities were aimed at educating large numbers of adults who were “nontraditional.” The method of teaching and communication was dissimilar from traditional face-to-face university teaching, using a variety of communication techniques, including correspondence, TV, radio, and eventually transitioning to internet-based education.

Peter’s seven principles are clearly reflected in these two universities. The principle of egalitarianism was a founding principle for Unisa, and both Unisa and OU embraced the idea of the related concept of humanitarianism. OU’s idea of “open” was, and is, based on accepting learners despite a lack of specific pre-requisites. This is reflected in their use of foundation courses that “level the playing field.” Whereas OU is geared toward giving learners a “second chance,” Unisa seeks learners who never really had a first chance. Looking at the websites of both OU and Unisa today we see the remaining principles clearly described: lifelong and ubiquitous learning that is self-directed, autonomous and learner-oriented. Both universities provide opportunities for communication with faculty and other learners in both face-to-face environments (e.g., regional centers) and online.

Regarding our two experts included in this module, I was really struck by Dr. Bates’ accounting of the early days of the Open University (OU) of the United Kingdom. He provided a colorful description of how Jennie Lee (Minister of Culture) DROVE the idea of open higher education through Parliament (you go girl!). As an academic myself, I was delighted by Dr. Bates’ dexplanation that there was an emphasis from the inception of OU that distance education would be of very high quality, and that faculty would have time dedicated to research. These ideals, coupled with the idea of the “open” concept set the “pedagogical and educational” world on its collective ear according to Professor Otto Peters. I personally love a rebel and the idea of admitting people who are disadvantaged holds tremendous appeal for me. The “open” concept strikes me as welcoming all comers – a sort of “let’s DO this” mentality. All interested learners, from all different places, with a resolute commitment to educational excellence and dedication to moving the field forward.

Dr. Tait was so gracious in his conversations and interactions with our class. Since the inception of this class I have been insatiably curious as to whether or not these “open” universities provided free education or assessed tuition. How could the government give away this level of excellence? Dr. Tait stated that enrollment in the Open University was initially gratis, but in recent years the university has had to shift to charging tuition. Unisa also now charges tuition to their learners.  Tuition at Unisa for a baccalaureate degree ranges from 11,200-13,000 Rand per year ($932-1081 USD) (University of South Africa, 2015). Tuition and fees at the Open University are approximately 5400 pounds per year ($8442 USD) (The Open University, 2015). Consider data aggregated from 2006-2012 regarding average income in the US, UK and Africa (Phelps & Crabtree, 2013):

United States
    Median annual household income: $43,585
    Median annual per capita income: $15,480

United Kingdom (in US dollars)
    Median annual household income: $31,617
    Median annual per capital income: $12,399

Zambia (Africa) (in US dollars)
    Median annual household income: $1,501
    Median annual per capita income: $281

Liberia (Africa) (in US dollars)
    Median annual household income: $781
    Median annual per capita income: $118

   
It is clear why most citizens of sub-Saharan Africa are unable to attend Unisa as the annual tuition represents three to nine times the median per capita income (Phelps, G., & Crabtree, S., 2013). Since discovering this data, I have found myself reflecting during the oddest times on how we/South Africa can increase access to Unisa, particularly potential learners who are disadvantaged by distance and economics. I don’t think a bake sale will fix this, and I know it would be a huge strain on the government, but I do believe education is the path to salvation. I almost feel that Unisa’s requirement that all learners have at least one hour of internet contact may further imperil student access to higher education. The tuition requirement in a country where 1/3 of the citizens of sub-Saharan Africa live on less than $1/day US renders higher education beyond their grasp. In my mind this is compromising Unisa’s founding principle of egalitarianism.

How has an in-depth analysis of wave 2 altered my understanding of distance education? I continue to be struck by the concept of “open” as proposed by OU. I love the idea of throwing the doors open and saying “C’mon everybody – let’s DO this!” On the other hand, reading about the development and impact of Unisa has tugged at my heart strings and reaffirms my belief that anything really is possible. Where there’s a will there’s a way, even if it means walking an hour or more to an internet café or a regional learning center. I become enraged when we lower power at home and I can’t get on the internet for an hour or two; I can’t imagine learning without the internet, or only having access during limited hours, or having to travel a great distance to gain this access. I am deeply inspired and moved to think of the dedication of learners in a developing country such as Africa. It makes my initial definition of distance education as “a situation where the learner and the teacher are not in the same space/time continuum” to seem so child-like and almost flippant. It is SO much more than that; often a life-altering experience for many. When Professor Peters stated distance education served a humanitarian role I was mystified, thinking only of my own situation. Yes, distance education is really convenient for me, but to many learners the ability to gain education fulfills a basic human right.

Regarding my progress in this course with regarding to the course objectives, I feel that I am making good headway. I am an impatient person and I want to jump in and DO distance education, but I can see how this in-depth analysis of the history of distance education has heightened my appreciation of all that has transpired before me. I am enjoying developing concrete skills while deepening my understanding of the evolution of distance education. I must admit that working in a group is not my favorite thing to do, but it’s a necessary skill.

I look forward to completing my review of the history of distance education and continuing to acquire new skills!

 

Hall, J. W. (Ed.) (1996). Report of the task force of the International Council for Open and Distance Education. (“The ICDE Paradigm Shift Report“). Standing Committee of Presidents. Lillehammer, Norway.

The Open University Fees and funding. (2015, January 1). Retrieved March 16, 2015, from http://www.open.ac.uk/courses/fees-and-funding.

Peters, O. (2010). The greatest achievement of industrialized education: Open universities. In O. Peters, Distance education in transition: Developments and issues (5th edition) (pp. 57-81). Oldenburg, Germany: BIS-Verlag der Carl von Ossietzky Universitat Oldenburg.

Phelps, G., & Crabtree, S. (2013, December 16). Worldwide, Median Household Income About $10,000. Retrieved March 22, 2015, from http://www.gallup.com/poll/166211/worldwide-median-household-income-000.aspx

Unisa Student fees and funding your studies. (2015, February 23). Retrieved March 16, 2015, from http://www.Unisa.ac.za/Default.asp?Cmd=ViewContent&ContentID=24095.

Hello, and welcome to my reflective journal for OMDE 601! I’m excited to be starting this journey (although I’m already tired!). When we first began discussing “distance education” (DE) at the start of this course I couldn’t imagine what all the fuss was about. The definition of DE seemed painfully obvious. My response to this question in the discussion forum was as follows:

“I consider distance education to be, quite simply, a situation where the learner and the teacher are not in the same space/time continuum. The “distance” could be 20 feet, 20 miles or half way around the world. The teaching and learner could be at the same time (synchronous) or not (asynchronous). Holmberg confirms that distance education is a situation where “students and their teachers do not meet face to face” (p. 9). He further confirms that “Distance education is characterized by teaching and learning being brought about by media” (Holmberg, p. 9). The media could take a variety of forms – TV, radio, print, internet-based and so forth.

I must confess that I’m a mind-map groupie. Just the thought of doing something with a mind-map gets me excited! Thinking ahead to creating a mind-map for distance education, I believe my major branches would include the following: institution, technology/delivery, teacher/learner relationship, and students. I can’t wait to jump in!”

             Holmberg, B. (2005). Concepts and terminology - Student bodies. The evolution, principles, and practice             of distance education. Oldenburg, Germany: BIS-Verlag der Carl von Ossietzky Universität Oldenburg.

In just the few short weeks since writing that definition I have certainly been exposed to many more elements of DE. I really enjoyed listening to lectures from Professors Peters and Holmberg, and putting a face to a name. In addition to very precise elocution and a darned cute accent, they brought other elements to consider. Professor Peters talked about the humanitarianism of DE; it never occurred to me that providing education from a distance was a humanitarian effort. I can see how you would think that when considering the origins of DE (“raising people up from poverty,” meeting the needs of women, home-bound and disabled learners), but is it still a humanitarian effort today? I certainly consider the ability to be able to work on my degree from home, in my own time and at my own pace a tremendous convenience; perhaps at the 10,000 foot level DE still serves a humanitarian role. I was very interested to read Dr. Bernath’s explanation that the “forefathers” of DE (Peters, Holmberg and Moore) all had theoretical backgrounds in humanistic psychology and andragogy; perhaps their involvement early in DE sparked their humanitarian slant.

I was also very interested and pleased to watch a video recorded by Professor Holmberg, and his discussion on empathy in DE. I equate empathy with caring, compassion and being unafraid to show your passion for your area of expertise and for the art of teaching itself. Students immediately sense the educator’s passion and compassion and the synergistic excitement that results is palpable. Seriously, I have felt that in the classroom – the air can actually vibrate when the educator and learners are “in the zone” together. I think this can be achieved through DE, but I think both the learners and educators may have to work a little harder to achieve that level of energy.

When I first learned we were going to develop a mind map I was quite excited – I LOVE mind maps! I first learned about creating mind maps as part of a productivity seminar through Franklin Covey and have long used them to plan projects, lectures, whole courses, etc. I even purchased Mind Manager Pro software, which allows you to transfer your terminal observations into tasks in Outlook. Now that’s productivity! My originally planned “branches” for my DE map included institution, technology/delivery, teacher/learner relationship, and students. However, after reading Dr. Moore’s chapter on “Basic Concepts” I realized there is much more to it than my original four branches. Here’s a comparison:

Original Mind Map Branches:
    *Institution
    *Technology/delivery
    *Teacher/learner relationship
    *Students

Final Mind Map Branches (see posted MindMap in artifacts):
    *Sources of knowledge
    *Design of content/courses
    *Delivery of content/courses
    *Interactions with learners
    *Learners
    *Management Systems

In my final mind map I more fully developed the four original concepts, and added the sources of knowledge, design of content/courses and management system. Distance education may be a humanitarian act (Peters) and egalitarian (Holmberg), but it still takes a village to pull it off!

I did take the “Distance Education Aptitude and Readiness Scale (DEARS)” test and apparently I’m ready to rock and roll (70 points). I chuckled when I read the introduction that stated “Perhaps nothing is more true than the old adage that what you get out of something is in proportion to what you put into it.” I developed the first pharmacy practice residency in pain management and palliative care in the world, and I am ALWAYS telling my residents the exact same thing. It’s a VERY hard year for them, but they are amazed at their accomplishments when they are done. I don’t want to waste this opportunity and get through with “good enough” performance. I have a clear vision of how I want to use the information I’m gaining from this program to operationalize my own distance education program.

Last, I did enjoy the MDE orientation and library guide. I’m especially impressed with UMUC’s library services. The resources are quite rich and extensive, and it’s clear the a lot of effort went into developing user guides and tutorials. I am very pleased to have access to this resource.

Well, that’s it for my first reflective journal entry! I look forward to making progress in this course, as well as all the other courses!


Kizlik, B. (2007, January 1). Distance Education Aptitude and Readiness Scale. Retrieved March 5, 2015, from http://www.adprima.com/dears.htm

Moore, M., & Kearsley, G. (2012). Basic Concepts. In Distance education: A systems view of online learning (3rd ed., pp. 1-22). Belmont, CA.: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.