Part I of the article outlines the pattern for use in distance education that currently exists in our society. Corporations have been the biggest implementers of distance education, because it can drastically reduce the cost of training employees. Distance learning, for example, can use staff in California to teach and train staff in New York. A benefit as well is that once the system is established, it becomes a matter of updating and maintaining it which reduces the cost. One issue at stake is that there are simply not enough qualified personnel to develop quality e-programs, compared to the demand for this type of program. The design of e-learning differs from traditional instruction, and so far a great deal of the e-learning sites where not developed with these differences in mind.
Part II takes about instructional design for e-learning as it pertains to higher education. He begins by taking about the changing demographics of college students, who a large portion is becoming students who are career changers or other “non-traditional” learners. For many of these students, traditional programs simple do not work for people who have to maintain school, family, and career. Colleges are trying to tap into this market by expanding their e-learning programs. The issue becomes is that many of these instructors are challenged by a new set of pedagogical issues that come with the medium of teaching. The challenge is between balancing effectiveness with recreating a meaningful classroom experience. There are also challenges in terms of time it takes to develop this type of instruction compared to traditional means, fear of student evaluations, and the stereotype that surrounds these types of courses.
Part III addresses how, so far, K-12 schools have not tapped into the opportunities that distance learning has. For example, small districts and schools can use e-learning as a way to expand the curriculum and course offerings in a meaningful way. It also offers opportunities for students who have struggled in traditional classrooms, and increases a parents view of assignments, resources, etc.
Moller, L Foshay, W., & Huett, J. (2008, May/June). The Evolution Of Distance Education: Implications For Instructional Design On The Potential Of The Web (Part 1: Training And Development). TechTrends, 52(3), 70-75.
Moller, L Foshay, W., & Huett, J. (2008, May/June). The Evolution Of Distance Education: Implications For Instructional Design On The Potential Of The Web (Part 2: Higher Education). TechTrends, 52(4), 66-70.
Huett, J., Moller, L., Foshay, W & Coleman, C. (2008, September/October). The Evolution Of Distance Education: Implications For Instructional Design On The Potential Of The Web (Part 3: K12). TechTrends, 52(5). 63-67.
3 comments:
Rachel -- You hit upon a point that I feel was noted throughout the articles and videos; which is the fact that the field of instructional design desperately needs more individuals who are educated in the techniques of distance education content creation and delivery. Moller, Foshay, and Huett (2008) note this is the case with their argument: "As in business training, most of the development work in distance education is being done by faculty with no formal training in teaching of any kind, not to mention training in ID or any of the related e-learning fields" (p. 67). In addition, Huett, Moller, Foshay, and Coleman (2008) reinforce this notion when they state that "In terms of instructional design, teachers (if they are trained at all in ID theory and practice) are trained to design instruction for the traditional classroom. Presupposing that this training is sufficient to create solid, pedagogically sound, online instruction is a fatal flaw in the process. Expecting teachers to be instrutors, content experts, distance education instructional designers, and technology experts, in addition to their other responsibilities, is asking too much" (p. 65). I very much agree with the positions taken by the authors and find that of paramount concern is that we must be prepared to educate ourselves and our colleagues about the nature of and the techniques associated with distance education.
Moller, L Foshay, W., & Huett, J. (2008, May/June). The evolution of distance education: Implications for instructional design on the potential of the web (Part 2: Higher education). TechTrends, 52(4), 66-70.
Huett, J., Moller, L., Foshay, W & Coleman, C. (2008, September/October). The evolution of distance education: Implications for instructional design on the potential of the web (Part 3: K12). TechTrends, 52(5). 63-67.
To a fellow Ailurophile - But traditional learners can enjoy DE too. Do you agree? What creates "non-traditional" learners? Were we all not non-traditional learners when faced with specific teachers at one time or another? I learned using traditional methods throughout my first degrees, (BS, MBA, MAT) and did not even consider DE until I found a PhD program in educational technology. Walden was one of the only schools to offer that degree. So, my choice for DE was not made via the learning style, but the program being offered. DE was the only method available. Now, I don't believe I would ever subject myself to another brick-and-mortar classroom for learning. Given the opportunities of DE, do you believe that others will follow suit?
I too will never go back to a physical classroom again - at least for my own learning. I teach in a public school, and so many times I see that we have all the tools for DE at our fingertips, and we "play" at it to a degree. We could do so much more for our students if we could use DE in a district wide setting to share talents. Again, we need training for our teachers - even if it is just us training them one person at a time.
Post a Comment