Year: 2021

Throughout the discussion this week, I reflected on the idea of independent learning that I began to look at critically in my course last semester. Looking ahead to next week, it seems I will have the opportunity to further develop these ideas.

We can never truly separate our own lived lives from educational construction. As John Dewey informs us: the educational process is a collaborative reconstruction of experience. Education is a transactional experience between the personal world of the learner (meaning focused) and the shared world of society (knowledge focused). We do not live in a vacuum and are influenced by every experience. Given this, we are constantly learning from others that we interact with. We are all connected by the red string; meaning we vacillate between the teacher and the taught throughout our days. Given this view, personal learning is an important aspect in support of a CoI because CoIs offer the opportunity to question, challenge, diagnose misconceptions, and achieve mutual understanding.

In the sense of independent or dependent learning, I do not feel they are separate. As suggested by Armellini & DeStefani, the elements of CoI overlap even more than originally theorized. Jon Dron (2019) also reflects this belief when he concluded “we are slowly realizing that independence and dependence on others in learning are not mutually exclusive extremes, but multiple facets of the same phenomenon. We are all dependent learners, and this is what enables us to be independent learners in the first place.” Given this way of thinking, I looked at the topic through the idea of a web and the influences that surround us. Through the use of a metaphor, fish and the water they swim in, I concurred that outside influences (our environment from which we have grown) leads us to be influenced in particular ways. We are constantly learning or teaching others that we interact with so therefore, we are never truly independent.

When critically looking at systematic education in the United States, I feel that there is a conflict to this theory demonstrated in the importance (false importance in my opinion) on standardized tests and test scores. Ultimately these tests guide learning and therefore hinder the individuality of educators and learners. That is not to say that all instructors must be the “sage on the stage.” I believe there is a continuum of independence that can be achieved.  When employing the tenets of differentiated instruction, an instructor can provide independent learning tasks while guiding the learning objectives to meet the needs of set curriculum. In a differentiated classroom, “…educators actively plan for students’ differences so that all students can best learn. In a differentiated classroom, teachers divide their time, resources, and efforts to effectively teach students who have various backgrounds, readiness and skill levels, and interests.” (ascd.org) Differentiated instruction relies on the principles of scaffolding and moving through the levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy to meet each student’s capabilities. Tasks begin at the lower levels of remembering and understanding.  Students complete different tasks, based on their interests, at each level and as they complete the activities to a set level of mastery, they can move on to the next level. Students will progress based on their individual capabilities and the teacher acts as a facilitator as each student progresses. Although the objectives of the lessons are set by the overarching curriculum, the tasks allow for student independence as they complete various tasks to meet their learning styles, capabilities, and highest potential. Differentiated Instruction allows both educators and students to recognize the differences in each person’s life experiences and supports learning that is coherent yet can celebrate the uniqueness of each person.

 

References

Armellini, A., & De Stefani, M. (2016). Social presence in the 21st century: An adjustment to the

Community of Inquiry framework. British Journal of  Educational Technology, 47(6), 1202-1216

 

Dron, Jon. (2019) Independent learning. In Moore, M.G. & Diehl, W.C. (Eds.), Handbook of

Distance Education (pp.47-56). New York: Routledge,

https://doi-org.ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/10.4324/9781315296135

 

 

 

Transactional distance has four main components. These components when used together in a systems view of the theory will determine the level of transactional distance. My husband and I are both pursuing degrees in an online setting. I graduated from World Campus with a Master’s degree in Lifelong Learning and Adult Education and now am completing a graduate certificate in Distance Education. My husband is completing his Bachelor’s degree in Nuclear Technologies through Excelsior College.

Looking back on my online learning experiences at World Campus; I can say that courses are designed to offer autonomy and promote social presence. This seems to be accomplished through the variety of assignments we encounter. The use of discussions, journals, group projects, and debates all provide the individual learners with an opportunity to be reflective and independent while also providing the platform for support. Optional readings and video/audio presentations allow for differentiation so students can dig deeper into a particular topic. I felt more connected to my classmates and instructors through World Campus than I did to classmates or instructors that I encountered in face to face graduate work. I found there to be a very limited feelings of transactional distance in my online courses because of the intentional design of our courses.

My husband is completing his degree through Excelsior College and it is a very different experience. His courses are very prescriptive in their discussions. Posts must meet a word count criteria, students must reply to at least three other students, replies are due at particular times (ex. first reply by Tuesday; third reply by Saturday), and primary sources and citations are required. I have found that this lack of leaner autonomy and control has not allowed my husband to have rich dialogue in his courses. Everyone seems too focused on meeting the requirements then partaking in conversational dialogue to further their understanding. This format focuses on the lower levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy; however, the set up misses the opportunity to reach higher level thinking skills.

Balance between the components of dialogue, structure and autonomy seem to be the overarching theme that can provide a learner with a positive or negative experience. If things are too structured and there is no social presence, leaners feel alienated and alone. If structure is high and learner control is low; learners feel that they are being fed information for information’s sake. It is when all three components, and at differing levels, where learners seem to find the highest level of satisfaction because there is a very limited amount if transactional distance.

According to our reading of Chapter 1: Conceptual Framework, TTD is an objectively measurable construct. In support of representing interactions in an objective manner, Robyler & Wienke (2003) developed a rubric to assess purposeful interpersonal interaction. This rubric, with its five elements, is beneficial to instructors and instructional designers in ensuring courses meet the constructs of strong interactions. Below is an example of the rubric known as RAIQDC.

 

References

Mehall, S. (2020). Purposeful interpersonal interaction in online learning: What is it and how is it measured? Online Learning, 24(1), 182-204. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v24i1.2002

Saba, F., & Shearer, R.L. (2017). Transactional Distance and Adaptive Learning: Planning for the Future of Higher Education (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org.ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/10.4324/9780203731819

 

 

The desire for adults to further educate themselves has been an inherent trait for centuries. Dating back to the early 1880’s we saw the emergence of the first correspondence schools. This notion of higher education was further promoted with the passing of the Morrill Act of 1862 establishing land grant universities that provided educational opportunities for people of all backgrounds. (Moore & Kearsley, 2012). Distance education is often divided into generations and those delineations are made by the emerging technologies. After correspondence school, the second generation introduced radio and television, the third generation saw open universities, the fourth generation saw the dawning of teleconferencing, the fifth generation was opened up to the World Wide Web and the Internet. The latest generation is termed Web 2.0.

The common foundation of the evolution of Distance Education is most commonly mapped through the different technological advances, however, Anderson & Dron (2011) take a different approach and look at three eras delineated by pedagogical approaches.  In the debate of which aspect drives distance education, the medium or the theory, the authors embraced both sides of this argument and show how the theory and the technology are intertwined.The authors divide Distance Education into three generations. These generations are driven by pedagogical approaches. The first generation addressed by the authors is the Cognitive-Behaviorist Pedagogy of Distance Education. The second generation is the Social-Constructivist Pedagogy and the third is the Connectivist Pedagogy. Within each pedagogy/generation, the authors explore cognitive, social, and teaching presence; as well as the strengths and weaknesses of this pedagogical approaches.

Distance education has been a media driving force since the pandemic; however, what most students are experiencing is not necessarily true distance education. In an effort to guide educators on what truly constitutes distance education, I compiled a blog post in an effort to help define the educational practices that are at work during these untested times.

What is Distance Learning?

In any field, there are certain words or descriptors that can convey the actions of the areas of that particular field. There are always those definitions that have stood the test of time and are imbedded into the grain of the field itself; and then there are those new jargon words that develop as the field develops and changes with society. Distance education is not immune to this. If anything, given the nature of the technological reliance of distance education and the fast paced world of technology, new definitions emerge quickly. Given this, what are some of the jargon we hear about in distance education?

Four main phrases that have been discussed by scholars and written about in journals are the definitions of distance education, flexible learning, e-learning and mobile learning. Although, they are used interchangeably by many, this is an injustice to the field of distance education.

Distance Education

Let’s first look at distance education. What does it mean? Many scholars have tackled many variations of the meaning. Moore & Kearsely (2012) give a well-rounded background to develop a thorough definition to work with. The most important part of the definition is that distance education is planned learning. It is planned learning that normally occurs in a different place from teaching, requiring special techniques of course design, special instructional techniques, special methods of communication by electronic and other technology, as well as organizational and administrative arrangements. This definition sets forth a clear idea to what distance education entails.

Flexible Learning

Flexible learning, on the other hand, really does not have a set definition. Flexible learning can be looked at as an approach to teaching on the University level that provides students with the opportunity to take greater responsibility in their learning and to be engaged in learning activities and opportunities that meet their own individual needs. In contrast to distance education, flexible learning’s definition seems to lead one to believe it is strictly for a University setting. This definition does not explain how the students can take greater responsibility or how these activities and opportunities present themselves or how they are developed and undertaken. Flexible learning leaves room for much interpretation.

E-Learning

Another term that is quite imprecise is that of e-learning. This definition covers all learning that is delivered electronically. This electronically delivered information can be both based in a classroom in a face-to-face setting or in a distance situation. To that end, e-learning can be seen as a blended form of education. In the case of e-learning, if I were sitting in my classroom on campus and the professor streamed a live lecture; I would have taken part in e-learning. My location would not have been a parameter in e-learning, as I could have easily watched this streaming lecture in the library or my dorm room.

Mobile Learning

Lastly, we look at a new term, that of mobile learning, or m-learning. Mobile learning is basically just what it says learning that takes place on a mobile device. These devices can be mobile phones, tablets, PDA’s, anything that is portable that you can take with you. Again, this is a very broad definition with no insight into what types of lessons are delivered, how interaction occurs, or how well structured these lessons are. According to m-learning, if I look up a how to complete a math equation on my mobile phone by accessing the Internet, I have then taken part in m-learning.

Conclusions

When looking at all four of these definitions, it is clear to me that flexible learning, e-learning and m-learning can all easily fit under the umbrella of distance education. These three types of learning can be utilized in a distance education program but do not constitute true distance education. I feel that the important word here is education. For a program to truly be called a distance education program, very specific attributes must be present: planned learning, course design, communication methods, etc. If this is the case, then the three are not true education just simply learning opportunities.

I believe that distance education is at its core primarily about quality. It is that well-rounded program that will deliver quality educational opportunities to those who might not otherwise be able to benefit from such programs. It is not the simple act of looking up an answer on one’s PDA, watching a live streaming video, or completing a survey on a laptop. For education to take place, it must be both thoughtful and pertinent, it must be planned and organized, and ultimately it must have some type of accountability built in.

 

References

Anderson, T. & Dron, J. (2011). Three Generations of Distance Education Pedagogy. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 12 (3), 80–97. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v12i3.890

Moore, M.G. & Kearsley, G. (2012). Distance education: A systems view of online learning. Belmont, Ca: Wadsworth

 

 

 

Over the course of my academic career, I have had a plethora of theories to examine which has provided me with a strong skillset in research and evaluation. I began my educational career as an elementary school teacher so I built a foundation around pedagogy. Now, that I have moved into adult education, my pedagogical background has served me well with the strong theoretical base that now andragogy can be built on. In Storming The Citadel: Reading Theory Critically, Brookfield asserts Berlak and Berlak’s advice that (1987) “if we as teachers hope to encourage critical thought by others, we must engage in it ourselves. Throughout our teaching careers we must participate in an ongoing, collaborative process of reevaluation of, and liberation from, our taken-for-granted views.” (p.206) It is with this call to engage in continued evaluation and critical thinking of new research that I find the most important connection of theory and practice.

My practical experience with distance education mainly comes in the form of a student. I completed my Master’s degree in LL&ADTED Adult Education through World Campus. I have also participated in virtual professional development courses. While in my position at SUNY Orange, we worked from two separate campuses. It was here that I not only sat in on as a learner in professional development but also designed a distance tutoring program between our two campuses.

SUNY Orange

In the academic support department, we often found our main campus had a broader availability of tutors; both professional and peer. This imbalance often left our Newburgh campus with limited offerings from students seeking extra help for their coursework. Utilizing my knowledge of the pillars of distance education, I was able to design and implement the additional service of distance tutoring to our students. This program allowed for tutors and students on either campus, to engage in tutoring sessions provided through Zoom. Utilizing grant money, I equipped the Centers with laptop computers, portable power banks, and Wacom Boards. The addition these resources made it possible to for tutors to fully engage with their students at a distance. We held training sessions for tutors who were interested in participating in our pilot program. The program was successful and has continued, and strengthened given current circumstances, after my departure. I am so proud of this accomplishment in my time at SUNY Orange as I met with strong resistance to distance offerings and yet we overcame that resistance and was able to provide even more support to our students. It was the practicality of the program built on the strong theoretical pillars of distance education that led to its success.

References

Brookfield, S.D. (1995). Storming the citadel: reading theory critically. In Becoming a critically reflective teacher. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc.