I read with interest (and a good deal of fascination) the three-part article by Moller, Huett, Foshay, and Coleman (2008). As a former student of Leslie Moller, his insights allowed me to gather knowledge about his views, in the same way my posts, as his student, allowed him to gather insights about mine. Moller’s et al. basic premise was that the future of e-learning was dependent on the application of sound instructional design principles. It is somewhat disturbing to note that the authors believe that “…users of e-learning have never encountered a product built according to sound ID principles.” Isn’t this the foundation of all effective teaching and learning?
In contrast, Simonson (n.d.) advocated that instruction must be equivalent, not equal to the structure of a traditional educational setting. He further reflected upon Roger’s s-shaped curve stating that e-learning will start to experience exponential growth whereby supplementing traditional learning experiences, not superseding them.
In comparison, all agreed that access is the proven advantage of distance education. Also, each of the authors believed that simply transplanting the lessons and activities from the traditional classroom and inserting them into the online format will experience little success. E-learning demands re-thinking. It demands a new and innovative approach. It requires the teacher and the student interact and respond in unique and progressive ways.
Neither position, however, addresses the lure of brick and mortar institutions. What is so appealing about their classrooms? What, beyond tradition, continues to draw students into their halls?
Resources:
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.
Simonson, M. (n.d.). Distance education: The next generation. Retrieved September 10, 2009 from the EDUC-7102-2/EDUC-8842-2 Principles of Distance Education Web site: http://sylvan.live.ecollege.com/ec/crs/default.learn?CourseID=3649021&Survey=1&47=5797856&ClientNodeID=984645&coursenav=1&bhcp=1
Simonson, M. (n.d.). Equivalency theory. Retrieved September 10, 2009 from the EDUC-7102-2/EDUC-8842-2 Principles of Distance Education Web site: http://sylvan.live.ecollege.com/ec/crs/default.learn?CourseID=3649021&Survey=1&47=5797856&ClientNodeID=984645&coursenav=1&bhcp=1
I totally agree with your post. E-learning environment is typically for the users who can think outside the box without hesitation. I sometimes catch myself still in the box because I do not know how to think on certain assignments and discussions/think on my professor's level. Distance education is an educational setting that will require intense thinking and a lot of cooperation from everyone.
ReplyDelete