Distance leaning is the process by which students learn course material from a location that is remote or away from the instructor. The technology for delivering distance education evolved over time. As changes in technology took place, the way distance learning is conceptualized has also changed. The literature identifies four stages in the evolution of distance education that are linked to technologies as methods of delivering instruction (Lauzon & Moore, 1989; Moore & Kearsley, 1996). They include the delivery of course material using: correspondence/independent study (first generation), radio/audio study (second generation), broadcast television, videotape, with interaction by telephone, or both delivery and interaction by telephone, satellite, cable or ISDN lines (third generation), and computer networks and computer-based multimedia workstations (fourth generation).
The four stages reflect not only changes in technologies but correspond to differences in the way instructors and learners approach distance education. The first stage interaction is a multistep process that takes a long time to occur and the learner is essentially engaging in self-study. In this stage, the instructor is an absent figure who creates the learning materials and the learner is fairly passive. The second and third stage makes the instructor more personal and the level of control exerted by the learner increases. Depending on the venue, the learner can make menu choices (Pavlik, 1998, as cited in McMillan, 2006). In the final step, technology provides some unique opportunities to enhance the entire process in a way that distinguishes this approach from all previous instructional technologies (Maddux, Johnson, & Willis, 1987). The fourth generation delivery system is referred to by many names such as “Web-based” or “online” education, and for some it has become simply “distance education.” This form of instructional delivery facilitates not only the potential of providing instruction using different modalities, but also providing the potential for truly interactive communication; specifically, communication between instructor and learner can be facilitated to include real time feedback, collaboration between learners, and rapid access to information. The learner has the ability to exert more control over the learning process and work with the instructor to cocreate the learning experience.
Using McMillan’s model of user-to-document interactivity the evolution in distance education changed in two significant ways. The level of learner-perceived control increased and the learner became more of a contributor in the learning process (McMillan, 2006, p. 213). Again, using McMillan’s model, the first stage in the evolution of distance education was the providing of a packaged content in which communication essentially was unidirectional, from the instructor to the learner. In the second and third stage, content became more on-demand as learners could exert more control over when, where, and what content to focus on. Finally, the fourth stage allows the instructor and learner to cocreate the content and learning experience. It is this unique combination of elements that makes the fourth stage of distance education truly interactive.
Even though advances in technology have enhanced interaction, the positive effects of technology are still debatable. As researchers explore this ever-changing topic, there is a need to clarify the effectiveness and appropriateness of techniques. The importance of doing this is not only to facilitate research in distance education but, as technological advances take place, the use of these technologies to facilitate distance education will increase and penetrate schools. One line of debate focuses upon the impact of instructional media. Clark (1983) has noted that instructional media are just vehicles used to deliver instruction and do not affect the learning process. However, Cobb (1997) argues that different media have an impact on learning but do not produce different learning outcomes. Jonassen, Campbell, and Davidson (1994) propose that media and technologies are not just methods of content delivery, but also part of context. The issue of context adds to the complexity of the debate by including such topics as learner characteristics, instructional design, learning environment, learning context, and the social context factors in delivery systems.
Today there are many different technological tools available to teach online. Despite the various technologies, there are clearly many shared benefits of online learning using computer-mediated communication (CMC). These include: convenience; elimination of space, time and geographical constraints; increased peer interaction; deeper critical reflection; and the ability to utilize effectively internet resources. These benefits were identified and documented by several researchers suggesting that they are truly benefits of online education (Berge, 1995; Harasim, 1987; Hiltz 1994; McCreary & Van Duren, 1987). In addition to the documented advantages of technology, student expectation and demand for online classes is growing. According to the report Entering the Mainstream: The Quality and Extent of Online Education in the United States, 2003–2004 (Allen & Seaman, 2004), the number of online students was expected to reach 2.6 million by fall of 2004. The demand for distance education places a need for improving online delivery to meet the diverse needs of these students and to meet student expectations for this educational venue.
Unfortunately, progress in taking full advantage of online instructional delivery is obstructed by misconceptions instructors have concerning this mode of instruction. One misconception concerning online teaching is that it is not possible to establish the same level of effective communication as experienced in face-to-face interaction. Feenberg (1989) states that Western cultures need face-to-face interaction to assure that learning takes place. Instructors’ comfort with classroom instruction rely upon the various channels of feedback provided by this method and equate that feedback as evidence that learning has taken place.
Another misconception is that one can easily create a successful online course by placing traditional classroom tools and materials online. The assumption is that all teaching modalities are functionally equivalent. This view provides little recognition of either the unique opportunities or the unique challenges that are provided by different learning venues. According to Wiesenberg (1999) what is needed is not a simple retooling of the old “how to” of instruction but a whole new approach to teaching online. Hopefully, these misconceptions and others can be overcome by taking a new approach to online instruction.
A new approach would have to focus upon the communication of online course material to facilitate student understanding. There are two types of communication in an online course environment: asynchronous and synchronous. Asynchronous communication is one-way communication that often takes place through e-mail and discussion boards. Synchronous communication takes place in real time by use of various technologies. Often, it includes lecture followed by discussion. Each approach has its advantages and can be differently applied to achieve a variety of desired outcomes.
Asynchronous communication can facilitate a contemplative discussion and detailed exchange of ideas among students. According to Garrison (1997), the reflective nature of asynchronous communication is different and has more depth than synchronous communication. Learners in an asynchronous environment can reflect on statements made by the instructor and fellow students. They can take the time to research and craft their responses and by so doing engage deeper into the conversation. In comparison, Garrison argues that synchronous communication is a less structured form of communication.
However, the study of some disciplines benefit from real-time communication. An example of this is the study of foreign language. Students need to practice a spoken language in real time and so will most likely learn the subject matter more proficiently through some form of synchronous communication. In fact, Murphy and Coffin (2003) researched the implications of language instruction using a computer-based synchronous communication method. They reported a tendency of students to use the discussion tool even though the oral tool was available. Unfortunately, this behavior ostensibly defeats the purpose of using a technology that applies a multiple-modality learning environment. However, they attributed this behavior to technical difficulties reported by students in using the microphone and the oral tools in general. This study is interesting in that it explored a new and different use of technology. In the past, the use of synchronous communication was focused on MOO, MSN, and audio/video conferencing. These tools were not integrated directly into the course. Cox, Carr, and Hall (2004) state that “online chats, or any other form of CMC, should be integrated into the course design otherwise students will not see a need to participate” (p. 191). The integration of synchronous communication was essential in the case reported by Murphy and Coffin. Nevertheless, the use of multiple modes of synchronous communication for language instruction remains an exciting yet inadequately tested possibility.
Despite advances in technology and depth of communication, or degree of interaction, Jonassen et al. (1994) argue that context plays a significant role in the process of effective instruction. To engage the students, the instructor needs to carefully design questions to facilitate thinking and discussion. Advanced learning occurs when the learner develops schemas from well-developed constructs that are interconnected. To do this, the instructor must guide the development of the learner's thought process. Essentially, the basics of sound pedagogy are still paramount. The method of instruction is not a substitute for sound teaching techniques and instructor preparedness.
Shotsberger (2000, p. 54) explores the concept of context and takes this issue to the next step by exploring the social context of communication. He finds that social and human encounters are missing from asynchronous communication. This mode of communication is missing a variety of cues that are found in face-to-face communication. Communications in this environment are somewhat disjointed and lack a certain flow. He states that “a group of teachers chatting together can accomplish in one hour what it takes a week to accomplish in a week to accomplish using an asynchronous discussion board.” There is great value to the synchronous environment in that it reduces the time it takes for small groups of people to reach a shared understanding. It is within energetic give and take that shared meaning is developed and participants can engage in synergy among themselves.
Finding the right educational tools to achieve a specific learning outcome and using those tools properly can result in greater student success. This statement is all the more true for a distance education environment in which instructors and learners are physically separated from each other. In any case, learning objectives should dictate the proper instructional methodology and not the availability of a specific technology. It is therefore predictable that one form of instruction or communication over another best meets the learning goals of the class. The key then is for research to uncover systematically the instances in which one form of communication is more effective than the other.
Research needs to distinguish between student participation and comprehension while using synchronous versus asynchronous tools. Specifically, it is hypothesized that asynchronous communication is most useful for topics and issues that require the student to engage in deep contemplative and reflective thought. The student can use this approach to craft well thought out and researched responses. This may prove more useful for classes in which students are required to delve in more depth on a narrow topic. Synchronous communication is most useful when there is a short timeline, a need for consensus, or for coordinating events or an extensive group project. Specifically, the use of synchronous tools will be associated with positive learner perception if a course requires frequent feedback or creating shared decisions with the instructor or others in the class.
“SYNCHRONOUS COMMUNICATION IS MOST USEFUL WHEN THERE IS A SHORT TIME, A NEED FOR CONSENSUS, OR FOR COORDINATING EVENTS OR AN EXTENSIVE GROUP PROJECT.”
About the authors
