Distance Education: Ready and Willing to Serve the Underserved? Free

The distance education community has not come to a general consensus on the definition of distance education. According to Shale (1990), “Distance education is beset with a remarkable paradox—it has asserted its existence, but it cannot define itself” (p. 333). Moore (1993) lamented, “There is no national policy, nor anything approaching a consensus among educators of the value, the methodology, or even the concept of distance education” (p. 4). In 2003, the Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT), recognizing the need for a standard definition of distance education, issued a monograph that posed a definition of distance education as “institution-based, formal education where the learning group is separated and where interactive telecommunications systems are used to connect learners, resources, and instructors” (Schlosser & Simonson, 2003, p. 1). Though posing this new definition, the authors acknowledged that different perspectives of distance education result in different definitions and that their “definition is not the only one and certainly not the first offered for distance education” (p. 3). As recently as Spring 2003, members of AECT’s Distance Learning Division debated the boundaries of the field. Some held the position that the distance learning term was outmoded in a society characterized primarily by “blended” scenarios in which traditional classroom instruction is supplemented with varying degrees of distance instruction. This article explores the notion that the multiple and changing definitions of distance education can drive the practice and research in the field in a direction that can either disadvantage a large segment of the population or embrace a segment that advanced technologies have traditionally disadvantaged.

Definitions of a field are important because they can reflect as well as drive practice in that field (Seels & Richey, 1994). In 1995, Holmberg defined distance education as:

In contrast, McIsaac and Gunawardena (1996) defined distance education as “structured learning in which the student and instructor are separated by time and place. It relies heavily on technologies of delivery so much that research has reflected rather than driven practice” (p. 403). Simonson and Schlosser (1995) offered a third definition:

The first two definitions are similar but have different foci. Holmberg’s (1995) definition draws attention to the targeted distance learner—busy adults attracted to distance education because of its time and place independence—while McIsaac and Gunawardena’s (1996) definition emphasizes the role technology plays in the delivery of distance education. According to Hanson, et al. (1997), the Simonson and Schlosser (1995) definition represents the future of distance education when “maturing technologies” will make the concepts of distance and time relatively unimportant in distance education (p. 3). Schlosser and Simonson (2003) acknowledge that “recent definitions [of distance education], enabled by new interactive technologies, stress education that takes place at the same time but in a different place” (p. 38). These new definitions exploit the synchronous activities made possible by new interactive technologies requiring highbandwidth Internet access (e.g., desktop videoconferencing). These technologies provide the ability to deliver traditional classroom environments to students in geographically different locations. It is becoming increasingly common for instructors to conduct online courses using technology tools that allow them to deliver real-time Web-based audio and/or video lectures supported with multimedia presentations created with Microsoft PowerPoint or a similar software product. Students, in turn, interact with each other and with the instructor in real-time using a text-, audio-, or videobased synchronous chat or conferencing system (Kim, Orey, & Tallman, 2001).

If Hanson, et al. (1997) and Schlosser and Simonson (2003) are correct and new definitions of distance education continue to stress education that takes place at the same time but in a different place, then distance education soon will not have the key characteristics of time and place independence that Holmberg’s (1995) definition cites as a prime reason busy adults are attracted to it. Further, these new definitions will be based on advanced highbandwidth technologies that current research shows are more likely to be found in highlyeducated, high-income homes than in less-educated, low-income homes (Department of Commerce, 2002). This possible future scenario presents two questions for the distance education community. First, how will the educational needs of the population of “busy adults with professional and social commitments” who require both time and place independence be served? Second, how will the educational needs of the less-educated, low-income population without access to highbandwidth technologies be served?

When considering distance education for busy adults, it is important to understand the population that comprises the category. For simplicity’s sake, Table 1 presents two categories of busy adults: white collar workers and blue collar workers. White collar workers are further categorized as professional and clerical/ administrative. Blue collar workers are further categorized as skilled and unskilled. The “white collar” subgroup typically has the best access to the “new” distance education. These workers are more likely to have computers on their desks and are more likely to be employed in occupations that provide them the option to take an hour during the day to log onto a synchronous (real-time) class session (Department of Commerce, 2002). Alternatively, these workers are more likely to have standard daily work hours that allow them to take a fixed hour in the evening for synchronous class sessions offered at night. These workers also are more likely to work for companies that provide company-sponsored distance courses that are specifically tailored to their needs and interests (Schrum & Benson, 2000a; 2000b). Given these characteristics, “white collar” workers are more likely to be able to complete a time-dependent course of distance study that requires high-bandwidth Internet access.

It is not clear that “blue collar” workers have the same capability. These workers, especially the unskilled, are more likely to be employed in low-wage jobs that do not provide the flexibility to take an hour off in the middle of the day to log onto a synchronous class session. They also are more likely not to have on-the-job or at-home access to computers and the Internet. Evening synchronous sessions are more likely a problem with these learners as well, as many of them are shift workers whose primary work hours are in the evening (Matus-Grossman & Tinsley-Gooden, 2001). Distance education as defined by Holmberg meets the needs of these workers; new definitions such as the one by Simonson and Schlosser (1995) do not.

Welfare recipients affected by the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) fall into the Holmberg’s (1995) category of “busy adults” for whom distance education could provide a viable option for postsecondary educational access. PRWORA promotes work as the desired outcome for welfare recipients and restricts postsecondary education as an allowable work activity (Dann-Messier, 2001). The current law requires that states have 50 percent of their adult welfare populations involved in activities classified as work for at least 30 hours a week (Kent, 2002).

Research conducted by the Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation indicates that these new welfare workers typically are employed in low-wage jobs with few or no benefits; and the jobs require nontraditional hours (evenings, weekends) and lack a fixed schedule (Matus-Grossman & Tinsley-Gooden, 2001). Among the findings of a 1999 survey of 5200 families and individuals who had left welfare since 1996 were: 1) 58% had family wages below the poverty line and, 2) the only group likely to escape poverty by their earnings alone was those with at least a twoyear postsecondary or vocational degree (Children’s Defense Fund, 2000). It is clear that PRWORA has achieved its goal of putting many welfare recipients to work, but it has not moved them out of poverty; postsecondary education has accomplished that feat.

Other research shows the importance of postsecondary education. For the year 2000, workers with less than a high school education had a median income of $18,953; workers with a high school diploma earned $27,666, and workers with at least a bachelor’s degree had a median income of $53,457 (Department of Commerce, 2001). In a report that compared the skills of welfare recipients to current job requirements, Carnevale and Desrochers (1999) found that 32% of the jobs created through 2006 would require skills similar to those acquired with a bachelor’s degree. Hecker (2001) found that occupations requiring postsecondary education will account for 42% of the job growth from 2000 to 2010. This research clearly shows that, while work gets individuals off the welfare rolls, education helps them become self-sufficient (Institute for Women’s Policy Research, 2002). Unfortunately, the PRWORA work requirements and resulting child care and transportation concerns limit welfare recipients’ ability to access the postsecondary education they need to lift themselves above the poverty level.

Educational Opportunity Centers (EOCs), authorized in 1972 under the Higher Education Act, facilitate access to higher education for low-income adults from families in which neither parent attained a college degree. In 2001, EOCs served over 158,000 participants, more than half of whom participated in welfare-to-work programs or received public assistance (Dann-Meisser, 2001). Dann-Meisser recommended that EOCs encourage “innovative approaches” to provide postsecondary access to participants. Matus-Grossman and Tinsley-Gooden (2001) identified distance education programs as an educational option for lowwage workers who, because of work requirements, need flexibility in when they attend classes. Distance programs also would relieve the transportation and child care concerns many low-wage workers face.

While the time- and place-independent features of distance education make it a possible savior for the low-income worker, this student brings challenges to the distance environment. In a review of the literature related to student retention, Thayer (2000) found that low-income students from families in which neither parent completed postsecondary education are among the least likely students to be retained through degree completion, even when controlling for academic ability. Basing his position in Tinto’s (1998) work on learning communities and his own personal experience providing academic support services to low-income students, Thayer encouraged academic institutions serving such students to promote learning environments that provide a supportive social community integrated with a strong academic focus; such communities have been shown to positively influence retention of the low-income, first-generation college student.

Providing access to postsecondary education for the working poor presents a challenge and an opportunity for distance educators. The opportunity lies in the growing body of research on virtual learning communities (Johnson, 2001; Rovai, 2000). Distance education, specifically online distance education, has the ability to provide effective learning communities using synchronous and asynchronous Internet technology tools. If traditional campus-based learning communities have been shown to positively influence the retention of low-income students, then these students provide an opportunity to apply distance concepts of learning communities in ways that may be life-changing. Researchers can ask, and answer, the question: Can virtual learning communities provide the social and academic support that low-income workers need to be successful in distance postsecondary study?

The challenge facing distance educators seeking to serve the low-income, traditionally underserved worker lies in an unexpected place: the minds of the underserved worker and those that currently serve his or her educational needs. A recent survey of EOC program directors identified three barriers that may inhibit these learners from enrolling in online study (Benson, 2003):

1. The low level of Internet and computer access held by these learners;

2. The low level of digital literacy held by the learners and their program directors; and

3. The belief of program directors that these learners need the personal interaction that can only be provided through traditional face-to-face instruction.

In the previous Administration, many federal and state dollars were directed to addressing Barrier 1 and, while progress was made, there is still work to be done before the working poor reach parity with the rest of American society when it comes to computer and Internet access (Department of Commerce, 2002). Nationally, attention is being focused on Barrier 2, with the understanding that access to technology tools is only the beginning; learners must know how to effectively use the tools in order to reap their emancipatory benefits (Schon, Sanyal, & Mitchell, 2002). Barrier 3 is closely related to Barrier 2, but different from it. EOC program directors and their low-income clients do not fully recognize the potential of distance learning to serve as an appropriate and effective vehicle for the attainment of postsecondary education. It is expected that as these learners and program directors obtain a higher level of digital literacy, they will begin to see the empowering capabilities of digital technology tools. Researchers and practitioners of distance education can assist with this education by 1) involving these learners and program directors in research projects that explore the application of distance technology tools to meet the postsecondary access needs of low-income workers and, 2) disseminating the research findings broadly to policymakers and community activists as well as to fellow academics. The search for research sites will be time-consuming but worthwhile. A recent search found a Nevada-based EOC that reports 500 low-income working students enrolled in online postsecondary study and a full online postsecondary program in Maryland that strictly targets low-income populations.

The Department of Commerce has fully documented the digital divide, the failure of underrepresented groups to benefit from the digital revolution (Department of Commerce, 1995; 1998; 1999; 2000; 2002). Learning over the Internet, which was once thought to be a way to provide learning for the masses, quickly became learning for the privileged—those with access and those already educated. Perez and Foshay (2002) recognized the latter: “Most reports of distance applications focus on academically accomplished learners” (p. x). For this reason they undertook a project to explore the questions and challenges of implementing successful distance learning math courses for postsecondary learners who were not academically accomplished, the learner enrolled in remedial, developmental math courses. Following Perez and Foshay’s example, more distance education researchers and practitioners must seek to expand the boundaries of distance education to include those traditionally underserved by advanced technologies. The attainment of postsecondary education for the working poor is essential if this group of citizens is to achieve their potential and become fully participating members of American society. While distance education may not serve the needs of all of these citizens, the distance door needs to be opened to them as an alternative point of educational access. For many, it will be the only point of access that can be integrated into their lifestyles. The challenge for distance educators today is to seek solutions for the traditionally underserved while still exploiting the capabilities of the advanced technologies that are typically late in coming to this group. Future definitions of distance education should embrace both goals.