|
|
Educational Technology As Distance Learning
Distance learning has been around a long time in different forms. Its earliest incarnation was probably correspondence courses offered by a variety of state and national public and private institutions and organizations, most often as postsecondary education. In California, the University of California Extension served the state, while LaSalle University extension, located in the Midwest, served the nation. South Africa has provided what is probably the largest such offerings in the world to its diverse citizenry. The scope of UC correspondence courses ranged from high school to undergraduate to post-baccalaureate offerings, usually for credit. The purpose of the correspondence course function has been to extend access to university-level coursework to students of all ages and talents who, for many reasons, do not enroll on campus. California Community Colleges have not been major players in offering correspondence courses for several reasons: The state's residents have enjoyed proximity to a community college campus or satellite center; they could enroll during extended hours and on weekends at low cost; and they did not have to meet admission requirements. The model for a correspondence course is simple. A professor develops a course syllabus; writes lesson plans that are mailed to, completed by, and returned by enrolled students; grades the homework; and awards credit upon the completion of the course. There is little or no face-to-face interaction between professor and students, or other communication, e.g. by telephone or computer. The current catalog of UC Extension correspondence courses displays an ever-widening array of offerings, some of which now involve current educational technology. Still, it is distance learning, in a relatively simple form. Distance Learning in the 1950's The use of broadcast television by and for higher education had great potential -- and great problems! The latter involved issues of what could be televised, by whom, for whom, with what rewards (credit or lifelong learning) how effectively, how cost-effectively, and how well-liked it was by faculty and students. Instructional television was evaluated in a big way in this decade. A study was funded by the Ford Foundation, which saw the potential of televised instruction. Much of the experiment was carried out at what was then San Francisco State College. For educators, the most significant finding was “no significant difference” in achievement when instruction by television was compared with traditional classroom instruction. Was this a win, lose, or draw for instructional television, given faculty and student preferences for modes of instruction, and comparative costs? San Francisco State's endeavor involved a major investment of time and money and a heavy emphasis on research and evaluation of all aspects of the project. However, it apparently had little or no significant impact on the use of instructional television in California colleges and universities. In the late 1950’s, both the UC and what were then the California State Colleges sought significant funding for instructional television, albeit with quite different approaches. The UC system saw the potential for using Nobel Prize-winning faculty and other teachers of worldwide distinction presenting lower division, general education courses to all California undergraduate students, especially those in junior and state colleges. Why not use the best, like Edward Teller teaching freshman physics? Course lectures could be recorded for broadcast and rebroadcast everywhere, at relatively low cost. Chancellor Glenn Seaborg was to provide leadership under this proposal. The State Colleges made quite a different proposal, namely, purchasing broadcast-quality television equipment for use in both television curricula leading to degrees in the field, and for undergraduate course instruction. The equipment was to both enhance traditional instruction and present instruction by both open and dosed-circuit television, on and off campus. The State Colleges proposal prevailed. State funding, largely for television equipment, resulted in the largest-ever contract to acquire broadcast-quality equipment for their campuses. Believing that instructional television had the potential to save money and expand access, the state also provided some financial incentive for colleges to use television as another option for delivering large lower-division course instruction. The outcome of the grand 1950’s experiment was a broadcast television curriculum leading to degrees, accompanied by problems using televised courses in lieu of traditional classroom instruction; development costs, faculty “property rights” pertaining to rebroadcasting, student preferences, and resistance to change. Little was gained for the concept of distance learning as a way to increase access, reduce building new campuses and facilities, or expand offerings on the system's smallest campuses. The Outlook for Distance Learning Now The technology may better meet the needs of adults seeking continuing education and lifelong learning, given higher education's collaboration with other institutions in providing such opportunities. However, the likelihood of technology being used primarily as a tool to enhance traditional instruction, serving the needs of larger numbers of on-campus students and yielding no reduction in the building of new campuses and facilities, remains. Though the explosion of educational technology may well rival or exceed the explosion of knowledge itself in the next few decades, problems will remain about how to use it effectively and at reasonable cost. Administrators have important faculty and staff implications to consider; recruiting and preparing new faculty who will be players in the technology, changes in faculty satisfaction resulting from their new roles, challenges in employment conditions including workload and tenure, inservice education for longtime faculty members, and preparing and assigning paraprofessional staff to work with faculty. Impact of Educational Technology on Tidal Wave II We will have the technology, but we still lack answers to the question of who wants it--among the faculty and, more importantly, among future students. Past experience has proved that we can establish new campuses in underserved areas, but students may not choose to enroll there. Over-enrolled courses can be offered at varied times or during the summer, but students may prefer to wait for favorable hours or regular terms. Will enough future students accept diversion from traditional classroom instruction to courses taught using the new technology? California's community colleges have traditionally outpaced their former college and university counterparts in using educational technology and other innovative approaches to instruction. Tidal Wave II is predicted to send the greatest surge ever of students to community colleges, accompanied by predictions of the need for more campuses and facilities. California's Virtual University has apparently failed to mature along anticipated lines, but collaboration among the state's wide spectrum of postsecondary institutions, using all available kinds of educational technology, appears to be critical in meeting Tidal Wave II needs. Thus the challenge is greatest for community colleges to utilize educational technology to expand both access and opportunity at a time when their mission is becoming more complex and their faculty and students more diverse. Reprinted with permission from the Association of California Community College Administrators. |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
