Open Yale Courses

Open Yale courses (2012) consist of almost 40 courses across subject areas such as science, social studies, language arts, and fine arts. I am evaluating the course, Fundamentals of Physics I, which is available at the following URL: http://oyc.yale.edu/physics/phys-200. Simonson, Smaldino, Albright, & Zvacek (2012) define open courseware as “… the publication on the web of course materials developed by higher education institutions and shared with others” (p. 141). This sounds exciting; the world has access to an Ivy League schools basic physics course over the Internet. Unfortunately, these courses were not developed as distance education courses and are severely lacking for the purpose of distance education. Simonson et al and Dabbagh (2007) discourage the routine conversion of existing traditional courses into distance education courses and the Fundamentals of Physics course is a simple video recording of each classroom lecture.

Some efforts Open Yale courses (2012) made to help accommodate the online learner include, breaking each lecture up into several individual topics along with providing a low bandwidth video format, an audio only feed, and lecture transcripts. In addition, all problem set handouts are available for download, there is a brief course syllabus, and through an arrangement with Open Study (n.d.), learners may participate in a study group. These adaptations do improve the distance education dynamics of the course although they fall short of pre-planned and designed for distance education.

Simonson, Smaldino, Albright, & Zvacek (2012) emphasize the need to accommodate for the inherent disconnection between instructor and students as well as amongst students with enriched communications and interaction activities.  Beldarrain (2006) stresses the pedagogical evolution demanded by online learning and cites learner benefits like learning communities, and improved collaboration and interaction. Beldarrain writes, “The versatility of social software and other collaboration tools available today support constructivist environments that seek to motivate, cultivate, and meet the needs of the 21st-century learner” (p. 140). The Open Yale Courses (2012) Fundamentals of Physics course does not strive to augment learner interaction or communication in any significant or beneficial fashion.

I have a personal aversion to videotaping a lecture and posting it online as a learning resource. Videotaped lectures contain many of the distractions that exist in a traditional classroom. In the Fundamentals of Physics course, students are entering the class late causing distractions, which finally cause the professor to instruct late students to not turn in homework and sit at the outer edges of the lecture hall. In addition, for several lectures the instructor has difficulty finding chalk for the chalkboard. In later lectures, the instructor has learned and has the chalk ready on his podium. A well-constructed multimedia learning object can provide the same information more effectively than the recorded lecture by eliminating distractions and extraneous content. Simonson, Smaldino, Albright, & Zvacek (2012) advocate for less instructional content, which consists of only essential information along with providing an enhanced interactive learning experience for students. In a student-centered constructivist learning environment, the instructor facilitates student self-discovery of knowledge.

While the Open Yale courses (2012) might provide significant educational benefit to large populations of learners without other means for detailed instructional presentations, the courses were not planned, designed, or developed as distance education or online courses. Experts conclude that rote videotaping of classroom lectures does not translate to effective distance education (Simonson, Smaldino, Albright, & Zvacek, 2012). In addition, Simonson et al explain that distance education is a system requiring thorough upfront planning prior to designing and developing instructional materials and activities. Because of the innate student-instructor, student-content, and student-student detachment, special planning is required to accommodate the gap in communications and natural feelings of isolation. The redesign of courses to meet the needs of distance learners provides an opportunity to change and improve instructional pedagogy to a student-centered constructivist learning environment.

References

Beldarrain, Y. (2006). Distance education trends: Integrating new technologies to foster student interaction and collaboration. Distance Education, 27(2), 139–153

Dabbagh, N. (2007). The online learner: Characteristics and pedagogical implications. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education [Online serial], 7(3). Retrieved July 20, 2012 from http://www.citejournal.org/vol7/iss3/general/article1.cfm

Open Study. (n.d.). Physics – Fundamentals of Physics, I. http://openstudy.com/study#/groups/Physics - Fundamentals of Physics, I

Open Yale courses. (2012). PHYS 200: Fundamentals of Physics I. Retrieved from http://oyc.yale.edu/physics/phys-200

Simonson, M., Smaldino, S., Albright, M., & Zvacek, S. (2012). Teaching and learning at a distance: Foundations of distance education (5th ed.) Boston, MA: Pearson.

Interactive Museum Tours

The Virtual Museum

A history teacher wants her students to view museum exhibits in a distant city through interactive tours. Additionally, the students need to interact with museum staff and participate during group discussions of individual artwork. Several software applications are available for creating interactive tours; however, the cost of creating and maintaining these learning resources would be cost prohibitive. Simonson, Smaldino, Albright, & Zvacek (2012) emphasize the importance of balance between realistic experience and resource cost. A more cost effective approach would be to conduct virtual field trips utilizing two-way interactive video conferencing technology. Many museums already cater to schools with customizable virtual field trips complete with lesson plans and downloadable resources (Zaino, 2009). 

For example, The Cleveland Museum of Art offers a variety of virtual field trips for K-12 schools that are customizable to meet specific curriculum needs (The Cleveland Museum of Art, 2012). Virtual field trips utilizing interactive video conferencing provides a cost effective method for visiting distant attractions without leaving the classroom. Still, the technology can be expensive, you are limited to the providers schedule and services, and not all facilities provide this service. Another option for virtual museum exhibits is too leverage the Google Art Project, which consists of over 30,000 pieces of art from 150 institutions throughout 40 countries (Google Art Project, n.d.). The Google art Project supports creating custom galleries and slide shows that are sharable with students. When using the Google Art Project, an additional technology is required for student interaction with museum curators. Skype is an inexpensive option for a two-way interactive video communications between a classroom and a distant resource. The Mashantucket Pequot Museum & Research Center uses Skype to interact with students at a distance (Connecticut league of History Organizations, 2012).

A classic and proven application for student interactions such as group critiques is the discussion forum.    Beldarrain (2006) concludes, “The versatility of social software and other collaboration tools available today support constructivist environments that seek to motivate, cultivate, and meet the needs of the 21st-century learner” (p. 140).  Walden University’s program in Instructional Design and Technology is a good example of the successful use of discussion forums in both the instructional and assessment contexts. Andresen (2009) writes, “Making a successful asynchronous discussion is probably the most important aspect for an instructor to consider” (p. 250). For the group critique of individual artwork, the instructor has the capability of providing the right amount of guidance necessary for optimal student performance. 

While my personal experience with virtual field trips in K-12 education has been positive, Zanetis (2010) warns that student believe actual live field trips are better than virtual field trips and students that have experienced the same field trip both virtually and in person overwhelmingly prefer the actual experience. The preference of real over virtual is no surprise but when real is not an option or is cost prohibitive, a virtual field trip is still a viable option; whether using interactive video conferencing technology or web based tools like the Google Art Project.

References

Andresen, M. A. (2009). Asynchronous discussion forums: success factors, outcomes, assessments, and limitations. Journal Of Educational Technology & Society, 12(1), 249-257.

Beldarrain, Y. (2006). Distance Education Trends: Integrating new technologies to foster student interaction and collaboration.Distance Education, 27(2), 139-153. doi:10.1080/01587910600789498

Connecticut league of History Organizations. (2012). Skype used for museum education in Connecticut . Retrieved July 14, 2012 from http://clho.org/skype-used-for-museum-education-in-connecticut/

Google Art Project. (n.d.). FAQs – Google Art Project. Retrieved July 14, 2012 from http://www.googleartproject.com/faqs/

Simonson, M., Smaldino, S., Albright, M., & Zvacek, S. (2012). Teaching and learning at a distance: Foundations of distance education (5th ed.) Boston, MA: Pearson.

The Cleveland Museum of Art. (2012). Retrieved July 13, 2012 from http://www.clevelandart.org/learn/distance%20learning.aspx

Zaino, J. (2009). Field-Tripping Goes Virtual. Instructor, 119(2), 34-36.

Zanetis, J. (2010). The Beginner's Guide to Interactive Virtual Field Trips. Learning & Leading With Technology, 37(6), 20-23.

What is Distance Learning?

The assignment is to define “Distance Learning” but before I start, I need to get some semantics clarified. A number of terms often considered synonymous with distance learning like eLearning, virtual learning, computer-based learning, and distance education confuse the definition (Simonson, Smaldino, Albright, & Zvacek, 2012). Simonson et al define the term “Distance Education” as institutionally based, academic in nature, and emphasized that it was not self-study. This definition excludes legitimate learning methodologies requiring acknowledgment and in need of definition. For these reasons, I choose to differentiate between “Distance Education” and “Distance Learning” with the latter encompassing the wider range of distance learning opportunities not included in the refined definition of distance education.

Tracey & Richey (2005) trace the beginnings of distance education back to the early 1800’s to postal correspondence courses however, others assert Caleb Phillips advertised for the first correspondence course back in 1728 (Ieducation.com, 2012). Regardless of the beginning, the major factors defining distance education were separation between teacher and student and the medium used to transfer instructional content. According to Tracey & Richey, print material was the primary instructional medium for distance education until the early twentieth century. Further, Tracey & Richey point out the social turbulence correspondence courses caused by making educational opportunities available to a population previously not entitled.

Many of the defining factors of distance education have remained consistent over the years, primarily the separation between instructor and student being a delineating component. The evolving components include the instructional delivery medium, instructional content, and methods of communications (Simonson, Smaldino, Albright, & Zvacek, 2012). The evolution of these components is directly related to the development of supporting technologies. New technologies like audio and eventually video recordings contested the predominately print medium for instructional content while new communications technologies like radio, telephone, television, and eventually the Internet provided options beyond the original postal delivery of content and communications (Tracey & Richey, 2005). Arguably, the most significant technological advancement for the proliferation of distance education is the Internet and the World Wide Web (Leonard, 1999).

Distance education today is at a pivotal point with incredible opportunities available in corporate training (Moller, Foshay, & Huett, 2008a), higher education (Moller, Foshay, & Huett, 2008b), and K-12 education (Huett, Moller, Foshay, & Coleman, 2008) that require special attention to program quality; financial motivations do not guarantee quality academic programs. Employed utilizing systematic instructional design methodologies, distance education can rise to meet virtually any educational demand however, wielded carelessly will disillusion both instructors and students causing damage to the credibility of distance education initiatives.

Twenty years ago, I could not anticipate the trajectory technology has taken us and likewise, I cannot predict where it will take us over the next twenty years, although I am certain it will be exciting. Even so, the current opportunities available for distance education seem limitless as long as proper consideration is given to program design. I agree with what Moller, Foshay, & Huett (2008a) posit, distance education will not displace traditional education but will provide occasion to supplement it in powerful ways. My vision for distance education in the K-12 environment is currently enmeshed as a supporting role in traditional classroom instruction due to the difficulties of major change. It may be the great experiment of the twenty-first century to determine how best to make the necessary transformation.

References

Huett, J., Moller, L., Foshay, W. R., & Coleman, C. (2008). The Evolution of Distance Education: Implications for Instructional Design on the Potential of the Web. Techtrends: Linking Research & Practice To Improve Learning, 52(5), 63-67. doi:10.1007/s11528-008-0199-9

Ieducation.com (2012). Distance education: Providing amazing education outlets for students. Retrieved June 29, 2012 from http://www.ieducation.com/distance-education/

Leonard, D. C. (1999). The Web, the millennium, and the digital evolution of distance education. Technical Communication Quarterly, 8(1), 9.

Moller, L., Foshay, W. R., & Huett, J. (2008a). The Evolution of Distance Education: Implications for Instructional Design on the Potential of the Web. Techtrends: Linking Research & Practice To Improve Learning, 52(3), 70-75. doi:10.1007/s11528-008-0158-5

Moller, L., Foshay, W. R., & Huett, J. (2008b). The Evolution of Distance Education: Implications for Instructional Design on the Potential of the Web. Techtrends: Linking Research & Practice To Improve Learning, 52(4), 66-70. doi:10.1007/s11528-008-0179-0

Simonson, M., Smaldino, S., Albright, M., & Zvacek, S. (2012). Teaching and learning at a distance: Foundations of distance education (5th ed.) Boston, MA: Pearson.

Tracey, M. W., & Richey, R. C. (2005). The Evolution of Distance Education. Distance Learning, 2(6), 17-21.