Closing the distance for distance learners using Web 2.0       

K. Simmons

Abstract

As the need and the convenience of distance education has grown over the years, the pre-requisite for educational institutions and their donors to create and implement courses that fulfil the needs of this emerging market has risen considerably, it is no longer merely a tool applicable principally for the socially disadvantaged (Garrison & Cleveland –Innes, 2005), but has become a fundamental component of the majority of University’s course programmes.

With the Introduction of web 1.0 and its’ current iteration Web 2.0 the prevalence of tools and constantly emerging technologies of which are becoming available for both the institution, and the course participants are now not only closing the distance between the lecturer and students, but between the students themselves.


Introduction  
 

The evolution of distance learning has been termed by Garrison & Cleveland –Innes (2005) as having an industrial and a post-industrial era, where the pre-modern era is described as being preoccupied  with the constraints imposed upon it by distance and the prescribed technologies available in which to bridge the gap between the learner and the institution, and the modern eras focus has been on the emergence of technologies in which to facilitate the transferal of information and predicate communication (Garrison, 2000).

Distance learning dates back some 100 years with the advancements in the delivery service which corresponded with the implementation of correspondence education, this evolution gave the learner flexibility of location, time and access. Then came the introduction of the British Open University whereby a course package could be purchased by the learner extending the reach, and scope of distance education (Garrison & Cleveland –Innes, 2005).  This form of learning encouraged the learner to be autonomous and self-regulated, but at its’ core lacked the ability to provide two way discourse. Thereby the mode of interaction during the correspondence era was purely one between the student and said materials. The model was good at providing the students with information and instruction but lacked the ability to provide a two way dialogue as put forth by Moore (1990, 1991), and it was also unable to facilitate communication and collaboration amongst its correspondence learners (Garrison, 1989).

Some may say that these issues were products of the time and technological constraints, and no matter the degree of in-depth analysis and cogent observation about the various facets limiting students unlocking the full potential of their learning experience , these issues were impossible to resolve due to the these limitations, and much like the actual emergence of distance education was predicated by the rise of the postal service, the factors constraining distance education would only be resolved by another leap in communication technology and an advancement in technological tools such as the internet and its components .

The age of the internet

Before the emergence of the internet the technological tools that were utilised in order to deliver its classes were firstly radio and later television, but due to the limitations of both formats neither was able to provide the user with any form of two way communication or interaction with either student or teacher, this was slightly altered with  the onset of audio conferencing in the 1970s, which enabled students to speak verbally with their course tutors, even though this had to be done at a teleconference centre. The benefits of this form of interaction far outweighed the negatives for the students who were willing to lose partial autonomy for the opportunity to interact with their tutors. But as the internet emerged the ability for two-way correspondence became a reality Evans & Nation saw the web as being part of a new paradigm shift in distance education one where not only had educational design begun to understand its learner, but it also had realised the importance of the students influence upon their own learning (Evans & Nation, 2003).

Asynchronous and synchronous tools utilised online now allowed the distance to be closed between the educator and the student, and it also allowed students to interact amongst themselves enabling the establishment of effective groups of evolving learning communities who had now set before them the ability to exchange, create and conceptualise in an autonomous fashion, direct their own learning and not simply be regurgitations of information fed to them via the institution. This was truly the age where organic learning communities now had the opportunity to spring forth from the well of the burgeoning technological tools provided by the internet.

Web 2.0 and its affects

The establishment of the internet has now made it the de facto portal in which to conduct distance learning education and this has not only been due to its capacity for information gathering but the ability for the learner to go beyond this nuance of the internet through the integration of connectivity, and the potential to combine various communication formats i.e. textual, verbal visual, in which to construct a unified and enriching learning environment.

Web 2.0 should not necessarily be considered the new internet it is still primarily the same internet of yesteryear which deals with the circulation, availability and consumption of information, and uses the same inter-connected network of computers. What the term Web 2.0 is possibly seeking to express is not the perception of a different technology per se but merely an evolution of the portal. Maloney (2007) refers to this point, stating that the internet’s previous use as a reference which provides information has now been transformed with the onset of web 2.0, which fosters critical thinking and collaboration amongst its users. This has effected education in an exponential manner as expressed by Anderson & Dron(2005) who defines the benefits in an educational context, by explaining that the most salient features of Web 2.0 are its qualitative increase in openness and the ability to provide learners with greater control, it also provides the user with the ability to contribute and influence the virtual classroom, allows the growth of external communities input from various sources such as students from past course, and contributes to the evolution of the student, teacher role. Whereby the teacher’s role has been transformed from the purveyor and dominant source of information to one where perform a role as an advisory, stepping away from the role of dominance formally seen in the conventional classroom.

The Tools

The tools associated with e-learning has been the governing factor in this new age of learning online, the capabilities for student and teachers to connect through various forms of media and to communicate and the share of ideas through a plethora of formats has grown exponentially and continues to grow as we speak.

The internet has allowed synchronous and asynchronous communication to be conducted with relative ease and email, forums, audio video streaming and blogs have allowed for asynchronous discussion to be carried out despite the geographical distance of the learner this alongside synchronous  tools such as audio video and web conferencing , we have now not only witnessed the general eroding of the geographical barrier to distance learning but we have also see the ability to bridge the transactional distance amongst learners. Dewey & Bentley (1949). State that transactional distance is the “psychological and communication space that exists between the learners and instructors in distance education” this distance was in part a reference not to geography but to the distance of the relationship between the instructor and the student. Therefore the psychological distance of faced by the distance learner can now be confronted through the use of these tools.

The collaborative effect of Web 2.0 has now enabled students to build communities, the age old problem as faced by distance courses and educators before the dawn of these new technologies are invariably fading away Garrison and Shale (1987) explicitly defined their idea of  two way communication as including the possibility of interaction conducted amongst groups of students (i.e., collaboration). This is now reality tools such as wikis now allow students to build and conduct their own learning environments, share ideas and build sustainable learning communities and as iterated by Neumann & Hood (2009) wikis allow the learner to by-pass the age old model of consuming static course materials in isolation, through using the wiki they now have the opportunity to build knowledge collaboratively in the public space or within a shared wiki.

These collaborative opportunities which commentators such as Evans and Nation (2003) & Holmberg (1989) amongst others stated were imperative for the success of distance  education have now by in large been achieved.

Conclusion 

The development of the internet and its recent technologies have fundamentally influenced various aspects of distance education it has opened many pathways closed previously to the distance learner and has allowed institute the ability access to a greater number of learners and within what is now a global economy the drive for distance education or online components within their curriculum has become a necessity.

The future of online learning may invariably be driven by technology as has been the case throughout its long history. The tantalizing future of virtual learning via virtual classrooms using tools such as ‘Second Life’ or ‘Minecraft’ or students becoming even more autonomous and productive due to future advances all exist on the horizon. Yet despite this clamour for future technologies changing the way online education is conducted and as Peters (2003) cogently expressed.  We often have to look at the pedagogical issues which surround the technologies implemented and how they influence and dictate the pedagogy. He also continues by stating that the pedagogical aim is ultimately for the development of autonomously acting students who are able to initiate, control, and evaluate their work themselves. Therefore the technology in any of its forms is merely part of the battle to produce autonomous and productive students.

Word count: 1635

 Bibliography

Dewey, J., & Bentley, A. (1949). Knowing and the known. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.

Dron, J & Terry Anderson,T. 2009. "Lost in social space: Information retrieval issues in Web 1.5." Journal of Digital Information 10 (2): 475--490.

Evans,T.& Nation,D.(2003). Globalizationand the reinvention of distance education. In M.G. Moore & W.G Anderson (Eds.), Handbook of distance education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 

Garrison, D.R. (1989). Understanding distance education: A framework for the future. London: Routledge.

Garrison, D. R. (2000). Theoretical challenges for distance education in the 21st century: A shift from structural to transactional issues. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 1(1), 1-17

Garrison, D. R., and M. Cleveland-Innes. 2005. Facilitating Cognitive Presence

in Online Learning: Interaction Is Not Enough. American Journal of Distance Education, 19, 3, 133–148.

Holmberg, B. (1989). Theory and practice of distance education. London: Routledge

Maloney, E. (2007). What Web 2.0 can teach us about learning. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 53, B26.

Moore, M. (1990). Recent contributions to the theory of distance education. open learning 5(3), 10-15

Moore, M.G. (1991). Editorial: Distance education theory. The American Journal of Distance Education, 5(3), 1-6

Neumann, D. L. & Hood, M. (2009). The effects of using a wiki on student engagement and learning of report writing skills in a university statistics course. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 25(3), 382-398.