Online Distance Learning - Essay Example

Table of Contents Table of Contents 1 Introduction 2 2 Benchmarks and Recommendations for Online Distance Learning 2 2 al Support 3 2.2 Student Support 3 2.3 Online Course and Program Information 4 2.4 Library Training 4 2.5 Technical Support and Training 5 2.6 Student Questions and Complaints 5 2.7 Faculty Support 5 2.8 Technical Assistance For Faculty 6 2.9 Training and Mentoring 6 2.10 University-supplied Written Resources 7 2.11 Evaluation & Assessment 7 2.12 Evaluation Process 7 2.13 Collection of Data to Evaluate Program Effectiveness 8 2.14 Course Development 8 2.15 Learning Materials 9 2.16 Active Learning 9 2.17 Teaching/Learning 10 2.18 Interaction 10 2.19 Feedback 10 2.20 Instructions for Research and Assessment of Materials 11 2.21 Course Structure 11 2.22 Student Access to Information and Supplemental Course Materials 12 2.23 Access to Virtual Library 12 Welcome 13 2.24 Attrition and Retention 13 3 Conclusion 14 4 References 15 1 Introduction In 1995, the National Center for Education Statistics (1997) reported that only one third of higher education institutions offered distance education courses. In 1999, researchers found that 85% of colleges and universities planned to offer primarily online, distance learning courses by 2002 (Distance Learning may soar, 1999). Many traditional colleges and universities are expanding course offerings to include several courses and degrees available entirely online (Robertson & Stanforth, 1999). The increased interest in distance learning has given rise to the imperatives of identifying the componential elements of quality distance learning offerings. Within the context of the stated, the IHEP (2000) examined existing benchmarks, guidelines, and principles that addressed quality online learning. The examination resulted in a list of 24 benchmarks that are deemed essential to quality online distance learning. Proceeding from the above stated, this research will evaluate two distance learning programs using the 24 benchmarks referred to in the above. This analysis will show that even though Phoenix University's online programs are very well developed, they fall short of Athabasca's. 2 Benchmarks and Recommendations for Online Distance Learning Benchmarks and recommendations for online distance learning were developed by many sources (ADEC, 2001; AFT, 2000; IHEP, 2000). The guidelines represent institutional and faculty controls over many aspects of distance learning and included: (a) program quality and standards; (b) faculty support; (c) student services; (d) evaluation and assessment; (e) role and mission of the university; (f) access to learning resources; (g) quality of faculty; (h) student interaction with faculty and peers; and (i) a comprehensive technology plan. 2.1 Institutional Support The institutional support benchmarks were defined as: (a) a documented technology plan that included electronic security measures to ensure that the validity, quality and integrity of the information; (b) the technology was as failsafe and reliable as possible; and (c) the existence of a centralized system to maintain and support the technology infrastructure. As regards both Phoenix and Athabasca, no information was provided on either website regarding institutional support. 2.2 Student Support According to the MEP 2000 student support benchmarks for online distance learning were: (a) the availability of information about courses and programs; (b) hands-on training and information for students on the library and its resources; (c) the availability of technical support, instructions on technology, and tutorials; and (d) a system in place to quickly address student questions and complaints with regards to student services. As relates to Phoenix University, the website mentioned the factor of student support but did not clarify the type of support offered. In direct comparison, Athabasca emphasised technology orientation courses, program orientation courses and additional training and support for all enrolled students. 2.3 Online Course and Program Information Krauth and Carbajal (2000) described several aspects of student services that should be available in a convenient and easy to navigate portion or the institution's website. Admissions information should have included a description of the admissions process, requirements, deadlines, and an online application. Financial aid information should clearly explain the cost of attendance, the application process for financial aid, all financial aid policies, and online student loan. Registration needed to include a description of the registration process, a description of all registration methods, clearly defined policies, course descriptions, a course search function, and online registration. (Buchanan, 2002). It is important to note that both universities satisfy the requirements of this benchmark. There is, however, an important differences. The Athabasca website is very well designed and accordingly, easy to navigate. The Phoenix website is not and, indeed, does not even have a search site function. 2.4 Library Training Cervone and Brown (2001) suggested that libraries develop and implement online tutorials and quick access guides for all users. Bryant (2001) also suggested that libraries have a technical support person on staff to address technology issues related directly to online library access. As shall be revealed and discussed at a later stage, Phoenix does not have a virtual library and therefore, does not provide library training. Athabasca has a very well developed virtual library and provides students with library training. 2.5 Technical Support and Training Researchers found that students would not be able to successfully participate in a distance learning course unless they were comfortable and proficient in the delivery technology (Hillman, Willis, & Gunawardena, 1994). To help students become comfortable and proficient with the technology interface, universities should have provided instructional activities that gave the learner opportunities to learn the technology and orientation sessions and tutorials on Internet and online library research (Hillman, Willis, & Gunawardena, 1994). As earlier noted, Athabasca, unlike Phoenix, emphasises its technical support and training programs. 2.6 Student Questions and Complaints Krauth and Carbajal (2000) recommended that students have access to a real person during business hours. Researchers suggested that students be provided with a list of contact names and phone numbers of the individuals to contact in each of the following departments, admissions, financial aid, registration, orientation, advising, technical support, and library services (Buchanan, 2002). Both universities claim to provide the aforementioned. 2.7 Faculty Support Faculty training and support are two important elements in effective distance learning. IHEP (2000) identified the following areas for faculty support in online courses: (a) the need for technical assistance for faculty; (b) assistance and assessment during the transition to online course delivery; (c) training and peer mentoring throughout the entire course, and (d) university-supplied written resources to address student use of electronically accessed data. Gunawardena (1990) and Olcott and Wright (1995) both stressed the need for faculty support and development for individuals teaching in the distance learning format. No information on either website allowed for evaluation according to this benchmark. 2.8 Technical Assistance For Faculty Researchers also found that faculty needed to be skilled in the use of computer technologies and creating appropriate interaction between faculty and students (Cuffman & McRae, 1996). A team approach to course development, including instructors, instructional designers, and technology support staff provided for effective course development (Frieden, 1999; Hesketh, 2001). Machanic (2001) recommended that universities should provide faculty teaching online, periodic technology use updates to enhance technology understanding and use. No information on either website allowed for evaluation according to this benchmark. 2.9 Training and Mentoring Machanic (2001) found that distance-learning faculty should have been provided with opportunities to learn about effective course planning, appropriate instructional methods, and student learning style and motivation. Faculty needed to be trained and assisted on the technologies of come delivery, distance learners, and on adapting instructional design and teaching methods to best fit the delivery vehicle (Frieden, 1999; Machanic, 2001). No information on either website allowed for evaluation according to this benchmark. 2.10 University-supplied Written Resources Frieden (1999) stated that universities needed to supply instructors with technical manuals for online learning. Additionally, instructors needed to have materials describing and demonstrating online instructional design issues (Frieden). Faculty should have had information on the institution's standards for online course design (Frieden). No information on either website allowed for evaluation according to this benchmark. 2.11 Evaluation & Assessment Belanger and Jordan (2000) identified several benefits of evaluating distance learning environments. First, evaluation was the only way to determine to what degree, if any, instructional objectives have been met. Additionally, evaluation determined if there has been a return on investment. Finally, it could have provided valuable feedback so that the program can be improved (Belanger & Jordan). No information on either website allowed for evaluation according to this benchmark. 2.12 Evaluation Process Van Slyke, Kittner, and Belanger (1998) developed a model for formative evaluation of distance learning. The model examined four characteristics of a distance education course: learner, institution, course, and distance learning. Learner characteristics included motivation and technical skills of the student. Institutional characteristics included university objectives, delivery mechanisms, and support structures. Course characteristics included converting only appropriate courses to the distance learning format. Finally, the distance learning characteristics addressed the level and type of technology of the student and availability of access to a quiet study area. No information on either website allowed for evaluation according to this benchmark. 2.13 Collection of Data to Evaluate Program Effectiveness Buchanan (2002) recommended that universities conducted ongoing needs assessments of distance learners. Students should have been surveyed before, during, and after taking an online course. The student questions, concerns, and needs should have been evaluated, addressed, and distributed to stakeholders (Buchanan). ACRL (2000) recommended that libraries track student use and survey students to monitor and assess library usage. Universities needed to track enrolment and registration statistics and publish the results in a distance-learning fact book (Frieden, 1999). A Google search indicated that Athabasca University has conducted and published several such researches while Phoenix has not. Added to that Athabasca allows public access to the said reports. 2.14 Course Development The course development benchmarks addressed course design principles that ensured that an online course would meet the same requirements and learning outcomes as a traditional face-to-face course. Bennett and Green (2001) cautioned that "Technology will not magically transform a poorly developed course into a stimulating learning experience" 63.4). However, researchers found that in some cases, distance learning enhanced the learning outcomes due to increased writing and self-reflection necessitated by the computer medium (Mulligan & Geary, 1999). The course development benchmarks required faculty to use desired learning outcomes and minimum standards for course development, design, and delivery to determine how the course will be disseminated (IHEP, 2000). The next benchmark requires the instructor to review learning materials to ensure that they meet program and course standards. The final benchmark requires instructors to develop courses that have students engaged in analysis, synthesis, and evaluation as a part of the course requirements (IHEP). No information on either website allowed for evaluation according to this benchmark. 2.15 Learning Materials Learning materials for distance students needed to be equivalent or superior to those in a face-to-face environment. Instructors needed to be aware of copyright issues and how transmission of materials affects its appearance for the student (Cervone & Brown, 2001). Buchanan (2002) stated that all electronically reproduced materials needed to be of superior graphical quality to ensure that all learners can view them. No information on either website allowed for evaluation according to this benchmark. 2.16 Active Learning Bonwell and Eison (1991) defined active learning as any class activity that "involves the student and in doing things and thinking about the things they are doing" (p.2). Bonwell and Eison found that active learning engaged students in analysis, synthesis, and evaluation of course materials. Active learning included discussions, faculty questions, cooperative learning (Braxton, Milem, & Sullivan, 2000). No information on either website allowed for evaluation according to this benchmark. 2.17 Teaching/Learning The teaching and learning benchmarks identified by IHEP 2000 were (a) student interaction with faculty and peers; (b) constructive and timely feedback; and (c) instruction for students in research and assessment of resources. Researchers cited interaction with both instructor and peen as a key factor in student success (Hillman, Wallis, & Gunawardena, 1994; Moore, 1989; Shale & Garrison, 1990). As indicated in the below, only Athabasca provides for all of the stated. 2.18 Interaction Moore (1989) defined three types of interaction: learner-content; learner-instructor; and learner-learner. Learner interaction with instructor and other learners is an essential element of the teaching and learning benchmarks. Researchers found that students in distance learning courses cited interaction with the instructor during the course as important to the learning process (Dillon, Gunawardena, & Parker, 1992; McElhinney & Nasseh, 1999). Both of the institutions in question provided space for student/faculty interaction through Blackboard but only Athabasca provides for student/student interaction. The importance of this particular difference between the two institutions is that it evidences the extent to which Athabasca determinedly seeks to overcome the constraints of the online environment and provide students with an experience comparable to the traditional learning environment. 2.19 Feedback DeBard and Guidera (1999) found that prompt feedback was a positive aspect of email and other asynchronous communication. The online format allowed student control over the submission of assignments and control over when to contact faculty. Students took control of their learning by using e-mail, voice-mail, and electronic bulletin boards to contact faculty when the needs arise, not just during posted office hours (DeBard & Guidera). Synchronous communication allowed students to take an active role in their learning (Davie & Wells, 1991). Unfortunately, the information on both university websites did not touch upon feedback. Hence, it was not possible to evaluate either according to this benchmark. 2.20 Instructions for Research and Assessment of Materials ACRL (2000) made the assumption that students should leave college with bibliographic and information literacy skills to promote lifelong learning. To ensure this learning, libraries needed to teach students how to use the library at a distance and how to evaluate resources (Cervone and Brown, 2001). As it has a virtual library while Phoenix does not, Athabasca provides library training. 2.21 Course Structure The IHEP 2000 course structure benchmarks addressed instructional design issues that faculty need to address when developing and designing the course. These benchmarks were: (a) student access to information about motivation and technology requirements necessary for the course; (b) supplemental course information including objectives and learning outcomes; (c) access to a virtual library; and (d) an agreed upon schedule for student assignments and faculty response. Only Athabasca fulfilled the requirements of this criteria. 2.22 Student Access to Information and Supplemental Course Materials Smaldino (1999) argued that faculty needed to ensure that students have access to the essential content of the course. Access to this information was provided using many teaching strategies and media (Smaldino). Teh (1999) reported that course structure practices, including providing online reserve readings, a syllabus, and electronic bulletin boards were typical features of distance learning courses. As per the information found on both websites, Athabasca and Phoenix similarly gave students access to supplemental course material, including course notes and exams, through the course websites. 2.23 Access to Virtual Library ACRL (2000) based their guidelines for distance learning library services on the assumption that distance students are entitled to library services and resources equivalent to those of local students. As evidenced through the screenshot below, Athabasca provides online learners with a virtual library that is comparable in quality to that enjoyed by traditional learners. AU HOMEPAGE SEARCH | NAVIGATE About Us Ask AU Library What's New Search Site Map AU Library Catalogue AU Library Services AUspace Databases Digital Reading Room Digital Reference Centre Digital Thesis and Project Room E-Books E-Journals Help Centre Links by Subject Use Other Libraries RefWorks View Your Account Support AU Library Welcome AU Library enhances academic success by providing library service to its users, including distance library service to AU students. The Library is dedicated to maintaining an excellence of service in providing information and resource materials to support the information needs of AU Library users. Quicklinks to AU Databases Top of Form Bottom of Form Top of Form Library Catalogue Search Bottom of Form Athabasca University Library Hours: Monday-Friday 8:30am-4:30pm (MT) Phone: (800)788-9041, ext. 6254 Fax: (780) 675-6477 E-mail: library@athabascau.ca Disclaimer 2004 In direct comparison, Phoenix Online learners do not have access to a virtual library. A thorough review of the site failed to uncover any links to a virtual library. 2.24 Attrition and Retention Researchers have examined attrition in higher education to determine if there are factors that can be controlled by the institution or instructor to lower attrition rates. This is especially important in distance learning environments where students may never come to campus and do not have a social structure in place to encourage perseverance. Carey (2000) found that attrition rates for online courses were significantly higher than face-to-face courses. No information on either website allowed for evaluation according to this benchmark. 3 Conclusion As may be determined from the preceding discussion, neither institution satisfied all of the stated characteristics for quality online education delivery. A significant number of the benchmarks could not be evaluated on the basis of the information provided. On the basis of the available information, however, Athabasca appears to deliver a superior quality of education than does Phoenix. 4 References American Distance Education Consortium (2001). ADEC guiding principles for distance learning. American Federation of Teachers (2000). Distance education: Guidelines for good practice. Washington, DC: American Federation of Teachers. Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) (2000). Guidelines for distance learning library services. Chicago: American Library Association. Bennett, G., & Green, F.P. (2001). Student learning in the online environment: No significant difference Quest. 53(1), 1-13. Belanger, F., & Jordan, D. (2000). Evaluation and implementation of distance learning: Technologies, tools and techniques. Hershey, PA: DEA Group Publishing. Bonwell, C., & Eison, I. (1991). Active learning: Creating excitement in the classroom. Missouri: ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Reports (ED 336 049). Braxton, I., Milem, J., & Sullivan, A. (2000). The influence of active learning on the college student departure process. The Journal of Higher Education. 71(5), 569-590. Bryant, E. (2001). Bridging the gap. Library, Journal. 126(12), 58-61. Buchanan, E. (2002). Institutional and library services for distance education courses and programs. In R. Discenza, C. Howard, & K. Schenk (Eds.), The Design and Management of Effective Distance Learning Programs (pp 141 - 154). Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing. Carey, J.M., (2000). Effective student outcomes: A comparison of online and face-to-face delivery modes. DEOSNEWS. Cervone, F., & Brown, D.R. (200 1). Transforming library services to support distance learning: Strategies used by the DePaul University Libraries. College & Research Libraries News 62(2), 147-149. Cuffman, D.M.,& MacRae, N. (1996). Faculty development programs in interactive television. TN: Proceedings of the Mid-South Instructional Technology Conference. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 384961). Davie, L.E., & Wells, R., (1 991). Empowering the learner through computer-mediated communication. The American Journal of Distance Education. 5(1), 15-23. DeBard, R., & Guidera, S. (1999). Adapting asynchronous communication to meet the seven principles of effective teaching. Journal of Educational Technology Systems. 28(3), 2 19-230. Dillon, C.L., Gunawardena, C.N., & Parker, R. (1992). Learner support: The critical link in distance education. Distance Education. 13(1), 29-45. Distance learning may soar to 85% at higher education schools by 2002. (1999, March 31) Education Technology News, p. 54. Frieden, S. (1999). Support services for distance education. Educational Technology and Society. 2 (3). Gunawardena, C.N. (1 990). Integrating telecommunication systems to reach distance learners. The American Journal of Distance Education. 4(3), 38-46. Hesketh, E.A., (2001). Lessons learned from the development of a distance-learning programme. Medical Teacher 23(1), 33-39. Hillman, D.C., Willis, D.J., & Gunawardena, C.N. (1994). Learner-interface interaction in distance education: An extension of contemporary models and strategies for practitioners. American Journal of Distance Education. 8(2), 30-42. Institute for Higher Education Policy (2000). Quality on the line: Benchmarks for success in Internet-based distance education. Washington, DC: The Institute for Higher Education Policy. Krauth, B., & Carbajal, J. (2000) Guide to Developing Online Student Services. Boulder, CO: Western Cooperative for Educational Telecommunications. Machanic, M. (2001). Faculty development in higher education: "Best practices" review and planning recommendations for technology-rich learning environments. DEOSNEWS. McElhinney, H. & Nasseh, B. (1999). Technical and pedagogical challenges faced by faculty and students in computer-based distance education in higher education in Indiana. Journal of Educational Technology Systems. 27(4), 349-59. Moore, M.G. (1989). Three types of interaction. The American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1-6. Mulligan, R., & Geary, S. (1999). Requiring writing, ensuring distance-learning outcomes. International Journal of Instructional Media, 26(4), 387-396. National Center for Education Statistics, (1997). Statistical analysis report: Distance education in higher education institutions. (Report No. NCES 98062). Olcott, D., & Wright, S.J. (1995). An institutional support network for increasing faculty participation in postsecondary distance education. The American Journal of Distance Education. 9(3), 5- 18. Robertson, L.J., & Stanforth, N. (1999). College students' computer attitudes and interest in Web based distance education. Journal of Family and Consumer Science, 91(3), 60-64. Shale, D., & Garrison, D.R. (1990). Education and communication. In D.R. Garrison & D. Shale (Eds.), Education at a Distance (p. 23-29). Malabar, FL: Robert E. Kreiger Publishing Company. Smaldino, S. (1999, Nov.). Instructional design for distance education. TechTrends, 43( 5), 9-13. Teh, G.P. (1999). Assessing student perceptions on Internet-based online learning environments. International Journal of Instructional Media. 26(4) 397-402. Van Slyke, C., Kittner, M., & Belanger, F. (1998). Distance education: A telecommuting perspective. Proceedings of the America's Conference on Information Systems. Baltimore, 666-668. Read More