The minute somebody flipped the “on” switch to the internet, our lives changed irrevocably. This includes how we socialize, shop, learn, and more. In one of our discussion posts we were asked to consider the differing positions of Peters (2010) and Garrison (2009) regarding the affordances of online learning. Peters waxed eloquently about how the internet and digitized learning would create a “pedagogy of enablement” (p. 153). Garrison wasn’t quite as excited about the possibilities – he argued that online discussion boards haven’t quite panned out regarding “continuous enrolment and self-paced instruction.”
Actually, I think there’s a bigger question here – to paraphrase Terry Anderson who quotes Daniel and Marquis (2003, para. 1) – what IS the best mix between independent study and interactive learning strategies and activities in distance education? When Anderson spoke of the challenge to define when “an interaction has pedagogical or educational value” I pulled out my pom-poms. Anderson and his colleague Garrison (1998) described several types of interactions in distance education (student-student, student-teacher, student-content, teacher-teacher, teacher-content and content-content). He further pointed out that advances made in this digital environment have raised the bar on possibilities to the extent that your head could explode trying to envision them all! But he argues that this isn’t necessarily a field of dreams situation. Just because we CAN use technology to create these enhanced interactions, must we?
My “a-ha” moment during this module was reading Anderson’s (2003) equivalency theorem, which states the following:
"Deep and meaningful formal learning is supported as long as one of the three forms of interaction (student-teacher; student-student; student-content) is at a high level. The other two may be offered at minimal levels, or even eliminated, without degrading the educational experience. High levels of more than one of these three modes will likely provide a more satisfying educational experience, though these experiences may not be as cost or time effective as less interactive learning sequences" (para. 10).
My personal learning style is such that I learn the most through student-teacher and student-content interaction. Perhaps other learners relish student-student communication. These differences could be a reflection of culture, or differences in learning style.
This idea of a flexible three-legged stool holds tremendous appeal for me. My original definition of distance education was “a situation where the learner and the teacher are not in the same space/time continuum” but an in-depth analysis of the evolution of distance education has shown me that this is an enormous understatement. In fact, the introduction of the internet and digitalization has even thrown the term “distance education” into question – should we simply be referring to online learning? But to bring this full circle, just because we CAN put a man on the moon, does this mean we should all go to the moon? Just because we HAVE mind-boggling technology now to enhance every possible permutation of interactions (think 10 factorial!) – should we?
My take-away from this can be applied to my own work environment in education. I will be developing a graduate certificate program, and perhaps even a master’s program in palliative care over the next couple of years. I would like to operationalize Anderson’s (2003) idea of equivalency, but instead of ME picking which form of interaction would predominate, I would like to create a menu of learning opportunities, where the LEARNER could decide where they would like to place the emphasis – on student-teacher, student-student, student-content, picking one, two or all three if so desired. I realize this sounds like a LOT more work for me as the teacher, but I would certainly be catering to my learners needs. Something to think about!
Anderson, T. (2003). Getting the mix right again: An updated and theoretical rationale for interaction. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning (IRRODL), 4 (2). Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/149/230
Garrison, R. (2009). Implications of online learning for the conceptual development and practice of distance education. Journal of Distance Education, 23(2), 93-104. Retrieved fromhttp://www.jofde.ca/index.php/jde/article/view/471/889
Peters, O. (2010). Digitized learning environments: New chances and opportunities. In O. Peters, Distance education in transition: Developments and issues (5th edition) (pp. 141-153). Oldenburg, Germany: BIS-Verlag der Carl von Ossietzky Universität Oldenburg. Available from http://www.box.com/shared/ktx7ipccetotqrr11mct
Actually, I think there’s a bigger question here – to paraphrase Terry Anderson who quotes Daniel and Marquis (2003, para. 1) – what IS the best mix between independent study and interactive learning strategies and activities in distance education? When Anderson spoke of the challenge to define when “an interaction has pedagogical or educational value” I pulled out my pom-poms. Anderson and his colleague Garrison (1998) described several types of interactions in distance education (student-student, student-teacher, student-content, teacher-teacher, teacher-content and content-content). He further pointed out that advances made in this digital environment have raised the bar on possibilities to the extent that your head could explode trying to envision them all! But he argues that this isn’t necessarily a field of dreams situation. Just because we CAN use technology to create these enhanced interactions, must we?
My “a-ha” moment during this module was reading Anderson’s (2003) equivalency theorem, which states the following:
"Deep and meaningful formal learning is supported as long as one of the three forms of interaction (student-teacher; student-student; student-content) is at a high level. The other two may be offered at minimal levels, or even eliminated, without degrading the educational experience. High levels of more than one of these three modes will likely provide a more satisfying educational experience, though these experiences may not be as cost or time effective as less interactive learning sequences" (para. 10).
My personal learning style is such that I learn the most through student-teacher and student-content interaction. Perhaps other learners relish student-student communication. These differences could be a reflection of culture, or differences in learning style.
This idea of a flexible three-legged stool holds tremendous appeal for me. My original definition of distance education was “a situation where the learner and the teacher are not in the same space/time continuum” but an in-depth analysis of the evolution of distance education has shown me that this is an enormous understatement. In fact, the introduction of the internet and digitalization has even thrown the term “distance education” into question – should we simply be referring to online learning? But to bring this full circle, just because we CAN put a man on the moon, does this mean we should all go to the moon? Just because we HAVE mind-boggling technology now to enhance every possible permutation of interactions (think 10 factorial!) – should we?
My take-away from this can be applied to my own work environment in education. I will be developing a graduate certificate program, and perhaps even a master’s program in palliative care over the next couple of years. I would like to operationalize Anderson’s (2003) idea of equivalency, but instead of ME picking which form of interaction would predominate, I would like to create a menu of learning opportunities, where the LEARNER could decide where they would like to place the emphasis – on student-teacher, student-student, student-content, picking one, two or all three if so desired. I realize this sounds like a LOT more work for me as the teacher, but I would certainly be catering to my learners needs. Something to think about!
Anderson, T. (2003). Getting the mix right again: An updated and theoretical rationale for interaction. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning (IRRODL), 4 (2). Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/149/230
Garrison, R. (2009). Implications of online learning for the conceptual development and practice of distance education. Journal of Distance Education, 23(2), 93-104. Retrieved fromhttp://www.jofde.ca/index.php/jde/article/view/471/889
Peters, O. (2010). Digitized learning environments: New chances and opportunities. In O. Peters, Distance education in transition: Developments and issues (5th edition) (pp. 141-153). Oldenburg, Germany: BIS-Verlag der Carl von Ossietzky Universität Oldenburg. Available from http://www.box.com/shared/ktx7ipccetotqrr11mct