Collaboration in Distance Education

I agree with Siemens’s (2008) view that there is a growing acceptance of distance education in today’s corporations and educational environments. This statement is true in my opinion as related to learner, faculty, and management acceptance. This is evident in the growing amounts of formal online programs in education k-12 and in higher education as well as in distance training of employees in businesses. At this time, I am not convinced that employers in general accept the quality of distance education when considering hiring personnel and would like to see studies on this. In addition, Moller, Foshay, and Huett (2008) cautioned that often, managers in corporations are providing distance training because it is cost effective rather than because it is an effective and preferred mode of learning for employees. Siemens’s (2008) also discussed communication, global diversity, and collaboration as elements that are producing more effective learning experiences and distinguishing distance education from traditional models. I agree that all three of these areas are factors contributing to the quality of distance education. In fact, they are nearly inseparable. For example, collaborative interaction on a wide scale would be more difficult if not for the modern communication tools in place. At the same time, because we have such quality communication tools, it allows for global diversity and collaboration to exist at a higher level than ever before. The quality, acceptance, and diffusion of modern tools of the technology in our world is the underlying common factor that ties these elements together resulting in more effective learning experiences in education and training. These elements also thrive in the world market and social spheres today which makes the application and need in education for these elements high and applicable to our daily lives. Although I view the elements as intertwined, I have selected collaborative interaction as the focus of this post. Collaborative interaction has evolved for many reasons. One reason is the growing use of contemporary learning theory of constructivism. A learner centered collaborative framework is at the core of this theory (Anderson, 2008). In addition, in the global marketplace, collaborative problem solving is common today. In order to meet the needs of employers in the market place, learners need to be prepared to problem solve in a collaborative manner. Some experts also emphasized that collaboration across disciplines or within subgroups of a discipline in problem solving is also important. For example, Kearns (2009) described a lesson in her law class that required collaborating with students in another field to address the issue of taxes in a divorce situation. She stated, “The goals of the exercise were (i) to provide an environment for the students to collaborate, (ii) to give the students an opportunity to exercise their public speaking muscles, (iii) to provide a forum to express what they had learned throughout the semester and (iv) to cross pollinate”. (http://bestpracticeslegaled.albanylawblogs.org/2009/06/16/collaboration-experiment-letting-the-students-teach/) Finally, because technology tools have become sophisticated and widely diffused, collaboration across distance and time is more possible. Online tools available today that assist with collaborative interaction online are social web sites such as Face Book, cell phones and other mobile technologies such as laptops and netbooks, email, blogs, and interactive communication programs such as Skype that allow text, audio, and video conferencing instant and easy. These tools also allow for both synchronous and asynchronous collaboration accommodating collaboration easily across time. “The final element of engaging learners in the online environment involves active participation in collaborative, problem-based activities. Group activities should include a small number of participants, solve relevant problems, encourage accountability, and facilitate discussion (Durrington, V., et al., 2006)”. (Vining, 2009). http://mavining.blogspot.com/ “We can no longer be satisfied with creating easy to manage course websites that live inside moated castles. We have to open up the learning process and experience to leverage the vastness of the data available to us and the power of the crowd, all the while remembering that learning is fundamentally about individuals conversing with each other about the meaning and value of the data they encounter and create”. (Simons, 2009). http://dlviews.blogspot.com/ References: Anderson, T. (Ed.) (2008). The theory and practice of online learning (2nd ed.). Edmonton, AB: Athabasca University Press. Higher education and collaboration in a global context: a new UK/US (Atlantic) perspective. (2009). Retrieved on Sept. 26, 2009 from http://globalhighered.wordpress.com/2009/07/29/higher-education-and-collaboration-in-a-global-context/ Kearns, D. (2009). Collaboration Experiments: Letting the Students Teach. Retrieved on Sept. 26, 2009 from http://bestpracticeslegaled.albanylawblogs.org/2009/06/16/collaboration-experiment-letting-the-students-teach/ Moller, L., Foshay, W., & Huett, J. (2008, May/June). The evolution of distance education: Implications for instructional design on the potential of the web (Part 1: Training and development). TechTrends, 52(3), 70-75. Use the Academic Search Premier database, and search using the article's Accession Number: 33281719. Siemens, G. (speaker). “The Future of Distance Education.” Laureate Education, Inc. (2008). Principles of Distance Education. Baltimore. Simons, D. (2009). The End in Mind I’ve Seen the Future and the Future is Us (Using Google). Retrieved on Sept 26, 2009 from http://dlviews.blogspot.com/ Vining, M. (2009). Engaging Learners Reflection. Retrieved on Sept 20, 2009 from http://mavining.blogspot.com/

8842 module 1 wk 2 assignment

While comparing and contrasting views on the reasons for the need to evolve distance education to the next generation, it is the scope of the lens used by experts in the resources that stands out as the most significant contrast. Huett, Moller, Foshay, and Coleman (2008) presented views on evolving distance education to the future using a narrow lens restricted to the present aspects of distance education to explain while Simonson (2008) uses a much broader lens. Simonson relied on theory, empirical research, and a historic perspective on distance education to explain the future. This is the most significant contrast between the perspectives provided in the resources. The lens used by Simonson (2008) also provided a definition of distance education and distinguished it from self study at a distance. Simonson also focused mainly on schools while Huett et al (2008) provided equal application of distance education to corporate training, higher education, and k-12 schools. Lastly, Huett et al emphasized criticism of distance education and focused on the need to improve assessment, methodology tools, models of instruction, and course development. In contrast, Simonson emphasized what is successful in past and present distance education and builds from those aspects. Huett et al presented using repair of a problem based approach while Simonson used building upon an existing successful approach. Similarities also existed in experts’ opinions. All of the experts discussed the explosive growth in distance education. Additionally, all authors attributed this growth to economics and accessibility yet Huett et al (2008) provided narrow evidence from a past study while Simonson (2008) connected the growth of distance education beginning to past patterns with the birth of the internet and web. In addition, Simonson provided more details on future growth using information about instructional and communication technologies. He also provided more information when arguing that the changes will not be revolutionary. I agree with most of the concepts presented in the resources. I was uncertain of some arguments presented by Huett et al (2008). Their views would have been more convincing and valid if more empirical data would have been provided. I agreed with all of Simonson’s ideas on the evolution of distance education to the next generation because he based his arguments in proven theories, historic patterns, and sound empirical data. References Huett, J., Moller, L., Foshay, W., & Coleman, C. (2008, September/October). The evolution of distance education: Implications for instructional design on the potential of the web (Part 3: K12). TechTrends, 52(5). 63-67.Retrieved on Sept 05, 2009 from http://sylvan.live.ecollege.com/ec/crs/default.learn?CourseID=3649020&Survey=1&47=2578915&ClientNodeID=984645&coursenav=1&bhcp=1 Moller, L., Foshay, W., & Huett, J. (2008, May/June). The evolution of distance education: Implications for instructional design on the potential of the web (Part 2: Training and development). TechTrends, 52(3), 70-75. Retrieved on Sept.5, 2009 from http://ezp.waldenulibrary.org/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=33281719&site=ehost-live&scope=site Moller, L., Foshay, W., & Huett, J. (2008, May/June). The evolution of distance education: Implications for instructional design on the potential of the web (Part 2: Higher education). TechTrends, 52(4), 66-70. Retrieved on Sept 5, 2009 from http://ezp.waldenulibrary.org/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=33991516&site=ehost-live&scope=site Simonson, M. (speaker). “Distance Education: The Next Generation”. Laureate Education, Inc. (2008). Principles of Distance Education. Baltimore.Retrieved on Sept 10, 2009 from http://sylvan.live.ecollege.com/ec/crs/default.learn?CourseID=3649020&Survey=1&47=2578915&ClientNodeID=984645&coursenav=1&bhcp=1 Simonson, M. (speaker) (2008). “Equivalency Theory”. Laureate Education, Inc. (2008). Principles of Distance Education. Baltimore.Retrieved on Sept 10, 2009 from http://sylvan.live.ecollege.com/ec/crs/default.learn?CourseID=3649020&Survey=1&47=2578915&ClientNodeID=984645&coursenav=1&bhcp=1