Instructional Media and Technologies for Learning: Distance Learning (c)1997



SUBJECT:    Assignment #1, Response Paper #9
COURSE:     MCTE 625 - Survey of Courseware
Textbook:   Instructional Media and Technologies 
            for Learning
            Heinich, Molenda, Russell, Smaldino (1996)
Chapter 10: Distance Learning
Professor:  Dr. George Fornshell
Student:    Leanne C. Boyd
Usercode:   boydl ( boydl@scis.acast.nova.edu )
Due date:   November 23, 1997


            Response to Chapter 10, Distance Learning

     In Chapter Ten, the topic of distance learning is 
discussed with all of its offerings for learners of all 
ages. While understanding that the purpose of this book is 
primarily to give a comprehensive overview of different 
subjects, I was quite disappointed in the limited 
description of Internet and other computer systems for 
communication. In fact, our book (copyright 1996) describes 
certain digital/computer offerings that make up what we 
know to be INTRANETS, or proprietary, company-sustained 
informational services for internal use of employees. While 
reading these sub-headings, it became quite obvious how 
outdated the material is.
     It was interesting to note that our own distance 
learning program here at Nova was mentioned on page 289 of 
the book. Its placement in the same sentence with the Mind 
Extension University, with both being computer-based 
telecommunications programs for college-level participation 
in coursework, was interesting. During the years of 1992 
through 1994, in my position as Audio/Visual Specialist at 
North High School in Denver, I was involved in the wiring 
and setup of the MEU computer courses in the school. One of 
the broadcast stations for MEU produces coursework here in 
Denver. So it should be noted that these online courses 
were not only for use by college students, but for 
"Advanced Placement" students at the high school level.
     One concern for computer networks in distance learning 
is that, for many years, costs have been prohibitive for 
this type of technology. Educators were not able to afford 
it. Information widely dispersed on the Internet shows that 
this is no longer true, and that much of the innovation AND 
the costs are being supported by the educational system. 
Grants and other modes of support have initiated much of 
this action, but educational systems also seem to be making 
more appropriate uses of existing funds.
     Much of the development of new systems is also 
starting to be done by Education, rather than governmental 
sources (especially military). One newsworthy article, the 
October 8, 1997 online issue of the San Jose Mercury News, 
gives evidence of this. Raymond K. Neff, vice president for 
information services at Case Western Reserve University in 
Cleveland, expects that Internet 2, the next-generation 
computer network being developed by a coalition of 112 
universities, will be operational by 1999. "Internet 2 is a 
university creature...[d]evelopment will continue with or 
without the government contribution...If Congress sits on 
its hands, it's still going to happen. All of what we're 
doing here is being done with university dollars." (San 
Jose Mercury News, "Superfast second generation...," 1997).
     Recent surveys show some astounding statistics 
concerning the use of the Internet and the modern young 
(pre-college) learner. Almost 10 million children, or about 
14 percent of all kids under 18, use the Internet or online 
services. This is a total of about 9.8 million children. Of 
these, 16% are aged less than 10, and 81% are 10 to 17. The 
number of children using the Internet from home is about 
5.6 million, or 52% of the total number going online. With 
school-use being about 47%, it is obvious that a somewhat 
greater portion of this activity is home-based. The most 
interesting part of this data is that almost 60% of the 
home use is geared toward school and educational 
activities. (Buckler, 1997). It is very obvious that the 
computer, as a learning tool, is rapidly gaining popularity 
with the younger crowd. Going from there, we can easily 
project that within just a few years, this same group of 
learners will not only participate in, but also DEMAND the 
additional learning opportunities of the new media!
     We can glean from the two previous examples two 
things:
     1) Educational systems are putting some very large 
        monies into development of online education, and,
     2) The upcoming generation of college students, very 
        SOON to arrive at the college doors, is computer 
        conversant and expectant, with much of their 
        digital learning and training having been done at 
        home.
     This all sounds extremely exciting, but there are 
dozens of current problems that must be considered. One of 
these has to do with the demographics of any given area, 
and how specific results of a similar survey would compare. 
With President Clinton's State of the Union Address in 
January of this year, and with subsequent pressures applied 
by State and local government as well as educational 
systems, the nation's schools are quickly being separated 
into the "Haves" and the "Have-Nots." As will be shown, 
however, this isn't the having or non-having of the actual 
equipment, but of less tangible things.
     Clinton declared that classrooms should be online by 
the year 2000, when both students and teachers should be 
computer literate. Explicitly, billions of dollars are 
being poured into the systems by government and by private 
corporations such as Microsoft. Many of the traditionally 
poorer schools are the ones receiving more of the high-
technology components than fiscally healthier districts. 
(Macavinta and Wylie, 1997).
     Who are the "Haves" and who are the "Have-Nots?" This 
isn't a hardware or software problem we are dealing with. 
The real problem doesn't lie with the wiring of the schools 
or the connections to the outside, or even the numbers of 
powerful computers. The problem lies in the LACK OF SUPPORT 
for all of the mechanized components of this new trend, 
highly promoted by socio-political advocates who, 
themselves, know little of the technology. Many schools, 
teachers, and parents are trying to meet the "digital 
schoolhouse challenge." Exercises in scanning, surfing, 
search engines, cyberspace research, and a million 
other new techno-descriptions, are not only new to the 
students, but also to the teachers who are expected to lead 
their flock. Schools in affluent suburbia as well as 
inner city corridor ganglands, have "met with the identical 
obstacles in their government-mandated drive to get wired, 
problems that no amount of political grandstanding or 
corporate marketing jargon can solve." (Macavinta and 
Wylie, 1997).
     What is the main lack? Ironically, it is not a hard-
edged device solution that is needed, but something much 
more human, less tangible. Educators are yelling, "HELP!" 
They need support. As with so many other considerations, the 
bulk of both the problem AND the solution have landed in 
the laps of our teachers. They are the end recipients of 
this massive upheaval of new-media thought from corporate 
America and Capitol Hill. All of this wiring and all of 
these machines have arrived at the steps of our nation's 
schools without a glimmer of a printed line of ink on a 
single curriculum guide. One California teacher states, 
"My teacher guide doesn't include an option for how to use 
computers to complete a project." (Macavinta and Wylie, 
1997).
     Educators claim they have got to be given blueprints, 
and not more educational software! They have to be able to 
learn to logically work these high-tech materials into 
their lesson plans. They claim a critical need for 
technical support and teacher training as keys to success, 
both in the use of the computer as a teaching tool as well 
as the maintenance of their systems. Yet, only about 15% of 
public educational technology funds go for these two items. 
(Macavinta and Wylie, 1997). Many are starting to say that 
PLANNING should come before the actual COMPUTERS. I agree 
that these things are needed, and that this would be the 
ideal scenario. Current trends show that we are, indeed, 
being forced to put the cart before the horse. It's my
opinion that all we need is to take a little time -- a 
few hours out of a lifetime to get to know the new baby in 
the house!
     When all of these things are considered, therefore, 
something inside of me starts to balk at what seems to me 
to be an attitude of stubborn refusal to assess the 
situation and get on with business. It almost looks like 
the overwhelming amount of new knowledge and technology has 
given certain sectors something new to whine over, make 
excuses for, and feel tired about.
     At this point, this writing will take on overtones of 
editorial commentary. There were many creative, survival-
oriented learning situations in the history of the human 
race, where the human hauled the cart! Before that, there 
was no cart. Before that, no wheel. Even in the history of 
the United States, fierce determination and that unsinkable 
human spirit picked up the handles of the wagon when the 
oxen died. None of these early examples were actually from 
a lack of planning. Each, however, did call for a NEW PLAN 
and a new tenacity to succeed (or even survive) with the
tools at hand.
     In 1987, this writer, a die-hard, right-brained, anti-
wired ARTIST, was introduced to computer technology. I 
immediately saw the tremendous CURRENT potential in 1987, 
as well as future probabilities. Because there were no 
classes available -- not at the college level, not at the 
training institution level, not at ANY level -- I purchased 
$10,000 in computer equipment in order to self-train. 
Learning this was not only possible, it was quickly 
profitable. I immersed myself in new media and became 
proficient, even gifted, within a short, almost obsessed 
time frame. The equipment was paid for in nine months. 
     Modern teachers and school systems are being given the 
very tools and connections that I had to pay for out of a 
single mother's pocketbook. I am having trouble seeing the 
reasons for all of the complaint. It is a foreshortening of 
vision when these educators complain about a lack of 
training, when the instrument (computer) and the road to 
success (the connectivity system) are already installed in 
their class or lab, waiting patiently in the corner for 
them to get off their duff and use them! This is easy, 
folks. Turn on the machine, double-click to get online, and 
begin to SEARCH. The training is all there. The support is 
all there. The means to becoming efficient -- even superior 
-- in computer technique and maintenance, is all there. 
Your big mountain of initial startup costs has already been 
conveniently provided and wired into your room, with no 
dollars coming from your own pocket.
     The other form of foreshortened thinking, to me, is a 
modern "slouch mode" very opposed to the American pioneer 
spirit that led us to these very days of freedom of thought 
and action. It is obvious to me that the current 
educational system, upon which so much stress has been 
placed to IMMEDIATELY conform to computer standards, is 
relatively "one-of-a-kind." The incoming group of children, 
even many of those at college level and currently taking 
teacher certification courses, *are* computer literate. Our 
next generation of teachers may not have to deal with as 
much immediacy in the technical learning curve. Teachers 
today simply need to put forth some time and effort to 
self-train. Undoubtedly, new technologies will make a new 
demand on future teachers, similar to the current "lack of 
training" problem of today.
     Educators of every time have had similar obstacles 
(and/or challenges). Certainly there was not the 
multiplicity of materials concerning multicultural issues, 
back in the difficult 1960s. Many teachers of earlier eras 
decried the lack of space in their small, one-room 
schoolhouses, where they taught grades 1 through 12. In 
fact, as late as the early 1950s, my parents taught in such 
a school in the state of Wyoming.
     Are we so used to the manifestations of modern 
technology that we squeak when things become just the 
slightest bit difficult? When did we separate the notion of 
INNOVATION from that of LEARNING? Was it when we crossed 
that invisible line between learning and "education?" Given 
all the tools to "make our garden," we should be eating 
better than if the foodstuff was just periodically thrown 
our way. Instead of jumping in and learning how to be 
creative cooks, should we continue to cry that we don't 
have a cookbook? Perhaps the training of our children in 
the ways of the new technology would be better left in 
hands other than those of educators who do not want to 
participate. I would like to propose that if a space-age 
version of the year 2020 "automobile" was placed in these 
exact classrooms, there would be a flurry of activity in 
seeing who -- the teacher or a child -- could climb aboard 
first to maneuver the thing. No one would care whether it 
had arrived with a driver's manual.
     In my opinion, there is a real reason why modern 
children take easily to computerized play and learning much 
more readily than do their adults. It has to do with "No 
Fear." In my own home, I've seen this theory in action with 
my own children. Unhampered by an adult opinion that "this 
is too hard," or "this is too time-consuming," or "I don't 
know how to do that...," I have seen my three children 
quickly utilize major powers of the digital age. Many times 
it was intuitive, and certainly not a result of hours spent 
in a training class or book. THAT is what discovery is all 
about...using common sense and the best available tool.
And the tremendous potential of this, the greatest tool 
of humanity, should somehow be kept out of the arena of 
self-serving political or corporate *maneuverings.*
     Distance learning is here, and it is exhilarating. It 
is "characterized by student and teacher independence 
unimaginable prior to the affordances of the information 
age. With the proliferation of computer-based communication 
networks, the virtual college, unbounded by geography, is 
beginning to take shape, promising to bring a world of 
educational resources to the individual's desktop." (Kahle, 
1995).
     Perhaps the 20th century has brought us a pacified, 
expectable way of life. Faced with imminent changes in 
economies as well as learning modes, I think it's time to 
ponder the benefits of shaking off this placid demon and 
taking up a sword for the new battle. It will take much 
more than a feeling of "having arrived" or having paid 
one's dues, or a million reasons for not having enough
time.
     The 21st century holds great promise for those who 
accept the challenge of hauling their sorry cart over the 
horizon of yet the next hill. Even the sorriest cart is
capable of hauling treasures.

---
REFERENCES

     Buckler, Grant. (1997). Almost 10 million children 
online in US: Study. In: Newsbytes News Network, Computer 
Currents Publishing Corp.: (c)1994-1997. [Online]. 
Available: 
http://www.currents.net/newstoday/97/10/27/news4.html

     Kahle, David. (1995). The virtual academic village. 
In: Learning in Cyberspace: Computer Mediated Communication 
and Distance Education: MIT course 4.207, Digital 
Communities. (c)August 02, 1995. [Online]. Available: 
http://www.mit.edu:8001/afs/athena.mit.edu/user/d/j/djkahle
/www/4.207/vcollege.html

     Macavinta, Courtney, and Wylie, Margie. (1997). Wired 
schools: It takes a village. In: CNET, Inc., Special 
Features: (c)1995-97. [Online]. Available: 
http://www.news.com/SpecialFeatures/0,5,15118,00.html

     San Jose Mercury News, and Newhouse News Service. 
(1997). Superfast second generation of Internet on the way. 
In: San Jose Mercury News, Wednesday, October 8, 1997. 
Mercury Center, ((c)1996-7). [Online]. Available: 
http://www.sjmercury.com/gmsv/breaking/docs/068846.htm