Technology and distance learning lessons from the nation's newest university: Perceptions and reality

Educational Forum, The, Spring 2002 by Winsboro, Irvin D S

Consequently, the argument that distance-learning courses deliver the desired learning goals has proved to be problematic. Frequently, technology glitches and phobias impede the learning process, but just as frequently students and teachers suffer a sort of instructional dissonance as a result of the absence of spontaneous classroom group interaction. An even thornier issue is whether or not all disciplines even lend themselves to distance learning. How would history teachers, I asked myself, address the development of research and writing skills over distance? How would we train students and conduct apprenticeships in the precise methodology of history via electronic-delivery methods of instruction and evaluation? How would we ensure that the standards for distance-learning classes would be universally accepted by other institutions, graduate schools, and accrediting agencies? Conversely, would distance learning suppress student individuality and the traditional professor/student mentoring relationship outside the course, deemed by dedicated teachers as so essential to the production of superior graduates? Obviously, learning can, and does, take place over time and space, but is that experience universal, qualitative, and interactive enough for rigorous disciplines such as history? All of these issues and concerns presented pedagogical conundrums to the completion and implementation of a truly effective history curriculum at FGCU.

PREPARING FOR THE INEVITABLE

In retrospect, my experience and concerns in establishing the new history program for FGCU may prove insightful, problematic, and perhaps even a metaphor to a wide-range of educators. Many educators may be facing the very same issues today. The following, in particular, reflect my program-development experiences:

* Technology and distance learning will be an inevitable growth sector of our profession and work environment, whether or not we favor such modes of instruction taking precedence over the traditional student-instructor classroom interaction.

* Technology and distance learning have both potential benefits and limits regarding effective education, and these issues are often overlooked (or ignored) by nonclassroom policy makers.

* Orthodox modes of instruction are now under attack as never before, and dedicated teachers must "retool" in sometimes rapid and unsupported ways.

* Possible positive and negative effects of distance technology and distance learning must be considered carefully by the classroom teacher prior to actual implementation of these courses and programs, regardless of discipline or mandate.

* Given the imperatives of the larger political, academic, and student-consumer constituencies at the university level, it will be difficult to implement all of these changes while ensuring the intellectual integrity of the program.

As U.S. educators-indeed, educators around the world in this rapidly globalizing culture-prepare to meet the challenges of this new century, the types of issues I have addressed in this paper will not be limited to start-up schools or academic programs. Predictably, policy makers will demand more distance-technology courses as the "get on the bandwagon" mantra permeates education at all levels. As this shift occurs, the learning-centered teacher will recognize that distance learning is an inevitable yet useful tool for instruction, but not one without limitations. Who will decide the mission of and the extent to which technology and distance learning become the "means" and not the "ends" of the curriculum now becomes a pivotal issue. The stakes in this game are deceptively high; they involve nothing less than how external forces and classroom teachers envision the very future of education.