Prioritizing Projects and Scope Creep

Why is it that some projects go exactly to plan and others seem to be plagued with issues? I believe that some of the reason may be due to the weight these projects are given in comparison to others. If the project is not high on the priority list, then chances are if something unexpected comes up the casualty is going to be the lower priority project. The amount of time I have available is shared between my work and my family. At work I have many projects that I am working on at once and these are prioritized according to due date and importance. 

As soon as a project involves other team members you need to take into account their time constraints. Some of my projects involve scheduling time with faculty members to assist them with a particular issue they are having. These projects are obviously then subject to their schedules and other commitments. 

I am very careful to get my projects done on time (to scope) but occasionally scope creep sets in and my project can end up taking longer than I thought it would. One of the projects I am working on at the moment involves assessing the state of the interactive whiteboards at the school and making a recommendation to purchase replacement boards within the next budget period. This process is taking longer than expected as it is difficult to get access to the boards to test them (they are being used all day). In itself, the fact that they are being used all day should mean that they are working fine, however that isn't the case. Many of the teachers are just 'making do' with the functionality that they have. There isn't enough communication from the teachers about the issues they are experiencing with the boards. Therefore my team and I have to throughly test each board after hours which isn't happening quickly enough. It seems in this case there are two things causing scope creep: lack of communication and accessibility.

Face to Face Conversation: How Does the Modality of Exchange Change the Message?

This post has been written as an answer to an assignment question in my ID Masters Degree.

I was given 3 modalities of delivery of the same message from Jane to Mark - email, voicemail and face-to-face message. I was then asked to compare the modalities and share a synthesis of my thoughts regarding what this activity implies about communicating with members of a project team.

The email is written by Jane to Mark. Jane is obviously stressed about a deadline and is relying on some information from Mark to complete her report. She is worried that she will miss her deadline because he hasn’t given her the info she needs. The email is polite, but clear.

The voicemail is somewhat more compelling - the urgency in Jane’s voice is palpable and she seems almost desperate. I would be more likely to respond to this message.

The face-to-face message sends a totally different message - this time Jane is clearly not as concerned as it appeared in the voicemail about the missing information. She seems happy and smiles throughout the message. She isn’t really stressed and seems to understand the reason she doesn’t have the information is because of a meeting that Mark is attending. She is making excuses for Mark and there isn’t any sense of urgency.

Factors that influenced my perception of the message: in the email, Jane was direct and clear about what she needed. There really wasn’t any emotion involved. In the voicemail, her voice sounded stressed and worried. There was a sense of urgency that she needed the information before she missed her deadline. Because there weren’t any visual cues to go on the agitation in her voice conveyed a message of urgency that clearly wasn’t there in the face-to-face message as Jane is smiling all the time and seems very understanding - information completely missing from the audio and written messages.

I would have been more likely to respond to the voicemail as the urgency communicated demanded cooperation. I would have been less likely to respond to the face-to-face message as I felt that Jane wasn’t that worried about the problem and it could probably wait until after my meeting. When communicating with members of a team, I have found email to be the most reliable medium. You have a record of the discussion and it is easy to send out a clear message. You have time to plan the message and can reread before sending. A voicemail is obviously open to interpretation - there are emotions communicated that are left to the listener’s discretion to interpret. Sometimes these may be misinterpreted, whereas an email (if correctly worded) will be more clear and less likely to misinform.

According to a study called The Effect of Communication Modality on Cooperation in Online Environments “we have demonstrated a technique for the quantitative assessment and comparison of the effect of different forms of communication on the development of trust and cooperation. Consistent with the sociological literature, voice communication was found to have an extremely powerful effect in fostering trust and cooperation.” (Jensen, C. et al) 

I agree with this statement, given our example in this assignment. The voicemail is the most compelling and would have elicited an immediate response from me.

References

1. Jensen, C., Farnham, S., Drucker, S. & Kollock, P., The Effect of Communication Modality on Cooperation in Online Environments, http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/people/sdrucker/papers/chidilemmas.pdf

2. Web Link to media clip: The Art of Effective Communication, http://mym.cdn.laureate-media.com/2dett4d/Walden/EDUC/6145/03/mm/aoc/index.html 

Reflections on a past project - the importance of training

A few years ago I led a SmartBoard implementation at a K-12 school. The administrators and I decided that we would remove the whiteboards and replace them with the SmartBoards. We installed all of the boards over the summer and the new boards were ready for teachers when they arrived back from their holidays. I organized training for the teachers and everyone attended at least one training session. 

Use of the SmartBoards was very slow at first - teachers were wary of the new technology. They felt that it was very difficult to rely on a SmartBoard as it was possible that it could have technical issues and leave them with no board at all. They wanted a backup plan, and we had removed their whiteboards so they didn’t have one. In retrospect, this was a bold move. The thinking was that if they didn’t have the whiteboards then they would have to use the SmartBoards, and I do agree that the faculty certainly integrated them into their lessons more quickly than they would have if they had had another option. 

This project was successful overall, with all teachers using the boards for every lesson by the end of a two year period. The picture was a bit different after six months though… the teachers did not agree with our move to remove the whiteboards and felt that we had created work for them. After three years, the use of SmartBoards was built into their appraisal criterion. I felt this was an indication of the success of the project.

I believe that this project was a success because the implementation was well thought out. The training of staff was an important first step. A major contributor to the success of the project was the training, which was consistent over the course of the first two years. Another important factor for success was the incorporation of the use of SmartBoards in lesson observation criterion. Without that, the project would have lacked weight - this made sure that teachers took the process seriously. The project would have been easier if the administration had ensured that all new hires (teachers) had experience using the boards. 

This project reminds me of the importance of consistent and persistent training when you are trying to implement new technology. It will not work if the teachers lack confidence in the new technology. It is natural for teachers to feel nervous about any big change - they have to deal with twenty to thirty students every lesson, every day and get the work completed, topics covered and lessons understood. If they have to juggle new technology too, sometimes it can all seem like too much to deal with. For any new project to work, the teachers must feel supported, listened to, valued and enabled. It is not helpful to throw technology in the room and leave. To ensure a successful implementation you need to make sure the technology is going to be used effectively and add something to the teaching process. 

Change is only worthwhile if the students gain from it. 

Redefining Education

As more and more technology finds its way into the classroom, learning is redefined. ”Total universe spend in the global education technology market in 2012 increased 23% to $11.6 Billion, from 2011," said Colin Messenger, a senior analyst at Futuresource Consulting. (Drinkwater, 2013.) Teaching has become individualized, student centered classrooms are the way forward and teachers are beginning to recognize the incredible potential for student self-directed learning. The ability to consume digitalized   learning content at any time is bringing about a revolution in learning. To achieve this change, schools are purchasing iPads and other tablets as well as investing in ebooks and other personal computing solutions. “Tablet sales into K-12 exceeded 3.5 million units in 2012, a growth of 340% on 2011. Sales are expected to double again in 2013, to reach close to 7 million,” (Futuresource, 2013.)

Having iPads and other technology in the classroom has led teachers to look for new content for their lessons - often drawing from interactive websites and APPS to create wonderfully student-centric learning activities. All this continues to the next logical step: Blended Learning. Blended Learning is defined as “a formal education program in which a student learns at least in part through online delivery of content and instruction with some element of student control over time, place, path or pace. (Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blended-learning).

I believe that in the next 5 to 10 years, online (distance) learning will form an integral part of education in conventional middle and high schools due to the trend towards Blended Learning. In 10 to 20 years I think that students will be designing their own educational paths within the walls of a school, so that they will have the opportunity to select online courses that aren’t offered as physical classes at their school. The job description of a teacher will change dramatically from requiring them to direct learning to assuming a position of mentor and guide to the education ‘highway.’

Instructional designers should take this opportunity to begin to redesign learning to suit this blended learning model - ensuring that lessons are student-centered and include the technology demanded by students in this age of digital native learners. Professional development and assistance with redefining their teaching to ensure student-centered classrooms and individualized learning are the norm in their schools, will be vital if teachers are to provide students with the IT skills that will make them truly digitally literate.

References

1. “New study shows schools are starting to spend big on iPads and other tablets”, Drinkwater, D., 2013
http://tabtimes.com/news/ittech-stats-research/2013/04/30/new-study-shows-schools-are-starting-spend-big-ipads-and-other

2. http://www.futuresource-consulting.com/research-education-technology.html

Best Practices Guidelines: Converting to Blended Learning

Best Practices Guide: Converting to Blended Learning

Blended learning “is the thoughtful fusion of face-to-face and online learning experiences” (Garrison and Vaughan, 2008). 

Inspire, motivate and cultivate success.

In the blended learning best practices guide "Converting to Blended Learning" I have attempted to show the various aspects of the process that are involved when converting from a face-to-face learning environment to a blended learning one. It is important that the facilitators and designers are aware that this isn’t just simply ‘less class time’ but take this as an opportunity to develop and engaging, interactive, stimulating course that is designed to enable success for the students. It is important to focus on the learning outcomes. Technology should be viewed as a tool in this process and should almost be the ‘invisible guardian’ enabling students to participate in their learning and structure their own learning environment. Students and facilitators will require additional training in the learning environment to familiarize themselves with the new demands generated by the change. If this course conversion is successful, your students will be engaged and inspired by the learner-centered approach of Project Based Learning assignments, discussion boards and group assignments. They will seamlessly move from one learning environment to the other, as the course material carries from one environment to the other, creating cross-over and a cohesion to the course.

Good luck with your conversion!

Best Practices Guide: Converting to Blended Learning

Best Practices Guide: Converting to Blended Learning

Blended learning “is the thoughtful fusion of face-to-face and online learning experiences” (Garrison and Vaughan, 2008). 

Dziuban, Hartman, and Moskal (2004, p.3) describe blended learning as a “pedagogical approach that combines the effectiveness and socialization opportunities of the
classroom with the technologically enhanced active learning possibilities of the online
environment.”

Designing a blended learning course is a process - the content from face-to-face courses cannot simply be transferred online. For the blended course to be successful the designer must take into account the differences between face-to-face instruction (which the student will be participating in on a reduced level) and online instruction. The end goal of any instructional designer should be to provide a stimulating and informative learning environment in which students can master the subject matter. There must be a balance of individual work and discussion with others. The learning environment must be supportive, open and respectful. The facilitator needs to be well trained and clearly involved in the process of design.

In this guideline, I have set out what I feel are the important best practices guidelines for developing a blended learning course.

The Learning Platform

Focus on ease of use and interactive presentation.

1. Know the software that you are going to work with.
2. Allocate enough time to design the course. Simmons College has a course redesign schedule that suggests you will need eight months to successfully redesign your course.
3. In the Blended Learning Toolkit, the following worksheet is designed to help solidify your thoughts and goals:

1.  Which module would you like to develop first? Choose a module that will be easy to develop or select to work on a more complex module while you have specific time designated to the creation of your first online course materials (e.g., the first module, one in the middle of the course, a complex module toward the end of the course that involves a project). 
2.  What are the objectives, based on Bloom’s taxonomy, for this module? What should students know or be able to do upon completion of this module? 
3.  What activities will students complete in this module? Will any require special instructions/tutorials?
   

The Learning Environment

Focus on outcomes. What do you want the students to be able to do in the end?

1. Decide on the type of learning environment - is the course going to be asynchronous or synchronous? “Asynchronous, instructor-mediated discussions support student interactivity and enhance individual performance and satisfaction” (Everhart 2000; Hiltz and Wellman 1997)
2. Provide a detailed syllabus clearly defining expectations for the course. Guidelines for minimum participation should be clearly established.
3. Provide specific guidelines for each assignment
4. Create a discussion area to promote an open, supportive and inspirational online environment. Focus on interaction between the students and between the students and the instructor. Create activities that encourage students to engage with each other. “Research indicates that exchanges between students are as important, if not more important, to online learning environments as learner-instructor exchanges” (Ritchie and Newby 1989; Wegegrif 1998)
5. Make an FAQ area where students can search for answers to issues that they are experiencing before having to email you for help.
6. Personalize communication with students (include their name in the correspondence).
7. Use problem based learning to challenge students in a group scenario to work to find a solution to the problem. Asynchronous and synchronous discussion boards will facilitate communication. This type of learning will take longer online than in the classroom. “Although PBL scenarios may be challenging in an online environment, they can be an effective strategy for promoting student interactivity, enhancing students’ problem-solving skills, and providing students with a meaningful learning experience.” (Durrington, 2006)
8. Ensure the learning material is interactive and well presented.
   “Students demonstrate more positive attitudes and higher levels of performance when online classes are highly interactive, but many faculty about to embark in online teaching are not aware of the techniques available to increase the level of interactivity in online courses.” (Durrington, 2006)
9. Create assignments that start online and then carry over into the classroom - this will ensure that there is adequate ‘cross-over’ between the types of learning you are expecting your students to engage in. Make sure that the students don’t perceive your course as in ‘two parts’ but rather as one course that takes place in two formats. These formats must synchronize together to form a whole course.
10. Some parts of your course may not be currently working in a face-to-face scenario, so you should take this opportunity to reformat them for online learning. It may be that they are more suited to this platform.

The Learners

Focus on engagement. How will you keep the learners motivated and inspired?

1. Make sure that you understand how the students are learning - provide for all types of learners. 
2. Keep in constant communication with your learners. You need to communicate with all your learners especially on an online course to make sure that they have understood the material and are engaged in the learning process. 
3. Watch the discussion boards and be part of the discussion. Have a presence in the learning environment.
4. It is much more difficult in an online learning environment to monitor student progress. Make sure that you are in a position to notice when a student is not submitting their assignments or taking part in the discussions.
5. You need activities in your program that will engage the students - not lots of lecture and only questions at the end because your students will not be engaged, they will be bored.
   “Online instruction that provides opportunities in which students build interactive relationships among themselves and with the instructor also helps bridge the physical and psychological gap that occurs in online courses” (Chute, Thompson, and Hancock 1999) Emphasis should be on activities, in order to engage. Content is critical. The activities are what make the content interesting and ‘come alive.’
   “Students demonstrate more positive attitudes and higher levels of performance in online classes when they experience high levels of interaction” (McCroskey and Anderson 1976; Ritchie and Newby 1989)
6. Make sure that your students fully understand the concept of a blended learning course. Explain the rationale for the course and how the pieces fit together.

The Facilitator

Focus on training and involvement.

1. Training for the facilitator on the lesson plan and the software is vital. 
2. Get the facilitator involved early on in the process (when you are creating the objectives). During development, the SME or facilitator will be able to help with making the lesson more interesting - they must be part of the design.
3. Try to limit the number of instructors and facilitators so that you don’t have too many. Invest a lot of time and energy into the facilitator - they are the ones that will be steering the course and they will be the ones who will make it a success.
4. Facilitators that have already conducted a blended learning course will bring more experience and knowledge to the table that one that hasn’t - it may be worth your while to find one with some experience in blended learning.

In Conclusion

Inspire, motivate and cultivate success.

In this blended learning best practices guide I have attempted to show the various aspects of the process that are involved when converting from a face-to-face learning environment to a blended learning one. It is important that the facilitators and designers are aware that this isn’t just simply ‘less class time’ but take this as an opportunity to develop and engaging, interactive, stimulating course that is designed to enable success for the students. It is important to focus on the learning outcomes. Technology should be viewed as a tool in this process and should almost be the ‘invisible guardian’ enabling students to participate in their learning and structure their own learning environment. Students and facilitators will require additional training in the learning environment to familiarize themselves with the new demands generated by the change. If this course conversion is successful, your students will be engaged and inspired by the learner-centered approach of Project Based Learning assignments, discussion boards and group assignments. They will seamlessly move from one learning environment to the other, as the course material carries from one environment to the other, creating cross-over and a cohesion to the course.

Good luck with your conversion!

References

1. Andrade, H. G. 2005. Teaching with rubrics: The good, the bad, and the ugly. College Teaching 53 (1): 27-30.
2. Chute, A., M. Thompson, and B. Hancock. 1999. McGraw-Hill handbook of distance learning: An implementation guide for trainers and human resource professionals. New York: McGraw-Hill.
3. Dabbagh, N., and B. Bannan-Ritland. 2005. Online learning: Concepts, strategies, and applications. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
4. Durrington, V. A., and C. Yu. 2003. How administrators in distance education programs perceive distance education program quality and success. Paper presented at the Association for Educational Communications and Technology Conference, Anaheim, CA.
5. Everhart, R. L. 2000. Enterprise systems and distance learning: Creating services for connected learners. Syllabus: New Directions in Education Technology 13 (9): 48-51.
6. Hiltz, S. R., and B. Wellman. 1997. Asynchronous learning networks as a virtual classroom. Communications of the ACM 40 (9): 44-49.
7. Knowles, D. S. 2003. Evaluating college students’ efforts in asynchronous discussion: A systematic process. Quarterly Review of Distance Education 4 (1): 31-41.
8. McCroskey, J., and J. Anderson. 1976. The relationship between communication apprehension and academic achievement among college students. Human Communication Research, no. 3:73-81.
9. Moore, M. G., and M. M. Thompson. 1990. The effects of distance learning: A summary of literature (Research Monograph no. 2). University Park, PA: American Center for the Study of Distance Education.
10. Muirhead, B. 2001. Practical strategies for teaching computer- mediated classes. Ed at a Distance 15 (5). http://www.usdla.org/ html/journal/MAY01_Issue/article02.html (accessed December 13, 2005).
11. National Center for Education Statistics. 2003. Distance education at degree-granting post secondary institutions: 2000- 2001. Washington DC: Department of Education, http:// nces.ed.gov/ surveys/peqis/publications/ 2003017/ (accessed December 13, 2005).
12. Palloff, R. M., and K. Pratt. 2001. Lessons from the cyberspace classroom: The realities of online teaching. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass.
13. Ritchie, H., and T. J. Newby. 1989. Classroom lecture/discussion vs. live televised instruction: A comparison of effects on student performance, attitude. American Journal of Distance Education 3 (3): 8-17.
14. Simonson, M., S. Smaldino, M. Albright, and S. Zvacek. 2003. Teaching and learning at a distance: Foundations of distance education. 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
15. Verduin, J. R., and T. A. Clark. 1991. Distance education: The foundations of effective practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
16. Wegerif, R. 1998. The social dimension of asynchronous learning networks [Electronic version]. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks (2) 1: 34-49. http:// www.sloanc.org/publications/jaln/ v2n1/v2 nl_wegerif.asp (accessed December 13, 2005).
17. Blended Learning Toolkit: Design and Delivery Principles http://blended.online.ucf.edu/effective-practices/design-delivery-principles/
18.  Simmons College Blended Learning Course Redesign Schedule, http://at.simmons.edu/blendedlearning/implement/documents/pdfs/Blended%20Course%20Redesign%20Schedule.pdf
19. Blended Learning Course Design, based on a Magna Online Seminar titled “10 Ways to Improve Blended Learning Course Design” presented by Ike Shibley, PhD. Edited by Bonnie Snyder, D. Ed, CCPS. http://www.magnapubs.com/files/whitepapers/sample-blended-learning.pdf
20. Garrison, D. R., & Vaughan, N. D. (2007). Blended learning in higher education: Framework, principles, and guidelines. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

The Impact of Open Source

The Impact of Open Source

I recently registered for a beginners Computer Programming course through Udacity (www.udacity.com) because I had heard so much about Udacity and wanted to see what all the noise was about.

This is a link to the course I was enrolled on: https://www.udacity.com/course/viewer#!/c-cs101/l-48299949/m-48698544

When I began the course (as soon as I had registered as it is completely student led), I was immediately taken to a very clean white page with a video embedded in it. The first lesson (Lesson 1: How to Get Started) included an introductory video by the instructor (Dave Evans) giving a general overview of the course and what to expect. The video is setup as a mixture between a screencast and a FaceTime call. It is very effective - the informal feel of the video actually does feel like a classroom environment and the student is immediately put at ease. Dave certainly made me feel that even a beginner would be able to do this course - I was told at the beginning that I needed no Computer Science experience whatsoever, but throughout the intro there is reference made to programming concepts and it is riddled with techy vernacular.

The course itself is made up of ‘Lessons.” Each lesson includes a series of screencasts and video instructionals that are peppered by short quizzes to test understanding. At the end of each lesson there is an assignment. This course followed a linear-designed instruction model of sequential units or lessons. I felt that the layout was extremely effective - the learner isn’t distracted by lots of side content or information. The course only consists of the lecturer’s videos and screencasts so my attention is only on my instruction. This is very effective. Across the top of the screen is a visual representation of my progression through the course. I can always go back to a previous page/video, but cannot advance until I have watched the video content. This course is very carefully pre-planned and designed for a distance learning environment. As a student, I feel that I am part of a class (even though as a student I control the lesson progression to a large degree) and am able to get to know my instructor through the videos. There are interesting interviews in the lessons (in the first lesson, Sergey Brin, co-founder of Google, is interviewed) which brings interest and weight/relevance to the instruction.

The setup of this course was not concerned with who I was - at no point was I asked to take part in an introductory blog or discussion. I believe this is because the organizers want to give a great deal of flexibility to the student and not require any sort of collaboration exercise that would require students to be at the same learning point. This course is designed on the principle that students are joining from all over the world at completely different times within the time frame (a couple of months) set out for the course. It is up to the student how quickly they progress through the course and so any attempt at bringing the ‘class’ together would mean a loss in that course flexibility.

“Taking the time to learn about the learners in the class yields a more productive learning environment. Knowledge of general learner characteristics can inform the instructor of the nature of the students at origination and distance sites. This knowledge can aid the distance education instructor in overcoming the separation of instructor and students.” (Simonson et al, 2012)

This course in Computer Science did not necessitate learning about the student - it is designed to be a way for everyone to learn, regardless of background, training, experience or geographical location. The nature of Open Source Learning is that it has to work for everyone because there could be 50,000 students in one course! There is no way to learn about them all, and there seems to be no need in this particular learning system. The student logs in, learns and takes away the knowledge they need to go onto other things. There is not a credit system in place, students are doing the course simply because they want to learn. Personal motivation is enough for these students. That gives some clues about the type of learner and one can make sweeping generalizations based on the assumption that all learners on Open Source Education courses are self motivated and aren’t driven by the need for a qualification. They just want the skills.

“The content of a course needs to reflect where this content relates to the rest of the curriculum. It is essential to examine the nature of the content, as well as the sequence of information.” (Simonson et al, 2012)

The course that I enrolled on certainly laid out the course content very clearly - even before I had registered, there was a written synopsis of the course and a list of what would be covered in each lesson. Once enrolled, more detail was forthcoming, including the introductory video and screencast. The goals and objectives for instruction were slightly different than a conventional course - there are assignments which you are expected to achieve a passing mark on in order to proceed, so there are expectations of the learners to meet a predetermined level of performance, but without any interaction with the instructor.

How is open source going to impact learning? Well, the fact that I can go online and search for this level of instruction for free about just about any topic is amazing to me - learning just became available to everyone! I could be sitting in an internet cafe in Zimbabwe and, as long as I have an internet connection, could learn from the best instructors in America. What an opportunity! Only time will tell if it actually changes the face of education, but it certainly seems to have the potential to do so.

References
Simonson, M., Smaldino, S., Albright, M., & Zvacek, S. (2012). Teaching and learning at a distance: Foundations of distance education. Pearsons Education.

Collaborative Training Environment

Collaborative Training Environment

A new automated staff information system was recently purchased by a major corporation and needs to be implemented in six regional offices. Unfortunately, the staff is located throughout all the different offices and cannot meet at the same time or in the same location. As an instructional designer for the corporation, you have been charged with implementing a training workshop for these offices. As part of the training, you were advised how imperative it is that the staff members share information, in the form of screen captures and documents, and participate in ongoing collaboration.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I recommend that this training environment is created in a synchronous online learning environment, with 'live' lessons given to the participants via the web. Because the staff is located in different offices and cannot meet at the same time, the ongoing collaboration that is required will have to be gained through blogs and discussion boards. There should be a discussion board during the live lessons as well - these should take the form of webinars. I think that if the assignments associated with the training are completed in groups (purposely choose members of the groups from different locations) using a wiki to upload files and screen captures and finally to submit their assignments (as the wiki itself) then there will be excellent collaboration and sharing of documents and other information. The teams will feel closer as they have been working together, and this will ensure that the same learning has taken root in every branch of the company.
An example of an organization offering a course structured like this is http://www.automatedbuildings.com/online/index.htm

This company provides training in a live webinar format to employees who want to know more about the aspects specific to this particular industry. There is collaborative discussion during the webinar and afterwards through a discussion board.
Another example is the automated training system developed by L & T Chiyoda Limited, an engineering firm with 950+ employees. They are using an online Training Management System which includes synchronous online training and collaboration.

Distance Education: A History and My Thoughts

According to www.Merriam-Webster.com, distance education is "education that takes place via electronic media linking instructors and students who are not together in a classroom." This is a modern definition though, as distance learning existed before the internet was used as its primary medium. This great infographic (http://www.straighterline.com/online-education-resources/online-education-tools/infographic-history-of-distance-education/) shows how distance education has evolved from it's start in 1728 in Boston with lessons sent by mail, Penn State offering lessons on the radio in 1922, Stanford University founding the Stanford Instructional Television Network for part-time engineering students in 1968, through to 1976 when the University of Phoenix was founded to "give working adults flexible higher education options." (Straighterline) In 2010, 83% of CEOs and small business owners in the USA consider online degrees to be as credible as traditional degrees. Today, more than 50,000 searches are done each month for keywords relating to "online universities." (Straighterline)

I have studied through distance learning for many years, as I believe that we should never stop trying to learn something new. I remember the first distance learning course that I did, probably about 16 or 17 years ago, was a mathematics accounting course to help me with an aspect of my new job at the time. I received all the assignments through the mail, and had to allow for sending time when I submitted my assignments to the University. They had set up 'assignment drop-off points" all over the country (I was living in South Africa at the time) and you could deposit your assignment into one of those boxes and it would find it's way to your teacher. Before I took that course, I remember being amazed at the concept of learning in this way - I was worried about how I would complete all of the assignments without the input of my teachers or discussion with my peers. Then, once I started I realized that there was support, just in another way. I had to be well disciplined and plan in advance to do my assignments so that if I ran into difficulty I would have enough time to contact my teachers to get help. Before starting this course, my ideas of distance education had changed from 17 years ago - I am now aware of the way in which the internet has changed learning and that the medium of instruction has been revolutionized by the materials that can now be delivered online. My definition of "distance education" was actually more for something called "online learning" which is strongly linked to the concept of 'connectivism'. Wikipedia defines online learning as comprising of "all forms of electronically supported learning and teaching. The information and communication systems, whether networked or not, server as specific media to implement the learning process." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_learning)

The definition of distance learning is always changing because distance educators want to find the best way to deliver their content to their students. Twenty years ago, that was via the postal service - all assignments were sent and received through the mail and telephonic feedback or help could be sort. Email exchanges were also frequent between teacher and student. Very little of the peer to peer interaction that we see today existed for distance learners twenty years ago. More recently, as the internet has enabled distance educators to upload their content to the 'cloud' and share online, distance educators have significantly changed the way in which content is delivered as well as the learning experience of the student. Students are now a part of a collaborative learning platform that enables social interaction and discussion. The online learner (renamed from the 'distance learner') is a part of a learning community and is no longer the solitary practitioner they were in the past. "Distance" is no longer an issue - the internet means that students from all over the world can participate in online courses and learning and benefit from close to the same levels of social interaction within their group that students actually attending a college do. The factors that drive this change are the need for distance educators to deliver content quickly and comprehensively, cost and profit margin (more online learners = greater profit) and technological advances. These changes are not based on the student's technical knowledge or profession - they are based on the online educator's technical knowledge. The average student will be able to access the internet, watch videos and navigate an online library. The online educators who design the learning platforms (the instructional designers) are the ones that will educate the students further in what is possible with technology and learning. If they experiment with new ideas and push their designs so that content can be delivered in a way that will further enhance online learning, the student will certainly come along for the ride. It is the online educator that is 'driving' the process of change in many respects. That said, there are certain expectations that students have when learning online. They expect to have the content delivered to them online (as well as through text, although this should be minimal), there should be interactive content and multimedia presentations.

Online education changed dramatically recently with the introduction of MOOC (Massive Online Open Course), defined by wikipedia as "an online course aimed at large scale interactive participation and open access via the web. In addition to traditional course materials such as videos, readings and problem sets, MOOCs provide interactive user forums that help build a community for the students, professors and teaching assistants." Harvard and MIT both offer courses for free in this format, to anyone who wants to do them! This is going to revolutionize learning! It is a fantastic way to educate the World - anyone with an internet connection can learn for free from excellent institutions like MIT and Harvard. I recently joined a course in computer programming offered by Udacity and am really engaged in this new learning platform. Other excellent universities are offering MOOCs, through their online platforms: Coursera, Udacity, edX and NovoED. The future of online learning is looking up for all of us life-long learners!

Here is a link to a PREZI that I made about Distance Learning: http://prezi.com/igeffkkdagbc/present/?auth_key=zbxc3q3&follow=d4nd8kecbe67

References:

1. Wikipedia's definition of "online learning" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_learning

2. Infographic on the history of online education: http://www.straighterline.com/online-education-resources/online-education-tools/infographic-history-of-distance-education/

3. Huett, J., Moller, L., Foshay, W., & Coleman, C. (2008). The evolution of distance education: Implications for instructional design on the potential of the web (Part 3: K12). TechTrends, 52(5), 63–6 7.