Is it Time to Rid Universities of Distance Education? |
VOL. 8, No. 2, 69-72
Of course not, and only for the sake of rhetoric would you suggest such an idea. After all, those of us who work in universities are almost swamped by the reports of one kind or another that point to distance education as the way of the future. And did not Smith (1991, p. 84) refer to the expertise of Canadian universities in this field? Given the praise and enthusiasm for distance education, the suggestion that it is time for it to die seems somewhat facile, but maybe the idea is worth examining.
Recently I attended a meeting designed to explore the formation of a consortium of Western universities. The intention of the consortium is to deliver a program of courses primarily using broadcast television. During the meeting the issue of the name of the consortium was raised. While bandying around the usual assortment of unpronounceable and unacceptable acronyms, it was suggested that "distance education" should be part of the title. Although on the surface this appeared an eminently sensible suggestion, it appeared, in my mind, to limit the scope of the proposed consortium, and it raised the issue of whether practitioners of distance education do themselves a disservice by using this term.
Although it is dangerous to generalize about the position of distance education in universities, there are few who would challenge the assertion that on most Canadian campuses it is here to stay. Having stated that, however, it is probably fair to comment that in most dual-mode institutions distance education is seen as a somewhat lesser form of instruction. Although it may not be openly articulated, there is little doubt that in most Canadian universities the ideal teaching model is that of a small class, 20 or so in size, taught in a face-to-face situation. The essential feature of this model, to my mind, is the potential for critical interaction between professor and students as well as among the students themselves. Here is the heart of the educational transaction, and whereas the small class traditional model may not guarantee it, with it there is at least the potential for a satisfying educational experience. In contrast, distance education would appear to be a poor cousin, and, consequently, it is often dismissed by traditionalists as inferior. The result is that distance education is sometimes marginalized by the attitudes of faculty members and departments if not by administrative action. Contrary, however, to the view of many inside universities, the world is changing, and the time has come to examine university teaching and distance education through a new lens rather than with the somewhat myopic view of the golden days of academe.
The pressures facing universities today are many, and the institutions are coming to realize that they can no longer proceed as they have done in the past. There is scarcely a university in Canada that has not been beset by budgetary pressures that are resulting in cuts of one kind or another. These cuts are now being felt by every section of the institution and few departments are not being faced with the unwelcome prospect of diminishing teaching resources. Further, this situation is not likely to change in the mid-term as governments are beginning to come to grips with the deficits facing them.
In consort with the budgetary crisis facing universities is the increasing demand for access. This stems mainly from the realization by the public that a university education is beginning to be a necessity in the job market of today. Consequently, governments are pressuring universities to increase the numbers of students they admit. Further, the nature of the demand on the institutions is changing as more mature students are enrolling, and there is a growing demand for the institutions to deliver programs to these students at times and in locations the students want.
The twin pressures of budgetary restrictions and increased demands for access mean that universities are in the unenviable position of having to do more with less. One of the more obvious consequences is that class sizes are increasing and the small class traditional model is becoming an exception rather than the norm on campus. Class sizes of 200 or more are not uncommon in many institutions, and common sense dictates that they cannot have the same degree of interactivity as a class of 20, nor can they be taught by the same methods. Indeed, one can legitimately ask: Is not a student in such a class just as much at a distance as a student studying off-campus? To deal with this new reality universities are looking to other methods of instruction, and there is a growing increase in the use of technology to teach on campus.
Just as universities are changing, so too is distance education. It is changing not so much as a result of limitations but rather as a result of the growth in technology and an evolution in the way it is practised. The technological explosion has brought highly interactive means of delivery within reach of most distance education units. Two-way interactive video is now affordable. It is not the exotic, unobtainable technology it once was. As well, computer-based communication is becoming a highly acceptable way to deliver instruction. The result is that the term "distance" in distance education is fast becoming a red herring because students studying at a distance have an equivalent opportunity to interact with their instructors as do students in many of the large classes now commonplace on campus. In addition, the last decade has seen a growth in the knowledge on which distance education is based, resulting in the growing professionalization of the distance educator - as the emergence of graduate training in the field confirms. No longer is it sufficient for instructors to just repeat what they customarily do in a face-to-face class when teaching at a distance. Rather, there is a growing use of instructional design and development principles in distance education courses, and many on-campus courses could well benefit from their use.
So, it appears that there are two sets of forces operating: one on universities, which is moving them away from the cherished traditional classroom; the other on distance education, which is improving its capabilities and broadening the application of its expertise. These two sets of forces are beginning to make the notion of distance irrelevant as applied to university education. It might be more helpful, therefore, to conceptualize instruction along the dimensions shown. When viewed this way, the distance component is really irrelevant to instruction.
So, to return to the original question: Is it time to rid universities of distance education? Clearly, in one sense the question is absurd; not only is distance education clearly alive and well, but it is also anticipated that it will play an even larger role in the future, particularly as our institutions realize that globalization means that the world is coming to their doorsteps and is beginning to deliver its courses in their own backyards. However, those of us who serve non-traditional students are aware of the degree to which they have been marginalized - not only by the practices of institutions but also by the subtleties of the attitudes of departments and faculty members. Thus, how often do we hear that a qualification obtained via distance education is not really of the same quality as one earned in the traditional classroom? In dealing with this reality semantics are important, and I suspect that as long as we continue to label ourselves as distance educators we continue to perpetuate these attitudes. Rather, we should view ourselves as educational technologists with skills and capabilities of use to the institution, whether it be to teach students on or off campus. By calling ourselves "educational technologists" or "learning specialists" or some other more general title, we would tend to avoid the possibility of isolating ourselves within the institution and setting our students apart from those on campus. Thus, at least in this sense, it is time to rid universities of "distance education."
Smith, S. L. (1991). The report of the commission of inquiry on Canadian university education.
David Kirby is a professor in the Department of Curriculum and Instruction at the University of Calgary, and he was formerly Dean of Continuing Education at the University of Calgary and the Dean of Continuing Studies and Extension at Memorial University. His research interests include the study of interaction in audio-teleconferencing and video-teleconferencing instruction.