Dialogue |
VOL. 8, No. 1, 126-133
Editor's Note
The approach used for Dialogue is something of an experiment. I invited five long-standing and active members of CADE to participate in an informal discussion. The purposes of the discussion were twofold: one, to bring to the fore the key issues, challenges, and concerns facing distance educators in the 1990s; and two, to model an interactive process for the Dialogue section of the Journal. Readers are invited to pursue the ideas presented here in more depth and, if they wish, contribute their responses to a future edition of the Journal.
Consistent with many CADE activities, this conversation took place by audioconferencing. The participants were Erin Keough, Thérèse Lamy, Barbara Spronk, Jim Bizzocchi, and Liz Burge, moderator.
Liz: I'd like to set the stage by reminding everyone that we agreed to discuss issues that will be facing distance educators over the next few years. We have no pretensions they will be resolved; rather, our intention is to identify key issues, challenges, and concerns as "grist for the mill." To begin, I'll ask each of you to state your top three issues. Erin?
Erin: One of my concerns is our readiness to provide quality learning experiences for the new client group with whom we are working. Are we ready to deal effectively with the backgrounds and learning styles of these new clients. My other two issues focus on decreasing funding allotments. Even though we have talked a lot about access to education in the past, we have, in fact, been rather selective with regard to our clients. Now, however, in response to our claims that distance education is cost effective, more people are looking to us for training. We are now being pushed to measure up to our cost effective claim. The third point I wish to make is that this comes at a time when there is less money, fewer staff, and less time for our own develop-ment - whether that involves meetings, time to publish papers, or whatever. Because we are in the business of creating knowledge, I think we will find that constrained resources will have a negative impact on us in the next few years.
Thérèse: My first concern is the transformation of the unimodal distance education institutions - or even their disappearance; the second, is the increasing involvement of the private sector in distance education; and the third isue is whether new communications technologies will result in a transformation or reinforcement of the way we design courses.
Barbara: The first issue for me is that if distance education is going to fulfill its promise and potential of meeting the needs of disadvantaged learners, it will be necessary for us, as distance eduators, to work more collaboratively not only with each other but with educators in other kinds of institutions and sectors as well. The second issue is related to the first: as distance educators, we must see ourselves in partnership, rather than in competition, with other educators. The third issue is that we have to think much more critically about what we do within a societal framework. We need to be clear about whose needs we are meeting, whose knowledge we are passing on, and to what ends.
Jim: My first issue can be posed as a question: what are the implications of the convergence of the computer, telecommunications technology, and other media? A second issue relates to how the dichotomy between distance educators and campus-based educators is breaking down. The third issue is funding and how, as educators, particularly as distance educators reliant on technology, we will pay for what we do.
Liz: What a list! There is considerable convergence of concerns, but there are some intriguing differences too. Let's go east to west again. Erin, would you elaborate on your issues, perhaps starting with your third point - your comment regarding less time for our own development. Does the phrase "professional development" capture your concern or is it something more than that?
Erin: To me, professional development deals with ideas that are already on the table. What I'm talking about is having the time to build creatively, to bounce ideas off people, and to generate new understandings, approaches, etc. The two are not mutually exclusive, of course, but when you look at the literature, you see ideas that have been around for a long time. I don't see a lot of growth. I think this is partly because both time and contact with professional peers is limited.
Liz: What about your point concerning new client groups?
Erin: Many of the people who come to us today are quite familiar with different types of technology. They're used to learning by computers. For instance, today's high school students think that television and computers are quite ordinary media of instruction. The private sector is another group that needs a completely different approach than one we have traditionally provided. They want an intensive two-day course on something specific, not a thirteen-week course or a self-paced learning package or anything like that. We find it quite a challenge to be responding continually to these new groups, especially when working with constrained resources.
What do you think, Thérèse?
Thérèse: I would say that's very true. The private sector is interested in both training and education and has expressed some anguish as to why institutions are not producing the people they need for the kinds of jobs that exist now. This has become an issue also with government, which is saying to us: "Retrain our work force." The business world is saying, "Well, if the institutions can't do it, maybe we should get into the training business ourselves." What is the role for distance education in this? I wonder how we can best train people for work and whether it will be done by institutions or by private enterprise.
Barbara: May I jump in at this point? I find the prospect of education being taken over by the private sector quite frightening. The private sector has a big role to play in training, but when you start talking about education, which has a societal framework, that is something we cannot consign to the private sector. Their particular vested interest prevents them from doing the educational job that institutions are capable of doing. It is the large scale, society-wide, global perspective that encompasses the history of humankind, that takes a comparative and critical look at societies around the world and at groups within our own society. This must remain within the public sector - the private sector is simply unable to provide this education.
Jim: Yes, it is frightening. But, the fact is that we're living in times when many public functions are being contracted out to private agencies. This includes educational services. Another fear is that we may find that as people progress through their careers they find it is more expedient to go to the private sector for training. Given our long-standing advocacy of lifelong learning, this result would be somewhat ironic.
Barbara: I fear you're right, Jim, that the private sector is taking over these functions, claiming greater effectiveness and efficiency. What concerns me is the groups that they will miss - the disadvantaged groups we've been struggling to reach. An example is women in the pink collar ghetto, the women who haven't got the credentials to rise into better paid work. Others include the unemployed, the physically challenged, new immigrants, northern and rural residents, and older students.
Thérèse: Actually, Barbara, statistics tell us that only 10% of the population reaches university and the high school dropout rate is estimated between 20–35%. These people especially need education and training. It seems that the institutions in which we have put so much money over the last 75 years are not doing the job. I think one of the reasons institutions are failing in their job is because they are not flexible enough. We also need to change our attitudes and values regarding education and training. I'm interested in what role distance education could play. For instance, maybe it could be a bridge between underprivileged populations, institutions, and the private sector.
Liz: I would like to pick up on a couple of points: who can distance education reach that conventional educators are not reaching? Can we elaborate on the distinction between technical knowledge/training and the knowledge that includes an awareness of the values and context behind the knowledge?
Barbara: Perhaps I can start off with a couple of observations. Distance education certainly has no corner on the knowledge market, but I think that distance educators have two real advantages to offer to educators in publicly-funded institutions and to those in the private sector. The first advantage is that distance education has a track record of being learner-centred. Because we use technology to mediate between the teacher and the learner, we have paid considerable attention to the learner's skills, needs, and capabilities. The second advantage is our relative sophistication in the use of these technologies to facilitate the learning process and to extend the reach of the educator and trainer. I'm not denying the gaps that exist in our knowledge and practice. However, I think that in distance education, probably because we have been struggling for "parity of esteem," to use Fred Jevon's term, with our colleagues in the conventional sector, we have been more critical of our practice than conventional educators have tended to be. And, again, because of our focus on the learners, we have tended to concern ourselves much more with questions like: Whose needs are we really meeting? Whose lives are we really creating this knowledge for? What are we transmitting? To what end?
Jim: I've thought for a long time that there has been an artificial dichotomy between traditional campus-based educators and distance educators. To me, there is a continuum of educational practice and different ways to reach learners. I think we could contribute to the breakdown of the dichotomy by making a conscious effort to work with our colleagues and to share our experience and expertise with them as they incorporate new technologies into their teaching.
Erin: I'm more pessimistic. I don't see us as being particularly on the vanguard of using technology in education. Traditional classrooms have work stations and computers. Schools on the south coast of Newfoundland with 35 students are tied into Internet as part of their science program. I think that we may lose some of our impact because we have not properly integrated some of the more interactive technologies. I'd go further and suggest that part of our problem is that, as a group that tends to see itself in the vanguard, we'd be hard pressed to say whether some of these new technologies are good, bad, or indifferent.
Barbara: I think the reality of the position you put forward, Erin, is pushing me to redefine ourselves as educators, rather than distance educators. I wonder if distance education now has the kind of legitimacy and parity to enable us to stop trying to define and redefine this business of distance education and see ourselves as educators. I think it was you, Erin, who spoke earlier about how closed our knowledge seems to be getting. Maybe if we start looking at ourselves again as educators, with a particular set of contributions to offer, we could open the discourse and generate the new ideas we need.
Liz: Thérèse, this might be a good time to ask you to elaborate on your earlier point about the emerging transformation in course design.
Thérèse: As I see it, the technology we use in distance eduction brings about the necessity of thinking about the process of communication. As far as course design is concerned, we then ask ourselves how we are using the technology. Are we using it to promote the same types of structures we are familiar with? Are we using technology as a pipeline for course content? Are we using it as means to transfer learning? We could also ask if we are interested in the social interactive process that should be integral to learning. How do we view the learner? I think that the technologies help us to ask questions about course design. I am also questioning the legitimacy of distance education as such. I think it is a mode, a technique, a network. Whether the fact that more campus-based teachers are using more distance education modes is positive or negative, I don't know. Certainly, it is economics and finances that will drive us to collaborate. In the longer term, I think that distance education, per se, will disappear and will be integrated into new forms of learning structures.
Liz: On a different topic, one of the standard chestnuts is the question of Canadian content. Should we be concerned about the amount of Canadian content as more and more courses are produced off- shore? Are we still struggling for what Symmons and Page referred to as "a question of balance?"
Barbara: Perhaps that's a good reason to think more creatively about the business of course production and delivery, so that we can shape courses to meet the needs of Canadian learners. This means using examples and contexts that come from their experience as Canadians and, at the same time, providing a more global perspective. I think we, as distance educators, have some experience and, probably, more knowledge than we think we do about how this kind of course development can be done.
Thérèse: It's an issue but maybe not in the way you think it is for
Anglophones and Francophones. For example, Francophones in Canada can produce texts in French; but, by and large, we have to use North American sources, most of which are in English. Therefore, Canadian content is not a question for us. It just doesn't exist in many fields. I guess, for a small cultural group, we really have to find ways to interface with the culture of others and still keep ours. That has been so for the past 300 years. I believe that is what Canadian content is about also. If I may just say one more thing about this . . . as long as the provincial structure of education remains in place - and this will seem a paradox - I don't think we'll be able to have true Canadian content.
Liz: I want to move on to my next question, which is a different side of the global component you mentioned, Barbara. Should we, as Canadians, be thinking about our role in distance education in the developing nations as a potential form of educational imperialism?
Barbara: It certainly can be, yes, if we persist in carrying to other nations and other cultures our own assumptions about learning and the role that learning plays in society. Just as we should be sensitive to learners' needs here in Canada, when we work with institutions in other nations, we should shift our thinking to the social context and needs of that institution.
Jim: It seems to me that one way for us not to become cultural imperialists is to actively support collaborative processes.
Liz: One final question. If you were asked to identify the most critical research issue for the 90's, what would it be?
Jim: For me, it would be to learn more about the potential applications for telecommunications technology in term of the learning process.
Barbara: Actually, I think that a lot of what we discussed this afternoon could be formulated into research questions.
Liz: Perhaps we should throw this out to the readers of the Journal and ask them to build on our dialogue in future issues. Regrettably, our time is up. There's no doubt that we only skimmed the surface of a number of knotty issues and that time constraints left many others in the wings. Thank you all for participating.
Jim Bizzocchi is Capilano College's Distance Education Liaison person, a faculty member in the College's Media Resources Program and a former CADE Board member. Jim has just finished an assignment helping the Commonwealth of Learning complete its strategic plan for training Commonwealth distance educators.
Liz Burge is the Distance Learning Coordinator at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. A former CADE Board member, Liz is interested in issues related to the teaching- learning process in adult and distance learning.
Erin Keough has worked in the field of telemedicine and distance education since the late 1970's and is a former President of CADE. Erin is currently the Director of Telemedicine at Memorial University of Newfoundland, which supports the distance programming of a broadly-based consortium of health and education agencies.
Thérèse Lamy, qui est vice-présidente de l'ACED, travaille dans le domaine de la formation à distance depuis dix-sept ans. Elle a développé une expertise plus particulière dans le dessin d'activités de formation à distance et elle a également collaboréà l'élaboration de contenue de formation de formateur(e)s pour une clientèle internationale. Son domaine d'expertise touche plus particulièrement l'analyse des besoins de la clientèle, la communication éducative, et la médiatisation des contenus en utilisant les technologies appropriées.
Barbara Spronk is Associate Professor, Anthropology, at Athabasca University and former CADE Board member. Barbara is manager of a CIDA-funded project in Thailand and seconded part-time to the CIDA-funded "Canada-Asia Partnership" project at the University of Calgary.