Theory and Distance Learning
In our textbook there are several theories of distance learning outlined and explained (some more fully than others): Wedemeyer’s Theory of Independent Leaner (1981); Moore’s theory of Independent Study and Transactional Distance (1970s & 2007); Peter’s Theory of Industrialized Teaching (1960s & 1988); Holmberg’s Theory of Interaction and Communication (1985); Knowles’ Theory of Andragogy (1990); Perraton’s Synthesis of Existing Theories (1988);and Keegan’s American Theory for Distance Education (1996). I don’t think they are all the same animal though—at least from reading what is in our text. What I mean by this, is that there is no agreement between them about what a theory looks like or does. None of these theories is going to explain the nature of distance education or predict replicable outcomes—much as Holmberg might want it. Education like economics, is not a science and while we may use some of the tools of scientific inquiry—we need to be quite clear about what they can and cannot do. A telling remark, in my mind, is Keegan’s identifying a lack of theory with a “lack of identity” (42): in order to be taken seriously, in its own right, and not as an arm of other sorts of education, practitioners in the field feel the need to create a theory which gives distance learning an air of seriousness—puts it on a solid footing for academic inquiry—and funding. I don’t think any of these theories is going to be used to try to test or disprove a hypothesis (which is what scientists do all the time); no, these theories are ideological and are there to help, in Keegan’s words, to provide “the foundation on which the structures of need, purpose, and administration can be erected. (p. 20)” (42). So Keegan’s theory is to be used as a foundation—a set of assumptions, a paradigm, not as something to discover truth.
Peterson’s theory of distance learning is also not a theory; instead, he uses an existing theory from political science/economics as a lense to look at distance education—this applying an existing theory to something else to see where it fits (and where it does not—something I am not sure Peters actually does) is a heuristic device of comparing and contrasting, not the same thing as builing a theory—if one can be built. Wedemeyer’s theory is not a really a theory but a system—which organizes and prioritizes his assumptions about distance learning which all center around his premise that the learner is independent. Moore’s theory is straight forward but not a theory either really—more an empirical description of what he sees in the field—leaners with greater or lesser autonomy and at greater or lesser degrees of distance. Holmurg at least takes time to line up his assumptions—I think the exploration of assumptions is very important when writing about how you see and understand something—but even the additions to his assumptions 10 years later, do not make a theory of distance education—they are a thick description of what he sees happening and the implications of why they are happening.
So, I find calling all of these ideas theories to be problematic—and I am not sure a theory is what we really want—or what I want. As I said in my first attempt to define distance education, I would want to begin with description first—to see and understand what is happening before I try to narrow it down to a definition.
I understand now, that I am coming at this class and at my understanding of this kind of learning, from a philosophical framework in education and from my perceptions of how technology and, specifically, the internet, are changing education—which may or may not include distance education and its historical roots. And my experience in reading educational theories is that they are usually about furthering a philosophical agenda—whether it is a behaviorist view, a constructivist view or some other view along the continuum between. I am always asking myself—what does the theory or view assume to be true about the world? Why? Who stands to gain and lose from this particular philosophy, theory, or worldview? What is at stake? What is eclipsed or left out because it may be inconvenient to the view or theory?
So, to begin with a few of my assumptions: I do not think anything can be taught through any medium as Perraton claims—it seems a self-serving ideal for those who want to promote distance education and the use of media for education—not least to rationalize the costs of education. It is an overstatement of the case. Nor do I think the medium is a “mere vehicle” for transporting knowledge as Clarke has claimed; delivery truck analogy aside--I think we have to take seriously what Marshal McLuhan said when he said the media is the message--in other words, media change us and change how we think—in spite of what we are learning with or through them. I understand that Clark was making a point about learning outcomes that could be measured—but there are some things we cannot measure, especially if we are not looking for them. I think Clarke’s statement, from what I understand, came out of an argument about whether learning through media might be better for learners—that using the media might be a panacea for education. But in this day and age, with media changing the world and education as rapidly as it is, I think it is dangerous to hold this presumption based on past research.
What I do think, is harder to get down, and I hope over the course of the class, to come to some sort of educational philosophy about what is happening in distance learning or in online learning; whatever I come up with, however, will have to include what is happening inside classrooms as well--with teachers in the room—so I think I will be leaving distance education, at least as it has been variously and historically defined, behind—or it will be subsumed into something larger which is happening because of technological changes.
In our textbook there are several theories of distance learning outlined and explained (some more fully than others): Wedemeyer’s Theory of Independent Leaner (1981); Moore’s theory of Independent Study and Transactional Distance (1970s & 2007); Peter’s Theory of Industrialized Teaching (1960s & 1988); Holmberg’s Theory of Interaction and Communication (1985); Knowles’ Theory of Andragogy (1990); Perraton’s Synthesis of Existing Theories (1988);and Keegan’s American Theory for Distance Education (1996). I don’t think they are all the same animal though—at least from reading what is in our text. What I mean by this, is that there is no agreement between them about what a theory looks like or does. None of these theories is going to explain the nature of distance education or predict replicable outcomes—much as Holmberg might want it. Education like economics, is not a science and while we may use some of the tools of scientific inquiry—we need to be quite clear about what they can and cannot do. A telling remark, in my mind, is Keegan’s identifying a lack of theory with a “lack of identity” (42): in order to be taken seriously, in its own right, and not as an arm of other sorts of education, practitioners in the field feel the need to create a theory which gives distance learning an air of seriousness—puts it on a solid footing for academic inquiry—and funding. I don’t think any of these theories is going to be used to try to test or disprove a hypothesis (which is what scientists do all the time); no, these theories are ideological and are there to help, in Keegan’s words, to provide “the foundation on which the structures of need, purpose, and administration can be erected. (p. 20)” (42). So Keegan’s theory is to be used as a foundation—a set of assumptions, a paradigm, not as something to discover truth.
Peterson’s theory of distance learning is also not a theory; instead, he uses an existing theory from political science/economics as a lense to look at distance education—this applying an existing theory to something else to see where it fits (and where it does not—something I am not sure Peters actually does) is a heuristic device of comparing and contrasting, not the same thing as builing a theory—if one can be built. Wedemeyer’s theory is not a really a theory but a system—which organizes and prioritizes his assumptions about distance learning which all center around his premise that the learner is independent. Moore’s theory is straight forward but not a theory either really—more an empirical description of what he sees in the field—leaners with greater or lesser autonomy and at greater or lesser degrees of distance. Holmurg at least takes time to line up his assumptions—I think the exploration of assumptions is very important when writing about how you see and understand something—but even the additions to his assumptions 10 years later, do not make a theory of distance education—they are a thick description of what he sees happening and the implications of why they are happening.
So, I find calling all of these ideas theories to be problematic—and I am not sure a theory is what we really want—or what I want. As I said in my first attempt to define distance education, I would want to begin with description first—to see and understand what is happening before I try to narrow it down to a definition.
I understand now, that I am coming at this class and at my understanding of this kind of learning, from a philosophical framework in education and from my perceptions of how technology and, specifically, the internet, are changing education—which may or may not include distance education and its historical roots. And my experience in reading educational theories is that they are usually about furthering a philosophical agenda—whether it is a behaviorist view, a constructivist view or some other view along the continuum between. I am always asking myself—what does the theory or view assume to be true about the world? Why? Who stands to gain and lose from this particular philosophy, theory, or worldview? What is at stake? What is eclipsed or left out because it may be inconvenient to the view or theory?
So, to begin with a few of my assumptions: I do not think anything can be taught through any medium as Perraton claims—it seems a self-serving ideal for those who want to promote distance education and the use of media for education—not least to rationalize the costs of education. It is an overstatement of the case. Nor do I think the medium is a “mere vehicle” for transporting knowledge as Clarke has claimed; delivery truck analogy aside--I think we have to take seriously what Marshal McLuhan said when he said the media is the message--in other words, media change us and change how we think—in spite of what we are learning with or through them. I understand that Clark was making a point about learning outcomes that could be measured—but there are some things we cannot measure, especially if we are not looking for them. I think Clarke’s statement, from what I understand, came out of an argument about whether learning through media might be better for learners—that using the media might be a panacea for education. But in this day and age, with media changing the world and education as rapidly as it is, I think it is dangerous to hold this presumption based on past research.
What I do think, is harder to get down, and I hope over the course of the class, to come to some sort of educational philosophy about what is happening in distance learning or in online learning; whatever I come up with, however, will have to include what is happening inside classrooms as well--with teachers in the room—so I think I will be leaving distance education, at least as it has been variously and historically defined, behind—or it will be subsumed into something larger which is happening because of technological changes.