Comments on: On Open, distance, e-learning and other name confusion http://terrya.edublogs.org/2009/01/15/on-open-distance-e-learning-and-other-name-confusion/ Teaching and Learning in a Net-Centric World Wed, 09 Dec 2009 22:42:26 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.2 hourly 1 By: » OLDaily por Stephen Downes, enero 15, 2009 TIC, E/A, PER…: http://terrya.edublogs.org/2009/01/15/on-open-distance-e-learning-and-other-name-confusion/comment-page-1/#comment-1522 » OLDaily por Stephen Downes, enero 15, 2009 TIC, E/A, PER…: Mon, 09 Feb 2009 20:50:33 +0000 http://terrya.edublogs.org/?p=120#comment-1522 [...] Learning at the Back Door (Aprender por la puerta trasera).” Terry Anderson, Virtual Canuck.[Liga] [etiquetas: EEUU, USA, aprendizaje Online, libros, cambio de [...] [...] Learning at the Back Door (Aprender por la puerta trasera).” Terry Anderson, Virtual Canuck.[Liga] [etiquetas: EEUU, USA, aprendizaje Online, libros, cambio de [...]

]]> By: Jared Stein http://terrya.edublogs.org/2009/01/15/on-open-distance-e-learning-and-other-name-confusion/comment-page-1/#comment-1518 Jared Stein Thu, 22 Jan 2009 17:02:43 +0000 http://terrya.edublogs.org/?p=120#comment-1518 I admit I consciously neglected anything prior to the modern OER movement as you point out (for reasons of brevity and focus). Thanks for filling in and expanding the discussion. I admit I consciously neglected anything prior to the modern OER movement as you point out (for reasons of brevity and focus). Thanks for filling in and expanding the discussion.

]]> By: Being More Specific About Openness in Learning at alstevens.org http://terrya.edublogs.org/2009/01/15/on-open-distance-e-learning-and-other-name-confusion/comment-page-1/#comment-1516 Being More Specific About Openness in Learning at alstevens.org Sun, 18 Jan 2009 23:34:45 +0000 http://terrya.edublogs.org/?p=120#comment-1516 [...] Blog Post: On Open, distance, e-learning and other name confusion [...] [...] Blog Post: On Open, distance, e-learning and other name confusion [...]

]]> By: Javed Alam http://terrya.edublogs.org/2009/01/15/on-open-distance-e-learning-and-other-name-confusion/comment-page-1/#comment-1515 Javed Alam Sun, 18 Jan 2009 06:30:31 +0000 http://terrya.edublogs.org/?p=120#comment-1515 As you mentioned openness has many dimensions and it can be defined in many ways. With the increased used of affordable technology the cost of information creation and sharing is coming down. The new IT tools such as social bookmarking, social media and networking allow one to share without knowing much under the hood computer technology. It is now possible to run online classes where non degree student can participate and in some ways enrich the learning experience of the students who are registered through the University in the online course. Here is one of the experimental course I ran using Ning network that had more vistors and guests then actually enrolled students for a letter grade. <a href="http://infotechtools.ning.com/" rel="nofollow">http://infotechtools.ning.com/ There are other examples in your blog post that follow the same method. IMHO in the future the cost of education will go down drastically for the self motivated learners. In many subject areas to zero. It is the case right now for Information technology and computer science. Anything a highly motivated learner needs is available on the Internet. All they need is a PC, broadband Internet connection, time to find the resources they need to learn and then actually go through the learning experience. The motivated learners will have plenty of resources on the Internet to learn on any topic they need/want to learn for free or at a very modest cost. On the other hand the cost of traditional education within walled campuses of Universities will go up in the future. It should follow the model of music where one can download the digital music for free but the cost of concerts has skyrocketed where one can see their favorite bands live.</a> As you mentioned openness has many dimensions and it can be defined in many ways.

With the increased used of affordable technology the cost of information creation and sharing is coming down. The new IT tools such as social bookmarking, social media and networking allow one to share without knowing much under the hood computer technology.

It is now possible to run online classes where non degree student can participate and in some ways enrich the learning experience of the students who are registered through the University in the online course. Here is one of the experimental course I ran using Ning network that had more vistors and guests then actually enrolled students for a letter grade.

http://infotechtools.ning.com/

There are other examples in your blog post that follow the same method.

IMHO in the future the cost of education will go down drastically for the self motivated learners. In many subject areas to zero. It is the case right now for Information technology and computer science. Anything a highly motivated learner needs is available on the Internet. All they need is a PC, broadband Internet connection, time to find the resources they need to learn and then actually go through the learning experience.

The motivated learners will have plenty of resources on the Internet to learn on any topic they need/want to learn for free or at a very modest cost.

On the other hand the cost of traditional education within walled campuses of Universities will go up in the future. It should follow the model of music where one can download the digital music for free but the cost of concerts has skyrocketed where one can see their favorite bands live.

]]> By: Clayton Wright http://terrya.edublogs.org/2009/01/15/on-open-distance-e-learning-and-other-name-confusion/comment-page-1/#comment-1514 Clayton Wright Sat, 17 Jan 2009 00:33:56 +0000 http://terrya.edublogs.org/?p=120#comment-1514 Terry, I totally agree with your comment regarding the fact that many distance education institutions are not open unless a very restrictive interpretation of the term is used. During my work with faculty at institutions in Southeast Asia, Africa, and the Caribbean, they proudly announce that their institution is "an open distance learning institution", yet they have restrictions with regard to: - admission requirements - age, prerequisite courses, accreditation requirements - registration - often, students can only register two or three times a year (however, I understand the desire of institutions from a management point of view to restrict the registration dates, but at least they should consider having one entry date per month) - course fees - Yes, it is understandable that institutions have fees, but the fees should be at a level that many people can pay, or financial support or delayed payment schedules should be implemented. - delivery - Specific technology requirements can limit access; those who can't afford the technology may not be able to receive a print-based version of the course, for example - course/program goals are fixed and students are not able to negotiate acceptable goals/objectives that take into account their experience, their environment, their life-long goals, and the goals of the institution - course timeframe is fixed and unless there are extreme events, such as the death of a spouse, the timeframe for course completion is inflexible - evaluation - how students are evaluated is fixed; rarely do they have the opportunity to negotiate how they can exhibit the knowledge and experience gained during the course. This does not mean that standards should be watered down, but simply that their are many ways to achieve a given standard. A truly open system should be a flexible one. Despite the comments I made above, I can understand the terms "open" and "distance" but I am challenged with the term "distributed learning" that is gaining in popularity. It seems to be appropriate for those who hold a connectivist view of education, but not necessarily for those who support other educational philosophies. Terry, I totally agree with your comment regarding the fact that many distance education institutions are not open unless a very restrictive interpretation of the term is used. During my work with faculty at institutions in Southeast Asia, Africa, and the Caribbean, they proudly announce that their institution is “an open distance learning institution”, yet they have restrictions with regard to:
- admission requirements – age, prerequisite courses, accreditation requirements
- registration – often, students can only register two or three times a year (however, I understand the desire of institutions from a management point of view to restrict the registration dates, but at least they should consider having one entry date per month)
- course fees – Yes, it is understandable that institutions have fees, but the fees should be at a level that many people can pay, or financial support or delayed payment schedules should be implemented.
- delivery – Specific technology requirements can limit access; those who can’t afford the technology may not be able to receive a print-based version of the course, for example
- course/program goals are fixed and students are not able to negotiate acceptable goals/objectives that take into account their experience, their environment, their life-long goals, and the goals of the institution
- course timeframe is fixed and unless there are extreme events, such as the death of a spouse, the timeframe for course completion is inflexible
- evaluation – how students are evaluated is fixed; rarely do they have the opportunity to negotiate how they can exhibit the knowledge and experience gained during the course. This does not mean that standards should be watered down, but simply that their are many ways to achieve a given standard.

A truly open system should be a flexible one.

Despite the comments I made above, I can understand the terms “open” and “distance” but I am challenged with the term “distributed learning” that is gaining in popularity. It seems to be appropriate for those who hold a connectivist view of education, but not necessarily for those who support other educational philosophies.

]]> By: Shanta Rohse http://terrya.edublogs.org/2009/01/15/on-open-distance-e-learning-and-other-name-confusion/comment-page-1/#comment-1513 Shanta Rohse Fri, 16 Jan 2009 13:05:37 +0000 http://terrya.edublogs.org/?p=120#comment-1513 I love posts about defining the undefinable. The first paper in the first course in the AU Masters programme had (and maybe still has) students define "distance learning" (a rather disconcerting introduction since, having just plunked down the tuition fee, I discovered that no one really has a handle what I've just committed to). For the paper, I was not drawn to definitions of openness, which at that time struck me as a rally cry for university board members rather than an ideal a student could embrace. Rather, I enjoyed discussions about the "distance" in distance learning. An example: Margaret Haughey (1995) talks about how rich this term is, and that distance is not only about <em>geography</em> and <em>time</em>; it connotes <em>difference</em>: cultural differences, social differences, psychological differences in how we define ourselves (our apartness from others). That is an ideal a student can embrace. It would be great to see an ontology for your programming, and it might be interesting to let students to the tagging... I love posts about defining the undefinable.
The first paper in the first course in the AU Masters programme had (and maybe still has) students define “distance learning” (a rather disconcerting introduction since, having just plunked down the tuition fee, I discovered that no one really has a handle what I’ve just committed to). For the paper, I was not drawn to definitions of openness, which at that time struck me as a rally cry for university board members rather than an ideal a student could embrace. Rather, I enjoyed discussions about the “distance” in distance learning. An example: Margaret Haughey (1995) talks about how rich this term is, and that distance is not only about geography and time; it connotes difference: cultural differences, social differences, psychological differences in how we define ourselves (our apartness from others). That is an ideal a student can embrace.
It would be great to see an ontology for your programming, and it might be interesting to let students to the tagging…

]]> By: rWorld2 » Open and blended histories http://terrya.edublogs.org/2009/01/15/on-open-distance-e-learning-and-other-name-confusion/comment-page-1/#comment-1512 rWorld2 » Open and blended histories Fri, 16 Jan 2009 08:59:16 +0000 http://terrya.edublogs.org/?p=120#comment-1512 [...] to Stephen Downes, yet again, for pointing out Terry Anderson’s excellent piece on Open, distance, e-learning and other name confusion in his always useful Virtual Canuk blog. As Terry noted there has been a lot written on the [...] [...] to Stephen Downes, yet again, for pointing out Terry Anderson’s excellent piece on Open, distance, e-learning and other name confusion in his always useful Virtual Canuk blog. As Terry noted there has been a lot written on the [...]

]]> By: Mikala http://terrya.edublogs.org/2009/01/15/on-open-distance-e-learning-and-other-name-confusion/comment-page-1/#comment-1511 Mikala Fri, 16 Jan 2009 08:44:53 +0000 http://terrya.edublogs.org/?p=120#comment-1511 Hi Terry, I really enjoyed reading this post. I guess any education involves oppennesses, and openness also in some senses relates to the original idea of building schools and wanting to educate people. Openness is certainly not a particular quality pertaining to certain ways of enacting education - with or without ICTs. I agree, though, that much research on relationships between ICTs, learning and education has in a variety of senses been too techno-centric (usually emphasizing one particular ICT) and focused on inherent qualities. There is a need to call for more research which looks at the chains of relations inside which opennesses move and are made. In relation to Christian Dalsgaard (you mention above), I believe that refering to the concept of transparency as an inherent quality of things (in his case web 2.0), may be just as problematic as referring to oppenness as an inherent quality of a particular way of doing education. I think we should be careful not to take for granted that (as you write above when referring to Dalsgaard) "transparency - the capacity for learners to find about each other through the traces, comments and artifacts they leave in blogs, tags, profiles and discussions. Transparency is the major educational affordance of social software, used in group, networked and collective learning activity." If we study this, I'm sure we'd find that neither openness nor transparency is the major educational affordance OF any-one-thing. Transparencies and opennesses require maintenance and take efforts. If anything seems transparent and open it is because of the sociomaterial entanglements inside which this is accomplished. And multiple actors are involved in making these accomplishments. We could take any ICT and place in a village in e.g. New Guinea and see how open and transparent I would be(come). We should be more concerned with the ways in which ICTs become part of moving the contexts (of the contexts) of knowledge and engagements which we as researchers are interested. Thanks for maintaining this blog, I enjoy reading it :-) Kind greetings, Mikala Hi Terry,
I really enjoyed reading this post. I guess any education involves oppennesses, and openness also in some senses relates to the original idea of building schools and wanting to educate people.

Openness is certainly not a particular quality pertaining to certain ways of enacting education – with or without ICTs. I agree, though, that much research on relationships between ICTs, learning and education has in a variety of senses been too techno-centric (usually emphasizing one particular ICT) and focused on inherent qualities.

There is a need to call for more research which looks at the chains of relations inside which opennesses move and are made. In relation to Christian Dalsgaard (you mention above), I believe that refering to the concept of transparency as an inherent quality of things (in his case web 2.0), may be just as problematic as referring to oppenness as an inherent quality of a particular way of doing education.

I think we should be careful not to take for granted that (as you write above when referring to Dalsgaard) “transparency – the capacity for learners to find about each other through the traces, comments and artifacts they leave in blogs, tags, profiles and discussions. Transparency is the major educational affordance of social software, used in group, networked and collective learning activity.” If we study this, I’m sure we’d find that neither openness nor transparency is the major educational affordance OF any-one-thing.

Transparencies and opennesses require maintenance and take efforts. If anything seems transparent and open it is because of the sociomaterial entanglements inside which this is accomplished. And multiple actors are involved in making these accomplishments. We could take any ICT and place in a village in e.g. New Guinea and see how open and transparent I would be(come).

We should be more concerned with the ways in which ICTs become part of moving the contexts (of the contexts) of knowledge and engagements which we as researchers are interested.

Thanks for maintaining this blog, I enjoy reading it :-)

Kind greetings,

Mikala

]]>