Distance Education: Definitions, Generations and Key Concepts and Future Directions

Yıl 2018, Cilt: 5 Sayı: 1, 2 - 17, 30.06.2018

Abdullah Saykılı

Öz

Distance Education, nowadays defined more as Open and Distance Learning, dates back to 1800s. Once considered as using non-traditional approaches and delivery methods compared to conventional campus-based education, distance education now has become a mainstream form of education increasing its popularity and use in the 21st century. Distance education has taken various forms and different definitions have been adopted depending on the age it has been developed. Technologies and pedagogies of the age along with the societal circumstances have influenced how distance education is viewed and practiced making way for different generations of distance education. Distinct concepts, pedagogies and practices for distance education have also emerged on the journey distance education has taken since the 19th century. For this reason, this article firstly provides a critical review of the definitions of distance education presenting a new definition reflecting the affordances of the digital age. Moreover, the distance education generations are presented with focus on the factors leading to the forming of these new generations. Concepts such as transactional distance and social presence and trends and practices such as OERs, MOOCs and learning analytics are also addressed. Furthermore, the role of culture in design, delivery and perception of distance education is discussed with focus on the future of distance education.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Distance Education, generations, definitions, concepts and trends

Kaynakça

• Anderson, T. (2003). Getting the mix right: An updated and theoretical rationale for interaction. IRRODL, 4(2), 1-14.
• Anderson, B., & Simpson, M. (2012). History and heritage in distance education. 16(2), 1-10. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1080085.pdf
• Aydın, C. H. (2011). Açık ve uzaktan öğrenme: Öğrenci adaylarının bakış açısı. Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
• Bandura, A. (1971). Social Learning Theory. New York City: General Learning Press.
• Bates, T. (2014, 10 13). Comparing xMOOCs and cMOOCs: Philosophy and practice. Retrieved 04 01, 2016, from Online learning and distance education resources: http://www.tonybates.ca/2014/10/13/comparing-xmoocs-and-cmoocs-philosophy-and-practice/
• Bates, T. (2015). Teaching in a Digital Age. Retrieved from http://opentextbc.ca/teachinginadigitalage/
• Barnard-Brak, L., Paton, V., & Sulak, T. (2012). The relationship of institutional distance education goals and students' requests for accommodations. 25(1), 5-19. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ970016.pdf
• Bozkurt, A., Akgun-Ozbek, E., Yilmazel, S., Erdogdu, E., Ucar, H., Guler, E., . . . Aydin, C. H. (2015). Trends in Distance Education Research: A Content Analysis of Journals 2009-2013. IRRODL, 16(1), 330-363. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1061066.pdf
• Caruth, G. D., & Caruth, D. L. (2013). The Impact of distance education on higher education: A case study of the United States. 14(4), 121-131. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1042587.pdf
• Catalano, A. (2014). Improving distance education for students with special needs: A qualitative study of students' experiences with an online library research course. Journal of Library & Information Services In Distance Learning, 8(1-2), 17-31. doi:10.1080/1533290X.2014.902416
• Clow, D. (2013). An overview of learning analytics. Teaching in Higher Education, 18(6), 683-695. doi:10.1080/13562517.2013.827653
• Elias, T. (2011). Universal instructional design principles for Mobile Learning. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 12(2), 143-156.
• Farooq, M. U., Al Asmari, A., & Javid, C. Z. (2012). A Study of Online English Language Teacher Education Programmes in Distance Education Context in Pakistan. English Language Teaching, 5(11), 91-103. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1080034.pdf
• Feng, X., Lu, G., & Yao, Z. (2015). Professional task-based curriculum development for distance education practitioners at master's level: A design-based research. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 16(2), 288-310. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1061077.pdf
• Fozdar, B. I., Kumar, L. S., & Kannan, S. (2006). A survey of a study on the reasons responsible for student dropout from the bachelor of science programme at Indira Gandhi National Open University. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 7(3), 1-15. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ806047.pdf
• Garrison, D. R., & Baynton, M. (1987). Beyond independence in distance education: The concept of control. The American Journal of Distance Education, 1(3), 3-15.
• Goodfellow, R. (2008). New directions in research into learning cultures in online education. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Networked Learning 2008 (pp. 553-559). Halkidiki, Greece: Lancaster University.
• Grau-Valldosera, J., & Minguillón, J. (2014). Rethinking dropout in online higher education: The case of the Universitat Oberta de Catalunya. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 15(1), 290-308. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1024360.pdf
• Gunawardena, C. N. (1995). Social presence theory and implications for interaction and collaborative learning in computer conferences. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 1(2/3), 147-166.
• Gunawardena, C. N., & McIsaac, M. S. (2004). Distance education. In D. H. Jonassen, Handbook of Research in Educational Communications and Technology (2nd ed ed., pp. 355-395). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Gunawardena, C. N., & Zittle, F. J. (1997). Social presence as a predictor of satisfaction within a computer‐mediated conferencing environment. American Journal of Distance Education, 11(3), 8-26. doi:10.1080/08923649709526970
• Head, A. J., Hoeck, M. V., & Garson, D. S. (2015). Lifelong learning in the digital age: A content analysis of recent research on participation. First Monday, 20(2). doi:10.5210/fm.v20i2.5857
• Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations Across Nations (2nd Edition ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
• Holmberg, B. (1989). Theory and practice of distance education. London: Routledge.
• Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., Cummins, M., Estrada, V., Freeman, A., & Ludgate, H. (2013). Horizon Report 2013 Higher Education Edition. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium.
• Keegan, D. (1980). On the Nature of Distance Education. Zentrales Institut für Fernstudienforschung, 33, 1-40. Retrieved from http://recursos.udgvirtual.udg.mx/biblioteca/bitstream/123456789/1359/1/On_the_Nature_of_Distance_Education.pdf
• Keegan, D. (1988). Problems in defining the field of distance education. The American Journal of Distance Education, 2(2), 4–11.
• Kop, R., & Hill, A. (2008). Connectivism: Learning theory of the future or vestige of the past? International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 9,(3), 1-13.
• Lenka, S. K., & Kant, R. (2012). A study of attitude and perception of the learners towards distance education in relation to their biographical factors. 13(4), 236-244. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1000425.pdf
• Moore, M. G., & Kearsley, G. (2012). Distance education: A systems view of online learning (Third Edition ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.Mott, J. (2010). Envisioning the Post-LMS Era: The Open Learning Network. EDUCAUSEreview, 33(1).
• Ni, A. Y. (2013). Comparing the Effectiveness of Classroom and Online Learning: Teaching Research Methods. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 19(2), 199–215.
• Nti, K. (2015). Supporting access to open online courses for learners of developing countries. IRRODL, 16(4), pp. 156-171.
• Nworie, J. (2012). Applying leadership theories to distance education leadership. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 15(5), Winter 2012. Retrieved from http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/winter154/nworie154.html
• OECD. (2007). Giving Knowledge For Free The Emergence of Open Educational Resources. Massachusettes: OECD.
• Olivier, M. (2014). Monetizing French distance education: A field enquiry on higher education value(s). 15(2), 107-120. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1030101.pdf
• Owusu-Mensah, F., Anyan, J. A., & Denkyi, C. (2015). Staff development practices of open and distance learning institutions in Ghana: The case of the distance education programme of University of Education, Winneba, Ghana. Journal of Education and Practice, 6(14), 79-86.
• Peters, O. (1983). Distance education and industrial producation: a comparative interpretation in outline. In D. Sewart, D. Keegan, & B. Holmberg, Distance Education. International Perspectives (pp. 68-94). London: Croom Helm.
• Rumble, G. (1986). The planning and management of distance education. London: Croom Helm
• Rooij, S. W., & Zirkle, K. (2016). Balancing pedagogy, student readiness and accessibility: A case study in collaborative online course development. Internet and Higher Education, 28, 1-7. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2015.08.001
• Saykili, A. (2018). Culture in online learning: Essentialist and post-essentialist frameworks. In E. Toprak, & E. Genc Kumtepe, Supporting multiculturalism in open and distance learning spaces (pp. 166-190). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
• Scollon, R., & -Scollon, S. W. (2001). Intercultural Communication. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
• Shachar, M., & Neumann, Y. (2003). Differences Between Traditional and Distance Education Academic Performances: A meta-analytic approach. IRRODL, 4(2), 1-20.Shanley, E. L., Thompson, C. A., Leuchner, L. A., & Zhao, Y. (2004). Distance education is as effective as traditional education when teaching food safety. Food Service Technology, 4, 1-8. doi:10.1111/j.1471-5740.2003.00071.x
• Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 2(1), pp. 3-10. Retrieved from elearnspace.org: http://www.itdl.org/journal/jan_05/article01.htm
• Siemens, G. (2006). Connectivism: Learning Theory or Pastime of the Self-Amused? Retrieved October 12, 2010, from elearnspace.org: http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism_self-amused.htm
• Siemens, G. (2008). Learning and Knowing in Networks: Changing roles for Educators and Designers. Retrieved November 10, 2010, from ITForum: http://it.coe.uga.edu/itforum/Paper105/Siemens.pdf
• Simon, J., Burton, K., Lockhart, E., & O'Donnell, S. (2014). Post-Secondary distance education in a contemporary colonial context: Experiences of students in a rural first nation in Canada. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 15(1), 1-19. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1024326.pdf
• Simonson, M., Smaldino, S., & Zvacek, S. (2015). Teaching and learning at a distance foundations of distance education. Charlotte, North Carolina: Information Age Publishing, Inc.
• Smidt, E., Bunk, J., McGrory, B., Li, R., & Gatenby, T. (2014). Student attitudes about distance education: Focusing on context and effective practices. 2(1), 40-64. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1080350.pdf
• Smith, M. S., & Casserly, C. M. (2010). The Promise of Open Educational Resources. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 38, 8-17.
• The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation. (n.d.). Open Educational Resources Initiative. Retrieved May 25, 2011, from The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation: http://www.hewlett.org/uploads/files/OER_overview.pdf
• Tu, C.-H., & McIsaac, M. (2002). The relationship of social presence and interaction in online classes. American Journal of Distance Education, 16(3), 131-150.UNESCO. (2002). Forum on the Impact of Open Courseware for Higher Education in Developing Countries. Paris: UNESCO.
• UNESCO. (2012). 2012 Paris OER Declaration. Paris: UNESCO. Retrieved from http://www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/CI/CI/pdf/Events/English_Paris_OER_Declaration.pdf
• Wilson, L. O. (2016). Three Domains of Learning – Cognitive, Affective, Psychomotor. Retrieved March 14, 2016, from The Second Principle: http://thesecondprinciple.com/instructional-design/threedomainsoflearning/
• Yates, A., Brindley-Richards, W., & Thistoll, T. (2014). Student engagement in distance-based vocational education. Journal of Open, Flexible and Distance Learning, 18(2), 29-44. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1079824.pdf