Abstract
In this conceptual chapter, I argue that technologies will continue to become smaller, faster, and more powerful, allowing distance- and technology-enhanced learning many new affordances. In order to be effective, the focus should remain on learning and not on technology nor on the distance in space, time, language, and culture that may separate learners and instructors. Of course, all of those are relevant to effective designs for distance learning, but what is essential is the learning. A specific example involving digital engineering will be used to illustrate the possibilities and pitfalls of advanced distance learning environments.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsReferences
Allen, J. A., & Seaman, J. (2010). Learning on demand: Online education in the United States, 2009. Report for the Sloan Consortium. Newburyport, MA: The Sloan Consortium. Retrieved June 18, 2010, from http://www.sloan-c.org/publications/survey/pdf/learningondemand.pdf.
Boone, W., & Butler Kahle, J. (1998). Student perceptions of instruction, peer interest, and adult support for middle school science: Differences by race and gender. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 4, 333–340.
Carr-Chellman, A. A. (Ed.). (2005). Global perspectives on e-learning. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Centra, J. A., & Gaubatz, N. B. (2005). Student perceptions of learning and instructional effectiveness in college courses. A report for the Educational Testing Service. Princeton: Educational Testing Service. Retrieved June 18, 2010, from http://www.ets.org/Media/Products/perceptions.pdf.
Chen, Y., & Hoshower, L. B. (2003). Student evaluation of teaching effectiveness: An assessment of student perception and motivation. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 28(1), 71–88.
Dörner, D. (1996). The logic of failure: Why things go wrong and what we can do to make them right (R. Kimber & R. Kimber, Trans.). New York: Metropolitan Books.
Dörner, D., & Wearing, A. (1995). Complex problem solving: Toward a (computer-simulated) theory. In P. A. Frensch & J. Funke (Eds.), Complex problem solving: The European perspective (pp. 65–99). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ellis, T. (1984). Class size. ERIC digest number eleven. Eugene, OR: ERIC Clearinghouse on educational management. Retrieved June 18, 2010, from http://www.ericdigests.org/pre-922/size.htm.
Ericsson, K. A. (2004). Deliberate practice and the acquisition and maintenance of expert performance in medicine and related domains. Academic Medicine, 10, S1–S12.
Filak, V. F., & Sheldon, K. N. (2003). Student psychological need satisfaction and college teacher course evaluations. Educational Psychology, 23(3), 235–247.
Johnson, T. E., Ifenthaler, D., Pirnay-Dummer, P., & Spector, J. M. (2009). Using concept maps to assess individuals and team in collaborative learning environments. In P. L. Torres & R. C. V. Marriott (Eds.), Handbook of research on collaborative learning using concept mapping (pp. 358–381). Hershey, PA: “http://www.igi-global.com/reference/details.asp?ID=34574”\o“Information Science Publishing”\t“_blank” Information Science Publishing.
Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential and inquiry learning. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86.
Klein, J. D., Spector, J. M., Grabowski, B., & de la Teja, I. (2004). Instructor competencies: Standards for face-to-face, online and blended settings. Greenwich: Information Age.
Marsh, H. W., Overall, J. U., & Kesler, S. P. (1979). Class size, students’ evaluation, and instructional effectiveness. American Educational Research Journal, 16(2), 57–70.
Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., Bakia, M., Jones, K. (2009). Evaluation of evidence-based practices in online learning: A meta-analysis and review of online learning studies. Report for the U.S. Department of Education, ED-04-CO-0040. Washington: US Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development. Retrieved June 18, 2010, from http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/tech/evidence-based-practices/finalreport.pdf.
Merrill, M. D. (2002). First principles of instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 43–59.
Perkins, D. N. (1991). Technology meets constructivism: Do they make a marriage? Educational Technology, 13, 18–23.
Richey, R. C., Klein, J. D., & Nelson, W. A. (2004). Developmental research: Studies of instructional design and development. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (2nd ed., pp. 1099–1130). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Slavin, R. E. (1998). Effects of student teams and peer tutoring on academic achievement and time on task. Journal of Experimental Education, 48, 253–257.
Smith, M. L., & Glass, G. V. (2005). Meta-analysis of research on class size and its relationship to attitudes and instruction. American Education Research Journal, 17(4), 419–433.
Spector, J. M. (2005). Innovations in instructional technology: An introduction to this volume. In J. M. Spector, C. Ohrazda, A. Van Schaack, & D. A. Wiley (Eds.), Innovations in instructional technology: Essays in honor of M. David Merrill (pp. xxxi–xxxvi). Mahwah: Erlbaum.
Spector, J. M. (Ed.). (2007). Finding your online voice: Stories told by experienced online educators. Mahwah: Erlbaum.
Spector, J. M. (2008). What makes good online instruction good. In J. Visser & M. Visser-Valfrey (Eds.), Learners in a changing learning landscape: Reflections from a dialogue on new roles and expectations (pp. 251–266). Dordrecht: Springer.
Spector, J. M., Doughty, P. L., & Yonai, B. A. (2003). Cost and learning effects of alternative e-collaboration methods in online settings (final report for the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation cost effective use of technology in teaching initiative). Syracuse: Syracuse University.
Spector, J. M., & Merrill, M. D. (2008). Special issue: Effective, efficient and engaging (E3) learning in the digital age. Distance Education, 29(2), 153–164.
Spector, J. M., Milrad, M., & Davidsen, P. I. (2003). Model facilitated learning. In S. Naidu (Ed.), E-learning: Technology and the development of teaching and learning. London: Kogan Page.
Storrings, D. A. (2005). Attrition in distance education: A meta-analysis. Unpublished dissertation, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY.
Visser, V., & Visser-Valfrey, M. (Eds.). (2008). Learners in a changing learning landscape: Reflections from a dialogue on new roles and expectations. Dordrecht: Springer.
Yager, R., & Yager, S. (1985). Changes in perceptions of science for third, seventh, and eleventh grade students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 22(4), 347–358.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2012 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Spector, J.M. (2012). The Future of Distance Learning Technology: It’s Not About the Technology and It’s Not About the Distance. In: Moller, L., Huett, J. (eds) The Next Generation of Distance Education. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-1785-9_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-1785-9_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA
Print ISBN: 978-1-4614-1784-2
Online ISBN: 978-1-4614-1785-9
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)