Education and Information Technologies

, Volume 20, Issue 3, pp 579–588 | Cite as

Online learning environments in higher education: Connectivism vs. dissociation

Article

Abstract

Over the last decade online education has emerged as a way for students and faculty to collaborate more freely, attain greater flexibility, and utilize new media to learn. The burning debate lies in whether online educational options are harmful to traditional education or offer endless benefits necessary to accommodate a 21st century learner. Supporters of virtual learning environments suggest that 21st century learners require the construction and creation capabilities offered through Web 2.0 to succeed while critics suggest that asynchronous interactions are not engaging and rigorous enough for higher education. A balanced online environment should provide a blend of both asynchronous and synchronous opportunities, which promote communication and collaboration among classmates and instructors.

Keywords

Distance learning Connectivism Hybrid Synchronous Asynchronous Blended learning Web 2.0 New media Virtual learning 21st century skills 

References

  1. Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2006). Making the grade: Online education in the United States. Needham: Sloan Consortium.Google Scholar
  2. Bakhtin, M. (1981). The dialogic imagination. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bejerano, A. R. (2008). The genesis and evolution of online degree programs: who are they for and what have we lost along the way? Communication Education, 57(3), 408–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Belisle, C., Rawlings, A. & Van Seventer, C. (2001) The educational multimedia taskforce 1995-2001: Integrated research effort on multimedia education and training. Luxembourg: European Commission. Retrieved from: http://www.cordis.lu/ist/ka3/eat/training_publ.htm.
  5. Bell, F. (2011). Connectivism: its place in theory-informed research and innovation in technology-enabled learning. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 12(3), 98–118.Google Scholar
  6. Chau, P. (2010). Online higher education commodity. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 22(3), 177–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Edwards, S. (2010). Teaching through assessment: The merging of technology and assessment in teacher education learning contexts. Paper presented at ACE2010: Digital Diversity Conference, Melbourne.Google Scholar
  8. Green, N. C., Edwards, H., Wolodko, B., Stewart, C., Brooks, M., & Littledyke, R. (2010). Reconceptualising higher education pedagogy in online learning. Distance Education, 31(3), 257–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Grineski, S. (2000). I’ve a feeling we’re not in Kansas anymore: the commercialization and commodification of teaching and learning in higher education. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 20(1), 19–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hamilton, D., Dahigren, E., Hult, A., Roos, B., & Söderström, T. (2004). When performance is the product: problems in the analysis of online distance education. British Educational Research Journal, 30(6), 842–855.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Herrington, J., Reeves, T. C., & Oliver, R. (2006). Authentic tasks online: a synergy among learner, task, and technology. Distance Education, 27(2), 233–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hoskins, B. (2011). Demand, growth, and evolution. Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 59(1), 57–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jaschik, S. (2009). The evidence on online education. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/06/29/online.
  14. Lynch, A. (1996). Thought contagion. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  15. Lynch, K. (2006). Neo-liberalism and marketisation: the implication for higher education. European Educational Research Journal, 5(1), 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Mayadas, A., Bourne, J., & Bacsich, P. (2009). Online education today. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 13(2), 49–56.Google Scholar
  17. McCann, J., & Holt, R. (2009). An exploration of burnout among online university professors. Journal of Distance Education, 23(3), 97–110.Google Scholar
  18. Moloney, J. F., & Oakley, B. (2010). Scaling online education: increasing access to higher education. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 14(1), 55–70.Google Scholar
  19. Pina, A. A. (2010). Online diploma mills: implications for legitimate distance education. Distance Education, 31(1), 121–126.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  20. Rheingold, H. (2010). Attention and other 21st century social media literacies. Educause Review, 45(5), 14–24.Google Scholar
  21. Ribsaman, M. (2000). What is distance education? Defining the concepts and terms which have characterized the field. Retrieved from http://www.distance-educator.Com/index1a101600.phtml.
  22. Saugstad, T. (2002). Educational theory and practice in an Aristotelian perspective. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 46(4), 373–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Seaman, I. E., & Allen, J. (2010). Class differences, online education in the United States, 2010. Babson Park: Babson Survey Research Group.Google Scholar
  24. Sfard, A. (1998). On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one. Educational Researcher, 27(2), 4–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Siemens, G. (2004). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning. Retrieved from http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism.htm
  26. U.S. Department of Education Office of Educational Technology. (2010). Transforming American education–Learning powered by technology. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/sites/default/files/netp2010-execsumm.pdf.
  27. Waites, T., & Lewis, L. (2003). Distance education at degree-granting postsecondary institutions 2000-2001. Washington: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Educational Statistics.Google Scholar
  28. Young, S. (2006). Student views of effective online teaching in higher education. American Journal of Distance Education, 20(2), 65–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Indiana University of PennsylvaniaPittsburghUSA

Personalised recommendations