Beyond the Walls: A Personal Experience of Distance Education more

Beyond the Walls: A Personal Experience of Distance Education Nephtaly Joel Botor Learning goes beyond the four walls of the classroom. Teachers have used this adage to emphasize the vastness of learning opportunities. Some have gone the distance—and succeeded—by showing us how. They brought us to the greater world through tours, immersions and self-directed activities. But at the end of the day, we went back to the bosom of our classrooms and did our formal learning within those four walls. The Master of Distance Education (MDE) Program of the University of the Philippines Open University (UPOU) is different. There are no classrooms, but there is learning. The "walls" saying "You belong here" are virtual, not real. They are not physical but psychic. You feel them when you enter the learning website—our dear myportal—and realize that somewhere in the World Wide Web is a node, a group of learners from different parts of the world, managed by a teacher called Facultyin-Charge (FIC), learning together but apart. Though unseen, these "walls" bring forth the feeling that this is not just the ordinary "learn on your own" experience but a universitas—a community where learning is formal and credible, though it happens at one's own place and pace, thus accommodating people like me whose work or family responsibilities might have been barriers to pursuing a degree. Peculiar, is not it? This atypical mode of learning is a characteristic of what we call distance education (DE), a system of learning different from the common modes we know. To begin with, for a program to fall under DE it must first satisfy specific criteria, chief of which is the "separation of teacher and learner” (Keegan, 1983, p. 33). This separation gives DE a special flavor and though it caters to self-regulated learning—a heightened learner autonomy (Moore, 1993)—this does not make DE analogous to private study since another DE criterion is the involvement of an educational organization in directing the learning experience (Keegan 1983). In my case, this educational organization is the UPOU. Since separation is what differentiates DE from other learning modes, this aspect is worth expounding. Moore (1993) propounded that separation in DE is more transactional than geographical because it creates a "psychological and communication space of potential misunderstanding". He referred to this space as "transactional distance" which may be crossed by providing opportunity for dialogue. Dialogue, a key concept in Moore's theory of transactional distance, is easy to understand in the context of face-to-face education where interaction is proximal. It however acquires a distinct tone in DE due to teacher-learner and learner-learner separation. Moore (1993) was terse in his definition of dialogue: he only said it refers to "positive interaction" and that it is "purposeful, constructive, and valued," wherein people are respectful and active listeners and contributors towards "improved understanding." He also theorized that dialogue inversely relates to transactional distance. Hence, we can lessen transactional distance by increasing dialogue via two-way communication (another DE criterion for Keegan, 1983). Perhaps due to the cost of telephony in those times, Moore postulated that separation calls for the use of reading and writing as ways of communication. To date, although free Voice Internet Protocols (VoIP) like Yahoo or Skype are available, it seems that use of written communication remains to be a convenient choice especially with the advent of instant messaging technology. In my MDE classes, communication is mostly done via written means. Since I am miles away from colearners and teachers, using mobile or landline is impractical; thus I rely much on written correspondence through e-mail, forums, and chat. In a positive way, these allow me ample opportunity for thoughtful reflection. There are however moments when problems arise due to unavailability of communication media, say, due to Internet glitch. This becomes worse at times when immediate feedback is most needed. Yes, although separation heightens learner autonomy, there are moments when dialogue is much desired. This is maybe the reason why dialogue received considerable attention from scholars (Saba, 2003; Anderson, 2003). For example, Saba's systems dynamics hypothesis (2003) states, with reference to Moore's theory of the inverse relationship between dialogue and transactional distance, that the need for "direct instruction" increases transactional distance and structure. Structure—the extent to which a program is organized or pre-determined (Moore, 1989)—is another key concept directly related to transactional distance and learner autonomy. A firsthand experience of Saba's concept is when, due to doubt or difficulty, I desire to communicate with others. A classmate even shared feelings of frustration or exasperation from being unable to connect. It may be true that highly organized materials (structure) are available and I am free to find more (learner autonomy) but, when there is no dialogue, a point will come that what is available is not enough to satisfy a mind in awe. This desire is nonetheless temporary. After dialogue has taken place, the learner again feels the need for independence, probably to process the output of interaction (i.e., do independent research), and begins to seek for highly structured content (i.e., start looking for new references). I infer majority of my classmates also experience the same. I observe that when a new thread is opened after sustained silent reading, most of us rush to post our opinions (in some cases, initiating conversation to classmates by email or chat) but as discussion becomes saturated, the number of posts lessens and the response time becomes more delayed. Seemingly, as more ideas come up, more questions are resolved; thus, the need to ask and to dialogue becomes less pressing. This "ebb and flow” (as a classmate calls it) goes on and on until the goal is achieved. This dynamics between dialogue and autonomy might have urged scholars to propose achieving the right mix between "independence and interaction" (Anderson, 2003; Daniel & Marquis, 1979 in Anderson, 2002). Unlike in traditional classroom, dialogue in DE is scarce and the learner to a large extent determines his/her learning experience (Moore, 1993). This arrangement poses the question of which amount of dialogue and independence brings about the deepest, most meaningful, yet most costeffective learning experience. Anderson (2003)'s equivalency theorem suggesting that the minimization or even elimination of one or two of three forms of interaction (student-content, studentstudent, and student-teacher) will not significantly affect the learning process as long as one form is at a high level, might practically respond to the issue of cost-effectiveness (specifically, when learnercontent is the chosen mode). It might also solve issues of accessibility in support of Peters' (1965/1971 in Keegan, 1983) philosophy that DE is an industrialized form of education serving a wide group of learners (particularly marginalized groups) by producing pre-packaged materials (content) delivered via technical media. However, despite the available technology to accommodate this theorem, the pedagogical debate continues regarding whether one mode can really compensate enough the lack or absence of others to guarantee an optimal learning experience. And, if yes, how, to what extent, in what conditions, and in which circumstances? This, I think, presents one aspect of what Garrison (2000) referred to as a shift from structural to transactional issues in DE—the refocus from technological concerns to matters of effective DE practices. My experience proves that the preceding points are practical matters in DE. For long, limited resources and great responsibilities have hindered me from pursuing a degree, fortifying my belief that UPOU's online program is the best option. This choice nonetheless entails a trade off: gaining the convenience of distance learning means losing the psychological comforts of face-to-face instruction (i.e., immediate and proximal interaction). True to this point, despite adequate and accessible learning content, I often find myself longing to interact with others not necessarily for the purpose of satisfying my learning needs but for socialization or for encouragement. Simply put, my constant search for community and psychological reassurance often leads me to engage in social interaction. This event only demonstrates that, for a myriad of reasons, one form of interaction might not always satisfy a learner and that educational practices anchored on Anderson's theorem has to be examined closely for effectiveness. Truly, DE deserves further exploration. It is as complex as the ocean that an essay about it would appear like a sheer puddle on a small dig. As I go further, more questions and insights about DE arise. Before, I thought that the theories of education I knew would suffice my need to understand DE. I unlearned this notion. Instead, I learned that although these theories may apply, they seem not enough; proving that old ideas would not always explain new situations. These prod me to take a shift from traditional paradigms of learning and teaching towards newer grounds appropriate to DE. Ultimately, understanding and appreciating DE demands acquisition and appreciation of new attitudes and knowledge that are also beyond those known to be applicable within the four cemented walls of a traditional classroom. References Anderson, T. (2003). Getting the mix right again: An updated and theoretical rationale for interaction. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 4 (2). Anderson, T. (2002). An Updated and Theoretical Rationale for Interaction. (Online article). Retrieved May 29, 2009 from from http://www. it.coe.uga.edu/itforum/paper63/ paper63.htm. Daniel, J., & Marquis, C. (1979). Interaction and Independence: Getting the mixture right. Teaching at a Distance, 15, 25 – 44. Garrison, R. (2000) Theoretical Challenges for Distance Education in the 21st Century: A shift from structural to transactional issues. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 1 (1). Gorsky, P. (2005). A critical analysis of transactional distance theory. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education. 6 (1), 1-11. Retrieved May 29, 2009 from http://telem.openu.ac.il/hp_files/pdf/Gorsky.pdf. Keegan, Desmond J. (1980) 'On defining distance education, Distance Education 1(1), 13- 36. Moore, M. (1993). Theory of transactional distance. American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1 – 6 (Online version). Retrieved May 24, 2009 from http://www.ajde.com/Contents/vol3_2.htm. Moore, M. (1989). Three types of interaction. American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1 – 6 (Online version). Retrieved May 24, 2009 from http://www.ajde.com/Contents/vol3_2.htm. Peters, O. (1971) Theoretical aspects of correspondence instruction. In Mackenzie, O. and Christensen E.L. (Eds.) The changing world of correspondence study. University Park and London: Pennsylvania State. Peters, O. (1965) Der Fernunterricht. Weinheim: Beltz. Saba, F. (2003). Distance Education, Theory, Methodology, and Epistemology: A Pragmatic Paradigm. Handbook of Distance Education (p 13). M. G. Moore and W. G. Anderson. Mahwah, New Jersey, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.