DL Biggest Strength is a Matter of Access

We've been grappling with DL in Adult Education (AE) for several years now. In AE the issue is all about student access. Adult students come to centres for a variety of reasons: upgrading for career change, re-orientation, or enhancement; to improve their general quality of life; undiagnosed learning disabilities; childhood socio-economic barriers (abuse, addictions, addicted parents, etc); English is a second (third, or fourth) language; and a myriad of other reasons.

Many of the students, then, are trying to balance issues in their own lives--kids, works, kids & work, personal issues, etc. Therefore, what we offer in AE, along with a full curriculum, is a matter of how to access that curriculum so those students have the best opportunity to succeed.

Unofficially, we're also a kind of 'alternative education' in that we're very aware of such obstacles to learning as homelessness, poverty, learning disabilities, language, etc. So, we modify the curriculum, as well as assessment and evaluation methods, to suit the individual needs of those students as they present themselves to us.

To this end AE has several methods in which students can access the curriculum: classrooms, learning centres, and online. Although each of these methods has experienced, committed, and certified teachers teaching the courses, usually the individual teachers have specific training and experience that augment the specific obstacles that method of delivery usually sees in the students. So, for example, learning centre (LC) teachers at a DTES school will not only know the curriculum, but will also be aware of undiagnosed learning disabilities and be able to modify the curriculum so that student can meet the requirements of the Ministry and future employers, yet also meet their specific needs. LC teachers at, for example, Main Street Education Centre, will be more versed in second language acquisition issues.

Distributed Learning is, then, an issue of access. Some students cannot get into either a classroom or a LC, yet can be successful if the method of delivery is flexible, as DL is. DL is NOT for everybody, and it does present its own obstacles. That being said, as was noted in the article, DL should be seen as another means for student success, but cannot replace--for most students in many circumstances--the dynamics of a classroom environment.

If the Ministry is (mis)using DL and 21st Century Learning more as a cost cutting measure, it will be doing a disservice to all. Often the details of these ideas ARE reduced to jingoism and, therefore, they are being presented and (ab)used as quick fixes. Given the MoE's attitudes towards education and educational funding under the Campbell Liberals, I, like Susan Lambert, am dubious.

not so sure

that the problem is a need for parents to be computer savy. Most kids today are more computer savy than their parents...
My experience when it was still Distance Ed was disgusting. The learning material was an ignorant obstacle course that pissed me off when I tried to help my son navigate the mess. It wasn't worth the paper it was printed on. Doesn't sound like it's evolved much.
Not a good thing when the physical options are crap, which they were for us, the reason we tried the alternative...

Class Rooms are far Superior

I guess one could argue the new fangled computerized Distance Education is superior to the old fashioned days of mail in correspondence, but that's not the real issue, in my mind.

Living in Kootenay's our children's course options are extremely limited. Even core courses such as Chemistry, Math and English are only offered during one semester and if you can't fit them into your schedule you are forced to take them through Distance Ed

I watched my son, an A student struggle to complete grade 12 Spanish, it wasn't a pretty sight.

The real reason for Distance Ed is to allow the continued underfunding of our education system. Say what you want about DE, it never will be as effective as sitting in a class room with a teacher and your peers.

DL is a niche product

As a long-time DL teacher (who is writing this letter during lunch hour), I can tell you that the hype and snake-oil associated with DL is staggering. A lot of people have been attaching their wagon to this gravy train, and they are willing to say anything to support the magical virtues of DL.

What is DL good for? It's great for well-connected, computer-savvy and self-motivated students who can't fit into a regular school timetable. There IS a small group that fits this picture, and for these students DL is great. But let's be honest: this describes only a small minority of potential learners.

For the rest, DL is a very difficult way to learn. Personally, I don't think I would want to be a DL student. Asynchronous learning, in particular, means you are following your own plan. This is very flexible, but it's a lonely way to learn. However, if you force students to learn in a synchronous (timetabled) manner, few teens and adults want those restrictions.

Here's the thing: DL is NOT the solution to crowded classrooms. If you do it right (which is rare) it is basically as expensive as regular education. "Done right" means a teacher working full time in DL with the same number of students as a regular teacher (or fewer). The teacher uses a wide range of online tools, and teaches a course that's been built (hopefully by the teacher, not some curriculum company) to take advantage of online technology. He or she is well trained in online technologies.

Unfortunately, most "online" classrooms are merely paper correspondence courses with an email address and a links page. The teacher often has regular classroom responsibilities, or might have 300-500 online students. At this point, the teacher is merely an overworked marker. It might help the school district's bottom line, but not the educational needs of students.

School districts are legendary for sucking away a lot of money from their DL programs. However, this means that most DL programs are much less than the DL students deserve (see above). Many DL programs simply... suck.

... and a few more things!

I should have added that when teachers are reduced to harried, assembly-line markers, they take very little ownership of their courses. In these situations, assessment becomes quite dodgy. If the student receives a marked assignment, it has very few comments. And often the student just gets an email with the overall mark and a few canned responses.

In addition, without teachers genuinely working with their courses, the assignments are often repeated year after year. Guess what happens? Plagiarism becomes rampant, and even services like turnitin.com can't keep up with all of the copying.

If you're the parent of a student going into DL, ask your DL school principal the following questions:

1. Is there a full time teacher we can contact by phone?
2. How many students does the teacher deal with?
3. Who made the curriculum? Is it it just a digitized correspondence course?
4. Will the teacher return all assignments with full comments?
5. How is the curriculum revised and updated?
6. Does the school district skim off more money from the DL school than it does its regular schools? (This is the "can of worms" question!)

Won't be repeating our DL experience

I can only hope that “2ist Century Learning” isn’t code for “cheap online ed”.

My experience (or rather my son’s) with a single online ed course has dissuaded me from ever recommending DL where a classroom option exists, and this in a district supposedly renowned for its expertise in online education delivery.

He/we entered the course with only positive preconceptions and left it with complete dissatisfaction. We were able to complete student/parent surveys at the course conclusion where we were honestly able to answer “poor” to every question but one; “do you believe this course prepared you adequately for postsecondary studies?” Why? Because it required completely independent study habits and the ability to move from one assignment to the next without any teacher feedback.

Some of the problems we encountered were teacher specific (no feedback, too many students & too many subjects per teacher, not particularly tech savvy, lag time between assignments & testing, i.e. having to write unit exams without receiving back any marked assignments from that unit), while others were related to the overall online learning experience (perpetually down internet connections on their end, disorganization & disconnect between the different online offices, i.e. emails from one office saying our child had not completed any work & would be removed from the course, while the teacher’s site showed the work had been submitted weeks & even months earlier). “Illuminate” online discussion groups were supposed to facilitate peer and student/teacher interaction, replacing in-class discussion. The two short sessions, yes, just two, were plagued by downed connections and non-subject, administrative related questions from clearly confused students.

If this system caused nothing but frustration for a bright, independent and hardworking student with great computer skills, computer literate parents and access to rapid internet connections how on earth is it going to work for those with weak/non-existent technological and home support?

I’m with “kootenay” on this one … give me a classroom with a teacher and peers any day!

@ grapeman: good post and

@ grapeman: good post and you make the salient point on this discussion: for some students, online is the way to go, but "some" in this case has a small value.

By the Ministry's own headcount (http://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/reports/pdfs/student_stats/prov.pdf) there are almost 650,000 kids in the K-12 system. The article says that 70,000 students have at least minimal involvement with online courses. So it would seem that a shade over 10% of students are at least vaguely involved in online education.

However, about 300,000 of all students are in grades 8-12, and the Ministry says that 25% of students in grade 10-12 have involvement with at least one online course. Therefore it seems these grades are where almost all of the online learning is taking place (which one would suspect, but when Ministry statistics appear you have to shuttle back and forth a bit and make some assumptions).

It would seem to me that by age 15-17 the way one learns is fairly set, and certainly it's fair preparation for the further education and job training the kids will get in later years - much of which will be at least partially online. Again, the ones who will benefit from it most will be the ones who are disciplined, motivated and adequately supported at home - the same ones who would do best in an educational system full of physical classrooms and flesh-and-blood peers.

I don't think online education is strictly a cost-cutting exercise - there's still a substantial amount of $$$ going into schools to install and maintain even a modest number of work stations, to give kids even basic computer literacy at school. They've probably saved a lot more money through the closure of more than 150 schools across the province (many of them in rural areas) in the last 7-8 years.

DL redux

btrain's helpful points remind me of some other issues.

The big increase in online numbers is in some way artificial: thousands of regular high school students are obliged to take online courses because the district can double dip when a regular-school student takes an online course. For example, a lot of students are in an online version of Planning 10, which is funded by the so-called DL support block [it's like an extra (9th block) of funding].

Nevertheless, the infusion of money and hype for DL is generally starting to wane. Starting this year, a full-time equivalent DL student will earn a DL school $5,851, whereas a "brick and mortar" student earns $6,740. I suspect the Ministry of Education was looking at all the "surpluses" that districts were taking from their DL schools, and figured DL didn't need as much money. The problem with this is that DL programs actually DO need all that money, but in the absence of quality controls, the poor DL programs I mentioned earlier give a false impression of the costs of good DL practice.

Adding to the financial pressures on DL is 12 month schooling. This is a real stunner if you think about it. DL schools are increasingly moving to year-round operation. However, the government will not pay for the extra 2 months, so DL schools have to pay for those months out of (what was) a 10 month budget. In other words, DL schools are now in the position of having to cannibalize their existing budgets (which are already less because of that FTE drop) to add on two more months. Since DL educators are not considered "enrolling teachers", the solution is easy: add on more students per teacher!

Quantity over quality, as a result.

we off-loaded ....

the slaves from the farms when the industrial revolution took root in America. This made it more profitable for the barons of the capitalist economy since 'room and board' were now the labourer's own concern and expense. Labour also got the privilege of owning land, something they can rent from the government forever, ergo more money for the ruling class coffers.

Now we move education into the home. Can you see the connection? This is not an issue of 'good' education or 'bad' education, it is about cutting governmental overhead and reducing services so more wealth accumulates at the top.

With each major advance in the ability to increase production, 'freedoms' have been given to the people (free to educate your kids at home now). The freedoms were not for the peoples benefit, but because the opportunity to gain profit increased in doing so; and each time the people became more and more dependent on paying into the system -- through their labour -- just to survive.

DL is the BEST!!! Part 1

I am a father of 2 distance education students. My children previously excelled socially and academically in a top private school - but found higher quality education and teachers who are dedicated, creative, tuned-in, and downright human at South Island Distance Education School; we couldn't ask for better.

The ‘normal’ school system was not an option because of it's refusal to meet the academic needs of children who work at a level higher than the system, in its wisdom, allows for children of their respective chronological ages. It is clear BCTF union boss Susan Lambert has a vested interest in safeguarding that status quo. Her members failings have made online learning the fastest growing segment of education. A few thoughts:

1. If it took her daughter 125 hours to complete the course, Helesia Luke should twig to the fact her daughter is deficient in skills required for study and employment in today’s knowledge world. Sounds like the learning was more valuable than Helesia recognizes.

2. Susan Lambert is understandably threatened by the growing success of online learning, but lacks integrity in suggesting the Ministry is trying to replace teachers with computers. Online education doesn’t work that way: my kids are thousands of miles from BC, working online. They submit completed work online on a daily basis to their TEACHERS, who return it with marks and comments. The Internet is a portal that putting student and teacher together. In no way are computers replacing teachers. To suggest otherwise is misleading.

3. Susan Lambert shows she is ‘teacher-centric’ not ‘student-centric’ when she says the 'key factor for a positive learning experience for children is that one-on-one relationship with a teacher...', and that online learning will destroy the student-teacher relationship. Our experience is that where there is a student engaged in online learning, there is a teacher at the other end. Online learners work at their own pace and level with a high degree of independence and regularly have both teacher and peer review. All in the comfort of their own home - without bullying, alcohol, drugs, sexual abuse, or designer label competitions. What’s so bad about that, Susan? If I was you, I'd be threatened too!!!

DL is the BEST !!!!!!! Part 2

4. Lambert speaks of small communities but again exposes she does not know what she is talking about: broadband is in almost every small community. Technology is not the problem: it is red herrings of misinformation given by a Luddite union boss grasping to ensure all education dollars are channeled only through school boards, and are hence within reach of her members at contract negotiation time. We would be total fools to depend on her union’s largesse to educate our children.

We are fortunate the Ministry is being pro-active in being a world leader is distance education so that students from all parts of the province may access a high level of education. I have no affiliation with the Ministry.