The research paper was a survey of statistics aggregated over the last two years of academic records from students who took traditional classes and their distance counterparts. I was not particularly fond of this paper, but the reason I chose it for a journal is because I feel it highlights (as a negative exemplar) many of the misconceptions that administrators, faculty, and students have regarding distance education as a reliable alternative to traditional settings.
The article leads off boasting that students in distance settings “outperformed their traditional counterparts” in 70% of cases. To boil down all of the variables to a single pass/fail percentage as a comparison between the two is extremely narrow-sighted. Through our discourse in class and just from personal experience I’m fully aware of the benefits math and statistics can have in revealing trends and validation. While the numbers themselves may be neutral and unbiased, the person choosing the statistical parallels is not. I felt this article stripped away the peripheral qualities between traditional and distance education in order to create a direct comparison. The problem with this method though is the peripheral qualities are so vast in quantity and magnitude that they are truly the core of the issue and not outlying factors.
One standpoint that people often overlook is the fact that as an organization, it is in the university’s best interests to create a successful program so that it produces growth. Now, what is considered a successful distance education program? The answer to this, especially over the previous 20 years, was an ability to provide ALTERNATE learning opportunities for those unable to participate in the traditional methods. Moreover, the allure of “school at home” and “learn at your own pace” created an atmosphere where academic excellence was not the forerunner in priorities. Therefore, comparing pass/fail records between the two methods of education would be as the cliche goes, comparing apples and oranges.
The other aspect of distance education that is often left at the wayside is the relative youth of the field. Distance education has taken on many incantations over the years as we went over in class, but the advent of online technologies and the proliferation of the Internet has truly redefined the field of distance education. The angle I speak towards though is that as a teacher I know that my goal is to teach my students as much as I have to offer but in a balanced approach where they are pushed hopefully to exceed their limits but not beyond the point of their capabilities. Walking this line is not a skill that is learned from a book or a video, it comes with time and experience.
Having taught both at GMU and also a martial arts school, I can personally attest to the difference transmission medium, subject matter, and setting make. At my martial arts school I truly feel like master of my domain. I know the ins and outs of the school, the curriculum, my co-workers, and I have a plethora of experience to draw upon when handling new students who are in a foreign environment. On the contrary, teaching at GMU I know my subject matter equally well; however, the setting and transmission medium are quite different and thus my statute of limitations, so to speak, are not as clearly defined. Until these limits become more clearly defined for individual teachers, the scholastic excellence that true teachers strive for cannot be met in a planned and carefully orchestrated manner. We have to venture through the jungle of unknown, and while we will undoubtedly have successes, we probably will not know they were such until after the fact.
Shachar, Mickey. Twenty Years of Research on the Academic Performance Differences Between Traditional and Distance Learning: Summative Meta-Analysis and Trend Examination. 2010 June. http://jolt.merlot.org/vol6no2/shachar_0610.pdf