Module -1

The articles by Moller, Foshay & Colman (2008) point to quandaries associated with distance education. These articles come off as opinion, with fact. While solutions are evident to the reader, in some cases they should be offered. The three articles by Moller et al., (2008) speak to the issues of “why the engine stops working”, rather than how to fix “the engine”. We have issues of quality, lack of resources, unqualified instructional designers, and unqualified educators. In part two of the article there is a discussion with regard to untrained educators with little or no training in e-learning fields. Now this is scary with so many online institutions running around advertising for the public’s dollars. Faculties at these institutions are, to quote Moller (2008), “recreating the present classroom experience in a more efficient manner seems wasteful when the status quo is of questionable effectiveness” (p. 67). So, in sum, the articles themselves discuss the many facets of instructional design, lack of aptly trained faculty, administration of pedagogy, methods to gauge effectiveness of e-education among institutions, and instruction design among the schools at large of which offer online education.

Simonson (2000) offers a model. The model may not be a solution, but he offers a substantive view to online pedagogy. Simonson’s “Equivalency Theory” does not approach equality of the learning experience of online vs brick and mortar classes, but offers course learning experiences in which the student outcomes are equivalent. I believe this one point where Moller, et al. (2008) and Simonson (2000) are in agreement. We cannot bring the classroom lessons or canned classroom into the online environment and expect students to have the same learning experience.

I am not afraid to make a stand, but I do not have enough information, nor am I in a position to have information, to make an informed decision on the points Moller, et al. (2008) made. For example, I have no insight on the managerial issues in producing an online program, nor do I have access to the institution learning models or instructor training provided to the individuals and areas mentioned by Moller, et al. (2008). There are many points I can agree on: many of the faculties have the appearance of ill-preparedness to teach online; curriculum can be very repetitive; and instructional design models for online delivery need to be updated and used on a regular basis, not when convenient as an assignment may dictate. I also agree with Simonson’s remarks referring to: “affective” learning; access of classes; and general availability of course work as positive aspects of the online learning environment. Simonson (2010) mentions you don’t have to give up your job as school is flexible and suits your time table.
References:

Huett, J., Moller, L., Foshay, W., & Coleman, C. (2008). The Evolution of Distance Education: Implications for Instructional Design on the Potential of the Web. TechTrends: Linking Research & Practice to Improve Learning, 52(5), 63-67. doi:10.1007/s11528-008-0199-9
Laureate Education, Inc. (Producer). (2010). Distance Education:The next
generation featuring Dr. Michael Simonson [DVD]. United States: Walden University.
Laureate Education, Inc. (Producer). (2010). Equivalency Theory”

featuring Dr. Michael Simonson [DVD]. United States: Walden University.

Moller, L., Foshay, W., & Huett, J. (2008). The Evolution of Distance Education: Implications for Instructional Design on the Potential of the Web. TechTrends: Linking Research & Practice to Improve Learning, 52(4), 66-70. doi:10.1007/s11528-008-0179-0.
Moller, L., Foshay, W., & Huett, J. (2008). The Evolution of Distance Education: Implications for Instructional Design on the Potential of the Web. TechTrends: Linking Research and Practice to Improve Learning, 52(3), 70-75. Retrieved from ERIC database.