Sui Generis –the unique (or not so unique) aspects of distance educationOMDE 601 9040 According to Peters (2010c), distance education is the “most industrialized form of education” (p.31), and in doing so clearly distinguishes between face-to-face and distance education in a somewhat dichotomous separation. This dichotomous separation is too limiting in sense, as, personally, education could feature on a continuum of completely offline to completely online, and anything in-between. Nonetheless, Peters (2011), refers to several unique aspects of distance education that distinguish it from traditional education: 1. Separation of teacher and learner 2. Mass education 3. Mass production and distribution of teaching material 4. An emerging view of pedagogy at a distance 5. Changing teaching practice 6. Structural changes to the traditional model of education Of the various distinguishing features of distance education, he cites structural differences as the main distinguishing element (Peters 2011). Peters explains that DE is Sui Generis or a unique and distinctive form of education in its own right. Peters believes the pedagogical approach to distance education differs from face-to-face education, not only by virtue of distance education’s’ dependence on technology and media, but also in the distinctive patterns of collaboration between instructors and students (Peters 2010b; Peters, 2011). Bernath and Vidal (2007) point this out in their article, indicating that the conversational tone and the empathetic character purportedly inherent in contact classrooms is still missing in distance education settings, but can easily be remedied by utilising various mediums and channels to create networked, interactive communication. Nonetheless, as Peters (2010b) states, the adoption of these techniques requires a new approach to education, a new attitude, a new strategy – a different pedagogy, as the use of technology (he includes the use of print media in this delineation) use is paramount in distance education, while the use of technology is complementary in contact classrooms. The development of transport infrastructure is also an important aspect of the development of distance education according to Peters (2010c). What is interesting and thought provoking is Peter’s (2010c) assertion that distance education could not have developed without industrialization. His expanded description of media and technology encompasses the development of modern transportation and postal systems as well as digital technology and communication systems. Indeed, this broad delineation leads to the question of the impact of failed communication and transportation systems on distance education. This is a relevant and significant observation at the University of South Africa (Unisa). These systems truly impact on ‘service delivery’ in this context, as postal and courier service protests hinder delivery of hard copy study materials; and poor infrastructure creates barriers to the provision of online instructional materials; as is the case with server issues, Internet connectivity, and bandwidth problems. Surely, these challenges could be faced by many distance education intuitions, should there be failures in any communication or transportation system. This leads me to a realization that distance education, particularly in its present model of mass education, is dependent on industrial systems in various ways (Peters, 2010a). Peter’s (2011) notion of the separation between teacher and student also holds true in many respects, more specifically in the case of geographical separation. Moreover, as much as the educational system, both face-to-face and distance education (as per Peter’s dichotomy), strives to develop independent and critical learners, how far has the educational system moved away from the model of teacher dominance in the classroom? I would say that this move is emerging and developing, and has still to taking shape in the virtual and the contact classroom, and “we will possibly have to face even greater changes of this kind in education if we are seriously to strive for egalitarian educational systems” (Peters, 2010a, p.79). The final point that needs to be emphasized is the more inclusive student demographic that distance education supports (Peters, 2010b). Truly, the distance education system promotes access to education for students who were previously excluded for various reasons, as well as adults wishing to continue their studies to upgrade their skills and knowledge. This is a feature of distance education pertinent to Unisa, as it is provides education to around 350 000 students from different backgrounds and contexts. Correspondence education is considered the roots of distance education (Peters, 2010c). So, at the close of week three, all I can say is that distance education has some unique aspects, distinct from traditional learning spaces. Nonetheless, inasmuch as I agree that many learning theories can be applicable to both contact and distance education settings, I believe that Peters (2010c) refers to a "macro-pedagogical perspective" (p.31). Peters’ initial interaction and study of DE led to the realization that face-to-face teaching and learning theorists referred to distance education as “a reduced and denaturalized form of face-to-face education” (Peters, 2011). It is this aspect of the lack of contact in the distance education framework that needs to be approached from a different pedagogical approach in order to 'bridge' this distance, as "virtual communities replace the real communities of learners, teachers and tutors" (Peters, 2010b). Not only is the space between instructors and students distinct, but so too is the interaction and collaboration between the various stakeholders in the education system. Therefore, even though there have been great strides in technology and digitization of educational spaces, new approaches and strategies need to be developed to integrate 'contact', 'empathy', and 'collaboration' between and among all stakeholders in these virtual spaces, which indicates a pedagogical approach beyond the micro space of the classroom only.
References Bernath, B., & Vidal, M. (2007). The theories and the theorists: Why theory is important for research. Distance et saviors 5(3), 427-458. Retrieved from http://www.box.com/s/fsgilnj1zxsnlbjqzi0b Peters, O. (2010a). The iceberg has not yet melted: Further reflections on the concept of industrialization and distance teaching. In O. Peters, Distance education in transition: Developments and issues (5th ed., pp. 33-42). Oldenburg, Germany: BIS-Verlag der Carl von Ossietzky Universität Oldenburg. Retrieved from http://www.box.com/s/ktx7ipccetotqrr11mct Peters, O. (2010b). The revolutionary impact of distance education. In O. Peters, Distance education in transition: Developments and issues (5th ed., pp. 43-56). Oldenburg, Germany: BIS-Verlag der Carl von Ossietzky Universität Oldenburg. Retrieved from http://www.box.com/s/ktx7ipccetotqrr11mct Peters, O. (2010c). The theory of the "most industrialized education". In O. Peters, Distance education in transition: Developments and issues (5th ed., pp. 11-32). Oldenburg, Germany: BIS-Verlag der Carl von Ossietzky Universität Oldenburg. Available from: http://www.box.com/s/ktx7ipccetotqrr11mct Peters, O. (2011, December 2). Industrialization theory and distance education, Parts 1-4. [Video interviews.] Haag, Germany. Retrieved from Part 1: http://vimeo.com/33107755 Retrieved from Part 2: http://vimeo.com/33523216 Retrieved from Part 3: http://vimeo.com/33525745 Retrieved from Part 4: http://vimeo.com/33109477
0 Comments
|
Archives
April 2018
Categories
All
|