Slide 1

Instructional design
in online environments:
Challenges and possibilities

Pantelis Vassilakis PhD
DePaul University
ITD – Libraries – School of Music

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Basic Premises
• The possibility for Online Distance
Learning (ODL) represents the most
exciting educational development in
decades.
• To date, the most positive aspect of the
ongoing ODL explosive growth has
been the application of the related
technology to online supplements,
which currently accompany the vast
majority of face-to-face courses.
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Q. What is wrong with
Online Distance Learning?
A. Its explosion is arguably led by the
wrong group (administrators vs. educators)
and is driven by the wrong motivations.
1. Main ODL advocates are administrators, who often do not fully
understand the new technology and the issues facing
instructors and students, and are not aware of the impact they
can have on creating positive changes in ODL.
[Dillon & Cintron, 1997; Wenzel, 1999; Dooley & Murphrey,
2000; (in Levy, 2003); Rahm, 1998; Bower, 2001; Kambutu,
2002; Levy, 2003; University of Minnesota - Extension service;
Kansas State University )

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Q. What is wrong with
Online Distance Learning?
A. Its explosion is arguably led by the
wrong group (administrators vs. educators)
and is driven by the wrong motivations
2. Planning for ODL usually focuses on
a) budget and personnel, rather than critical pedagogic issues
b) creating an attractive product for a target population (degree
seekers) at a minimal cost, rather than an improved educational
experience.

(Bates, 2000; Berge & Smith, 2000; Bothel, 2001; Levy, 2003;
AFT May 2001 Report)

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Q. What is wrong with
Online Distance Learning?
A. Its explosion is arguably led by the
wrong group (administrators vs. educators)
and is driven by the wrong motivations
3. ODL is approached as means to compensate for the fact that
constant growth in college-age population will soon result in more
students than University facilities can accommodate (Olinger et
al., 2001).
4. ODL is often seen as a possibly profitable auxiliary university
business (Lapiner, 2001), occasionally outsourced to for-profit
organizations (Cox, 2001).

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Q. What is wrong with
Online Distance Learning?
A. Its explosion is arguably led by the
wrong group (administrators vs. educators)
and is driven by the wrong motivations
5. University Strategic Plans and other resources cite market
pressure, the need to remain competitive, increased enrollment /
revenue, and decreased cost as some of the reasons for
aggressively promoting ODL, expecting a 20-25% annual
increase in DE enrollment, often without prior planning for
appropriate academic and technical support. This reflects a
concern with corporate survival/growth issues rather than
instructional design improvement.
(USC Academic Senate, 1991 & 2001 white papers; Texas
Technical University current Strategic Plan; New Mexico State
University current Strategic Plan)
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Q. What is wrong with
Online Distance Learning?
A. Its explosion is arguably driven by the
wrong group (administrators vs. educators)
and is driven by the wrong motivations
6. Private organizations/corporations advocate implementation of ODL
to meet standards compliance, citing cost decrease as the main
advantage and its use in Higher Education as the main justification.
7. Higher education institutions are also basing their overall ODL
development on cost rather educational considerations. In their
majority, ODL courses are assigned to ‘cost effective’ adjunct faculty,
(Carnevale, 2004) who also face inflated enrollments. Course quality
is not monitored closely, especially in established institutions that often
let their ODL offerings ride on their ‘brand name’ reputation, without
supporting them by the resources that earned them this reputation.
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning is a Reality

An average of ~ 6% of US University degree
programs are offered exclusively online.

Over 50% of institutions offer exclusive or
alternative online versions of courses.

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning is a Reality

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning is a Reality
OUS - Internet-Based Distance Learning
http://www.ous.edu/de_stat.htm
1600
Courses
1300

Enrollment (x 10)

1000

700

400

100
1998-99

1999-00

2000-01

2001-02

2002-03

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning is a Reality
Online Distance Learning Market Growth
http://nces.ed.gov/ - http://www.aft.org/
10

Billion US $

8
6
4
2
0
1998-99

1999-00

2000-01

2001-02

2002-03

2003-04
(E)

2004-05
(E)

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning is a Reality
Proportion of Online Programs
10%

8%

6%

4%

2%

0%
DePaul (135)

ASU (270)

UCLA (318)

UWM (400)

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Demand for Online Distance Learning
The explosive growth of online learning over the last 10 years
has occurred in response to continuously increasing demand.
The demand reflects a partly artificial need, driven by the
Universities themselves. The number of degrees conferred by
Universities is constantly increasing, ‘flooding’ the workforce and
making the possession of degree a must for almost any type of
employment.
Lifelong Learning and graduate education were supposed to be
the core areas of distance learning, resulting in a clientele largely
made out of so-called adult students (Bleek, 2004; Young et al.,
2004). The National Center for Education Statistics confirms that
such students are more likely than their counterparts to participate
in distance education. However…
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Demand for Online Distance Learning
US Distance Higher Education
http://nces.ed.gov/

80%
Undergraduate Courses
60%

40%

Institutions offering DL programs
20%
1994-95

1997-98

2000-01

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Demand for Online Distance Learning
Universities are targeting the population that will generate most revenue
and will embrace the ‘product’ for non-educational reasons, rather than
the population (small and quality-driven) that initiated the need.
Many on-campus students are participating in distance learning as a
way to solve course scheduling problems and/or speed up the degree
completion progress (Oregon University System; Golden et al., 2004),
resulting in an even more dramatic increase in the number of distance
learning enrollments and course offerings.
The growth rate of ODL offerings will continue to rise (Carnevale, 2004),
fueled by degree hunters who increase demand and by Universities who
recognize the immense cost cutting potential of (bad quality) DL, in spite of
the widely recognized failure to yet produce good quality DL (e.g. Zemsky
& Massy, 2004) and alarming reports of Accreditation officials having
obtained PhD degrees from DL degree mills (Bartlett, 2004).
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning & Faculty
Faculty members often resist the move towards online
distance learning.
Possible reasons:

a) Alleged dislike, fear, and/or ignorance of the relevant
technology; a “…confusion and nonsense disseminated by
those who would protect status quo…”. (Poley, 2003)
b) Faculty are often thrown into a ODL situation by University
programs eager to compete in the ODL market, without
being offered the necessary tools to do the job.
c) ODL seems, at least on the surface, to go against the very
essence of a learning event: communication.
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning & Faculty
Learning is a fundamentally social activity (review in Wang, 2004).
ODL advocates see the ePortofolio explosion as a recognition of this fact.
Learning relies heavily on communication among participants; on dialogue,
exchange of ideas, argumentation, feedback, and the readjustment of our
position, whatever this may have been prior to entering the learning event.
Communication involves facial expressions, gestures, tone of voice, and
(almost) instantaneous feedback. It is the immediacy in dialogue that can
a) prevent instances of misunderstanding from escalating,
b) support the continuous adjustment in the way a learning event progresses,
necessary to accommodate changes in the learning environment at hand.
Social presence and interaction affect course outcomes as well as course
satisfaction (Moore et al., 1996; Richardson & Swan, 2003; Pelz, 2004).
Drop-out rates are consistently higher in ODL vs. traditional courses (IHEP)
ODL students may experience social isolation. The students who need the
most help in DL courses do not ask for it (Levy, 2003).
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Can ODL support this kind of learning event?
Over 100 books in print published in the last two years
Over 100 online books
Over 10 scholarly journals dealing exclusively with the topic
Amazon has over 200 entries
Over 30 consortia publish their own journals, books, and
conference proceedings
Common themes:
I.

Communication, interactivity, feedback, identified as the major
challenges (e.g. Poley, 2001, 2002; Deubel, 2003; USC Academic
Senate, Whitepaper, Newsletter).

II. Often, there is no explicit reference to advances within education
research in general.
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Common Themes of Powerful Learning Experiences
Thinking outside the box.
Interaction not Interactivity (Phipps & Merisotis, 1999; Wang, 2004)
Learners
link powerful
learning
experiences
to events
that involve
It is questioned
whether
deep
understanding
of difficult
interaction,
whether
the instructor
or2004
other
students.
Pelz
(2004)
&with
several
SLATE
papers
Virtual
Classroom
material—beyond
amassing
facts—can
occur
in the absence
What
most
memorable
is the
actual event of understanding
that
ofissame-time
same-place
interaction.
[e.g.
Gersten,
2004;
Scheidenhelm,
2004]
takes
place ineducation
dialogue, should
changing
those
whoavailable
participate.
Distance
utilize
every
opportunity
Interaction
& Presence
to bring–students
faculty
together.
Relevance
Workingand
towards
shared
goals.
and
office
hours
American
Federation
of Teachers
2000 Report
The
dynamics
of a classroom
may not (May
be replicable
in a – May
Engagement
(physical
orready
mental)
2001
Report):
(IVC
technology
not
– Kesley
& D’Souza,
Digital
Multimedia
distance
education
setting
(Kelsey
& D’Souza,
2004).2004)

Scheduled virtual class meetings

Encouragement
Encourage the development of powerful new learning and
teaching/environments
Challenge
Confidence - in the longer term (Levin et al., 1999),
that significantly
enhance
learning (Goldenberg et al., 2004).
Making
failure a learning
experience
Empowerment
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

The Power and Challenge of Multimedia
Information delivery (images, audio, video, animations)
Example 1 Example 2 Example 3 Example 4
Interactivity (applets, simulations)
Example 1 Example 2 Example 3 Example 4
Task completion (applets, simulations, applications)
Example 1 Example 2

Time-consuming – Require specialized skills
Many have already been created – Locate (edit) and implement
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

In the meantime…
Develop rigorous evaluation and control
processes to assure that distance education
programs comply with high academic standards.

Apply quality control to academic content as well
as delivery method and student support services.
Provide faculty with comprehensive educational
technology support and (user) training prior to
assigning them to ODL courses.

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Conclusions
• The current state of the Universities’ infrastructure and
administration, the faculty and student technical skills, and to some
extend the related technology does not yet support the creation of
distance learning environments that can adequately replace face to
face instruction. Benchmarks for successful ODL put forward by the
IHEP need to be taken very seriously.
• Online supplements to face to face courses can significantly
enhance the educational experience of students, especially through
the use of sophisticated, multimedia digital learning objects, many of
which have already been created.
• One of our tasks should be to locate, collect, and make available
such learning objects to instructional designers, ideally through a
centralized searchable process, followed by a continuous
development and financial backing of an expert and reliable support
system that will help faculty identify relevant resources and
efficiently and creatively incorporate them to their instruction.
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

References
•

Bartlett, T. (2004). Member of Accrediting Group Has Ph.D. From 'Notorious
Diploma Mill‘. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 50(30): A.29.

•

Carnevale, D. (2004). Distance education: Keeping up with exploding demand. The
Chronicle of Higher Education, 50(21): B.8.

•

Carnevale, D. (2004). For online adjuncts: A seller’s market. The Chronicle of Higher
Education, 50(34): A.31.

•

Cox, G. M. (2001). Strategic Planning and Implementation: The Challenge of
Adapting Organizations and Creating Partnerships to Target New Markets. University
Teaching as e-Business research project. Center for Studies in Higher Education.
UC Berkeley.

•

Bleek, J. (2004). Internet Academy. [Washington.] No Child Left Behind Leadership
Summit: Increasing Options Through e-Learning. US Department of Education.

•

Bower, B. L. (2001). Distance Education: Facing the Faculty Challenge. Online
Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 4(2).

•

Deubel, P. (2003). Learning from reflections - Issues in building quality online
courses. Online Journal Distance Learning Administration, 6(3).

•

Golden, M., Wicks, M., and Williams, L. (2004). Why virtual schools are gaining
popularity. No Child Left Behind Leadership Summit: Increasing Options Through eLearning. US Department of Education.

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

References (cont.)
•

Goldenberg, L., Heinze, J., and Ba, H. (2004). What Students Say about Learning
Science with Multiple Media. 25th NECC.

•

Kelsey, D. K. and D’Souza, A. (2004). Student motivation for learning at a distance:
Does interaction matter? OJDLA, 7(2).

•

Lapiner, R. (2001). Strategic Planning and Implementation: The Challenge of
Adapting Organizations and Creating Partnerships to Target New Markets. University
Teaching as e-Business research project. Center for Studies in Higher Education. UC
Berkeley.

•

Levin, J., Levin, S. R., and Waddoups, G. (1999). Multiplicity in learning and
teaching: A framework for developing innovative online education. Journal of
Research on Computing in Education, 32(2): 256-269.

•

Levy, S. (2003). Six Factors to Consider when Planning Online Distance Learning
Programs in Higher Education. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration,
6(1).

•

Moore, A., Masterson, J. T., Christophel, D. M., and Shea, K. A. (1996). College
teacher immediacy and student ratings of instruction. Communication Education, 45:
29-39.

•

Oblinger, D. G., Barone, C. A., and Hawkins, B. L. (2001). Distributed education
and its challenges: An overview. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education
and EDUCAUSE.

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

References (cont.)
•

•
•
•

•
•

Pelz, B. (2004). (My) Three principles of effective online pedagogy. Journal of
Asynchronous Learning Networks, 8(3).
Phipps, R. and Merisotis, J. (1999). What’s the difference? A review of contemporary
research on the effectiveness of distance learning in higher education. The Institute for
Higher Education Policy. Washington, DC.
Poley, J. (2001). Digital learning and libraries: Toward consortia and collaboratories
Presentation at NIT. Beijing,China.
Poley, J. (2002). Distance education themes and trends. Ohio State Megaconference.
Columbus, Ohio.
Poley, J. (2003). Distance Education Everywhere (not “online” learning):
Myths, Realities and Possibilities. 5th Annual International Symposium on Advanced
Radio Technologies (ISART).
Rahm, D. (1998). Tangled Webs In Public Administration: Organizational Issues In
Distance Learning. Public Administration & Management Interactive Journal, 3(1).

•

Richardson J. C. and Swan, K. (2003). Examining social presence in online courses
in relation to student’s perceived learning and satisfaction. Journal of Asynchronous
Learning Networks, 7(1).

•

Wang, H. (2004). Investigating, exploring, and promoting interaction in web-based
learning. 25th NECC.

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

References (cont.)
•

Young, K., Anderson, A., Eller, Am., Eller, An., Pounds, J., and Rashad, V.
(2004). What is possible in virtual education? Experiences empowering a
quality education for each learner. [Florida learning alliance.] No Child Left
Behind Leadership Summit: Increasing Options Through e-Learning. US
Department of Education.

•

Zemsky, R, Massy, W. F. (2004). Why the e-learning boom went bust. The
Chronicle of Higher Education, 50(44): B.6.

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004


Slide 2

Instructional design
in online environments:
Challenges and possibilities

Pantelis Vassilakis PhD
DePaul University
ITD – Libraries – School of Music

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Basic Premises
• The possibility for Online Distance
Learning (ODL) represents the most
exciting educational development in
decades.
• To date, the most positive aspect of the
ongoing ODL explosive growth has
been the application of the related
technology to online supplements,
which currently accompany the vast
majority of face-to-face courses.
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Q. What is wrong with
Online Distance Learning?
A. Its explosion is arguably led by the
wrong group (administrators vs. educators)
and is driven by the wrong motivations.
1. Main ODL advocates are administrators, who often do not fully
understand the new technology and the issues facing
instructors and students, and are not aware of the impact they
can have on creating positive changes in ODL.
[Dillon & Cintron, 1997; Wenzel, 1999; Dooley & Murphrey,
2000; (in Levy, 2003); Rahm, 1998; Bower, 2001; Kambutu,
2002; Levy, 2003; University of Minnesota - Extension service;
Kansas State University )

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Q. What is wrong with
Online Distance Learning?
A. Its explosion is arguably led by the
wrong group (administrators vs. educators)
and is driven by the wrong motivations
2. Planning for ODL usually focuses on
a) budget and personnel, rather than critical pedagogic issues
b) creating an attractive product for a target population (degree
seekers) at a minimal cost, rather than an improved educational
experience.

(Bates, 2000; Berge & Smith, 2000; Bothel, 2001; Levy, 2003;
AFT May 2001 Report)

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Q. What is wrong with
Online Distance Learning?
A. Its explosion is arguably led by the
wrong group (administrators vs. educators)
and is driven by the wrong motivations
3. ODL is approached as means to compensate for the fact that
constant growth in college-age population will soon result in more
students than University facilities can accommodate (Olinger et
al., 2001).
4. ODL is often seen as a possibly profitable auxiliary university
business (Lapiner, 2001), occasionally outsourced to for-profit
organizations (Cox, 2001).

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Q. What is wrong with
Online Distance Learning?
A. Its explosion is arguably led by the
wrong group (administrators vs. educators)
and is driven by the wrong motivations
5. University Strategic Plans and other resources cite market
pressure, the need to remain competitive, increased enrollment /
revenue, and decreased cost as some of the reasons for
aggressively promoting ODL, expecting a 20-25% annual
increase in DE enrollment, often without prior planning for
appropriate academic and technical support. This reflects a
concern with corporate survival/growth issues rather than
instructional design improvement.
(USC Academic Senate, 1991 & 2001 white papers; Texas
Technical University current Strategic Plan; New Mexico State
University current Strategic Plan)
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Q. What is wrong with
Online Distance Learning?
A. Its explosion is arguably driven by the
wrong group (administrators vs. educators)
and is driven by the wrong motivations
6. Private organizations/corporations advocate implementation of ODL
to meet standards compliance, citing cost decrease as the main
advantage and its use in Higher Education as the main justification.
7. Higher education institutions are also basing their overall ODL
development on cost rather educational considerations. In their
majority, ODL courses are assigned to ‘cost effective’ adjunct faculty,
(Carnevale, 2004) who also face inflated enrollments. Course quality
is not monitored closely, especially in established institutions that often
let their ODL offerings ride on their ‘brand name’ reputation, without
supporting them by the resources that earned them this reputation.
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning is a Reality

An average of ~ 6% of US University degree
programs are offered exclusively online.

Over 50% of institutions offer exclusive or
alternative online versions of courses.

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning is a Reality

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning is a Reality
OUS - Internet-Based Distance Learning
http://www.ous.edu/de_stat.htm
1600
Courses
1300

Enrollment (x 10)

1000

700

400

100
1998-99

1999-00

2000-01

2001-02

2002-03

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning is a Reality
Online Distance Learning Market Growth
http://nces.ed.gov/ - http://www.aft.org/
10

Billion US $

8
6
4
2
0
1998-99

1999-00

2000-01

2001-02

2002-03

2003-04
(E)

2004-05
(E)

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning is a Reality
Proportion of Online Programs
10%

8%

6%

4%

2%

0%
DePaul (135)

ASU (270)

UCLA (318)

UWM (400)

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Demand for Online Distance Learning
The explosive growth of online learning over the last 10 years
has occurred in response to continuously increasing demand.
The demand reflects a partly artificial need, driven by the
Universities themselves. The number of degrees conferred by
Universities is constantly increasing, ‘flooding’ the workforce and
making the possession of degree a must for almost any type of
employment.
Lifelong Learning and graduate education were supposed to be
the core areas of distance learning, resulting in a clientele largely
made out of so-called adult students (Bleek, 2004; Young et al.,
2004). The National Center for Education Statistics confirms that
such students are more likely than their counterparts to participate
in distance education. However…
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Demand for Online Distance Learning
US Distance Higher Education
http://nces.ed.gov/

80%
Undergraduate Courses
60%

40%

Institutions offering DL programs
20%
1994-95

1997-98

2000-01

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Demand for Online Distance Learning
Universities are targeting the population that will generate most revenue
and will embrace the ‘product’ for non-educational reasons, rather than
the population (small and quality-driven) that initiated the need.
Many on-campus students are participating in distance learning as a
way to solve course scheduling problems and/or speed up the degree
completion progress (Oregon University System; Golden et al., 2004),
resulting in an even more dramatic increase in the number of distance
learning enrollments and course offerings.
The growth rate of ODL offerings will continue to rise (Carnevale, 2004),
fueled by degree hunters who increase demand and by Universities who
recognize the immense cost cutting potential of (bad quality) DL, in spite of
the widely recognized failure to yet produce good quality DL (e.g. Zemsky
& Massy, 2004) and alarming reports of Accreditation officials having
obtained PhD degrees from DL degree mills (Bartlett, 2004).
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning & Faculty
Faculty members often resist the move towards online
distance learning.
Possible reasons:

a) Alleged dislike, fear, and/or ignorance of the relevant
technology; a “…confusion and nonsense disseminated by
those who would protect status quo…”. (Poley, 2003)
b) Faculty are often thrown into a ODL situation by University
programs eager to compete in the ODL market, without
being offered the necessary tools to do the job.
c) ODL seems, at least on the surface, to go against the very
essence of a learning event: communication.
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning & Faculty
Learning is a fundamentally social activity (review in Wang, 2004).
ODL advocates see the ePortofolio explosion as a recognition of this fact.
Learning relies heavily on communication among participants; on dialogue,
exchange of ideas, argumentation, feedback, and the readjustment of our
position, whatever this may have been prior to entering the learning event.
Communication involves facial expressions, gestures, tone of voice, and
(almost) instantaneous feedback. It is the immediacy in dialogue that can
a) prevent instances of misunderstanding from escalating,
b) support the continuous adjustment in the way a learning event progresses,
necessary to accommodate changes in the learning environment at hand.
Social presence and interaction affect course outcomes as well as course
satisfaction (Moore et al., 1996; Richardson & Swan, 2003; Pelz, 2004).
Drop-out rates are consistently higher in ODL vs. traditional courses (IHEP)
ODL students may experience social isolation. The students who need the
most help in DL courses do not ask for it (Levy, 2003).
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Can ODL support this kind of learning event?
Over 100 books in print published in the last two years
Over 100 online books
Over 10 scholarly journals dealing exclusively with the topic
Amazon has over 200 entries
Over 30 consortia publish their own journals, books, and
conference proceedings
Common themes:
I.

Communication, interactivity, feedback, identified as the major
challenges (e.g. Poley, 2001, 2002; Deubel, 2003; USC Academic
Senate, Whitepaper, Newsletter).

II. Often, there is no explicit reference to advances within education
research in general.
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Common Themes of Powerful Learning Experiences
Thinking outside the box.
Interaction not Interactivity (Phipps & Merisotis, 1999; Wang, 2004)
Learners
link powerful
learning
experiences
to events
that involve
It is questioned
whether
deep
understanding
of difficult
interaction,
whether
the instructor
or2004
other
students.
Pelz
(2004)
&with
several
SLATE
papers
Virtual
Classroom
material—beyond
amassing
facts—can
occur
in the absence
What
most
memorable
is the
actual event of understanding
that
ofissame-time
same-place
interaction.
[e.g.
Gersten,
2004;
Scheidenhelm,
2004]
takes
place ineducation
dialogue, should
changing
those
whoavailable
participate.
Distance
utilize
every
opportunity
Interaction
& Presence
to bring–students
faculty
together.
Relevance
Workingand
towards
shared
goals.
and
office
hours
American
Federation
of Teachers
2000 Report
The
dynamics
of a classroom
may not (May
be replicable
in a – May
Engagement
(physical
orready
mental)
2001
Report):
(IVC
technology
not
– Kesley
& D’Souza,
Digital
Multimedia
distance
education
setting
(Kelsey
& D’Souza,
2004).2004)

Scheduled virtual class meetings

Encouragement
Encourage the development of powerful new learning and
teaching/environments
Challenge
Confidence - in the longer term (Levin et al., 1999),
that significantly
enhance
learning (Goldenberg et al., 2004).
Making
failure a learning
experience
Empowerment
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

The Power and Challenge of Multimedia
Information delivery (images, audio, video, animations)
Example 1 Example 2 Example 3 Example 4
Interactivity (applets, simulations)
Example 1 Example 2 Example 3 Example 4
Task completion (applets, simulations, applications)
Example 1 Example 2

Time-consuming – Require specialized skills
Many have already been created – Locate (edit) and implement
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

In the meantime…
Develop rigorous evaluation and control
processes to assure that distance education
programs comply with high academic standards.

Apply quality control to academic content as well
as delivery method and student support services.
Provide faculty with comprehensive educational
technology support and (user) training prior to
assigning them to ODL courses.

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Conclusions
• The current state of the Universities’ infrastructure and
administration, the faculty and student technical skills, and to some
extend the related technology does not yet support the creation of
distance learning environments that can adequately replace face to
face instruction. Benchmarks for successful ODL put forward by the
IHEP need to be taken very seriously.
• Online supplements to face to face courses can significantly
enhance the educational experience of students, especially through
the use of sophisticated, multimedia digital learning objects, many of
which have already been created.
• One of our tasks should be to locate, collect, and make available
such learning objects to instructional designers, ideally through a
centralized searchable process, followed by a continuous
development and financial backing of an expert and reliable support
system that will help faculty identify relevant resources and
efficiently and creatively incorporate them to their instruction.
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

References
•

Bartlett, T. (2004). Member of Accrediting Group Has Ph.D. From 'Notorious
Diploma Mill‘. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 50(30): A.29.

•

Carnevale, D. (2004). Distance education: Keeping up with exploding demand. The
Chronicle of Higher Education, 50(21): B.8.

•

Carnevale, D. (2004). For online adjuncts: A seller’s market. The Chronicle of Higher
Education, 50(34): A.31.

•

Cox, G. M. (2001). Strategic Planning and Implementation: The Challenge of
Adapting Organizations and Creating Partnerships to Target New Markets. University
Teaching as e-Business research project. Center for Studies in Higher Education.
UC Berkeley.

•

Bleek, J. (2004). Internet Academy. [Washington.] No Child Left Behind Leadership
Summit: Increasing Options Through e-Learning. US Department of Education.

•

Bower, B. L. (2001). Distance Education: Facing the Faculty Challenge. Online
Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 4(2).

•

Deubel, P. (2003). Learning from reflections - Issues in building quality online
courses. Online Journal Distance Learning Administration, 6(3).

•

Golden, M., Wicks, M., and Williams, L. (2004). Why virtual schools are gaining
popularity. No Child Left Behind Leadership Summit: Increasing Options Through eLearning. US Department of Education.

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

References (cont.)
•

Goldenberg, L., Heinze, J., and Ba, H. (2004). What Students Say about Learning
Science with Multiple Media. 25th NECC.

•

Kelsey, D. K. and D’Souza, A. (2004). Student motivation for learning at a distance:
Does interaction matter? OJDLA, 7(2).

•

Lapiner, R. (2001). Strategic Planning and Implementation: The Challenge of
Adapting Organizations and Creating Partnerships to Target New Markets. University
Teaching as e-Business research project. Center for Studies in Higher Education. UC
Berkeley.

•

Levin, J., Levin, S. R., and Waddoups, G. (1999). Multiplicity in learning and
teaching: A framework for developing innovative online education. Journal of
Research on Computing in Education, 32(2): 256-269.

•

Levy, S. (2003). Six Factors to Consider when Planning Online Distance Learning
Programs in Higher Education. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration,
6(1).

•

Moore, A., Masterson, J. T., Christophel, D. M., and Shea, K. A. (1996). College
teacher immediacy and student ratings of instruction. Communication Education, 45:
29-39.

•

Oblinger, D. G., Barone, C. A., and Hawkins, B. L. (2001). Distributed education
and its challenges: An overview. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education
and EDUCAUSE.

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

References (cont.)
•

•
•
•

•
•

Pelz, B. (2004). (My) Three principles of effective online pedagogy. Journal of
Asynchronous Learning Networks, 8(3).
Phipps, R. and Merisotis, J. (1999). What’s the difference? A review of contemporary
research on the effectiveness of distance learning in higher education. The Institute for
Higher Education Policy. Washington, DC.
Poley, J. (2001). Digital learning and libraries: Toward consortia and collaboratories
Presentation at NIT. Beijing,China.
Poley, J. (2002). Distance education themes and trends. Ohio State Megaconference.
Columbus, Ohio.
Poley, J. (2003). Distance Education Everywhere (not “online” learning):
Myths, Realities and Possibilities. 5th Annual International Symposium on Advanced
Radio Technologies (ISART).
Rahm, D. (1998). Tangled Webs In Public Administration: Organizational Issues In
Distance Learning. Public Administration & Management Interactive Journal, 3(1).

•

Richardson J. C. and Swan, K. (2003). Examining social presence in online courses
in relation to student’s perceived learning and satisfaction. Journal of Asynchronous
Learning Networks, 7(1).

•

Wang, H. (2004). Investigating, exploring, and promoting interaction in web-based
learning. 25th NECC.

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

References (cont.)
•

Young, K., Anderson, A., Eller, Am., Eller, An., Pounds, J., and Rashad, V.
(2004). What is possible in virtual education? Experiences empowering a
quality education for each learner. [Florida learning alliance.] No Child Left
Behind Leadership Summit: Increasing Options Through e-Learning. US
Department of Education.

•

Zemsky, R, Massy, W. F. (2004). Why the e-learning boom went bust. The
Chronicle of Higher Education, 50(44): B.6.

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004


Slide 3

Instructional design
in online environments:
Challenges and possibilities

Pantelis Vassilakis PhD
DePaul University
ITD – Libraries – School of Music

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Basic Premises
• The possibility for Online Distance
Learning (ODL) represents the most
exciting educational development in
decades.
• To date, the most positive aspect of the
ongoing ODL explosive growth has
been the application of the related
technology to online supplements,
which currently accompany the vast
majority of face-to-face courses.
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Q. What is wrong with
Online Distance Learning?
A. Its explosion is arguably led by the
wrong group (administrators vs. educators)
and is driven by the wrong motivations.
1. Main ODL advocates are administrators, who often do not fully
understand the new technology and the issues facing
instructors and students, and are not aware of the impact they
can have on creating positive changes in ODL.
[Dillon & Cintron, 1997; Wenzel, 1999; Dooley & Murphrey,
2000; (in Levy, 2003); Rahm, 1998; Bower, 2001; Kambutu,
2002; Levy, 2003; University of Minnesota - Extension service;
Kansas State University )

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Q. What is wrong with
Online Distance Learning?
A. Its explosion is arguably led by the
wrong group (administrators vs. educators)
and is driven by the wrong motivations
2. Planning for ODL usually focuses on
a) budget and personnel, rather than critical pedagogic issues
b) creating an attractive product for a target population (degree
seekers) at a minimal cost, rather than an improved educational
experience.

(Bates, 2000; Berge & Smith, 2000; Bothel, 2001; Levy, 2003;
AFT May 2001 Report)

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Q. What is wrong with
Online Distance Learning?
A. Its explosion is arguably led by the
wrong group (administrators vs. educators)
and is driven by the wrong motivations
3. ODL is approached as means to compensate for the fact that
constant growth in college-age population will soon result in more
students than University facilities can accommodate (Olinger et
al., 2001).
4. ODL is often seen as a possibly profitable auxiliary university
business (Lapiner, 2001), occasionally outsourced to for-profit
organizations (Cox, 2001).

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Q. What is wrong with
Online Distance Learning?
A. Its explosion is arguably led by the
wrong group (administrators vs. educators)
and is driven by the wrong motivations
5. University Strategic Plans and other resources cite market
pressure, the need to remain competitive, increased enrollment /
revenue, and decreased cost as some of the reasons for
aggressively promoting ODL, expecting a 20-25% annual
increase in DE enrollment, often without prior planning for
appropriate academic and technical support. This reflects a
concern with corporate survival/growth issues rather than
instructional design improvement.
(USC Academic Senate, 1991 & 2001 white papers; Texas
Technical University current Strategic Plan; New Mexico State
University current Strategic Plan)
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Q. What is wrong with
Online Distance Learning?
A. Its explosion is arguably driven by the
wrong group (administrators vs. educators)
and is driven by the wrong motivations
6. Private organizations/corporations advocate implementation of ODL
to meet standards compliance, citing cost decrease as the main
advantage and its use in Higher Education as the main justification.
7. Higher education institutions are also basing their overall ODL
development on cost rather educational considerations. In their
majority, ODL courses are assigned to ‘cost effective’ adjunct faculty,
(Carnevale, 2004) who also face inflated enrollments. Course quality
is not monitored closely, especially in established institutions that often
let their ODL offerings ride on their ‘brand name’ reputation, without
supporting them by the resources that earned them this reputation.
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning is a Reality

An average of ~ 6% of US University degree
programs are offered exclusively online.

Over 50% of institutions offer exclusive or
alternative online versions of courses.

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning is a Reality

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning is a Reality
OUS - Internet-Based Distance Learning
http://www.ous.edu/de_stat.htm
1600
Courses
1300

Enrollment (x 10)

1000

700

400

100
1998-99

1999-00

2000-01

2001-02

2002-03

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning is a Reality
Online Distance Learning Market Growth
http://nces.ed.gov/ - http://www.aft.org/
10

Billion US $

8
6
4
2
0
1998-99

1999-00

2000-01

2001-02

2002-03

2003-04
(E)

2004-05
(E)

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning is a Reality
Proportion of Online Programs
10%

8%

6%

4%

2%

0%
DePaul (135)

ASU (270)

UCLA (318)

UWM (400)

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Demand for Online Distance Learning
The explosive growth of online learning over the last 10 years
has occurred in response to continuously increasing demand.
The demand reflects a partly artificial need, driven by the
Universities themselves. The number of degrees conferred by
Universities is constantly increasing, ‘flooding’ the workforce and
making the possession of degree a must for almost any type of
employment.
Lifelong Learning and graduate education were supposed to be
the core areas of distance learning, resulting in a clientele largely
made out of so-called adult students (Bleek, 2004; Young et al.,
2004). The National Center for Education Statistics confirms that
such students are more likely than their counterparts to participate
in distance education. However…
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Demand for Online Distance Learning
US Distance Higher Education
http://nces.ed.gov/

80%
Undergraduate Courses
60%

40%

Institutions offering DL programs
20%
1994-95

1997-98

2000-01

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Demand for Online Distance Learning
Universities are targeting the population that will generate most revenue
and will embrace the ‘product’ for non-educational reasons, rather than
the population (small and quality-driven) that initiated the need.
Many on-campus students are participating in distance learning as a
way to solve course scheduling problems and/or speed up the degree
completion progress (Oregon University System; Golden et al., 2004),
resulting in an even more dramatic increase in the number of distance
learning enrollments and course offerings.
The growth rate of ODL offerings will continue to rise (Carnevale, 2004),
fueled by degree hunters who increase demand and by Universities who
recognize the immense cost cutting potential of (bad quality) DL, in spite of
the widely recognized failure to yet produce good quality DL (e.g. Zemsky
& Massy, 2004) and alarming reports of Accreditation officials having
obtained PhD degrees from DL degree mills (Bartlett, 2004).
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning & Faculty
Faculty members often resist the move towards online
distance learning.
Possible reasons:

a) Alleged dislike, fear, and/or ignorance of the relevant
technology; a “…confusion and nonsense disseminated by
those who would protect status quo…”. (Poley, 2003)
b) Faculty are often thrown into a ODL situation by University
programs eager to compete in the ODL market, without
being offered the necessary tools to do the job.
c) ODL seems, at least on the surface, to go against the very
essence of a learning event: communication.
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning & Faculty
Learning is a fundamentally social activity (review in Wang, 2004).
ODL advocates see the ePortofolio explosion as a recognition of this fact.
Learning relies heavily on communication among participants; on dialogue,
exchange of ideas, argumentation, feedback, and the readjustment of our
position, whatever this may have been prior to entering the learning event.
Communication involves facial expressions, gestures, tone of voice, and
(almost) instantaneous feedback. It is the immediacy in dialogue that can
a) prevent instances of misunderstanding from escalating,
b) support the continuous adjustment in the way a learning event progresses,
necessary to accommodate changes in the learning environment at hand.
Social presence and interaction affect course outcomes as well as course
satisfaction (Moore et al., 1996; Richardson & Swan, 2003; Pelz, 2004).
Drop-out rates are consistently higher in ODL vs. traditional courses (IHEP)
ODL students may experience social isolation. The students who need the
most help in DL courses do not ask for it (Levy, 2003).
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Can ODL support this kind of learning event?
Over 100 books in print published in the last two years
Over 100 online books
Over 10 scholarly journals dealing exclusively with the topic
Amazon has over 200 entries
Over 30 consortia publish their own journals, books, and
conference proceedings
Common themes:
I.

Communication, interactivity, feedback, identified as the major
challenges (e.g. Poley, 2001, 2002; Deubel, 2003; USC Academic
Senate, Whitepaper, Newsletter).

II. Often, there is no explicit reference to advances within education
research in general.
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Common Themes of Powerful Learning Experiences
Thinking outside the box.
Interaction not Interactivity (Phipps & Merisotis, 1999; Wang, 2004)
Learners
link powerful
learning
experiences
to events
that involve
It is questioned
whether
deep
understanding
of difficult
interaction,
whether
the instructor
or2004
other
students.
Pelz
(2004)
&with
several
SLATE
papers
Virtual
Classroom
material—beyond
amassing
facts—can
occur
in the absence
What
most
memorable
is the
actual event of understanding
that
ofissame-time
same-place
interaction.
[e.g.
Gersten,
2004;
Scheidenhelm,
2004]
takes
place ineducation
dialogue, should
changing
those
whoavailable
participate.
Distance
utilize
every
opportunity
Interaction
& Presence
to bring–students
faculty
together.
Relevance
Workingand
towards
shared
goals.
and
office
hours
American
Federation
of Teachers
2000 Report
The
dynamics
of a classroom
may not (May
be replicable
in a – May
Engagement
(physical
orready
mental)
2001
Report):
(IVC
technology
not
– Kesley
& D’Souza,
Digital
Multimedia
distance
education
setting
(Kelsey
& D’Souza,
2004).2004)

Scheduled virtual class meetings

Encouragement
Encourage the development of powerful new learning and
teaching/environments
Challenge
Confidence - in the longer term (Levin et al., 1999),
that significantly
enhance
learning (Goldenberg et al., 2004).
Making
failure a learning
experience
Empowerment
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

The Power and Challenge of Multimedia
Information delivery (images, audio, video, animations)
Example 1 Example 2 Example 3 Example 4
Interactivity (applets, simulations)
Example 1 Example 2 Example 3 Example 4
Task completion (applets, simulations, applications)
Example 1 Example 2

Time-consuming – Require specialized skills
Many have already been created – Locate (edit) and implement
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

In the meantime…
Develop rigorous evaluation and control
processes to assure that distance education
programs comply with high academic standards.

Apply quality control to academic content as well
as delivery method and student support services.
Provide faculty with comprehensive educational
technology support and (user) training prior to
assigning them to ODL courses.

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Conclusions
• The current state of the Universities’ infrastructure and
administration, the faculty and student technical skills, and to some
extend the related technology does not yet support the creation of
distance learning environments that can adequately replace face to
face instruction. Benchmarks for successful ODL put forward by the
IHEP need to be taken very seriously.
• Online supplements to face to face courses can significantly
enhance the educational experience of students, especially through
the use of sophisticated, multimedia digital learning objects, many of
which have already been created.
• One of our tasks should be to locate, collect, and make available
such learning objects to instructional designers, ideally through a
centralized searchable process, followed by a continuous
development and financial backing of an expert and reliable support
system that will help faculty identify relevant resources and
efficiently and creatively incorporate them to their instruction.
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

References
•

Bartlett, T. (2004). Member of Accrediting Group Has Ph.D. From 'Notorious
Diploma Mill‘. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 50(30): A.29.

•

Carnevale, D. (2004). Distance education: Keeping up with exploding demand. The
Chronicle of Higher Education, 50(21): B.8.

•

Carnevale, D. (2004). For online adjuncts: A seller’s market. The Chronicle of Higher
Education, 50(34): A.31.

•

Cox, G. M. (2001). Strategic Planning and Implementation: The Challenge of
Adapting Organizations and Creating Partnerships to Target New Markets. University
Teaching as e-Business research project. Center for Studies in Higher Education.
UC Berkeley.

•

Bleek, J. (2004). Internet Academy. [Washington.] No Child Left Behind Leadership
Summit: Increasing Options Through e-Learning. US Department of Education.

•

Bower, B. L. (2001). Distance Education: Facing the Faculty Challenge. Online
Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 4(2).

•

Deubel, P. (2003). Learning from reflections - Issues in building quality online
courses. Online Journal Distance Learning Administration, 6(3).

•

Golden, M., Wicks, M., and Williams, L. (2004). Why virtual schools are gaining
popularity. No Child Left Behind Leadership Summit: Increasing Options Through eLearning. US Department of Education.

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

References (cont.)
•

Goldenberg, L., Heinze, J., and Ba, H. (2004). What Students Say about Learning
Science with Multiple Media. 25th NECC.

•

Kelsey, D. K. and D’Souza, A. (2004). Student motivation for learning at a distance:
Does interaction matter? OJDLA, 7(2).

•

Lapiner, R. (2001). Strategic Planning and Implementation: The Challenge of
Adapting Organizations and Creating Partnerships to Target New Markets. University
Teaching as e-Business research project. Center for Studies in Higher Education. UC
Berkeley.

•

Levin, J., Levin, S. R., and Waddoups, G. (1999). Multiplicity in learning and
teaching: A framework for developing innovative online education. Journal of
Research on Computing in Education, 32(2): 256-269.

•

Levy, S. (2003). Six Factors to Consider when Planning Online Distance Learning
Programs in Higher Education. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration,
6(1).

•

Moore, A., Masterson, J. T., Christophel, D. M., and Shea, K. A. (1996). College
teacher immediacy and student ratings of instruction. Communication Education, 45:
29-39.

•

Oblinger, D. G., Barone, C. A., and Hawkins, B. L. (2001). Distributed education
and its challenges: An overview. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education
and EDUCAUSE.

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

References (cont.)
•

•
•
•

•
•

Pelz, B. (2004). (My) Three principles of effective online pedagogy. Journal of
Asynchronous Learning Networks, 8(3).
Phipps, R. and Merisotis, J. (1999). What’s the difference? A review of contemporary
research on the effectiveness of distance learning in higher education. The Institute for
Higher Education Policy. Washington, DC.
Poley, J. (2001). Digital learning and libraries: Toward consortia and collaboratories
Presentation at NIT. Beijing,China.
Poley, J. (2002). Distance education themes and trends. Ohio State Megaconference.
Columbus, Ohio.
Poley, J. (2003). Distance Education Everywhere (not “online” learning):
Myths, Realities and Possibilities. 5th Annual International Symposium on Advanced
Radio Technologies (ISART).
Rahm, D. (1998). Tangled Webs In Public Administration: Organizational Issues In
Distance Learning. Public Administration & Management Interactive Journal, 3(1).

•

Richardson J. C. and Swan, K. (2003). Examining social presence in online courses
in relation to student’s perceived learning and satisfaction. Journal of Asynchronous
Learning Networks, 7(1).

•

Wang, H. (2004). Investigating, exploring, and promoting interaction in web-based
learning. 25th NECC.

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

References (cont.)
•

Young, K., Anderson, A., Eller, Am., Eller, An., Pounds, J., and Rashad, V.
(2004). What is possible in virtual education? Experiences empowering a
quality education for each learner. [Florida learning alliance.] No Child Left
Behind Leadership Summit: Increasing Options Through e-Learning. US
Department of Education.

•

Zemsky, R, Massy, W. F. (2004). Why the e-learning boom went bust. The
Chronicle of Higher Education, 50(44): B.6.

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004


Slide 4

Instructional design
in online environments:
Challenges and possibilities

Pantelis Vassilakis PhD
DePaul University
ITD – Libraries – School of Music

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Basic Premises
• The possibility for Online Distance
Learning (ODL) represents the most
exciting educational development in
decades.
• To date, the most positive aspect of the
ongoing ODL explosive growth has
been the application of the related
technology to online supplements,
which currently accompany the vast
majority of face-to-face courses.
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Q. What is wrong with
Online Distance Learning?
A. Its explosion is arguably led by the
wrong group (administrators vs. educators)
and is driven by the wrong motivations.
1. Main ODL advocates are administrators, who often do not fully
understand the new technology and the issues facing
instructors and students, and are not aware of the impact they
can have on creating positive changes in ODL.
[Dillon & Cintron, 1997; Wenzel, 1999; Dooley & Murphrey,
2000; (in Levy, 2003); Rahm, 1998; Bower, 2001; Kambutu,
2002; Levy, 2003; University of Minnesota - Extension service;
Kansas State University )

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Q. What is wrong with
Online Distance Learning?
A. Its explosion is arguably led by the
wrong group (administrators vs. educators)
and is driven by the wrong motivations
2. Planning for ODL usually focuses on
a) budget and personnel, rather than critical pedagogic issues
b) creating an attractive product for a target population (degree
seekers) at a minimal cost, rather than an improved educational
experience.

(Bates, 2000; Berge & Smith, 2000; Bothel, 2001; Levy, 2003;
AFT May 2001 Report)

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Q. What is wrong with
Online Distance Learning?
A. Its explosion is arguably led by the
wrong group (administrators vs. educators)
and is driven by the wrong motivations
3. ODL is approached as means to compensate for the fact that
constant growth in college-age population will soon result in more
students than University facilities can accommodate (Olinger et
al., 2001).
4. ODL is often seen as a possibly profitable auxiliary university
business (Lapiner, 2001), occasionally outsourced to for-profit
organizations (Cox, 2001).

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Q. What is wrong with
Online Distance Learning?
A. Its explosion is arguably led by the
wrong group (administrators vs. educators)
and is driven by the wrong motivations
5. University Strategic Plans and other resources cite market
pressure, the need to remain competitive, increased enrollment /
revenue, and decreased cost as some of the reasons for
aggressively promoting ODL, expecting a 20-25% annual
increase in DE enrollment, often without prior planning for
appropriate academic and technical support. This reflects a
concern with corporate survival/growth issues rather than
instructional design improvement.
(USC Academic Senate, 1991 & 2001 white papers; Texas
Technical University current Strategic Plan; New Mexico State
University current Strategic Plan)
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Q. What is wrong with
Online Distance Learning?
A. Its explosion is arguably driven by the
wrong group (administrators vs. educators)
and is driven by the wrong motivations
6. Private organizations/corporations advocate implementation of ODL
to meet standards compliance, citing cost decrease as the main
advantage and its use in Higher Education as the main justification.
7. Higher education institutions are also basing their overall ODL
development on cost rather educational considerations. In their
majority, ODL courses are assigned to ‘cost effective’ adjunct faculty,
(Carnevale, 2004) who also face inflated enrollments. Course quality
is not monitored closely, especially in established institutions that often
let their ODL offerings ride on their ‘brand name’ reputation, without
supporting them by the resources that earned them this reputation.
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning is a Reality

An average of ~ 6% of US University degree
programs are offered exclusively online.

Over 50% of institutions offer exclusive or
alternative online versions of courses.

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning is a Reality

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning is a Reality
OUS - Internet-Based Distance Learning
http://www.ous.edu/de_stat.htm
1600
Courses
1300

Enrollment (x 10)

1000

700

400

100
1998-99

1999-00

2000-01

2001-02

2002-03

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning is a Reality
Online Distance Learning Market Growth
http://nces.ed.gov/ - http://www.aft.org/
10

Billion US $

8
6
4
2
0
1998-99

1999-00

2000-01

2001-02

2002-03

2003-04
(E)

2004-05
(E)

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning is a Reality
Proportion of Online Programs
10%

8%

6%

4%

2%

0%
DePaul (135)

ASU (270)

UCLA (318)

UWM (400)

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Demand for Online Distance Learning
The explosive growth of online learning over the last 10 years
has occurred in response to continuously increasing demand.
The demand reflects a partly artificial need, driven by the
Universities themselves. The number of degrees conferred by
Universities is constantly increasing, ‘flooding’ the workforce and
making the possession of degree a must for almost any type of
employment.
Lifelong Learning and graduate education were supposed to be
the core areas of distance learning, resulting in a clientele largely
made out of so-called adult students (Bleek, 2004; Young et al.,
2004). The National Center for Education Statistics confirms that
such students are more likely than their counterparts to participate
in distance education. However…
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Demand for Online Distance Learning
US Distance Higher Education
http://nces.ed.gov/

80%
Undergraduate Courses
60%

40%

Institutions offering DL programs
20%
1994-95

1997-98

2000-01

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Demand for Online Distance Learning
Universities are targeting the population that will generate most revenue
and will embrace the ‘product’ for non-educational reasons, rather than
the population (small and quality-driven) that initiated the need.
Many on-campus students are participating in distance learning as a
way to solve course scheduling problems and/or speed up the degree
completion progress (Oregon University System; Golden et al., 2004),
resulting in an even more dramatic increase in the number of distance
learning enrollments and course offerings.
The growth rate of ODL offerings will continue to rise (Carnevale, 2004),
fueled by degree hunters who increase demand and by Universities who
recognize the immense cost cutting potential of (bad quality) DL, in spite of
the widely recognized failure to yet produce good quality DL (e.g. Zemsky
& Massy, 2004) and alarming reports of Accreditation officials having
obtained PhD degrees from DL degree mills (Bartlett, 2004).
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning & Faculty
Faculty members often resist the move towards online
distance learning.
Possible reasons:

a) Alleged dislike, fear, and/or ignorance of the relevant
technology; a “…confusion and nonsense disseminated by
those who would protect status quo…”. (Poley, 2003)
b) Faculty are often thrown into a ODL situation by University
programs eager to compete in the ODL market, without
being offered the necessary tools to do the job.
c) ODL seems, at least on the surface, to go against the very
essence of a learning event: communication.
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning & Faculty
Learning is a fundamentally social activity (review in Wang, 2004).
ODL advocates see the ePortofolio explosion as a recognition of this fact.
Learning relies heavily on communication among participants; on dialogue,
exchange of ideas, argumentation, feedback, and the readjustment of our
position, whatever this may have been prior to entering the learning event.
Communication involves facial expressions, gestures, tone of voice, and
(almost) instantaneous feedback. It is the immediacy in dialogue that can
a) prevent instances of misunderstanding from escalating,
b) support the continuous adjustment in the way a learning event progresses,
necessary to accommodate changes in the learning environment at hand.
Social presence and interaction affect course outcomes as well as course
satisfaction (Moore et al., 1996; Richardson & Swan, 2003; Pelz, 2004).
Drop-out rates are consistently higher in ODL vs. traditional courses (IHEP)
ODL students may experience social isolation. The students who need the
most help in DL courses do not ask for it (Levy, 2003).
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Can ODL support this kind of learning event?
Over 100 books in print published in the last two years
Over 100 online books
Over 10 scholarly journals dealing exclusively with the topic
Amazon has over 200 entries
Over 30 consortia publish their own journals, books, and
conference proceedings
Common themes:
I.

Communication, interactivity, feedback, identified as the major
challenges (e.g. Poley, 2001, 2002; Deubel, 2003; USC Academic
Senate, Whitepaper, Newsletter).

II. Often, there is no explicit reference to advances within education
research in general.
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Common Themes of Powerful Learning Experiences
Thinking outside the box.
Interaction not Interactivity (Phipps & Merisotis, 1999; Wang, 2004)
Learners
link powerful
learning
experiences
to events
that involve
It is questioned
whether
deep
understanding
of difficult
interaction,
whether
the instructor
or2004
other
students.
Pelz
(2004)
&with
several
SLATE
papers
Virtual
Classroom
material—beyond
amassing
facts—can
occur
in the absence
What
most
memorable
is the
actual event of understanding
that
ofissame-time
same-place
interaction.
[e.g.
Gersten,
2004;
Scheidenhelm,
2004]
takes
place ineducation
dialogue, should
changing
those
whoavailable
participate.
Distance
utilize
every
opportunity
Interaction
& Presence
to bring–students
faculty
together.
Relevance
Workingand
towards
shared
goals.
and
office
hours
American
Federation
of Teachers
2000 Report
The
dynamics
of a classroom
may not (May
be replicable
in a – May
Engagement
(physical
orready
mental)
2001
Report):
(IVC
technology
not
– Kesley
& D’Souza,
Digital
Multimedia
distance
education
setting
(Kelsey
& D’Souza,
2004).2004)

Scheduled virtual class meetings

Encouragement
Encourage the development of powerful new learning and
teaching/environments
Challenge
Confidence - in the longer term (Levin et al., 1999),
that significantly
enhance
learning (Goldenberg et al., 2004).
Making
failure a learning
experience
Empowerment
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

The Power and Challenge of Multimedia
Information delivery (images, audio, video, animations)
Example 1 Example 2 Example 3 Example 4
Interactivity (applets, simulations)
Example 1 Example 2 Example 3 Example 4
Task completion (applets, simulations, applications)
Example 1 Example 2

Time-consuming – Require specialized skills
Many have already been created – Locate (edit) and implement
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

In the meantime…
Develop rigorous evaluation and control
processes to assure that distance education
programs comply with high academic standards.

Apply quality control to academic content as well
as delivery method and student support services.
Provide faculty with comprehensive educational
technology support and (user) training prior to
assigning them to ODL courses.

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Conclusions
• The current state of the Universities’ infrastructure and
administration, the faculty and student technical skills, and to some
extend the related technology does not yet support the creation of
distance learning environments that can adequately replace face to
face instruction. Benchmarks for successful ODL put forward by the
IHEP need to be taken very seriously.
• Online supplements to face to face courses can significantly
enhance the educational experience of students, especially through
the use of sophisticated, multimedia digital learning objects, many of
which have already been created.
• One of our tasks should be to locate, collect, and make available
such learning objects to instructional designers, ideally through a
centralized searchable process, followed by a continuous
development and financial backing of an expert and reliable support
system that will help faculty identify relevant resources and
efficiently and creatively incorporate them to their instruction.
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

References
•

Bartlett, T. (2004). Member of Accrediting Group Has Ph.D. From 'Notorious
Diploma Mill‘. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 50(30): A.29.

•

Carnevale, D. (2004). Distance education: Keeping up with exploding demand. The
Chronicle of Higher Education, 50(21): B.8.

•

Carnevale, D. (2004). For online adjuncts: A seller’s market. The Chronicle of Higher
Education, 50(34): A.31.

•

Cox, G. M. (2001). Strategic Planning and Implementation: The Challenge of
Adapting Organizations and Creating Partnerships to Target New Markets. University
Teaching as e-Business research project. Center for Studies in Higher Education.
UC Berkeley.

•

Bleek, J. (2004). Internet Academy. [Washington.] No Child Left Behind Leadership
Summit: Increasing Options Through e-Learning. US Department of Education.

•

Bower, B. L. (2001). Distance Education: Facing the Faculty Challenge. Online
Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 4(2).

•

Deubel, P. (2003). Learning from reflections - Issues in building quality online
courses. Online Journal Distance Learning Administration, 6(3).

•

Golden, M., Wicks, M., and Williams, L. (2004). Why virtual schools are gaining
popularity. No Child Left Behind Leadership Summit: Increasing Options Through eLearning. US Department of Education.

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

References (cont.)
•

Goldenberg, L., Heinze, J., and Ba, H. (2004). What Students Say about Learning
Science with Multiple Media. 25th NECC.

•

Kelsey, D. K. and D’Souza, A. (2004). Student motivation for learning at a distance:
Does interaction matter? OJDLA, 7(2).

•

Lapiner, R. (2001). Strategic Planning and Implementation: The Challenge of
Adapting Organizations and Creating Partnerships to Target New Markets. University
Teaching as e-Business research project. Center for Studies in Higher Education. UC
Berkeley.

•

Levin, J., Levin, S. R., and Waddoups, G. (1999). Multiplicity in learning and
teaching: A framework for developing innovative online education. Journal of
Research on Computing in Education, 32(2): 256-269.

•

Levy, S. (2003). Six Factors to Consider when Planning Online Distance Learning
Programs in Higher Education. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration,
6(1).

•

Moore, A., Masterson, J. T., Christophel, D. M., and Shea, K. A. (1996). College
teacher immediacy and student ratings of instruction. Communication Education, 45:
29-39.

•

Oblinger, D. G., Barone, C. A., and Hawkins, B. L. (2001). Distributed education
and its challenges: An overview. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education
and EDUCAUSE.

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

References (cont.)
•

•
•
•

•
•

Pelz, B. (2004). (My) Three principles of effective online pedagogy. Journal of
Asynchronous Learning Networks, 8(3).
Phipps, R. and Merisotis, J. (1999). What’s the difference? A review of contemporary
research on the effectiveness of distance learning in higher education. The Institute for
Higher Education Policy. Washington, DC.
Poley, J. (2001). Digital learning and libraries: Toward consortia and collaboratories
Presentation at NIT. Beijing,China.
Poley, J. (2002). Distance education themes and trends. Ohio State Megaconference.
Columbus, Ohio.
Poley, J. (2003). Distance Education Everywhere (not “online” learning):
Myths, Realities and Possibilities. 5th Annual International Symposium on Advanced
Radio Technologies (ISART).
Rahm, D. (1998). Tangled Webs In Public Administration: Organizational Issues In
Distance Learning. Public Administration & Management Interactive Journal, 3(1).

•

Richardson J. C. and Swan, K. (2003). Examining social presence in online courses
in relation to student’s perceived learning and satisfaction. Journal of Asynchronous
Learning Networks, 7(1).

•

Wang, H. (2004). Investigating, exploring, and promoting interaction in web-based
learning. 25th NECC.

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

References (cont.)
•

Young, K., Anderson, A., Eller, Am., Eller, An., Pounds, J., and Rashad, V.
(2004). What is possible in virtual education? Experiences empowering a
quality education for each learner. [Florida learning alliance.] No Child Left
Behind Leadership Summit: Increasing Options Through e-Learning. US
Department of Education.

•

Zemsky, R, Massy, W. F. (2004). Why the e-learning boom went bust. The
Chronicle of Higher Education, 50(44): B.6.

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004


Slide 5

Instructional design
in online environments:
Challenges and possibilities

Pantelis Vassilakis PhD
DePaul University
ITD – Libraries – School of Music

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Basic Premises
• The possibility for Online Distance
Learning (ODL) represents the most
exciting educational development in
decades.
• To date, the most positive aspect of the
ongoing ODL explosive growth has
been the application of the related
technology to online supplements,
which currently accompany the vast
majority of face-to-face courses.
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Q. What is wrong with
Online Distance Learning?
A. Its explosion is arguably led by the
wrong group (administrators vs. educators)
and is driven by the wrong motivations.
1. Main ODL advocates are administrators, who often do not fully
understand the new technology and the issues facing
instructors and students, and are not aware of the impact they
can have on creating positive changes in ODL.
[Dillon & Cintron, 1997; Wenzel, 1999; Dooley & Murphrey,
2000; (in Levy, 2003); Rahm, 1998; Bower, 2001; Kambutu,
2002; Levy, 2003; University of Minnesota - Extension service;
Kansas State University )

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Q. What is wrong with
Online Distance Learning?
A. Its explosion is arguably led by the
wrong group (administrators vs. educators)
and is driven by the wrong motivations
2. Planning for ODL usually focuses on
a) budget and personnel, rather than critical pedagogic issues
b) creating an attractive product for a target population (degree
seekers) at a minimal cost, rather than an improved educational
experience.

(Bates, 2000; Berge & Smith, 2000; Bothel, 2001; Levy, 2003;
AFT May 2001 Report)

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Q. What is wrong with
Online Distance Learning?
A. Its explosion is arguably led by the
wrong group (administrators vs. educators)
and is driven by the wrong motivations
3. ODL is approached as means to compensate for the fact that
constant growth in college-age population will soon result in more
students than University facilities can accommodate (Olinger et
al., 2001).
4. ODL is often seen as a possibly profitable auxiliary university
business (Lapiner, 2001), occasionally outsourced to for-profit
organizations (Cox, 2001).

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Q. What is wrong with
Online Distance Learning?
A. Its explosion is arguably led by the
wrong group (administrators vs. educators)
and is driven by the wrong motivations
5. University Strategic Plans and other resources cite market
pressure, the need to remain competitive, increased enrollment /
revenue, and decreased cost as some of the reasons for
aggressively promoting ODL, expecting a 20-25% annual
increase in DE enrollment, often without prior planning for
appropriate academic and technical support. This reflects a
concern with corporate survival/growth issues rather than
instructional design improvement.
(USC Academic Senate, 1991 & 2001 white papers; Texas
Technical University current Strategic Plan; New Mexico State
University current Strategic Plan)
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Q. What is wrong with
Online Distance Learning?
A. Its explosion is arguably driven by the
wrong group (administrators vs. educators)
and is driven by the wrong motivations
6. Private organizations/corporations advocate implementation of ODL
to meet standards compliance, citing cost decrease as the main
advantage and its use in Higher Education as the main justification.
7. Higher education institutions are also basing their overall ODL
development on cost rather educational considerations. In their
majority, ODL courses are assigned to ‘cost effective’ adjunct faculty,
(Carnevale, 2004) who also face inflated enrollments. Course quality
is not monitored closely, especially in established institutions that often
let their ODL offerings ride on their ‘brand name’ reputation, without
supporting them by the resources that earned them this reputation.
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning is a Reality

An average of ~ 6% of US University degree
programs are offered exclusively online.

Over 50% of institutions offer exclusive or
alternative online versions of courses.

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning is a Reality

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning is a Reality
OUS - Internet-Based Distance Learning
http://www.ous.edu/de_stat.htm
1600
Courses
1300

Enrollment (x 10)

1000

700

400

100
1998-99

1999-00

2000-01

2001-02

2002-03

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning is a Reality
Online Distance Learning Market Growth
http://nces.ed.gov/ - http://www.aft.org/
10

Billion US $

8
6
4
2
0
1998-99

1999-00

2000-01

2001-02

2002-03

2003-04
(E)

2004-05
(E)

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning is a Reality
Proportion of Online Programs
10%

8%

6%

4%

2%

0%
DePaul (135)

ASU (270)

UCLA (318)

UWM (400)

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Demand for Online Distance Learning
The explosive growth of online learning over the last 10 years
has occurred in response to continuously increasing demand.
The demand reflects a partly artificial need, driven by the
Universities themselves. The number of degrees conferred by
Universities is constantly increasing, ‘flooding’ the workforce and
making the possession of degree a must for almost any type of
employment.
Lifelong Learning and graduate education were supposed to be
the core areas of distance learning, resulting in a clientele largely
made out of so-called adult students (Bleek, 2004; Young et al.,
2004). The National Center for Education Statistics confirms that
such students are more likely than their counterparts to participate
in distance education. However…
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Demand for Online Distance Learning
US Distance Higher Education
http://nces.ed.gov/

80%
Undergraduate Courses
60%

40%

Institutions offering DL programs
20%
1994-95

1997-98

2000-01

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Demand for Online Distance Learning
Universities are targeting the population that will generate most revenue
and will embrace the ‘product’ for non-educational reasons, rather than
the population (small and quality-driven) that initiated the need.
Many on-campus students are participating in distance learning as a
way to solve course scheduling problems and/or speed up the degree
completion progress (Oregon University System; Golden et al., 2004),
resulting in an even more dramatic increase in the number of distance
learning enrollments and course offerings.
The growth rate of ODL offerings will continue to rise (Carnevale, 2004),
fueled by degree hunters who increase demand and by Universities who
recognize the immense cost cutting potential of (bad quality) DL, in spite of
the widely recognized failure to yet produce good quality DL (e.g. Zemsky
& Massy, 2004) and alarming reports of Accreditation officials having
obtained PhD degrees from DL degree mills (Bartlett, 2004).
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning & Faculty
Faculty members often resist the move towards online
distance learning.
Possible reasons:

a) Alleged dislike, fear, and/or ignorance of the relevant
technology; a “…confusion and nonsense disseminated by
those who would protect status quo…”. (Poley, 2003)
b) Faculty are often thrown into a ODL situation by University
programs eager to compete in the ODL market, without
being offered the necessary tools to do the job.
c) ODL seems, at least on the surface, to go against the very
essence of a learning event: communication.
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning & Faculty
Learning is a fundamentally social activity (review in Wang, 2004).
ODL advocates see the ePortofolio explosion as a recognition of this fact.
Learning relies heavily on communication among participants; on dialogue,
exchange of ideas, argumentation, feedback, and the readjustment of our
position, whatever this may have been prior to entering the learning event.
Communication involves facial expressions, gestures, tone of voice, and
(almost) instantaneous feedback. It is the immediacy in dialogue that can
a) prevent instances of misunderstanding from escalating,
b) support the continuous adjustment in the way a learning event progresses,
necessary to accommodate changes in the learning environment at hand.
Social presence and interaction affect course outcomes as well as course
satisfaction (Moore et al., 1996; Richardson & Swan, 2003; Pelz, 2004).
Drop-out rates are consistently higher in ODL vs. traditional courses (IHEP)
ODL students may experience social isolation. The students who need the
most help in DL courses do not ask for it (Levy, 2003).
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Can ODL support this kind of learning event?
Over 100 books in print published in the last two years
Over 100 online books
Over 10 scholarly journals dealing exclusively with the topic
Amazon has over 200 entries
Over 30 consortia publish their own journals, books, and
conference proceedings
Common themes:
I.

Communication, interactivity, feedback, identified as the major
challenges (e.g. Poley, 2001, 2002; Deubel, 2003; USC Academic
Senate, Whitepaper, Newsletter).

II. Often, there is no explicit reference to advances within education
research in general.
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Common Themes of Powerful Learning Experiences
Thinking outside the box.
Interaction not Interactivity (Phipps & Merisotis, 1999; Wang, 2004)
Learners
link powerful
learning
experiences
to events
that involve
It is questioned
whether
deep
understanding
of difficult
interaction,
whether
the instructor
or2004
other
students.
Pelz
(2004)
&with
several
SLATE
papers
Virtual
Classroom
material—beyond
amassing
facts—can
occur
in the absence
What
most
memorable
is the
actual event of understanding
that
ofissame-time
same-place
interaction.
[e.g.
Gersten,
2004;
Scheidenhelm,
2004]
takes
place ineducation
dialogue, should
changing
those
whoavailable
participate.
Distance
utilize
every
opportunity
Interaction
& Presence
to bring–students
faculty
together.
Relevance
Workingand
towards
shared
goals.
and
office
hours
American
Federation
of Teachers
2000 Report
The
dynamics
of a classroom
may not (May
be replicable
in a – May
Engagement
(physical
orready
mental)
2001
Report):
(IVC
technology
not
– Kesley
& D’Souza,
Digital
Multimedia
distance
education
setting
(Kelsey
& D’Souza,
2004).2004)

Scheduled virtual class meetings

Encouragement
Encourage the development of powerful new learning and
teaching/environments
Challenge
Confidence - in the longer term (Levin et al., 1999),
that significantly
enhance
learning (Goldenberg et al., 2004).
Making
failure a learning
experience
Empowerment
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

The Power and Challenge of Multimedia
Information delivery (images, audio, video, animations)
Example 1 Example 2 Example 3 Example 4
Interactivity (applets, simulations)
Example 1 Example 2 Example 3 Example 4
Task completion (applets, simulations, applications)
Example 1 Example 2

Time-consuming – Require specialized skills
Many have already been created – Locate (edit) and implement
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

In the meantime…
Develop rigorous evaluation and control
processes to assure that distance education
programs comply with high academic standards.

Apply quality control to academic content as well
as delivery method and student support services.
Provide faculty with comprehensive educational
technology support and (user) training prior to
assigning them to ODL courses.

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Conclusions
• The current state of the Universities’ infrastructure and
administration, the faculty and student technical skills, and to some
extend the related technology does not yet support the creation of
distance learning environments that can adequately replace face to
face instruction. Benchmarks for successful ODL put forward by the
IHEP need to be taken very seriously.
• Online supplements to face to face courses can significantly
enhance the educational experience of students, especially through
the use of sophisticated, multimedia digital learning objects, many of
which have already been created.
• One of our tasks should be to locate, collect, and make available
such learning objects to instructional designers, ideally through a
centralized searchable process, followed by a continuous
development and financial backing of an expert and reliable support
system that will help faculty identify relevant resources and
efficiently and creatively incorporate them to their instruction.
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

References
•

Bartlett, T. (2004). Member of Accrediting Group Has Ph.D. From 'Notorious
Diploma Mill‘. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 50(30): A.29.

•

Carnevale, D. (2004). Distance education: Keeping up with exploding demand. The
Chronicle of Higher Education, 50(21): B.8.

•

Carnevale, D. (2004). For online adjuncts: A seller’s market. The Chronicle of Higher
Education, 50(34): A.31.

•

Cox, G. M. (2001). Strategic Planning and Implementation: The Challenge of
Adapting Organizations and Creating Partnerships to Target New Markets. University
Teaching as e-Business research project. Center for Studies in Higher Education.
UC Berkeley.

•

Bleek, J. (2004). Internet Academy. [Washington.] No Child Left Behind Leadership
Summit: Increasing Options Through e-Learning. US Department of Education.

•

Bower, B. L. (2001). Distance Education: Facing the Faculty Challenge. Online
Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 4(2).

•

Deubel, P. (2003). Learning from reflections - Issues in building quality online
courses. Online Journal Distance Learning Administration, 6(3).

•

Golden, M., Wicks, M., and Williams, L. (2004). Why virtual schools are gaining
popularity. No Child Left Behind Leadership Summit: Increasing Options Through eLearning. US Department of Education.

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

References (cont.)
•

Goldenberg, L., Heinze, J., and Ba, H. (2004). What Students Say about Learning
Science with Multiple Media. 25th NECC.

•

Kelsey, D. K. and D’Souza, A. (2004). Student motivation for learning at a distance:
Does interaction matter? OJDLA, 7(2).

•

Lapiner, R. (2001). Strategic Planning and Implementation: The Challenge of
Adapting Organizations and Creating Partnerships to Target New Markets. University
Teaching as e-Business research project. Center for Studies in Higher Education. UC
Berkeley.

•

Levin, J., Levin, S. R., and Waddoups, G. (1999). Multiplicity in learning and
teaching: A framework for developing innovative online education. Journal of
Research on Computing in Education, 32(2): 256-269.

•

Levy, S. (2003). Six Factors to Consider when Planning Online Distance Learning
Programs in Higher Education. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration,
6(1).

•

Moore, A., Masterson, J. T., Christophel, D. M., and Shea, K. A. (1996). College
teacher immediacy and student ratings of instruction. Communication Education, 45:
29-39.

•

Oblinger, D. G., Barone, C. A., and Hawkins, B. L. (2001). Distributed education
and its challenges: An overview. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education
and EDUCAUSE.

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

References (cont.)
•

•
•
•

•
•

Pelz, B. (2004). (My) Three principles of effective online pedagogy. Journal of
Asynchronous Learning Networks, 8(3).
Phipps, R. and Merisotis, J. (1999). What’s the difference? A review of contemporary
research on the effectiveness of distance learning in higher education. The Institute for
Higher Education Policy. Washington, DC.
Poley, J. (2001). Digital learning and libraries: Toward consortia and collaboratories
Presentation at NIT. Beijing,China.
Poley, J. (2002). Distance education themes and trends. Ohio State Megaconference.
Columbus, Ohio.
Poley, J. (2003). Distance Education Everywhere (not “online” learning):
Myths, Realities and Possibilities. 5th Annual International Symposium on Advanced
Radio Technologies (ISART).
Rahm, D. (1998). Tangled Webs In Public Administration: Organizational Issues In
Distance Learning. Public Administration & Management Interactive Journal, 3(1).

•

Richardson J. C. and Swan, K. (2003). Examining social presence in online courses
in relation to student’s perceived learning and satisfaction. Journal of Asynchronous
Learning Networks, 7(1).

•

Wang, H. (2004). Investigating, exploring, and promoting interaction in web-based
learning. 25th NECC.

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

References (cont.)
•

Young, K., Anderson, A., Eller, Am., Eller, An., Pounds, J., and Rashad, V.
(2004). What is possible in virtual education? Experiences empowering a
quality education for each learner. [Florida learning alliance.] No Child Left
Behind Leadership Summit: Increasing Options Through e-Learning. US
Department of Education.

•

Zemsky, R, Massy, W. F. (2004). Why the e-learning boom went bust. The
Chronicle of Higher Education, 50(44): B.6.

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004


Slide 6

Instructional design
in online environments:
Challenges and possibilities

Pantelis Vassilakis PhD
DePaul University
ITD – Libraries – School of Music

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Basic Premises
• The possibility for Online Distance
Learning (ODL) represents the most
exciting educational development in
decades.
• To date, the most positive aspect of the
ongoing ODL explosive growth has
been the application of the related
technology to online supplements,
which currently accompany the vast
majority of face-to-face courses.
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Q. What is wrong with
Online Distance Learning?
A. Its explosion is arguably led by the
wrong group (administrators vs. educators)
and is driven by the wrong motivations.
1. Main ODL advocates are administrators, who often do not fully
understand the new technology and the issues facing
instructors and students, and are not aware of the impact they
can have on creating positive changes in ODL.
[Dillon & Cintron, 1997; Wenzel, 1999; Dooley & Murphrey,
2000; (in Levy, 2003); Rahm, 1998; Bower, 2001; Kambutu,
2002; Levy, 2003; University of Minnesota - Extension service;
Kansas State University )

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Q. What is wrong with
Online Distance Learning?
A. Its explosion is arguably led by the
wrong group (administrators vs. educators)
and is driven by the wrong motivations
2. Planning for ODL usually focuses on
a) budget and personnel, rather than critical pedagogic issues
b) creating an attractive product for a target population (degree
seekers) at a minimal cost, rather than an improved educational
experience.

(Bates, 2000; Berge & Smith, 2000; Bothel, 2001; Levy, 2003;
AFT May 2001 Report)

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Q. What is wrong with
Online Distance Learning?
A. Its explosion is arguably led by the
wrong group (administrators vs. educators)
and is driven by the wrong motivations
3. ODL is approached as means to compensate for the fact that
constant growth in college-age population will soon result in more
students than University facilities can accommodate (Olinger et
al., 2001).
4. ODL is often seen as a possibly profitable auxiliary university
business (Lapiner, 2001), occasionally outsourced to for-profit
organizations (Cox, 2001).

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Q. What is wrong with
Online Distance Learning?
A. Its explosion is arguably led by the
wrong group (administrators vs. educators)
and is driven by the wrong motivations
5. University Strategic Plans and other resources cite market
pressure, the need to remain competitive, increased enrollment /
revenue, and decreased cost as some of the reasons for
aggressively promoting ODL, expecting a 20-25% annual
increase in DE enrollment, often without prior planning for
appropriate academic and technical support. This reflects a
concern with corporate survival/growth issues rather than
instructional design improvement.
(USC Academic Senate, 1991 & 2001 white papers; Texas
Technical University current Strategic Plan; New Mexico State
University current Strategic Plan)
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Q. What is wrong with
Online Distance Learning?
A. Its explosion is arguably driven by the
wrong group (administrators vs. educators)
and is driven by the wrong motivations
6. Private organizations/corporations advocate implementation of ODL
to meet standards compliance, citing cost decrease as the main
advantage and its use in Higher Education as the main justification.
7. Higher education institutions are also basing their overall ODL
development on cost rather educational considerations. In their
majority, ODL courses are assigned to ‘cost effective’ adjunct faculty,
(Carnevale, 2004) who also face inflated enrollments. Course quality
is not monitored closely, especially in established institutions that often
let their ODL offerings ride on their ‘brand name’ reputation, without
supporting them by the resources that earned them this reputation.
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning is a Reality

An average of ~ 6% of US University degree
programs are offered exclusively online.

Over 50% of institutions offer exclusive or
alternative online versions of courses.

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning is a Reality

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning is a Reality
OUS - Internet-Based Distance Learning
http://www.ous.edu/de_stat.htm
1600
Courses
1300

Enrollment (x 10)

1000

700

400

100
1998-99

1999-00

2000-01

2001-02

2002-03

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning is a Reality
Online Distance Learning Market Growth
http://nces.ed.gov/ - http://www.aft.org/
10

Billion US $

8
6
4
2
0
1998-99

1999-00

2000-01

2001-02

2002-03

2003-04
(E)

2004-05
(E)

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning is a Reality
Proportion of Online Programs
10%

8%

6%

4%

2%

0%
DePaul (135)

ASU (270)

UCLA (318)

UWM (400)

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Demand for Online Distance Learning
The explosive growth of online learning over the last 10 years
has occurred in response to continuously increasing demand.
The demand reflects a partly artificial need, driven by the
Universities themselves. The number of degrees conferred by
Universities is constantly increasing, ‘flooding’ the workforce and
making the possession of degree a must for almost any type of
employment.
Lifelong Learning and graduate education were supposed to be
the core areas of distance learning, resulting in a clientele largely
made out of so-called adult students (Bleek, 2004; Young et al.,
2004). The National Center for Education Statistics confirms that
such students are more likely than their counterparts to participate
in distance education. However…
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Demand for Online Distance Learning
US Distance Higher Education
http://nces.ed.gov/

80%
Undergraduate Courses
60%

40%

Institutions offering DL programs
20%
1994-95

1997-98

2000-01

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Demand for Online Distance Learning
Universities are targeting the population that will generate most revenue
and will embrace the ‘product’ for non-educational reasons, rather than
the population (small and quality-driven) that initiated the need.
Many on-campus students are participating in distance learning as a
way to solve course scheduling problems and/or speed up the degree
completion progress (Oregon University System; Golden et al., 2004),
resulting in an even more dramatic increase in the number of distance
learning enrollments and course offerings.
The growth rate of ODL offerings will continue to rise (Carnevale, 2004),
fueled by degree hunters who increase demand and by Universities who
recognize the immense cost cutting potential of (bad quality) DL, in spite of
the widely recognized failure to yet produce good quality DL (e.g. Zemsky
& Massy, 2004) and alarming reports of Accreditation officials having
obtained PhD degrees from DL degree mills (Bartlett, 2004).
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning & Faculty
Faculty members often resist the move towards online
distance learning.
Possible reasons:

a) Alleged dislike, fear, and/or ignorance of the relevant
technology; a “…confusion and nonsense disseminated by
those who would protect status quo…”. (Poley, 2003)
b) Faculty are often thrown into a ODL situation by University
programs eager to compete in the ODL market, without
being offered the necessary tools to do the job.
c) ODL seems, at least on the surface, to go against the very
essence of a learning event: communication.
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning & Faculty
Learning is a fundamentally social activity (review in Wang, 2004).
ODL advocates see the ePortofolio explosion as a recognition of this fact.
Learning relies heavily on communication among participants; on dialogue,
exchange of ideas, argumentation, feedback, and the readjustment of our
position, whatever this may have been prior to entering the learning event.
Communication involves facial expressions, gestures, tone of voice, and
(almost) instantaneous feedback. It is the immediacy in dialogue that can
a) prevent instances of misunderstanding from escalating,
b) support the continuous adjustment in the way a learning event progresses,
necessary to accommodate changes in the learning environment at hand.
Social presence and interaction affect course outcomes as well as course
satisfaction (Moore et al., 1996; Richardson & Swan, 2003; Pelz, 2004).
Drop-out rates are consistently higher in ODL vs. traditional courses (IHEP)
ODL students may experience social isolation. The students who need the
most help in DL courses do not ask for it (Levy, 2003).
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Can ODL support this kind of learning event?
Over 100 books in print published in the last two years
Over 100 online books
Over 10 scholarly journals dealing exclusively with the topic
Amazon has over 200 entries
Over 30 consortia publish their own journals, books, and
conference proceedings
Common themes:
I.

Communication, interactivity, feedback, identified as the major
challenges (e.g. Poley, 2001, 2002; Deubel, 2003; USC Academic
Senate, Whitepaper, Newsletter).

II. Often, there is no explicit reference to advances within education
research in general.
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Common Themes of Powerful Learning Experiences
Thinking outside the box.
Interaction not Interactivity (Phipps & Merisotis, 1999; Wang, 2004)
Learners
link powerful
learning
experiences
to events
that involve
It is questioned
whether
deep
understanding
of difficult
interaction,
whether
the instructor
or2004
other
students.
Pelz
(2004)
&with
several
SLATE
papers
Virtual
Classroom
material—beyond
amassing
facts—can
occur
in the absence
What
most
memorable
is the
actual event of understanding
that
ofissame-time
same-place
interaction.
[e.g.
Gersten,
2004;
Scheidenhelm,
2004]
takes
place ineducation
dialogue, should
changing
those
whoavailable
participate.
Distance
utilize
every
opportunity
Interaction
& Presence
to bring–students
faculty
together.
Relevance
Workingand
towards
shared
goals.
and
office
hours
American
Federation
of Teachers
2000 Report
The
dynamics
of a classroom
may not (May
be replicable
in a – May
Engagement
(physical
orready
mental)
2001
Report):
(IVC
technology
not
– Kesley
& D’Souza,
Digital
Multimedia
distance
education
setting
(Kelsey
& D’Souza,
2004).2004)

Scheduled virtual class meetings

Encouragement
Encourage the development of powerful new learning and
teaching/environments
Challenge
Confidence - in the longer term (Levin et al., 1999),
that significantly
enhance
learning (Goldenberg et al., 2004).
Making
failure a learning
experience
Empowerment
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

The Power and Challenge of Multimedia
Information delivery (images, audio, video, animations)
Example 1 Example 2 Example 3 Example 4
Interactivity (applets, simulations)
Example 1 Example 2 Example 3 Example 4
Task completion (applets, simulations, applications)
Example 1 Example 2

Time-consuming – Require specialized skills
Many have already been created – Locate (edit) and implement
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

In the meantime…
Develop rigorous evaluation and control
processes to assure that distance education
programs comply with high academic standards.

Apply quality control to academic content as well
as delivery method and student support services.
Provide faculty with comprehensive educational
technology support and (user) training prior to
assigning them to ODL courses.

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Conclusions
• The current state of the Universities’ infrastructure and
administration, the faculty and student technical skills, and to some
extend the related technology does not yet support the creation of
distance learning environments that can adequately replace face to
face instruction. Benchmarks for successful ODL put forward by the
IHEP need to be taken very seriously.
• Online supplements to face to face courses can significantly
enhance the educational experience of students, especially through
the use of sophisticated, multimedia digital learning objects, many of
which have already been created.
• One of our tasks should be to locate, collect, and make available
such learning objects to instructional designers, ideally through a
centralized searchable process, followed by a continuous
development and financial backing of an expert and reliable support
system that will help faculty identify relevant resources and
efficiently and creatively incorporate them to their instruction.
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

References
•

Bartlett, T. (2004). Member of Accrediting Group Has Ph.D. From 'Notorious
Diploma Mill‘. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 50(30): A.29.

•

Carnevale, D. (2004). Distance education: Keeping up with exploding demand. The
Chronicle of Higher Education, 50(21): B.8.

•

Carnevale, D. (2004). For online adjuncts: A seller’s market. The Chronicle of Higher
Education, 50(34): A.31.

•

Cox, G. M. (2001). Strategic Planning and Implementation: The Challenge of
Adapting Organizations and Creating Partnerships to Target New Markets. University
Teaching as e-Business research project. Center for Studies in Higher Education.
UC Berkeley.

•

Bleek, J. (2004). Internet Academy. [Washington.] No Child Left Behind Leadership
Summit: Increasing Options Through e-Learning. US Department of Education.

•

Bower, B. L. (2001). Distance Education: Facing the Faculty Challenge. Online
Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 4(2).

•

Deubel, P. (2003). Learning from reflections - Issues in building quality online
courses. Online Journal Distance Learning Administration, 6(3).

•

Golden, M., Wicks, M., and Williams, L. (2004). Why virtual schools are gaining
popularity. No Child Left Behind Leadership Summit: Increasing Options Through eLearning. US Department of Education.

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

References (cont.)
•

Goldenberg, L., Heinze, J., and Ba, H. (2004). What Students Say about Learning
Science with Multiple Media. 25th NECC.

•

Kelsey, D. K. and D’Souza, A. (2004). Student motivation for learning at a distance:
Does interaction matter? OJDLA, 7(2).

•

Lapiner, R. (2001). Strategic Planning and Implementation: The Challenge of
Adapting Organizations and Creating Partnerships to Target New Markets. University
Teaching as e-Business research project. Center for Studies in Higher Education. UC
Berkeley.

•

Levin, J., Levin, S. R., and Waddoups, G. (1999). Multiplicity in learning and
teaching: A framework for developing innovative online education. Journal of
Research on Computing in Education, 32(2): 256-269.

•

Levy, S. (2003). Six Factors to Consider when Planning Online Distance Learning
Programs in Higher Education. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration,
6(1).

•

Moore, A., Masterson, J. T., Christophel, D. M., and Shea, K. A. (1996). College
teacher immediacy and student ratings of instruction. Communication Education, 45:
29-39.

•

Oblinger, D. G., Barone, C. A., and Hawkins, B. L. (2001). Distributed education
and its challenges: An overview. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education
and EDUCAUSE.

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

References (cont.)
•

•
•
•

•
•

Pelz, B. (2004). (My) Three principles of effective online pedagogy. Journal of
Asynchronous Learning Networks, 8(3).
Phipps, R. and Merisotis, J. (1999). What’s the difference? A review of contemporary
research on the effectiveness of distance learning in higher education. The Institute for
Higher Education Policy. Washington, DC.
Poley, J. (2001). Digital learning and libraries: Toward consortia and collaboratories
Presentation at NIT. Beijing,China.
Poley, J. (2002). Distance education themes and trends. Ohio State Megaconference.
Columbus, Ohio.
Poley, J. (2003). Distance Education Everywhere (not “online” learning):
Myths, Realities and Possibilities. 5th Annual International Symposium on Advanced
Radio Technologies (ISART).
Rahm, D. (1998). Tangled Webs In Public Administration: Organizational Issues In
Distance Learning. Public Administration & Management Interactive Journal, 3(1).

•

Richardson J. C. and Swan, K. (2003). Examining social presence in online courses
in relation to student’s perceived learning and satisfaction. Journal of Asynchronous
Learning Networks, 7(1).

•

Wang, H. (2004). Investigating, exploring, and promoting interaction in web-based
learning. 25th NECC.

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

References (cont.)
•

Young, K., Anderson, A., Eller, Am., Eller, An., Pounds, J., and Rashad, V.
(2004). What is possible in virtual education? Experiences empowering a
quality education for each learner. [Florida learning alliance.] No Child Left
Behind Leadership Summit: Increasing Options Through e-Learning. US
Department of Education.

•

Zemsky, R, Massy, W. F. (2004). Why the e-learning boom went bust. The
Chronicle of Higher Education, 50(44): B.6.

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004


Slide 7

Instructional design
in online environments:
Challenges and possibilities

Pantelis Vassilakis PhD
DePaul University
ITD – Libraries – School of Music

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Basic Premises
• The possibility for Online Distance
Learning (ODL) represents the most
exciting educational development in
decades.
• To date, the most positive aspect of the
ongoing ODL explosive growth has
been the application of the related
technology to online supplements,
which currently accompany the vast
majority of face-to-face courses.
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Q. What is wrong with
Online Distance Learning?
A. Its explosion is arguably led by the
wrong group (administrators vs. educators)
and is driven by the wrong motivations.
1. Main ODL advocates are administrators, who often do not fully
understand the new technology and the issues facing
instructors and students, and are not aware of the impact they
can have on creating positive changes in ODL.
[Dillon & Cintron, 1997; Wenzel, 1999; Dooley & Murphrey,
2000; (in Levy, 2003); Rahm, 1998; Bower, 2001; Kambutu,
2002; Levy, 2003; University of Minnesota - Extension service;
Kansas State University )

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Q. What is wrong with
Online Distance Learning?
A. Its explosion is arguably led by the
wrong group (administrators vs. educators)
and is driven by the wrong motivations
2. Planning for ODL usually focuses on
a) budget and personnel, rather than critical pedagogic issues
b) creating an attractive product for a target population (degree
seekers) at a minimal cost, rather than an improved educational
experience.

(Bates, 2000; Berge & Smith, 2000; Bothel, 2001; Levy, 2003;
AFT May 2001 Report)

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Q. What is wrong with
Online Distance Learning?
A. Its explosion is arguably led by the
wrong group (administrators vs. educators)
and is driven by the wrong motivations
3. ODL is approached as means to compensate for the fact that
constant growth in college-age population will soon result in more
students than University facilities can accommodate (Olinger et
al., 2001).
4. ODL is often seen as a possibly profitable auxiliary university
business (Lapiner, 2001), occasionally outsourced to for-profit
organizations (Cox, 2001).

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Q. What is wrong with
Online Distance Learning?
A. Its explosion is arguably led by the
wrong group (administrators vs. educators)
and is driven by the wrong motivations
5. University Strategic Plans and other resources cite market
pressure, the need to remain competitive, increased enrollment /
revenue, and decreased cost as some of the reasons for
aggressively promoting ODL, expecting a 20-25% annual
increase in DE enrollment, often without prior planning for
appropriate academic and technical support. This reflects a
concern with corporate survival/growth issues rather than
instructional design improvement.
(USC Academic Senate, 1991 & 2001 white papers; Texas
Technical University current Strategic Plan; New Mexico State
University current Strategic Plan)
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Q. What is wrong with
Online Distance Learning?
A. Its explosion is arguably driven by the
wrong group (administrators vs. educators)
and is driven by the wrong motivations
6. Private organizations/corporations advocate implementation of ODL
to meet standards compliance, citing cost decrease as the main
advantage and its use in Higher Education as the main justification.
7. Higher education institutions are also basing their overall ODL
development on cost rather educational considerations. In their
majority, ODL courses are assigned to ‘cost effective’ adjunct faculty,
(Carnevale, 2004) who also face inflated enrollments. Course quality
is not monitored closely, especially in established institutions that often
let their ODL offerings ride on their ‘brand name’ reputation, without
supporting them by the resources that earned them this reputation.
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning is a Reality

An average of ~ 6% of US University degree
programs are offered exclusively online.

Over 50% of institutions offer exclusive or
alternative online versions of courses.

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning is a Reality

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning is a Reality
OUS - Internet-Based Distance Learning
http://www.ous.edu/de_stat.htm
1600
Courses
1300

Enrollment (x 10)

1000

700

400

100
1998-99

1999-00

2000-01

2001-02

2002-03

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning is a Reality
Online Distance Learning Market Growth
http://nces.ed.gov/ - http://www.aft.org/
10

Billion US $

8
6
4
2
0
1998-99

1999-00

2000-01

2001-02

2002-03

2003-04
(E)

2004-05
(E)

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning is a Reality
Proportion of Online Programs
10%

8%

6%

4%

2%

0%
DePaul (135)

ASU (270)

UCLA (318)

UWM (400)

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Demand for Online Distance Learning
The explosive growth of online learning over the last 10 years
has occurred in response to continuously increasing demand.
The demand reflects a partly artificial need, driven by the
Universities themselves. The number of degrees conferred by
Universities is constantly increasing, ‘flooding’ the workforce and
making the possession of degree a must for almost any type of
employment.
Lifelong Learning and graduate education were supposed to be
the core areas of distance learning, resulting in a clientele largely
made out of so-called adult students (Bleek, 2004; Young et al.,
2004). The National Center for Education Statistics confirms that
such students are more likely than their counterparts to participate
in distance education. However…
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Demand for Online Distance Learning
US Distance Higher Education
http://nces.ed.gov/

80%
Undergraduate Courses
60%

40%

Institutions offering DL programs
20%
1994-95

1997-98

2000-01

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Demand for Online Distance Learning
Universities are targeting the population that will generate most revenue
and will embrace the ‘product’ for non-educational reasons, rather than
the population (small and quality-driven) that initiated the need.
Many on-campus students are participating in distance learning as a
way to solve course scheduling problems and/or speed up the degree
completion progress (Oregon University System; Golden et al., 2004),
resulting in an even more dramatic increase in the number of distance
learning enrollments and course offerings.
The growth rate of ODL offerings will continue to rise (Carnevale, 2004),
fueled by degree hunters who increase demand and by Universities who
recognize the immense cost cutting potential of (bad quality) DL, in spite of
the widely recognized failure to yet produce good quality DL (e.g. Zemsky
& Massy, 2004) and alarming reports of Accreditation officials having
obtained PhD degrees from DL degree mills (Bartlett, 2004).
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning & Faculty
Faculty members often resist the move towards online
distance learning.
Possible reasons:

a) Alleged dislike, fear, and/or ignorance of the relevant
technology; a “…confusion and nonsense disseminated by
those who would protect status quo…”. (Poley, 2003)
b) Faculty are often thrown into a ODL situation by University
programs eager to compete in the ODL market, without
being offered the necessary tools to do the job.
c) ODL seems, at least on the surface, to go against the very
essence of a learning event: communication.
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning & Faculty
Learning is a fundamentally social activity (review in Wang, 2004).
ODL advocates see the ePortofolio explosion as a recognition of this fact.
Learning relies heavily on communication among participants; on dialogue,
exchange of ideas, argumentation, feedback, and the readjustment of our
position, whatever this may have been prior to entering the learning event.
Communication involves facial expressions, gestures, tone of voice, and
(almost) instantaneous feedback. It is the immediacy in dialogue that can
a) prevent instances of misunderstanding from escalating,
b) support the continuous adjustment in the way a learning event progresses,
necessary to accommodate changes in the learning environment at hand.
Social presence and interaction affect course outcomes as well as course
satisfaction (Moore et al., 1996; Richardson & Swan, 2003; Pelz, 2004).
Drop-out rates are consistently higher in ODL vs. traditional courses (IHEP)
ODL students may experience social isolation. The students who need the
most help in DL courses do not ask for it (Levy, 2003).
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Can ODL support this kind of learning event?
Over 100 books in print published in the last two years
Over 100 online books
Over 10 scholarly journals dealing exclusively with the topic
Amazon has over 200 entries
Over 30 consortia publish their own journals, books, and
conference proceedings
Common themes:
I.

Communication, interactivity, feedback, identified as the major
challenges (e.g. Poley, 2001, 2002; Deubel, 2003; USC Academic
Senate, Whitepaper, Newsletter).

II. Often, there is no explicit reference to advances within education
research in general.
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Common Themes of Powerful Learning Experiences
Thinking outside the box.
Interaction not Interactivity (Phipps & Merisotis, 1999; Wang, 2004)
Learners
link powerful
learning
experiences
to events
that involve
It is questioned
whether
deep
understanding
of difficult
interaction,
whether
the instructor
or2004
other
students.
Pelz
(2004)
&with
several
SLATE
papers
Virtual
Classroom
material—beyond
amassing
facts—can
occur
in the absence
What
most
memorable
is the
actual event of understanding
that
ofissame-time
same-place
interaction.
[e.g.
Gersten,
2004;
Scheidenhelm,
2004]
takes
place ineducation
dialogue, should
changing
those
whoavailable
participate.
Distance
utilize
every
opportunity
Interaction
& Presence
to bring–students
faculty
together.
Relevance
Workingand
towards
shared
goals.
and
office
hours
American
Federation
of Teachers
2000 Report
The
dynamics
of a classroom
may not (May
be replicable
in a – May
Engagement
(physical
orready
mental)
2001
Report):
(IVC
technology
not
– Kesley
& D’Souza,
Digital
Multimedia
distance
education
setting
(Kelsey
& D’Souza,
2004).2004)

Scheduled virtual class meetings

Encouragement
Encourage the development of powerful new learning and
teaching/environments
Challenge
Confidence - in the longer term (Levin et al., 1999),
that significantly
enhance
learning (Goldenberg et al., 2004).
Making
failure a learning
experience
Empowerment
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

The Power and Challenge of Multimedia
Information delivery (images, audio, video, animations)
Example 1 Example 2 Example 3 Example 4
Interactivity (applets, simulations)
Example 1 Example 2 Example 3 Example 4
Task completion (applets, simulations, applications)
Example 1 Example 2

Time-consuming – Require specialized skills
Many have already been created – Locate (edit) and implement
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

In the meantime…
Develop rigorous evaluation and control
processes to assure that distance education
programs comply with high academic standards.

Apply quality control to academic content as well
as delivery method and student support services.
Provide faculty with comprehensive educational
technology support and (user) training prior to
assigning them to ODL courses.

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Conclusions
• The current state of the Universities’ infrastructure and
administration, the faculty and student technical skills, and to some
extend the related technology does not yet support the creation of
distance learning environments that can adequately replace face to
face instruction. Benchmarks for successful ODL put forward by the
IHEP need to be taken very seriously.
• Online supplements to face to face courses can significantly
enhance the educational experience of students, especially through
the use of sophisticated, multimedia digital learning objects, many of
which have already been created.
• One of our tasks should be to locate, collect, and make available
such learning objects to instructional designers, ideally through a
centralized searchable process, followed by a continuous
development and financial backing of an expert and reliable support
system that will help faculty identify relevant resources and
efficiently and creatively incorporate them to their instruction.
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

References
•

Bartlett, T. (2004). Member of Accrediting Group Has Ph.D. From 'Notorious
Diploma Mill‘. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 50(30): A.29.

•

Carnevale, D. (2004). Distance education: Keeping up with exploding demand. The
Chronicle of Higher Education, 50(21): B.8.

•

Carnevale, D. (2004). For online adjuncts: A seller’s market. The Chronicle of Higher
Education, 50(34): A.31.

•

Cox, G. M. (2001). Strategic Planning and Implementation: The Challenge of
Adapting Organizations and Creating Partnerships to Target New Markets. University
Teaching as e-Business research project. Center for Studies in Higher Education.
UC Berkeley.

•

Bleek, J. (2004). Internet Academy. [Washington.] No Child Left Behind Leadership
Summit: Increasing Options Through e-Learning. US Department of Education.

•

Bower, B. L. (2001). Distance Education: Facing the Faculty Challenge. Online
Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 4(2).

•

Deubel, P. (2003). Learning from reflections - Issues in building quality online
courses. Online Journal Distance Learning Administration, 6(3).

•

Golden, M., Wicks, M., and Williams, L. (2004). Why virtual schools are gaining
popularity. No Child Left Behind Leadership Summit: Increasing Options Through eLearning. US Department of Education.

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

References (cont.)
•

Goldenberg, L., Heinze, J., and Ba, H. (2004). What Students Say about Learning
Science with Multiple Media. 25th NECC.

•

Kelsey, D. K. and D’Souza, A. (2004). Student motivation for learning at a distance:
Does interaction matter? OJDLA, 7(2).

•

Lapiner, R. (2001). Strategic Planning and Implementation: The Challenge of
Adapting Organizations and Creating Partnerships to Target New Markets. University
Teaching as e-Business research project. Center for Studies in Higher Education. UC
Berkeley.

•

Levin, J., Levin, S. R., and Waddoups, G. (1999). Multiplicity in learning and
teaching: A framework for developing innovative online education. Journal of
Research on Computing in Education, 32(2): 256-269.

•

Levy, S. (2003). Six Factors to Consider when Planning Online Distance Learning
Programs in Higher Education. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration,
6(1).

•

Moore, A., Masterson, J. T., Christophel, D. M., and Shea, K. A. (1996). College
teacher immediacy and student ratings of instruction. Communication Education, 45:
29-39.

•

Oblinger, D. G., Barone, C. A., and Hawkins, B. L. (2001). Distributed education
and its challenges: An overview. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education
and EDUCAUSE.

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

References (cont.)
•

•
•
•

•
•

Pelz, B. (2004). (My) Three principles of effective online pedagogy. Journal of
Asynchronous Learning Networks, 8(3).
Phipps, R. and Merisotis, J. (1999). What’s the difference? A review of contemporary
research on the effectiveness of distance learning in higher education. The Institute for
Higher Education Policy. Washington, DC.
Poley, J. (2001). Digital learning and libraries: Toward consortia and collaboratories
Presentation at NIT. Beijing,China.
Poley, J. (2002). Distance education themes and trends. Ohio State Megaconference.
Columbus, Ohio.
Poley, J. (2003). Distance Education Everywhere (not “online” learning):
Myths, Realities and Possibilities. 5th Annual International Symposium on Advanced
Radio Technologies (ISART).
Rahm, D. (1998). Tangled Webs In Public Administration: Organizational Issues In
Distance Learning. Public Administration & Management Interactive Journal, 3(1).

•

Richardson J. C. and Swan, K. (2003). Examining social presence in online courses
in relation to student’s perceived learning and satisfaction. Journal of Asynchronous
Learning Networks, 7(1).

•

Wang, H. (2004). Investigating, exploring, and promoting interaction in web-based
learning. 25th NECC.

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

References (cont.)
•

Young, K., Anderson, A., Eller, Am., Eller, An., Pounds, J., and Rashad, V.
(2004). What is possible in virtual education? Experiences empowering a
quality education for each learner. [Florida learning alliance.] No Child Left
Behind Leadership Summit: Increasing Options Through e-Learning. US
Department of Education.

•

Zemsky, R, Massy, W. F. (2004). Why the e-learning boom went bust. The
Chronicle of Higher Education, 50(44): B.6.

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004


Slide 8

Instructional design
in online environments:
Challenges and possibilities

Pantelis Vassilakis PhD
DePaul University
ITD – Libraries – School of Music

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Basic Premises
• The possibility for Online Distance
Learning (ODL) represents the most
exciting educational development in
decades.
• To date, the most positive aspect of the
ongoing ODL explosive growth has
been the application of the related
technology to online supplements,
which currently accompany the vast
majority of face-to-face courses.
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Q. What is wrong with
Online Distance Learning?
A. Its explosion is arguably led by the
wrong group (administrators vs. educators)
and is driven by the wrong motivations.
1. Main ODL advocates are administrators, who often do not fully
understand the new technology and the issues facing
instructors and students, and are not aware of the impact they
can have on creating positive changes in ODL.
[Dillon & Cintron, 1997; Wenzel, 1999; Dooley & Murphrey,
2000; (in Levy, 2003); Rahm, 1998; Bower, 2001; Kambutu,
2002; Levy, 2003; University of Minnesota - Extension service;
Kansas State University )

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Q. What is wrong with
Online Distance Learning?
A. Its explosion is arguably led by the
wrong group (administrators vs. educators)
and is driven by the wrong motivations
2. Planning for ODL usually focuses on
a) budget and personnel, rather than critical pedagogic issues
b) creating an attractive product for a target population (degree
seekers) at a minimal cost, rather than an improved educational
experience.

(Bates, 2000; Berge & Smith, 2000; Bothel, 2001; Levy, 2003;
AFT May 2001 Report)

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Q. What is wrong with
Online Distance Learning?
A. Its explosion is arguably led by the
wrong group (administrators vs. educators)
and is driven by the wrong motivations
3. ODL is approached as means to compensate for the fact that
constant growth in college-age population will soon result in more
students than University facilities can accommodate (Olinger et
al., 2001).
4. ODL is often seen as a possibly profitable auxiliary university
business (Lapiner, 2001), occasionally outsourced to for-profit
organizations (Cox, 2001).

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Q. What is wrong with
Online Distance Learning?
A. Its explosion is arguably led by the
wrong group (administrators vs. educators)
and is driven by the wrong motivations
5. University Strategic Plans and other resources cite market
pressure, the need to remain competitive, increased enrollment /
revenue, and decreased cost as some of the reasons for
aggressively promoting ODL, expecting a 20-25% annual
increase in DE enrollment, often without prior planning for
appropriate academic and technical support. This reflects a
concern with corporate survival/growth issues rather than
instructional design improvement.
(USC Academic Senate, 1991 & 2001 white papers; Texas
Technical University current Strategic Plan; New Mexico State
University current Strategic Plan)
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Q. What is wrong with
Online Distance Learning?
A. Its explosion is arguably driven by the
wrong group (administrators vs. educators)
and is driven by the wrong motivations
6. Private organizations/corporations advocate implementation of ODL
to meet standards compliance, citing cost decrease as the main
advantage and its use in Higher Education as the main justification.
7. Higher education institutions are also basing their overall ODL
development on cost rather educational considerations. In their
majority, ODL courses are assigned to ‘cost effective’ adjunct faculty,
(Carnevale, 2004) who also face inflated enrollments. Course quality
is not monitored closely, especially in established institutions that often
let their ODL offerings ride on their ‘brand name’ reputation, without
supporting them by the resources that earned them this reputation.
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning is a Reality

An average of ~ 6% of US University degree
programs are offered exclusively online.

Over 50% of institutions offer exclusive or
alternative online versions of courses.

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning is a Reality

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning is a Reality
OUS - Internet-Based Distance Learning
http://www.ous.edu/de_stat.htm
1600
Courses
1300

Enrollment (x 10)

1000

700

400

100
1998-99

1999-00

2000-01

2001-02

2002-03

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning is a Reality
Online Distance Learning Market Growth
http://nces.ed.gov/ - http://www.aft.org/
10

Billion US $

8
6
4
2
0
1998-99

1999-00

2000-01

2001-02

2002-03

2003-04
(E)

2004-05
(E)

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning is a Reality
Proportion of Online Programs
10%

8%

6%

4%

2%

0%
DePaul (135)

ASU (270)

UCLA (318)

UWM (400)

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Demand for Online Distance Learning
The explosive growth of online learning over the last 10 years
has occurred in response to continuously increasing demand.
The demand reflects a partly artificial need, driven by the
Universities themselves. The number of degrees conferred by
Universities is constantly increasing, ‘flooding’ the workforce and
making the possession of degree a must for almost any type of
employment.
Lifelong Learning and graduate education were supposed to be
the core areas of distance learning, resulting in a clientele largely
made out of so-called adult students (Bleek, 2004; Young et al.,
2004). The National Center for Education Statistics confirms that
such students are more likely than their counterparts to participate
in distance education. However…
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Demand for Online Distance Learning
US Distance Higher Education
http://nces.ed.gov/

80%
Undergraduate Courses
60%

40%

Institutions offering DL programs
20%
1994-95

1997-98

2000-01

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Demand for Online Distance Learning
Universities are targeting the population that will generate most revenue
and will embrace the ‘product’ for non-educational reasons, rather than
the population (small and quality-driven) that initiated the need.
Many on-campus students are participating in distance learning as a
way to solve course scheduling problems and/or speed up the degree
completion progress (Oregon University System; Golden et al., 2004),
resulting in an even more dramatic increase in the number of distance
learning enrollments and course offerings.
The growth rate of ODL offerings will continue to rise (Carnevale, 2004),
fueled by degree hunters who increase demand and by Universities who
recognize the immense cost cutting potential of (bad quality) DL, in spite of
the widely recognized failure to yet produce good quality DL (e.g. Zemsky
& Massy, 2004) and alarming reports of Accreditation officials having
obtained PhD degrees from DL degree mills (Bartlett, 2004).
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning & Faculty
Faculty members often resist the move towards online
distance learning.
Possible reasons:

a) Alleged dislike, fear, and/or ignorance of the relevant
technology; a “…confusion and nonsense disseminated by
those who would protect status quo…”. (Poley, 2003)
b) Faculty are often thrown into a ODL situation by University
programs eager to compete in the ODL market, without
being offered the necessary tools to do the job.
c) ODL seems, at least on the surface, to go against the very
essence of a learning event: communication.
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning & Faculty
Learning is a fundamentally social activity (review in Wang, 2004).
ODL advocates see the ePortofolio explosion as a recognition of this fact.
Learning relies heavily on communication among participants; on dialogue,
exchange of ideas, argumentation, feedback, and the readjustment of our
position, whatever this may have been prior to entering the learning event.
Communication involves facial expressions, gestures, tone of voice, and
(almost) instantaneous feedback. It is the immediacy in dialogue that can
a) prevent instances of misunderstanding from escalating,
b) support the continuous adjustment in the way a learning event progresses,
necessary to accommodate changes in the learning environment at hand.
Social presence and interaction affect course outcomes as well as course
satisfaction (Moore et al., 1996; Richardson & Swan, 2003; Pelz, 2004).
Drop-out rates are consistently higher in ODL vs. traditional courses (IHEP)
ODL students may experience social isolation. The students who need the
most help in DL courses do not ask for it (Levy, 2003).
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Can ODL support this kind of learning event?
Over 100 books in print published in the last two years
Over 100 online books
Over 10 scholarly journals dealing exclusively with the topic
Amazon has over 200 entries
Over 30 consortia publish their own journals, books, and
conference proceedings
Common themes:
I.

Communication, interactivity, feedback, identified as the major
challenges (e.g. Poley, 2001, 2002; Deubel, 2003; USC Academic
Senate, Whitepaper, Newsletter).

II. Often, there is no explicit reference to advances within education
research in general.
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Common Themes of Powerful Learning Experiences
Thinking outside the box.
Interaction not Interactivity (Phipps & Merisotis, 1999; Wang, 2004)
Learners
link powerful
learning
experiences
to events
that involve
It is questioned
whether
deep
understanding
of difficult
interaction,
whether
the instructor
or2004
other
students.
Pelz
(2004)
&with
several
SLATE
papers
Virtual
Classroom
material—beyond
amassing
facts—can
occur
in the absence
What
most
memorable
is the
actual event of understanding
that
ofissame-time
same-place
interaction.
[e.g.
Gersten,
2004;
Scheidenhelm,
2004]
takes
place ineducation
dialogue, should
changing
those
whoavailable
participate.
Distance
utilize
every
opportunity
Interaction
& Presence
to bring–students
faculty
together.
Relevance
Workingand
towards
shared
goals.
and
office
hours
American
Federation
of Teachers
2000 Report
The
dynamics
of a classroom
may not (May
be replicable
in a – May
Engagement
(physical
orready
mental)
2001
Report):
(IVC
technology
not
– Kesley
& D’Souza,
Digital
Multimedia
distance
education
setting
(Kelsey
& D’Souza,
2004).2004)

Scheduled virtual class meetings

Encouragement
Encourage the development of powerful new learning and
teaching/environments
Challenge
Confidence - in the longer term (Levin et al., 1999),
that significantly
enhance
learning (Goldenberg et al., 2004).
Making
failure a learning
experience
Empowerment
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

The Power and Challenge of Multimedia
Information delivery (images, audio, video, animations)
Example 1 Example 2 Example 3 Example 4
Interactivity (applets, simulations)
Example 1 Example 2 Example 3 Example 4
Task completion (applets, simulations, applications)
Example 1 Example 2

Time-consuming – Require specialized skills
Many have already been created – Locate (edit) and implement
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

In the meantime…
Develop rigorous evaluation and control
processes to assure that distance education
programs comply with high academic standards.

Apply quality control to academic content as well
as delivery method and student support services.
Provide faculty with comprehensive educational
technology support and (user) training prior to
assigning them to ODL courses.

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Conclusions
• The current state of the Universities’ infrastructure and
administration, the faculty and student technical skills, and to some
extend the related technology does not yet support the creation of
distance learning environments that can adequately replace face to
face instruction. Benchmarks for successful ODL put forward by the
IHEP need to be taken very seriously.
• Online supplements to face to face courses can significantly
enhance the educational experience of students, especially through
the use of sophisticated, multimedia digital learning objects, many of
which have already been created.
• One of our tasks should be to locate, collect, and make available
such learning objects to instructional designers, ideally through a
centralized searchable process, followed by a continuous
development and financial backing of an expert and reliable support
system that will help faculty identify relevant resources and
efficiently and creatively incorporate them to their instruction.
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

References
•

Bartlett, T. (2004). Member of Accrediting Group Has Ph.D. From 'Notorious
Diploma Mill‘. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 50(30): A.29.

•

Carnevale, D. (2004). Distance education: Keeping up with exploding demand. The
Chronicle of Higher Education, 50(21): B.8.

•

Carnevale, D. (2004). For online adjuncts: A seller’s market. The Chronicle of Higher
Education, 50(34): A.31.

•

Cox, G. M. (2001). Strategic Planning and Implementation: The Challenge of
Adapting Organizations and Creating Partnerships to Target New Markets. University
Teaching as e-Business research project. Center for Studies in Higher Education.
UC Berkeley.

•

Bleek, J. (2004). Internet Academy. [Washington.] No Child Left Behind Leadership
Summit: Increasing Options Through e-Learning. US Department of Education.

•

Bower, B. L. (2001). Distance Education: Facing the Faculty Challenge. Online
Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 4(2).

•

Deubel, P. (2003). Learning from reflections - Issues in building quality online
courses. Online Journal Distance Learning Administration, 6(3).

•

Golden, M., Wicks, M., and Williams, L. (2004). Why virtual schools are gaining
popularity. No Child Left Behind Leadership Summit: Increasing Options Through eLearning. US Department of Education.

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

References (cont.)
•

Goldenberg, L., Heinze, J., and Ba, H. (2004). What Students Say about Learning
Science with Multiple Media. 25th NECC.

•

Kelsey, D. K. and D’Souza, A. (2004). Student motivation for learning at a distance:
Does interaction matter? OJDLA, 7(2).

•

Lapiner, R. (2001). Strategic Planning and Implementation: The Challenge of
Adapting Organizations and Creating Partnerships to Target New Markets. University
Teaching as e-Business research project. Center for Studies in Higher Education. UC
Berkeley.

•

Levin, J., Levin, S. R., and Waddoups, G. (1999). Multiplicity in learning and
teaching: A framework for developing innovative online education. Journal of
Research on Computing in Education, 32(2): 256-269.

•

Levy, S. (2003). Six Factors to Consider when Planning Online Distance Learning
Programs in Higher Education. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration,
6(1).

•

Moore, A., Masterson, J. T., Christophel, D. M., and Shea, K. A. (1996). College
teacher immediacy and student ratings of instruction. Communication Education, 45:
29-39.

•

Oblinger, D. G., Barone, C. A., and Hawkins, B. L. (2001). Distributed education
and its challenges: An overview. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education
and EDUCAUSE.

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

References (cont.)
•

•
•
•

•
•

Pelz, B. (2004). (My) Three principles of effective online pedagogy. Journal of
Asynchronous Learning Networks, 8(3).
Phipps, R. and Merisotis, J. (1999). What’s the difference? A review of contemporary
research on the effectiveness of distance learning in higher education. The Institute for
Higher Education Policy. Washington, DC.
Poley, J. (2001). Digital learning and libraries: Toward consortia and collaboratories
Presentation at NIT. Beijing,China.
Poley, J. (2002). Distance education themes and trends. Ohio State Megaconference.
Columbus, Ohio.
Poley, J. (2003). Distance Education Everywhere (not “online” learning):
Myths, Realities and Possibilities. 5th Annual International Symposium on Advanced
Radio Technologies (ISART).
Rahm, D. (1998). Tangled Webs In Public Administration: Organizational Issues In
Distance Learning. Public Administration & Management Interactive Journal, 3(1).

•

Richardson J. C. and Swan, K. (2003). Examining social presence in online courses
in relation to student’s perceived learning and satisfaction. Journal of Asynchronous
Learning Networks, 7(1).

•

Wang, H. (2004). Investigating, exploring, and promoting interaction in web-based
learning. 25th NECC.

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

References (cont.)
•

Young, K., Anderson, A., Eller, Am., Eller, An., Pounds, J., and Rashad, V.
(2004). What is possible in virtual education? Experiences empowering a
quality education for each learner. [Florida learning alliance.] No Child Left
Behind Leadership Summit: Increasing Options Through e-Learning. US
Department of Education.

•

Zemsky, R, Massy, W. F. (2004). Why the e-learning boom went bust. The
Chronicle of Higher Education, 50(44): B.6.

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004


Slide 9

Instructional design
in online environments:
Challenges and possibilities

Pantelis Vassilakis PhD
DePaul University
ITD – Libraries – School of Music

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Basic Premises
• The possibility for Online Distance
Learning (ODL) represents the most
exciting educational development in
decades.
• To date, the most positive aspect of the
ongoing ODL explosive growth has
been the application of the related
technology to online supplements,
which currently accompany the vast
majority of face-to-face courses.
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Q. What is wrong with
Online Distance Learning?
A. Its explosion is arguably led by the
wrong group (administrators vs. educators)
and is driven by the wrong motivations.
1. Main ODL advocates are administrators, who often do not fully
understand the new technology and the issues facing
instructors and students, and are not aware of the impact they
can have on creating positive changes in ODL.
[Dillon & Cintron, 1997; Wenzel, 1999; Dooley & Murphrey,
2000; (in Levy, 2003); Rahm, 1998; Bower, 2001; Kambutu,
2002; Levy, 2003; University of Minnesota - Extension service;
Kansas State University )

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Q. What is wrong with
Online Distance Learning?
A. Its explosion is arguably led by the
wrong group (administrators vs. educators)
and is driven by the wrong motivations
2. Planning for ODL usually focuses on
a) budget and personnel, rather than critical pedagogic issues
b) creating an attractive product for a target population (degree
seekers) at a minimal cost, rather than an improved educational
experience.

(Bates, 2000; Berge & Smith, 2000; Bothel, 2001; Levy, 2003;
AFT May 2001 Report)

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Q. What is wrong with
Online Distance Learning?
A. Its explosion is arguably led by the
wrong group (administrators vs. educators)
and is driven by the wrong motivations
3. ODL is approached as means to compensate for the fact that
constant growth in college-age population will soon result in more
students than University facilities can accommodate (Olinger et
al., 2001).
4. ODL is often seen as a possibly profitable auxiliary university
business (Lapiner, 2001), occasionally outsourced to for-profit
organizations (Cox, 2001).

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Q. What is wrong with
Online Distance Learning?
A. Its explosion is arguably led by the
wrong group (administrators vs. educators)
and is driven by the wrong motivations
5. University Strategic Plans and other resources cite market
pressure, the need to remain competitive, increased enrollment /
revenue, and decreased cost as some of the reasons for
aggressively promoting ODL, expecting a 20-25% annual
increase in DE enrollment, often without prior planning for
appropriate academic and technical support. This reflects a
concern with corporate survival/growth issues rather than
instructional design improvement.
(USC Academic Senate, 1991 & 2001 white papers; Texas
Technical University current Strategic Plan; New Mexico State
University current Strategic Plan)
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Q. What is wrong with
Online Distance Learning?
A. Its explosion is arguably driven by the
wrong group (administrators vs. educators)
and is driven by the wrong motivations
6. Private organizations/corporations advocate implementation of ODL
to meet standards compliance, citing cost decrease as the main
advantage and its use in Higher Education as the main justification.
7. Higher education institutions are also basing their overall ODL
development on cost rather educational considerations. In their
majority, ODL courses are assigned to ‘cost effective’ adjunct faculty,
(Carnevale, 2004) who also face inflated enrollments. Course quality
is not monitored closely, especially in established institutions that often
let their ODL offerings ride on their ‘brand name’ reputation, without
supporting them by the resources that earned them this reputation.
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning is a Reality

An average of ~ 6% of US University degree
programs are offered exclusively online.

Over 50% of institutions offer exclusive or
alternative online versions of courses.

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning is a Reality

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning is a Reality
OUS - Internet-Based Distance Learning
http://www.ous.edu/de_stat.htm
1600
Courses
1300

Enrollment (x 10)

1000

700

400

100
1998-99

1999-00

2000-01

2001-02

2002-03

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning is a Reality
Online Distance Learning Market Growth
http://nces.ed.gov/ - http://www.aft.org/
10

Billion US $

8
6
4
2
0
1998-99

1999-00

2000-01

2001-02

2002-03

2003-04
(E)

2004-05
(E)

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning is a Reality
Proportion of Online Programs
10%

8%

6%

4%

2%

0%
DePaul (135)

ASU (270)

UCLA (318)

UWM (400)

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Demand for Online Distance Learning
The explosive growth of online learning over the last 10 years
has occurred in response to continuously increasing demand.
The demand reflects a partly artificial need, driven by the
Universities themselves. The number of degrees conferred by
Universities is constantly increasing, ‘flooding’ the workforce and
making the possession of degree a must for almost any type of
employment.
Lifelong Learning and graduate education were supposed to be
the core areas of distance learning, resulting in a clientele largely
made out of so-called adult students (Bleek, 2004; Young et al.,
2004). The National Center for Education Statistics confirms that
such students are more likely than their counterparts to participate
in distance education. However…
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Demand for Online Distance Learning
US Distance Higher Education
http://nces.ed.gov/

80%
Undergraduate Courses
60%

40%

Institutions offering DL programs
20%
1994-95

1997-98

2000-01

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Demand for Online Distance Learning
Universities are targeting the population that will generate most revenue
and will embrace the ‘product’ for non-educational reasons, rather than
the population (small and quality-driven) that initiated the need.
Many on-campus students are participating in distance learning as a
way to solve course scheduling problems and/or speed up the degree
completion progress (Oregon University System; Golden et al., 2004),
resulting in an even more dramatic increase in the number of distance
learning enrollments and course offerings.
The growth rate of ODL offerings will continue to rise (Carnevale, 2004),
fueled by degree hunters who increase demand and by Universities who
recognize the immense cost cutting potential of (bad quality) DL, in spite of
the widely recognized failure to yet produce good quality DL (e.g. Zemsky
& Massy, 2004) and alarming reports of Accreditation officials having
obtained PhD degrees from DL degree mills (Bartlett, 2004).
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning & Faculty
Faculty members often resist the move towards online
distance learning.
Possible reasons:

a) Alleged dislike, fear, and/or ignorance of the relevant
technology; a “…confusion and nonsense disseminated by
those who would protect status quo…”. (Poley, 2003)
b) Faculty are often thrown into a ODL situation by University
programs eager to compete in the ODL market, without
being offered the necessary tools to do the job.
c) ODL seems, at least on the surface, to go against the very
essence of a learning event: communication.
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning & Faculty
Learning is a fundamentally social activity (review in Wang, 2004).
ODL advocates see the ePortofolio explosion as a recognition of this fact.
Learning relies heavily on communication among participants; on dialogue,
exchange of ideas, argumentation, feedback, and the readjustment of our
position, whatever this may have been prior to entering the learning event.
Communication involves facial expressions, gestures, tone of voice, and
(almost) instantaneous feedback. It is the immediacy in dialogue that can
a) prevent instances of misunderstanding from escalating,
b) support the continuous adjustment in the way a learning event progresses,
necessary to accommodate changes in the learning environment at hand.
Social presence and interaction affect course outcomes as well as course
satisfaction (Moore et al., 1996; Richardson & Swan, 2003; Pelz, 2004).
Drop-out rates are consistently higher in ODL vs. traditional courses (IHEP)
ODL students may experience social isolation. The students who need the
most help in DL courses do not ask for it (Levy, 2003).
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Can ODL support this kind of learning event?
Over 100 books in print published in the last two years
Over 100 online books
Over 10 scholarly journals dealing exclusively with the topic
Amazon has over 200 entries
Over 30 consortia publish their own journals, books, and
conference proceedings
Common themes:
I.

Communication, interactivity, feedback, identified as the major
challenges (e.g. Poley, 2001, 2002; Deubel, 2003; USC Academic
Senate, Whitepaper, Newsletter).

II. Often, there is no explicit reference to advances within education
research in general.
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Common Themes of Powerful Learning Experiences
Thinking outside the box.
Interaction not Interactivity (Phipps & Merisotis, 1999; Wang, 2004)
Learners
link powerful
learning
experiences
to events
that involve
It is questioned
whether
deep
understanding
of difficult
interaction,
whether
the instructor
or2004
other
students.
Pelz
(2004)
&with
several
SLATE
papers
Virtual
Classroom
material—beyond
amassing
facts—can
occur
in the absence
What
most
memorable
is the
actual event of understanding
that
ofissame-time
same-place
interaction.
[e.g.
Gersten,
2004;
Scheidenhelm,
2004]
takes
place ineducation
dialogue, should
changing
those
whoavailable
participate.
Distance
utilize
every
opportunity
Interaction
& Presence
to bring–students
faculty
together.
Relevance
Workingand
towards
shared
goals.
and
office
hours
American
Federation
of Teachers
2000 Report
The
dynamics
of a classroom
may not (May
be replicable
in a – May
Engagement
(physical
orready
mental)
2001
Report):
(IVC
technology
not
– Kesley
& D’Souza,
Digital
Multimedia
distance
education
setting
(Kelsey
& D’Souza,
2004).2004)

Scheduled virtual class meetings

Encouragement
Encourage the development of powerful new learning and
teaching/environments
Challenge
Confidence - in the longer term (Levin et al., 1999),
that significantly
enhance
learning (Goldenberg et al., 2004).
Making
failure a learning
experience
Empowerment
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

The Power and Challenge of Multimedia
Information delivery (images, audio, video, animations)
Example 1 Example 2 Example 3 Example 4
Interactivity (applets, simulations)
Example 1 Example 2 Example 3 Example 4
Task completion (applets, simulations, applications)
Example 1 Example 2

Time-consuming – Require specialized skills
Many have already been created – Locate (edit) and implement
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

In the meantime…
Develop rigorous evaluation and control
processes to assure that distance education
programs comply with high academic standards.

Apply quality control to academic content as well
as delivery method and student support services.
Provide faculty with comprehensive educational
technology support and (user) training prior to
assigning them to ODL courses.

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Conclusions
• The current state of the Universities’ infrastructure and
administration, the faculty and student technical skills, and to some
extend the related technology does not yet support the creation of
distance learning environments that can adequately replace face to
face instruction. Benchmarks for successful ODL put forward by the
IHEP need to be taken very seriously.
• Online supplements to face to face courses can significantly
enhance the educational experience of students, especially through
the use of sophisticated, multimedia digital learning objects, many of
which have already been created.
• One of our tasks should be to locate, collect, and make available
such learning objects to instructional designers, ideally through a
centralized searchable process, followed by a continuous
development and financial backing of an expert and reliable support
system that will help faculty identify relevant resources and
efficiently and creatively incorporate them to their instruction.
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

References
•

Bartlett, T. (2004). Member of Accrediting Group Has Ph.D. From 'Notorious
Diploma Mill‘. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 50(30): A.29.

•

Carnevale, D. (2004). Distance education: Keeping up with exploding demand. The
Chronicle of Higher Education, 50(21): B.8.

•

Carnevale, D. (2004). For online adjuncts: A seller’s market. The Chronicle of Higher
Education, 50(34): A.31.

•

Cox, G. M. (2001). Strategic Planning and Implementation: The Challenge of
Adapting Organizations and Creating Partnerships to Target New Markets. University
Teaching as e-Business research project. Center for Studies in Higher Education.
UC Berkeley.

•

Bleek, J. (2004). Internet Academy. [Washington.] No Child Left Behind Leadership
Summit: Increasing Options Through e-Learning. US Department of Education.

•

Bower, B. L. (2001). Distance Education: Facing the Faculty Challenge. Online
Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 4(2).

•

Deubel, P. (2003). Learning from reflections - Issues in building quality online
courses. Online Journal Distance Learning Administration, 6(3).

•

Golden, M., Wicks, M., and Williams, L. (2004). Why virtual schools are gaining
popularity. No Child Left Behind Leadership Summit: Increasing Options Through eLearning. US Department of Education.

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

References (cont.)
•

Goldenberg, L., Heinze, J., and Ba, H. (2004). What Students Say about Learning
Science with Multiple Media. 25th NECC.

•

Kelsey, D. K. and D’Souza, A. (2004). Student motivation for learning at a distance:
Does interaction matter? OJDLA, 7(2).

•

Lapiner, R. (2001). Strategic Planning and Implementation: The Challenge of
Adapting Organizations and Creating Partnerships to Target New Markets. University
Teaching as e-Business research project. Center for Studies in Higher Education. UC
Berkeley.

•

Levin, J., Levin, S. R., and Waddoups, G. (1999). Multiplicity in learning and
teaching: A framework for developing innovative online education. Journal of
Research on Computing in Education, 32(2): 256-269.

•

Levy, S. (2003). Six Factors to Consider when Planning Online Distance Learning
Programs in Higher Education. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration,
6(1).

•

Moore, A., Masterson, J. T., Christophel, D. M., and Shea, K. A. (1996). College
teacher immediacy and student ratings of instruction. Communication Education, 45:
29-39.

•

Oblinger, D. G., Barone, C. A., and Hawkins, B. L. (2001). Distributed education
and its challenges: An overview. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education
and EDUCAUSE.

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

References (cont.)
•

•
•
•

•
•

Pelz, B. (2004). (My) Three principles of effective online pedagogy. Journal of
Asynchronous Learning Networks, 8(3).
Phipps, R. and Merisotis, J. (1999). What’s the difference? A review of contemporary
research on the effectiveness of distance learning in higher education. The Institute for
Higher Education Policy. Washington, DC.
Poley, J. (2001). Digital learning and libraries: Toward consortia and collaboratories
Presentation at NIT. Beijing,China.
Poley, J. (2002). Distance education themes and trends. Ohio State Megaconference.
Columbus, Ohio.
Poley, J. (2003). Distance Education Everywhere (not “online” learning):
Myths, Realities and Possibilities. 5th Annual International Symposium on Advanced
Radio Technologies (ISART).
Rahm, D. (1998). Tangled Webs In Public Administration: Organizational Issues In
Distance Learning. Public Administration & Management Interactive Journal, 3(1).

•

Richardson J. C. and Swan, K. (2003). Examining social presence in online courses
in relation to student’s perceived learning and satisfaction. Journal of Asynchronous
Learning Networks, 7(1).

•

Wang, H. (2004). Investigating, exploring, and promoting interaction in web-based
learning. 25th NECC.

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

References (cont.)
•

Young, K., Anderson, A., Eller, Am., Eller, An., Pounds, J., and Rashad, V.
(2004). What is possible in virtual education? Experiences empowering a
quality education for each learner. [Florida learning alliance.] No Child Left
Behind Leadership Summit: Increasing Options Through e-Learning. US
Department of Education.

•

Zemsky, R, Massy, W. F. (2004). Why the e-learning boom went bust. The
Chronicle of Higher Education, 50(44): B.6.

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004


Slide 10

Instructional design
in online environments:
Challenges and possibilities

Pantelis Vassilakis PhD
DePaul University
ITD – Libraries – School of Music

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Basic Premises
• The possibility for Online Distance
Learning (ODL) represents the most
exciting educational development in
decades.
• To date, the most positive aspect of the
ongoing ODL explosive growth has
been the application of the related
technology to online supplements,
which currently accompany the vast
majority of face-to-face courses.
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Q. What is wrong with
Online Distance Learning?
A. Its explosion is arguably led by the
wrong group (administrators vs. educators)
and is driven by the wrong motivations.
1. Main ODL advocates are administrators, who often do not fully
understand the new technology and the issues facing
instructors and students, and are not aware of the impact they
can have on creating positive changes in ODL.
[Dillon & Cintron, 1997; Wenzel, 1999; Dooley & Murphrey,
2000; (in Levy, 2003); Rahm, 1998; Bower, 2001; Kambutu,
2002; Levy, 2003; University of Minnesota - Extension service;
Kansas State University )

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Q. What is wrong with
Online Distance Learning?
A. Its explosion is arguably led by the
wrong group (administrators vs. educators)
and is driven by the wrong motivations
2. Planning for ODL usually focuses on
a) budget and personnel, rather than critical pedagogic issues
b) creating an attractive product for a target population (degree
seekers) at a minimal cost, rather than an improved educational
experience.

(Bates, 2000; Berge & Smith, 2000; Bothel, 2001; Levy, 2003;
AFT May 2001 Report)

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Q. What is wrong with
Online Distance Learning?
A. Its explosion is arguably led by the
wrong group (administrators vs. educators)
and is driven by the wrong motivations
3. ODL is approached as means to compensate for the fact that
constant growth in college-age population will soon result in more
students than University facilities can accommodate (Olinger et
al., 2001).
4. ODL is often seen as a possibly profitable auxiliary university
business (Lapiner, 2001), occasionally outsourced to for-profit
organizations (Cox, 2001).

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Q. What is wrong with
Online Distance Learning?
A. Its explosion is arguably led by the
wrong group (administrators vs. educators)
and is driven by the wrong motivations
5. University Strategic Plans and other resources cite market
pressure, the need to remain competitive, increased enrollment /
revenue, and decreased cost as some of the reasons for
aggressively promoting ODL, expecting a 20-25% annual
increase in DE enrollment, often without prior planning for
appropriate academic and technical support. This reflects a
concern with corporate survival/growth issues rather than
instructional design improvement.
(USC Academic Senate, 1991 & 2001 white papers; Texas
Technical University current Strategic Plan; New Mexico State
University current Strategic Plan)
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Q. What is wrong with
Online Distance Learning?
A. Its explosion is arguably driven by the
wrong group (administrators vs. educators)
and is driven by the wrong motivations
6. Private organizations/corporations advocate implementation of ODL
to meet standards compliance, citing cost decrease as the main
advantage and its use in Higher Education as the main justification.
7. Higher education institutions are also basing their overall ODL
development on cost rather educational considerations. In their
majority, ODL courses are assigned to ‘cost effective’ adjunct faculty,
(Carnevale, 2004) who also face inflated enrollments. Course quality
is not monitored closely, especially in established institutions that often
let their ODL offerings ride on their ‘brand name’ reputation, without
supporting them by the resources that earned them this reputation.
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning is a Reality

An average of ~ 6% of US University degree
programs are offered exclusively online.

Over 50% of institutions offer exclusive or
alternative online versions of courses.

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning is a Reality

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning is a Reality
OUS - Internet-Based Distance Learning
http://www.ous.edu/de_stat.htm
1600
Courses
1300

Enrollment (x 10)

1000

700

400

100
1998-99

1999-00

2000-01

2001-02

2002-03

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning is a Reality
Online Distance Learning Market Growth
http://nces.ed.gov/ - http://www.aft.org/
10

Billion US $

8
6
4
2
0
1998-99

1999-00

2000-01

2001-02

2002-03

2003-04
(E)

2004-05
(E)

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning is a Reality
Proportion of Online Programs
10%

8%

6%

4%

2%

0%
DePaul (135)

ASU (270)

UCLA (318)

UWM (400)

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Demand for Online Distance Learning
The explosive growth of online learning over the last 10 years
has occurred in response to continuously increasing demand.
The demand reflects a partly artificial need, driven by the
Universities themselves. The number of degrees conferred by
Universities is constantly increasing, ‘flooding’ the workforce and
making the possession of degree a must for almost any type of
employment.
Lifelong Learning and graduate education were supposed to be
the core areas of distance learning, resulting in a clientele largely
made out of so-called adult students (Bleek, 2004; Young et al.,
2004). The National Center for Education Statistics confirms that
such students are more likely than their counterparts to participate
in distance education. However…
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Demand for Online Distance Learning
US Distance Higher Education
http://nces.ed.gov/

80%
Undergraduate Courses
60%

40%

Institutions offering DL programs
20%
1994-95

1997-98

2000-01

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Demand for Online Distance Learning
Universities are targeting the population that will generate most revenue
and will embrace the ‘product’ for non-educational reasons, rather than
the population (small and quality-driven) that initiated the need.
Many on-campus students are participating in distance learning as a
way to solve course scheduling problems and/or speed up the degree
completion progress (Oregon University System; Golden et al., 2004),
resulting in an even more dramatic increase in the number of distance
learning enrollments and course offerings.
The growth rate of ODL offerings will continue to rise (Carnevale, 2004),
fueled by degree hunters who increase demand and by Universities who
recognize the immense cost cutting potential of (bad quality) DL, in spite of
the widely recognized failure to yet produce good quality DL (e.g. Zemsky
& Massy, 2004) and alarming reports of Accreditation officials having
obtained PhD degrees from DL degree mills (Bartlett, 2004).
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning & Faculty
Faculty members often resist the move towards online
distance learning.
Possible reasons:

a) Alleged dislike, fear, and/or ignorance of the relevant
technology; a “…confusion and nonsense disseminated by
those who would protect status quo…”. (Poley, 2003)
b) Faculty are often thrown into a ODL situation by University
programs eager to compete in the ODL market, without
being offered the necessary tools to do the job.
c) ODL seems, at least on the surface, to go against the very
essence of a learning event: communication.
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning & Faculty
Learning is a fundamentally social activity (review in Wang, 2004).
ODL advocates see the ePortofolio explosion as a recognition of this fact.
Learning relies heavily on communication among participants; on dialogue,
exchange of ideas, argumentation, feedback, and the readjustment of our
position, whatever this may have been prior to entering the learning event.
Communication involves facial expressions, gestures, tone of voice, and
(almost) instantaneous feedback. It is the immediacy in dialogue that can
a) prevent instances of misunderstanding from escalating,
b) support the continuous adjustment in the way a learning event progresses,
necessary to accommodate changes in the learning environment at hand.
Social presence and interaction affect course outcomes as well as course
satisfaction (Moore et al., 1996; Richardson & Swan, 2003; Pelz, 2004).
Drop-out rates are consistently higher in ODL vs. traditional courses (IHEP)
ODL students may experience social isolation. The students who need the
most help in DL courses do not ask for it (Levy, 2003).
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Can ODL support this kind of learning event?
Over 100 books in print published in the last two years
Over 100 online books
Over 10 scholarly journals dealing exclusively with the topic
Amazon has over 200 entries
Over 30 consortia publish their own journals, books, and
conference proceedings
Common themes:
I.

Communication, interactivity, feedback, identified as the major
challenges (e.g. Poley, 2001, 2002; Deubel, 2003; USC Academic
Senate, Whitepaper, Newsletter).

II. Often, there is no explicit reference to advances within education
research in general.
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Common Themes of Powerful Learning Experiences
Thinking outside the box.
Interaction not Interactivity (Phipps & Merisotis, 1999; Wang, 2004)
Learners
link powerful
learning
experiences
to events
that involve
It is questioned
whether
deep
understanding
of difficult
interaction,
whether
the instructor
or2004
other
students.
Pelz
(2004)
&with
several
SLATE
papers
Virtual
Classroom
material—beyond
amassing
facts—can
occur
in the absence
What
most
memorable
is the
actual event of understanding
that
ofissame-time
same-place
interaction.
[e.g.
Gersten,
2004;
Scheidenhelm,
2004]
takes
place ineducation
dialogue, should
changing
those
whoavailable
participate.
Distance
utilize
every
opportunity
Interaction
& Presence
to bring–students
faculty
together.
Relevance
Workingand
towards
shared
goals.
and
office
hours
American
Federation
of Teachers
2000 Report
The
dynamics
of a classroom
may not (May
be replicable
in a – May
Engagement
(physical
orready
mental)
2001
Report):
(IVC
technology
not
– Kesley
& D’Souza,
Digital
Multimedia
distance
education
setting
(Kelsey
& D’Souza,
2004).2004)

Scheduled virtual class meetings

Encouragement
Encourage the development of powerful new learning and
teaching/environments
Challenge
Confidence - in the longer term (Levin et al., 1999),
that significantly
enhance
learning (Goldenberg et al., 2004).
Making
failure a learning
experience
Empowerment
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

The Power and Challenge of Multimedia
Information delivery (images, audio, video, animations)
Example 1 Example 2 Example 3 Example 4
Interactivity (applets, simulations)
Example 1 Example 2 Example 3 Example 4
Task completion (applets, simulations, applications)
Example 1 Example 2

Time-consuming – Require specialized skills
Many have already been created – Locate (edit) and implement
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

In the meantime…
Develop rigorous evaluation and control
processes to assure that distance education
programs comply with high academic standards.

Apply quality control to academic content as well
as delivery method and student support services.
Provide faculty with comprehensive educational
technology support and (user) training prior to
assigning them to ODL courses.

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Conclusions
• The current state of the Universities’ infrastructure and
administration, the faculty and student technical skills, and to some
extend the related technology does not yet support the creation of
distance learning environments that can adequately replace face to
face instruction. Benchmarks for successful ODL put forward by the
IHEP need to be taken very seriously.
• Online supplements to face to face courses can significantly
enhance the educational experience of students, especially through
the use of sophisticated, multimedia digital learning objects, many of
which have already been created.
• One of our tasks should be to locate, collect, and make available
such learning objects to instructional designers, ideally through a
centralized searchable process, followed by a continuous
development and financial backing of an expert and reliable support
system that will help faculty identify relevant resources and
efficiently and creatively incorporate them to their instruction.
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

References
•

Bartlett, T. (2004). Member of Accrediting Group Has Ph.D. From 'Notorious
Diploma Mill‘. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 50(30): A.29.

•

Carnevale, D. (2004). Distance education: Keeping up with exploding demand. The
Chronicle of Higher Education, 50(21): B.8.

•

Carnevale, D. (2004). For online adjuncts: A seller’s market. The Chronicle of Higher
Education, 50(34): A.31.

•

Cox, G. M. (2001). Strategic Planning and Implementation: The Challenge of
Adapting Organizations and Creating Partnerships to Target New Markets. University
Teaching as e-Business research project. Center for Studies in Higher Education.
UC Berkeley.

•

Bleek, J. (2004). Internet Academy. [Washington.] No Child Left Behind Leadership
Summit: Increasing Options Through e-Learning. US Department of Education.

•

Bower, B. L. (2001). Distance Education: Facing the Faculty Challenge. Online
Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 4(2).

•

Deubel, P. (2003). Learning from reflections - Issues in building quality online
courses. Online Journal Distance Learning Administration, 6(3).

•

Golden, M., Wicks, M., and Williams, L. (2004). Why virtual schools are gaining
popularity. No Child Left Behind Leadership Summit: Increasing Options Through eLearning. US Department of Education.

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

References (cont.)
•

Goldenberg, L., Heinze, J., and Ba, H. (2004). What Students Say about Learning
Science with Multiple Media. 25th NECC.

•

Kelsey, D. K. and D’Souza, A. (2004). Student motivation for learning at a distance:
Does interaction matter? OJDLA, 7(2).

•

Lapiner, R. (2001). Strategic Planning and Implementation: The Challenge of
Adapting Organizations and Creating Partnerships to Target New Markets. University
Teaching as e-Business research project. Center for Studies in Higher Education. UC
Berkeley.

•

Levin, J., Levin, S. R., and Waddoups, G. (1999). Multiplicity in learning and
teaching: A framework for developing innovative online education. Journal of
Research on Computing in Education, 32(2): 256-269.

•

Levy, S. (2003). Six Factors to Consider when Planning Online Distance Learning
Programs in Higher Education. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration,
6(1).

•

Moore, A., Masterson, J. T., Christophel, D. M., and Shea, K. A. (1996). College
teacher immediacy and student ratings of instruction. Communication Education, 45:
29-39.

•

Oblinger, D. G., Barone, C. A., and Hawkins, B. L. (2001). Distributed education
and its challenges: An overview. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education
and EDUCAUSE.

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

References (cont.)
•

•
•
•

•
•

Pelz, B. (2004). (My) Three principles of effective online pedagogy. Journal of
Asynchronous Learning Networks, 8(3).
Phipps, R. and Merisotis, J. (1999). What’s the difference? A review of contemporary
research on the effectiveness of distance learning in higher education. The Institute for
Higher Education Policy. Washington, DC.
Poley, J. (2001). Digital learning and libraries: Toward consortia and collaboratories
Presentation at NIT. Beijing,China.
Poley, J. (2002). Distance education themes and trends. Ohio State Megaconference.
Columbus, Ohio.
Poley, J. (2003). Distance Education Everywhere (not “online” learning):
Myths, Realities and Possibilities. 5th Annual International Symposium on Advanced
Radio Technologies (ISART).
Rahm, D. (1998). Tangled Webs In Public Administration: Organizational Issues In
Distance Learning. Public Administration & Management Interactive Journal, 3(1).

•

Richardson J. C. and Swan, K. (2003). Examining social presence in online courses
in relation to student’s perceived learning and satisfaction. Journal of Asynchronous
Learning Networks, 7(1).

•

Wang, H. (2004). Investigating, exploring, and promoting interaction in web-based
learning. 25th NECC.

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

References (cont.)
•

Young, K., Anderson, A., Eller, Am., Eller, An., Pounds, J., and Rashad, V.
(2004). What is possible in virtual education? Experiences empowering a
quality education for each learner. [Florida learning alliance.] No Child Left
Behind Leadership Summit: Increasing Options Through e-Learning. US
Department of Education.

•

Zemsky, R, Massy, W. F. (2004). Why the e-learning boom went bust. The
Chronicle of Higher Education, 50(44): B.6.

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004


Slide 11

Instructional design
in online environments:
Challenges and possibilities

Pantelis Vassilakis PhD
DePaul University
ITD – Libraries – School of Music

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Basic Premises
• The possibility for Online Distance
Learning (ODL) represents the most
exciting educational development in
decades.
• To date, the most positive aspect of the
ongoing ODL explosive growth has
been the application of the related
technology to online supplements,
which currently accompany the vast
majority of face-to-face courses.
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Q. What is wrong with
Online Distance Learning?
A. Its explosion is arguably led by the
wrong group (administrators vs. educators)
and is driven by the wrong motivations.
1. Main ODL advocates are administrators, who often do not fully
understand the new technology and the issues facing
instructors and students, and are not aware of the impact they
can have on creating positive changes in ODL.
[Dillon & Cintron, 1997; Wenzel, 1999; Dooley & Murphrey,
2000; (in Levy, 2003); Rahm, 1998; Bower, 2001; Kambutu,
2002; Levy, 2003; University of Minnesota - Extension service;
Kansas State University )

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Q. What is wrong with
Online Distance Learning?
A. Its explosion is arguably led by the
wrong group (administrators vs. educators)
and is driven by the wrong motivations
2. Planning for ODL usually focuses on
a) budget and personnel, rather than critical pedagogic issues
b) creating an attractive product for a target population (degree
seekers) at a minimal cost, rather than an improved educational
experience.

(Bates, 2000; Berge & Smith, 2000; Bothel, 2001; Levy, 2003;
AFT May 2001 Report)

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Q. What is wrong with
Online Distance Learning?
A. Its explosion is arguably led by the
wrong group (administrators vs. educators)
and is driven by the wrong motivations
3. ODL is approached as means to compensate for the fact that
constant growth in college-age population will soon result in more
students than University facilities can accommodate (Olinger et
al., 2001).
4. ODL is often seen as a possibly profitable auxiliary university
business (Lapiner, 2001), occasionally outsourced to for-profit
organizations (Cox, 2001).

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Q. What is wrong with
Online Distance Learning?
A. Its explosion is arguably led by the
wrong group (administrators vs. educators)
and is driven by the wrong motivations
5. University Strategic Plans and other resources cite market
pressure, the need to remain competitive, increased enrollment /
revenue, and decreased cost as some of the reasons for
aggressively promoting ODL, expecting a 20-25% annual
increase in DE enrollment, often without prior planning for
appropriate academic and technical support. This reflects a
concern with corporate survival/growth issues rather than
instructional design improvement.
(USC Academic Senate, 1991 & 2001 white papers; Texas
Technical University current Strategic Plan; New Mexico State
University current Strategic Plan)
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Q. What is wrong with
Online Distance Learning?
A. Its explosion is arguably driven by the
wrong group (administrators vs. educators)
and is driven by the wrong motivations
6. Private organizations/corporations advocate implementation of ODL
to meet standards compliance, citing cost decrease as the main
advantage and its use in Higher Education as the main justification.
7. Higher education institutions are also basing their overall ODL
development on cost rather educational considerations. In their
majority, ODL courses are assigned to ‘cost effective’ adjunct faculty,
(Carnevale, 2004) who also face inflated enrollments. Course quality
is not monitored closely, especially in established institutions that often
let their ODL offerings ride on their ‘brand name’ reputation, without
supporting them by the resources that earned them this reputation.
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning is a Reality

An average of ~ 6% of US University degree
programs are offered exclusively online.

Over 50% of institutions offer exclusive or
alternative online versions of courses.

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning is a Reality

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning is a Reality
OUS - Internet-Based Distance Learning
http://www.ous.edu/de_stat.htm
1600
Courses
1300

Enrollment (x 10)

1000

700

400

100
1998-99

1999-00

2000-01

2001-02

2002-03

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning is a Reality
Online Distance Learning Market Growth
http://nces.ed.gov/ - http://www.aft.org/
10

Billion US $

8
6
4
2
0
1998-99

1999-00

2000-01

2001-02

2002-03

2003-04
(E)

2004-05
(E)

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning is a Reality
Proportion of Online Programs
10%

8%

6%

4%

2%

0%
DePaul (135)

ASU (270)

UCLA (318)

UWM (400)

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Demand for Online Distance Learning
The explosive growth of online learning over the last 10 years
has occurred in response to continuously increasing demand.
The demand reflects a partly artificial need, driven by the
Universities themselves. The number of degrees conferred by
Universities is constantly increasing, ‘flooding’ the workforce and
making the possession of degree a must for almost any type of
employment.
Lifelong Learning and graduate education were supposed to be
the core areas of distance learning, resulting in a clientele largely
made out of so-called adult students (Bleek, 2004; Young et al.,
2004). The National Center for Education Statistics confirms that
such students are more likely than their counterparts to participate
in distance education. However…
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Demand for Online Distance Learning
US Distance Higher Education
http://nces.ed.gov/

80%
Undergraduate Courses
60%

40%

Institutions offering DL programs
20%
1994-95

1997-98

2000-01

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Demand for Online Distance Learning
Universities are targeting the population that will generate most revenue
and will embrace the ‘product’ for non-educational reasons, rather than
the population (small and quality-driven) that initiated the need.
Many on-campus students are participating in distance learning as a
way to solve course scheduling problems and/or speed up the degree
completion progress (Oregon University System; Golden et al., 2004),
resulting in an even more dramatic increase in the number of distance
learning enrollments and course offerings.
The growth rate of ODL offerings will continue to rise (Carnevale, 2004),
fueled by degree hunters who increase demand and by Universities who
recognize the immense cost cutting potential of (bad quality) DL, in spite of
the widely recognized failure to yet produce good quality DL (e.g. Zemsky
& Massy, 2004) and alarming reports of Accreditation officials having
obtained PhD degrees from DL degree mills (Bartlett, 2004).
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning & Faculty
Faculty members often resist the move towards online
distance learning.
Possible reasons:

a) Alleged dislike, fear, and/or ignorance of the relevant
technology; a “…confusion and nonsense disseminated by
those who would protect status quo…”. (Poley, 2003)
b) Faculty are often thrown into a ODL situation by University
programs eager to compete in the ODL market, without
being offered the necessary tools to do the job.
c) ODL seems, at least on the surface, to go against the very
essence of a learning event: communication.
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning & Faculty
Learning is a fundamentally social activity (review in Wang, 2004).
ODL advocates see the ePortofolio explosion as a recognition of this fact.
Learning relies heavily on communication among participants; on dialogue,
exchange of ideas, argumentation, feedback, and the readjustment of our
position, whatever this may have been prior to entering the learning event.
Communication involves facial expressions, gestures, tone of voice, and
(almost) instantaneous feedback. It is the immediacy in dialogue that can
a) prevent instances of misunderstanding from escalating,
b) support the continuous adjustment in the way a learning event progresses,
necessary to accommodate changes in the learning environment at hand.
Social presence and interaction affect course outcomes as well as course
satisfaction (Moore et al., 1996; Richardson & Swan, 2003; Pelz, 2004).
Drop-out rates are consistently higher in ODL vs. traditional courses (IHEP)
ODL students may experience social isolation. The students who need the
most help in DL courses do not ask for it (Levy, 2003).
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Can ODL support this kind of learning event?
Over 100 books in print published in the last two years
Over 100 online books
Over 10 scholarly journals dealing exclusively with the topic
Amazon has over 200 entries
Over 30 consortia publish their own journals, books, and
conference proceedings
Common themes:
I.

Communication, interactivity, feedback, identified as the major
challenges (e.g. Poley, 2001, 2002; Deubel, 2003; USC Academic
Senate, Whitepaper, Newsletter).

II. Often, there is no explicit reference to advances within education
research in general.
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Common Themes of Powerful Learning Experiences
Thinking outside the box.
Interaction not Interactivity (Phipps & Merisotis, 1999; Wang, 2004)
Learners
link powerful
learning
experiences
to events
that involve
It is questioned
whether
deep
understanding
of difficult
interaction,
whether
the instructor
or2004
other
students.
Pelz
(2004)
&with
several
SLATE
papers
Virtual
Classroom
material—beyond
amassing
facts—can
occur
in the absence
What
most
memorable
is the
actual event of understanding
that
ofissame-time
same-place
interaction.
[e.g.
Gersten,
2004;
Scheidenhelm,
2004]
takes
place ineducation
dialogue, should
changing
those
whoavailable
participate.
Distance
utilize
every
opportunity
Interaction
& Presence
to bring–students
faculty
together.
Relevance
Workingand
towards
shared
goals.
and
office
hours
American
Federation
of Teachers
2000 Report
The
dynamics
of a classroom
may not (May
be replicable
in a – May
Engagement
(physical
orready
mental)
2001
Report):
(IVC
technology
not
– Kesley
& D’Souza,
Digital
Multimedia
distance
education
setting
(Kelsey
& D’Souza,
2004).2004)

Scheduled virtual class meetings

Encouragement
Encourage the development of powerful new learning and
teaching/environments
Challenge
Confidence - in the longer term (Levin et al., 1999),
that significantly
enhance
learning (Goldenberg et al., 2004).
Making
failure a learning
experience
Empowerment
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

The Power and Challenge of Multimedia
Information delivery (images, audio, video, animations)
Example 1 Example 2 Example 3 Example 4
Interactivity (applets, simulations)
Example 1 Example 2 Example 3 Example 4
Task completion (applets, simulations, applications)
Example 1 Example 2

Time-consuming – Require specialized skills
Many have already been created – Locate (edit) and implement
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

In the meantime…
Develop rigorous evaluation and control
processes to assure that distance education
programs comply with high academic standards.

Apply quality control to academic content as well
as delivery method and student support services.
Provide faculty with comprehensive educational
technology support and (user) training prior to
assigning them to ODL courses.

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Conclusions
• The current state of the Universities’ infrastructure and
administration, the faculty and student technical skills, and to some
extend the related technology does not yet support the creation of
distance learning environments that can adequately replace face to
face instruction. Benchmarks for successful ODL put forward by the
IHEP need to be taken very seriously.
• Online supplements to face to face courses can significantly
enhance the educational experience of students, especially through
the use of sophisticated, multimedia digital learning objects, many of
which have already been created.
• One of our tasks should be to locate, collect, and make available
such learning objects to instructional designers, ideally through a
centralized searchable process, followed by a continuous
development and financial backing of an expert and reliable support
system that will help faculty identify relevant resources and
efficiently and creatively incorporate them to their instruction.
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

References
•

Bartlett, T. (2004). Member of Accrediting Group Has Ph.D. From 'Notorious
Diploma Mill‘. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 50(30): A.29.

•

Carnevale, D. (2004). Distance education: Keeping up with exploding demand. The
Chronicle of Higher Education, 50(21): B.8.

•

Carnevale, D. (2004). For online adjuncts: A seller’s market. The Chronicle of Higher
Education, 50(34): A.31.

•

Cox, G. M. (2001). Strategic Planning and Implementation: The Challenge of
Adapting Organizations and Creating Partnerships to Target New Markets. University
Teaching as e-Business research project. Center for Studies in Higher Education.
UC Berkeley.

•

Bleek, J. (2004). Internet Academy. [Washington.] No Child Left Behind Leadership
Summit: Increasing Options Through e-Learning. US Department of Education.

•

Bower, B. L. (2001). Distance Education: Facing the Faculty Challenge. Online
Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 4(2).

•

Deubel, P. (2003). Learning from reflections - Issues in building quality online
courses. Online Journal Distance Learning Administration, 6(3).

•

Golden, M., Wicks, M., and Williams, L. (2004). Why virtual schools are gaining
popularity. No Child Left Behind Leadership Summit: Increasing Options Through eLearning. US Department of Education.

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

References (cont.)
•

Goldenberg, L., Heinze, J., and Ba, H. (2004). What Students Say about Learning
Science with Multiple Media. 25th NECC.

•

Kelsey, D. K. and D’Souza, A. (2004). Student motivation for learning at a distance:
Does interaction matter? OJDLA, 7(2).

•

Lapiner, R. (2001). Strategic Planning and Implementation: The Challenge of
Adapting Organizations and Creating Partnerships to Target New Markets. University
Teaching as e-Business research project. Center for Studies in Higher Education. UC
Berkeley.

•

Levin, J., Levin, S. R., and Waddoups, G. (1999). Multiplicity in learning and
teaching: A framework for developing innovative online education. Journal of
Research on Computing in Education, 32(2): 256-269.

•

Levy, S. (2003). Six Factors to Consider when Planning Online Distance Learning
Programs in Higher Education. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration,
6(1).

•

Moore, A., Masterson, J. T., Christophel, D. M., and Shea, K. A. (1996). College
teacher immediacy and student ratings of instruction. Communication Education, 45:
29-39.

•

Oblinger, D. G., Barone, C. A., and Hawkins, B. L. (2001). Distributed education
and its challenges: An overview. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education
and EDUCAUSE.

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

References (cont.)
•

•
•
•

•
•

Pelz, B. (2004). (My) Three principles of effective online pedagogy. Journal of
Asynchronous Learning Networks, 8(3).
Phipps, R. and Merisotis, J. (1999). What’s the difference? A review of contemporary
research on the effectiveness of distance learning in higher education. The Institute for
Higher Education Policy. Washington, DC.
Poley, J. (2001). Digital learning and libraries: Toward consortia and collaboratories
Presentation at NIT. Beijing,China.
Poley, J. (2002). Distance education themes and trends. Ohio State Megaconference.
Columbus, Ohio.
Poley, J. (2003). Distance Education Everywhere (not “online” learning):
Myths, Realities and Possibilities. 5th Annual International Symposium on Advanced
Radio Technologies (ISART).
Rahm, D. (1998). Tangled Webs In Public Administration: Organizational Issues In
Distance Learning. Public Administration & Management Interactive Journal, 3(1).

•

Richardson J. C. and Swan, K. (2003). Examining social presence in online courses
in relation to student’s perceived learning and satisfaction. Journal of Asynchronous
Learning Networks, 7(1).

•

Wang, H. (2004). Investigating, exploring, and promoting interaction in web-based
learning. 25th NECC.

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

References (cont.)
•

Young, K., Anderson, A., Eller, Am., Eller, An., Pounds, J., and Rashad, V.
(2004). What is possible in virtual education? Experiences empowering a
quality education for each learner. [Florida learning alliance.] No Child Left
Behind Leadership Summit: Increasing Options Through e-Learning. US
Department of Education.

•

Zemsky, R, Massy, W. F. (2004). Why the e-learning boom went bust. The
Chronicle of Higher Education, 50(44): B.6.

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004


Slide 12

Instructional design
in online environments:
Challenges and possibilities

Pantelis Vassilakis PhD
DePaul University
ITD – Libraries – School of Music

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Basic Premises
• The possibility for Online Distance
Learning (ODL) represents the most
exciting educational development in
decades.
• To date, the most positive aspect of the
ongoing ODL explosive growth has
been the application of the related
technology to online supplements,
which currently accompany the vast
majority of face-to-face courses.
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Q. What is wrong with
Online Distance Learning?
A. Its explosion is arguably led by the
wrong group (administrators vs. educators)
and is driven by the wrong motivations.
1. Main ODL advocates are administrators, who often do not fully
understand the new technology and the issues facing
instructors and students, and are not aware of the impact they
can have on creating positive changes in ODL.
[Dillon & Cintron, 1997; Wenzel, 1999; Dooley & Murphrey,
2000; (in Levy, 2003); Rahm, 1998; Bower, 2001; Kambutu,
2002; Levy, 2003; University of Minnesota - Extension service;
Kansas State University )

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Q. What is wrong with
Online Distance Learning?
A. Its explosion is arguably led by the
wrong group (administrators vs. educators)
and is driven by the wrong motivations
2. Planning for ODL usually focuses on
a) budget and personnel, rather than critical pedagogic issues
b) creating an attractive product for a target population (degree
seekers) at a minimal cost, rather than an improved educational
experience.

(Bates, 2000; Berge & Smith, 2000; Bothel, 2001; Levy, 2003;
AFT May 2001 Report)

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Q. What is wrong with
Online Distance Learning?
A. Its explosion is arguably led by the
wrong group (administrators vs. educators)
and is driven by the wrong motivations
3. ODL is approached as means to compensate for the fact that
constant growth in college-age population will soon result in more
students than University facilities can accommodate (Olinger et
al., 2001).
4. ODL is often seen as a possibly profitable auxiliary university
business (Lapiner, 2001), occasionally outsourced to for-profit
organizations (Cox, 2001).

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Q. What is wrong with
Online Distance Learning?
A. Its explosion is arguably led by the
wrong group (administrators vs. educators)
and is driven by the wrong motivations
5. University Strategic Plans and other resources cite market
pressure, the need to remain competitive, increased enrollment /
revenue, and decreased cost as some of the reasons for
aggressively promoting ODL, expecting a 20-25% annual
increase in DE enrollment, often without prior planning for
appropriate academic and technical support. This reflects a
concern with corporate survival/growth issues rather than
instructional design improvement.
(USC Academic Senate, 1991 & 2001 white papers; Texas
Technical University current Strategic Plan; New Mexico State
University current Strategic Plan)
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Q. What is wrong with
Online Distance Learning?
A. Its explosion is arguably driven by the
wrong group (administrators vs. educators)
and is driven by the wrong motivations
6. Private organizations/corporations advocate implementation of ODL
to meet standards compliance, citing cost decrease as the main
advantage and its use in Higher Education as the main justification.
7. Higher education institutions are also basing their overall ODL
development on cost rather educational considerations. In their
majority, ODL courses are assigned to ‘cost effective’ adjunct faculty,
(Carnevale, 2004) who also face inflated enrollments. Course quality
is not monitored closely, especially in established institutions that often
let their ODL offerings ride on their ‘brand name’ reputation, without
supporting them by the resources that earned them this reputation.
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning is a Reality

An average of ~ 6% of US University degree
programs are offered exclusively online.

Over 50% of institutions offer exclusive or
alternative online versions of courses.

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning is a Reality

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning is a Reality
OUS - Internet-Based Distance Learning
http://www.ous.edu/de_stat.htm
1600
Courses
1300

Enrollment (x 10)

1000

700

400

100
1998-99

1999-00

2000-01

2001-02

2002-03

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning is a Reality
Online Distance Learning Market Growth
http://nces.ed.gov/ - http://www.aft.org/
10

Billion US $

8
6
4
2
0
1998-99

1999-00

2000-01

2001-02

2002-03

2003-04
(E)

2004-05
(E)

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning is a Reality
Proportion of Online Programs
10%

8%

6%

4%

2%

0%
DePaul (135)

ASU (270)

UCLA (318)

UWM (400)

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Demand for Online Distance Learning
The explosive growth of online learning over the last 10 years
has occurred in response to continuously increasing demand.
The demand reflects a partly artificial need, driven by the
Universities themselves. The number of degrees conferred by
Universities is constantly increasing, ‘flooding’ the workforce and
making the possession of degree a must for almost any type of
employment.
Lifelong Learning and graduate education were supposed to be
the core areas of distance learning, resulting in a clientele largely
made out of so-called adult students (Bleek, 2004; Young et al.,
2004). The National Center for Education Statistics confirms that
such students are more likely than their counterparts to participate
in distance education. However…
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Demand for Online Distance Learning
US Distance Higher Education
http://nces.ed.gov/

80%
Undergraduate Courses
60%

40%

Institutions offering DL programs
20%
1994-95

1997-98

2000-01

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Demand for Online Distance Learning
Universities are targeting the population that will generate most revenue
and will embrace the ‘product’ for non-educational reasons, rather than
the population (small and quality-driven) that initiated the need.
Many on-campus students are participating in distance learning as a
way to solve course scheduling problems and/or speed up the degree
completion progress (Oregon University System; Golden et al., 2004),
resulting in an even more dramatic increase in the number of distance
learning enrollments and course offerings.
The growth rate of ODL offerings will continue to rise (Carnevale, 2004),
fueled by degree hunters who increase demand and by Universities who
recognize the immense cost cutting potential of (bad quality) DL, in spite of
the widely recognized failure to yet produce good quality DL (e.g. Zemsky
& Massy, 2004) and alarming reports of Accreditation officials having
obtained PhD degrees from DL degree mills (Bartlett, 2004).
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning & Faculty
Faculty members often resist the move towards online
distance learning.
Possible reasons:

a) Alleged dislike, fear, and/or ignorance of the relevant
technology; a “…confusion and nonsense disseminated by
those who would protect status quo…”. (Poley, 2003)
b) Faculty are often thrown into a ODL situation by University
programs eager to compete in the ODL market, without
being offered the necessary tools to do the job.
c) ODL seems, at least on the surface, to go against the very
essence of a learning event: communication.
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning & Faculty
Learning is a fundamentally social activity (review in Wang, 2004).
ODL advocates see the ePortofolio explosion as a recognition of this fact.
Learning relies heavily on communication among participants; on dialogue,
exchange of ideas, argumentation, feedback, and the readjustment of our
position, whatever this may have been prior to entering the learning event.
Communication involves facial expressions, gestures, tone of voice, and
(almost) instantaneous feedback. It is the immediacy in dialogue that can
a) prevent instances of misunderstanding from escalating,
b) support the continuous adjustment in the way a learning event progresses,
necessary to accommodate changes in the learning environment at hand.
Social presence and interaction affect course outcomes as well as course
satisfaction (Moore et al., 1996; Richardson & Swan, 2003; Pelz, 2004).
Drop-out rates are consistently higher in ODL vs. traditional courses (IHEP)
ODL students may experience social isolation. The students who need the
most help in DL courses do not ask for it (Levy, 2003).
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Can ODL support this kind of learning event?
Over 100 books in print published in the last two years
Over 100 online books
Over 10 scholarly journals dealing exclusively with the topic
Amazon has over 200 entries
Over 30 consortia publish their own journals, books, and
conference proceedings
Common themes:
I.

Communication, interactivity, feedback, identified as the major
challenges (e.g. Poley, 2001, 2002; Deubel, 2003; USC Academic
Senate, Whitepaper, Newsletter).

II. Often, there is no explicit reference to advances within education
research in general.
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Common Themes of Powerful Learning Experiences
Thinking outside the box.
Interaction not Interactivity (Phipps & Merisotis, 1999; Wang, 2004)
Learners
link powerful
learning
experiences
to events
that involve
It is questioned
whether
deep
understanding
of difficult
interaction,
whether
the instructor
or2004
other
students.
Pelz
(2004)
&with
several
SLATE
papers
Virtual
Classroom
material—beyond
amassing
facts—can
occur
in the absence
What
most
memorable
is the
actual event of understanding
that
ofissame-time
same-place
interaction.
[e.g.
Gersten,
2004;
Scheidenhelm,
2004]
takes
place ineducation
dialogue, should
changing
those
whoavailable
participate.
Distance
utilize
every
opportunity
Interaction
& Presence
to bring–students
faculty
together.
Relevance
Workingand
towards
shared
goals.
and
office
hours
American
Federation
of Teachers
2000 Report
The
dynamics
of a classroom
may not (May
be replicable
in a – May
Engagement
(physical
orready
mental)
2001
Report):
(IVC
technology
not
– Kesley
& D’Souza,
Digital
Multimedia
distance
education
setting
(Kelsey
& D’Souza,
2004).2004)

Scheduled virtual class meetings

Encouragement
Encourage the development of powerful new learning and
teaching/environments
Challenge
Confidence - in the longer term (Levin et al., 1999),
that significantly
enhance
learning (Goldenberg et al., 2004).
Making
failure a learning
experience
Empowerment
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

The Power and Challenge of Multimedia
Information delivery (images, audio, video, animations)
Example 1 Example 2 Example 3 Example 4
Interactivity (applets, simulations)
Example 1 Example 2 Example 3 Example 4
Task completion (applets, simulations, applications)
Example 1 Example 2

Time-consuming – Require specialized skills
Many have already been created – Locate (edit) and implement
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

In the meantime…
Develop rigorous evaluation and control
processes to assure that distance education
programs comply with high academic standards.

Apply quality control to academic content as well
as delivery method and student support services.
Provide faculty with comprehensive educational
technology support and (user) training prior to
assigning them to ODL courses.

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Conclusions
• The current state of the Universities’ infrastructure and
administration, the faculty and student technical skills, and to some
extend the related technology does not yet support the creation of
distance learning environments that can adequately replace face to
face instruction. Benchmarks for successful ODL put forward by the
IHEP need to be taken very seriously.
• Online supplements to face to face courses can significantly
enhance the educational experience of students, especially through
the use of sophisticated, multimedia digital learning objects, many of
which have already been created.
• One of our tasks should be to locate, collect, and make available
such learning objects to instructional designers, ideally through a
centralized searchable process, followed by a continuous
development and financial backing of an expert and reliable support
system that will help faculty identify relevant resources and
efficiently and creatively incorporate them to their instruction.
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

References
•

Bartlett, T. (2004). Member of Accrediting Group Has Ph.D. From 'Notorious
Diploma Mill‘. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 50(30): A.29.

•

Carnevale, D. (2004). Distance education: Keeping up with exploding demand. The
Chronicle of Higher Education, 50(21): B.8.

•

Carnevale, D. (2004). For online adjuncts: A seller’s market. The Chronicle of Higher
Education, 50(34): A.31.

•

Cox, G. M. (2001). Strategic Planning and Implementation: The Challenge of
Adapting Organizations and Creating Partnerships to Target New Markets. University
Teaching as e-Business research project. Center for Studies in Higher Education.
UC Berkeley.

•

Bleek, J. (2004). Internet Academy. [Washington.] No Child Left Behind Leadership
Summit: Increasing Options Through e-Learning. US Department of Education.

•

Bower, B. L. (2001). Distance Education: Facing the Faculty Challenge. Online
Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 4(2).

•

Deubel, P. (2003). Learning from reflections - Issues in building quality online
courses. Online Journal Distance Learning Administration, 6(3).

•

Golden, M., Wicks, M., and Williams, L. (2004). Why virtual schools are gaining
popularity. No Child Left Behind Leadership Summit: Increasing Options Through eLearning. US Department of Education.

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

References (cont.)
•

Goldenberg, L., Heinze, J., and Ba, H. (2004). What Students Say about Learning
Science with Multiple Media. 25th NECC.

•

Kelsey, D. K. and D’Souza, A. (2004). Student motivation for learning at a distance:
Does interaction matter? OJDLA, 7(2).

•

Lapiner, R. (2001). Strategic Planning and Implementation: The Challenge of
Adapting Organizations and Creating Partnerships to Target New Markets. University
Teaching as e-Business research project. Center for Studies in Higher Education. UC
Berkeley.

•

Levin, J., Levin, S. R., and Waddoups, G. (1999). Multiplicity in learning and
teaching: A framework for developing innovative online education. Journal of
Research on Computing in Education, 32(2): 256-269.

•

Levy, S. (2003). Six Factors to Consider when Planning Online Distance Learning
Programs in Higher Education. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration,
6(1).

•

Moore, A., Masterson, J. T., Christophel, D. M., and Shea, K. A. (1996). College
teacher immediacy and student ratings of instruction. Communication Education, 45:
29-39.

•

Oblinger, D. G., Barone, C. A., and Hawkins, B. L. (2001). Distributed education
and its challenges: An overview. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education
and EDUCAUSE.

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

References (cont.)
•

•
•
•

•
•

Pelz, B. (2004). (My) Three principles of effective online pedagogy. Journal of
Asynchronous Learning Networks, 8(3).
Phipps, R. and Merisotis, J. (1999). What’s the difference? A review of contemporary
research on the effectiveness of distance learning in higher education. The Institute for
Higher Education Policy. Washington, DC.
Poley, J. (2001). Digital learning and libraries: Toward consortia and collaboratories
Presentation at NIT. Beijing,China.
Poley, J. (2002). Distance education themes and trends. Ohio State Megaconference.
Columbus, Ohio.
Poley, J. (2003). Distance Education Everywhere (not “online” learning):
Myths, Realities and Possibilities. 5th Annual International Symposium on Advanced
Radio Technologies (ISART).
Rahm, D. (1998). Tangled Webs In Public Administration: Organizational Issues In
Distance Learning. Public Administration & Management Interactive Journal, 3(1).

•

Richardson J. C. and Swan, K. (2003). Examining social presence in online courses
in relation to student’s perceived learning and satisfaction. Journal of Asynchronous
Learning Networks, 7(1).

•

Wang, H. (2004). Investigating, exploring, and promoting interaction in web-based
learning. 25th NECC.

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

References (cont.)
•

Young, K., Anderson, A., Eller, Am., Eller, An., Pounds, J., and Rashad, V.
(2004). What is possible in virtual education? Experiences empowering a
quality education for each learner. [Florida learning alliance.] No Child Left
Behind Leadership Summit: Increasing Options Through e-Learning. US
Department of Education.

•

Zemsky, R, Massy, W. F. (2004). Why the e-learning boom went bust. The
Chronicle of Higher Education, 50(44): B.6.

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004


Slide 13

Instructional design
in online environments:
Challenges and possibilities

Pantelis Vassilakis PhD
DePaul University
ITD – Libraries – School of Music

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Basic Premises
• The possibility for Online Distance
Learning (ODL) represents the most
exciting educational development in
decades.
• To date, the most positive aspect of the
ongoing ODL explosive growth has
been the application of the related
technology to online supplements,
which currently accompany the vast
majority of face-to-face courses.
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Q. What is wrong with
Online Distance Learning?
A. Its explosion is arguably led by the
wrong group (administrators vs. educators)
and is driven by the wrong motivations.
1. Main ODL advocates are administrators, who often do not fully
understand the new technology and the issues facing
instructors and students, and are not aware of the impact they
can have on creating positive changes in ODL.
[Dillon & Cintron, 1997; Wenzel, 1999; Dooley & Murphrey,
2000; (in Levy, 2003); Rahm, 1998; Bower, 2001; Kambutu,
2002; Levy, 2003; University of Minnesota - Extension service;
Kansas State University )

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Q. What is wrong with
Online Distance Learning?
A. Its explosion is arguably led by the
wrong group (administrators vs. educators)
and is driven by the wrong motivations
2. Planning for ODL usually focuses on
a) budget and personnel, rather than critical pedagogic issues
b) creating an attractive product for a target population (degree
seekers) at a minimal cost, rather than an improved educational
experience.

(Bates, 2000; Berge & Smith, 2000; Bothel, 2001; Levy, 2003;
AFT May 2001 Report)

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Q. What is wrong with
Online Distance Learning?
A. Its explosion is arguably led by the
wrong group (administrators vs. educators)
and is driven by the wrong motivations
3. ODL is approached as means to compensate for the fact that
constant growth in college-age population will soon result in more
students than University facilities can accommodate (Olinger et
al., 2001).
4. ODL is often seen as a possibly profitable auxiliary university
business (Lapiner, 2001), occasionally outsourced to for-profit
organizations (Cox, 2001).

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Q. What is wrong with
Online Distance Learning?
A. Its explosion is arguably led by the
wrong group (administrators vs. educators)
and is driven by the wrong motivations
5. University Strategic Plans and other resources cite market
pressure, the need to remain competitive, increased enrollment /
revenue, and decreased cost as some of the reasons for
aggressively promoting ODL, expecting a 20-25% annual
increase in DE enrollment, often without prior planning for
appropriate academic and technical support. This reflects a
concern with corporate survival/growth issues rather than
instructional design improvement.
(USC Academic Senate, 1991 & 2001 white papers; Texas
Technical University current Strategic Plan; New Mexico State
University current Strategic Plan)
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Q. What is wrong with
Online Distance Learning?
A. Its explosion is arguably driven by the
wrong group (administrators vs. educators)
and is driven by the wrong motivations
6. Private organizations/corporations advocate implementation of ODL
to meet standards compliance, citing cost decrease as the main
advantage and its use in Higher Education as the main justification.
7. Higher education institutions are also basing their overall ODL
development on cost rather educational considerations. In their
majority, ODL courses are assigned to ‘cost effective’ adjunct faculty,
(Carnevale, 2004) who also face inflated enrollments. Course quality
is not monitored closely, especially in established institutions that often
let their ODL offerings ride on their ‘brand name’ reputation, without
supporting them by the resources that earned them this reputation.
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning is a Reality

An average of ~ 6% of US University degree
programs are offered exclusively online.

Over 50% of institutions offer exclusive or
alternative online versions of courses.

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning is a Reality

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning is a Reality
OUS - Internet-Based Distance Learning
http://www.ous.edu/de_stat.htm
1600
Courses
1300

Enrollment (x 10)

1000

700

400

100
1998-99

1999-00

2000-01

2001-02

2002-03

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning is a Reality
Online Distance Learning Market Growth
http://nces.ed.gov/ - http://www.aft.org/
10

Billion US $

8
6
4
2
0
1998-99

1999-00

2000-01

2001-02

2002-03

2003-04
(E)

2004-05
(E)

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning is a Reality
Proportion of Online Programs
10%

8%

6%

4%

2%

0%
DePaul (135)

ASU (270)

UCLA (318)

UWM (400)

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Demand for Online Distance Learning
The explosive growth of online learning over the last 10 years
has occurred in response to continuously increasing demand.
The demand reflects a partly artificial need, driven by the
Universities themselves. The number of degrees conferred by
Universities is constantly increasing, ‘flooding’ the workforce and
making the possession of degree a must for almost any type of
employment.
Lifelong Learning and graduate education were supposed to be
the core areas of distance learning, resulting in a clientele largely
made out of so-called adult students (Bleek, 2004; Young et al.,
2004). The National Center for Education Statistics confirms that
such students are more likely than their counterparts to participate
in distance education. However…
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Demand for Online Distance Learning
US Distance Higher Education
http://nces.ed.gov/

80%
Undergraduate Courses
60%

40%

Institutions offering DL programs
20%
1994-95

1997-98

2000-01

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Demand for Online Distance Learning
Universities are targeting the population that will generate most revenue
and will embrace the ‘product’ for non-educational reasons, rather than
the population (small and quality-driven) that initiated the need.
Many on-campus students are participating in distance learning as a
way to solve course scheduling problems and/or speed up the degree
completion progress (Oregon University System; Golden et al., 2004),
resulting in an even more dramatic increase in the number of distance
learning enrollments and course offerings.
The growth rate of ODL offerings will continue to rise (Carnevale, 2004),
fueled by degree hunters who increase demand and by Universities who
recognize the immense cost cutting potential of (bad quality) DL, in spite of
the widely recognized failure to yet produce good quality DL (e.g. Zemsky
& Massy, 2004) and alarming reports of Accreditation officials having
obtained PhD degrees from DL degree mills (Bartlett, 2004).
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning & Faculty
Faculty members often resist the move towards online
distance learning.
Possible reasons:

a) Alleged dislike, fear, and/or ignorance of the relevant
technology; a “…confusion and nonsense disseminated by
those who would protect status quo…”. (Poley, 2003)
b) Faculty are often thrown into a ODL situation by University
programs eager to compete in the ODL market, without
being offered the necessary tools to do the job.
c) ODL seems, at least on the surface, to go against the very
essence of a learning event: communication.
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning & Faculty
Learning is a fundamentally social activity (review in Wang, 2004).
ODL advocates see the ePortofolio explosion as a recognition of this fact.
Learning relies heavily on communication among participants; on dialogue,
exchange of ideas, argumentation, feedback, and the readjustment of our
position, whatever this may have been prior to entering the learning event.
Communication involves facial expressions, gestures, tone of voice, and
(almost) instantaneous feedback. It is the immediacy in dialogue that can
a) prevent instances of misunderstanding from escalating,
b) support the continuous adjustment in the way a learning event progresses,
necessary to accommodate changes in the learning environment at hand.
Social presence and interaction affect course outcomes as well as course
satisfaction (Moore et al., 1996; Richardson & Swan, 2003; Pelz, 2004).
Drop-out rates are consistently higher in ODL vs. traditional courses (IHEP)
ODL students may experience social isolation. The students who need the
most help in DL courses do not ask for it (Levy, 2003).
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Can ODL support this kind of learning event?
Over 100 books in print published in the last two years
Over 100 online books
Over 10 scholarly journals dealing exclusively with the topic
Amazon has over 200 entries
Over 30 consortia publish their own journals, books, and
conference proceedings
Common themes:
I.

Communication, interactivity, feedback, identified as the major
challenges (e.g. Poley, 2001, 2002; Deubel, 2003; USC Academic
Senate, Whitepaper, Newsletter).

II. Often, there is no explicit reference to advances within education
research in general.
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Common Themes of Powerful Learning Experiences
Thinking outside the box.
Interaction not Interactivity (Phipps & Merisotis, 1999; Wang, 2004)
Learners
link powerful
learning
experiences
to events
that involve
It is questioned
whether
deep
understanding
of difficult
interaction,
whether
the instructor
or2004
other
students.
Pelz
(2004)
&with
several
SLATE
papers
Virtual
Classroom
material—beyond
amassing
facts—can
occur
in the absence
What
most
memorable
is the
actual event of understanding
that
ofissame-time
same-place
interaction.
[e.g.
Gersten,
2004;
Scheidenhelm,
2004]
takes
place ineducation
dialogue, should
changing
those
whoavailable
participate.
Distance
utilize
every
opportunity
Interaction
& Presence
to bring–students
faculty
together.
Relevance
Workingand
towards
shared
goals.
and
office
hours
American
Federation
of Teachers
2000 Report
The
dynamics
of a classroom
may not (May
be replicable
in a – May
Engagement
(physical
orready
mental)
2001
Report):
(IVC
technology
not
– Kesley
& D’Souza,
Digital
Multimedia
distance
education
setting
(Kelsey
& D’Souza,
2004).2004)

Scheduled virtual class meetings

Encouragement
Encourage the development of powerful new learning and
teaching/environments
Challenge
Confidence - in the longer term (Levin et al., 1999),
that significantly
enhance
learning (Goldenberg et al., 2004).
Making
failure a learning
experience
Empowerment
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

The Power and Challenge of Multimedia
Information delivery (images, audio, video, animations)
Example 1 Example 2 Example 3 Example 4
Interactivity (applets, simulations)
Example 1 Example 2 Example 3 Example 4
Task completion (applets, simulations, applications)
Example 1 Example 2

Time-consuming – Require specialized skills
Many have already been created – Locate (edit) and implement
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

In the meantime…
Develop rigorous evaluation and control
processes to assure that distance education
programs comply with high academic standards.

Apply quality control to academic content as well
as delivery method and student support services.
Provide faculty with comprehensive educational
technology support and (user) training prior to
assigning them to ODL courses.

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Conclusions
• The current state of the Universities’ infrastructure and
administration, the faculty and student technical skills, and to some
extend the related technology does not yet support the creation of
distance learning environments that can adequately replace face to
face instruction. Benchmarks for successful ODL put forward by the
IHEP need to be taken very seriously.
• Online supplements to face to face courses can significantly
enhance the educational experience of students, especially through
the use of sophisticated, multimedia digital learning objects, many of
which have already been created.
• One of our tasks should be to locate, collect, and make available
such learning objects to instructional designers, ideally through a
centralized searchable process, followed by a continuous
development and financial backing of an expert and reliable support
system that will help faculty identify relevant resources and
efficiently and creatively incorporate them to their instruction.
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

References
•

Bartlett, T. (2004). Member of Accrediting Group Has Ph.D. From 'Notorious
Diploma Mill‘. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 50(30): A.29.

•

Carnevale, D. (2004). Distance education: Keeping up with exploding demand. The
Chronicle of Higher Education, 50(21): B.8.

•

Carnevale, D. (2004). For online adjuncts: A seller’s market. The Chronicle of Higher
Education, 50(34): A.31.

•

Cox, G. M. (2001). Strategic Planning and Implementation: The Challenge of
Adapting Organizations and Creating Partnerships to Target New Markets. University
Teaching as e-Business research project. Center for Studies in Higher Education.
UC Berkeley.

•

Bleek, J. (2004). Internet Academy. [Washington.] No Child Left Behind Leadership
Summit: Increasing Options Through e-Learning. US Department of Education.

•

Bower, B. L. (2001). Distance Education: Facing the Faculty Challenge. Online
Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 4(2).

•

Deubel, P. (2003). Learning from reflections - Issues in building quality online
courses. Online Journal Distance Learning Administration, 6(3).

•

Golden, M., Wicks, M., and Williams, L. (2004). Why virtual schools are gaining
popularity. No Child Left Behind Leadership Summit: Increasing Options Through eLearning. US Department of Education.

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

References (cont.)
•

Goldenberg, L., Heinze, J., and Ba, H. (2004). What Students Say about Learning
Science with Multiple Media. 25th NECC.

•

Kelsey, D. K. and D’Souza, A. (2004). Student motivation for learning at a distance:
Does interaction matter? OJDLA, 7(2).

•

Lapiner, R. (2001). Strategic Planning and Implementation: The Challenge of
Adapting Organizations and Creating Partnerships to Target New Markets. University
Teaching as e-Business research project. Center for Studies in Higher Education. UC
Berkeley.

•

Levin, J., Levin, S. R., and Waddoups, G. (1999). Multiplicity in learning and
teaching: A framework for developing innovative online education. Journal of
Research on Computing in Education, 32(2): 256-269.

•

Levy, S. (2003). Six Factors to Consider when Planning Online Distance Learning
Programs in Higher Education. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration,
6(1).

•

Moore, A., Masterson, J. T., Christophel, D. M., and Shea, K. A. (1996). College
teacher immediacy and student ratings of instruction. Communication Education, 45:
29-39.

•

Oblinger, D. G., Barone, C. A., and Hawkins, B. L. (2001). Distributed education
and its challenges: An overview. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education
and EDUCAUSE.

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

References (cont.)
•

•
•
•

•
•

Pelz, B. (2004). (My) Three principles of effective online pedagogy. Journal of
Asynchronous Learning Networks, 8(3).
Phipps, R. and Merisotis, J. (1999). What’s the difference? A review of contemporary
research on the effectiveness of distance learning in higher education. The Institute for
Higher Education Policy. Washington, DC.
Poley, J. (2001). Digital learning and libraries: Toward consortia and collaboratories
Presentation at NIT. Beijing,China.
Poley, J. (2002). Distance education themes and trends. Ohio State Megaconference.
Columbus, Ohio.
Poley, J. (2003). Distance Education Everywhere (not “online” learning):
Myths, Realities and Possibilities. 5th Annual International Symposium on Advanced
Radio Technologies (ISART).
Rahm, D. (1998). Tangled Webs In Public Administration: Organizational Issues In
Distance Learning. Public Administration & Management Interactive Journal, 3(1).

•

Richardson J. C. and Swan, K. (2003). Examining social presence in online courses
in relation to student’s perceived learning and satisfaction. Journal of Asynchronous
Learning Networks, 7(1).

•

Wang, H. (2004). Investigating, exploring, and promoting interaction in web-based
learning. 25th NECC.

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

References (cont.)
•

Young, K., Anderson, A., Eller, Am., Eller, An., Pounds, J., and Rashad, V.
(2004). What is possible in virtual education? Experiences empowering a
quality education for each learner. [Florida learning alliance.] No Child Left
Behind Leadership Summit: Increasing Options Through e-Learning. US
Department of Education.

•

Zemsky, R, Massy, W. F. (2004). Why the e-learning boom went bust. The
Chronicle of Higher Education, 50(44): B.6.

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004


Slide 14

Instructional design
in online environments:
Challenges and possibilities

Pantelis Vassilakis PhD
DePaul University
ITD – Libraries – School of Music

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Basic Premises
• The possibility for Online Distance
Learning (ODL) represents the most
exciting educational development in
decades.
• To date, the most positive aspect of the
ongoing ODL explosive growth has
been the application of the related
technology to online supplements,
which currently accompany the vast
majority of face-to-face courses.
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Q. What is wrong with
Online Distance Learning?
A. Its explosion is arguably led by the
wrong group (administrators vs. educators)
and is driven by the wrong motivations.
1. Main ODL advocates are administrators, who often do not fully
understand the new technology and the issues facing
instructors and students, and are not aware of the impact they
can have on creating positive changes in ODL.
[Dillon & Cintron, 1997; Wenzel, 1999; Dooley & Murphrey,
2000; (in Levy, 2003); Rahm, 1998; Bower, 2001; Kambutu,
2002; Levy, 2003; University of Minnesota - Extension service;
Kansas State University )

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Q. What is wrong with
Online Distance Learning?
A. Its explosion is arguably led by the
wrong group (administrators vs. educators)
and is driven by the wrong motivations
2. Planning for ODL usually focuses on
a) budget and personnel, rather than critical pedagogic issues
b) creating an attractive product for a target population (degree
seekers) at a minimal cost, rather than an improved educational
experience.

(Bates, 2000; Berge & Smith, 2000; Bothel, 2001; Levy, 2003;
AFT May 2001 Report)

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Q. What is wrong with
Online Distance Learning?
A. Its explosion is arguably led by the
wrong group (administrators vs. educators)
and is driven by the wrong motivations
3. ODL is approached as means to compensate for the fact that
constant growth in college-age population will soon result in more
students than University facilities can accommodate (Olinger et
al., 2001).
4. ODL is often seen as a possibly profitable auxiliary university
business (Lapiner, 2001), occasionally outsourced to for-profit
organizations (Cox, 2001).

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Q. What is wrong with
Online Distance Learning?
A. Its explosion is arguably led by the
wrong group (administrators vs. educators)
and is driven by the wrong motivations
5. University Strategic Plans and other resources cite market
pressure, the need to remain competitive, increased enrollment /
revenue, and decreased cost as some of the reasons for
aggressively promoting ODL, expecting a 20-25% annual
increase in DE enrollment, often without prior planning for
appropriate academic and technical support. This reflects a
concern with corporate survival/growth issues rather than
instructional design improvement.
(USC Academic Senate, 1991 & 2001 white papers; Texas
Technical University current Strategic Plan; New Mexico State
University current Strategic Plan)
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Q. What is wrong with
Online Distance Learning?
A. Its explosion is arguably driven by the
wrong group (administrators vs. educators)
and is driven by the wrong motivations
6. Private organizations/corporations advocate implementation of ODL
to meet standards compliance, citing cost decrease as the main
advantage and its use in Higher Education as the main justification.
7. Higher education institutions are also basing their overall ODL
development on cost rather educational considerations. In their
majority, ODL courses are assigned to ‘cost effective’ adjunct faculty,
(Carnevale, 2004) who also face inflated enrollments. Course quality
is not monitored closely, especially in established institutions that often
let their ODL offerings ride on their ‘brand name’ reputation, without
supporting them by the resources that earned them this reputation.
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning is a Reality

An average of ~ 6% of US University degree
programs are offered exclusively online.

Over 50% of institutions offer exclusive or
alternative online versions of courses.

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning is a Reality

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning is a Reality
OUS - Internet-Based Distance Learning
http://www.ous.edu/de_stat.htm
1600
Courses
1300

Enrollment (x 10)

1000

700

400

100
1998-99

1999-00

2000-01

2001-02

2002-03

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning is a Reality
Online Distance Learning Market Growth
http://nces.ed.gov/ - http://www.aft.org/
10

Billion US $

8
6
4
2
0
1998-99

1999-00

2000-01

2001-02

2002-03

2003-04
(E)

2004-05
(E)

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning is a Reality
Proportion of Online Programs
10%

8%

6%

4%

2%

0%
DePaul (135)

ASU (270)

UCLA (318)

UWM (400)

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Demand for Online Distance Learning
The explosive growth of online learning over the last 10 years
has occurred in response to continuously increasing demand.
The demand reflects a partly artificial need, driven by the
Universities themselves. The number of degrees conferred by
Universities is constantly increasing, ‘flooding’ the workforce and
making the possession of degree a must for almost any type of
employment.
Lifelong Learning and graduate education were supposed to be
the core areas of distance learning, resulting in a clientele largely
made out of so-called adult students (Bleek, 2004; Young et al.,
2004). The National Center for Education Statistics confirms that
such students are more likely than their counterparts to participate
in distance education. However…
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Demand for Online Distance Learning
US Distance Higher Education
http://nces.ed.gov/

80%
Undergraduate Courses
60%

40%

Institutions offering DL programs
20%
1994-95

1997-98

2000-01

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Demand for Online Distance Learning
Universities are targeting the population that will generate most revenue
and will embrace the ‘product’ for non-educational reasons, rather than
the population (small and quality-driven) that initiated the need.
Many on-campus students are participating in distance learning as a
way to solve course scheduling problems and/or speed up the degree
completion progress (Oregon University System; Golden et al., 2004),
resulting in an even more dramatic increase in the number of distance
learning enrollments and course offerings.
The growth rate of ODL offerings will continue to rise (Carnevale, 2004),
fueled by degree hunters who increase demand and by Universities who
recognize the immense cost cutting potential of (bad quality) DL, in spite of
the widely recognized failure to yet produce good quality DL (e.g. Zemsky
& Massy, 2004) and alarming reports of Accreditation officials having
obtained PhD degrees from DL degree mills (Bartlett, 2004).
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning & Faculty
Faculty members often resist the move towards online
distance learning.
Possible reasons:

a) Alleged dislike, fear, and/or ignorance of the relevant
technology; a “…confusion and nonsense disseminated by
those who would protect status quo…”. (Poley, 2003)
b) Faculty are often thrown into a ODL situation by University
programs eager to compete in the ODL market, without
being offered the necessary tools to do the job.
c) ODL seems, at least on the surface, to go against the very
essence of a learning event: communication.
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning & Faculty
Learning is a fundamentally social activity (review in Wang, 2004).
ODL advocates see the ePortofolio explosion as a recognition of this fact.
Learning relies heavily on communication among participants; on dialogue,
exchange of ideas, argumentation, feedback, and the readjustment of our
position, whatever this may have been prior to entering the learning event.
Communication involves facial expressions, gestures, tone of voice, and
(almost) instantaneous feedback. It is the immediacy in dialogue that can
a) prevent instances of misunderstanding from escalating,
b) support the continuous adjustment in the way a learning event progresses,
necessary to accommodate changes in the learning environment at hand.
Social presence and interaction affect course outcomes as well as course
satisfaction (Moore et al., 1996; Richardson & Swan, 2003; Pelz, 2004).
Drop-out rates are consistently higher in ODL vs. traditional courses (IHEP)
ODL students may experience social isolation. The students who need the
most help in DL courses do not ask for it (Levy, 2003).
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Can ODL support this kind of learning event?
Over 100 books in print published in the last two years
Over 100 online books
Over 10 scholarly journals dealing exclusively with the topic
Amazon has over 200 entries
Over 30 consortia publish their own journals, books, and
conference proceedings
Common themes:
I.

Communication, interactivity, feedback, identified as the major
challenges (e.g. Poley, 2001, 2002; Deubel, 2003; USC Academic
Senate, Whitepaper, Newsletter).

II. Often, there is no explicit reference to advances within education
research in general.
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Common Themes of Powerful Learning Experiences
Thinking outside the box.
Interaction not Interactivity (Phipps & Merisotis, 1999; Wang, 2004)
Learners
link powerful
learning
experiences
to events
that involve
It is questioned
whether
deep
understanding
of difficult
interaction,
whether
the instructor
or2004
other
students.
Pelz
(2004)
&with
several
SLATE
papers
Virtual
Classroom
material—beyond
amassing
facts—can
occur
in the absence
What
most
memorable
is the
actual event of understanding
that
ofissame-time
same-place
interaction.
[e.g.
Gersten,
2004;
Scheidenhelm,
2004]
takes
place ineducation
dialogue, should
changing
those
whoavailable
participate.
Distance
utilize
every
opportunity
Interaction
& Presence
to bring–students
faculty
together.
Relevance
Workingand
towards
shared
goals.
and
office
hours
American
Federation
of Teachers
2000 Report
The
dynamics
of a classroom
may not (May
be replicable
in a – May
Engagement
(physical
orready
mental)
2001
Report):
(IVC
technology
not
– Kesley
& D’Souza,
Digital
Multimedia
distance
education
setting
(Kelsey
& D’Souza,
2004).2004)

Scheduled virtual class meetings

Encouragement
Encourage the development of powerful new learning and
teaching/environments
Challenge
Confidence - in the longer term (Levin et al., 1999),
that significantly
enhance
learning (Goldenberg et al., 2004).
Making
failure a learning
experience
Empowerment
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

The Power and Challenge of Multimedia
Information delivery (images, audio, video, animations)
Example 1 Example 2 Example 3 Example 4
Interactivity (applets, simulations)
Example 1 Example 2 Example 3 Example 4
Task completion (applets, simulations, applications)
Example 1 Example 2

Time-consuming – Require specialized skills
Many have already been created – Locate (edit) and implement
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

In the meantime…
Develop rigorous evaluation and control
processes to assure that distance education
programs comply with high academic standards.

Apply quality control to academic content as well
as delivery method and student support services.
Provide faculty with comprehensive educational
technology support and (user) training prior to
assigning them to ODL courses.

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Conclusions
• The current state of the Universities’ infrastructure and
administration, the faculty and student technical skills, and to some
extend the related technology does not yet support the creation of
distance learning environments that can adequately replace face to
face instruction. Benchmarks for successful ODL put forward by the
IHEP need to be taken very seriously.
• Online supplements to face to face courses can significantly
enhance the educational experience of students, especially through
the use of sophisticated, multimedia digital learning objects, many of
which have already been created.
• One of our tasks should be to locate, collect, and make available
such learning objects to instructional designers, ideally through a
centralized searchable process, followed by a continuous
development and financial backing of an expert and reliable support
system that will help faculty identify relevant resources and
efficiently and creatively incorporate them to their instruction.
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

References
•

Bartlett, T. (2004). Member of Accrediting Group Has Ph.D. From 'Notorious
Diploma Mill‘. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 50(30): A.29.

•

Carnevale, D. (2004). Distance education: Keeping up with exploding demand. The
Chronicle of Higher Education, 50(21): B.8.

•

Carnevale, D. (2004). For online adjuncts: A seller’s market. The Chronicle of Higher
Education, 50(34): A.31.

•

Cox, G. M. (2001). Strategic Planning and Implementation: The Challenge of
Adapting Organizations and Creating Partnerships to Target New Markets. University
Teaching as e-Business research project. Center for Studies in Higher Education.
UC Berkeley.

•

Bleek, J. (2004). Internet Academy. [Washington.] No Child Left Behind Leadership
Summit: Increasing Options Through e-Learning. US Department of Education.

•

Bower, B. L. (2001). Distance Education: Facing the Faculty Challenge. Online
Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 4(2).

•

Deubel, P. (2003). Learning from reflections - Issues in building quality online
courses. Online Journal Distance Learning Administration, 6(3).

•

Golden, M., Wicks, M., and Williams, L. (2004). Why virtual schools are gaining
popularity. No Child Left Behind Leadership Summit: Increasing Options Through eLearning. US Department of Education.

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

References (cont.)
•

Goldenberg, L., Heinze, J., and Ba, H. (2004). What Students Say about Learning
Science with Multiple Media. 25th NECC.

•

Kelsey, D. K. and D’Souza, A. (2004). Student motivation for learning at a distance:
Does interaction matter? OJDLA, 7(2).

•

Lapiner, R. (2001). Strategic Planning and Implementation: The Challenge of
Adapting Organizations and Creating Partnerships to Target New Markets. University
Teaching as e-Business research project. Center for Studies in Higher Education. UC
Berkeley.

•

Levin, J., Levin, S. R., and Waddoups, G. (1999). Multiplicity in learning and
teaching: A framework for developing innovative online education. Journal of
Research on Computing in Education, 32(2): 256-269.

•

Levy, S. (2003). Six Factors to Consider when Planning Online Distance Learning
Programs in Higher Education. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration,
6(1).

•

Moore, A., Masterson, J. T., Christophel, D. M., and Shea, K. A. (1996). College
teacher immediacy and student ratings of instruction. Communication Education, 45:
29-39.

•

Oblinger, D. G., Barone, C. A., and Hawkins, B. L. (2001). Distributed education
and its challenges: An overview. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education
and EDUCAUSE.

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

References (cont.)
•

•
•
•

•
•

Pelz, B. (2004). (My) Three principles of effective online pedagogy. Journal of
Asynchronous Learning Networks, 8(3).
Phipps, R. and Merisotis, J. (1999). What’s the difference? A review of contemporary
research on the effectiveness of distance learning in higher education. The Institute for
Higher Education Policy. Washington, DC.
Poley, J. (2001). Digital learning and libraries: Toward consortia and collaboratories
Presentation at NIT. Beijing,China.
Poley, J. (2002). Distance education themes and trends. Ohio State Megaconference.
Columbus, Ohio.
Poley, J. (2003). Distance Education Everywhere (not “online” learning):
Myths, Realities and Possibilities. 5th Annual International Symposium on Advanced
Radio Technologies (ISART).
Rahm, D. (1998). Tangled Webs In Public Administration: Organizational Issues In
Distance Learning. Public Administration & Management Interactive Journal, 3(1).

•

Richardson J. C. and Swan, K. (2003). Examining social presence in online courses
in relation to student’s perceived learning and satisfaction. Journal of Asynchronous
Learning Networks, 7(1).

•

Wang, H. (2004). Investigating, exploring, and promoting interaction in web-based
learning. 25th NECC.

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

References (cont.)
•

Young, K., Anderson, A., Eller, Am., Eller, An., Pounds, J., and Rashad, V.
(2004). What is possible in virtual education? Experiences empowering a
quality education for each learner. [Florida learning alliance.] No Child Left
Behind Leadership Summit: Increasing Options Through e-Learning. US
Department of Education.

•

Zemsky, R, Massy, W. F. (2004). Why the e-learning boom went bust. The
Chronicle of Higher Education, 50(44): B.6.

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004


Slide 15

Instructional design
in online environments:
Challenges and possibilities

Pantelis Vassilakis PhD
DePaul University
ITD – Libraries – School of Music

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Basic Premises
• The possibility for Online Distance
Learning (ODL) represents the most
exciting educational development in
decades.
• To date, the most positive aspect of the
ongoing ODL explosive growth has
been the application of the related
technology to online supplements,
which currently accompany the vast
majority of face-to-face courses.
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Q. What is wrong with
Online Distance Learning?
A. Its explosion is arguably led by the
wrong group (administrators vs. educators)
and is driven by the wrong motivations.
1. Main ODL advocates are administrators, who often do not fully
understand the new technology and the issues facing
instructors and students, and are not aware of the impact they
can have on creating positive changes in ODL.
[Dillon & Cintron, 1997; Wenzel, 1999; Dooley & Murphrey,
2000; (in Levy, 2003); Rahm, 1998; Bower, 2001; Kambutu,
2002; Levy, 2003; University of Minnesota - Extension service;
Kansas State University )

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Q. What is wrong with
Online Distance Learning?
A. Its explosion is arguably led by the
wrong group (administrators vs. educators)
and is driven by the wrong motivations
2. Planning for ODL usually focuses on
a) budget and personnel, rather than critical pedagogic issues
b) creating an attractive product for a target population (degree
seekers) at a minimal cost, rather than an improved educational
experience.

(Bates, 2000; Berge & Smith, 2000; Bothel, 2001; Levy, 2003;
AFT May 2001 Report)

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Q. What is wrong with
Online Distance Learning?
A. Its explosion is arguably led by the
wrong group (administrators vs. educators)
and is driven by the wrong motivations
3. ODL is approached as means to compensate for the fact that
constant growth in college-age population will soon result in more
students than University facilities can accommodate (Olinger et
al., 2001).
4. ODL is often seen as a possibly profitable auxiliary university
business (Lapiner, 2001), occasionally outsourced to for-profit
organizations (Cox, 2001).

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Q. What is wrong with
Online Distance Learning?
A. Its explosion is arguably led by the
wrong group (administrators vs. educators)
and is driven by the wrong motivations
5. University Strategic Plans and other resources cite market
pressure, the need to remain competitive, increased enrollment /
revenue, and decreased cost as some of the reasons for
aggressively promoting ODL, expecting a 20-25% annual
increase in DE enrollment, often without prior planning for
appropriate academic and technical support. This reflects a
concern with corporate survival/growth issues rather than
instructional design improvement.
(USC Academic Senate, 1991 & 2001 white papers; Texas
Technical University current Strategic Plan; New Mexico State
University current Strategic Plan)
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Q. What is wrong with
Online Distance Learning?
A. Its explosion is arguably driven by the
wrong group (administrators vs. educators)
and is driven by the wrong motivations
6. Private organizations/corporations advocate implementation of ODL
to meet standards compliance, citing cost decrease as the main
advantage and its use in Higher Education as the main justification.
7. Higher education institutions are also basing their overall ODL
development on cost rather educational considerations. In their
majority, ODL courses are assigned to ‘cost effective’ adjunct faculty,
(Carnevale, 2004) who also face inflated enrollments. Course quality
is not monitored closely, especially in established institutions that often
let their ODL offerings ride on their ‘brand name’ reputation, without
supporting them by the resources that earned them this reputation.
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning is a Reality

An average of ~ 6% of US University degree
programs are offered exclusively online.

Over 50% of institutions offer exclusive or
alternative online versions of courses.

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning is a Reality

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning is a Reality
OUS - Internet-Based Distance Learning
http://www.ous.edu/de_stat.htm
1600
Courses
1300

Enrollment (x 10)

1000

700

400

100
1998-99

1999-00

2000-01

2001-02

2002-03

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning is a Reality
Online Distance Learning Market Growth
http://nces.ed.gov/ - http://www.aft.org/
10

Billion US $

8
6
4
2
0
1998-99

1999-00

2000-01

2001-02

2002-03

2003-04
(E)

2004-05
(E)

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning is a Reality
Proportion of Online Programs
10%

8%

6%

4%

2%

0%
DePaul (135)

ASU (270)

UCLA (318)

UWM (400)

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Demand for Online Distance Learning
The explosive growth of online learning over the last 10 years
has occurred in response to continuously increasing demand.
The demand reflects a partly artificial need, driven by the
Universities themselves. The number of degrees conferred by
Universities is constantly increasing, ‘flooding’ the workforce and
making the possession of degree a must for almost any type of
employment.
Lifelong Learning and graduate education were supposed to be
the core areas of distance learning, resulting in a clientele largely
made out of so-called adult students (Bleek, 2004; Young et al.,
2004). The National Center for Education Statistics confirms that
such students are more likely than their counterparts to participate
in distance education. However…
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Demand for Online Distance Learning
US Distance Higher Education
http://nces.ed.gov/

80%
Undergraduate Courses
60%

40%

Institutions offering DL programs
20%
1994-95

1997-98

2000-01

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Demand for Online Distance Learning
Universities are targeting the population that will generate most revenue
and will embrace the ‘product’ for non-educational reasons, rather than
the population (small and quality-driven) that initiated the need.
Many on-campus students are participating in distance learning as a
way to solve course scheduling problems and/or speed up the degree
completion progress (Oregon University System; Golden et al., 2004),
resulting in an even more dramatic increase in the number of distance
learning enrollments and course offerings.
The growth rate of ODL offerings will continue to rise (Carnevale, 2004),
fueled by degree hunters who increase demand and by Universities who
recognize the immense cost cutting potential of (bad quality) DL, in spite of
the widely recognized failure to yet produce good quality DL (e.g. Zemsky
& Massy, 2004) and alarming reports of Accreditation officials having
obtained PhD degrees from DL degree mills (Bartlett, 2004).
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning & Faculty
Faculty members often resist the move towards online
distance learning.
Possible reasons:

a) Alleged dislike, fear, and/or ignorance of the relevant
technology; a “…confusion and nonsense disseminated by
those who would protect status quo…”. (Poley, 2003)
b) Faculty are often thrown into a ODL situation by University
programs eager to compete in the ODL market, without
being offered the necessary tools to do the job.
c) ODL seems, at least on the surface, to go against the very
essence of a learning event: communication.
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning & Faculty
Learning is a fundamentally social activity (review in Wang, 2004).
ODL advocates see the ePortofolio explosion as a recognition of this fact.
Learning relies heavily on communication among participants; on dialogue,
exchange of ideas, argumentation, feedback, and the readjustment of our
position, whatever this may have been prior to entering the learning event.
Communication involves facial expressions, gestures, tone of voice, and
(almost) instantaneous feedback. It is the immediacy in dialogue that can
a) prevent instances of misunderstanding from escalating,
b) support the continuous adjustment in the way a learning event progresses,
necessary to accommodate changes in the learning environment at hand.
Social presence and interaction affect course outcomes as well as course
satisfaction (Moore et al., 1996; Richardson & Swan, 2003; Pelz, 2004).
Drop-out rates are consistently higher in ODL vs. traditional courses (IHEP)
ODL students may experience social isolation. The students who need the
most help in DL courses do not ask for it (Levy, 2003).
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Can ODL support this kind of learning event?
Over 100 books in print published in the last two years
Over 100 online books
Over 10 scholarly journals dealing exclusively with the topic
Amazon has over 200 entries
Over 30 consortia publish their own journals, books, and
conference proceedings
Common themes:
I.

Communication, interactivity, feedback, identified as the major
challenges (e.g. Poley, 2001, 2002; Deubel, 2003; USC Academic
Senate, Whitepaper, Newsletter).

II. Often, there is no explicit reference to advances within education
research in general.
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Common Themes of Powerful Learning Experiences
Thinking outside the box.
Interaction not Interactivity (Phipps & Merisotis, 1999; Wang, 2004)
Learners
link powerful
learning
experiences
to events
that involve
It is questioned
whether
deep
understanding
of difficult
interaction,
whether
the instructor
or2004
other
students.
Pelz
(2004)
&with
several
SLATE
papers
Virtual
Classroom
material—beyond
amassing
facts—can
occur
in the absence
What
most
memorable
is the
actual event of understanding
that
ofissame-time
same-place
interaction.
[e.g.
Gersten,
2004;
Scheidenhelm,
2004]
takes
place ineducation
dialogue, should
changing
those
whoavailable
participate.
Distance
utilize
every
opportunity
Interaction
& Presence
to bring–students
faculty
together.
Relevance
Workingand
towards
shared
goals.
and
office
hours
American
Federation
of Teachers
2000 Report
The
dynamics
of a classroom
may not (May
be replicable
in a – May
Engagement
(physical
orready
mental)
2001
Report):
(IVC
technology
not
– Kesley
& D’Souza,
Digital
Multimedia
distance
education
setting
(Kelsey
& D’Souza,
2004).2004)

Scheduled virtual class meetings

Encouragement
Encourage the development of powerful new learning and
teaching/environments
Challenge
Confidence - in the longer term (Levin et al., 1999),
that significantly
enhance
learning (Goldenberg et al., 2004).
Making
failure a learning
experience
Empowerment
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

The Power and Challenge of Multimedia
Information delivery (images, audio, video, animations)
Example 1 Example 2 Example 3 Example 4
Interactivity (applets, simulations)
Example 1 Example 2 Example 3 Example 4
Task completion (applets, simulations, applications)
Example 1 Example 2

Time-consuming – Require specialized skills
Many have already been created – Locate (edit) and implement
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

In the meantime…
Develop rigorous evaluation and control
processes to assure that distance education
programs comply with high academic standards.

Apply quality control to academic content as well
as delivery method and student support services.
Provide faculty with comprehensive educational
technology support and (user) training prior to
assigning them to ODL courses.

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Conclusions
• The current state of the Universities’ infrastructure and
administration, the faculty and student technical skills, and to some
extend the related technology does not yet support the creation of
distance learning environments that can adequately replace face to
face instruction. Benchmarks for successful ODL put forward by the
IHEP need to be taken very seriously.
• Online supplements to face to face courses can significantly
enhance the educational experience of students, especially through
the use of sophisticated, multimedia digital learning objects, many of
which have already been created.
• One of our tasks should be to locate, collect, and make available
such learning objects to instructional designers, ideally through a
centralized searchable process, followed by a continuous
development and financial backing of an expert and reliable support
system that will help faculty identify relevant resources and
efficiently and creatively incorporate them to their instruction.
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

References
•

Bartlett, T. (2004). Member of Accrediting Group Has Ph.D. From 'Notorious
Diploma Mill‘. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 50(30): A.29.

•

Carnevale, D. (2004). Distance education: Keeping up with exploding demand. The
Chronicle of Higher Education, 50(21): B.8.

•

Carnevale, D. (2004). For online adjuncts: A seller’s market. The Chronicle of Higher
Education, 50(34): A.31.

•

Cox, G. M. (2001). Strategic Planning and Implementation: The Challenge of
Adapting Organizations and Creating Partnerships to Target New Markets. University
Teaching as e-Business research project. Center for Studies in Higher Education.
UC Berkeley.

•

Bleek, J. (2004). Internet Academy. [Washington.] No Child Left Behind Leadership
Summit: Increasing Options Through e-Learning. US Department of Education.

•

Bower, B. L. (2001). Distance Education: Facing the Faculty Challenge. Online
Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 4(2).

•

Deubel, P. (2003). Learning from reflections - Issues in building quality online
courses. Online Journal Distance Learning Administration, 6(3).

•

Golden, M., Wicks, M., and Williams, L. (2004). Why virtual schools are gaining
popularity. No Child Left Behind Leadership Summit: Increasing Options Through eLearning. US Department of Education.

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

References (cont.)
•

Goldenberg, L., Heinze, J., and Ba, H. (2004). What Students Say about Learning
Science with Multiple Media. 25th NECC.

•

Kelsey, D. K. and D’Souza, A. (2004). Student motivation for learning at a distance:
Does interaction matter? OJDLA, 7(2).

•

Lapiner, R. (2001). Strategic Planning and Implementation: The Challenge of
Adapting Organizations and Creating Partnerships to Target New Markets. University
Teaching as e-Business research project. Center for Studies in Higher Education. UC
Berkeley.

•

Levin, J., Levin, S. R., and Waddoups, G. (1999). Multiplicity in learning and
teaching: A framework for developing innovative online education. Journal of
Research on Computing in Education, 32(2): 256-269.

•

Levy, S. (2003). Six Factors to Consider when Planning Online Distance Learning
Programs in Higher Education. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration,
6(1).

•

Moore, A., Masterson, J. T., Christophel, D. M., and Shea, K. A. (1996). College
teacher immediacy and student ratings of instruction. Communication Education, 45:
29-39.

•

Oblinger, D. G., Barone, C. A., and Hawkins, B. L. (2001). Distributed education
and its challenges: An overview. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education
and EDUCAUSE.

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

References (cont.)
•

•
•
•

•
•

Pelz, B. (2004). (My) Three principles of effective online pedagogy. Journal of
Asynchronous Learning Networks, 8(3).
Phipps, R. and Merisotis, J. (1999). What’s the difference? A review of contemporary
research on the effectiveness of distance learning in higher education. The Institute for
Higher Education Policy. Washington, DC.
Poley, J. (2001). Digital learning and libraries: Toward consortia and collaboratories
Presentation at NIT. Beijing,China.
Poley, J. (2002). Distance education themes and trends. Ohio State Megaconference.
Columbus, Ohio.
Poley, J. (2003). Distance Education Everywhere (not “online” learning):
Myths, Realities and Possibilities. 5th Annual International Symposium on Advanced
Radio Technologies (ISART).
Rahm, D. (1998). Tangled Webs In Public Administration: Organizational Issues In
Distance Learning. Public Administration & Management Interactive Journal, 3(1).

•

Richardson J. C. and Swan, K. (2003). Examining social presence in online courses
in relation to student’s perceived learning and satisfaction. Journal of Asynchronous
Learning Networks, 7(1).

•

Wang, H. (2004). Investigating, exploring, and promoting interaction in web-based
learning. 25th NECC.

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

References (cont.)
•

Young, K., Anderson, A., Eller, Am., Eller, An., Pounds, J., and Rashad, V.
(2004). What is possible in virtual education? Experiences empowering a
quality education for each learner. [Florida learning alliance.] No Child Left
Behind Leadership Summit: Increasing Options Through e-Learning. US
Department of Education.

•

Zemsky, R, Massy, W. F. (2004). Why the e-learning boom went bust. The
Chronicle of Higher Education, 50(44): B.6.

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004


Slide 16

Instructional design
in online environments:
Challenges and possibilities

Pantelis Vassilakis PhD
DePaul University
ITD – Libraries – School of Music

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Basic Premises
• The possibility for Online Distance
Learning (ODL) represents the most
exciting educational development in
decades.
• To date, the most positive aspect of the
ongoing ODL explosive growth has
been the application of the related
technology to online supplements,
which currently accompany the vast
majority of face-to-face courses.
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Q. What is wrong with
Online Distance Learning?
A. Its explosion is arguably led by the
wrong group (administrators vs. educators)
and is driven by the wrong motivations.
1. Main ODL advocates are administrators, who often do not fully
understand the new technology and the issues facing
instructors and students, and are not aware of the impact they
can have on creating positive changes in ODL.
[Dillon & Cintron, 1997; Wenzel, 1999; Dooley & Murphrey,
2000; (in Levy, 2003); Rahm, 1998; Bower, 2001; Kambutu,
2002; Levy, 2003; University of Minnesota - Extension service;
Kansas State University )

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Q. What is wrong with
Online Distance Learning?
A. Its explosion is arguably led by the
wrong group (administrators vs. educators)
and is driven by the wrong motivations
2. Planning for ODL usually focuses on
a) budget and personnel, rather than critical pedagogic issues
b) creating an attractive product for a target population (degree
seekers) at a minimal cost, rather than an improved educational
experience.

(Bates, 2000; Berge & Smith, 2000; Bothel, 2001; Levy, 2003;
AFT May 2001 Report)

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Q. What is wrong with
Online Distance Learning?
A. Its explosion is arguably led by the
wrong group (administrators vs. educators)
and is driven by the wrong motivations
3. ODL is approached as means to compensate for the fact that
constant growth in college-age population will soon result in more
students than University facilities can accommodate (Olinger et
al., 2001).
4. ODL is often seen as a possibly profitable auxiliary university
business (Lapiner, 2001), occasionally outsourced to for-profit
organizations (Cox, 2001).

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Q. What is wrong with
Online Distance Learning?
A. Its explosion is arguably led by the
wrong group (administrators vs. educators)
and is driven by the wrong motivations
5. University Strategic Plans and other resources cite market
pressure, the need to remain competitive, increased enrollment /
revenue, and decreased cost as some of the reasons for
aggressively promoting ODL, expecting a 20-25% annual
increase in DE enrollment, often without prior planning for
appropriate academic and technical support. This reflects a
concern with corporate survival/growth issues rather than
instructional design improvement.
(USC Academic Senate, 1991 & 2001 white papers; Texas
Technical University current Strategic Plan; New Mexico State
University current Strategic Plan)
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Q. What is wrong with
Online Distance Learning?
A. Its explosion is arguably driven by the
wrong group (administrators vs. educators)
and is driven by the wrong motivations
6. Private organizations/corporations advocate implementation of ODL
to meet standards compliance, citing cost decrease as the main
advantage and its use in Higher Education as the main justification.
7. Higher education institutions are also basing their overall ODL
development on cost rather educational considerations. In their
majority, ODL courses are assigned to ‘cost effective’ adjunct faculty,
(Carnevale, 2004) who also face inflated enrollments. Course quality
is not monitored closely, especially in established institutions that often
let their ODL offerings ride on their ‘brand name’ reputation, without
supporting them by the resources that earned them this reputation.
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning is a Reality

An average of ~ 6% of US University degree
programs are offered exclusively online.

Over 50% of institutions offer exclusive or
alternative online versions of courses.

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning is a Reality

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning is a Reality
OUS - Internet-Based Distance Learning
http://www.ous.edu/de_stat.htm
1600
Courses
1300

Enrollment (x 10)

1000

700

400

100
1998-99

1999-00

2000-01

2001-02

2002-03

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning is a Reality
Online Distance Learning Market Growth
http://nces.ed.gov/ - http://www.aft.org/
10

Billion US $

8
6
4
2
0
1998-99

1999-00

2000-01

2001-02

2002-03

2003-04
(E)

2004-05
(E)

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning is a Reality
Proportion of Online Programs
10%

8%

6%

4%

2%

0%
DePaul (135)

ASU (270)

UCLA (318)

UWM (400)

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Demand for Online Distance Learning
The explosive growth of online learning over the last 10 years
has occurred in response to continuously increasing demand.
The demand reflects a partly artificial need, driven by the
Universities themselves. The number of degrees conferred by
Universities is constantly increasing, ‘flooding’ the workforce and
making the possession of degree a must for almost any type of
employment.
Lifelong Learning and graduate education were supposed to be
the core areas of distance learning, resulting in a clientele largely
made out of so-called adult students (Bleek, 2004; Young et al.,
2004). The National Center for Education Statistics confirms that
such students are more likely than their counterparts to participate
in distance education. However…
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Demand for Online Distance Learning
US Distance Higher Education
http://nces.ed.gov/

80%
Undergraduate Courses
60%

40%

Institutions offering DL programs
20%
1994-95

1997-98

2000-01

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Demand for Online Distance Learning
Universities are targeting the population that will generate most revenue
and will embrace the ‘product’ for non-educational reasons, rather than
the population (small and quality-driven) that initiated the need.
Many on-campus students are participating in distance learning as a
way to solve course scheduling problems and/or speed up the degree
completion progress (Oregon University System; Golden et al., 2004),
resulting in an even more dramatic increase in the number of distance
learning enrollments and course offerings.
The growth rate of ODL offerings will continue to rise (Carnevale, 2004),
fueled by degree hunters who increase demand and by Universities who
recognize the immense cost cutting potential of (bad quality) DL, in spite of
the widely recognized failure to yet produce good quality DL (e.g. Zemsky
& Massy, 2004) and alarming reports of Accreditation officials having
obtained PhD degrees from DL degree mills (Bartlett, 2004).
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning & Faculty
Faculty members often resist the move towards online
distance learning.
Possible reasons:

a) Alleged dislike, fear, and/or ignorance of the relevant
technology; a “…confusion and nonsense disseminated by
those who would protect status quo…”. (Poley, 2003)
b) Faculty are often thrown into a ODL situation by University
programs eager to compete in the ODL market, without
being offered the necessary tools to do the job.
c) ODL seems, at least on the surface, to go against the very
essence of a learning event: communication.
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning & Faculty
Learning is a fundamentally social activity (review in Wang, 2004).
ODL advocates see the ePortofolio explosion as a recognition of this fact.
Learning relies heavily on communication among participants; on dialogue,
exchange of ideas, argumentation, feedback, and the readjustment of our
position, whatever this may have been prior to entering the learning event.
Communication involves facial expressions, gestures, tone of voice, and
(almost) instantaneous feedback. It is the immediacy in dialogue that can
a) prevent instances of misunderstanding from escalating,
b) support the continuous adjustment in the way a learning event progresses,
necessary to accommodate changes in the learning environment at hand.
Social presence and interaction affect course outcomes as well as course
satisfaction (Moore et al., 1996; Richardson & Swan, 2003; Pelz, 2004).
Drop-out rates are consistently higher in ODL vs. traditional courses (IHEP)
ODL students may experience social isolation. The students who need the
most help in DL courses do not ask for it (Levy, 2003).
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Can ODL support this kind of learning event?
Over 100 books in print published in the last two years
Over 100 online books
Over 10 scholarly journals dealing exclusively with the topic
Amazon has over 200 entries
Over 30 consortia publish their own journals, books, and
conference proceedings
Common themes:
I.

Communication, interactivity, feedback, identified as the major
challenges (e.g. Poley, 2001, 2002; Deubel, 2003; USC Academic
Senate, Whitepaper, Newsletter).

II. Often, there is no explicit reference to advances within education
research in general.
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Common Themes of Powerful Learning Experiences
Thinking outside the box.
Interaction not Interactivity (Phipps & Merisotis, 1999; Wang, 2004)
Learners
link powerful
learning
experiences
to events
that involve
It is questioned
whether
deep
understanding
of difficult
interaction,
whether
the instructor
or2004
other
students.
Pelz
(2004)
&with
several
SLATE
papers
Virtual
Classroom
material—beyond
amassing
facts—can
occur
in the absence
What
most
memorable
is the
actual event of understanding
that
ofissame-time
same-place
interaction.
[e.g.
Gersten,
2004;
Scheidenhelm,
2004]
takes
place ineducation
dialogue, should
changing
those
whoavailable
participate.
Distance
utilize
every
opportunity
Interaction
& Presence
to bring–students
faculty
together.
Relevance
Workingand
towards
shared
goals.
and
office
hours
American
Federation
of Teachers
2000 Report
The
dynamics
of a classroom
may not (May
be replicable
in a – May
Engagement
(physical
orready
mental)
2001
Report):
(IVC
technology
not
– Kesley
& D’Souza,
Digital
Multimedia
distance
education
setting
(Kelsey
& D’Souza,
2004).2004)

Scheduled virtual class meetings

Encouragement
Encourage the development of powerful new learning and
teaching/environments
Challenge
Confidence - in the longer term (Levin et al., 1999),
that significantly
enhance
learning (Goldenberg et al., 2004).
Making
failure a learning
experience
Empowerment
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

The Power and Challenge of Multimedia
Information delivery (images, audio, video, animations)
Example 1 Example 2 Example 3 Example 4
Interactivity (applets, simulations)
Example 1 Example 2 Example 3 Example 4
Task completion (applets, simulations, applications)
Example 1 Example 2

Time-consuming – Require specialized skills
Many have already been created – Locate (edit) and implement
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

In the meantime…
Develop rigorous evaluation and control
processes to assure that distance education
programs comply with high academic standards.

Apply quality control to academic content as well
as delivery method and student support services.
Provide faculty with comprehensive educational
technology support and (user) training prior to
assigning them to ODL courses.

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Conclusions
• The current state of the Universities’ infrastructure and
administration, the faculty and student technical skills, and to some
extend the related technology does not yet support the creation of
distance learning environments that can adequately replace face to
face instruction. Benchmarks for successful ODL put forward by the
IHEP need to be taken very seriously.
• Online supplements to face to face courses can significantly
enhance the educational experience of students, especially through
the use of sophisticated, multimedia digital learning objects, many of
which have already been created.
• One of our tasks should be to locate, collect, and make available
such learning objects to instructional designers, ideally through a
centralized searchable process, followed by a continuous
development and financial backing of an expert and reliable support
system that will help faculty identify relevant resources and
efficiently and creatively incorporate them to their instruction.
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

References
•

Bartlett, T. (2004). Member of Accrediting Group Has Ph.D. From 'Notorious
Diploma Mill‘. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 50(30): A.29.

•

Carnevale, D. (2004). Distance education: Keeping up with exploding demand. The
Chronicle of Higher Education, 50(21): B.8.

•

Carnevale, D. (2004). For online adjuncts: A seller’s market. The Chronicle of Higher
Education, 50(34): A.31.

•

Cox, G. M. (2001). Strategic Planning and Implementation: The Challenge of
Adapting Organizations and Creating Partnerships to Target New Markets. University
Teaching as e-Business research project. Center for Studies in Higher Education.
UC Berkeley.

•

Bleek, J. (2004). Internet Academy. [Washington.] No Child Left Behind Leadership
Summit: Increasing Options Through e-Learning. US Department of Education.

•

Bower, B. L. (2001). Distance Education: Facing the Faculty Challenge. Online
Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 4(2).

•

Deubel, P. (2003). Learning from reflections - Issues in building quality online
courses. Online Journal Distance Learning Administration, 6(3).

•

Golden, M., Wicks, M., and Williams, L. (2004). Why virtual schools are gaining
popularity. No Child Left Behind Leadership Summit: Increasing Options Through eLearning. US Department of Education.

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

References (cont.)
•

Goldenberg, L., Heinze, J., and Ba, H. (2004). What Students Say about Learning
Science with Multiple Media. 25th NECC.

•

Kelsey, D. K. and D’Souza, A. (2004). Student motivation for learning at a distance:
Does interaction matter? OJDLA, 7(2).

•

Lapiner, R. (2001). Strategic Planning and Implementation: The Challenge of
Adapting Organizations and Creating Partnerships to Target New Markets. University
Teaching as e-Business research project. Center for Studies in Higher Education. UC
Berkeley.

•

Levin, J., Levin, S. R., and Waddoups, G. (1999). Multiplicity in learning and
teaching: A framework for developing innovative online education. Journal of
Research on Computing in Education, 32(2): 256-269.

•

Levy, S. (2003). Six Factors to Consider when Planning Online Distance Learning
Programs in Higher Education. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration,
6(1).

•

Moore, A., Masterson, J. T., Christophel, D. M., and Shea, K. A. (1996). College
teacher immediacy and student ratings of instruction. Communication Education, 45:
29-39.

•

Oblinger, D. G., Barone, C. A., and Hawkins, B. L. (2001). Distributed education
and its challenges: An overview. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education
and EDUCAUSE.

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

References (cont.)
•

•
•
•

•
•

Pelz, B. (2004). (My) Three principles of effective online pedagogy. Journal of
Asynchronous Learning Networks, 8(3).
Phipps, R. and Merisotis, J. (1999). What’s the difference? A review of contemporary
research on the effectiveness of distance learning in higher education. The Institute for
Higher Education Policy. Washington, DC.
Poley, J. (2001). Digital learning and libraries: Toward consortia and collaboratories
Presentation at NIT. Beijing,China.
Poley, J. (2002). Distance education themes and trends. Ohio State Megaconference.
Columbus, Ohio.
Poley, J. (2003). Distance Education Everywhere (not “online” learning):
Myths, Realities and Possibilities. 5th Annual International Symposium on Advanced
Radio Technologies (ISART).
Rahm, D. (1998). Tangled Webs In Public Administration: Organizational Issues In
Distance Learning. Public Administration & Management Interactive Journal, 3(1).

•

Richardson J. C. and Swan, K. (2003). Examining social presence in online courses
in relation to student’s perceived learning and satisfaction. Journal of Asynchronous
Learning Networks, 7(1).

•

Wang, H. (2004). Investigating, exploring, and promoting interaction in web-based
learning. 25th NECC.

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

References (cont.)
•

Young, K., Anderson, A., Eller, Am., Eller, An., Pounds, J., and Rashad, V.
(2004). What is possible in virtual education? Experiences empowering a
quality education for each learner. [Florida learning alliance.] No Child Left
Behind Leadership Summit: Increasing Options Through e-Learning. US
Department of Education.

•

Zemsky, R, Massy, W. F. (2004). Why the e-learning boom went bust. The
Chronicle of Higher Education, 50(44): B.6.

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004


Slide 17

Instructional design
in online environments:
Challenges and possibilities

Pantelis Vassilakis PhD
DePaul University
ITD – Libraries – School of Music

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Basic Premises
• The possibility for Online Distance
Learning (ODL) represents the most
exciting educational development in
decades.
• To date, the most positive aspect of the
ongoing ODL explosive growth has
been the application of the related
technology to online supplements,
which currently accompany the vast
majority of face-to-face courses.
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Q. What is wrong with
Online Distance Learning?
A. Its explosion is arguably led by the
wrong group (administrators vs. educators)
and is driven by the wrong motivations.
1. Main ODL advocates are administrators, who often do not fully
understand the new technology and the issues facing
instructors and students, and are not aware of the impact they
can have on creating positive changes in ODL.
[Dillon & Cintron, 1997; Wenzel, 1999; Dooley & Murphrey,
2000; (in Levy, 2003); Rahm, 1998; Bower, 2001; Kambutu,
2002; Levy, 2003; University of Minnesota - Extension service;
Kansas State University )

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Q. What is wrong with
Online Distance Learning?
A. Its explosion is arguably led by the
wrong group (administrators vs. educators)
and is driven by the wrong motivations
2. Planning for ODL usually focuses on
a) budget and personnel, rather than critical pedagogic issues
b) creating an attractive product for a target population (degree
seekers) at a minimal cost, rather than an improved educational
experience.

(Bates, 2000; Berge & Smith, 2000; Bothel, 2001; Levy, 2003;
AFT May 2001 Report)

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Q. What is wrong with
Online Distance Learning?
A. Its explosion is arguably led by the
wrong group (administrators vs. educators)
and is driven by the wrong motivations
3. ODL is approached as means to compensate for the fact that
constant growth in college-age population will soon result in more
students than University facilities can accommodate (Olinger et
al., 2001).
4. ODL is often seen as a possibly profitable auxiliary university
business (Lapiner, 2001), occasionally outsourced to for-profit
organizations (Cox, 2001).

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Q. What is wrong with
Online Distance Learning?
A. Its explosion is arguably led by the
wrong group (administrators vs. educators)
and is driven by the wrong motivations
5. University Strategic Plans and other resources cite market
pressure, the need to remain competitive, increased enrollment /
revenue, and decreased cost as some of the reasons for
aggressively promoting ODL, expecting a 20-25% annual
increase in DE enrollment, often without prior planning for
appropriate academic and technical support. This reflects a
concern with corporate survival/growth issues rather than
instructional design improvement.
(USC Academic Senate, 1991 & 2001 white papers; Texas
Technical University current Strategic Plan; New Mexico State
University current Strategic Plan)
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Q. What is wrong with
Online Distance Learning?
A. Its explosion is arguably driven by the
wrong group (administrators vs. educators)
and is driven by the wrong motivations
6. Private organizations/corporations advocate implementation of ODL
to meet standards compliance, citing cost decrease as the main
advantage and its use in Higher Education as the main justification.
7. Higher education institutions are also basing their overall ODL
development on cost rather educational considerations. In their
majority, ODL courses are assigned to ‘cost effective’ adjunct faculty,
(Carnevale, 2004) who also face inflated enrollments. Course quality
is not monitored closely, especially in established institutions that often
let their ODL offerings ride on their ‘brand name’ reputation, without
supporting them by the resources that earned them this reputation.
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning is a Reality

An average of ~ 6% of US University degree
programs are offered exclusively online.

Over 50% of institutions offer exclusive or
alternative online versions of courses.

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning is a Reality

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning is a Reality
OUS - Internet-Based Distance Learning
http://www.ous.edu/de_stat.htm
1600
Courses
1300

Enrollment (x 10)

1000

700

400

100
1998-99

1999-00

2000-01

2001-02

2002-03

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning is a Reality
Online Distance Learning Market Growth
http://nces.ed.gov/ - http://www.aft.org/
10

Billion US $

8
6
4
2
0
1998-99

1999-00

2000-01

2001-02

2002-03

2003-04
(E)

2004-05
(E)

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning is a Reality
Proportion of Online Programs
10%

8%

6%

4%

2%

0%
DePaul (135)

ASU (270)

UCLA (318)

UWM (400)

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Demand for Online Distance Learning
The explosive growth of online learning over the last 10 years
has occurred in response to continuously increasing demand.
The demand reflects a partly artificial need, driven by the
Universities themselves. The number of degrees conferred by
Universities is constantly increasing, ‘flooding’ the workforce and
making the possession of degree a must for almost any type of
employment.
Lifelong Learning and graduate education were supposed to be
the core areas of distance learning, resulting in a clientele largely
made out of so-called adult students (Bleek, 2004; Young et al.,
2004). The National Center for Education Statistics confirms that
such students are more likely than their counterparts to participate
in distance education. However…
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Demand for Online Distance Learning
US Distance Higher Education
http://nces.ed.gov/

80%
Undergraduate Courses
60%

40%

Institutions offering DL programs
20%
1994-95

1997-98

2000-01

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Demand for Online Distance Learning
Universities are targeting the population that will generate most revenue
and will embrace the ‘product’ for non-educational reasons, rather than
the population (small and quality-driven) that initiated the need.
Many on-campus students are participating in distance learning as a
way to solve course scheduling problems and/or speed up the degree
completion progress (Oregon University System; Golden et al., 2004),
resulting in an even more dramatic increase in the number of distance
learning enrollments and course offerings.
The growth rate of ODL offerings will continue to rise (Carnevale, 2004),
fueled by degree hunters who increase demand and by Universities who
recognize the immense cost cutting potential of (bad quality) DL, in spite of
the widely recognized failure to yet produce good quality DL (e.g. Zemsky
& Massy, 2004) and alarming reports of Accreditation officials having
obtained PhD degrees from DL degree mills (Bartlett, 2004).
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning & Faculty
Faculty members often resist the move towards online
distance learning.
Possible reasons:

a) Alleged dislike, fear, and/or ignorance of the relevant
technology; a “…confusion and nonsense disseminated by
those who would protect status quo…”. (Poley, 2003)
b) Faculty are often thrown into a ODL situation by University
programs eager to compete in the ODL market, without
being offered the necessary tools to do the job.
c) ODL seems, at least on the surface, to go against the very
essence of a learning event: communication.
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning & Faculty
Learning is a fundamentally social activity (review in Wang, 2004).
ODL advocates see the ePortofolio explosion as a recognition of this fact.
Learning relies heavily on communication among participants; on dialogue,
exchange of ideas, argumentation, feedback, and the readjustment of our
position, whatever this may have been prior to entering the learning event.
Communication involves facial expressions, gestures, tone of voice, and
(almost) instantaneous feedback. It is the immediacy in dialogue that can
a) prevent instances of misunderstanding from escalating,
b) support the continuous adjustment in the way a learning event progresses,
necessary to accommodate changes in the learning environment at hand.
Social presence and interaction affect course outcomes as well as course
satisfaction (Moore et al., 1996; Richardson & Swan, 2003; Pelz, 2004).
Drop-out rates are consistently higher in ODL vs. traditional courses (IHEP)
ODL students may experience social isolation. The students who need the
most help in DL courses do not ask for it (Levy, 2003).
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Can ODL support this kind of learning event?
Over 100 books in print published in the last two years
Over 100 online books
Over 10 scholarly journals dealing exclusively with the topic
Amazon has over 200 entries
Over 30 consortia publish their own journals, books, and
conference proceedings
Common themes:
I.

Communication, interactivity, feedback, identified as the major
challenges (e.g. Poley, 2001, 2002; Deubel, 2003; USC Academic
Senate, Whitepaper, Newsletter).

II. Often, there is no explicit reference to advances within education
research in general.
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Common Themes of Powerful Learning Experiences
Thinking outside the box.
Interaction not Interactivity (Phipps & Merisotis, 1999; Wang, 2004)
Learners
link powerful
learning
experiences
to events
that involve
It is questioned
whether
deep
understanding
of difficult
interaction,
whether
the instructor
or2004
other
students.
Pelz
(2004)
&with
several
SLATE
papers
Virtual
Classroom
material—beyond
amassing
facts—can
occur
in the absence
What
most
memorable
is the
actual event of understanding
that
ofissame-time
same-place
interaction.
[e.g.
Gersten,
2004;
Scheidenhelm,
2004]
takes
place ineducation
dialogue, should
changing
those
whoavailable
participate.
Distance
utilize
every
opportunity
Interaction
& Presence
to bring–students
faculty
together.
Relevance
Workingand
towards
shared
goals.
and
office
hours
American
Federation
of Teachers
2000 Report
The
dynamics
of a classroom
may not (May
be replicable
in a – May
Engagement
(physical
orready
mental)
2001
Report):
(IVC
technology
not
– Kesley
& D’Souza,
Digital
Multimedia
distance
education
setting
(Kelsey
& D’Souza,
2004).2004)

Scheduled virtual class meetings

Encouragement
Encourage the development of powerful new learning and
teaching/environments
Challenge
Confidence - in the longer term (Levin et al., 1999),
that significantly
enhance
learning (Goldenberg et al., 2004).
Making
failure a learning
experience
Empowerment
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

The Power and Challenge of Multimedia
Information delivery (images, audio, video, animations)
Example 1 Example 2 Example 3 Example 4
Interactivity (applets, simulations)
Example 1 Example 2 Example 3 Example 4
Task completion (applets, simulations, applications)
Example 1 Example 2

Time-consuming – Require specialized skills
Many have already been created – Locate (edit) and implement
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

In the meantime…
Develop rigorous evaluation and control
processes to assure that distance education
programs comply with high academic standards.

Apply quality control to academic content as well
as delivery method and student support services.
Provide faculty with comprehensive educational
technology support and (user) training prior to
assigning them to ODL courses.

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Conclusions
• The current state of the Universities’ infrastructure and
administration, the faculty and student technical skills, and to some
extend the related technology does not yet support the creation of
distance learning environments that can adequately replace face to
face instruction. Benchmarks for successful ODL put forward by the
IHEP need to be taken very seriously.
• Online supplements to face to face courses can significantly
enhance the educational experience of students, especially through
the use of sophisticated, multimedia digital learning objects, many of
which have already been created.
• One of our tasks should be to locate, collect, and make available
such learning objects to instructional designers, ideally through a
centralized searchable process, followed by a continuous
development and financial backing of an expert and reliable support
system that will help faculty identify relevant resources and
efficiently and creatively incorporate them to their instruction.
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

References
•

Bartlett, T. (2004). Member of Accrediting Group Has Ph.D. From 'Notorious
Diploma Mill‘. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 50(30): A.29.

•

Carnevale, D. (2004). Distance education: Keeping up with exploding demand. The
Chronicle of Higher Education, 50(21): B.8.

•

Carnevale, D. (2004). For online adjuncts: A seller’s market. The Chronicle of Higher
Education, 50(34): A.31.

•

Cox, G. M. (2001). Strategic Planning and Implementation: The Challenge of
Adapting Organizations and Creating Partnerships to Target New Markets. University
Teaching as e-Business research project. Center for Studies in Higher Education.
UC Berkeley.

•

Bleek, J. (2004). Internet Academy. [Washington.] No Child Left Behind Leadership
Summit: Increasing Options Through e-Learning. US Department of Education.

•

Bower, B. L. (2001). Distance Education: Facing the Faculty Challenge. Online
Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 4(2).

•

Deubel, P. (2003). Learning from reflections - Issues in building quality online
courses. Online Journal Distance Learning Administration, 6(3).

•

Golden, M., Wicks, M., and Williams, L. (2004). Why virtual schools are gaining
popularity. No Child Left Behind Leadership Summit: Increasing Options Through eLearning. US Department of Education.

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

References (cont.)
•

Goldenberg, L., Heinze, J., and Ba, H. (2004). What Students Say about Learning
Science with Multiple Media. 25th NECC.

•

Kelsey, D. K. and D’Souza, A. (2004). Student motivation for learning at a distance:
Does interaction matter? OJDLA, 7(2).

•

Lapiner, R. (2001). Strategic Planning and Implementation: The Challenge of
Adapting Organizations and Creating Partnerships to Target New Markets. University
Teaching as e-Business research project. Center for Studies in Higher Education. UC
Berkeley.

•

Levin, J., Levin, S. R., and Waddoups, G. (1999). Multiplicity in learning and
teaching: A framework for developing innovative online education. Journal of
Research on Computing in Education, 32(2): 256-269.

•

Levy, S. (2003). Six Factors to Consider when Planning Online Distance Learning
Programs in Higher Education. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration,
6(1).

•

Moore, A., Masterson, J. T., Christophel, D. M., and Shea, K. A. (1996). College
teacher immediacy and student ratings of instruction. Communication Education, 45:
29-39.

•

Oblinger, D. G., Barone, C. A., and Hawkins, B. L. (2001). Distributed education
and its challenges: An overview. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education
and EDUCAUSE.

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

References (cont.)
•

•
•
•

•
•

Pelz, B. (2004). (My) Three principles of effective online pedagogy. Journal of
Asynchronous Learning Networks, 8(3).
Phipps, R. and Merisotis, J. (1999). What’s the difference? A review of contemporary
research on the effectiveness of distance learning in higher education. The Institute for
Higher Education Policy. Washington, DC.
Poley, J. (2001). Digital learning and libraries: Toward consortia and collaboratories
Presentation at NIT. Beijing,China.
Poley, J. (2002). Distance education themes and trends. Ohio State Megaconference.
Columbus, Ohio.
Poley, J. (2003). Distance Education Everywhere (not “online” learning):
Myths, Realities and Possibilities. 5th Annual International Symposium on Advanced
Radio Technologies (ISART).
Rahm, D. (1998). Tangled Webs In Public Administration: Organizational Issues In
Distance Learning. Public Administration & Management Interactive Journal, 3(1).

•

Richardson J. C. and Swan, K. (2003). Examining social presence in online courses
in relation to student’s perceived learning and satisfaction. Journal of Asynchronous
Learning Networks, 7(1).

•

Wang, H. (2004). Investigating, exploring, and promoting interaction in web-based
learning. 25th NECC.

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

References (cont.)
•

Young, K., Anderson, A., Eller, Am., Eller, An., Pounds, J., and Rashad, V.
(2004). What is possible in virtual education? Experiences empowering a
quality education for each learner. [Florida learning alliance.] No Child Left
Behind Leadership Summit: Increasing Options Through e-Learning. US
Department of Education.

•

Zemsky, R, Massy, W. F. (2004). Why the e-learning boom went bust. The
Chronicle of Higher Education, 50(44): B.6.

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004


Slide 18

Instructional design
in online environments:
Challenges and possibilities

Pantelis Vassilakis PhD
DePaul University
ITD – Libraries – School of Music

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Basic Premises
• The possibility for Online Distance
Learning (ODL) represents the most
exciting educational development in
decades.
• To date, the most positive aspect of the
ongoing ODL explosive growth has
been the application of the related
technology to online supplements,
which currently accompany the vast
majority of face-to-face courses.
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Q. What is wrong with
Online Distance Learning?
A. Its explosion is arguably led by the
wrong group (administrators vs. educators)
and is driven by the wrong motivations.
1. Main ODL advocates are administrators, who often do not fully
understand the new technology and the issues facing
instructors and students, and are not aware of the impact they
can have on creating positive changes in ODL.
[Dillon & Cintron, 1997; Wenzel, 1999; Dooley & Murphrey,
2000; (in Levy, 2003); Rahm, 1998; Bower, 2001; Kambutu,
2002; Levy, 2003; University of Minnesota - Extension service;
Kansas State University )

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Q. What is wrong with
Online Distance Learning?
A. Its explosion is arguably led by the
wrong group (administrators vs. educators)
and is driven by the wrong motivations
2. Planning for ODL usually focuses on
a) budget and personnel, rather than critical pedagogic issues
b) creating an attractive product for a target population (degree
seekers) at a minimal cost, rather than an improved educational
experience.

(Bates, 2000; Berge & Smith, 2000; Bothel, 2001; Levy, 2003;
AFT May 2001 Report)

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Q. What is wrong with
Online Distance Learning?
A. Its explosion is arguably led by the
wrong group (administrators vs. educators)
and is driven by the wrong motivations
3. ODL is approached as means to compensate for the fact that
constant growth in college-age population will soon result in more
students than University facilities can accommodate (Olinger et
al., 2001).
4. ODL is often seen as a possibly profitable auxiliary university
business (Lapiner, 2001), occasionally outsourced to for-profit
organizations (Cox, 2001).

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Q. What is wrong with
Online Distance Learning?
A. Its explosion is arguably led by the
wrong group (administrators vs. educators)
and is driven by the wrong motivations
5. University Strategic Plans and other resources cite market
pressure, the need to remain competitive, increased enrollment /
revenue, and decreased cost as some of the reasons for
aggressively promoting ODL, expecting a 20-25% annual
increase in DE enrollment, often without prior planning for
appropriate academic and technical support. This reflects a
concern with corporate survival/growth issues rather than
instructional design improvement.
(USC Academic Senate, 1991 & 2001 white papers; Texas
Technical University current Strategic Plan; New Mexico State
University current Strategic Plan)
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Q. What is wrong with
Online Distance Learning?
A. Its explosion is arguably driven by the
wrong group (administrators vs. educators)
and is driven by the wrong motivations
6. Private organizations/corporations advocate implementation of ODL
to meet standards compliance, citing cost decrease as the main
advantage and its use in Higher Education as the main justification.
7. Higher education institutions are also basing their overall ODL
development on cost rather educational considerations. In their
majority, ODL courses are assigned to ‘cost effective’ adjunct faculty,
(Carnevale, 2004) who also face inflated enrollments. Course quality
is not monitored closely, especially in established institutions that often
let their ODL offerings ride on their ‘brand name’ reputation, without
supporting them by the resources that earned them this reputation.
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning is a Reality

An average of ~ 6% of US University degree
programs are offered exclusively online.

Over 50% of institutions offer exclusive or
alternative online versions of courses.

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning is a Reality

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning is a Reality
OUS - Internet-Based Distance Learning
http://www.ous.edu/de_stat.htm
1600
Courses
1300

Enrollment (x 10)

1000

700

400

100
1998-99

1999-00

2000-01

2001-02

2002-03

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning is a Reality
Online Distance Learning Market Growth
http://nces.ed.gov/ - http://www.aft.org/
10

Billion US $

8
6
4
2
0
1998-99

1999-00

2000-01

2001-02

2002-03

2003-04
(E)

2004-05
(E)

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning is a Reality
Proportion of Online Programs
10%

8%

6%

4%

2%

0%
DePaul (135)

ASU (270)

UCLA (318)

UWM (400)

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Demand for Online Distance Learning
The explosive growth of online learning over the last 10 years
has occurred in response to continuously increasing demand.
The demand reflects a partly artificial need, driven by the
Universities themselves. The number of degrees conferred by
Universities is constantly increasing, ‘flooding’ the workforce and
making the possession of degree a must for almost any type of
employment.
Lifelong Learning and graduate education were supposed to be
the core areas of distance learning, resulting in a clientele largely
made out of so-called adult students (Bleek, 2004; Young et al.,
2004). The National Center for Education Statistics confirms that
such students are more likely than their counterparts to participate
in distance education. However…
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Demand for Online Distance Learning
US Distance Higher Education
http://nces.ed.gov/

80%
Undergraduate Courses
60%

40%

Institutions offering DL programs
20%
1994-95

1997-98

2000-01

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Demand for Online Distance Learning
Universities are targeting the population that will generate most revenue
and will embrace the ‘product’ for non-educational reasons, rather than
the population (small and quality-driven) that initiated the need.
Many on-campus students are participating in distance learning as a
way to solve course scheduling problems and/or speed up the degree
completion progress (Oregon University System; Golden et al., 2004),
resulting in an even more dramatic increase in the number of distance
learning enrollments and course offerings.
The growth rate of ODL offerings will continue to rise (Carnevale, 2004),
fueled by degree hunters who increase demand and by Universities who
recognize the immense cost cutting potential of (bad quality) DL, in spite of
the widely recognized failure to yet produce good quality DL (e.g. Zemsky
& Massy, 2004) and alarming reports of Accreditation officials having
obtained PhD degrees from DL degree mills (Bartlett, 2004).
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning & Faculty
Faculty members often resist the move towards online
distance learning.
Possible reasons:

a) Alleged dislike, fear, and/or ignorance of the relevant
technology; a “…confusion and nonsense disseminated by
those who would protect status quo…”. (Poley, 2003)
b) Faculty are often thrown into a ODL situation by University
programs eager to compete in the ODL market, without
being offered the necessary tools to do the job.
c) ODL seems, at least on the surface, to go against the very
essence of a learning event: communication.
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning & Faculty
Learning is a fundamentally social activity (review in Wang, 2004).
ODL advocates see the ePortofolio explosion as a recognition of this fact.
Learning relies heavily on communication among participants; on dialogue,
exchange of ideas, argumentation, feedback, and the readjustment of our
position, whatever this may have been prior to entering the learning event.
Communication involves facial expressions, gestures, tone of voice, and
(almost) instantaneous feedback. It is the immediacy in dialogue that can
a) prevent instances of misunderstanding from escalating,
b) support the continuous adjustment in the way a learning event progresses,
necessary to accommodate changes in the learning environment at hand.
Social presence and interaction affect course outcomes as well as course
satisfaction (Moore et al., 1996; Richardson & Swan, 2003; Pelz, 2004).
Drop-out rates are consistently higher in ODL vs. traditional courses (IHEP)
ODL students may experience social isolation. The students who need the
most help in DL courses do not ask for it (Levy, 2003).
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Can ODL support this kind of learning event?
Over 100 books in print published in the last two years
Over 100 online books
Over 10 scholarly journals dealing exclusively with the topic
Amazon has over 200 entries
Over 30 consortia publish their own journals, books, and
conference proceedings
Common themes:
I.

Communication, interactivity, feedback, identified as the major
challenges (e.g. Poley, 2001, 2002; Deubel, 2003; USC Academic
Senate, Whitepaper, Newsletter).

II. Often, there is no explicit reference to advances within education
research in general.
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Common Themes of Powerful Learning Experiences
Thinking outside the box.
Interaction not Interactivity (Phipps & Merisotis, 1999; Wang, 2004)
Learners
link powerful
learning
experiences
to events
that involve
It is questioned
whether
deep
understanding
of difficult
interaction,
whether
the instructor
or2004
other
students.
Pelz
(2004)
&with
several
SLATE
papers
Virtual
Classroom
material—beyond
amassing
facts—can
occur
in the absence
What
most
memorable
is the
actual event of understanding
that
ofissame-time
same-place
interaction.
[e.g.
Gersten,
2004;
Scheidenhelm,
2004]
takes
place ineducation
dialogue, should
changing
those
whoavailable
participate.
Distance
utilize
every
opportunity
Interaction
& Presence
to bring–students
faculty
together.
Relevance
Workingand
towards
shared
goals.
and
office
hours
American
Federation
of Teachers
2000 Report
The
dynamics
of a classroom
may not (May
be replicable
in a – May
Engagement
(physical
orready
mental)
2001
Report):
(IVC
technology
not
– Kesley
& D’Souza,
Digital
Multimedia
distance
education
setting
(Kelsey
& D’Souza,
2004).2004)

Scheduled virtual class meetings

Encouragement
Encourage the development of powerful new learning and
teaching/environments
Challenge
Confidence - in the longer term (Levin et al., 1999),
that significantly
enhance
learning (Goldenberg et al., 2004).
Making
failure a learning
experience
Empowerment
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

The Power and Challenge of Multimedia
Information delivery (images, audio, video, animations)
Example 1 Example 2 Example 3 Example 4
Interactivity (applets, simulations)
Example 1 Example 2 Example 3 Example 4
Task completion (applets, simulations, applications)
Example 1 Example 2

Time-consuming – Require specialized skills
Many have already been created – Locate (edit) and implement
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

In the meantime…
Develop rigorous evaluation and control
processes to assure that distance education
programs comply with high academic standards.

Apply quality control to academic content as well
as delivery method and student support services.
Provide faculty with comprehensive educational
technology support and (user) training prior to
assigning them to ODL courses.

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Conclusions
• The current state of the Universities’ infrastructure and
administration, the faculty and student technical skills, and to some
extend the related technology does not yet support the creation of
distance learning environments that can adequately replace face to
face instruction. Benchmarks for successful ODL put forward by the
IHEP need to be taken very seriously.
• Online supplements to face to face courses can significantly
enhance the educational experience of students, especially through
the use of sophisticated, multimedia digital learning objects, many of
which have already been created.
• One of our tasks should be to locate, collect, and make available
such learning objects to instructional designers, ideally through a
centralized searchable process, followed by a continuous
development and financial backing of an expert and reliable support
system that will help faculty identify relevant resources and
efficiently and creatively incorporate them to their instruction.
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

References
•

Bartlett, T. (2004). Member of Accrediting Group Has Ph.D. From 'Notorious
Diploma Mill‘. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 50(30): A.29.

•

Carnevale, D. (2004). Distance education: Keeping up with exploding demand. The
Chronicle of Higher Education, 50(21): B.8.

•

Carnevale, D. (2004). For online adjuncts: A seller’s market. The Chronicle of Higher
Education, 50(34): A.31.

•

Cox, G. M. (2001). Strategic Planning and Implementation: The Challenge of
Adapting Organizations and Creating Partnerships to Target New Markets. University
Teaching as e-Business research project. Center for Studies in Higher Education.
UC Berkeley.

•

Bleek, J. (2004). Internet Academy. [Washington.] No Child Left Behind Leadership
Summit: Increasing Options Through e-Learning. US Department of Education.

•

Bower, B. L. (2001). Distance Education: Facing the Faculty Challenge. Online
Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 4(2).

•

Deubel, P. (2003). Learning from reflections - Issues in building quality online
courses. Online Journal Distance Learning Administration, 6(3).

•

Golden, M., Wicks, M., and Williams, L. (2004). Why virtual schools are gaining
popularity. No Child Left Behind Leadership Summit: Increasing Options Through eLearning. US Department of Education.

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

References (cont.)
•

Goldenberg, L., Heinze, J., and Ba, H. (2004). What Students Say about Learning
Science with Multiple Media. 25th NECC.

•

Kelsey, D. K. and D’Souza, A. (2004). Student motivation for learning at a distance:
Does interaction matter? OJDLA, 7(2).

•

Lapiner, R. (2001). Strategic Planning and Implementation: The Challenge of
Adapting Organizations and Creating Partnerships to Target New Markets. University
Teaching as e-Business research project. Center for Studies in Higher Education. UC
Berkeley.

•

Levin, J., Levin, S. R., and Waddoups, G. (1999). Multiplicity in learning and
teaching: A framework for developing innovative online education. Journal of
Research on Computing in Education, 32(2): 256-269.

•

Levy, S. (2003). Six Factors to Consider when Planning Online Distance Learning
Programs in Higher Education. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration,
6(1).

•

Moore, A., Masterson, J. T., Christophel, D. M., and Shea, K. A. (1996). College
teacher immediacy and student ratings of instruction. Communication Education, 45:
29-39.

•

Oblinger, D. G., Barone, C. A., and Hawkins, B. L. (2001). Distributed education
and its challenges: An overview. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education
and EDUCAUSE.

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

References (cont.)
•

•
•
•

•
•

Pelz, B. (2004). (My) Three principles of effective online pedagogy. Journal of
Asynchronous Learning Networks, 8(3).
Phipps, R. and Merisotis, J. (1999). What’s the difference? A review of contemporary
research on the effectiveness of distance learning in higher education. The Institute for
Higher Education Policy. Washington, DC.
Poley, J. (2001). Digital learning and libraries: Toward consortia and collaboratories
Presentation at NIT. Beijing,China.
Poley, J. (2002). Distance education themes and trends. Ohio State Megaconference.
Columbus, Ohio.
Poley, J. (2003). Distance Education Everywhere (not “online” learning):
Myths, Realities and Possibilities. 5th Annual International Symposium on Advanced
Radio Technologies (ISART).
Rahm, D. (1998). Tangled Webs In Public Administration: Organizational Issues In
Distance Learning. Public Administration & Management Interactive Journal, 3(1).

•

Richardson J. C. and Swan, K. (2003). Examining social presence in online courses
in relation to student’s perceived learning and satisfaction. Journal of Asynchronous
Learning Networks, 7(1).

•

Wang, H. (2004). Investigating, exploring, and promoting interaction in web-based
learning. 25th NECC.

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

References (cont.)
•

Young, K., Anderson, A., Eller, Am., Eller, An., Pounds, J., and Rashad, V.
(2004). What is possible in virtual education? Experiences empowering a
quality education for each learner. [Florida learning alliance.] No Child Left
Behind Leadership Summit: Increasing Options Through e-Learning. US
Department of Education.

•

Zemsky, R, Massy, W. F. (2004). Why the e-learning boom went bust. The
Chronicle of Higher Education, 50(44): B.6.

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004


Slide 19

Instructional design
in online environments:
Challenges and possibilities

Pantelis Vassilakis PhD
DePaul University
ITD – Libraries – School of Music

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Basic Premises
• The possibility for Online Distance
Learning (ODL) represents the most
exciting educational development in
decades.
• To date, the most positive aspect of the
ongoing ODL explosive growth has
been the application of the related
technology to online supplements,
which currently accompany the vast
majority of face-to-face courses.
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Q. What is wrong with
Online Distance Learning?
A. Its explosion is arguably led by the
wrong group (administrators vs. educators)
and is driven by the wrong motivations.
1. Main ODL advocates are administrators, who often do not fully
understand the new technology and the issues facing
instructors and students, and are not aware of the impact they
can have on creating positive changes in ODL.
[Dillon & Cintron, 1997; Wenzel, 1999; Dooley & Murphrey,
2000; (in Levy, 2003); Rahm, 1998; Bower, 2001; Kambutu,
2002; Levy, 2003; University of Minnesota - Extension service;
Kansas State University )

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Q. What is wrong with
Online Distance Learning?
A. Its explosion is arguably led by the
wrong group (administrators vs. educators)
and is driven by the wrong motivations
2. Planning for ODL usually focuses on
a) budget and personnel, rather than critical pedagogic issues
b) creating an attractive product for a target population (degree
seekers) at a minimal cost, rather than an improved educational
experience.

(Bates, 2000; Berge & Smith, 2000; Bothel, 2001; Levy, 2003;
AFT May 2001 Report)

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Q. What is wrong with
Online Distance Learning?
A. Its explosion is arguably led by the
wrong group (administrators vs. educators)
and is driven by the wrong motivations
3. ODL is approached as means to compensate for the fact that
constant growth in college-age population will soon result in more
students than University facilities can accommodate (Olinger et
al., 2001).
4. ODL is often seen as a possibly profitable auxiliary university
business (Lapiner, 2001), occasionally outsourced to for-profit
organizations (Cox, 2001).

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Q. What is wrong with
Online Distance Learning?
A. Its explosion is arguably led by the
wrong group (administrators vs. educators)
and is driven by the wrong motivations
5. University Strategic Plans and other resources cite market
pressure, the need to remain competitive, increased enrollment /
revenue, and decreased cost as some of the reasons for
aggressively promoting ODL, expecting a 20-25% annual
increase in DE enrollment, often without prior planning for
appropriate academic and technical support. This reflects a
concern with corporate survival/growth issues rather than
instructional design improvement.
(USC Academic Senate, 1991 & 2001 white papers; Texas
Technical University current Strategic Plan; New Mexico State
University current Strategic Plan)
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Q. What is wrong with
Online Distance Learning?
A. Its explosion is arguably driven by the
wrong group (administrators vs. educators)
and is driven by the wrong motivations
6. Private organizations/corporations advocate implementation of ODL
to meet standards compliance, citing cost decrease as the main
advantage and its use in Higher Education as the main justification.
7. Higher education institutions are also basing their overall ODL
development on cost rather educational considerations. In their
majority, ODL courses are assigned to ‘cost effective’ adjunct faculty,
(Carnevale, 2004) who also face inflated enrollments. Course quality
is not monitored closely, especially in established institutions that often
let their ODL offerings ride on their ‘brand name’ reputation, without
supporting them by the resources that earned them this reputation.
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning is a Reality

An average of ~ 6% of US University degree
programs are offered exclusively online.

Over 50% of institutions offer exclusive or
alternative online versions of courses.

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning is a Reality

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning is a Reality
OUS - Internet-Based Distance Learning
http://www.ous.edu/de_stat.htm
1600
Courses
1300

Enrollment (x 10)

1000

700

400

100
1998-99

1999-00

2000-01

2001-02

2002-03

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning is a Reality
Online Distance Learning Market Growth
http://nces.ed.gov/ - http://www.aft.org/
10

Billion US $

8
6
4
2
0
1998-99

1999-00

2000-01

2001-02

2002-03

2003-04
(E)

2004-05
(E)

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning is a Reality
Proportion of Online Programs
10%

8%

6%

4%

2%

0%
DePaul (135)

ASU (270)

UCLA (318)

UWM (400)

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Demand for Online Distance Learning
The explosive growth of online learning over the last 10 years
has occurred in response to continuously increasing demand.
The demand reflects a partly artificial need, driven by the
Universities themselves. The number of degrees conferred by
Universities is constantly increasing, ‘flooding’ the workforce and
making the possession of degree a must for almost any type of
employment.
Lifelong Learning and graduate education were supposed to be
the core areas of distance learning, resulting in a clientele largely
made out of so-called adult students (Bleek, 2004; Young et al.,
2004). The National Center for Education Statistics confirms that
such students are more likely than their counterparts to participate
in distance education. However…
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Demand for Online Distance Learning
US Distance Higher Education
http://nces.ed.gov/

80%
Undergraduate Courses
60%

40%

Institutions offering DL programs
20%
1994-95

1997-98

2000-01

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Demand for Online Distance Learning
Universities are targeting the population that will generate most revenue
and will embrace the ‘product’ for non-educational reasons, rather than
the population (small and quality-driven) that initiated the need.
Many on-campus students are participating in distance learning as a
way to solve course scheduling problems and/or speed up the degree
completion progress (Oregon University System; Golden et al., 2004),
resulting in an even more dramatic increase in the number of distance
learning enrollments and course offerings.
The growth rate of ODL offerings will continue to rise (Carnevale, 2004),
fueled by degree hunters who increase demand and by Universities who
recognize the immense cost cutting potential of (bad quality) DL, in spite of
the widely recognized failure to yet produce good quality DL (e.g. Zemsky
& Massy, 2004) and alarming reports of Accreditation officials having
obtained PhD degrees from DL degree mills (Bartlett, 2004).
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning & Faculty
Faculty members often resist the move towards online
distance learning.
Possible reasons:

a) Alleged dislike, fear, and/or ignorance of the relevant
technology; a “…confusion and nonsense disseminated by
those who would protect status quo…”. (Poley, 2003)
b) Faculty are often thrown into a ODL situation by University
programs eager to compete in the ODL market, without
being offered the necessary tools to do the job.
c) ODL seems, at least on the surface, to go against the very
essence of a learning event: communication.
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning & Faculty
Learning is a fundamentally social activity (review in Wang, 2004).
ODL advocates see the ePortofolio explosion as a recognition of this fact.
Learning relies heavily on communication among participants; on dialogue,
exchange of ideas, argumentation, feedback, and the readjustment of our
position, whatever this may have been prior to entering the learning event.
Communication involves facial expressions, gestures, tone of voice, and
(almost) instantaneous feedback. It is the immediacy in dialogue that can
a) prevent instances of misunderstanding from escalating,
b) support the continuous adjustment in the way a learning event progresses,
necessary to accommodate changes in the learning environment at hand.
Social presence and interaction affect course outcomes as well as course
satisfaction (Moore et al., 1996; Richardson & Swan, 2003; Pelz, 2004).
Drop-out rates are consistently higher in ODL vs. traditional courses (IHEP)
ODL students may experience social isolation. The students who need the
most help in DL courses do not ask for it (Levy, 2003).
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Can ODL support this kind of learning event?
Over 100 books in print published in the last two years
Over 100 online books
Over 10 scholarly journals dealing exclusively with the topic
Amazon has over 200 entries
Over 30 consortia publish their own journals, books, and
conference proceedings
Common themes:
I.

Communication, interactivity, feedback, identified as the major
challenges (e.g. Poley, 2001, 2002; Deubel, 2003; USC Academic
Senate, Whitepaper, Newsletter).

II. Often, there is no explicit reference to advances within education
research in general.
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Common Themes of Powerful Learning Experiences
Thinking outside the box.
Interaction not Interactivity (Phipps & Merisotis, 1999; Wang, 2004)
Learners
link powerful
learning
experiences
to events
that involve
It is questioned
whether
deep
understanding
of difficult
interaction,
whether
the instructor
or2004
other
students.
Pelz
(2004)
&with
several
SLATE
papers
Virtual
Classroom
material—beyond
amassing
facts—can
occur
in the absence
What
most
memorable
is the
actual event of understanding
that
ofissame-time
same-place
interaction.
[e.g.
Gersten,
2004;
Scheidenhelm,
2004]
takes
place ineducation
dialogue, should
changing
those
whoavailable
participate.
Distance
utilize
every
opportunity
Interaction
& Presence
to bring–students
faculty
together.
Relevance
Workingand
towards
shared
goals.
and
office
hours
American
Federation
of Teachers
2000 Report
The
dynamics
of a classroom
may not (May
be replicable
in a – May
Engagement
(physical
orready
mental)
2001
Report):
(IVC
technology
not
– Kesley
& D’Souza,
Digital
Multimedia
distance
education
setting
(Kelsey
& D’Souza,
2004).2004)

Scheduled virtual class meetings

Encouragement
Encourage the development of powerful new learning and
teaching/environments
Challenge
Confidence - in the longer term (Levin et al., 1999),
that significantly
enhance
learning (Goldenberg et al., 2004).
Making
failure a learning
experience
Empowerment
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

The Power and Challenge of Multimedia
Information delivery (images, audio, video, animations)
Example 1 Example 2 Example 3 Example 4
Interactivity (applets, simulations)
Example 1 Example 2 Example 3 Example 4
Task completion (applets, simulations, applications)
Example 1 Example 2

Time-consuming – Require specialized skills
Many have already been created – Locate (edit) and implement
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

In the meantime…
Develop rigorous evaluation and control
processes to assure that distance education
programs comply with high academic standards.

Apply quality control to academic content as well
as delivery method and student support services.
Provide faculty with comprehensive educational
technology support and (user) training prior to
assigning them to ODL courses.

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Conclusions
• The current state of the Universities’ infrastructure and
administration, the faculty and student technical skills, and to some
extend the related technology does not yet support the creation of
distance learning environments that can adequately replace face to
face instruction. Benchmarks for successful ODL put forward by the
IHEP need to be taken very seriously.
• Online supplements to face to face courses can significantly
enhance the educational experience of students, especially through
the use of sophisticated, multimedia digital learning objects, many of
which have already been created.
• One of our tasks should be to locate, collect, and make available
such learning objects to instructional designers, ideally through a
centralized searchable process, followed by a continuous
development and financial backing of an expert and reliable support
system that will help faculty identify relevant resources and
efficiently and creatively incorporate them to their instruction.
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

References
•

Bartlett, T. (2004). Member of Accrediting Group Has Ph.D. From 'Notorious
Diploma Mill‘. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 50(30): A.29.

•

Carnevale, D. (2004). Distance education: Keeping up with exploding demand. The
Chronicle of Higher Education, 50(21): B.8.

•

Carnevale, D. (2004). For online adjuncts: A seller’s market. The Chronicle of Higher
Education, 50(34): A.31.

•

Cox, G. M. (2001). Strategic Planning and Implementation: The Challenge of
Adapting Organizations and Creating Partnerships to Target New Markets. University
Teaching as e-Business research project. Center for Studies in Higher Education.
UC Berkeley.

•

Bleek, J. (2004). Internet Academy. [Washington.] No Child Left Behind Leadership
Summit: Increasing Options Through e-Learning. US Department of Education.

•

Bower, B. L. (2001). Distance Education: Facing the Faculty Challenge. Online
Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 4(2).

•

Deubel, P. (2003). Learning from reflections - Issues in building quality online
courses. Online Journal Distance Learning Administration, 6(3).

•

Golden, M., Wicks, M., and Williams, L. (2004). Why virtual schools are gaining
popularity. No Child Left Behind Leadership Summit: Increasing Options Through eLearning. US Department of Education.

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

References (cont.)
•

Goldenberg, L., Heinze, J., and Ba, H. (2004). What Students Say about Learning
Science with Multiple Media. 25th NECC.

•

Kelsey, D. K. and D’Souza, A. (2004). Student motivation for learning at a distance:
Does interaction matter? OJDLA, 7(2).

•

Lapiner, R. (2001). Strategic Planning and Implementation: The Challenge of
Adapting Organizations and Creating Partnerships to Target New Markets. University
Teaching as e-Business research project. Center for Studies in Higher Education. UC
Berkeley.

•

Levin, J., Levin, S. R., and Waddoups, G. (1999). Multiplicity in learning and
teaching: A framework for developing innovative online education. Journal of
Research on Computing in Education, 32(2): 256-269.

•

Levy, S. (2003). Six Factors to Consider when Planning Online Distance Learning
Programs in Higher Education. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration,
6(1).

•

Moore, A., Masterson, J. T., Christophel, D. M., and Shea, K. A. (1996). College
teacher immediacy and student ratings of instruction. Communication Education, 45:
29-39.

•

Oblinger, D. G., Barone, C. A., and Hawkins, B. L. (2001). Distributed education
and its challenges: An overview. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education
and EDUCAUSE.

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

References (cont.)
•

•
•
•

•
•

Pelz, B. (2004). (My) Three principles of effective online pedagogy. Journal of
Asynchronous Learning Networks, 8(3).
Phipps, R. and Merisotis, J. (1999). What’s the difference? A review of contemporary
research on the effectiveness of distance learning in higher education. The Institute for
Higher Education Policy. Washington, DC.
Poley, J. (2001). Digital learning and libraries: Toward consortia and collaboratories
Presentation at NIT. Beijing,China.
Poley, J. (2002). Distance education themes and trends. Ohio State Megaconference.
Columbus, Ohio.
Poley, J. (2003). Distance Education Everywhere (not “online” learning):
Myths, Realities and Possibilities. 5th Annual International Symposium on Advanced
Radio Technologies (ISART).
Rahm, D. (1998). Tangled Webs In Public Administration: Organizational Issues In
Distance Learning. Public Administration & Management Interactive Journal, 3(1).

•

Richardson J. C. and Swan, K. (2003). Examining social presence in online courses
in relation to student’s perceived learning and satisfaction. Journal of Asynchronous
Learning Networks, 7(1).

•

Wang, H. (2004). Investigating, exploring, and promoting interaction in web-based
learning. 25th NECC.

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

References (cont.)
•

Young, K., Anderson, A., Eller, Am., Eller, An., Pounds, J., and Rashad, V.
(2004). What is possible in virtual education? Experiences empowering a
quality education for each learner. [Florida learning alliance.] No Child Left
Behind Leadership Summit: Increasing Options Through e-Learning. US
Department of Education.

•

Zemsky, R, Massy, W. F. (2004). Why the e-learning boom went bust. The
Chronicle of Higher Education, 50(44): B.6.

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004


Slide 20

Instructional design
in online environments:
Challenges and possibilities

Pantelis Vassilakis PhD
DePaul University
ITD – Libraries – School of Music

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Basic Premises
• The possibility for Online Distance
Learning (ODL) represents the most
exciting educational development in
decades.
• To date, the most positive aspect of the
ongoing ODL explosive growth has
been the application of the related
technology to online supplements,
which currently accompany the vast
majority of face-to-face courses.
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Q. What is wrong with
Online Distance Learning?
A. Its explosion is arguably led by the
wrong group (administrators vs. educators)
and is driven by the wrong motivations.
1. Main ODL advocates are administrators, who often do not fully
understand the new technology and the issues facing
instructors and students, and are not aware of the impact they
can have on creating positive changes in ODL.
[Dillon & Cintron, 1997; Wenzel, 1999; Dooley & Murphrey,
2000; (in Levy, 2003); Rahm, 1998; Bower, 2001; Kambutu,
2002; Levy, 2003; University of Minnesota - Extension service;
Kansas State University )

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Q. What is wrong with
Online Distance Learning?
A. Its explosion is arguably led by the
wrong group (administrators vs. educators)
and is driven by the wrong motivations
2. Planning for ODL usually focuses on
a) budget and personnel, rather than critical pedagogic issues
b) creating an attractive product for a target population (degree
seekers) at a minimal cost, rather than an improved educational
experience.

(Bates, 2000; Berge & Smith, 2000; Bothel, 2001; Levy, 2003;
AFT May 2001 Report)

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Q. What is wrong with
Online Distance Learning?
A. Its explosion is arguably led by the
wrong group (administrators vs. educators)
and is driven by the wrong motivations
3. ODL is approached as means to compensate for the fact that
constant growth in college-age population will soon result in more
students than University facilities can accommodate (Olinger et
al., 2001).
4. ODL is often seen as a possibly profitable auxiliary university
business (Lapiner, 2001), occasionally outsourced to for-profit
organizations (Cox, 2001).

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Q. What is wrong with
Online Distance Learning?
A. Its explosion is arguably led by the
wrong group (administrators vs. educators)
and is driven by the wrong motivations
5. University Strategic Plans and other resources cite market
pressure, the need to remain competitive, increased enrollment /
revenue, and decreased cost as some of the reasons for
aggressively promoting ODL, expecting a 20-25% annual
increase in DE enrollment, often without prior planning for
appropriate academic and technical support. This reflects a
concern with corporate survival/growth issues rather than
instructional design improvement.
(USC Academic Senate, 1991 & 2001 white papers; Texas
Technical University current Strategic Plan; New Mexico State
University current Strategic Plan)
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Q. What is wrong with
Online Distance Learning?
A. Its explosion is arguably driven by the
wrong group (administrators vs. educators)
and is driven by the wrong motivations
6. Private organizations/corporations advocate implementation of ODL
to meet standards compliance, citing cost decrease as the main
advantage and its use in Higher Education as the main justification.
7. Higher education institutions are also basing their overall ODL
development on cost rather educational considerations. In their
majority, ODL courses are assigned to ‘cost effective’ adjunct faculty,
(Carnevale, 2004) who also face inflated enrollments. Course quality
is not monitored closely, especially in established institutions that often
let their ODL offerings ride on their ‘brand name’ reputation, without
supporting them by the resources that earned them this reputation.
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning is a Reality

An average of ~ 6% of US University degree
programs are offered exclusively online.

Over 50% of institutions offer exclusive or
alternative online versions of courses.

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning is a Reality

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning is a Reality
OUS - Internet-Based Distance Learning
http://www.ous.edu/de_stat.htm
1600
Courses
1300

Enrollment (x 10)

1000

700

400

100
1998-99

1999-00

2000-01

2001-02

2002-03

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning is a Reality
Online Distance Learning Market Growth
http://nces.ed.gov/ - http://www.aft.org/
10

Billion US $

8
6
4
2
0
1998-99

1999-00

2000-01

2001-02

2002-03

2003-04
(E)

2004-05
(E)

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning is a Reality
Proportion of Online Programs
10%

8%

6%

4%

2%

0%
DePaul (135)

ASU (270)

UCLA (318)

UWM (400)

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Demand for Online Distance Learning
The explosive growth of online learning over the last 10 years
has occurred in response to continuously increasing demand.
The demand reflects a partly artificial need, driven by the
Universities themselves. The number of degrees conferred by
Universities is constantly increasing, ‘flooding’ the workforce and
making the possession of degree a must for almost any type of
employment.
Lifelong Learning and graduate education were supposed to be
the core areas of distance learning, resulting in a clientele largely
made out of so-called adult students (Bleek, 2004; Young et al.,
2004). The National Center for Education Statistics confirms that
such students are more likely than their counterparts to participate
in distance education. However…
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Demand for Online Distance Learning
US Distance Higher Education
http://nces.ed.gov/

80%
Undergraduate Courses
60%

40%

Institutions offering DL programs
20%
1994-95

1997-98

2000-01

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Demand for Online Distance Learning
Universities are targeting the population that will generate most revenue
and will embrace the ‘product’ for non-educational reasons, rather than
the population (small and quality-driven) that initiated the need.
Many on-campus students are participating in distance learning as a
way to solve course scheduling problems and/or speed up the degree
completion progress (Oregon University System; Golden et al., 2004),
resulting in an even more dramatic increase in the number of distance
learning enrollments and course offerings.
The growth rate of ODL offerings will continue to rise (Carnevale, 2004),
fueled by degree hunters who increase demand and by Universities who
recognize the immense cost cutting potential of (bad quality) DL, in spite of
the widely recognized failure to yet produce good quality DL (e.g. Zemsky
& Massy, 2004) and alarming reports of Accreditation officials having
obtained PhD degrees from DL degree mills (Bartlett, 2004).
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning & Faculty
Faculty members often resist the move towards online
distance learning.
Possible reasons:

a) Alleged dislike, fear, and/or ignorance of the relevant
technology; a “…confusion and nonsense disseminated by
those who would protect status quo…”. (Poley, 2003)
b) Faculty are often thrown into a ODL situation by University
programs eager to compete in the ODL market, without
being offered the necessary tools to do the job.
c) ODL seems, at least on the surface, to go against the very
essence of a learning event: communication.
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning & Faculty
Learning is a fundamentally social activity (review in Wang, 2004).
ODL advocates see the ePortofolio explosion as a recognition of this fact.
Learning relies heavily on communication among participants; on dialogue,
exchange of ideas, argumentation, feedback, and the readjustment of our
position, whatever this may have been prior to entering the learning event.
Communication involves facial expressions, gestures, tone of voice, and
(almost) instantaneous feedback. It is the immediacy in dialogue that can
a) prevent instances of misunderstanding from escalating,
b) support the continuous adjustment in the way a learning event progresses,
necessary to accommodate changes in the learning environment at hand.
Social presence and interaction affect course outcomes as well as course
satisfaction (Moore et al., 1996; Richardson & Swan, 2003; Pelz, 2004).
Drop-out rates are consistently higher in ODL vs. traditional courses (IHEP)
ODL students may experience social isolation. The students who need the
most help in DL courses do not ask for it (Levy, 2003).
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Can ODL support this kind of learning event?
Over 100 books in print published in the last two years
Over 100 online books
Over 10 scholarly journals dealing exclusively with the topic
Amazon has over 200 entries
Over 30 consortia publish their own journals, books, and
conference proceedings
Common themes:
I.

Communication, interactivity, feedback, identified as the major
challenges (e.g. Poley, 2001, 2002; Deubel, 2003; USC Academic
Senate, Whitepaper, Newsletter).

II. Often, there is no explicit reference to advances within education
research in general.
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Common Themes of Powerful Learning Experiences
Thinking outside the box.
Interaction not Interactivity (Phipps & Merisotis, 1999; Wang, 2004)
Learners
link powerful
learning
experiences
to events
that involve
It is questioned
whether
deep
understanding
of difficult
interaction,
whether
the instructor
or2004
other
students.
Pelz
(2004)
&with
several
SLATE
papers
Virtual
Classroom
material—beyond
amassing
facts—can
occur
in the absence
What
most
memorable
is the
actual event of understanding
that
ofissame-time
same-place
interaction.
[e.g.
Gersten,
2004;
Scheidenhelm,
2004]
takes
place ineducation
dialogue, should
changing
those
whoavailable
participate.
Distance
utilize
every
opportunity
Interaction
& Presence
to bring–students
faculty
together.
Relevance
Workingand
towards
shared
goals.
and
office
hours
American
Federation
of Teachers
2000 Report
The
dynamics
of a classroom
may not (May
be replicable
in a – May
Engagement
(physical
orready
mental)
2001
Report):
(IVC
technology
not
– Kesley
& D’Souza,
Digital
Multimedia
distance
education
setting
(Kelsey
& D’Souza,
2004).2004)

Scheduled virtual class meetings

Encouragement
Encourage the development of powerful new learning and
teaching/environments
Challenge
Confidence - in the longer term (Levin et al., 1999),
that significantly
enhance
learning (Goldenberg et al., 2004).
Making
failure a learning
experience
Empowerment
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

The Power and Challenge of Multimedia
Information delivery (images, audio, video, animations)
Example 1 Example 2 Example 3 Example 4
Interactivity (applets, simulations)
Example 1 Example 2 Example 3 Example 4
Task completion (applets, simulations, applications)
Example 1 Example 2

Time-consuming – Require specialized skills
Many have already been created – Locate (edit) and implement
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

In the meantime…
Develop rigorous evaluation and control
processes to assure that distance education
programs comply with high academic standards.

Apply quality control to academic content as well
as delivery method and student support services.
Provide faculty with comprehensive educational
technology support and (user) training prior to
assigning them to ODL courses.

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Conclusions
• The current state of the Universities’ infrastructure and
administration, the faculty and student technical skills, and to some
extend the related technology does not yet support the creation of
distance learning environments that can adequately replace face to
face instruction. Benchmarks for successful ODL put forward by the
IHEP need to be taken very seriously.
• Online supplements to face to face courses can significantly
enhance the educational experience of students, especially through
the use of sophisticated, multimedia digital learning objects, many of
which have already been created.
• One of our tasks should be to locate, collect, and make available
such learning objects to instructional designers, ideally through a
centralized searchable process, followed by a continuous
development and financial backing of an expert and reliable support
system that will help faculty identify relevant resources and
efficiently and creatively incorporate them to their instruction.
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

References
•

Bartlett, T. (2004). Member of Accrediting Group Has Ph.D. From 'Notorious
Diploma Mill‘. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 50(30): A.29.

•

Carnevale, D. (2004). Distance education: Keeping up with exploding demand. The
Chronicle of Higher Education, 50(21): B.8.

•

Carnevale, D. (2004). For online adjuncts: A seller’s market. The Chronicle of Higher
Education, 50(34): A.31.

•

Cox, G. M. (2001). Strategic Planning and Implementation: The Challenge of
Adapting Organizations and Creating Partnerships to Target New Markets. University
Teaching as e-Business research project. Center for Studies in Higher Education.
UC Berkeley.

•

Bleek, J. (2004). Internet Academy. [Washington.] No Child Left Behind Leadership
Summit: Increasing Options Through e-Learning. US Department of Education.

•

Bower, B. L. (2001). Distance Education: Facing the Faculty Challenge. Online
Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 4(2).

•

Deubel, P. (2003). Learning from reflections - Issues in building quality online
courses. Online Journal Distance Learning Administration, 6(3).

•

Golden, M., Wicks, M., and Williams, L. (2004). Why virtual schools are gaining
popularity. No Child Left Behind Leadership Summit: Increasing Options Through eLearning. US Department of Education.

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

References (cont.)
•

Goldenberg, L., Heinze, J., and Ba, H. (2004). What Students Say about Learning
Science with Multiple Media. 25th NECC.

•

Kelsey, D. K. and D’Souza, A. (2004). Student motivation for learning at a distance:
Does interaction matter? OJDLA, 7(2).

•

Lapiner, R. (2001). Strategic Planning and Implementation: The Challenge of
Adapting Organizations and Creating Partnerships to Target New Markets. University
Teaching as e-Business research project. Center for Studies in Higher Education. UC
Berkeley.

•

Levin, J., Levin, S. R., and Waddoups, G. (1999). Multiplicity in learning and
teaching: A framework for developing innovative online education. Journal of
Research on Computing in Education, 32(2): 256-269.

•

Levy, S. (2003). Six Factors to Consider when Planning Online Distance Learning
Programs in Higher Education. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration,
6(1).

•

Moore, A., Masterson, J. T., Christophel, D. M., and Shea, K. A. (1996). College
teacher immediacy and student ratings of instruction. Communication Education, 45:
29-39.

•

Oblinger, D. G., Barone, C. A., and Hawkins, B. L. (2001). Distributed education
and its challenges: An overview. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education
and EDUCAUSE.

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

References (cont.)
•

•
•
•

•
•

Pelz, B. (2004). (My) Three principles of effective online pedagogy. Journal of
Asynchronous Learning Networks, 8(3).
Phipps, R. and Merisotis, J. (1999). What’s the difference? A review of contemporary
research on the effectiveness of distance learning in higher education. The Institute for
Higher Education Policy. Washington, DC.
Poley, J. (2001). Digital learning and libraries: Toward consortia and collaboratories
Presentation at NIT. Beijing,China.
Poley, J. (2002). Distance education themes and trends. Ohio State Megaconference.
Columbus, Ohio.
Poley, J. (2003). Distance Education Everywhere (not “online” learning):
Myths, Realities and Possibilities. 5th Annual International Symposium on Advanced
Radio Technologies (ISART).
Rahm, D. (1998). Tangled Webs In Public Administration: Organizational Issues In
Distance Learning. Public Administration & Management Interactive Journal, 3(1).

•

Richardson J. C. and Swan, K. (2003). Examining social presence in online courses
in relation to student’s perceived learning and satisfaction. Journal of Asynchronous
Learning Networks, 7(1).

•

Wang, H. (2004). Investigating, exploring, and promoting interaction in web-based
learning. 25th NECC.

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

References (cont.)
•

Young, K., Anderson, A., Eller, Am., Eller, An., Pounds, J., and Rashad, V.
(2004). What is possible in virtual education? Experiences empowering a
quality education for each learner. [Florida learning alliance.] No Child Left
Behind Leadership Summit: Increasing Options Through e-Learning. US
Department of Education.

•

Zemsky, R, Massy, W. F. (2004). Why the e-learning boom went bust. The
Chronicle of Higher Education, 50(44): B.6.

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004


Slide 21

Instructional design
in online environments:
Challenges and possibilities

Pantelis Vassilakis PhD
DePaul University
ITD – Libraries – School of Music

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Basic Premises
• The possibility for Online Distance
Learning (ODL) represents the most
exciting educational development in
decades.
• To date, the most positive aspect of the
ongoing ODL explosive growth has
been the application of the related
technology to online supplements,
which currently accompany the vast
majority of face-to-face courses.
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Q. What is wrong with
Online Distance Learning?
A. Its explosion is arguably led by the
wrong group (administrators vs. educators)
and is driven by the wrong motivations.
1. Main ODL advocates are administrators, who often do not fully
understand the new technology and the issues facing
instructors and students, and are not aware of the impact they
can have on creating positive changes in ODL.
[Dillon & Cintron, 1997; Wenzel, 1999; Dooley & Murphrey,
2000; (in Levy, 2003); Rahm, 1998; Bower, 2001; Kambutu,
2002; Levy, 2003; University of Minnesota - Extension service;
Kansas State University )

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Q. What is wrong with
Online Distance Learning?
A. Its explosion is arguably led by the
wrong group (administrators vs. educators)
and is driven by the wrong motivations
2. Planning for ODL usually focuses on
a) budget and personnel, rather than critical pedagogic issues
b) creating an attractive product for a target population (degree
seekers) at a minimal cost, rather than an improved educational
experience.

(Bates, 2000; Berge & Smith, 2000; Bothel, 2001; Levy, 2003;
AFT May 2001 Report)

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Q. What is wrong with
Online Distance Learning?
A. Its explosion is arguably led by the
wrong group (administrators vs. educators)
and is driven by the wrong motivations
3. ODL is approached as means to compensate for the fact that
constant growth in college-age population will soon result in more
students than University facilities can accommodate (Olinger et
al., 2001).
4. ODL is often seen as a possibly profitable auxiliary university
business (Lapiner, 2001), occasionally outsourced to for-profit
organizations (Cox, 2001).

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Q. What is wrong with
Online Distance Learning?
A. Its explosion is arguably led by the
wrong group (administrators vs. educators)
and is driven by the wrong motivations
5. University Strategic Plans and other resources cite market
pressure, the need to remain competitive, increased enrollment /
revenue, and decreased cost as some of the reasons for
aggressively promoting ODL, expecting a 20-25% annual
increase in DE enrollment, often without prior planning for
appropriate academic and technical support. This reflects a
concern with corporate survival/growth issues rather than
instructional design improvement.
(USC Academic Senate, 1991 & 2001 white papers; Texas
Technical University current Strategic Plan; New Mexico State
University current Strategic Plan)
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Q. What is wrong with
Online Distance Learning?
A. Its explosion is arguably driven by the
wrong group (administrators vs. educators)
and is driven by the wrong motivations
6. Private organizations/corporations advocate implementation of ODL
to meet standards compliance, citing cost decrease as the main
advantage and its use in Higher Education as the main justification.
7. Higher education institutions are also basing their overall ODL
development on cost rather educational considerations. In their
majority, ODL courses are assigned to ‘cost effective’ adjunct faculty,
(Carnevale, 2004) who also face inflated enrollments. Course quality
is not monitored closely, especially in established institutions that often
let their ODL offerings ride on their ‘brand name’ reputation, without
supporting them by the resources that earned them this reputation.
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning is a Reality

An average of ~ 6% of US University degree
programs are offered exclusively online.

Over 50% of institutions offer exclusive or
alternative online versions of courses.

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning is a Reality

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning is a Reality
OUS - Internet-Based Distance Learning
http://www.ous.edu/de_stat.htm
1600
Courses
1300

Enrollment (x 10)

1000

700

400

100
1998-99

1999-00

2000-01

2001-02

2002-03

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning is a Reality
Online Distance Learning Market Growth
http://nces.ed.gov/ - http://www.aft.org/
10

Billion US $

8
6
4
2
0
1998-99

1999-00

2000-01

2001-02

2002-03

2003-04
(E)

2004-05
(E)

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning is a Reality
Proportion of Online Programs
10%

8%

6%

4%

2%

0%
DePaul (135)

ASU (270)

UCLA (318)

UWM (400)

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Demand for Online Distance Learning
The explosive growth of online learning over the last 10 years
has occurred in response to continuously increasing demand.
The demand reflects a partly artificial need, driven by the
Universities themselves. The number of degrees conferred by
Universities is constantly increasing, ‘flooding’ the workforce and
making the possession of degree a must for almost any type of
employment.
Lifelong Learning and graduate education were supposed to be
the core areas of distance learning, resulting in a clientele largely
made out of so-called adult students (Bleek, 2004; Young et al.,
2004). The National Center for Education Statistics confirms that
such students are more likely than their counterparts to participate
in distance education. However…
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Demand for Online Distance Learning
US Distance Higher Education
http://nces.ed.gov/

80%
Undergraduate Courses
60%

40%

Institutions offering DL programs
20%
1994-95

1997-98

2000-01

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Demand for Online Distance Learning
Universities are targeting the population that will generate most revenue
and will embrace the ‘product’ for non-educational reasons, rather than
the population (small and quality-driven) that initiated the need.
Many on-campus students are participating in distance learning as a
way to solve course scheduling problems and/or speed up the degree
completion progress (Oregon University System; Golden et al., 2004),
resulting in an even more dramatic increase in the number of distance
learning enrollments and course offerings.
The growth rate of ODL offerings will continue to rise (Carnevale, 2004),
fueled by degree hunters who increase demand and by Universities who
recognize the immense cost cutting potential of (bad quality) DL, in spite of
the widely recognized failure to yet produce good quality DL (e.g. Zemsky
& Massy, 2004) and alarming reports of Accreditation officials having
obtained PhD degrees from DL degree mills (Bartlett, 2004).
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning & Faculty
Faculty members often resist the move towards online
distance learning.
Possible reasons:

a) Alleged dislike, fear, and/or ignorance of the relevant
technology; a “…confusion and nonsense disseminated by
those who would protect status quo…”. (Poley, 2003)
b) Faculty are often thrown into a ODL situation by University
programs eager to compete in the ODL market, without
being offered the necessary tools to do the job.
c) ODL seems, at least on the surface, to go against the very
essence of a learning event: communication.
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning & Faculty
Learning is a fundamentally social activity (review in Wang, 2004).
ODL advocates see the ePortofolio explosion as a recognition of this fact.
Learning relies heavily on communication among participants; on dialogue,
exchange of ideas, argumentation, feedback, and the readjustment of our
position, whatever this may have been prior to entering the learning event.
Communication involves facial expressions, gestures, tone of voice, and
(almost) instantaneous feedback. It is the immediacy in dialogue that can
a) prevent instances of misunderstanding from escalating,
b) support the continuous adjustment in the way a learning event progresses,
necessary to accommodate changes in the learning environment at hand.
Social presence and interaction affect course outcomes as well as course
satisfaction (Moore et al., 1996; Richardson & Swan, 2003; Pelz, 2004).
Drop-out rates are consistently higher in ODL vs. traditional courses (IHEP)
ODL students may experience social isolation. The students who need the
most help in DL courses do not ask for it (Levy, 2003).
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Can ODL support this kind of learning event?
Over 100 books in print published in the last two years
Over 100 online books
Over 10 scholarly journals dealing exclusively with the topic
Amazon has over 200 entries
Over 30 consortia publish their own journals, books, and
conference proceedings
Common themes:
I.

Communication, interactivity, feedback, identified as the major
challenges (e.g. Poley, 2001, 2002; Deubel, 2003; USC Academic
Senate, Whitepaper, Newsletter).

II. Often, there is no explicit reference to advances within education
research in general.
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Common Themes of Powerful Learning Experiences
Thinking outside the box.
Interaction not Interactivity (Phipps & Merisotis, 1999; Wang, 2004)
Learners
link powerful
learning
experiences
to events
that involve
It is questioned
whether
deep
understanding
of difficult
interaction,
whether
the instructor
or2004
other
students.
Pelz
(2004)
&with
several
SLATE
papers
Virtual
Classroom
material—beyond
amassing
facts—can
occur
in the absence
What
most
memorable
is the
actual event of understanding
that
ofissame-time
same-place
interaction.
[e.g.
Gersten,
2004;
Scheidenhelm,
2004]
takes
place ineducation
dialogue, should
changing
those
whoavailable
participate.
Distance
utilize
every
opportunity
Interaction
& Presence
to bring–students
faculty
together.
Relevance
Workingand
towards
shared
goals.
and
office
hours
American
Federation
of Teachers
2000 Report
The
dynamics
of a classroom
may not (May
be replicable
in a – May
Engagement
(physical
orready
mental)
2001
Report):
(IVC
technology
not
– Kesley
& D’Souza,
Digital
Multimedia
distance
education
setting
(Kelsey
& D’Souza,
2004).2004)

Scheduled virtual class meetings

Encouragement
Encourage the development of powerful new learning and
teaching/environments
Challenge
Confidence - in the longer term (Levin et al., 1999),
that significantly
enhance
learning (Goldenberg et al., 2004).
Making
failure a learning
experience
Empowerment
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

The Power and Challenge of Multimedia
Information delivery (images, audio, video, animations)
Example 1 Example 2 Example 3 Example 4
Interactivity (applets, simulations)
Example 1 Example 2 Example 3 Example 4
Task completion (applets, simulations, applications)
Example 1 Example 2

Time-consuming – Require specialized skills
Many have already been created – Locate (edit) and implement
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

In the meantime…
Develop rigorous evaluation and control
processes to assure that distance education
programs comply with high academic standards.

Apply quality control to academic content as well
as delivery method and student support services.
Provide faculty with comprehensive educational
technology support and (user) training prior to
assigning them to ODL courses.

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Conclusions
• The current state of the Universities’ infrastructure and
administration, the faculty and student technical skills, and to some
extend the related technology does not yet support the creation of
distance learning environments that can adequately replace face to
face instruction. Benchmarks for successful ODL put forward by the
IHEP need to be taken very seriously.
• Online supplements to face to face courses can significantly
enhance the educational experience of students, especially through
the use of sophisticated, multimedia digital learning objects, many of
which have already been created.
• One of our tasks should be to locate, collect, and make available
such learning objects to instructional designers, ideally through a
centralized searchable process, followed by a continuous
development and financial backing of an expert and reliable support
system that will help faculty identify relevant resources and
efficiently and creatively incorporate them to their instruction.
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

References
•

Bartlett, T. (2004). Member of Accrediting Group Has Ph.D. From 'Notorious
Diploma Mill‘. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 50(30): A.29.

•

Carnevale, D. (2004). Distance education: Keeping up with exploding demand. The
Chronicle of Higher Education, 50(21): B.8.

•

Carnevale, D. (2004). For online adjuncts: A seller’s market. The Chronicle of Higher
Education, 50(34): A.31.

•

Cox, G. M. (2001). Strategic Planning and Implementation: The Challenge of
Adapting Organizations and Creating Partnerships to Target New Markets. University
Teaching as e-Business research project. Center for Studies in Higher Education.
UC Berkeley.

•

Bleek, J. (2004). Internet Academy. [Washington.] No Child Left Behind Leadership
Summit: Increasing Options Through e-Learning. US Department of Education.

•

Bower, B. L. (2001). Distance Education: Facing the Faculty Challenge. Online
Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 4(2).

•

Deubel, P. (2003). Learning from reflections - Issues in building quality online
courses. Online Journal Distance Learning Administration, 6(3).

•

Golden, M., Wicks, M., and Williams, L. (2004). Why virtual schools are gaining
popularity. No Child Left Behind Leadership Summit: Increasing Options Through eLearning. US Department of Education.

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

References (cont.)
•

Goldenberg, L., Heinze, J., and Ba, H. (2004). What Students Say about Learning
Science with Multiple Media. 25th NECC.

•

Kelsey, D. K. and D’Souza, A. (2004). Student motivation for learning at a distance:
Does interaction matter? OJDLA, 7(2).

•

Lapiner, R. (2001). Strategic Planning and Implementation: The Challenge of
Adapting Organizations and Creating Partnerships to Target New Markets. University
Teaching as e-Business research project. Center for Studies in Higher Education. UC
Berkeley.

•

Levin, J., Levin, S. R., and Waddoups, G. (1999). Multiplicity in learning and
teaching: A framework for developing innovative online education. Journal of
Research on Computing in Education, 32(2): 256-269.

•

Levy, S. (2003). Six Factors to Consider when Planning Online Distance Learning
Programs in Higher Education. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration,
6(1).

•

Moore, A., Masterson, J. T., Christophel, D. M., and Shea, K. A. (1996). College
teacher immediacy and student ratings of instruction. Communication Education, 45:
29-39.

•

Oblinger, D. G., Barone, C. A., and Hawkins, B. L. (2001). Distributed education
and its challenges: An overview. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education
and EDUCAUSE.

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

References (cont.)
•

•
•
•

•
•

Pelz, B. (2004). (My) Three principles of effective online pedagogy. Journal of
Asynchronous Learning Networks, 8(3).
Phipps, R. and Merisotis, J. (1999). What’s the difference? A review of contemporary
research on the effectiveness of distance learning in higher education. The Institute for
Higher Education Policy. Washington, DC.
Poley, J. (2001). Digital learning and libraries: Toward consortia and collaboratories
Presentation at NIT. Beijing,China.
Poley, J. (2002). Distance education themes and trends. Ohio State Megaconference.
Columbus, Ohio.
Poley, J. (2003). Distance Education Everywhere (not “online” learning):
Myths, Realities and Possibilities. 5th Annual International Symposium on Advanced
Radio Technologies (ISART).
Rahm, D. (1998). Tangled Webs In Public Administration: Organizational Issues In
Distance Learning. Public Administration & Management Interactive Journal, 3(1).

•

Richardson J. C. and Swan, K. (2003). Examining social presence in online courses
in relation to student’s perceived learning and satisfaction. Journal of Asynchronous
Learning Networks, 7(1).

•

Wang, H. (2004). Investigating, exploring, and promoting interaction in web-based
learning. 25th NECC.

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

References (cont.)
•

Young, K., Anderson, A., Eller, Am., Eller, An., Pounds, J., and Rashad, V.
(2004). What is possible in virtual education? Experiences empowering a
quality education for each learner. [Florida learning alliance.] No Child Left
Behind Leadership Summit: Increasing Options Through e-Learning. US
Department of Education.

•

Zemsky, R, Massy, W. F. (2004). Why the e-learning boom went bust. The
Chronicle of Higher Education, 50(44): B.6.

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004


Slide 22

Instructional design
in online environments:
Challenges and possibilities

Pantelis Vassilakis PhD
DePaul University
ITD – Libraries – School of Music

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Basic Premises
• The possibility for Online Distance
Learning (ODL) represents the most
exciting educational development in
decades.
• To date, the most positive aspect of the
ongoing ODL explosive growth has
been the application of the related
technology to online supplements,
which currently accompany the vast
majority of face-to-face courses.
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Q. What is wrong with
Online Distance Learning?
A. Its explosion is arguably led by the
wrong group (administrators vs. educators)
and is driven by the wrong motivations.
1. Main ODL advocates are administrators, who often do not fully
understand the new technology and the issues facing
instructors and students, and are not aware of the impact they
can have on creating positive changes in ODL.
[Dillon & Cintron, 1997; Wenzel, 1999; Dooley & Murphrey,
2000; (in Levy, 2003); Rahm, 1998; Bower, 2001; Kambutu,
2002; Levy, 2003; University of Minnesota - Extension service;
Kansas State University )

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Q. What is wrong with
Online Distance Learning?
A. Its explosion is arguably led by the
wrong group (administrators vs. educators)
and is driven by the wrong motivations
2. Planning for ODL usually focuses on
a) budget and personnel, rather than critical pedagogic issues
b) creating an attractive product for a target population (degree
seekers) at a minimal cost, rather than an improved educational
experience.

(Bates, 2000; Berge & Smith, 2000; Bothel, 2001; Levy, 2003;
AFT May 2001 Report)

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Q. What is wrong with
Online Distance Learning?
A. Its explosion is arguably led by the
wrong group (administrators vs. educators)
and is driven by the wrong motivations
3. ODL is approached as means to compensate for the fact that
constant growth in college-age population will soon result in more
students than University facilities can accommodate (Olinger et
al., 2001).
4. ODL is often seen as a possibly profitable auxiliary university
business (Lapiner, 2001), occasionally outsourced to for-profit
organizations (Cox, 2001).

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Q. What is wrong with
Online Distance Learning?
A. Its explosion is arguably led by the
wrong group (administrators vs. educators)
and is driven by the wrong motivations
5. University Strategic Plans and other resources cite market
pressure, the need to remain competitive, increased enrollment /
revenue, and decreased cost as some of the reasons for
aggressively promoting ODL, expecting a 20-25% annual
increase in DE enrollment, often without prior planning for
appropriate academic and technical support. This reflects a
concern with corporate survival/growth issues rather than
instructional design improvement.
(USC Academic Senate, 1991 & 2001 white papers; Texas
Technical University current Strategic Plan; New Mexico State
University current Strategic Plan)
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Q. What is wrong with
Online Distance Learning?
A. Its explosion is arguably driven by the
wrong group (administrators vs. educators)
and is driven by the wrong motivations
6. Private organizations/corporations advocate implementation of ODL
to meet standards compliance, citing cost decrease as the main
advantage and its use in Higher Education as the main justification.
7. Higher education institutions are also basing their overall ODL
development on cost rather educational considerations. In their
majority, ODL courses are assigned to ‘cost effective’ adjunct faculty,
(Carnevale, 2004) who also face inflated enrollments. Course quality
is not monitored closely, especially in established institutions that often
let their ODL offerings ride on their ‘brand name’ reputation, without
supporting them by the resources that earned them this reputation.
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning is a Reality

An average of ~ 6% of US University degree
programs are offered exclusively online.

Over 50% of institutions offer exclusive or
alternative online versions of courses.

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning is a Reality

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning is a Reality
OUS - Internet-Based Distance Learning
http://www.ous.edu/de_stat.htm
1600
Courses
1300

Enrollment (x 10)

1000

700

400

100
1998-99

1999-00

2000-01

2001-02

2002-03

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning is a Reality
Online Distance Learning Market Growth
http://nces.ed.gov/ - http://www.aft.org/
10

Billion US $

8
6
4
2
0
1998-99

1999-00

2000-01

2001-02

2002-03

2003-04
(E)

2004-05
(E)

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning is a Reality
Proportion of Online Programs
10%

8%

6%

4%

2%

0%
DePaul (135)

ASU (270)

UCLA (318)

UWM (400)

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Demand for Online Distance Learning
The explosive growth of online learning over the last 10 years
has occurred in response to continuously increasing demand.
The demand reflects a partly artificial need, driven by the
Universities themselves. The number of degrees conferred by
Universities is constantly increasing, ‘flooding’ the workforce and
making the possession of degree a must for almost any type of
employment.
Lifelong Learning and graduate education were supposed to be
the core areas of distance learning, resulting in a clientele largely
made out of so-called adult students (Bleek, 2004; Young et al.,
2004). The National Center for Education Statistics confirms that
such students are more likely than their counterparts to participate
in distance education. However…
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Demand for Online Distance Learning
US Distance Higher Education
http://nces.ed.gov/

80%
Undergraduate Courses
60%

40%

Institutions offering DL programs
20%
1994-95

1997-98

2000-01

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Demand for Online Distance Learning
Universities are targeting the population that will generate most revenue
and will embrace the ‘product’ for non-educational reasons, rather than
the population (small and quality-driven) that initiated the need.
Many on-campus students are participating in distance learning as a
way to solve course scheduling problems and/or speed up the degree
completion progress (Oregon University System; Golden et al., 2004),
resulting in an even more dramatic increase in the number of distance
learning enrollments and course offerings.
The growth rate of ODL offerings will continue to rise (Carnevale, 2004),
fueled by degree hunters who increase demand and by Universities who
recognize the immense cost cutting potential of (bad quality) DL, in spite of
the widely recognized failure to yet produce good quality DL (e.g. Zemsky
& Massy, 2004) and alarming reports of Accreditation officials having
obtained PhD degrees from DL degree mills (Bartlett, 2004).
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning & Faculty
Faculty members often resist the move towards online
distance learning.
Possible reasons:

a) Alleged dislike, fear, and/or ignorance of the relevant
technology; a “…confusion and nonsense disseminated by
those who would protect status quo…”. (Poley, 2003)
b) Faculty are often thrown into a ODL situation by University
programs eager to compete in the ODL market, without
being offered the necessary tools to do the job.
c) ODL seems, at least on the surface, to go against the very
essence of a learning event: communication.
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning & Faculty
Learning is a fundamentally social activity (review in Wang, 2004).
ODL advocates see the ePortofolio explosion as a recognition of this fact.
Learning relies heavily on communication among participants; on dialogue,
exchange of ideas, argumentation, feedback, and the readjustment of our
position, whatever this may have been prior to entering the learning event.
Communication involves facial expressions, gestures, tone of voice, and
(almost) instantaneous feedback. It is the immediacy in dialogue that can
a) prevent instances of misunderstanding from escalating,
b) support the continuous adjustment in the way a learning event progresses,
necessary to accommodate changes in the learning environment at hand.
Social presence and interaction affect course outcomes as well as course
satisfaction (Moore et al., 1996; Richardson & Swan, 2003; Pelz, 2004).
Drop-out rates are consistently higher in ODL vs. traditional courses (IHEP)
ODL students may experience social isolation. The students who need the
most help in DL courses do not ask for it (Levy, 2003).
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Can ODL support this kind of learning event?
Over 100 books in print published in the last two years
Over 100 online books
Over 10 scholarly journals dealing exclusively with the topic
Amazon has over 200 entries
Over 30 consortia publish their own journals, books, and
conference proceedings
Common themes:
I.

Communication, interactivity, feedback, identified as the major
challenges (e.g. Poley, 2001, 2002; Deubel, 2003; USC Academic
Senate, Whitepaper, Newsletter).

II. Often, there is no explicit reference to advances within education
research in general.
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Common Themes of Powerful Learning Experiences
Thinking outside the box.
Interaction not Interactivity (Phipps & Merisotis, 1999; Wang, 2004)
Learners
link powerful
learning
experiences
to events
that involve
It is questioned
whether
deep
understanding
of difficult
interaction,
whether
the instructor
or2004
other
students.
Pelz
(2004)
&with
several
SLATE
papers
Virtual
Classroom
material—beyond
amassing
facts—can
occur
in the absence
What
most
memorable
is the
actual event of understanding
that
ofissame-time
same-place
interaction.
[e.g.
Gersten,
2004;
Scheidenhelm,
2004]
takes
place ineducation
dialogue, should
changing
those
whoavailable
participate.
Distance
utilize
every
opportunity
Interaction
& Presence
to bring–students
faculty
together.
Relevance
Workingand
towards
shared
goals.
and
office
hours
American
Federation
of Teachers
2000 Report
The
dynamics
of a classroom
may not (May
be replicable
in a – May
Engagement
(physical
orready
mental)
2001
Report):
(IVC
technology
not
– Kesley
& D’Souza,
Digital
Multimedia
distance
education
setting
(Kelsey
& D’Souza,
2004).2004)

Scheduled virtual class meetings

Encouragement
Encourage the development of powerful new learning and
teaching/environments
Challenge
Confidence - in the longer term (Levin et al., 1999),
that significantly
enhance
learning (Goldenberg et al., 2004).
Making
failure a learning
experience
Empowerment
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

The Power and Challenge of Multimedia
Information delivery (images, audio, video, animations)
Example 1 Example 2 Example 3 Example 4
Interactivity (applets, simulations)
Example 1 Example 2 Example 3 Example 4
Task completion (applets, simulations, applications)
Example 1 Example 2

Time-consuming – Require specialized skills
Many have already been created – Locate (edit) and implement
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

In the meantime…
Develop rigorous evaluation and control
processes to assure that distance education
programs comply with high academic standards.

Apply quality control to academic content as well
as delivery method and student support services.
Provide faculty with comprehensive educational
technology support and (user) training prior to
assigning them to ODL courses.

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Conclusions
• The current state of the Universities’ infrastructure and
administration, the faculty and student technical skills, and to some
extend the related technology does not yet support the creation of
distance learning environments that can adequately replace face to
face instruction. Benchmarks for successful ODL put forward by the
IHEP need to be taken very seriously.
• Online supplements to face to face courses can significantly
enhance the educational experience of students, especially through
the use of sophisticated, multimedia digital learning objects, many of
which have already been created.
• One of our tasks should be to locate, collect, and make available
such learning objects to instructional designers, ideally through a
centralized searchable process, followed by a continuous
development and financial backing of an expert and reliable support
system that will help faculty identify relevant resources and
efficiently and creatively incorporate them to their instruction.
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

References
•

Bartlett, T. (2004). Member of Accrediting Group Has Ph.D. From 'Notorious
Diploma Mill‘. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 50(30): A.29.

•

Carnevale, D. (2004). Distance education: Keeping up with exploding demand. The
Chronicle of Higher Education, 50(21): B.8.

•

Carnevale, D. (2004). For online adjuncts: A seller’s market. The Chronicle of Higher
Education, 50(34): A.31.

•

Cox, G. M. (2001). Strategic Planning and Implementation: The Challenge of
Adapting Organizations and Creating Partnerships to Target New Markets. University
Teaching as e-Business research project. Center for Studies in Higher Education.
UC Berkeley.

•

Bleek, J. (2004). Internet Academy. [Washington.] No Child Left Behind Leadership
Summit: Increasing Options Through e-Learning. US Department of Education.

•

Bower, B. L. (2001). Distance Education: Facing the Faculty Challenge. Online
Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 4(2).

•

Deubel, P. (2003). Learning from reflections - Issues in building quality online
courses. Online Journal Distance Learning Administration, 6(3).

•

Golden, M., Wicks, M., and Williams, L. (2004). Why virtual schools are gaining
popularity. No Child Left Behind Leadership Summit: Increasing Options Through eLearning. US Department of Education.

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

References (cont.)
•

Goldenberg, L., Heinze, J., and Ba, H. (2004). What Students Say about Learning
Science with Multiple Media. 25th NECC.

•

Kelsey, D. K. and D’Souza, A. (2004). Student motivation for learning at a distance:
Does interaction matter? OJDLA, 7(2).

•

Lapiner, R. (2001). Strategic Planning and Implementation: The Challenge of
Adapting Organizations and Creating Partnerships to Target New Markets. University
Teaching as e-Business research project. Center for Studies in Higher Education. UC
Berkeley.

•

Levin, J., Levin, S. R., and Waddoups, G. (1999). Multiplicity in learning and
teaching: A framework for developing innovative online education. Journal of
Research on Computing in Education, 32(2): 256-269.

•

Levy, S. (2003). Six Factors to Consider when Planning Online Distance Learning
Programs in Higher Education. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration,
6(1).

•

Moore, A., Masterson, J. T., Christophel, D. M., and Shea, K. A. (1996). College
teacher immediacy and student ratings of instruction. Communication Education, 45:
29-39.

•

Oblinger, D. G., Barone, C. A., and Hawkins, B. L. (2001). Distributed education
and its challenges: An overview. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education
and EDUCAUSE.

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

References (cont.)
•

•
•
•

•
•

Pelz, B. (2004). (My) Three principles of effective online pedagogy. Journal of
Asynchronous Learning Networks, 8(3).
Phipps, R. and Merisotis, J. (1999). What’s the difference? A review of contemporary
research on the effectiveness of distance learning in higher education. The Institute for
Higher Education Policy. Washington, DC.
Poley, J. (2001). Digital learning and libraries: Toward consortia and collaboratories
Presentation at NIT. Beijing,China.
Poley, J. (2002). Distance education themes and trends. Ohio State Megaconference.
Columbus, Ohio.
Poley, J. (2003). Distance Education Everywhere (not “online” learning):
Myths, Realities and Possibilities. 5th Annual International Symposium on Advanced
Radio Technologies (ISART).
Rahm, D. (1998). Tangled Webs In Public Administration: Organizational Issues In
Distance Learning. Public Administration & Management Interactive Journal, 3(1).

•

Richardson J. C. and Swan, K. (2003). Examining social presence in online courses
in relation to student’s perceived learning and satisfaction. Journal of Asynchronous
Learning Networks, 7(1).

•

Wang, H. (2004). Investigating, exploring, and promoting interaction in web-based
learning. 25th NECC.

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

References (cont.)
•

Young, K., Anderson, A., Eller, Am., Eller, An., Pounds, J., and Rashad, V.
(2004). What is possible in virtual education? Experiences empowering a
quality education for each learner. [Florida learning alliance.] No Child Left
Behind Leadership Summit: Increasing Options Through e-Learning. US
Department of Education.

•

Zemsky, R, Massy, W. F. (2004). Why the e-learning boom went bust. The
Chronicle of Higher Education, 50(44): B.6.

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004


Slide 23

Instructional design
in online environments:
Challenges and possibilities

Pantelis Vassilakis PhD
DePaul University
ITD – Libraries – School of Music

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Basic Premises
• The possibility for Online Distance
Learning (ODL) represents the most
exciting educational development in
decades.
• To date, the most positive aspect of the
ongoing ODL explosive growth has
been the application of the related
technology to online supplements,
which currently accompany the vast
majority of face-to-face courses.
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Q. What is wrong with
Online Distance Learning?
A. Its explosion is arguably led by the
wrong group (administrators vs. educators)
and is driven by the wrong motivations.
1. Main ODL advocates are administrators, who often do not fully
understand the new technology and the issues facing
instructors and students, and are not aware of the impact they
can have on creating positive changes in ODL.
[Dillon & Cintron, 1997; Wenzel, 1999; Dooley & Murphrey,
2000; (in Levy, 2003); Rahm, 1998; Bower, 2001; Kambutu,
2002; Levy, 2003; University of Minnesota - Extension service;
Kansas State University )

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Q. What is wrong with
Online Distance Learning?
A. Its explosion is arguably led by the
wrong group (administrators vs. educators)
and is driven by the wrong motivations
2. Planning for ODL usually focuses on
a) budget and personnel, rather than critical pedagogic issues
b) creating an attractive product for a target population (degree
seekers) at a minimal cost, rather than an improved educational
experience.

(Bates, 2000; Berge & Smith, 2000; Bothel, 2001; Levy, 2003;
AFT May 2001 Report)

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Q. What is wrong with
Online Distance Learning?
A. Its explosion is arguably led by the
wrong group (administrators vs. educators)
and is driven by the wrong motivations
3. ODL is approached as means to compensate for the fact that
constant growth in college-age population will soon result in more
students than University facilities can accommodate (Olinger et
al., 2001).
4. ODL is often seen as a possibly profitable auxiliary university
business (Lapiner, 2001), occasionally outsourced to for-profit
organizations (Cox, 2001).

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Q. What is wrong with
Online Distance Learning?
A. Its explosion is arguably led by the
wrong group (administrators vs. educators)
and is driven by the wrong motivations
5. University Strategic Plans and other resources cite market
pressure, the need to remain competitive, increased enrollment /
revenue, and decreased cost as some of the reasons for
aggressively promoting ODL, expecting a 20-25% annual
increase in DE enrollment, often without prior planning for
appropriate academic and technical support. This reflects a
concern with corporate survival/growth issues rather than
instructional design improvement.
(USC Academic Senate, 1991 & 2001 white papers; Texas
Technical University current Strategic Plan; New Mexico State
University current Strategic Plan)
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Q. What is wrong with
Online Distance Learning?
A. Its explosion is arguably driven by the
wrong group (administrators vs. educators)
and is driven by the wrong motivations
6. Private organizations/corporations advocate implementation of ODL
to meet standards compliance, citing cost decrease as the main
advantage and its use in Higher Education as the main justification.
7. Higher education institutions are also basing their overall ODL
development on cost rather educational considerations. In their
majority, ODL courses are assigned to ‘cost effective’ adjunct faculty,
(Carnevale, 2004) who also face inflated enrollments. Course quality
is not monitored closely, especially in established institutions that often
let their ODL offerings ride on their ‘brand name’ reputation, without
supporting them by the resources that earned them this reputation.
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning is a Reality

An average of ~ 6% of US University degree
programs are offered exclusively online.

Over 50% of institutions offer exclusive or
alternative online versions of courses.

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning is a Reality

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning is a Reality
OUS - Internet-Based Distance Learning
http://www.ous.edu/de_stat.htm
1600
Courses
1300

Enrollment (x 10)

1000

700

400

100
1998-99

1999-00

2000-01

2001-02

2002-03

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning is a Reality
Online Distance Learning Market Growth
http://nces.ed.gov/ - http://www.aft.org/
10

Billion US $

8
6
4
2
0
1998-99

1999-00

2000-01

2001-02

2002-03

2003-04
(E)

2004-05
(E)

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning is a Reality
Proportion of Online Programs
10%

8%

6%

4%

2%

0%
DePaul (135)

ASU (270)

UCLA (318)

UWM (400)

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Demand for Online Distance Learning
The explosive growth of online learning over the last 10 years
has occurred in response to continuously increasing demand.
The demand reflects a partly artificial need, driven by the
Universities themselves. The number of degrees conferred by
Universities is constantly increasing, ‘flooding’ the workforce and
making the possession of degree a must for almost any type of
employment.
Lifelong Learning and graduate education were supposed to be
the core areas of distance learning, resulting in a clientele largely
made out of so-called adult students (Bleek, 2004; Young et al.,
2004). The National Center for Education Statistics confirms that
such students are more likely than their counterparts to participate
in distance education. However…
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Demand for Online Distance Learning
US Distance Higher Education
http://nces.ed.gov/

80%
Undergraduate Courses
60%

40%

Institutions offering DL programs
20%
1994-95

1997-98

2000-01

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Demand for Online Distance Learning
Universities are targeting the population that will generate most revenue
and will embrace the ‘product’ for non-educational reasons, rather than
the population (small and quality-driven) that initiated the need.
Many on-campus students are participating in distance learning as a
way to solve course scheduling problems and/or speed up the degree
completion progress (Oregon University System; Golden et al., 2004),
resulting in an even more dramatic increase in the number of distance
learning enrollments and course offerings.
The growth rate of ODL offerings will continue to rise (Carnevale, 2004),
fueled by degree hunters who increase demand and by Universities who
recognize the immense cost cutting potential of (bad quality) DL, in spite of
the widely recognized failure to yet produce good quality DL (e.g. Zemsky
& Massy, 2004) and alarming reports of Accreditation officials having
obtained PhD degrees from DL degree mills (Bartlett, 2004).
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning & Faculty
Faculty members often resist the move towards online
distance learning.
Possible reasons:

a) Alleged dislike, fear, and/or ignorance of the relevant
technology; a “…confusion and nonsense disseminated by
those who would protect status quo…”. (Poley, 2003)
b) Faculty are often thrown into a ODL situation by University
programs eager to compete in the ODL market, without
being offered the necessary tools to do the job.
c) ODL seems, at least on the surface, to go against the very
essence of a learning event: communication.
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning & Faculty
Learning is a fundamentally social activity (review in Wang, 2004).
ODL advocates see the ePortofolio explosion as a recognition of this fact.
Learning relies heavily on communication among participants; on dialogue,
exchange of ideas, argumentation, feedback, and the readjustment of our
position, whatever this may have been prior to entering the learning event.
Communication involves facial expressions, gestures, tone of voice, and
(almost) instantaneous feedback. It is the immediacy in dialogue that can
a) prevent instances of misunderstanding from escalating,
b) support the continuous adjustment in the way a learning event progresses,
necessary to accommodate changes in the learning environment at hand.
Social presence and interaction affect course outcomes as well as course
satisfaction (Moore et al., 1996; Richardson & Swan, 2003; Pelz, 2004).
Drop-out rates are consistently higher in ODL vs. traditional courses (IHEP)
ODL students may experience social isolation. The students who need the
most help in DL courses do not ask for it (Levy, 2003).
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Can ODL support this kind of learning event?
Over 100 books in print published in the last two years
Over 100 online books
Over 10 scholarly journals dealing exclusively with the topic
Amazon has over 200 entries
Over 30 consortia publish their own journals, books, and
conference proceedings
Common themes:
I.

Communication, interactivity, feedback, identified as the major
challenges (e.g. Poley, 2001, 2002; Deubel, 2003; USC Academic
Senate, Whitepaper, Newsletter).

II. Often, there is no explicit reference to advances within education
research in general.
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Common Themes of Powerful Learning Experiences
Thinking outside the box.
Interaction not Interactivity (Phipps & Merisotis, 1999; Wang, 2004)
Learners
link powerful
learning
experiences
to events
that involve
It is questioned
whether
deep
understanding
of difficult
interaction,
whether
the instructor
or2004
other
students.
Pelz
(2004)
&with
several
SLATE
papers
Virtual
Classroom
material—beyond
amassing
facts—can
occur
in the absence
What
most
memorable
is the
actual event of understanding
that
ofissame-time
same-place
interaction.
[e.g.
Gersten,
2004;
Scheidenhelm,
2004]
takes
place ineducation
dialogue, should
changing
those
whoavailable
participate.
Distance
utilize
every
opportunity
Interaction
& Presence
to bring–students
faculty
together.
Relevance
Workingand
towards
shared
goals.
and
office
hours
American
Federation
of Teachers
2000 Report
The
dynamics
of a classroom
may not (May
be replicable
in a – May
Engagement
(physical
orready
mental)
2001
Report):
(IVC
technology
not
– Kesley
& D’Souza,
Digital
Multimedia
distance
education
setting
(Kelsey
& D’Souza,
2004).2004)

Scheduled virtual class meetings

Encouragement
Encourage the development of powerful new learning and
teaching/environments
Challenge
Confidence - in the longer term (Levin et al., 1999),
that significantly
enhance
learning (Goldenberg et al., 2004).
Making
failure a learning
experience
Empowerment
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

The Power and Challenge of Multimedia
Information delivery (images, audio, video, animations)
Example 1 Example 2 Example 3 Example 4
Interactivity (applets, simulations)
Example 1 Example 2 Example 3 Example 4
Task completion (applets, simulations, applications)
Example 1 Example 2

Time-consuming – Require specialized skills
Many have already been created – Locate (edit) and implement
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

In the meantime…
Develop rigorous evaluation and control
processes to assure that distance education
programs comply with high academic standards.

Apply quality control to academic content as well
as delivery method and student support services.
Provide faculty with comprehensive educational
technology support and (user) training prior to
assigning them to ODL courses.

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Conclusions
• The current state of the Universities’ infrastructure and
administration, the faculty and student technical skills, and to some
extend the related technology does not yet support the creation of
distance learning environments that can adequately replace face to
face instruction. Benchmarks for successful ODL put forward by the
IHEP need to be taken very seriously.
• Online supplements to face to face courses can significantly
enhance the educational experience of students, especially through
the use of sophisticated, multimedia digital learning objects, many of
which have already been created.
• One of our tasks should be to locate, collect, and make available
such learning objects to instructional designers, ideally through a
centralized searchable process, followed by a continuous
development and financial backing of an expert and reliable support
system that will help faculty identify relevant resources and
efficiently and creatively incorporate them to their instruction.
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

References
•

Bartlett, T. (2004). Member of Accrediting Group Has Ph.D. From 'Notorious
Diploma Mill‘. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 50(30): A.29.

•

Carnevale, D. (2004). Distance education: Keeping up with exploding demand. The
Chronicle of Higher Education, 50(21): B.8.

•

Carnevale, D. (2004). For online adjuncts: A seller’s market. The Chronicle of Higher
Education, 50(34): A.31.

•

Cox, G. M. (2001). Strategic Planning and Implementation: The Challenge of
Adapting Organizations and Creating Partnerships to Target New Markets. University
Teaching as e-Business research project. Center for Studies in Higher Education.
UC Berkeley.

•

Bleek, J. (2004). Internet Academy. [Washington.] No Child Left Behind Leadership
Summit: Increasing Options Through e-Learning. US Department of Education.

•

Bower, B. L. (2001). Distance Education: Facing the Faculty Challenge. Online
Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 4(2).

•

Deubel, P. (2003). Learning from reflections - Issues in building quality online
courses. Online Journal Distance Learning Administration, 6(3).

•

Golden, M., Wicks, M., and Williams, L. (2004). Why virtual schools are gaining
popularity. No Child Left Behind Leadership Summit: Increasing Options Through eLearning. US Department of Education.

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

References (cont.)
•

Goldenberg, L., Heinze, J., and Ba, H. (2004). What Students Say about Learning
Science with Multiple Media. 25th NECC.

•

Kelsey, D. K. and D’Souza, A. (2004). Student motivation for learning at a distance:
Does interaction matter? OJDLA, 7(2).

•

Lapiner, R. (2001). Strategic Planning and Implementation: The Challenge of
Adapting Organizations and Creating Partnerships to Target New Markets. University
Teaching as e-Business research project. Center for Studies in Higher Education. UC
Berkeley.

•

Levin, J., Levin, S. R., and Waddoups, G. (1999). Multiplicity in learning and
teaching: A framework for developing innovative online education. Journal of
Research on Computing in Education, 32(2): 256-269.

•

Levy, S. (2003). Six Factors to Consider when Planning Online Distance Learning
Programs in Higher Education. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration,
6(1).

•

Moore, A., Masterson, J. T., Christophel, D. M., and Shea, K. A. (1996). College
teacher immediacy and student ratings of instruction. Communication Education, 45:
29-39.

•

Oblinger, D. G., Barone, C. A., and Hawkins, B. L. (2001). Distributed education
and its challenges: An overview. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education
and EDUCAUSE.

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

References (cont.)
•

•
•
•

•
•

Pelz, B. (2004). (My) Three principles of effective online pedagogy. Journal of
Asynchronous Learning Networks, 8(3).
Phipps, R. and Merisotis, J. (1999). What’s the difference? A review of contemporary
research on the effectiveness of distance learning in higher education. The Institute for
Higher Education Policy. Washington, DC.
Poley, J. (2001). Digital learning and libraries: Toward consortia and collaboratories
Presentation at NIT. Beijing,China.
Poley, J. (2002). Distance education themes and trends. Ohio State Megaconference.
Columbus, Ohio.
Poley, J. (2003). Distance Education Everywhere (not “online” learning):
Myths, Realities and Possibilities. 5th Annual International Symposium on Advanced
Radio Technologies (ISART).
Rahm, D. (1998). Tangled Webs In Public Administration: Organizational Issues In
Distance Learning. Public Administration & Management Interactive Journal, 3(1).

•

Richardson J. C. and Swan, K. (2003). Examining social presence in online courses
in relation to student’s perceived learning and satisfaction. Journal of Asynchronous
Learning Networks, 7(1).

•

Wang, H. (2004). Investigating, exploring, and promoting interaction in web-based
learning. 25th NECC.

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

References (cont.)
•

Young, K., Anderson, A., Eller, Am., Eller, An., Pounds, J., and Rashad, V.
(2004). What is possible in virtual education? Experiences empowering a
quality education for each learner. [Florida learning alliance.] No Child Left
Behind Leadership Summit: Increasing Options Through e-Learning. US
Department of Education.

•

Zemsky, R, Massy, W. F. (2004). Why the e-learning boom went bust. The
Chronicle of Higher Education, 50(44): B.6.

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004


Slide 24

Instructional design
in online environments:
Challenges and possibilities

Pantelis Vassilakis PhD
DePaul University
ITD – Libraries – School of Music

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Basic Premises
• The possibility for Online Distance
Learning (ODL) represents the most
exciting educational development in
decades.
• To date, the most positive aspect of the
ongoing ODL explosive growth has
been the application of the related
technology to online supplements,
which currently accompany the vast
majority of face-to-face courses.
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Q. What is wrong with
Online Distance Learning?
A. Its explosion is arguably led by the
wrong group (administrators vs. educators)
and is driven by the wrong motivations.
1. Main ODL advocates are administrators, who often do not fully
understand the new technology and the issues facing
instructors and students, and are not aware of the impact they
can have on creating positive changes in ODL.
[Dillon & Cintron, 1997; Wenzel, 1999; Dooley & Murphrey,
2000; (in Levy, 2003); Rahm, 1998; Bower, 2001; Kambutu,
2002; Levy, 2003; University of Minnesota - Extension service;
Kansas State University )

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Q. What is wrong with
Online Distance Learning?
A. Its explosion is arguably led by the
wrong group (administrators vs. educators)
and is driven by the wrong motivations
2. Planning for ODL usually focuses on
a) budget and personnel, rather than critical pedagogic issues
b) creating an attractive product for a target population (degree
seekers) at a minimal cost, rather than an improved educational
experience.

(Bates, 2000; Berge & Smith, 2000; Bothel, 2001; Levy, 2003;
AFT May 2001 Report)

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Q. What is wrong with
Online Distance Learning?
A. Its explosion is arguably led by the
wrong group (administrators vs. educators)
and is driven by the wrong motivations
3. ODL is approached as means to compensate for the fact that
constant growth in college-age population will soon result in more
students than University facilities can accommodate (Olinger et
al., 2001).
4. ODL is often seen as a possibly profitable auxiliary university
business (Lapiner, 2001), occasionally outsourced to for-profit
organizations (Cox, 2001).

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Q. What is wrong with
Online Distance Learning?
A. Its explosion is arguably led by the
wrong group (administrators vs. educators)
and is driven by the wrong motivations
5. University Strategic Plans and other resources cite market
pressure, the need to remain competitive, increased enrollment /
revenue, and decreased cost as some of the reasons for
aggressively promoting ODL, expecting a 20-25% annual
increase in DE enrollment, often without prior planning for
appropriate academic and technical support. This reflects a
concern with corporate survival/growth issues rather than
instructional design improvement.
(USC Academic Senate, 1991 & 2001 white papers; Texas
Technical University current Strategic Plan; New Mexico State
University current Strategic Plan)
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Q. What is wrong with
Online Distance Learning?
A. Its explosion is arguably driven by the
wrong group (administrators vs. educators)
and is driven by the wrong motivations
6. Private organizations/corporations advocate implementation of ODL
to meet standards compliance, citing cost decrease as the main
advantage and its use in Higher Education as the main justification.
7. Higher education institutions are also basing their overall ODL
development on cost rather educational considerations. In their
majority, ODL courses are assigned to ‘cost effective’ adjunct faculty,
(Carnevale, 2004) who also face inflated enrollments. Course quality
is not monitored closely, especially in established institutions that often
let their ODL offerings ride on their ‘brand name’ reputation, without
supporting them by the resources that earned them this reputation.
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning is a Reality

An average of ~ 6% of US University degree
programs are offered exclusively online.

Over 50% of institutions offer exclusive or
alternative online versions of courses.

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning is a Reality

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning is a Reality
OUS - Internet-Based Distance Learning
http://www.ous.edu/de_stat.htm
1600
Courses
1300

Enrollment (x 10)

1000

700

400

100
1998-99

1999-00

2000-01

2001-02

2002-03

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning is a Reality
Online Distance Learning Market Growth
http://nces.ed.gov/ - http://www.aft.org/
10

Billion US $

8
6
4
2
0
1998-99

1999-00

2000-01

2001-02

2002-03

2003-04
(E)

2004-05
(E)

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning is a Reality
Proportion of Online Programs
10%

8%

6%

4%

2%

0%
DePaul (135)

ASU (270)

UCLA (318)

UWM (400)

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Demand for Online Distance Learning
The explosive growth of online learning over the last 10 years
has occurred in response to continuously increasing demand.
The demand reflects a partly artificial need, driven by the
Universities themselves. The number of degrees conferred by
Universities is constantly increasing, ‘flooding’ the workforce and
making the possession of degree a must for almost any type of
employment.
Lifelong Learning and graduate education were supposed to be
the core areas of distance learning, resulting in a clientele largely
made out of so-called adult students (Bleek, 2004; Young et al.,
2004). The National Center for Education Statistics confirms that
such students are more likely than their counterparts to participate
in distance education. However…
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Demand for Online Distance Learning
US Distance Higher Education
http://nces.ed.gov/

80%
Undergraduate Courses
60%

40%

Institutions offering DL programs
20%
1994-95

1997-98

2000-01

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Demand for Online Distance Learning
Universities are targeting the population that will generate most revenue
and will embrace the ‘product’ for non-educational reasons, rather than
the population (small and quality-driven) that initiated the need.
Many on-campus students are participating in distance learning as a
way to solve course scheduling problems and/or speed up the degree
completion progress (Oregon University System; Golden et al., 2004),
resulting in an even more dramatic increase in the number of distance
learning enrollments and course offerings.
The growth rate of ODL offerings will continue to rise (Carnevale, 2004),
fueled by degree hunters who increase demand and by Universities who
recognize the immense cost cutting potential of (bad quality) DL, in spite of
the widely recognized failure to yet produce good quality DL (e.g. Zemsky
& Massy, 2004) and alarming reports of Accreditation officials having
obtained PhD degrees from DL degree mills (Bartlett, 2004).
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning & Faculty
Faculty members often resist the move towards online
distance learning.
Possible reasons:

a) Alleged dislike, fear, and/or ignorance of the relevant
technology; a “…confusion and nonsense disseminated by
those who would protect status quo…”. (Poley, 2003)
b) Faculty are often thrown into a ODL situation by University
programs eager to compete in the ODL market, without
being offered the necessary tools to do the job.
c) ODL seems, at least on the surface, to go against the very
essence of a learning event: communication.
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning & Faculty
Learning is a fundamentally social activity (review in Wang, 2004).
ODL advocates see the ePortofolio explosion as a recognition of this fact.
Learning relies heavily on communication among participants; on dialogue,
exchange of ideas, argumentation, feedback, and the readjustment of our
position, whatever this may have been prior to entering the learning event.
Communication involves facial expressions, gestures, tone of voice, and
(almost) instantaneous feedback. It is the immediacy in dialogue that can
a) prevent instances of misunderstanding from escalating,
b) support the continuous adjustment in the way a learning event progresses,
necessary to accommodate changes in the learning environment at hand.
Social presence and interaction affect course outcomes as well as course
satisfaction (Moore et al., 1996; Richardson & Swan, 2003; Pelz, 2004).
Drop-out rates are consistently higher in ODL vs. traditional courses (IHEP)
ODL students may experience social isolation. The students who need the
most help in DL courses do not ask for it (Levy, 2003).
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Can ODL support this kind of learning event?
Over 100 books in print published in the last two years
Over 100 online books
Over 10 scholarly journals dealing exclusively with the topic
Amazon has over 200 entries
Over 30 consortia publish their own journals, books, and
conference proceedings
Common themes:
I.

Communication, interactivity, feedback, identified as the major
challenges (e.g. Poley, 2001, 2002; Deubel, 2003; USC Academic
Senate, Whitepaper, Newsletter).

II. Often, there is no explicit reference to advances within education
research in general.
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Common Themes of Powerful Learning Experiences
Thinking outside the box.
Interaction not Interactivity (Phipps & Merisotis, 1999; Wang, 2004)
Learners
link powerful
learning
experiences
to events
that involve
It is questioned
whether
deep
understanding
of difficult
interaction,
whether
the instructor
or2004
other
students.
Pelz
(2004)
&with
several
SLATE
papers
Virtual
Classroom
material—beyond
amassing
facts—can
occur
in the absence
What
most
memorable
is the
actual event of understanding
that
ofissame-time
same-place
interaction.
[e.g.
Gersten,
2004;
Scheidenhelm,
2004]
takes
place ineducation
dialogue, should
changing
those
whoavailable
participate.
Distance
utilize
every
opportunity
Interaction
& Presence
to bring–students
faculty
together.
Relevance
Workingand
towards
shared
goals.
and
office
hours
American
Federation
of Teachers
2000 Report
The
dynamics
of a classroom
may not (May
be replicable
in a – May
Engagement
(physical
orready
mental)
2001
Report):
(IVC
technology
not
– Kesley
& D’Souza,
Digital
Multimedia
distance
education
setting
(Kelsey
& D’Souza,
2004).2004)

Scheduled virtual class meetings

Encouragement
Encourage the development of powerful new learning and
teaching/environments
Challenge
Confidence - in the longer term (Levin et al., 1999),
that significantly
enhance
learning (Goldenberg et al., 2004).
Making
failure a learning
experience
Empowerment
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

The Power and Challenge of Multimedia
Information delivery (images, audio, video, animations)
Example 1 Example 2 Example 3 Example 4
Interactivity (applets, simulations)
Example 1 Example 2 Example 3 Example 4
Task completion (applets, simulations, applications)
Example 1 Example 2

Time-consuming – Require specialized skills
Many have already been created – Locate (edit) and implement
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

In the meantime…
Develop rigorous evaluation and control
processes to assure that distance education
programs comply with high academic standards.

Apply quality control to academic content as well
as delivery method and student support services.
Provide faculty with comprehensive educational
technology support and (user) training prior to
assigning them to ODL courses.

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Conclusions
• The current state of the Universities’ infrastructure and
administration, the faculty and student technical skills, and to some
extend the related technology does not yet support the creation of
distance learning environments that can adequately replace face to
face instruction. Benchmarks for successful ODL put forward by the
IHEP need to be taken very seriously.
• Online supplements to face to face courses can significantly
enhance the educational experience of students, especially through
the use of sophisticated, multimedia digital learning objects, many of
which have already been created.
• One of our tasks should be to locate, collect, and make available
such learning objects to instructional designers, ideally through a
centralized searchable process, followed by a continuous
development and financial backing of an expert and reliable support
system that will help faculty identify relevant resources and
efficiently and creatively incorporate them to their instruction.
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

References
•

Bartlett, T. (2004). Member of Accrediting Group Has Ph.D. From 'Notorious
Diploma Mill‘. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 50(30): A.29.

•

Carnevale, D. (2004). Distance education: Keeping up with exploding demand. The
Chronicle of Higher Education, 50(21): B.8.

•

Carnevale, D. (2004). For online adjuncts: A seller’s market. The Chronicle of Higher
Education, 50(34): A.31.

•

Cox, G. M. (2001). Strategic Planning and Implementation: The Challenge of
Adapting Organizations and Creating Partnerships to Target New Markets. University
Teaching as e-Business research project. Center for Studies in Higher Education.
UC Berkeley.

•

Bleek, J. (2004). Internet Academy. [Washington.] No Child Left Behind Leadership
Summit: Increasing Options Through e-Learning. US Department of Education.

•

Bower, B. L. (2001). Distance Education: Facing the Faculty Challenge. Online
Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 4(2).

•

Deubel, P. (2003). Learning from reflections - Issues in building quality online
courses. Online Journal Distance Learning Administration, 6(3).

•

Golden, M., Wicks, M., and Williams, L. (2004). Why virtual schools are gaining
popularity. No Child Left Behind Leadership Summit: Increasing Options Through eLearning. US Department of Education.

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

References (cont.)
•

Goldenberg, L., Heinze, J., and Ba, H. (2004). What Students Say about Learning
Science with Multiple Media. 25th NECC.

•

Kelsey, D. K. and D’Souza, A. (2004). Student motivation for learning at a distance:
Does interaction matter? OJDLA, 7(2).

•

Lapiner, R. (2001). Strategic Planning and Implementation: The Challenge of
Adapting Organizations and Creating Partnerships to Target New Markets. University
Teaching as e-Business research project. Center for Studies in Higher Education. UC
Berkeley.

•

Levin, J., Levin, S. R., and Waddoups, G. (1999). Multiplicity in learning and
teaching: A framework for developing innovative online education. Journal of
Research on Computing in Education, 32(2): 256-269.

•

Levy, S. (2003). Six Factors to Consider when Planning Online Distance Learning
Programs in Higher Education. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration,
6(1).

•

Moore, A., Masterson, J. T., Christophel, D. M., and Shea, K. A. (1996). College
teacher immediacy and student ratings of instruction. Communication Education, 45:
29-39.

•

Oblinger, D. G., Barone, C. A., and Hawkins, B. L. (2001). Distributed education
and its challenges: An overview. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education
and EDUCAUSE.

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

References (cont.)
•

•
•
•

•
•

Pelz, B. (2004). (My) Three principles of effective online pedagogy. Journal of
Asynchronous Learning Networks, 8(3).
Phipps, R. and Merisotis, J. (1999). What’s the difference? A review of contemporary
research on the effectiveness of distance learning in higher education. The Institute for
Higher Education Policy. Washington, DC.
Poley, J. (2001). Digital learning and libraries: Toward consortia and collaboratories
Presentation at NIT. Beijing,China.
Poley, J. (2002). Distance education themes and trends. Ohio State Megaconference.
Columbus, Ohio.
Poley, J. (2003). Distance Education Everywhere (not “online” learning):
Myths, Realities and Possibilities. 5th Annual International Symposium on Advanced
Radio Technologies (ISART).
Rahm, D. (1998). Tangled Webs In Public Administration: Organizational Issues In
Distance Learning. Public Administration & Management Interactive Journal, 3(1).

•

Richardson J. C. and Swan, K. (2003). Examining social presence in online courses
in relation to student’s perceived learning and satisfaction. Journal of Asynchronous
Learning Networks, 7(1).

•

Wang, H. (2004). Investigating, exploring, and promoting interaction in web-based
learning. 25th NECC.

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

References (cont.)
•

Young, K., Anderson, A., Eller, Am., Eller, An., Pounds, J., and Rashad, V.
(2004). What is possible in virtual education? Experiences empowering a
quality education for each learner. [Florida learning alliance.] No Child Left
Behind Leadership Summit: Increasing Options Through e-Learning. US
Department of Education.

•

Zemsky, R, Massy, W. F. (2004). Why the e-learning boom went bust. The
Chronicle of Higher Education, 50(44): B.6.

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004


Slide 25

Instructional design
in online environments:
Challenges and possibilities

Pantelis Vassilakis PhD
DePaul University
ITD – Libraries – School of Music

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Basic Premises
• The possibility for Online Distance
Learning (ODL) represents the most
exciting educational development in
decades.
• To date, the most positive aspect of the
ongoing ODL explosive growth has
been the application of the related
technology to online supplements,
which currently accompany the vast
majority of face-to-face courses.
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Q. What is wrong with
Online Distance Learning?
A. Its explosion is arguably led by the
wrong group (administrators vs. educators)
and is driven by the wrong motivations.
1. Main ODL advocates are administrators, who often do not fully
understand the new technology and the issues facing
instructors and students, and are not aware of the impact they
can have on creating positive changes in ODL.
[Dillon & Cintron, 1997; Wenzel, 1999; Dooley & Murphrey,
2000; (in Levy, 2003); Rahm, 1998; Bower, 2001; Kambutu,
2002; Levy, 2003; University of Minnesota - Extension service;
Kansas State University )

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Q. What is wrong with
Online Distance Learning?
A. Its explosion is arguably led by the
wrong group (administrators vs. educators)
and is driven by the wrong motivations
2. Planning for ODL usually focuses on
a) budget and personnel, rather than critical pedagogic issues
b) creating an attractive product for a target population (degree
seekers) at a minimal cost, rather than an improved educational
experience.

(Bates, 2000; Berge & Smith, 2000; Bothel, 2001; Levy, 2003;
AFT May 2001 Report)

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Q. What is wrong with
Online Distance Learning?
A. Its explosion is arguably led by the
wrong group (administrators vs. educators)
and is driven by the wrong motivations
3. ODL is approached as means to compensate for the fact that
constant growth in college-age population will soon result in more
students than University facilities can accommodate (Olinger et
al., 2001).
4. ODL is often seen as a possibly profitable auxiliary university
business (Lapiner, 2001), occasionally outsourced to for-profit
organizations (Cox, 2001).

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Q. What is wrong with
Online Distance Learning?
A. Its explosion is arguably led by the
wrong group (administrators vs. educators)
and is driven by the wrong motivations
5. University Strategic Plans and other resources cite market
pressure, the need to remain competitive, increased enrollment /
revenue, and decreased cost as some of the reasons for
aggressively promoting ODL, expecting a 20-25% annual
increase in DE enrollment, often without prior planning for
appropriate academic and technical support. This reflects a
concern with corporate survival/growth issues rather than
instructional design improvement.
(USC Academic Senate, 1991 & 2001 white papers; Texas
Technical University current Strategic Plan; New Mexico State
University current Strategic Plan)
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Q. What is wrong with
Online Distance Learning?
A. Its explosion is arguably driven by the
wrong group (administrators vs. educators)
and is driven by the wrong motivations
6. Private organizations/corporations advocate implementation of ODL
to meet standards compliance, citing cost decrease as the main
advantage and its use in Higher Education as the main justification.
7. Higher education institutions are also basing their overall ODL
development on cost rather educational considerations. In their
majority, ODL courses are assigned to ‘cost effective’ adjunct faculty,
(Carnevale, 2004) who also face inflated enrollments. Course quality
is not monitored closely, especially in established institutions that often
let their ODL offerings ride on their ‘brand name’ reputation, without
supporting them by the resources that earned them this reputation.
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning is a Reality

An average of ~ 6% of US University degree
programs are offered exclusively online.

Over 50% of institutions offer exclusive or
alternative online versions of courses.

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning is a Reality

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning is a Reality
OUS - Internet-Based Distance Learning
http://www.ous.edu/de_stat.htm
1600
Courses
1300

Enrollment (x 10)

1000

700

400

100
1998-99

1999-00

2000-01

2001-02

2002-03

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning is a Reality
Online Distance Learning Market Growth
http://nces.ed.gov/ - http://www.aft.org/
10

Billion US $

8
6
4
2
0
1998-99

1999-00

2000-01

2001-02

2002-03

2003-04
(E)

2004-05
(E)

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning is a Reality
Proportion of Online Programs
10%

8%

6%

4%

2%

0%
DePaul (135)

ASU (270)

UCLA (318)

UWM (400)

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Demand for Online Distance Learning
The explosive growth of online learning over the last 10 years
has occurred in response to continuously increasing demand.
The demand reflects a partly artificial need, driven by the
Universities themselves. The number of degrees conferred by
Universities is constantly increasing, ‘flooding’ the workforce and
making the possession of degree a must for almost any type of
employment.
Lifelong Learning and graduate education were supposed to be
the core areas of distance learning, resulting in a clientele largely
made out of so-called adult students (Bleek, 2004; Young et al.,
2004). The National Center for Education Statistics confirms that
such students are more likely than their counterparts to participate
in distance education. However…
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Demand for Online Distance Learning
US Distance Higher Education
http://nces.ed.gov/

80%
Undergraduate Courses
60%

40%

Institutions offering DL programs
20%
1994-95

1997-98

2000-01

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Demand for Online Distance Learning
Universities are targeting the population that will generate most revenue
and will embrace the ‘product’ for non-educational reasons, rather than
the population (small and quality-driven) that initiated the need.
Many on-campus students are participating in distance learning as a
way to solve course scheduling problems and/or speed up the degree
completion progress (Oregon University System; Golden et al., 2004),
resulting in an even more dramatic increase in the number of distance
learning enrollments and course offerings.
The growth rate of ODL offerings will continue to rise (Carnevale, 2004),
fueled by degree hunters who increase demand and by Universities who
recognize the immense cost cutting potential of (bad quality) DL, in spite of
the widely recognized failure to yet produce good quality DL (e.g. Zemsky
& Massy, 2004) and alarming reports of Accreditation officials having
obtained PhD degrees from DL degree mills (Bartlett, 2004).
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning & Faculty
Faculty members often resist the move towards online
distance learning.
Possible reasons:

a) Alleged dislike, fear, and/or ignorance of the relevant
technology; a “…confusion and nonsense disseminated by
those who would protect status quo…”. (Poley, 2003)
b) Faculty are often thrown into a ODL situation by University
programs eager to compete in the ODL market, without
being offered the necessary tools to do the job.
c) ODL seems, at least on the surface, to go against the very
essence of a learning event: communication.
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning & Faculty
Learning is a fundamentally social activity (review in Wang, 2004).
ODL advocates see the ePortofolio explosion as a recognition of this fact.
Learning relies heavily on communication among participants; on dialogue,
exchange of ideas, argumentation, feedback, and the readjustment of our
position, whatever this may have been prior to entering the learning event.
Communication involves facial expressions, gestures, tone of voice, and
(almost) instantaneous feedback. It is the immediacy in dialogue that can
a) prevent instances of misunderstanding from escalating,
b) support the continuous adjustment in the way a learning event progresses,
necessary to accommodate changes in the learning environment at hand.
Social presence and interaction affect course outcomes as well as course
satisfaction (Moore et al., 1996; Richardson & Swan, 2003; Pelz, 2004).
Drop-out rates are consistently higher in ODL vs. traditional courses (IHEP)
ODL students may experience social isolation. The students who need the
most help in DL courses do not ask for it (Levy, 2003).
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Can ODL support this kind of learning event?
Over 100 books in print published in the last two years
Over 100 online books
Over 10 scholarly journals dealing exclusively with the topic
Amazon has over 200 entries
Over 30 consortia publish their own journals, books, and
conference proceedings
Common themes:
I.

Communication, interactivity, feedback, identified as the major
challenges (e.g. Poley, 2001, 2002; Deubel, 2003; USC Academic
Senate, Whitepaper, Newsletter).

II. Often, there is no explicit reference to advances within education
research in general.
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Common Themes of Powerful Learning Experiences
Thinking outside the box.
Interaction not Interactivity (Phipps & Merisotis, 1999; Wang, 2004)
Learners
link powerful
learning
experiences
to events
that involve
It is questioned
whether
deep
understanding
of difficult
interaction,
whether
the instructor
or2004
other
students.
Pelz
(2004)
&with
several
SLATE
papers
Virtual
Classroom
material—beyond
amassing
facts—can
occur
in the absence
What
most
memorable
is the
actual event of understanding
that
ofissame-time
same-place
interaction.
[e.g.
Gersten,
2004;
Scheidenhelm,
2004]
takes
place ineducation
dialogue, should
changing
those
whoavailable
participate.
Distance
utilize
every
opportunity
Interaction
& Presence
to bring–students
faculty
together.
Relevance
Workingand
towards
shared
goals.
and
office
hours
American
Federation
of Teachers
2000 Report
The
dynamics
of a classroom
may not (May
be replicable
in a – May
Engagement
(physical
orready
mental)
2001
Report):
(IVC
technology
not
– Kesley
& D’Souza,
Digital
Multimedia
distance
education
setting
(Kelsey
& D’Souza,
2004).2004)

Scheduled virtual class meetings

Encouragement
Encourage the development of powerful new learning and
teaching/environments
Challenge
Confidence - in the longer term (Levin et al., 1999),
that significantly
enhance
learning (Goldenberg et al., 2004).
Making
failure a learning
experience
Empowerment
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

The Power and Challenge of Multimedia
Information delivery (images, audio, video, animations)
Example 1 Example 2 Example 3 Example 4
Interactivity (applets, simulations)
Example 1 Example 2 Example 3 Example 4
Task completion (applets, simulations, applications)
Example 1 Example 2

Time-consuming – Require specialized skills
Many have already been created – Locate (edit) and implement
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

In the meantime…
Develop rigorous evaluation and control
processes to assure that distance education
programs comply with high academic standards.

Apply quality control to academic content as well
as delivery method and student support services.
Provide faculty with comprehensive educational
technology support and (user) training prior to
assigning them to ODL courses.

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Conclusions
• The current state of the Universities’ infrastructure and
administration, the faculty and student technical skills, and to some
extend the related technology does not yet support the creation of
distance learning environments that can adequately replace face to
face instruction. Benchmarks for successful ODL put forward by the
IHEP need to be taken very seriously.
• Online supplements to face to face courses can significantly
enhance the educational experience of students, especially through
the use of sophisticated, multimedia digital learning objects, many of
which have already been created.
• One of our tasks should be to locate, collect, and make available
such learning objects to instructional designers, ideally through a
centralized searchable process, followed by a continuous
development and financial backing of an expert and reliable support
system that will help faculty identify relevant resources and
efficiently and creatively incorporate them to their instruction.
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

References
•

Bartlett, T. (2004). Member of Accrediting Group Has Ph.D. From 'Notorious
Diploma Mill‘. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 50(30): A.29.

•

Carnevale, D. (2004). Distance education: Keeping up with exploding demand. The
Chronicle of Higher Education, 50(21): B.8.

•

Carnevale, D. (2004). For online adjuncts: A seller’s market. The Chronicle of Higher
Education, 50(34): A.31.

•

Cox, G. M. (2001). Strategic Planning and Implementation: The Challenge of
Adapting Organizations and Creating Partnerships to Target New Markets. University
Teaching as e-Business research project. Center for Studies in Higher Education.
UC Berkeley.

•

Bleek, J. (2004). Internet Academy. [Washington.] No Child Left Behind Leadership
Summit: Increasing Options Through e-Learning. US Department of Education.

•

Bower, B. L. (2001). Distance Education: Facing the Faculty Challenge. Online
Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 4(2).

•

Deubel, P. (2003). Learning from reflections - Issues in building quality online
courses. Online Journal Distance Learning Administration, 6(3).

•

Golden, M., Wicks, M., and Williams, L. (2004). Why virtual schools are gaining
popularity. No Child Left Behind Leadership Summit: Increasing Options Through eLearning. US Department of Education.

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

References (cont.)
•

Goldenberg, L., Heinze, J., and Ba, H. (2004). What Students Say about Learning
Science with Multiple Media. 25th NECC.

•

Kelsey, D. K. and D’Souza, A. (2004). Student motivation for learning at a distance:
Does interaction matter? OJDLA, 7(2).

•

Lapiner, R. (2001). Strategic Planning and Implementation: The Challenge of
Adapting Organizations and Creating Partnerships to Target New Markets. University
Teaching as e-Business research project. Center for Studies in Higher Education. UC
Berkeley.

•

Levin, J., Levin, S. R., and Waddoups, G. (1999). Multiplicity in learning and
teaching: A framework for developing innovative online education. Journal of
Research on Computing in Education, 32(2): 256-269.

•

Levy, S. (2003). Six Factors to Consider when Planning Online Distance Learning
Programs in Higher Education. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration,
6(1).

•

Moore, A., Masterson, J. T., Christophel, D. M., and Shea, K. A. (1996). College
teacher immediacy and student ratings of instruction. Communication Education, 45:
29-39.

•

Oblinger, D. G., Barone, C. A., and Hawkins, B. L. (2001). Distributed education
and its challenges: An overview. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education
and EDUCAUSE.

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

References (cont.)
•

•
•
•

•
•

Pelz, B. (2004). (My) Three principles of effective online pedagogy. Journal of
Asynchronous Learning Networks, 8(3).
Phipps, R. and Merisotis, J. (1999). What’s the difference? A review of contemporary
research on the effectiveness of distance learning in higher education. The Institute for
Higher Education Policy. Washington, DC.
Poley, J. (2001). Digital learning and libraries: Toward consortia and collaboratories
Presentation at NIT. Beijing,China.
Poley, J. (2002). Distance education themes and trends. Ohio State Megaconference.
Columbus, Ohio.
Poley, J. (2003). Distance Education Everywhere (not “online” learning):
Myths, Realities and Possibilities. 5th Annual International Symposium on Advanced
Radio Technologies (ISART).
Rahm, D. (1998). Tangled Webs In Public Administration: Organizational Issues In
Distance Learning. Public Administration & Management Interactive Journal, 3(1).

•

Richardson J. C. and Swan, K. (2003). Examining social presence in online courses
in relation to student’s perceived learning and satisfaction. Journal of Asynchronous
Learning Networks, 7(1).

•

Wang, H. (2004). Investigating, exploring, and promoting interaction in web-based
learning. 25th NECC.

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

References (cont.)
•

Young, K., Anderson, A., Eller, Am., Eller, An., Pounds, J., and Rashad, V.
(2004). What is possible in virtual education? Experiences empowering a
quality education for each learner. [Florida learning alliance.] No Child Left
Behind Leadership Summit: Increasing Options Through e-Learning. US
Department of Education.

•

Zemsky, R, Massy, W. F. (2004). Why the e-learning boom went bust. The
Chronicle of Higher Education, 50(44): B.6.

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004


Slide 26

Instructional design
in online environments:
Challenges and possibilities

Pantelis Vassilakis PhD
DePaul University
ITD – Libraries – School of Music

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Basic Premises
• The possibility for Online Distance
Learning (ODL) represents the most
exciting educational development in
decades.
• To date, the most positive aspect of the
ongoing ODL explosive growth has
been the application of the related
technology to online supplements,
which currently accompany the vast
majority of face-to-face courses.
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Q. What is wrong with
Online Distance Learning?
A. Its explosion is arguably led by the
wrong group (administrators vs. educators)
and is driven by the wrong motivations.
1. Main ODL advocates are administrators, who often do not fully
understand the new technology and the issues facing
instructors and students, and are not aware of the impact they
can have on creating positive changes in ODL.
[Dillon & Cintron, 1997; Wenzel, 1999; Dooley & Murphrey,
2000; (in Levy, 2003); Rahm, 1998; Bower, 2001; Kambutu,
2002; Levy, 2003; University of Minnesota - Extension service;
Kansas State University )

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Q. What is wrong with
Online Distance Learning?
A. Its explosion is arguably led by the
wrong group (administrators vs. educators)
and is driven by the wrong motivations
2. Planning for ODL usually focuses on
a) budget and personnel, rather than critical pedagogic issues
b) creating an attractive product for a target population (degree
seekers) at a minimal cost, rather than an improved educational
experience.

(Bates, 2000; Berge & Smith, 2000; Bothel, 2001; Levy, 2003;
AFT May 2001 Report)

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Q. What is wrong with
Online Distance Learning?
A. Its explosion is arguably led by the
wrong group (administrators vs. educators)
and is driven by the wrong motivations
3. ODL is approached as means to compensate for the fact that
constant growth in college-age population will soon result in more
students than University facilities can accommodate (Olinger et
al., 2001).
4. ODL is often seen as a possibly profitable auxiliary university
business (Lapiner, 2001), occasionally outsourced to for-profit
organizations (Cox, 2001).

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Q. What is wrong with
Online Distance Learning?
A. Its explosion is arguably led by the
wrong group (administrators vs. educators)
and is driven by the wrong motivations
5. University Strategic Plans and other resources cite market
pressure, the need to remain competitive, increased enrollment /
revenue, and decreased cost as some of the reasons for
aggressively promoting ODL, expecting a 20-25% annual
increase in DE enrollment, often without prior planning for
appropriate academic and technical support. This reflects a
concern with corporate survival/growth issues rather than
instructional design improvement.
(USC Academic Senate, 1991 & 2001 white papers; Texas
Technical University current Strategic Plan; New Mexico State
University current Strategic Plan)
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Q. What is wrong with
Online Distance Learning?
A. Its explosion is arguably driven by the
wrong group (administrators vs. educators)
and is driven by the wrong motivations
6. Private organizations/corporations advocate implementation of ODL
to meet standards compliance, citing cost decrease as the main
advantage and its use in Higher Education as the main justification.
7. Higher education institutions are also basing their overall ODL
development on cost rather educational considerations. In their
majority, ODL courses are assigned to ‘cost effective’ adjunct faculty,
(Carnevale, 2004) who also face inflated enrollments. Course quality
is not monitored closely, especially in established institutions that often
let their ODL offerings ride on their ‘brand name’ reputation, without
supporting them by the resources that earned them this reputation.
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning is a Reality

An average of ~ 6% of US University degree
programs are offered exclusively online.

Over 50% of institutions offer exclusive or
alternative online versions of courses.

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning is a Reality

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning is a Reality
OUS - Internet-Based Distance Learning
http://www.ous.edu/de_stat.htm
1600
Courses
1300

Enrollment (x 10)

1000

700

400

100
1998-99

1999-00

2000-01

2001-02

2002-03

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning is a Reality
Online Distance Learning Market Growth
http://nces.ed.gov/ - http://www.aft.org/
10

Billion US $

8
6
4
2
0
1998-99

1999-00

2000-01

2001-02

2002-03

2003-04
(E)

2004-05
(E)

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning is a Reality
Proportion of Online Programs
10%

8%

6%

4%

2%

0%
DePaul (135)

ASU (270)

UCLA (318)

UWM (400)

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Demand for Online Distance Learning
The explosive growth of online learning over the last 10 years
has occurred in response to continuously increasing demand.
The demand reflects a partly artificial need, driven by the
Universities themselves. The number of degrees conferred by
Universities is constantly increasing, ‘flooding’ the workforce and
making the possession of degree a must for almost any type of
employment.
Lifelong Learning and graduate education were supposed to be
the core areas of distance learning, resulting in a clientele largely
made out of so-called adult students (Bleek, 2004; Young et al.,
2004). The National Center for Education Statistics confirms that
such students are more likely than their counterparts to participate
in distance education. However…
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Demand for Online Distance Learning
US Distance Higher Education
http://nces.ed.gov/

80%
Undergraduate Courses
60%

40%

Institutions offering DL programs
20%
1994-95

1997-98

2000-01

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Demand for Online Distance Learning
Universities are targeting the population that will generate most revenue
and will embrace the ‘product’ for non-educational reasons, rather than
the population (small and quality-driven) that initiated the need.
Many on-campus students are participating in distance learning as a
way to solve course scheduling problems and/or speed up the degree
completion progress (Oregon University System; Golden et al., 2004),
resulting in an even more dramatic increase in the number of distance
learning enrollments and course offerings.
The growth rate of ODL offerings will continue to rise (Carnevale, 2004),
fueled by degree hunters who increase demand and by Universities who
recognize the immense cost cutting potential of (bad quality) DL, in spite of
the widely recognized failure to yet produce good quality DL (e.g. Zemsky
& Massy, 2004) and alarming reports of Accreditation officials having
obtained PhD degrees from DL degree mills (Bartlett, 2004).
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning & Faculty
Faculty members often resist the move towards online
distance learning.
Possible reasons:

a) Alleged dislike, fear, and/or ignorance of the relevant
technology; a “…confusion and nonsense disseminated by
those who would protect status quo…”. (Poley, 2003)
b) Faculty are often thrown into a ODL situation by University
programs eager to compete in the ODL market, without
being offered the necessary tools to do the job.
c) ODL seems, at least on the surface, to go against the very
essence of a learning event: communication.
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Online Distance Learning & Faculty
Learning is a fundamentally social activity (review in Wang, 2004).
ODL advocates see the ePortofolio explosion as a recognition of this fact.
Learning relies heavily on communication among participants; on dialogue,
exchange of ideas, argumentation, feedback, and the readjustment of our
position, whatever this may have been prior to entering the learning event.
Communication involves facial expressions, gestures, tone of voice, and
(almost) instantaneous feedback. It is the immediacy in dialogue that can
a) prevent instances of misunderstanding from escalating,
b) support the continuous adjustment in the way a learning event progresses,
necessary to accommodate changes in the learning environment at hand.
Social presence and interaction affect course outcomes as well as course
satisfaction (Moore et al., 1996; Richardson & Swan, 2003; Pelz, 2004).
Drop-out rates are consistently higher in ODL vs. traditional courses (IHEP)
ODL students may experience social isolation. The students who need the
most help in DL courses do not ask for it (Levy, 2003).
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Can ODL support this kind of learning event?
Over 100 books in print published in the last two years
Over 100 online books
Over 10 scholarly journals dealing exclusively with the topic
Amazon has over 200 entries
Over 30 consortia publish their own journals, books, and
conference proceedings
Common themes:
I.

Communication, interactivity, feedback, identified as the major
challenges (e.g. Poley, 2001, 2002; Deubel, 2003; USC Academic
Senate, Whitepaper, Newsletter).

II. Often, there is no explicit reference to advances within education
research in general.
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Common Themes of Powerful Learning Experiences
Thinking outside the box.
Interaction not Interactivity (Phipps & Merisotis, 1999; Wang, 2004)
Learners
link powerful
learning
experiences
to events
that involve
It is questioned
whether
deep
understanding
of difficult
interaction,
whether
the instructor
or2004
other
students.
Pelz
(2004)
&with
several
SLATE
papers
Virtual
Classroom
material—beyond
amassing
facts—can
occur
in the absence
What
most
memorable
is the
actual event of understanding
that
ofissame-time
same-place
interaction.
[e.g.
Gersten,
2004;
Scheidenhelm,
2004]
takes
place ineducation
dialogue, should
changing
those
whoavailable
participate.
Distance
utilize
every
opportunity
Interaction
& Presence
to bring–students
faculty
together.
Relevance
Workingand
towards
shared
goals.
and
office
hours
American
Federation
of Teachers
2000 Report
The
dynamics
of a classroom
may not (May
be replicable
in a – May
Engagement
(physical
orready
mental)
2001
Report):
(IVC
technology
not
– Kesley
& D’Souza,
Digital
Multimedia
distance
education
setting
(Kelsey
& D’Souza,
2004).2004)

Scheduled virtual class meetings

Encouragement
Encourage the development of powerful new learning and
teaching/environments
Challenge
Confidence - in the longer term (Levin et al., 1999),
that significantly
enhance
learning (Goldenberg et al., 2004).
Making
failure a learning
experience
Empowerment
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

The Power and Challenge of Multimedia
Information delivery (images, audio, video, animations)
Example 1 Example 2 Example 3 Example 4
Interactivity (applets, simulations)
Example 1 Example 2 Example 3 Example 4
Task completion (applets, simulations, applications)
Example 1 Example 2

Time-consuming – Require specialized skills
Many have already been created – Locate (edit) and implement
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

In the meantime…
Develop rigorous evaluation and control
processes to assure that distance education
programs comply with high academic standards.

Apply quality control to academic content as well
as delivery method and student support services.
Provide faculty with comprehensive educational
technology support and (user) training prior to
assigning them to ODL courses.

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

Conclusions
• The current state of the Universities’ infrastructure and
administration, the faculty and student technical skills, and to some
extend the related technology does not yet support the creation of
distance learning environments that can adequately replace face to
face instruction. Benchmarks for successful ODL put forward by the
IHEP need to be taken very seriously.
• Online supplements to face to face courses can significantly
enhance the educational experience of students, especially through
the use of sophisticated, multimedia digital learning objects, many of
which have already been created.
• One of our tasks should be to locate, collect, and make available
such learning objects to instructional designers, ideally through a
centralized searchable process, followed by a continuous
development and financial backing of an expert and reliable support
system that will help faculty identify relevant resources and
efficiently and creatively incorporate them to their instruction.
© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

References
•

Bartlett, T. (2004). Member of Accrediting Group Has Ph.D. From 'Notorious
Diploma Mill‘. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 50(30): A.29.

•

Carnevale, D. (2004). Distance education: Keeping up with exploding demand. The
Chronicle of Higher Education, 50(21): B.8.

•

Carnevale, D. (2004). For online adjuncts: A seller’s market. The Chronicle of Higher
Education, 50(34): A.31.

•

Cox, G. M. (2001). Strategic Planning and Implementation: The Challenge of
Adapting Organizations and Creating Partnerships to Target New Markets. University
Teaching as e-Business research project. Center for Studies in Higher Education.
UC Berkeley.

•

Bleek, J. (2004). Internet Academy. [Washington.] No Child Left Behind Leadership
Summit: Increasing Options Through e-Learning. US Department of Education.

•

Bower, B. L. (2001). Distance Education: Facing the Faculty Challenge. Online
Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 4(2).

•

Deubel, P. (2003). Learning from reflections - Issues in building quality online
courses. Online Journal Distance Learning Administration, 6(3).

•

Golden, M., Wicks, M., and Williams, L. (2004). Why virtual schools are gaining
popularity. No Child Left Behind Leadership Summit: Increasing Options Through eLearning. US Department of Education.

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

References (cont.)
•

Goldenberg, L., Heinze, J., and Ba, H. (2004). What Students Say about Learning
Science with Multiple Media. 25th NECC.

•

Kelsey, D. K. and D’Souza, A. (2004). Student motivation for learning at a distance:
Does interaction matter? OJDLA, 7(2).

•

Lapiner, R. (2001). Strategic Planning and Implementation: The Challenge of
Adapting Organizations and Creating Partnerships to Target New Markets. University
Teaching as e-Business research project. Center for Studies in Higher Education. UC
Berkeley.

•

Levin, J., Levin, S. R., and Waddoups, G. (1999). Multiplicity in learning and
teaching: A framework for developing innovative online education. Journal of
Research on Computing in Education, 32(2): 256-269.

•

Levy, S. (2003). Six Factors to Consider when Planning Online Distance Learning
Programs in Higher Education. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration,
6(1).

•

Moore, A., Masterson, J. T., Christophel, D. M., and Shea, K. A. (1996). College
teacher immediacy and student ratings of instruction. Communication Education, 45:
29-39.

•

Oblinger, D. G., Barone, C. A., and Hawkins, B. L. (2001). Distributed education
and its challenges: An overview. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education
and EDUCAUSE.

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

References (cont.)
•

•
•
•

•
•

Pelz, B. (2004). (My) Three principles of effective online pedagogy. Journal of
Asynchronous Learning Networks, 8(3).
Phipps, R. and Merisotis, J. (1999). What’s the difference? A review of contemporary
research on the effectiveness of distance learning in higher education. The Institute for
Higher Education Policy. Washington, DC.
Poley, J. (2001). Digital learning and libraries: Toward consortia and collaboratories
Presentation at NIT. Beijing,China.
Poley, J. (2002). Distance education themes and trends. Ohio State Megaconference.
Columbus, Ohio.
Poley, J. (2003). Distance Education Everywhere (not “online” learning):
Myths, Realities and Possibilities. 5th Annual International Symposium on Advanced
Radio Technologies (ISART).
Rahm, D. (1998). Tangled Webs In Public Administration: Organizational Issues In
Distance Learning. Public Administration & Management Interactive Journal, 3(1).

•

Richardson J. C. and Swan, K. (2003). Examining social presence in online courses
in relation to student’s perceived learning and satisfaction. Journal of Asynchronous
Learning Networks, 7(1).

•

Wang, H. (2004). Investigating, exploring, and promoting interaction in web-based
learning. 25th NECC.

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004

References (cont.)
•

Young, K., Anderson, A., Eller, Am., Eller, An., Pounds, J., and Rashad, V.
(2004). What is possible in virtual education? Experiences empowering a
quality education for each learner. [Florida learning alliance.] No Child Left
Behind Leadership Summit: Increasing Options Through e-Learning. US
Department of Education.

•

Zemsky, R, Massy, W. F. (2004). Why the e-learning boom went bust. The
Chronicle of Higher Education, 50(44): B.6.

© Pantelis Vassilakis, 2004