trends and futures of educatio1

7/29/2019 Trends and Futures of Educatio1

1/17

Trends and Futures of Education:

Implications for Distance Education

Brent G. Wilson

October 2001

For inclusion in a special issue of

the Quarterly Review of Distance Education

edited by Les Moller

Distance education has been described as a disruptive technology an innovation that,while initially posing no threat to established institutions, over time challengesconventional practices and contributes to new ways of thinking (Archer, Garrison, &Anderson, 1999). I agree with this assessment. Distance education has already becomemore than an alternative form of delivery. It has shaken up the educationalestablishment, especially at higher education and corporate levels. Precisely becauseof this success, though, assessing potential at midstream can be a challenge.

At times like these, instructional designers and providers can benefit enormously bystepping back, reviewing broad trends, and forecasting likely scenarios based on thosetrends. That is the purpose of this paper. A number of current trends will be outlinedand their likely impact on education considered. Then some brief pointers toward thefuture will be presented. I invite you the reader to join me in a response to the trends,and come up with your own likely scenario!

Observers of distance education can point to a number of discernible trends affectingpractice over the past several years. Table 1 presents a list of trends in summary form,to be discussed in the paper.

Technologizing of SchoolSystems

Standardizedcompetencies

Global MarketplaceEconomies of scaleGlobally distributed laborpool


2/17

System-side assessmentsand accountabilityIncentivization of fundingRegulated processes andmethods

Alignment of outcomes,assessments, and methodsDe-professionalizing theteachers role

Learner- and User-CenteredPhilosophies

Convenient,anytime/anywhere accessConstructivismField-based and informallearning

High-touch connectivityMoves to Automate InstructionalDesign

Standardized taxonomiesfor learning outcomes andinstructional strategiesData-driven generation ofrule-based instructionMore flexible, adaptableauthoring toolsMore modular, re-usable

designThe Digital Shift: Advances inInformation Technologies

ArchivabilitySearchabilityReplicabilityHypertext linkabilityCommunication toolsRepresentation andmodeling tools

Disaggregation ofproducts and servicesCommoditization ofinstructionMixing of commerce and

educationRadical Forces Inspired byGlobal Connectivity

Web as democratizing,emancipating,empowering forceOpen sourceSelf-publishing andknowledge sharingPeer-to-peer networkingSelf-organized learning-

and performance-supportgroupsThreats to credentialing,degree- grantinginstitutionsGlobal education as analternative to a nationalcurriculum

Changing Paradigms of Thoughtin Instructional Design

From strategy to activity

From individual to socialFrom social to valueFrom multiple scales tointegration of scaleFrom linear causality tosystemic impact

Table 1. Key trends relating to education, distance education, and learningtechnologies.

Current trends do not determine the future, but they can provide a basis for presentaction and an understanding of possible futures. The trends depicted in Table 1 arepulling in different directionssome fostering change, others reinforcing the status quo;some using technology in a controlling way, others using technology to empower


3/17

individuals. I should explain at the outset that the presentation of trends in this paperseeks to include different viewpoints, but is low on detailed analysis. This is donepartly for reasons of scope and focus, but also because my purpose is to conveycontrasting impressions and possibilities, rather than argue for a single scenario or setof values.

Technologizing of School Systems

School systems, particularly American K12 public schools, are facing pressures tomodernize and "technologize" their processes by establishing more predictableoutputs and methods (Tyack & Cuban, 1995). Although American public schools arethe immediate point of discussion for this section, the principles extend to anyschooling or educational system.

Standardized competencies. The standards movement has resulted in a common set of

learning outcomes that can be shared across districts, states, or an entire nation. Thesecurriculum standards are presented in quasi-behavioral language, but at a fairly highlevel of generality to accommodate different teaching methods.

System-side assessments and accountability. Standardized assessments are now beingmandated throughout the United State and, of course, in many parts of the world.These assessments are part of an overall move to make schools more accountable tothe public or to the government. Test scores are thus indicators of tax dollars andgovernment resources being well-spent.

Incentivization of funding. Increasingly, operational funds are being tied tocompliance with specific mandates and regulations. These mandates are made atlevels beyond individual schools, intended to bring schools into line with desiredteaching and assessment practices.

Regulated processes and methods. Traditionally, teachers have enjoyed considerableautonomy in their classrooms, choosing teaching methods that fit their style whilemeeting curriculum expectations. Now with increased emphasis on high-stakestesting, teachers are being asked to fit their teaching methods more closely to thelarger system of goals and assessments. In many cases, methods are established and

prescribed by schools, districts, and even states, leaving less room for professionaljudgment and variations in teaching style. This can also constrain teachers efforts tomeet unique needs of diverse learners.

Alignment of outcomes, assessments, and methods. In a well-coordinated schoolingsystem, an alignment exists between processes and outputs in particular, betweenstandardized outcomes, assessment measures, and acceptable teaching methods. This


4/17

principle of alignment is well-established as an instructional-design principle, butuntil recently, has not been the norm within the American public-school system.

De-professionalizing the teachers role. Tighter alignment of processes and outputshas a definite impact on the teachers role. As suggested above, the teacher often

assumes a "technicians" role of implementing prescribed rules, as opposed to aprofessionals role of exercising judgment.

The overall pull of these trends is in the direction of standardization, conformity, andefficiency. This is consistent with a factory or industrial model of schooling, i.e.,given known inputs, the system applies predictable rules and processes, resulting infairly standard and controllable outputs. I use the term technologize because itsuggests the application of knowledge and technologies to the solution of a practicalproblem in this case, the education of children in a responsible and efficient manner.

Learner- and User-Centered Philosophies

At the same time schools are moving toward efficiency and control, the mood amongmany educators is definitely learner-centered. The constructivist movement ineducation stresses individual and collaborative construction of meaning. While manyteachers wish they could teach in more learner-centered ways, the system can make itdifficult. Teachers and trainers thus face a certain tension between efficiency andcontrol on the one hand, and learner-centered flexibility on the other. The trendsbelow relate to the treatment of students, but also to teachers and managersthemselves. Both instructors and students are thus seen as end users of learning

resources.

Convenient, anytime/anywhere access. Instead of students going to class, learning iscoming to the student in the workplace or at home. Just-in-time, just-in-place learningresources are increasingly available to learners in their normal living settings. This hasalways been a defining advantage of distance learning; the Web has only continuedand improved upon this trend. Adult learners are typically seeking specific skills asopposed to general educational outcomes. The result is, many adult learners arestarting to look first to the Web and to locally available resources before committingto formal programs of study.

Constructivism. Constructivism is a psychologically-oriented approach to learningthat emphasizes individual and collaborative meaning construction. While earlytheorists Vygotsky, Dewey, and Piaget paved the way 60-70 years ago, constructivismmoved to the mainstream only in the 1990s. Constructivist teaching strategies givestudents complex and engaging projects and tasks to perform, with scaffolding andsupport from colleagues or a teacher/facilitator. Learning happens via meaningful


5/17

experiences and direct encounters. Examples include guided inquiry activities such asWebquests, or problem-based learning cases.

Field-based and informal learning. Many educators have become conscious of thelimits of classroom learning, because it happens outside of natural and authentic

contexts. This has led to greater appreciation for informal and field-based learningopportunities. Informal learning happens by virtue of participation in some othervalued activity, e.g., work or play. Field-based learning refers to semi-structuredactivities such as internships, practicum experiences, expeditions and trips, etc. Theseinformal and field-based experiences are compatible with constructivist values and arelearner-centered in the same sense the emphasis on individuals meaningful encounterswith the world as opposed to direct instruction in controlled settings.

High-touch connectivity. Many technology innovators maintain a dual focus in theirdissemination efforts providing advanced information tools coupled with high levels

of personal support and connectivity among individuals (Naisbitt, 1982; Spitzer,2001). The commitment to both high-tech and high-touch suggests a need to maketools people-centered rather than the reverse (Norman, 1993).

How does distance education fit within these conflicting forces of standardizationversus learner-centered values? Ironically, distance education can be seen to supportboth movements. A well-conceived distance education program can fit squarelywithin a strictly controlled standards-based curriculum. At the same time, someaspects of the distance learning experience are completely learner-centered, especiallythe access and convenience afforded students.

Moves to Automate Instructional Design

The research agenda of Dave Merrill and others has focused on how to make high-quality instruction happen more regularly and consistently. One way to do this is tocreate an expert system that will ensure adequate instructional quality, based on adefined theory of instruction. In this section several trends are outlined that relate tomaking instructional-design processes more efficient and effective, either throughimproved tools or improved theories.

Standardized taxonomies for learning outcomes and instructional strategies. A basicprecept of instructional design is known as the "conditions-of-learning" assumption(Ragan & Smith, 1996). Before producing instruction, you determine what you needto teach, as well as your audience and situation. Then and only then can goodinstructional strategies be determined. To make this assumption workable, designersuse specific taxonomies of learning outcomes, matched up with instructionalstrategies. Examples of this strategy-outcome coupling include Robert Gagns nine


6/17

events of instruction and Dave Merrills component display theory. According to thisview, rules connecting goals with instructional strategies become essential to thesystematic practice of instructional design.

Data-driven generation of rule-based instruction. An automated version of this line of

thinking seeks to make instructional development largely a data-driven activity. Intheory, automated instructional design is an ambitious concept: Just plug in dataconcerning learning outcomes, learners, and situation, and the rule system spits outnot only a set of recommended strategiesbut draft instructional materials. A majoradvantage of an automated system like this would be the efficiency gains achievedthrough re-usability of data. For example, investment in content representationdepicting the facts, procedures, principles, and examples in a subject area could yieldsome quickly developed instruction for different learners in different situations,according to the rules of the system. Learning objects are based on a similar idea,although perhaps not as theory-driven (Wiley, 2002). While research on automatinginstruction has continued over two decades, the agenda is still in its infancy, and mayprove increasingly viable in coming years.

More flexible, adaptable authoring tools. In addition to rule-based taxonomies andinstructional prescriptions, authoring tools have become more flexible and powerful.Rather than force designers into linear, top-down ways of thinking and producing,more powerful tools allow late and iterative changes in design, more in keeping withnatural design thinking and envisioning. Examples include 3-D modeling programsthat allow for various uses once the model has been created; or authoring tools thatallow prototyping and creation of dummy interfaces, to test out concepts at earlystages before investing in full-design development. These powerful tools are useful,not just to instructional-design professionals, but to non-professionals seeking toengage in design activities.

More modular, re-usable design. The learning-objects movement is about reusingcontent to make efficiency gains in the instructional development process. Becausedigital content is "non-rival" in nature (i.e., copies of equal quality can easily be madefrom originals), reusability for various purposes, media, and occasions become aninviting possibility (Wiley, 2002).

But the learning-objects movement is only one line of an overall effort to allow formodular re-usability of design components. The idea is that good instructional designis based on a very finite number of models, templates, and solutions, created whileaddressing earlier problems. The task is to adopt these available resources, re-usingand appropriating wherever possible, to address the problem at hand. This modularattitude seems to draw from a workshop metaphor that sees designers as craftspersonsre-using ideas and content for different clients and purposes, somewhere between


7/17

factory or pure-artist metaphors of production. The IMMEX environment forproblem-based learning lessons (http://www.immex.ucla.edu/) is a Web example oftemplate use.

The Digital Shift: Advances in Information Technologies

New technologies serve a number of functions: They empower people and open upnew possibilities for action. They serve as metaphors for new ways of thinking aboutproblems. They eventually come to constrain our thinking and actions, especially afterheavy investment in their use. Advances in information technologies over the lasttwenty years are so profound that they are affecting every area of our professionallives. I term this condition the "digital shift" because, as we convert our thinking,knowledge, and communication to digital and informational form, a whole new set ofpossibilities opens up (Brown, 2000; Brown & Duguid, 1996).

Archivability. Digitized information is traceable and archivable. Exchanges andinteractions are more easily captured, at least on a digital level.

Searchability. Digital databases are searchable to a degree that we can often retrieveneeded resources when solving problems in real time.

Replicability. Because of their non-rival nature, digital resources can be copied anddistributed an infinite number of times at zero or extremely low cost.

Hypertext linkability. The hypertext structures of the Web draw heavily on the

associative structures conceived by behaviorists and systems thinkers in the 1940s and50s (Hebb, 1949). Using webs of interconnecting information has becomecommonplace in the problem-solving practices of information workers.

Communication tools. We have learned more about how to navigate rich informationstructures, and then to communicate with other people within those structures. Onlinetools will increasingly allow higher resolution, more modalities, more choice, andmore fidelity to everyday and face-to-face encounters.

Representation and modeling tools. Representation tools everything from PowerPoint

to 3-D animation to digital TV and beyondare changing our notion of reality. Thesetools, coupled with sophisticated communications, have led to virtual worlds that,increasingly, allow for rich experience and interaction. We now need to match thisgrowth with a better understanding of how to use the tools for good learning effect.

Global Marketplace


8/17

In recent years, economies worldwide have moved toward greater linkages andinterdependencies. This move is called the global economy or the global marketplace.I discuss below several aspects of this global trend, affecting the delivery ofeducational and learning resources (see also Collis & Gommer, 2001a and Collis &Gommer, 2001b for a helpful analysis on this general issue).

Economies of scale. By virtue of the Web and the shift to online learning, markets forlearning resources have shifted from local to global. Thus a school in Australia mayoffer a course that attracts students from all over the world. A portal or website maycompete against an office of student services within a community college. Theseshifts in markets and audiences create new economies of scale allowing largerinvestment and larger outreach but they can also threaten locally developed providers.

Globally distributed labor pool. A company based out of India may hire anexperienced PhD at $3/hour to facilitate a graduate-level computer science course.

This, in turn, may force a competitive response by a local school or learning-resourceprovider. By simple virtue of the Web, salary scales and hiring practices for onlineresource providers are starting to become more globalized

Disaggregation of products and services. It can be hard to put a price tag onresidential school experiences. What is a Harvard MBA worth, and where does thevalue lie? Many graduates would place great value on non-traditional outcomes, e.g.,the network of friends and contacts; the exposure to a companys work practices via aninternship; the rite-of-passage and developmental roles of schooling; the opportunityto take personal risks and test oneself. Online learning providers will need tosomehow differentiate the valued outcomes of a schooling experience. Parsing outthese valued outcomes will help to make sure the online experience can bespecifically designed to include them. For example, if college graduates value thepersonal experimentation and growth accruing from going away to school, then onlineproviders may want to design and encourage avenues for personal experimentationonline for example, through music or political involvement. Also, once valuedoutcomes are identified and understood, providers may be able to set up pricingschemes that differentiate among those outcomes. Credential costs, for example, maybe priced separately from some learning costs.

Commoditization of instruction. As suggested earlier, instruction can be seen either asa mass-produced product or as a unique experience. Because online learning resourcesrequire more up-front development than typical classroom experiences, and becauseonline instruction is still seen as an entrepreneurial enterprise, there is a tendency tosee online instruction as a commodity. Once investment has been made in the product,providers often want to distribute that product as far as the market will allow. Thiscould also be called a shift from a craft to an industrial model of production and


9/17

delivery. A view of instruction as commodity, of course, is compatible with viewingeducation in input-output terms.

As an industrial model of instruction is adopted, questions of ownership and control ofdistribution become more prominent, because a product is developed that, at least in

principle, can be readily distributed (unlike the typical classroom experience).Publishers, concerned about losing their place in this changing environment, haveintroduced innovations such as the customizable textbook. To some extent, discussionof learning objects has been appropriated by publishers as part of an effort to maintaincommercial control of content elements through proprietary standards.

Mixing of commerce and education. Many enthusiasts are disheartened at thecommercialization of the Web, but it was a predictable effect coincident withincreasing choice and individual control. A similar tendency is seen in schools asgreater choices and perspectives are accommodated through charter and private

schools. Commercial investment can provide the needed stimulus to innovation anddevelopment, but it can also reduce innovation and variation, especially small-nicheperspectives at the fringes. Commercial appropriation of learning can result in someconfusion through blurring of boundaries between consumption and education,between entertainment and learning. In an open market, where satisfaction of desireplays a critical role, learning outcomes may suffer from neglect.

Radical Forces Inspired by Global Connectivity

Web as democratizing, emancipating, empowering force. Early literature about the

Internet was infused with optimism and idealism about universal sharing and access.The Web indeed can be an empowering force that gives information access to userswho are physically remote from resources (Ryder, 1995).

At the same time, the Web, like so many other tools, reflects our own values andideas. A divide still exists between the privileged and the disenfranchised, but therules have changed somewhat. Principal barriers now include lack of access and lackof cultural or personal fit with the technology. Age can even be a barrier toempowerment, with younger people tending to have more time and familiarity withtechnology than older generations.

Open source. The commercial model of technology advancement, exemplified in thesoftware industry by Microsoft, is being challenged right now by the open sourcemovement. Linux, an operating system whose source code is open for the world to seeand costs nothing to download and use, has become a major movement in the softwaredevelopment world. Open-source advocates are trying to create a world where


10/17

software is freely available and a living is made through continuing relationships ofservice and support.

Open-source ideas may be applied to online learning and education: Challengecommercial ownership by making resources freely available, for example, on the

Web. If communities of practice can be organized around openly available tools andresources, then the system can become self-sustaining and reinforcing to participants(Schrage, 2000).

Self-publishing and knowledge sharing. Self-publishing is to knowledge managementas open source is to Microsoft an alternative to a hierarchically controlled system.Instead of fixed search categories and a company-designed form, end usersthemselves can publish solutions and locally valued resources. The Web epitomizesthis growing trend, to the occasional chagrin of copyright owners and librarians(Ryder & Wilson, 1997).

Peer-to-peer networking. The Napster phenomenon taught us that downloading fromcentral servers is not the only way to perpetuate an online enterprise. Peer-to-peernetworking refers to individual users sharing resources by opening up their harddrives to each other. The core concept is even more radical than Napster s, becauseonce out of the bag and in the hands of end users, true peer-to-peer usage cannot becontrolled. In this way peer-to-peer networking constitutes a classic form of self-organizing system, using the technology to bypass every form of central control.

Self-organized learning- and performance-support groups. Peer-to-peer connectivity

is the extreme end of self-organizing on the Web, but there are other forms. Interestgroups, listservs, support groups of all kinds Each of these is a self-organizing systemthat draws on distributed energy and participation for its survival. An interestingexample is slashdot.org, a news and discussion group for open-source and technicalgeeks. Run by a group of about a dozen editors, thousands of readers participate atmultiple levels: by contributing stories, discussing the stories, rating the comments,and even rating the ratings. Together, these carefully crafted forms of participationresult in a finely tuned environment for learning about news and technology In short,its a very successful informal learning environment exhibiting both designed and self-organizing qualities (Wiley & Edwards, this issue). And contrary to threadeddiscussions typical of online courses, the slashdot experience gets better with morestudents involved. It seems inevitable that educational institutions will see anadvantage in exploiting these tools for more formal learning purposes. I can imagine,for example, a consortium of graduate programs sponsoring participation in adiscussion forum like slashlearn.org, currently run by David Wiley. Slashlearn.orguses slashdot source code, with the conversation directed toward instructionaltechnology issues (Irving, 2001).


11/17

Threats to credentialing, degree-granting institutions. To stay in business, educationalinstitutions must maintain the value of their credentialing processes. The collegegraduate must hold some kind of advantage over the non-degreed person. The basisfor accreditation and credentialing has historically been seat time Students live inresidence and accumulate seat time until a requisite number of classes (with proper

grades) is attained.

An alternative to seat time is demonstrated mastery of competencies. Professionallycertified tests are an example of this approach. Competency-based alternatives haveonly been partly successful in their challenge of seat-time credentialing, partlybecause of technical and quality problems with competency measures. Also, it isargued, something unique happens in the experience of schooling. Its not just aboutthe competency, critics argue Its about the learning experience itself. There issomething in going to school thats irreducible down to a competency exam.

In recent years, however, competency-based approaches are enjoying a comeback,thanks largely to growth in online and self-directed learning. For-profit outreachinstitutions like the University of Phoenix, once ridiculed for giving credit for "lifeexperience," continue to gain market share against residential institutions. In spite ofreliability problems, professional portfolios are increasingly used for competencydemonstration and evaluation. Online learning, where seat time loses much of itsmeaning, continues to improve its services and learning outcomes, along with marketshare. These "disruptive technologies" and accompanying competency-based tools aretruly disrupting the status quo.

The challenge to seat-time credentialing is formidable. The fast-growing homeschooling movement, for example, is increasingly dependent on online resources andinterest groups, and has been fairly successful in demonstrating learning outcomes.Many working professionals are opting for narrower and shorter training certificatesinstead of full degrees, often with credit given for previously acquired competencies.

Global education as an alternative to a national curriculum. Email exchanges andprojects linking students from different parts of the world are not the only curricularimpact of global connectivity. Global education refers to a new philosophy of learningthat seeks to create responsible citizens of the world. Transcending national interests,the global education curriculum takes broadly based positions on issues of non-violence and conflict resolution; sustainable growth policies; treatment of rich andpoor; and protection of the global environment (McEneaney, Kolker, & Ustinova,1998).

Changing Paradigms of Thought in Instructional Design


12/17

The fields of education, psychology, and instructional design continue to contribute tothe professional environment within which distance education is practiced. And, ofcourse, no professional field is a static state; rather, we each contribute to constantchanges in the disciplines and fields we participate in. This section is a highlypersonal slant on how professional paradigms in instructional design have been

changing in recent years, and where they are likely to continue changing.

From strategy to activity. Instructional designers talk about strategies that get used orapplied in various situations. Merriam-Webster Online provides a first definition ofstrategythat relates to war and peace. The second definition is:

2 a : a careful plan or method : a clever stratagemb : the art of devising or employing plans or stratagems toward a goalA strategy, then, seems to refer to a pre-existing plan or method that can be deployedto address an immediate problem. From what we know about human cognition,

however, much of our behavior, including the solving of complex problems, involvesmore than applying plans or methods. Our intentional behavior, constrained by anumber of situational conditions and purposes, is sometimes methodical and strategicand other times more ad hoc.

My point is this: Instructional design models often carry a strong bias toward rationalplanning and adoption of a fixed set of strategies; whereas instructional designpractice is much more interesting than that. Designers do apply plans and strategies,but they also respond very directly to environments, colleagues, and tasks at hand.The formal plans and strategies get more attention in the literature than the in-contextproblem-solving activities. Activity theory presents a framework for analyzingsituations with a focus on participants and their intentions, tools, and culture (Jonassen& Rohrer-Murphy, 1999; Ryder, 2001b). When I think of good instructional-designpractice, I now tend to think less in terms of strategy deployment and more in terms ofactivity What are people actually doing (concrete), rather than what strategy(abstraction) might they be applying?

From individual to social. Throughout the 1990s, some of the major innovations inpsychology came from movements in situated cognition and the social construction ofmeaning. This is somewhat ironic since psychology s entire stance is predicated onindividual behavior and cognition. In fact, the situated cognition movement is a tacitacknowledgement of the need for something more than individual cognition.

From social to value. Social and cultural levels of understanding human behavior leadnaturally to questions of value: What is it that people want? What shouldpeoplewant? What is right and fair? How can we get people working together better? We run


13/17

up against a fairly dead end, however, when we ask our psychology-derived theoriesto help us with value questions.

For tools to identify the multiple meanings and values inherent in our materials, wecan turn to critical and hermeneutical approaches that seek to understand and interpret

situations like a critic would understand a text. These approaches, while not scientificin method or purpose, are better equipped to identify and highlight contrasting valuesand perspectives, while not imposing a specific value system. Critical approaches canthus serve a needed role in the design of distance-education resources as they help usexamine the various meanings implicit in our messages, and determine if thats whatwe really want to say.

From multiple scales to integration of scale. Designers of distance educationprograms need more inclusive, holistic models that can inform simultaneously atdifferent levels of context: individual cognition, cultures and communities, and

political and value dimensions. Right now theorists at these specific levels are fairlydefensive and protective of their terrain. Practitioners are forced to cobble togetherinclusive perspectives by combining contradictory and incommensurate theories ontheir own. Frankly, I have not found models in the educational or social-scienceliterature that successfully integrate these levels of scale, but activity theory comesclose (Wilson & Myers, 2000).

From linear causality to systemic impact. Future models of instructional design mustquit looking simplistically for linear cause-and-effect relationships outside of systemicinteractions. Rather than ask questions such as: Which is better Distance education ortraditional delivery?we must closely examine local, dynamic, and systemicinteractions. Systems theory, especially complexity theory, has received recentattention in the literature, and this seems likely to continue in the future.

Reflections

How do these various trends add up? I hope the reader engages in some reflection andconversation about that question. What follows is my best effort at generalizing uponthe trends. Rather than paint a specific scenario, I highlight a few principles

suggesting to how the trends may combine.

The trends keep marching on. Each of the trends listed above will continue to play arole in future developments of education and training, where distance technologieswill play an expanding role. The trends may compete with one another, or sometimescancel each other out. But they all represent significant aspects of the problem spacewithin which distance education of the future will take shape.


14/17

Open systems trump closed ones. This is my way of saying, learners and communitieswill find a way to appropriate emerging tools and technologies, rather than thereverse. I have a bias that says that open systems (self-directed learners, self-organizing groups of learners and workers) constitute the most vital and thriving unitfor understanding human actions and choices (cf. Hill, 1999). Process efficiencies and

mass-produced tutorials can be appropriated and put into service by these learners andgroups, and that is good. Where a group can appropriate a tool or technology and useit to learn from, let it do so. Where the technology breaks down, the group will adaptand make do.

This is not a Utopian faith in the goodness of people; rather, it is an acknowledgementof the power and priority of groups that identify us and guide our behavior. Schools ascollectivized learning institutions will not go away. Teachers or guides, responsiblefor the growth of novices, will not go away. Collective learning in real time will notgo away. These practices are in place, not because we lack alternatives, but becausewe are social beings who invest considerable time and resources toward localinteractions and support. I am confident that the same groups schools, classrooms,families, workgroups, professional organizations will find ways for distance-educationresources to work in their service.

Technologies are still reflections of us. Through technologies and new ideas, we arealways in the process of re-inventing ourselves. Technologies serve as mirrors of ourvalues and aspirations, as well as our weaknesses and intractable problems. This truthabout technologies underscores the importance of subjecting our plans to continuingscrutiny. Whenever possible, we want our technologies to reflect our bestselves andour highest ambitions.

Technology and ideas will continue to co-evolve together. Historians of technologytell us that a technology, often based on the best thinking available, in turn stimulatesnew thinking and new possibilities. This is certainly true of the Web and networkedinformation systems. A huge spike of promising ideas, models, and R &D efforts hasaccompanied the new technology. When these new efforts are seen as artifactsthemselves, we see how one technology prompts the development of another, and howthe cycle repeats itself through new iterations of technology, design, theorizing, andpractice. Thus we can be sure that, as technology continues its onward march, newmodels and ideas will surely follow and in some cases, precede the technology itself.As John Dewey said more than seventy years ago:

Many are the conditions which must be fulfilled if the Great Society is to become aGreat Community The highest and most difficult kind of inquiry and a subtle,delicate, vivid and responsive art of communication must take possession of thephysical machinery of transmission and circulation and breath life into it. When the


15/17

machine age has thus perfected its machinery, it will be a means of life and not itsdespotic master. (Dewey, 1954/27)

References

Archer, W., Garrison, D. R., & Anderson, T. (1999). Adopting disruptive technologiesin traditional universities: Continuing education as an incubator for innovation.

DEOSNews, 9 (11). Available:http://www.ed.psu.edu/acsde/deosarchives.html

Brown, J. S. (2000, February). Works in progress. Online:http://www.parc.xerox.com/ops/members/brown/index.html

Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (1996, July/August). Universities in the Digital Age.Change, 10.

Carr, A. A. (1997). User-design in the creation of human learning systems.Educational Technology Research & Development, 45 (3), 5-22.

Cave, D. (2001, July 10). Microsoft to schools: Give us your lunch money! Online:http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2001/07/10/microsoft_school/print.html

Collis, B., & Gommer, L. (2001). Stretching the Mold or a New Economy? Part I:Scenarios for the university in 2005.Educational Technology, 41 (3), 5-18.

Collis, B., & Gommer, L. (2001). Stretching the Mold or a New Economy: Part 2:

Realizing the scenarios for the university in 2005.Educational Technology, 41 (4), 5-14.

Dewey, J. (1954/27). The public and its problems. Athens OH: Ohio University Press.Chapter 5: Search for the Great Community. Also found in J. A. Boydston (Ed.), Thecollected works of John Dewey, 1882 - 1953, Later works, 2, 325-350.

Hebb, D. O. (1949). The organization of behavior: A neuropsychological theory. NewYork: Wiley.

Hill, J. R. (1999). A conceptual framework for understanding information seeking inopen-ended information systems.Educational Technology Research and

Development, 47 (1), 5-27.

Irving, J. (2001, July). SlashLearn: Discussion and debate for instructionaltechnologists. Online: http://www.beota.com/ilt/dwarticle.htm
http://www.ed.psu.edu/acsde/deosarchives.htmlhttp://www.ed.psu.edu/acsde/deosarchives.htmlhttp://www.ed.psu.edu/acsde/deosarchives.htmlhttp://www.parc.xerox.com/ops/members/brown/index.htmlhttp://www.parc.xerox.com/ops/members/brown/index.htmlhttp://www.parc.xerox.com/ops/members/brown/index.htmlhttp://www.ed.psu.edu/acsde/deosarchives.html


16/17

Jonassen, D. H., & Rohrer-Murphy, L. (1999). Activity theory as a framework fordesigning constructivist learning environments. Educational Technology Researchand Development, 47 (1), 61-79.

Law, J., & Hetherington, K. (n. d.).Materialities, spacialities, globalities. Online:

http://www.comp.lancs.ac.uk/sociology/soc029jl.html

McEneaney, J. E., Kolker, J. M., & Ustinova, H. S. (1998, April). Technology-basedGlobal Education and its implications for school/university partnerships. Paperpresented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, SanDiego. Online: http://www.iusb.edu/~edud/global/pub2.htm

Naisbitt, J, (1982).Megatrends: The new directions transforming our lives. NewYork: Warner.

Norman, D. A. (1993). Things that make us smart Defending human attributes in theage of the machine. Reading MA: Addison-Wesley.

Ragan, T., & Smith, P. (1996). Conditions-based models for designing instruction. InD. H. Jonassen (Ed.),Handbook of research for educational communications andtechnology. New York: Macmillan. Available:http://aect.org/Intranet/Publications/edtech/18/index.html

Ryder, M. (2001, July).Luddism and the neo-luddite reaction. Online:http://carbon.ucdenver.edu/~mryder/itc_data/luddite.html

Ryder, M. (2001, September).Activity theory. Online:http://carbon.ucdenver.edu/~mryder/itc_data/activity.html

Ryder, M. (1995, November). Production and consumption of meaning: The interplaybetween subject and object in open hypertext representation. Paper presented at themeeting, Semiotics as a Bridge between the Humanities and the Sciences, VictoriaCollege, University of Toronto. Online:http://carbon.ucdenver.edu/~mryder/semiotics_95.html

Ryder, M., & Wilson, B. (1997, March). From center to periphery: Shifting agency incomplex technical environments. Paper presented at the meeting of the AmericanEducational Research Association, Chicago. Online:http://carbon.ucdenver.edu/~mryder/coss.html

Schrage, M. (2000, August). The debriefing: John Seely Brown. Online:http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.08/brown_pr.html
http://www.comp.lancs.ac.uk/sociology/soc029jl.htmlhttp://www.comp.lancs.ac.uk/sociology/soc029jl.htmlhttp://www.comp.lancs.ac.uk/sociology/soc029jl.html


17/17

Spitzer, D. R. (2001). Dont forget the high-touch with the high-tech in distancelearning.Educational Technology, 41 (2), 51-55.

Tyack, D., & Cuban, L. (1995). Tinkering toward Utopia: A century of public schoolreform. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.

Wiley, D. A. (Ed.). (2002). The instructional use of learning objects. Bloomington IN:Agency for Instructional Technology and the Association for EducationalCommunications and Technology. Online: http://reusability.org/read/

Wiley, D. A., & Edwards, E. K. (2002). Online self-organizing social systems: Thedecentralized future of online learning. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, thisissue.

Wilson, B. G., & Myers, K. M. (2000). Situated cognition in theoretical and practical

context. In D. H. Jonassen & S. M. Land (Eds.), Theoretical foundations of learningenvironments (pp. 57-88). Mahwah NJ: Erlbaum. Also online:http://ceo.ucdenver.edu/~brent_wilson/SitCog.html

Author Notes

Brent G. Wilson is professor of Information and LearningTechnologies at the University of Colorado at Denver. His current research leads himto the following questions: How can we help people make effective use of learningresources? How can we help designers of learning resources create better materials?And, How can we encourage people to collaborate, share, and participate as activemembers of learning communities? He wishes to thank the various colleagues whoread the paper and provided feedback, including Erin Edwards, David Wiley, JoniDunlap, Les Moller, and Martin Ryder.

trends and futures of educatio1

Documents