Distance Education in Transition - Master of Distance Education ...

Concepts and Models
The True Nature of Distance Education
There is a structural difference between campus-based and distance education. Of
course, everyone knows this difference. It is obvious. And yet it is not at all trivial to
deal with it. I believe that seeing and analysing this difference is fundamental for the
real understanding of this particular form of learning and teaching. There are many
faculty members who believe and are even convinced that the only difference is merely
"distance" and the importance of technical media needed to bridge the gap between
teacher and taught. In their opinion, the rest of the teaching-learning process remains
identical. However, this opinion is wrong, displays a wrong approach to distance
education and reveals an inadequate pedagogical attitude. There is much more to it. Let
me just mention the following:
� the special humanitarian goal, namely, the education of the neglected and
underserved, including minorities,
� the extension of university education to adults and persons with vocational and
family obligations, to the goal of realising lifelong learning, to a university which is
open to all people who are able to study and are offered a "second chance" for
enjoying and profiting from higher education,
� the unparalleled opportunities for continuing scientific education which is so badly
needed in our age of constant technological, societal and cultural change,
� its contribution to university reform, and
� its function as forerunner of the coming "virtual university".
All this must be kept in mind when thinking about open and distance learning. Distance
learning is not just campus-based learning with the help of particular technical media. It
is an entirely different approach, with different students, objectives, methods, media,
strategies and above all different goals in educational policy. Distance education is sui
generis.
A Break With Academic Tradition
The conceptual aspects mentioned cannot be dealt with here. We should focus instead
on the most obvious difference. The typical and prevalent forms of academic teaching
and learning are lecturing and teaching college classes. Both forms are oral, i.e. they use
a natural form of interaction, namely speaking and listening in face-to-face situations.
This form of interaction has been practised since time immemorial. It is also used in
other life situations. In other words, the medium of educational and instructional
transaction is not only well known but also highly internalised by everyone. It is a
universal cultural pattern. This provides a sense of security for teachers and students. In
a way, they know what is expected. Their teaching and learning behaviours are
unconsciously governed by conventions. This makes pedagogical interaction relatively
easy. The attention of teachers and students is much more directed to, and concentrated
on, problems of contents than on problems of the necessary transactional process. It is,
so to speak, self-understood, at least in the minds of most teachers and learners. This may
be the reason why a special pedagogy of academic teaching and learning is lacking in
most countries and why most professors are opposed to it when they are confronted
with such an "unreasonable" demand.
38