A Review of Literature on Distance Education

The issues affecting the future of distance education are complex. Questions concerning accreditation and standards, evaluation and assessment, instructional requirements related to academic credit, admissions criteria, and control of instruction present a mine field of difficulties for decision-makers. Moreover, such issues as descriptions of experiential learning, cognitive processing, transformational versus transmissive modes of learning, and lifelong learning demonstrate one clear trend: some form of an instructional paradigm is inexorably shifting to some form of a learning paradigm. This review of the literature on distance education is to provide a basis for the discussion of distance education in relation to theological education, and the role and responsibility of accreditation agencies in relation to the rapidly developing programs of distance education in various institutional settings. Any review of literature on this subject is quickly dated. Literature on the topic is increasing exponentially, web sites appear and disappear seemingly overnight, and what was once considered “state-of-the-art” technology quickly becomes obsolete. Nonetheless, there are issues presented in this review that are important for the future of theological schools and agencies that accredit them. “The future is outside the traditional campus, outside the traditional classroom. Distance learning is coming on fast.” Peter Drucker Distance Education: A Concept in Search of a Theory1 A coherent review of the literature on distance education is hampered by a bewildering range of definitions, multiple opinions concerning purpose, varying perspectives on the relationship between distance learning and traditional modes, and the lack of a consistent theoretical framework. The trajectory from correspondence study to more contemporary, computerenhanced modes of education-at-a-distance is relatively easy to trace. However, the issues affecting the future of distance education are complex. Questions concerning accreditation and standards, evaluation and assessment, instructional requirements related to academic credit, admissions criteria, and control of instruction present a mine field of difficulties for decision makers. Issues of access, especially for persons in developing nations, the role of faculty and their development, the nature of the learning community in distance education, the internationalization of education, the role of libraries, the nature of instructional design and course development, and the effects of technology are among an increasing number of issues that preoccupy the literature. Institutional and program patterns are also complex. Examples are given of universities that are solely Distance Teaching Universities, or Dual Mode, or somewhere in between. Various forms of consortia are emerging—not only between schools, but between schools, corporations, and public agencies. Faculty appointments are described in terms of extracurricular overload, joint appointments with a distance learning program, or specialized faculty assigned to distance education. The curriculum is seen as specialized adult education programs offered off campus, traditional curriculum simply transported to another location, individualized study, computer-driven interactive experiences, and/or various combinations of residential and distance offerings. It is also clear that the shifts to distance learning are forcing a debate about the nature of teaching and learning. As the field of distance education searches for a theory that will guide its development, descriptions of experiential learning, cognitive processing, transformational versus transmissive modes of learning, and lifelong learning demonstrate that the only clear trend in this debate is that some form of an Instructional Paradigm is inexorably shifting to some form of a Learning Paradigm. This review is to provide a basis for the discussion of distance education in relation to theological education, and the role and responsibility of accreditation agencies in relation to the rapidly developing programs of distance education in seminaries. Theological schools have developed a range of extension education programs and are creating substantial systems to manage them. Some schools are investing in the technological infrastructure to support multiple forms of distance education—forms that will ultimately raise the question: “Why should students have to come to campus at all?” In each institution, distance education will simply be the transference of old models to new sites, or it will die from the inattention of administrators and the disinterest of faculty, or it will flourish and be a productive impetus for new questions regarding educational process. These questions will inevitably expose fissures of difference within theological education related to the nature of teaching and learning. Traditional programs and distance learning programs are interfacing more frequently, especially as issues of organizational survival, the desire to accommodate the realities of today’s student, and pressure from competing agencies are straining formal programs and leading institutions to look at alternatives. Differences of perspective with regard to learning, control of educational process, nature of curriculum, role of faculty and learner, and patterns of instruction will become more obvious; the debates concerning accreditation and standards more intense. What pressure can an accrediting association exert on theological schools that have substantial precedent from the field of higher education in general for multiple formats in distance education—some of which challenge existing standards? If institutions see ATS standards as too restrictive, the challenges occasioned by the experiments in distance education may fracture ATS—perhaps not fatally, but certainly seriously. Further, as theological schools discover the mechanisms and invest in the technology to connect students, programs, faculty, and resources internationally, accreditation agencies will be forced to interact at an international level. How can standards designed for institutions in one region of the world be applied equitably in the global network? The succeeding sections of this report will give attention to the historical development of distance education, the problem of definition, the role of technology, the shifts in teaching and learning perspectives, institutional and instructional challenges, and implications for theological education. The literature presents an exhausting array of questions and issues. In order to focus this report around matters that would be relevant to accreditation association concerns, the following questions were used to guide the research: · What conceptual variabilities are suggested by the range of definitions commonly used as synonyms for distance education? · What commonalities and differences between distance education and traditional instruction are suggested in the descriptions of distance education? Is distance education applicable only to particular disciplines, courses, issues? How is distance education described in relation to particular media and/or approaches that may or may not be seen in traditional modes of instruction? Should distance education and formal education be seen as separate entities, or as collaborating modes within a common frame of reference or theory? · What administrative issues important to theological education are identified in the development of distance education (e.g., finances, faculty deployment and development, standards, resource allocation, coordination, communication, accreditation, and so on)? · What instructional issues important to theological education are identified in the development of distance education modes (e.g., the integration of distance education with formal programs; challenges inherent in rethinking instructional design and motivation in relation to experiential learning, lifelong learning, nonformal education; faculty willingness to design new models of curriculum and instruction, and so on)? · How will the internationalization of distance education affect theological education? · In what ways, if any, is distance education reported to enhance or enrich ministry development? How will the development of distance education modes in theological education affect relationships between church and school? Historical Development Some historical studies show that the contemporary North American distance education enterprise has grown in scope, purpose, audience, and in delivery systems since its British and European beginnings in nineteenth-century correspondence and extension programs. Isaac Pitman offered shorthand by mail to students in England in 1840 (Holmberg 1960, 3). Charles Toussaint and Gustave Langensheidt initiated language teaching by correspondence in Germany in 1856 (Delling 1979, 13). “Cambridge University is generally credited with developing a formal university extension through the establishment of an extramural teaching program in 1873” (Rohfeld 1990, 1). Significantly, much of the development and growth of extension studies in England and Europe was in response to “demands from workers and from women” (Rohfeld 1990, 1; see also Wiesner 1983). Through the 1800s, American universities and community groups adapted and created their own forms of distance learning. Distance education has precedents in the Chautauqua movement and the British Lyceum movements of the nineteenth century, where university professors, among others, found a ready market for their lectures in local communities across the nation (Rohfeld 1990, 2-3; Rossman 1995, 62). These movements made it possible for people to nurture an intellectual life based on touring outside lecturers and musical and theatrical presentations (Bender 1994). The establishment of a national postal service in the late 1800s provided university administrators and community leaders with another vehicle for reaching large numbers of people. William Rainey Harper, the founding president of the University of Chicago, while preparing programs for Chautauqua, proposed a program of correspondence study for the university. The American people were ready for a system of education flexible enough to accommodate the frontier settlements of a rapidly developing nation. For Harper, correspondence study was the ideal organizational structure (Rossman 1995, 62). In 1892, Harper organized the university around “five coordinate colleges, one of which was the Division of University Extension. This division offered courses for college credit by lecture study, class study, or correspondence study. Hence, at the University of Chicago, extension was integral to the university’s structure and mission from its beginning” (Rohfeld 1990, 10). Rossman suggests that the “claim that he is the father of distance education in the United States is credible” (Rossman 1995, 61). However, Harper was adamant that correspondence study was not a substitute for “oral instruction.” He emphasized the inferiority of the correspondence model and the priority of the classroom and the direct encounter between the teacher and student. Not surprisingly, the correspondence program at the University of Chicago was disbanded in 1933 (Rossman 1995, 63). Unfortunately, some of Harper’s attitudes and organizational strictures related to maintaining the superiority of the formal program over education-at-a-distance persist as constraints on the continuing development of distance education. Harper’s vision and energy notwithstanding, the land grant universities were probably a more significant factor in promoting extension education throughout America. The signing into law of the Morrill Land Grant Act of 1862 guaranteed land for the establishment of universities in each state. By 1863, thirty-one states had provided land for universities. “. . . [T]he main object of the colleges was to teach subjects related to agriculture and the mechanical arts, ‘in order to promote the liberal and practical education of the industrial classes in the several pursuits and professions in life’ ” (Rohfeld 1990, 12). The genius of the land grant system was, and is, service. As service institutions they could not escape their mandate to take knowledge to the people. This took various forms: expert consulting services to the State, public discussions, municipal reference bureaus, educational exhibits, conventions, and agricultural extension (Rohfeld 1990, 30-32). World War II forced an upsurge in the need for adults trained in specialized knowledge, linguistics, and knowledge of cultures. In partnership with the military, universities established special classes and correspondence studies (Rohfeld 1990, 79). Following the war, the G.I. Bill made it possible for thousands of returning service personnel to go to college and changed forever the face of higher education. Through the 1950s, the demand for continuing education in the professions led to the construction of university residential centers and the development of conferences on a variety of themes related to professional development. “The Kellogg Center for Continuing Education at Michigan State University in East Lansing was the first such facility and opened in 1951. During the 1950s funding cycle, the W. K. Kellogg Foundation provided funding for a total of nine residential centers” (Rohfeld 1990, 87). Community development emerged as the theme for the 1960s as universities sought ways to have an impact on urban environments. Finally, in 1965, Title I of the Higher Education Act, provided federal funding for continuing higher education, offering states a way to support efforts to encourage lifelong learning (Rohfeld 1990, 125). The various educational experiments spawned during the foment of the 1960s gradually consolidated into such programs as Walden University (1970), New College (1973), and the University without Walls (1974) (Rossman 1995, 3). Through the 1970s, a declining eighteento twenty-two year old college population, and an increase in adult students, “supported the development of nontraditional educational and credentialing programs. . . . These programs sought to recognize the learning acquired by adults as a result of life experience and to respect the complexities of their lives and schedules” (Rohfeld 1990, 153). Charles Van Hise, president of the University of Wisconsin in the early 1900s, “declared a consensus among university leaders regarding the three functions of the university: instruction, investigation, and extension service” (Rohfeld 1990, 37). This effort was driven partly by the feeling of extension leaders that their programs were marginalized in the university. Consequently, they sought to link extension education with what were generally recognized as the indisputable functions of the university: teaching, research, and community service. It would be eighty to ninety years before institutions of higher education would recognize, more substantially, the need for, or value of, distance education. Factors Affecting the Contemporary Developments in Distance Education Advances in technology, the demands of an increasingly mobile and diverse population, economic realities, emphases on the democratization of education, dissatisfaction with traditional modes, are concerns for institutional growth and/or survival are among the issues that have sparked renewed interest in distance education through the 1980s and into the 1990s. Factors of schedule conflicts, costs, family responsibility, and professional commitments have encouraged the development of distance education options, especially as adult students are less willing to be uprooted from their jobs or families for extended periods. Distance education, and its accompanying technology, is attractive to higher education because it seems to address the challenges of declining enrollments, increasing costs, the potential market of adult professionals, pressure from corporations, institutional competition for faculty or increased sharing of faculty, and increasing global access to technology. Clearly, the emergence of the university without walls has been one of the more dramatic changes in higher education since the 1990s. “What is truly unique about distance education is the site of learning is transformed from a place to a process” (Rossman 1995, 9). The tyranny of time, place, and curriculum is gradually being broken. Today, hundreds of thousands of students are enrolled in Internet courses, universities are offering entire degree programs through the Internet, students from different universities are interacting with one another and with a variety of professors through technology. The Internet is opening education to all ages and groups of persons. “From 1870 to 1970 most of the systems were proprietary and the field was known as ‘correspondence study’ or ‘home study’ or ‘external studies.’ Hostility from the education establishment was rarely far from the surface. Today, most governments in the world are supportive of providing or considering introducing distance education and are studying its role as a complement to conventional provision” (Rossman 1995, 6). Distance education has become “a valued component of many education systems and has proved its worth in areas where traditional schools, colleges and universities have difficulties in meeting demand” (Keegan 1996, 4). As data services become more sophisticated and user friendly, distance learning services can only increase in scope and variety. The growth of distance education reflects the persistence of social change in relation to the excluded learner, the decentralized learner, the professional in the field, the growing insistence on different forms of education, networking, the growing familiarity with electronic forms of communication, global interconnectedness, the pressure of business, church and professional sectors that schools do better, the proliferation of resources and information, the postmodern insistence on community and pluralism. The pattern of collecting individuals in places where work, shopping, banking, school, and worship can be collective is shifting to decentralization— to “degathering” (Martorella 1996, 35). As a consequence of the phenomenon of degathering, schools could become smaller and more specialized; students will be able to “shop” at several schools, combining options from the degree programs of several schools to make one degree; and learning modes will become more various—including various modes of distance education. Gates envisions that learning will be found in the connections among all the agencies that can contribute to learning (in Martorella 1996, 37). Certainly, as information becomes more readily available, seekers no longer have to go to one agency that is postured as the source and controller of knowledge. Seekers can become shoppers (Patterson 1996, 61). We have witnessed in the past few years, a substantial proliferation of knowledge-based industries: training and development, market research, software development, consultant services, and research and development companies. Institutions of higher education do not have a monopoly on knowledge. The increasing interconnectedness and the developments in distance education mean that there will be an increase in the variety of things to be learned, an increase in the variety of ways to learn, and an increase in the variety of learners. To the extent that schools and faculty no longer enjoy a monopoly on knowledge and instructional services, and as a variety of agencies become involved in education, the roles and functions of educational providers are increasingly blurred. Traditional modes of higher education can no longer “claim the full-time commitment of students” (Morrison 1989, 7). Even a casual visitor to today’s campuses can see that the student body is no longer young. Conversations with these students would reveal that few are full-time and many, if not most, are not in residence. Morrison (1989, 8) asserts that there are six challenges facing distance education in light of these factors: 1. The need to broaden the concept of distance education in order that it can enhance not only access to but success in learning 2. The need to move from an institutional to a systems level in planning, needs assessment, and delivery 3. The need to develop a learning approach to organizational ethos and management 4. The need to develop a model for the appropriate use of technology 5. The need to globalize its vision 6. The need to balance quantity with equity in its contribution to development. Amid predictions of availability of best faculty to everyone, networks of interdependent agencies, democratization of education, global learning communities, universal information access, and despite the long history of distance education, the field of distance education is still emerging. Distance educators still feel marginal in institutions where the priorities tend to focus on classroom-based models, preparatory modes of instruction, and the expectation that students and faculty will be full-time. However, as the numbers of adult professionals in education increase in the institution as a whole, as institutions become more interdependent, as faculty roles change, programs will change, and lines between traditional modes and distance education modes will blur. In a pragmatic environment where suppliers of instructional technology want to serve the learning enterprise and where institutional planners are competing for students, quality issues and the need to develop a guiding theory for distance education will become increasingly important. Definitions and Characteristics Keegan credits a group he called “The Tübingen Group” (Keegan, 1996, 13-14) with clarifying the problems pertinent to the emerging field of distance education. Members of this group published more than sixty research studies that reputedly laid the foundation of the field. The group dispersed in the mid-70s (Keegan 1996, 14), but the problems of definition and theory remain. Keegan (1988) admits that distance education remains a field without a theoretical framework. It would seem reasonable to assume that there are linkages between distance education, experiential learning theory, nonformal education, and the various efforts to define adult learning theory. However, it is more difficult to define distance education as a separate field that has more in common only with other nontraditional modes of education. As early as 1988, Keegan called attention to the possibility of the blurring of the boundaries between traditional and distance education (Keegan 1988, 4). More recent literature suggests that a longstanding Instructional Paradigm (teacher and institution centered) is shifting to a Learning Paradigm (student and learning centered). If true, distance education and traditional education are more appropriately understood as modes within a more holistic theory of education that embraces a rich array of learning outcomes and contexts: from information acquisition to information processing, from assimilation to inquiry and decision-making, from the development of cognitive ability to the maturing of the whole person, from individual to collaborative experiences, from classrooms to community centers, from regional to global interactions. Conceivably, as the boundaries become less distinct, both traditional education and distance education will be changed. Much of this development is predicated on the reality that students are at the center of the learning process, that learning is social and not just intellectual, that all of life is involved in learning. Relatively little space is given in the literature on distance education to the issue of theory building. The shift from an Instructional Paradigm to a Learning Paradigm is variously observed and described, but the theoretical grounding is not well developed. Perhaps this contributes to the evident and considerable confusion over terminology and definition in the literature. Many terms are used, some claiming they are interchangeable, others claiming there are subtle but distinct differences between them: distance learning, distance education, open studies, remote instruction, correspondence study, home study, extension education, independent study, teaching at a distance, off-campus study, open learning, flexible learning, continuous education, distributed learning. “In the usage of the 1980s the term distance education covers the various forms of study at all levels which are not under the continuous, immediate supervision of tutors present with their students in lecture rooms or on the same premises, but which, nevertheless benefit from the planning, guidance, and tuition of a tutorial organisation” (Holmberg 1989b, 127). In 1982, at the Vancouver conference of the International Council for Correspondence Education, the term distance education was adopted as a universal term indicative of a recognized field of theory and practice (Thorpe 1995, 154). If it were just a matter of synonymous terms, one could simply chose one. However, there are claims for subtle differences in usage that make each of these terms slightly different in application. These differences are affected by the relationships of the institution with the learners, the relationship of the faculty with the learner and the institution, the focus of the program (rural development, university without walls, corporate training), the types of material used (print media, computer-based, Internet-based, satellite delivery), the context (home, workplace). While Kaye feels that the terms need to be disentangled, “One thing is certain: the enormous diversity of systems, projects, and institutions that teach ‘at a distance’ makes it very difficult to furnish a definition other than in terms of a contrast to conventional face-to-face, classroom-based instruction” (Kaye 1988, 45). The following attempts at distinction illustrate the complexity and tension that still exist in the field. · Holmberg notes that contrary to established perception, distance learning and open learning are not synonymous. Distance learning can, in fact, be closed learning—where choice and control are exclusively in the hands of the institution. Distance learning is generally based on two factors: pre-designed courses and noncontinuous contact with professors and students (Holmberg 1989a, 2-4; 1989c)2. Open learning stresses learner autonomy, learner contracts, and learner controlled instruction. Open learning technically implies freedom from restrictions related to goal setting, access, and assessment. · Distance education and open learning are described by Maxwell as two different concepts. “Distance education refers to a mode of delivery with certain characteristics that distinguish it from the campus-based mode of learning. Open learning refers to a philosophy of education providing students with as much choice and control as possible over content and learning strategies” (Maxwell 1995, 45). The burden of Maxwell’s article is that distance education is often not student-centered (evaluation and attendance policies managed by the institution and preplanned courses) and should be. By incorporating the open learning philosophy a stronger model could be created. · Correspondence education is generally defined as the relationship of an institution with an individual student who receives print material at home. Remote instruction, on the other hand is defined as the relationship of an instructor with groups of students not necessarily in the same location. · Garrison (1989), reviewing the variety of definitions that existed for distance education, proposed three criteria that would define the field but also allow sufficient flexibility should the field develop. “(1) Distance education implies that the majority of educational communication between (among) teacher and student(s) occurs noncontiguously. (2) Distance education must involve two-way communication between (among) teacher and student(s) for the purpose of facilitating and supporting the educational process. (3) Distance education uses technology to mediate the necessary two-way communication” (Garrison 1989, 222). · Swift (1992) proposes that distance education can be described in two modes: the “industrial model” based on pre-designed materials (print) and mundane technology, (broadcasting) and a model that uses sophisticated technology (telecommunications and computers) and encourages interactivity. · Filipczak defines distance learning as “an event or a process that involves direct two-way communication between people; it doesn’t include traditional correspondence courses or the CBT [computer-based] software you got in the mail. It does include audio-conferencing, videoconferencing and docu-conferencing, a relative newcomer to the distance-learning arena that allows many people to collaborate on a shared document via computers separated by a few feet or several time zones” (Filipczak 1995, 111). · ATS (Standards, June 1996: 10.2.1.4) defines extension education in relation to independent study: “This type of extension education provides for-credit courses for individuals engaged in external independent study . . . where regularly scheduled, in person conversations with faculty or other students are unlikely to occur. Such courses typically employ printed, audio, video, computer, or electronic communication as primary resources for instruction. . . . [Not more than one-third of the total credit required for completion of an ATSapproved basic degree can be earned by external independent study].” · Keegan’s preliminary effort to define distance education included factors such as (1) the semi-permanent separation of student and teacher; (2) planning, materials preparation, and student support services still under the auspices of an institution; (3) the use of technology to convey the content; (4) provision of two-way dialogue; and (5) the more or less absence of the learning group (Keegan 1988, 10). Rumble (1989) objected that Keegan’s definition was too narrow, citing that the issue of separation is not necessarily a true distinction, technology is not the only delivery system, and the institution is a potent factor. In traditional education the teacher teaches, in distance learning the institution teaches. The materials, he argued, are prepared by a collective (Rumble 1989, 13-14). Rumble did agree with Keegan that distance education must have two-way communication in order for there to be integrity in the educational process (Rumble 1989, 15). · Rumble offered a new definition: Distance education must involve a teacher, students, materials, and a contract that defines roles between teacher and students and the institution. Distance education can involve face-to-face (video in real time) or independent instruction; the student is given guidance, access to instruction in a two way communication; learners are separated from the sponsoring institution; materials can take several forms—not necessarily designed exclusively for distance education—the requirement is that they be suitable for the learning event (Rumble 1989, 18-19). · Keegan’s subsequent attempt at definition (1996) was based on his study of how the various terms have been used, a search for common linkages, present usage and concerns, and historical precedents. He favored the term “distance education” and called for a more precise definition characterized by the following: · the quasi-permanent separation of teacher and learner throughout the length of the learning process (this distinguishes it from conventional face-to-face education); · the influence of an educational organization both in the planning and preparation of learning materials and in the provision of student support services (this distinguishes it from private study and teach-yourself programmes); · the use of technical media—print, audio, video or computer to unite teacher and learner and carry the content of the course; · the provision of two-way communication so that the student may benefit from or even initiate dialogue (this distinguishes it from other uses of technology in education); and · the quasi-permanent absence of the learning group throughout the length of the learning process so that people are usually taught as individuals rather than in groups, with the possibility of occasional meetings, either face-to-face or by electronic means, for both didactic and socialization purposes. (Keegan 1996, 50) Implicit in this definition is the assumption of teacher-learner separation—but not permanently; the assumption of individual learning and autonomy, but not exclusively; and the use of technology—but not exclusively, with increasing variety and more often than not, interactive. There are also factors to be considered such as the degree and locus of control and authority (faculty, institution, or student); purpose (individual or social development); centralized or decentralized curriculum; loosely integrated into the university or an integral part; residential component required or not required. Rossman adds to the complexity by observing that “No longer can distance education simply be referred to as education that takes place when there is a distance between the learner and instructor. In this definition, the distance being referred to is geographic, but distance might just as easily be cultural or emotional, with quite different pedagogical implications” (Rossman, 1995, 3-4). Bewildering indeed. Traditionally, distance education has been characterized by the separation of the teacher from students throughout most if not all the learning experience, the use of technical support media, the presence of an institution that prepares materials and establishes student services, and the general absence of a learning group (Curran 1992, 55-56). But is distance education a unique form of education in its own right, or is it a variation of the traditional mode? Holmberg suggests that if it is unique, it can operate on different principles with courses that fit the medium and greater diversity in target groups. However, if it is just the same as having students in a class, no matter how that class is organized, then that which applies to a formal class can apply to distance education (Holmberg 1989b, 128). Complicating matters further is the fact that distance education no longer has a distinct pedagogical format (typically correspondence study). The multivariate technological possibilities have greatly expanded the options available to distance education. A definition of distance education as a collection of email correspondence courses clearly won’t do. Most definitions of distance education stress the importance of mediated communication (technical support, print media, audio technology) between instructor and students. Distance education is no longer just a distribution of materials. It involves two-way communication of some form—forms that are increasing in variety. Nor is distance education simply a teacher driving 100 miles to teach a course. There is some hope that it will be characterized more and more by active student involvement, quality design, appropriate administrative support, and effective teaching and learning strategies (Laabs 1997). Wilson suggests that a new paradigm is emerging around distance education. He uses the term “Continuous Education” to describe this trend and, in so doing, links distance education with lifelong learning (Wilson 1997). As business and industry recognize the need for a lifelong commitment to learning and development, the notion of two, threeand four-year degrees may become obsolete—reserved for those fields where continuing education is not mandated—fields such as pastoral leadership or theological education. “For ‘Continuous Education’ to be successful, it will have to replace the traditional modes of distance learning such as satellite video, teletraining keypad response systems, and interactive videoconferencing with a much more robust educational model. The goal is to provide the distance learner with as much of the classroom experience as possible. In this model of interactive multimedia distance learning, one creates a virtual classroom with students connected together over a network that carries data, voice and video to the students’ computers. Each student has access to multimedia materials created for the course and delivered via CD-ROM or across the network” (Wilson 1997, 13). In summary, common components of distance education, variously defined, are: the majority of communication is noncontiguous, there is two-way communication between teachers and students; education is usually technologically mediated; the patterns of institutional control over the learner are changed; reflection is at the heart of the process; selfassessment of personal or professional development is expected; learners, in varying degrees, have a stake in the planning of their programs and the nature of the learning experiences undertaken. Of greatest importance is the fact that current definitions affirm that distance education require interactivity, foster the development of higher order thinking skills, be grounded in one or more learning communities, and encourage the development of skills for lifelong learning. But we are not done yet. Chris Dede (1996b), an educational technology futurist, suggests that distance education in all its various terms is shifting to a new model called distributed learning which he describes as “the use of information technologies outside the school setting to enhance classroom activities” (Dede 1997a, 13; also Dede 1997b).3 The definition assumes that no one institution can manage or afford the sophistication now possible in distance education. Course development and access to resources now require a distributed network of agencies. One supposes that collaborating institutions would provide quality resources, share costs through monthly fees, help with marketing, share existing clients, and deal with copyright issues as a consortium. However, higher education in all its forms is notoriously competitive. Consortia of seminaries, for example, are emerging but, for the foreseeable future, there will likely be greater collaboration between faculty and departments than institutions. Dede argues that at least three developments are driving the emergence of distributed learning: (1) knowledge webs that allow widespread access to information and contacts, (2) virtual communities, virtual libraries, virtual classrooms, and virtual exhibits (e.g., virtual museums), and (3) opportunities to apply information learned in synthetic or simulated environments to real-world settings. Further, the literature suggests that this particular nomenclature implies both a structure (networked agencies) and a learning process. Distributed education is not distance education, because it is based on the creation of a learning dialogue between participants in collaborative learning groups—no matter the participant’s locations or time in which they choose to interact. The method is based on creating and sharing documents among a learning group. While currently text based, it still incorporates multiple learning pathways, through the use of higher level activities, visually pleasing presentations, use of small group interaction, and multiple conversational opportunities (the ‘Classroom’/the ‘Cafeteria’/the ‘Office’, etc.). The course material is set out in modular form, each module with a set of readings, questions and assignments requiring response from individual students or from small groups. Students write their response and send them to the virtual class meetings by a process of database replication which distributes all documents to all class members, including the teaching staff. Each student is expected to comment constructively on approximately 20% of the other group members (sic) presentations as a means of promoting interaction and maintaining the teaching dialogue. (Seagren and Watwood 1997, 319)