Re-conceptualizing  Distance Education:

Implications for the Rural Schools of

Newfoundland and Labrador

Dennis M. Mulcahy

Faculty of Education

Memorial University of Newfoundland

Introduction

Online learning will become even more prevalent in the coming years. Our challenge as administrators will be to differentiate those that have the appearance of quality from those that truly deliver unique and enriching learning experiences for students (Berman & Pape, 2001).[i]

In September of 1988, the Newfoundland and Labrador Department of Education implemented a program of distance education for rural high school students. The main purpose of this innitiative was “to provide access for students in small schools to high school courses that were considered important for graduation and for post-secondary admission but that were difficult to offer in such schools” (Supporting Learning, 2000, p. 72). [ii]

In its first year of operation, the program consisted of just one course - Advanced Mathematics 1201. This course had an enrolment of 36 students in 13 rural schools. The experiment proved successful and the program grew to the point where in 1999-2000, 11 courses were offered with 898 course enrolments. A total of 703 students in 77 different rural schools were taking one and sometimes two courses in Advanced Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry and French.[iii]

This distance education program was decidedly “low tech” by today’s standards.  It made use of the postal service and the existing telephone system.   Course materials, such as textbooks and the essential student handbooks, are sent to students by mail.   Assignments and student questions were sent to teachers and returned to students by fax machine. Interaction and communication between and among teachers and learners occur though the audio graphics technologies (teleconference and telewriters or electronic whiteboards) developed by Memorial University’s Telemedicine Centre.  A distinguishing and valued feature of that system is that it enabled participants to engage in real time (synchronous) dialogue and visual demonstrations in relation to teaching and learning matters for 50% of the required instructional time for distance courses.

On occasion, schools made provision for students to telephone their distance teachers directly to seek clarification or assistance with some course related matter. Many distance teachers also made the effort to transcend the physical barriers created by distance education by actually visiting their students in their schools once or twice a year.

Distance education has been quite successful in fulfilling its stated purpose.  This was due in large part to the determination and hard work of the rural students enrolled in the program. Distance education has also been fortunate in recruiting a very dedicated and committed group of distance teachers who generally have taken a very keen interest in seeing their rural students succeed. These teachers were aware of and responsive to the unique context and conditions in which their students lived and studied.

A significant contribution to the success of the current program has also been made by many school-based teachers and principals. In addition to providing technical and supervisory support for the program, many rural teachers have also provided, voluntarily, significant academic tutoring to distance students.  Unfortunately, this instructional assistance has never been officially recognized or acknowledged; it has been greatly appreciated, however, by rural students and parents. 

On the other hand, the program has not been without its flaws and limitations. The technology used, although relatively simple, has not been without its problems; an indication more perhaps of the inherently problematic telecommunications infrastructure in many rural places than of the limitations of the technology itself. 

It has catered for the most part to a select or “elite” group of students. It is a program that could be accused of “educating the best, while ignoring the rest,” providing little benefit to the majority of the students in the school not taking part.  Indeed it is program that has sometimes had a negative effect in various ways on the school as a whole - an educational example of the tale wagging the dog. Once a school commits to having a distance course as part of its schedule, most other instructional periods have to revolve around the distance time table.

Nevertheless, it has provided several thousands of rural students over the years with the opportunity to earn advanced academic high school credits that they may not have otherwise been able to accumulate.  For the privileged few, it has been a boon.[iv]

Re-thinking Distance Education

The province must remain a leader in the development and use of distance education as technology shifts towards a computer and Internet-based approach. (Supporting Learning, 2000, p. 78)

The Ministerial Panel on the Delivery of Education in the Classroom[v] has recommended a number of significant changes to distance education in the province.  These changes are outlined in chapter six of their recently released final report, Supporting Learning (2000). Four key recommendations provide the direction for the proposed changes:

Recommendation 58

that the province embark on a program to substantially increase the scope of distance education offerings in the schools through the establishment of a “Centre for Distance Learning and Innovation”.

Recommendation 59

that the Centre for Distance Learning and Innovation consist of a number of teachers, who may be termed Electronic Teachers or E-teachers, with primary responsibility for course delivery and

evaluation and that, at the school level, teachers be assigned from the regular school allocation as mediating teachers to ensure appropriate interaction between students and E-teachers.

Recommendation 60

that an approach be taken to content packaging and delivery that is not totally dependent on high bandwidth technologies.

Recommendation 61

that most communications be through an Internet-based system incorporating e-mail, conference forums, Internet fax and similar devices, with minimal reliance on synchronous communications,

fixed schedules or other constraining elements.

These proposed changes will have a potential impact on all students and teachers in the province. The Panel believes that students in all schools should have access to computer mediated, internet based distance education opportunities; it also believes that teacher professional development can and should occur through Internet based technologies. 

The Ministerial Panel appears to have a great deal of unquestioning faith in the potential and possibilities that information and communication technologies (ICT) have for education. Indeed, schools are told they “must embrace” technology (p.62).  In addition, the report conveys a real sense of urgency and directs the educational community to move quickly and without delay to adopt technology in all aspects of education.  These injunctions are quite contrary to the best thinking in the literature, which is unanimous in suggesting a more critical perspective and thoughtful and adequate planning and professional development: 

Careful planning also is in evidence in the Durham public school district in Ontario, Canada. The 67,000-student district has moved slowly in developing its online campus, which eventually will provide training for students, teachers and other staff. After two years of research and development, one of the school district's first steps last year was to try out learning modules in a regular classroom context. 

This blended approach improved course development and helped students determine whether online learning was for them.

"Most people aren't taking their time," says Todd Hitchcock, e-learning project manager for the Durham Virtual Campus. So far, Durham's offerings include four complete online courses for high school students and four online modules used as part of traditional courses. "People start out very fast. But then they get the content in one area and have to move to another," which can be very expensive.

He adds: "I have heard too often, 'I don't know what that e-learning thing is but we want it and we want it in 100 days” (Russo, 2000)[vi]

Although the proposals and recommendations contained in Supporting Learning (2000), have implications for all schools, I am primarily concerned in this paper, with how the proposed changes to distance education will affect the provision of quality education and schooling in rural places.  I am particularly concerned with those schools in remote and isolated places; It is the smallest and most remote schools that could benefit the most from an expanded distance program.

The present approach to distance education, with its simple but fairly reliable technology, serves the students availing of its service, reasonable well. Proposed changes should provide something at least equivalent in accessibility and quality for these students.  Consideration also has to be given to the pedagogical needs of the more diverse group of learners expected to participate in online distance education (ODE).

In Chapter five of their report, the Panel highlights the “program disparity” that exists among schools in this province. Smaller schools, mostly rural, are not able to offer the number and variety of courses that larger schools, mostly urban, can. It is the desire to “lessen this disparity” and “increase the equality of educational opportunity” for rural students that underlies, ostensibly, the Panel’s proposed recommended changes to distance education.

Distance education[vii] has been widely advocated as a means of equalizing educational opportunity, providing wide access to programs and learning resources and responding to varying learning styles and life styles.

They appear to be convinced that technology provides the final solution to this historic challenge of rural schooling and, thus, will create a level playing field for rural students to compete with their urban counterparts. Perhaps what is proposed may do that.  However, the key question that has to be asked is will the new model of distance education proposed by Ministerial Panel improve the quality of education and schooling provided for all students in rural schools and particularly in remote places?  Simply providing access to programs and courses via technology may or may not result in quality or equal educational opportunities for rural students.  Something more than access is required and that “something more” has much to do with the quality of interaction and communication that occurs in the process of teaching and learning. This is true for face to face classrooms and may be even more critical in virtual environments.

The Panel’s recommendations do have the potential for enhancing rural education. The current system has demonstrated the value of distance education for those few rural students who have so far participated.  If the new model being proposed in Supporting Learning (2000) will provide additional educational opportunities to all rural students, especially those in the smaller and more remote places, then the new model will be endorsed and welcomed by rural educators, parents and students.

However, in order for those possibilities to be realized considerable human and technical resources have to be in place before implementation begins.  Otherwise we will be putting many rural children and youth at risk. The Panel has expressed the belief that certain “instructional economies” (p.81) may be achieved if its proposed changes are adopted and implemented.  Perhaps this too is possible; but such economies cannot be obtained at the expense of rural students education.

Before endorsing the recommended changes, parents and educators have to be assured that what is proposed is at least equivalent to what is being replaced and is appropriate for the more diverse group of students who may be participating.  To justify the time, energy and resources that will be required to make the changes, one might actually expect a large measure of improvement.

Purpose of Paper

The purpose of this paper is to offer a review and critical commentary on the Ministerial Panel’s proposed changes to the provision and role of distance education in the K-12 school system in Newfoundland and Labrador.  In addition, a number of questions for further inquire and discussion will be identified.[viii]

In the first section of the paper, I will examine the issue of “program disparity” which the Ministerial Panel identifies as a most serious challenge facing rural schools. Following this, I will review each of the major changes to distance education being proposed in the Supporting Learning (2000) document. Issues, concerns and questions related to these changes will also be identified and commented on briefly.

1. “The special needs of schools in rural areas of the province”

The Newfoundland and Labrador Department of Education, following Statistics Canada, defines “rural”  quantitatively and by default. Thus, “urban refers to cites, towns, and metropolitan areas with a population of 5,000 or more. Rural includes all others” (Education Statistics, 2000-2001). 

In Newfoundland and Labrador a school is classified as a rural school if it is situated in a community of fewer than 5,000 persons.  Given this “definition” of “rural,” rural schools can be situated in a very wide range of contexts. Such a definition tells us nothing about the degree of remoteness or isolation or the availability or proximity of services. An isolated rural community of 200 is a very different rural community than one of 4500 with a short road link to a nearby urban center.  Rural schools are quite diverse in terms of their location and size.

For the school year, 2000-2001 there were 214 schools classified officially as rural with a combined enrolment of 37,990 students. This represented 64% of the total number of schools and 42% of the total provincial K-12 enrolment (Education Statistics, 2001-2002). 

Rural schools are small schools with an average enrolment of approximately 178 students. 74 of these rural schools have an enrolment of less than 100. All but a few of the province’s 80 or so all grade schools are rural schools.

Although all-grade schools account for as much as 40% of all rural schools and have their own unique dynamics and needs, the Department of Education does not treat them as a separate category. Yet any attempt to alter the nature of program delivery at the high school level will have a potential impact on the all students in an all-grade school.

In all-grade schools, a science specialist in the school is an educational resource for the whole school, not just the senior high students taking science courses. If that science teacher is no longer in the school, the high school students may still “access” the required science courses via distance, but an on-site, school-wide resource has been lost.

In section 5.1.5 of Chapter Five, entitled “Program Disparities,” the Ministerial Panel “considered the special needs of schools in rural areas of the province” (Supporting Learning, 2000, p. 54). One very important “special need” mentioned and then largely ignored is “[t]he unique socio-economic conditions of many rural communities…”.  The socio-economic conditions in many rural communities in the province are among the most challenging in the whole of Canada. Statistics Canada consistently reports that, generally, rural Newfoundland and Labrador has the lowest average family income, the highest levels of unemployment and the lowest level of adult literacy in the country.

In addition, the dramatic out-migration in many rural regions, combined with the lowest fertility rate in the nation, has resulted in considerable population decline among both adults and school age children. This challenging situation is compounded by the demographic profile of those who are leaving (better educated/employability skills) and those who are remaining in many rural communities. While it is important to acknowledge that some rural communities do not fit this general socio-economic profile and that there is wide diversity among rural places, there is growing concern among many rural educators about the economic and social conditions in an increasing number of rural places.

Given what we know about the impact of socio-economic conditions on education and schooling, it is surprising (and disappointing) that the Ministerial Panel chose not to pursue this issue. Any attempt to improve the quality of education which ignores the economic and social realities of rural communities and families will not be very successful.  This is especially true in a situation which is to be increasingly dependent on computer mediated distance education for program delivery and all that it implies.

The Panel’s position is that the school is “fundamentally a learning organization” and is thus primarily concerned with academic matters (p.11). But learning organizations (schools), virtual or otherwise, do not exist in a vacuum; their context has to be given as much consideration as program development and program delivery. Is there some notion that a virtual school, existing in cyberspace, can be oblivious of context?

The Panel also focused attention on the achievement of rural schools:

The issue of low achievement levels in rural areas has been well documented. An examination of the indicators published by the Department of Education shows that rural students, as a group, perform substantially lower than students in urban schools. Compared to other areas where improvement efforts could be

directed, the Panel believes measures to increase student performance in rural schools are most urgently needed (p.54). [emphasis added]

Although the research evidence clearly indicates a clear relationship between socio-economic conditions and achievement, again, the Panel chose not to discuss this relationship. Many rural educators would take issue with this rather misleading generalisation about rural schools and their achievement.  Such statements, made without any qualifications, clearly undermine the hard work of rural educators and ignore the very real achievements of many rural schools.

Be that as it may be, there is still the legitimate question to ask related to the impact the proposed changes to distance education might have on rural achievement. Will the proposed changes to distance education improve the performance and achievement levels of rural students? What impact will they have on completion rates and school retention?

Again, there is no discussion of this issue in Supporting Learning (2000). Are we to assume that the proposed changes to distance education are at least among “the measures most urgently needed” to address the purported low levels of rural student achievement? Is there any evidence to support this assumption? None is offered in Supporting Learning (2000).

The primary concern of the Ministerial Panel regarding rural schools articulated in Supporting Learning (2000) is the “wide program differences” (p. 54)  that exist between rural and urban schools and among rural small schools. In the view of the Ministerial Panel, these program differences or “disparities” constitute a form of educational inequality. The province must strive to “lessen program disparity” and “minimize” the “inequalities in program access…and delivery” that currently exist among schools (p.54,56).  Consequently,

There is a need to strengthen the delivery of education in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. The education system must provide a level of service which removes barriers so that all students, regardless of the location of their community, are able to access an essential program (p. 54). [emphasis added]

The Ministerial Panel makes it clear that its primary concern is the smallest and most remote rural schools, those “most in need of program enhancement.”

I think it is important to note that, currently, all but a very few of the smallest rural schools manage to offer an academic program that qualifies rural students for admission to Memorial University and other post-secondary institutions. Even all-grade schools with as few as 17 students manage to do this by taking advantage of the current distance education program and utilising a number of school- based strategies including:

·       Curriculum rotation: courses are offered once every two or three years.

·       Teaching two or more courses and/or subjects simultaneously in the same instructional period.

·       Independent study: students complete courses outside regularly scheduled time with voluntary assistance from school based teachers.

·       Having courses taught by non-specialist teachers

·       Tailoring course offerings each year to individual student needs.

These strategies “work” in the sense that they enable students to earn the needed graduation credits. However, from an educational perspective, they are far from ideal and often prove to be very problematic.  They also result in much more demanding working conditions for rural teachers, who generally, have to teach more courses and have fewer preparation periods than do their urban counterparts.

A major educational concern of rural educators, not articulated in Supporting Learning (2000), is the lack of educational programming and provision for those students not intending to pursue further academic study. Ironically, the Ministerial Panel recommends the reduction or elimination of locally developed courses which often attempt to meet the needs of this group of students.

An Increased Reliance on Distance Education

The solution for program challenged rural schools, in the view of the Ministerial Panel, is an increased reliance on distance education in order to meet mandated curriculum requirements. Instead of viewing distance education as a supplementary or marginal program for a few select students, as it is currently, distance learning is to be re-conceptualised as an alternative method of program delivery for all students.

Distance Education is to be viewed as a viable alternative to traditional face to face instruction for rural high school students. Whatever programs and courses cannot be offered on-site by school-based teachers, could be provided to rural students via distance education:

A review of distance education in other jurisdictions and of the use of computer-based technologies, in particular, has convinced the Panel that models of distance education do exist and can be cost-effective under appropriate circumstances. It is proposed that a new group of distance education courses be developed, with the goal of increasing program breadth and ensuring an essential program for all students (Supporting Learning, 2000, p. 62). [emphasis added]

Primarily, the size and location of the school will determine the degree of reliance on distance education. Clearly, the smallest and most remote schools would make the most extensive use of distance learning.[ix]  However, if enrolments continue to decline as projected and further teacher cuts are made to rural boards, more and more rural schools will become increasingly dependent on distance education to provide essential programming for their students.

Up to this point in time, the government has been forced to keep a certain number of extra teachers in rural schools in order to ensure a certain level of programming. By elevating distance education to a new status, it may be no longer necessary. Once, the proposed expansion of distance education is in place, teacher reductions could directly follow enrolment declines. As actual  teachers are cut from rural schools, programming can be maintained via E teachers in virtual schools.

In Chapter Six of Supporting Learning (2000) the Ministerial Panel outlines its proposed new model of distance education that is intended to support the increased reliance on distance learning as an alternative method of program delivery. The following sections of this paper examine key aspects of that proposed model beginning with the Panel’s recommendation to expand significantly the number of distance education courses.

2. Expansion of Distance Education

 The Ministerial Panel recommends,      

that the province embark on a program to substantially increase the scope of distance education offerings in the schools through the establishment of a “Centre for Distance Learning and Innovation. Recommendation 58 (Supporting Learning, 2000).

In order for distance education to fulfill its new role in the province’s education system, it is necessary for the Department of Education to “substantially increase its distance education offerings.” The Ministerial Panel recommends the establishment of a Centre for Distance Learning and Innovation (CDLI) to be responsible for this task (p.79).

The Panel suggests that the an “adequate starting point” (p.86) for this proposed expansion would be an  “initial suite of 18 courses representing 30 senior high credits. These 18 courses would consist of the 11 currently being offered plus the “development of courses in music, fine arts, technology education, sciences, language arts and social studies designed to broaden the scope of choice in these areas”(Supporting Learning, 2000, p.68).

The Department of Education is directed by the Panel to give the  “development of the proposed suite of high school courses the highest priority” and to “ensure that the system can be in place by September 2001”(p. 86). This is necessary so that  “all high schools, no matter how small, can offer the essential program outlined in this report” (p. 79).

The initial goal is to implement a [distance education] program sufficient to ensure that the minimum high school program can be brought to all schools. The starting point would be schools with Grade 10-12 enrolment below the cut off point for one class per grade (p.85).

A small rural school taking “maximum advantage” of the distance education could  offer up to 18 courses (30 credits) via distance education, “leaving a minimum of about 18 credits” to be offered by school based teachers (p.86).

The development of this “initial suite of courses” is clearly identified as a “starting point.” The logical endpoint would appear to be having the entire high school curriculum made available to schools via distance education. This would result in the province having a completely dual mode of program provision. One would be the traditional face to face teaching and learning environment; the other a distance education “virtual environment.”

Distance Education for all Students

As noted above the initial focus is to on those schools currently participating in distance education programming.  The important difference is that these schools will be offering “a much larger proportion of the [essential] program” via distance (p. 86),  Much more significant, is the fact that this proposed expansion would mean that many more students and a wider range of students will have the opportunity to take distance courses. As the reliance on distance education increases, students in smaller schools may, in fact, have little choice but to access essential courses via distance learning. 

As noted earlier, the current system had less than 1000 course enrolments in the 1999-2000 school year. This translates into about 700 rural students taking distance courses.  In the first year of the proposed expansion, 2001-2002, the Panel foresees an increase of 2,000% in the number of course enrolments suggesting that “an initial target of 20,000 course enrolments” be used for planning purposes (p.86) Since individual students may take more than one distance course, it is difficult to guess how many more students will be participating in the program. It is safe to assume that the 20,000 course enrolments would translate into at least 7,000 students!

The Ministerial Panel, however, does not see an expanded system of distance education serving only rural students attending small schools.    The Panel proposes a totally open system of distance education. Students “in all schools will be able to access distance education opportunities”(Supporting Learning, 2000, p. 80).  As the number of courses made available via distance education increases, schools other than small rural schools will want to “take advantage of the opportunity to participate”(Supporting Learning, 2000, p.85).

Furthermore, the Panel sees the reach of distance education extending beyond the regular school system:

Taking an even broader perspective, there is no need to confine access to individuals in the regular school system. Such courses are available to parents who choose to home-school their children, to adults who have not completed high school, to students in institutions  or to recent students who are short a few credits or who need to upgrade their marks. In fact, the latter group encompasses those who are now labeled Level IV students. Students in this category might welcome having access to the courses they need without being subject to the constraints of re turning to school for a year. The system could benefit by not having the students counted as part of school enrolments, thus saving some teaching units who could be more efficiently deployed as E-teachers (86).

The Ministerial Panel sees the expansion of distance translating into an increased reliance on distance education province wide. However, the degree and nature of that reliance will be related to the size and location of the school. For rural schools, the likely use will be providing access to the prescribed essential program; for urban schools, which will continue being able to provide essential programming face to face and on site, distance education will likely be used to offer optional and enrichment programs.

The expansion in the number of course offerings and the provision of open access for all students will create an alternative mode of program delivery for the whole province.  All students regardless of the size or location of their school will have access to courses via distance education.  For rural students this will mean access to many courses that may have been previously unavailable to them; for urban students it will mean access to an alternative mode of learning not previously available to them.

The Panel acknowledges some people may be concerned that what is being proposed “may seem like a high level of reliance on distance” for providing educational programming to small rural schools. It also acknowledges that many people question the appropriateness of distance for all learners:

Prevailing opinion in the field (rural educators and parents) seems to be that distance education should continue but should be treated as supplementary to mainstream programming. There is a strong view that this approach is most suitable for advanced students who are capable of independent learning…  75).

Expert opinion expressed within the distance education literature including the E-Learning literature tends to support the “prevailing opinion in the field.” Distance education is a mode of learning that may not suitable for all adult learners let alone all adolescent learners. Palloff & Pratt (2001)[x] in Lessons from the Cyberspace Classrooms: The Realities of Online Teaching note:

Well-constructed online courses can enhance and expand institutional offerings, thus attracting students who prefer this mode of learning. Online learning is not appropriate for all students, however, and is not likely to replace the face-to face classroom (p.12). [emphasis added]

The Panel offers the reassurance that  “the support system[xi] being put in place is designed to offset any initial disadvantage of the new approach” (p. 86).

3. An Internet based, asynchronous learning network

The province must remain a leader in the development and use of distance education as technology shifts towards a computer and Internet-based approach. ( Supporting Learning, 2000).

The first mode of distance education delivery utilized in this province for rural students was correspondence courses. This program began in the 1930’s and the target group was elementary rural students in small and remote small schools. In the 1950’s a program for grade lX students was added and this continued until about 1963. The correspondence program was discontinued as more and more central high schools were built and a better road system enable more students to be bussed to larger schools.[xii]

Riggs (1987)[xiii] rediscovered the existence of small rural schools which for one reason or another had disappeared from the Newfoundland and Labrador education consciousness. He noted the programming challenges that (still)existed in many such schools and it was in following his recommendations that the current telephone based audio-graphics approach described in the introduction of this paper was initiated in 1988.

Since1998, Advanced Placement courses have been offered via the Internet to a small number of students. Districts participating 2001-2002 include, Vista, Burin Peninsula, and Avalon West. In keeping with the nature of AP courses, only the most able students are selected for participation. Completion rates for these courses have been problematic at times and the differences in the number of students enrolled and actually writing the final exam and achieving university standing for an AP course are surprising. 

Elsewhere in North America, interest in the use of the Internet as a method of program delivery has been increasing since the inception of the first “virtual school” in 1995.[xiv] Although the actual number of high school students taking Online courses remains a tiny fraction of the total school population. In the US for example one estimate puts the number at 50,000 students in 2000, a very small percentage of the 53 million K-12 student population. Many states, as well larger individual districts, have developed virtual schools and are currently offering online distance courses within their own jurisdictions as well as recruiting students from other places within the US and internationally. There are also a number of proprietary virtual schools which are private, for profit organizations which see significant commercial opportunities in online distance education.[xv]  

Why the interest in online learning in the US?

According to its most ardent proponents, online learning is the elixir that can help address all sorts of problems facing school systems today: teacher shortages, limited course offerings, too many dropouts, the flight to home-schooling, lack of Advanced Placement classes in some places, the need for individualized learning, charter school compe tition, poor teacher quality and lack of physical space (Russo, 2001). 

A note of caution is offered from US researchers, however, because….

Despite its growing popularity and the companies' unbridled promotional claims, questions remain about the appropriateness of online learning for the majority of students in elementary and secondary schools, the lack of research data on its effectiveness and the high costs and complicated logistics of developing online programs (Russo, 2001). 

The Ministerial Panel believes that the time is right for this province to join the E-Learning revolution on a grand scale. It proposes that the current synchronous, telephone-based, audio-graphics system of distance education be transformed into an Internet based, computer mediated, asynchronous learning network. All distance education activity should change to a web based format.

Existing distance courses and all new courses intended for distance delivery should be developed (or re-developed) as web-based courses. Students would access these courses via the Internet and all communications and interactions between and among participants (students and teachers) would be via Internet based information and communication technologies.

The Panel offers a number of reasons for recommending this change. One reason has to do with the fact that “Internet-based distance learning offers the opportunity to move away from the scheduling constraints of synchronous programming” inherent in the current system (p. 78).

As has been noted above, the proposed increased reliance on distance education as an alternative mode of program delivery requires an expansion in the number of distance courses made available to schools.  However, the synchronous nature of the current system is “its most serious limitation” as it effectively inhibits that necessary expansion.

The current system is now approaching a scheduling saturation point.  Because of the requirement for synchronous delivery, the Panel notes the extreme difficulty in scaling up the system to handle the distribution of many simultaneous programs (p.76).

Therefore increased reliance on distance education and expanded web based course offerings will require, in the Panel’s view, the adoption of an asynchronous learning network. An ALN has the potential of unlimited capacity; any number of programs and courses can be offered though this mode of distance education provision.

Another problem with the current system inherent in its synchronous nature, according to the Panel, is that it imposes “severe limitations on school schedules” (Supporting Learning, 2000, p. 76), whereas, an asynchronous Internet based approach can effectively create a “virtual learning environment” in which, theoretically, “teachers and learners … are free from the constraints of space and time.” Again, theoretically at least, “There are no major restrictions on the location of teachers and students, course scheduling or the start and end dates of programs” (p.80).

In addition to permitting unlimited expansion in terms of programs and courses and total flexibility in terms of scheduling, the Ministerial Panel points out other reasons for and advantages of switching to an web based asynchronous mode of distance education:

·       The province must remain a leader in the development and use of distance education as technology shifts towards a computer and Internet-based approach Internet-based distance learning

·       It will help students become accustomed to new ways of learning and to the technologies that are becoming all-pervasive in daily life.

·       The approach promotes independence and enhances technological transfer and capacity.

The Panel also notes another possible advantage of changing to Web-based courses:

Web-based courses are now commonplace in many jurisdictions and are becoming increasingly widely available to the larger world. Thus, the use of this format might obviate the need to develop new courses. Instead, it should be possible to adopt or adapt material that has already been produce (p.83).

Why go to the expense and bother of developing one’s own courses in Math, Science or English when it is possible to purchase ready made courses and pre-packaged learning resources? As noted earlier, there is a growing number of “virtual schools” in North American, many of which are proprietary, for profit educational businesses more than willing to sell their products to school districts any where.  This may be another example of the possible “instructional economies” the Panel anticipates realizing if its proposals and recommendations are accepted and adopted.

As the Ministerial Panel notes, in order to access web-based courses, students need access to a reliable Internet connection. Unfortunately, many rural areas of the province have very slow and often unreliable Internet connections. To counter any possible “time lost due to telecommunications and other technical problems” the Panel suggests that consideration be given to “placing the main body of course material on CD-ROM as well as on the Web” (83).  These CD-ROM’s could be delivered to rural students in small and remote schools by postal service as were the correspondence course materials fifty years ago.

The smallest and most remote rural schools, those “most in need of program enhancement” would be forced to make the most use of these CD ROM’s, while the larger and more metropolitan schools, schools least in need of enhancement,  would have full access to the online courses.  A CD ROM can provide students with access to course materials and a great deal of information; however, they cannot provide students with any interaction or communication with their teachers or fellow students. And that is a very important pedagogical distinction.

4. Asynchronous Communication and Interaction

The adoption of an asynchronous learning network will require a fundamental change in how distance teachers and distance learners communicate and interact when participating in the proposed new model of distance education.

One of the distinctive pedagogical features of the current system is the opportunity teachers and learners have to engage in real time, synchronous, conversation and interaction about teaching and learning matters. Fully 50% of the instructional time prescribed for distance courses (five of ten instructional periods) is designated for this purpose. Teachers and students have the opportunity to actually talk with one another, in real time, during these online sessions.

These sessions serve important social as well as pedagogical purposes. Education and schooling is very much a social activity. Students are human beings, and younger learners especially relate to their teacher in the first instance as persons, secondarily as instructors.  In the current system. distance teachers take some of this time just to chat with the students in an effort to establish that important social rapport that is a vital part of learning and learner satisfaction. This real time interaction also serves a vital function in terms of encouraging and motivating distance students in their work efforts and accepting their responsibility for keeping up their assigned tasks. Hearing the sound of their teacher’s voice in real time, sensing his/her synchronous presence  appears to have a positive effect on the students in distance courses.

Perhaps the most significant pedagogical aspect of these online sessions is that they provide the students with the opportunity to ask their distance teachers questions about some aspect of the course with which they are having difficulty.  In turn the teacher can ask the students questions about the nature of the difficulty they are having.  Because the conversations are occurring in real time, questions and answers can be posed and answered with the same immediacy as they would be in a face to face classroom situation. Although the participants cannot see each other and the teacher does not have the aid of those visual clues that alert a teacher to comprehension or confusion in a learner, she/he can interpret much from verbal clues. Even silence in response to a question posed in a synchronous session can tell the distance teacher much in terms of where students are and what their needs may be.

Another important technological aspect of the current system is the use of a tele-writer or “white board.”  Both students and teachers have access to this learning tool.  As the teacher writes or creates a diagram on the white board, the students in their remote location can immediately see what the teacher is doing. As the teacher writes or draws, the students can comment on or question the teacher as she/he goes. They can ask the teacher to stop, to go back, to explain further each step of a procedure or operation.   They can do this because the interaction is occurring in real time.

Distance teachers use this technology to help explain through illustration and example particular problems that students are having with certain aspects of the course. They can provide direct instruction for very specific purposes to one or more students in real time.

Just as in face to face classrooms, students may be asked to “come to the board” to demonstrate their knowledge and understanding; in the current approach to distance they can do something very similar. Students can be asked to demonstrate their knowledge and understanding by completing a task on the white board.  Again, the feedback from the teacher has the same immediacy as in a face to face classroom. 

This pedagogical feature of the current system is highly regarded by those currently involved in distance education in the province. Educators, parents, and students are unanimous in believing the opportunity of synchronous interaction enables the current system to succeed to the degree than it does. They are skeptical about eliminating or diminishing of this aspect of the current model.

The Ministerial Panel acknowledges that the opportunity for “real time communication” is “the main advantage” of the current system (p.76).  However, in the view of the Panel, this synchronous component is, as we have noted above,  “problematic” since it is “dependent on centralized scheduling” and “is built around high cost audio telephone communications” (Supporting Learning, 2000, p. 62). The Panel’s recommendation, as noted, is that  “there be minimal reliance on synchronous communication.”  The preference of the Panel is the removal of what it sees as “the restrictions of the current system by eliminating or substantially reducing the synchronous component (p. 82): 

The significant departure from the current teleconference system is that most communication would occur through the Internet, with the main communications tool being a conference forum (Supporting Learning, 2000, p.66)

The Panel explains that “A conference forum is essentially a sophisticated Web-based e-mail system that permits an organized flow of information between instructor and students and among students” ( p. 80) [emphasis added]. Students can access the forum anytime, but “there is no expectation of real-time conversations” (p. 66). In point of fact there would not be any “conversation” as such and as now occurs at all. The intent seems to be to limit, if not eliminate, the opportunities students and teachers now have to talk about matters pertaining to the course or any difficulties students may be having. “Any time access” is dependent on students having access to a computer and a reliable Internet connection. But as we have noted, it is the smallest and most remote schools that have the least reliable and slowest Internet connection. Does this not make achieving the intended goal of equalizing educational opportunity for these rural students somewhat problematic

Interaction and communication will not only be asynchronous, it will also be text-based. Students and teachers will “interface with one another” via their machines and exchange digitized text (typed messages); or as the Panel describes it, “an organized flow of information” (p.80).[xvi] The current teleconference system with its capacity for oral communication would be replaced with text driven Internet based communication tools. The sounds of people talking will be replaced with the sounds of keys clicking, sounds heard only by those doing the clicking. 

If a student is experiencing some difficulty with some aspect of a course and wishes to ask a question, instead of simply asking the teacher the question at one of the frequent synchronous sessions, integral to the current system, she/he will have to write out his/her question. Then she/he must type it as e mail message or forum entry and send it electronically to the teacher.  Then, she/he must wait for the teacher to read the question and type a reply. If the student wishes to contribute to a class discussion, the same process will have to be followed.  This places several very different and challenging demands on distance students compared to students in face to face classrooms as well as in the current approach to distance.

They must be able to put into writing whatever they wish to communicate with their peers or their teachers. And they must be able to be proficient at typing or keyboarding. A student not proficient in keyboarding skills may be hampered in his/her ability to communicate with the teacher in an asynchronous learning network. This may be quite frustrating for the students and potentially detrimental to their educational achievement. Not only is this as the Panel notes, “a significant departure from the current teleconference system (p.66),” it also places a whole new set of demands on students, especially rural students, in their efforts to obtain an education via distance learning.

What may be the greatest pedagogical strength of the current system is also its greatest limitation, in the view of the Panel, because it impedes progress.  It must be sacrificed or severely curtailed in order to permit the proposed expansion of the system.  It is a fair question to ask what the point is of expanding the system, if that expansion erodes the quality of education (online as well as face to face) currently provided to rural students?

What seems to be missing in the proposed new model of distance education is any informed understanding of the communications infrastructure limitations of many rural places in Newfoundland and Labrador, especially the more isolated places. Equally, significant is an apparent lack of awareness of the social and pedagogical needs of the average adolescent learner.[xvii]

5. Supporting Students in E Learning

That the Centre for Distance Learning and Innovation consist of a number of teachers, who may be termed Electronic Teachers or E-teachers, with primary responsibility for course delivery and evaluation and that, at the school level, teachers be assigned from the regular school allocation as mediating teachers to ensure appropriate interaction between students and E-teachers. (Supporting Learning, 2000, Recommendation 59).

“Teachers,” observes the Ministerial Panel, “…exert a more significant influence on educational quality than does any other aspect of schooling” (p.50). It is teachers who will have the responsibility of making the proposed new model of distance education work. As the reliance on distance education increases, especially for small rural schools, the kinds of human and technical support provided by teachers will be crucial if students are to succeed. 

The literature on distance education regardless of mode – from correspondence to web-based, or  level – K12 to post secondary - is replete with the caveat that distance education may not be appropriate for all learners.  E learning, as with any other form of distance education, places a much higher level of responsibility on the student for independent study and self-regulation than does traditional face to face instruction.  Not all adult learners have the maturity, discipline, or motivation to accept this responsibility. The existence of such dispositions in adolescents, experience has shown, is even rarer.

As noted earlier, the Panel contends that “any initial disadvantage” created by the admittedly “high level of reliance on distance” will be “offset by the support system that would be put in place” (p.86).  The support system being referred to by the Panel consists of a distance education teacher (an E teacher) and a school-based classroom teacher whose job it will be to “ensure appropriate interaction” between the students and their “E teacher”(Supporting Leaning, 2000, p. 79).

E teachers

In our experience, the training program for prospective online teachers is a key factor in teachers being able to engage students online. For example, the Virtual High School requires prospective teachers participate in a semester-long, 60-hour training program before they can teach a course online that has already been designed and posted on the Web. If the teacher is designing his or her own course rather than teaching a section of a course already designed, the preparation time is twice as long. A good training program will offer extensive instruction in online pedagogy and delivery (Berman and Pape, 2001).

E teachers are described by the Panel as “long distance teachers and course managers” and they would have “prime responsibility for course delivery and evaluation.” (p. 80).  Many of their duties and responsibilities are similar to those of the current distance educators.  There are some significant differences in how they will carry out those duties, however.

E teachers would be responsible for marking assignments and exams. (It isn’t clear from Supporting Learning if they would actually have any opportunity to create assignments or exams.) According to the Panel’s model the E teacher will not be responsible for creating the course; this will be done by some one else or the course may be possibly purchased from one of the growing number of commercial providers of web based courses. This may mean that the E teacher will simply evaluate and grade students’ performance on prescribed tests and assignments. (This was how the correspondence courses, described earlier, worked)

E teachers are expected to take a “pro-active role in establishing and maintaining communications with students and school-based teachers” (p.81). (There is no reference to  E teachers maintaining any communications with parents.)  

As noted above the primary way communications will occur is through a conference forum:

The E teacher’s role would be to monitor the forum, responding to queries as needed, and to use the forum to create a dynamic element to the course, which permits elaboration or modification of content, posting instructions, giving feedback on assigned work and other activities typical of teacher-student interaction.

As noted, these communications will be text based (typed as opposed to spoken) and asynchronous (delayed not immediate) and will be dependent on students having a reliable Internet connection. Students forced to work primarily from a CD ROM will have limited, if any, access to this forum.

E teachers would also be responsible for “professional development activities for other teachers” ( p.81 ). (It isn’t clear which teachers are being referred to here.)

The Panel also outlines what they see as the preferred working conditions of E teachers:

• E-teachers would be assigned to courses on a full-time basis and in sufficient numbers to allow for adequate course monitoring and rapid response to queries

• These teachers would be free from the supervisory functions of classroom teachers [and] from most of the day to day constraints of preparation, supervision and class schedules 

• For the most part, they would confine their work to one or two courses in which most of the content and learning resources would have been planned in advance.

• Because of the schedule-free nature of the distance courses, E teachers would have a much more flexible work schedule than regular teachers.

• It would be reasonable to expect E teachers to maintain communications outside of regular class hours. “Responding to e-mail, conference forums or even telephone communications could occur at any time.”

• The Panel cautions, however, that e teaching should not, in general, be combined with regular classroom teaching, because this would reduce flexibility.

• While it is not possible at this point to estimate the demand on the E teachers, the Panel notes that such teachers would function best if not subjected to the constraints of normal school hours (Supporting Learning, 2000, p.81 ).

The Panel appears to have a vision of the E teacher as being somewhat of a detached figure, disconnected from any actual contact with any school or individual  teachers, students, or parents.  Thus the Panel issues a “caution” against constraining the  E teacher in any way with other school based courses and responsibilities or even hours of operation.  In order to ensure the desired flexibility, E teachers should have no other responsibilities other than their web-based courses.  They should use this flexibility to make themselves available to communicate with their students, apparently, any time of the day or night.

The Panel does not offer a definite view as to how many students, or “course registrations,” for which E teachers would be responsible, although, as noted above they should be able to provide “rapid response to [student] inquires.”  The Panel does offer the view that, given the working conditions of E teachers, they should be able to handle more students than classroom teachers:

Since the E teacher is free from most of the day to day constraints of preparation, supervision and class schedules, it is reasonable that such a teacher could be responsible for more than the number of students in an on-site class (p.81).

The Ministerial Panel believes that the through the use of E teachers “instructional economies” can be achieved:

It is clear, however, that instructional economies can be achieved. For small schools this approach creates a manageable system in terms of teacher requirements while allowing all schools to offer the essential high school program (p.81).

Does this imply that as enrolments continue to decline, the distance education program will expand, and that E teachers will be increasingly be used take the place of school based teachers in small rural schools?

Classroom Teachers:  A Mediating Role

It is proposed that teachers within the schools be given direct responsibility for facilitating distance education courses (Supporting Learning, 2000, p. 82).

One of the key and distinguishing features of the proposed model of web based distance education is the identification of, “an important mediating role for school-based teachers… . “ (p. 78). The current system of distance education, states the Panel,  “envisages no direct role for regular school-based teachers:”

Distance education courses are separated from others and students are expected to operate relatively independently of the teachers in the school. It is mainly for this reason that numbers have to be limited and students are selected who are most likely to be able to function independently. While the school principal has a role in scheduling and other teachers do assist with supervision, technical problems and content, this is not an inherent feature of the [current] system (Supporting Learning, 2000, p. 78).

In the new model, the Ministerial Panel proposes that school based teachers be given “direct responsibility for facilitating distance education courses…”(p. 82). This facilitating role includes,

liaison with the E teacher and attending to matters of attendance, discipline, homework, assignments and other normal aspects of classroom life (p. 82).

The Ministerial Panel emphasises that the mediating responsibilities of the school-based teachers do not include any planning, preparing or instructional duties for the courses they are facilitating. The point is made twice:

This role would involve facilitating student learning but not direct responsibility for course preparation or instruction (78)

These teachers would not be expected to prepare for each course under their supervision (p. 82).

The Panel notes that there “would be nothing to preclude these teachers from assisting students with matters of content” but the point is that it would not be part of their designated role responsibilities. In other words, if teachers want to volunteer their time and effort, they are free to do so, but it is not expected. Nor should they expect, it is presumed, to have such assistance acknowledged.

The Ministerial Panel appears to be unaware that the current system of distance education has clearly demonstrated that many students taking distance courses required and received a significant  amount of pedagogical assistance with “matters of content” from school based personnel.[xviii] It must be remembered that these current students are a select group chosen for their academic ability and their predisposition for independent study. Given that a wider range of students will be taking distance courses and that they will be working primarily in an asynchronous mode, and possibly from a CD ROM, it is hard to imagine that the need for on-site academic and pedagogical assistance would not be greatly increased. It is difficult to understand why the Ministerial Panel is ignoring what will be a very obvious need of rural students taking distance courses. 

The Panel recommends that “mediating teachers would be assigned to distance education classes as part of their normal teaching assignments”(82) and offers this view of their working conditions:

Freed from much of the preparation burden[xix] it would be reasonable to expect classroom teachers to facilitate groups larger than the regular high school class, with these groups having several courses in progress simultaneously. … The underlying principle is that multiple courses would be in progress in a single class (p. 82). 

It is somewhat difficult to understand just what the Ministerial Panel has in mind as to how and when classroom teachers are to carry out their “mediating” responsibilities. What does, “multiple courses would be in progress in a single class” mean? What is actually being envisioned here? Does it mean that a school-based teacher would be responsible for mediating two or more web based courses in a classroom or computer lab? Or, does it mean that a school-based classroom teacher would be responsible for mediating two or more web based courses while, at same time and in the same space, be attempting to teach a face-to-face course?[xx] Are the additional demands being placed on classroom teachers in a mediating role to be recognized as part of their workload and appropriate provision for this incorporated in their overall assignment? Or is this work to be done on their “free time” on a voluntary basis?

Given the wider range of students  that will be presumably taking distance courses, the increased reliance on distance education to provide basic educational services, and the asynchronous mode of delivery and poor connectivity in many places,  the role of school based mediating teachers is going to be rather crucial to the success of the new model.  The failure of the Ministerial Panel to recognise this and make the mediating responsibility a separate and recognized part of a rural teacher’s designated workload, with an appropriate and distinct provision of time during the instructional day, undermines this most important aspect of the new model. If this issue is not adequately addressed, many rural students will have their education compromised and put at risk. Is this equalizing educational opportunity? 

6. Conclusion

The proposed new model of distance education can provide rural students with access to more and a wider range of courses than might otherwise be available to them.  But then, if it is just a matter of access, the same goal could be achieved with a greater use of mail order correspondence courses. A commitment to education equality and a quality education for all has to go well beyond the provision of access.

It remains an open question, therefore, whether the intended computer mediated, Internet dependent model of distance education will in fact equalize educational opportunities for rural students, particularly those attending the smallest and most remote schools. An equally significant unanswered question at this point is whether or not the increased reliance on distance education as an alternative mode of program delivery will improve the quality of education provided to rural children and raise levels of rural academic achievement.

Among the key issues in need of critical inquiry and public discourse are:

• Equality of Access
• The appropriateness of online distance education for all learners
• The educational equivalency of online and face to face instruction
• The  effect of an increased reliance on distance education at the high school level on all-grade schools

Equality of Access

First of all, there is the question of equality of access to these new educational opportunities. Access to the Internet remains problematic in many rural areas of this province. It is most problematic for those small and remote schools most in need of program enhancement. While access to course materials and resources may be provided via a CD ROM, access to teachers and other students cannot be thus provided. This may mean limited interaction and communication opportunities for many rural students taking online courses.  This compromises the quality of the educational opportunity thus available; it calls into question to what extent educational opportunities have in fact been equalized.

Equality of access is not just a matter of communications infrastructure; it is also a matter of economics. Funding formulas for educational resources favour larger schools over smaller ones.  Most rural schools are small, and all remote schools are very small.  Rural schools (and rural districts), therefore, do not have the financial resources to spend on technology that larger urban schools do. Many rural schools are situated in those parts of the province experiencing the most challenging economic and social circumstances; they are also in those regions experiencing the greatest out-migration of people. They do not have the opportunities for fund raising and creating partnerships with businesses that schools in larger centres do.

If the responsibility for funding the technology, the machines, and the technicians required to support online distance education is downloaded to rural boards and small schools, then a dramatic digital divide will be created in this province. Again, this will greatly compromise the equality of access students will have in rural schools compared to their urban counterparts.

A third dimension of access equality is the issue of home access for students taking online distance education.  Those students, who have access to computers and the Internet in their homes, will have a distinct advantage over those who cannot afford home access. This is the second and more serious dimension of the digital divide.

These privileged students will indeed enjoy the much touted “anytime, anywhere” advantage of online education. In those communities where connectivity is problematic, especially during peak times during the day, having home access might be considered a necessity. However, as we have noted a number of times in this paper, many families in rural Newfoundland and Labrador have to deal with very challenging financial circumstances. They may not be able to afford to provide home access for their children.

As long as online distance education is an option for select students wishing to take advanced academic courses, perhaps this issue can be ignored. However, if as proposed by the Ministerial Panel distance education is to function as an alternative mode of program delivery for all schools and the only form of program delivery for certain essential courses for small rural schools, then, access issues become of paramount importance.

If we do not provide equality of access for rural students, rather than equalizing educational opportunities we may in fact be doing the very opposite, especially for those students who live remote places and/or in challenging economic circumstances. We will be making their educational and life chances worse, not better. At the same time we will be increasing educational opportunities for children who already enjoy many privileges.

The appropriateness of distance education for all learners

A second issue is the appropriateness of online distance education for all learners. The Panel proposes that distance education be re-conceptualized from a supplementary program to being an alternative mode of program delivery for all students.  A constant caution in the literature suggests that distance education is not appropriate for all learners.  This is because all forms of distance education, including online learning, requires certain attributes and dispositions not possessed by all learners. This is evidenced in part by the 50% completion rate in distance education for adult learners (Berman and Pape, 2001).

Up to this point in time, distance learners in this province have been a select group of students chosen in large part for their maturity and their demonstrated capacity for independent and self-regulated study. The only students who have so far participated in online distance courses have been those taking Advanced Placement courses.  Although this latter group of students were selected especially for these courses, completion rates and the number of students writing and passing the AP exams were not that impressive given the calibre of students involved.

To expect the average (not to mention the below average) student to function successfully in a virtual learning environment where contact with the teacher will be primarily or even exclusively via typed messages communicated asynchronously, when and if an Internet connection can be maintained, is a very questionable proposition.  The Ministerial Panel believes that the supports that will be in place via the E teacher and m teacher will provide whatever support any student may require. Yet they fail to make adequate provision for where that support is to be most likely needed: in the school.

Furthermore, they fail to realize or acknowledge that experience has clearly demonstrated that young learners, even those with the necessary characteristics,  need academic tutoring when taking distance education courses. The failure to make this a distinct component of the new model could put future generations of rural students at risk.

The Ministerial Panel has pointed out that “rural students, as a group, perform academically substantially lower than students in urban schools” (p.54). While urban students will continue to have the choice of online or face to face instruction, increasingly, it would appear, rural students will have no choice but to take essential courses via distance education. Is this an equitable proposition? Is imposing a more demanding mode of learning on rural students creating a level playing field? Is such a development likely to ameliorate the purported rural under achievement?

A question of equivalency

Are educational experiences in virtual learning environments equivalent to those in face to face classrooms? To what extent will the proposed new model of distance education and the increased reliance on distance learning provide rural students with an educational experience of equal value and worth to face to face educational experiences? How would we make such value judgements? Who would make them?

Simonson et al. (1999)[xxi] have developed a theory of distance education that focuses on the concept of equivalency: “The responsibility for creating equivalent learning environments for online learners lies with the instructional designer and is in no way the responsibility of the student”: [emphasis added]

Equivalency implies that even though the learning environments of on-site and distance learners differ, it is essential that the learning experiences be of equal value. … [N]o matter how the learning experiences differ in type or degree, it is critical that the sum of those experiences be of equal value for on-site and distance learners (Hoffman, S.Q. et al. 2000, 331).[xxii]

A whole school solution?

The primary, intended beneficiary of the new model of distance education, according to the Ministerial Panel, are the smaller and more remote rural schools that have the most difficulty offering the mandated curriculum and recruiting and retaining specialist teachers. As has been noted earlier in this paper, most if not all of these schools are all-grade schools.  The teachers in these schools do not just teach courses at the high school level; generally they teach at several levels and, equally important, provide an important resource for the whole school. What kind of educational deficit may be created in an all-grade school if a math/science specialist is no longer needed onsite because those courses are provided to students online? Is an educational change that benefits only a few students but may possibly disadvantage many students, a fair or just one? 

A final word

A modified and somewhat scaled down version of the Ministerial Panel’s new model of distance education was piloted/field tested during the 2001/2002 school year. [xxiii] Ten online courses were offered in 20 schools to approximately 200 students. Most significantly, efforts were made to make some degree of synchronous interaction a feature of all courses.

This field test was monitored as a project under the direction of  the  Chair of TeleLearning in the Faculty of Education, MUN. A report on the year’s activities has been completed and was submitted to CDLI in June of this year (2002). It may be assumed that the issues, concerns and questions raised in this paper have been addressed in that report. Unfortunately, this report has not been made available to the public.

Anecdotal and informal reports from the field over the past school year have indicated that  many problems related to the technology and connectivity have been encountered in most rural places where the new model is being tested. This has had an impact, naturally, on the pedagogy and the effectiveness of the courses since communication and interaction are affected. Issues have also arisen, as one might expect, related to the working conditions of the m teachers and the lack of clarity of their role; there are also concerns about the timely availability of technical support.[xxiv] Student achievement levels in some courses have also been a cause of concern.

An unfortunate aspect of the field test is the fact that insufficient effort, apparently, was made to recruit a wide range of students for participation. If the field test does not demonstrate that the proposed model can be effective for the very diverse student population in rural schools, its utility as an alternative mode of program delivery for all students has not been demonstrated.

Although I have raised a number of questions about the Ministerial Panel’s proposed new model of online distance education, I remain convinced that such an approach has potential for enhancing the provision of education in small and remote rural schools. However, as always the devil is in the details, the so important “minute particulars” that make all the difference in teaching and learning. Details and particulars not known or forgotten by those not engaged in classroom work. What’s needed to make the vision an educational reality  is more sensitivity and responsiveness on the part of the  planners and designers to the actual pedagogical needs of those rural students who will be participating.

The system has to be designed for the students in question; they cannot be expected to “sink or swim” in a system that does not consider who they are and where they live. Furthermore, careful consideration has to be given to how any proposed change will affect the whole school and all students. Our commitment has to be to every student, not a select few.

Finally, one point is stressed repeatedly in the literature: haste makes waste. Online learning represents a substantial change in how education is provided. In addition to all the technical issues both teachers and students have to learn new ways of teaching and learning. Not surprisingly, successful implementation takes careful and thoughtful planning. This means taking one’s time, moving slowly; most importantly it means making sure that extensive professional development is provided to all teachers participating before implementation occurs. Equally important, students must be given the opportunity to learn the new skills they will need in order to participate in distance education.

Comments or suggestions welcomed dmulcahy@mun.ca

Notes