With the increasing popularity of online education, due to advancing
technologies and an increase in funding for universities to offer distance
learning, the role of the teacher, instructor, or lecturer in modern higher
education is certainly changing. But with a greater input of technology upon a
student s education, is the competency and overall quality of the teacher
becoming less important?
In his essay, Distance Learning: Promises, Problems, and Possibilities (2002), Doug Valentine describes, instructors and their attitudes towards teaching in a distance-learning environment as a major potential roadblock to effective distance education, because, the instructor can set the tone for learning in the educational environment. In response to this, it therefore seems of great importance, aside from having the knowledge to utilize the technology for the delivery of education, that he/she must also be eager and confident by his new means for teaching. Following this idea, The University of Florida also published a paper entitled A Teachers Guide To Distance Learning (1995). This essay calls for distance learning technology to be as invisible as possible, endorsing the notion that it is simply a means or tool on offer to aid the delivery of education.
A problem highlighted by Valentine is noticeable here. There are two differing opinions as to what is the exact purpose of distance learning. The first, as stated by Schlosser and Anderson in 1994, is to offer an experience as much like that of traditional, face-to-face instruction as possible. Whilst the second opinion, that of Bates (1995), is that it should be used to improve instruction. Depending on which of the above is to be adopted by the institution, it seems that the quality, competency, and connection between teacher and student should be of the utmost importance for the former. However, if a better education system is required than that of the traditional form, then the position and actions of the instructor may be quite different.
For a distance learning course to be more successful than a traditional learning programme, it seems that the role of the teacher should be more in line with the instruction of The University of Florida. For example, the UoF highlights four adaptations, the first is to establish effective strategies for implementing small group activities and individual practice. The second is to hone techniques for maximizing teacher/student and student/student interactions. The third is to establish successful approaches for integrating technology into the teaching/learning process. And the final method for adaptation is to implement tactics for motivating students at a distance.
The role of the distance learning instructor is no doubt changing in comparison to that of the traditional lecturer. However, where an institution is seen to be implementing the most radical changes and newest technologies, today s distance learning instructor has as much accountability to his students, and a further responsibility to the future advancement of education in general.
In his essay, Distance Learning: Promises, Problems, and Possibilities (2002), Doug Valentine describes, instructors and their attitudes towards teaching in a distance-learning environment as a major potential roadblock to effective distance education, because, the instructor can set the tone for learning in the educational environment. In response to this, it therefore seems of great importance, aside from having the knowledge to utilize the technology for the delivery of education, that he/she must also be eager and confident by his new means for teaching. Following this idea, The University of Florida also published a paper entitled A Teachers Guide To Distance Learning (1995). This essay calls for distance learning technology to be as invisible as possible, endorsing the notion that it is simply a means or tool on offer to aid the delivery of education.
A problem highlighted by Valentine is noticeable here. There are two differing opinions as to what is the exact purpose of distance learning. The first, as stated by Schlosser and Anderson in 1994, is to offer an experience as much like that of traditional, face-to-face instruction as possible. Whilst the second opinion, that of Bates (1995), is that it should be used to improve instruction. Depending on which of the above is to be adopted by the institution, it seems that the quality, competency, and connection between teacher and student should be of the utmost importance for the former. However, if a better education system is required than that of the traditional form, then the position and actions of the instructor may be quite different.
For a distance learning course to be more successful than a traditional learning programme, it seems that the role of the teacher should be more in line with the instruction of The University of Florida. For example, the UoF highlights four adaptations, the first is to establish effective strategies for implementing small group activities and individual practice. The second is to hone techniques for maximizing teacher/student and student/student interactions. The third is to establish successful approaches for integrating technology into the teaching/learning process. And the final method for adaptation is to implement tactics for motivating students at a distance.
The role of the distance learning instructor is no doubt changing in comparison to that of the traditional lecturer. However, where an institution is seen to be implementing the most radical changes and newest technologies, today s distance learning instructor has as much accountability to his students, and a further responsibility to the future advancement of education in general.
