Collaborative Distance Learning Environments

Collaborative Distance Learning Environments are similar to the Active Learning Classrooms and MOOCs described above, but they aim to take those concepts one step further through active learning among distant, distributed networks of students (Berg 1995; Miller & Padgett 1998; Filigree Consulting 2012).

 

Most courses that aim to achieve collaborative distance learning rely on a combination of technologies, such as online lectures, interactive whiteboards, personal devices, cameras, sound amplification, multimedia (e.g., video, audio, Web), collaborative learning software (e.g., Google docs, Yammer, Red Pen, etc.), instructional games, and conferencing tools (Skype, Google+ Hangout, Blackboard Collaborate, WhatsApp, etc.) (Berg 1995; Miller & Padgett 1998; Filigree Consulting 2012; Morrison 2014). Social media plays a critical role in collaborative distance learning by promoting the integration of technologies, humanization of virtual interactions, and personalization of learning (Berg 1995; Brindley, et al. 2009; Morrison 2014). The combination of high-quality, richly-integrated technologies and best practices in their use is believed to be associated with positive collaborative distance learning outcomes, and a limited amount of research supports that notion (Berg 1995; Brindley, et al. 2009; Filigree Consulting 2012).

 

An example of a new Collaborative Distance Learning Environment is Maker Camp, which is a free, "live," interactive summer camp that was developed by Make in collaboration with Google. It enables learners to take virtual "field trips" to meet inspiring "makers" from around the world and embark on "maker" projects of their own. Counselors and junior counselors facilitate the camps, and campers (whether individual or in groups) can interact with other campers and their "maker" expert through audio/video streams.

 

Major drawbacks to Collaborative Distance Learning Environments are their high upfront development costs and the lag-time between video and audio feeds, which can be disruptive to the learning experience and can also add time to any given lesson plan (Brindley, et al. 2009; Morrison 2014). Careful selection of technologies and adequate educator training also are essential (Miller & Padgett 1998; Filigree Consulting 2012). An additional, significant challenge is the wide variety of student needs and learning styles and differences in time zones, which greatly hinders attempts to simultaneously engage students from disparate geographical locations (Miller & Padgett 1998; Brindley, et al. 2009).

 

Active Learning Forum

The proprietary Active Learning Forum is a collaborative distance learning platform that fuels the online curriculum at the Minerva® Schools at Keck Graduate Institute. Minerva is an accredited, for-profit, four-year undergraduate institution that aims to revolutionize higher education through its combination of international "real-world" fieldwork and entirely online, distance coursework (Wood 2014). Unlike MOOCs, Minerva's online courses are restricted to small groups of students ( fewer than 20 per course) in order to facilitate dynamic interactions between teachers and students in a manner similar to the Active Learning Classroom but with all interactions occurring remotely.

 

The Active Learning Forum platform provides several key capabilities: interactive discussions; real-time debate options; responsive gesture control to enable 3-D manipulation of digital objects; real-time simulations to demonstrate complex analyses; dynamic, collaborative document creation; dynamic polls and quizzes; live breakout sessions involving small groups of students and facilitated by the professor; and enhanced office hours designed to provide individual students with up-to-date feedback on course performance and to track progress.

 

The Active Learning Forum platform incorporates several emerging technologies and approaches that have potential to enhance student learning and achievement, including a virtual Active Learning Classroom, Collaborative Distance Learning Environment, simulation technology, and gamification. However, the technology is new and has not been evaluated in actual practice (Minerva's first class of students enrolled in August 2014). Minerva's educational model and its Active Learning Forum technology are already drawing both praise (Wood 2014) and criticism. Proponents claim that the innovation of the Minerva model is responsive to the challenges facing higher education and will transform higher education (Wood 2014), whereas detractors question the sustainability of the Minerva model and the quality of the education it provides.

 

LMSs

A variety of open source and commercial LMSs are available and designed to support all aspects of e-learning and the needs of all stakeholders, including students, educators/employers, administrators, and IT staff (Docebo 2014; mindflash 2014). A typical LMS provides automated administration (including integration with human resource systems), calendar support, course design, document and curriculum management, student registration support, tracking of student and organization progress, basic assessment and testing tools, synchronous collaboration tools such as webcasts, and a variety of other features, including training.

 

Many LMSs are based on the Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) "cloud" model (Docebo 2014). The popularity of the SaaS LMS model is driven by three factors that have proven to be critical to educators and employers:

1. speed to implementation;

2. direct cost and resource savings; and

3. outsourced technical expertise.

While more popular among industry learners than academics, SaaS LMSs currently account for more than 60% of the e-learning total market revenue).

 

According to a recent Capterra report, the 20 most popular LMS programs are: Moodle; Edmodo; ConnectEDU; Blackboard; SumTotal Systems; Schoology; Collaborize Classroom; Docebo; Desire2Learn; Interactyx; Litmos; DigitalChalk; Meridian Knowledge Solutions; Latitude Learning; Educadium; and Rcampus. Open source LMS programs also are available, and several popular ones are reviewed by Chaudhari (2012): Moodle; LRN; eFront; Dokeos; Sakai; and ATutor.

 

A major drawback to LMSs is their high upfront costs, although those costs are decreasing (Docebo 2014). In addition, the LMS model tends to cater to industry and continuing education in the workplace rather than traditional higher education (Docebo 2014; mindflash 2014).

 

The Upshot

New technologies continue to emerge and bring with them the promise to reform and revitalize today's higher education system. While research supports the effectiveness of several of these technologies in improving student learning and achievement (e.g., Active Learning Classrooms, Simulation Technology), there was noted that most of them have not been fully evaluated and likely will need to be refined iteratively as weaknesses are identified and new challenges arise. Furthermore, it is recognized that educators must be fully trained and incentivized to use new technologies). Nonetheless, these technologies and/or others not yet conceptualized will surely be incorporated into higher education as it evolves to meet the many challenges of 21st-century learning.

 

The Big Picture

Education and technology have historically evolved together and will continue to do so. The technologies discussed herein have the potential to improve higher education; however, technology alone is insufficient to address the many challenges students and educators face today. New technology is but a part of the broader solution that should include new business models, reform of the tenure system, greater incentives for teaching, and a variety of other critical changes to the higher education system. Only with such a comprehensive approach it will able to educate and train today's students to become tomorrow's leaders.

 

 

References

1. Berge, Z. (1995). Computer-mediated communication and the online classroom in distance learning. CMC, 2(4), 6. http://www.december. com/cmc/mag/1995/apr/berge.html.

2. Brindley, J. E., Walti, C., & Blaschke, L. M. (2009). Creating effective collaborative learning groups in an online environment. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learn­ing, 10(3). http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/ 675/1271.

3. Buck, T. E. (2013). The awesome power of gaming in higher education. EDTECH, Focus on Higher Education. http://www.edtechmagazine. com/higher/article/2013/10/awesome-power-gaming-higher-education.

4. Chaudhari, S. (2012). Top open source learning management systems. eLearning INDUSTRY. http://elearningindustry.com/top-open-source-learning-management-systems.

5. Cotner, S., Loper, J., Walker, J. D., & Brooks, D. C. (2013). "It's Not You, It's the Room"—Are the high-tech, active learning class­rooms worth it? Journal of College Science Teaching, 42(6), 82-88. www.cbs.umn.edu/sites/default/files/public/downloads/JCST-July2013.pdf.

6. Damassa, D. A., & Sitko, T. D. (2010). Simulation technologies in higher education: uses, trends, and implications. ECAR Research Bulletin 3. http://www.educause.edu/library/resources/simulation-technologies-higher-education-uses-trends-and-implications.

7. Docebo. (2014). E-learning market trends & forecast 2014-2016 report. Docebo. http://www.docebo.com/landing/contactform/elearning-market-trends-and-forecast-2014-2016-docebo-report.pdf.

8. Filigree Consulting. (2012). Instructional technology and collabora­tive learning best practices: Global report and recommendations. SMART Technologies. http://vault.smarttech.com/assessment/ education_whitepapers_web.pdf?WT.ac=edresearch.

9. Gutting, G. (2011). What is college for? The New York Times. http:// opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/14/what-is-college-for/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0.

10. Jabr, F. (2013). The reading brain in the digital age: the science of paper versus screens. Scientific American. http://www.scientificamerican. com/article/reading-paper-screens/.

11. Marques, J. (2013). A short history of MOOCs and distance learning. MOOC News & Reviews. http://moocnewsandreviews.com/a-short-history-of-moocs-and-distance-learning/.

12. McClarty, K. L., Orr, A., Frey, P.M., Dolan, R.P., Vassileva, V., & McVay, A. (2012). A literature review of gaming in education. Research report. Pearson. http://researchnetwork.pearson.com/wp-content/ uploads/Lit_Review_of_Gaming_in_Education.pdf.

13. Miller, M. D., & Padgett, T. C. (1998). Redesigning the learning envi­ronment for distance education: an integrative model of tech­nologically supported learning environments. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration. 1(1). http://www.westga.edu/ ~distance/miller11.html.

14. mindflash. (2014). What is an LMS? mindflash. http://www.mind-flash.com/learning-management-systems/what-is-lms.

15. Morrison, D. (2013). Three social trends that will influence education in 2014.online learning insights.http://onlinelearninginsights.word-press.com/2013/12/13/three-social-trends-that-will-influence-education-in-2014/.

16. Murray, M. C., & Perez, J. (2011). E-textbooks are coming: are we ready? Issues in Informing Science and Information Technology, 8, 49-60.

17. Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the re­search. Journal of Engineering Education, 93(3), 223-231. http:// www4.ncsu.edu/unity/lockers/users/f/felder/public/Papers/ Prince_AL.pdf.

18. PR Newswire. (2014). IBM brings e-textbooks into the cloud to fos­ter collaboration between teachers and students. Educational e-textbooks distributed by Wydawnictwa Cyfrowe get new di­mension of security and scalability with SoftLayer's cloud infra­structure. PR Newswire. http://www.marketwatch.com/story/ ibm-brings-e-textbooks-into-the-cloud-to-foster-collaboration-between-teachers-and-students-2014-08-07.

19. Smith, D. F. (2014). A brief history of gamification. EDTECH, Focus on Higher Education. http://www.edtechmagazine.com/higher/arti-cle/2014/07/brief-history-gamification-infographic.

20. Strauss, V. (2013). Can computers really grade essay tests? The Wash­ington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/ wp/2013/04/25/can-computers-really-grade-essay-tests/.

21. Walker, J. D., Cotner, S. H., Baepler, P. M., & Decker, M. D. (2008). A delicate balance: integrating active learning into a large lecture course. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 7, 361-367. www.ncbi.nlm. nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2592041/.

22. Winterhalter, B. (2013). Computer grading will destroy our schools. SALON. http://www.salon.com/2013/09/30/computer_grading_ will_destroy_our_schools/.

23. Wood, G. (2014). The future of college? The Atlantic. http://www. theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/08/the-future-of-col-lege/375071/.