Abstract
This paper explores the new roles of learners and universities as we, or others, shift from teacher-centered instructional formats to learner-centered instructional formats. The first section, entitled Historic View, describes how much of what is done in universities qualifies as an asynchronous model of education and how this shift to asynchrony could be more complete and deliberate. The second section, Future View, describes how universities may change their orientation to the methods of instruction away from teacher-centered formats to learner-centered formats. The final section, CyberStoa™ offers a criterion for judging technologies' optimum role in fostering distributed learning communities. This paper offers a set of reflections and starting points on which to analyze our initial efforts at shifting toward asynchronous learning networks as a more prominent mode of Higher Education.
Historic View
Traditionally, college and university faculty and students have convened in classrooms for the expressed purpose of teaching and learning. This scenario is so prevalent and assumed that stating it sounds like hyperbole. We all know what Higher Education looks like; a professoriate lectures to a large mass of attentive studentia. We also know that the profesoriate and the studentia are brought together into the same large lecture halls under the guise of learning. However, deep within this scenario several expectations and assumptions exist. Several of these assumptions, when closely examined are if not obviously false at least questionable.
Traditional views of teaching allow teachers several active roles: lecturing, offering explanations, describing lab activities, setting out exercises, guiding practice sessions, conducting evaluation and assessment, guiding critical discussions as well as many others. Traditional views of learning offers learners relatively few roles, most of which are passive: listening, note taking, following instructions, practicing skills, or performing memory tasks during evaluation. Over the last few years research in the cognitive sciences [Kandel & Hawkins 1992], [Fishback 1992] and empirical observation of learning situations [Nunn 1996], [Goodlad 1995], and [Cuban 1986] has lead educators to conclude that these predominantly passive roles of learners have, in fact, inhibited learning or relegated it to occurring during out-of-class time.
Reading about topics heard in lecture, practicing skills described or demonstrated, discussion with other learners, writing up reports, analysis of data are all typical tasks and activities that students have completed in order to learn. Often these are done out of class. There is nothing unusual about this or the expectation that much of a course's cognitive activities happen out of the classroom. This is important for several reasons; two are worth describing in detail.
First, this opportunity or expectation, for learners to process, practice, discuss, read, write, diagram, hum , dance, plot, diagram, investigate or classify allows them the freedom to explore the intellectual demands of the specific learning situation in manners comfortable or efficient to the learner. Whether one subscribes to Gardner's Multiple Intelligences, [Gardner 1993] or learning styles, or to a culture-specific/background-specific orientation to learning in its various forms, it is a rare individual or theory that allows for only one single path to learning. This traditional asynchronicity, the expectation that students will on their own time work through course material in their own ways, has allowed, but not fostered multiple orientations or paths to learning.
Second, this opportunity or expectation, allows learners to gain contrast, alternate sources, explore concepts in new ways, in a location amenable to the learner. While students are tied to campuses where lectures or specialized laboratory equipment is located, they are expected to learn beyond the lecture hall or laboratory. At home in soft light, at work while doing labor, while driving, while exercising, at night in dreams, good learning takes place; learners are not expected to do all of their learning in the classroom. This traditional asynchronicity and the expectation, that students will learn in setting of their own choice, has allowed limited geographic dispersion of learners due to the ties of the lecture hall.
With this historic description of education it is clear that many educators facilitate asynchronous learning. There are other ways that learning is asynchronous. In any classroom of learners there are many different paces, patterns and paths to learning any subject or skill. Within these individual learners there are also a limited number of "sublearnings" that can happen in many different orders. Generally, the class is in the same realm on the syllabus and many learnings have precedent and antecedent sublearnings, but to a large extent, learning is clearly a process that in not tightly synchronized to teaching. Therefore, building on traditional views of learning and education, describing what asynchronous learning is and what its benefits are should not be difficult. However, proving it efficacious, might be difficult if not impossible, based on the complexities and difficulties associated with educational research.
So far, we have explored and might agree that . . .
Future View
For the purposes of this discussion the designation "asynchronous learning" implies that the acts of learning and the acts of teaching are not simultaneous or colocal. Here I describe in two steps, what shifts toward asynchronous learning might look like (Desynchronization) and then how the shift might be coordinated (Coordinating Desynchronization) and assessed.
Desynchronization. Aside from the above described asynchronous learning activities, adding just a few new elements liberates, but does not exclude learners, from the colocal expectations of lectures and in some cases, laboratory experiences. The elements of asynchronous learning are not aimed at separating students from instructional aid or from each other, in fact quite the opposite is true. There are several types of activity that are predicated on groups of students interacting (group discussions, team mastery of skills, . . .) and student/teacher interaction (remediation, feedback, mentoring . . . ).
Decreasing the dependence of instruction on lecture and shifting to asynchronous techniques could take several forms, ranging from simple and elementary to advanced and complex; these are just a few quick examples:
This list is incomplete and limited only by imagination. Good educators are likely to be able to produce many more methods for enhancing learning environments that, not just make possible, but endorse and credit specific types of asynchronous learner-centered learning activities. This list is designed to be illustrative of the shift to asynchronous learning environments. The last three examples emphasize the importance of peer and student/instructor communications networks. As this shift to asynchronous techniques occurs a concordant shift in assessment strategies may also take place.
This shift towards asynchrony should be evidenced by changes in assessment and evaluation strategies from the standard single-purpose model to the individual purpose model. If this learning is conducted by multiple paths and for multiple purposes, the assessment should reflect this. This shift should be evidenced by more "authentic" assessment and by more social opportunities for understanding the results as feedback in more formative settings. As the shift from summative to formative assessments occurs, the tendency to view outcomes as fixed, rather than negotiated, will tend to disappear, and learning paths will converge on success rather than be truncated at the termination of the contracted course engagement. As these trends occur, or to the extent that they do not occur, there are organizational opportunities and impacts possible.
Coordinating Desynchronization. The organized institutional efforts aimed at incorporating faculty's use of asynchronous learning networks are directed toward shifting the culture form a Teaching Paradigm change to a Learning Paradigm [Barr & Tagg, 1995]. Barr and Tagg (1995, p 18) cite Peter Senge's The Fifth Discipline [Senge 1990], in support of organizational changes to reflect the shift in values. To Barr and Tagg (and Senge), changes to the organization supporting the learning paradigm are as important as the decision or desire to shift towards the learning paradigm. In other words, a good metric of the university's efforts to shift its commitment towards learner centered instruction would be a description of its organizational change or development. In a generic way this means that organizations committed to shifting toward asynchronous learning networks will have new organizational features addressing these aims, or old organizational elements will be repurposed toward these new goals. In organizations that have no detectable organizational adjustments, will despite their rhetoric, have no real shift in effort toward the learner centered goals of asynchronous learning. A simple set of coordinated organizational activities targeted toward technological facility and social support, should occurr by or focus on asynchronous learning networks as the common vehicle for organizational change and student instruction. Universities sensitive to preparing students to be self-directed collaborative learners will undoubtedly focus on asynchronous learning networks as a key element of their student preparation and their oprganizations will cahnge in relation to their committment. If not other credentialing agencies will arise to fill a consumer desire to credit learning experiences outside of classrooms, which in all probability will utilize asynchronous learning networks. Several university scholars have explored this issue [Langenberg 1966] , [ Casper 1995], and [Wulf 1995] and many agree that these forces will impact higher education and that one of their probable modes of operations will indeed be distributed asynchronous learning networks.
CyberStoa™
As the technology plays a larger and larger role in uniting students with learning experiences, technologies' role becomes more and more critical. Mechanical features of reception, speed, ease, manageability, intimacy and a host of other hygiene factors will be very important to the success of learners in distributed telecomputing-dependent learning situations. Organizations that attend these issues in both design and delivery phases will emerge as the quality leaders in this field. Institutions expecting high throughputs, yet with low quality may not be able to stay in business in an arena where the competitors are global and absolutely no geographic barriers exist for course delivery and participation. In instances where there is less and less institutional affiliation such as brand recognition or attending universities of popular football teams, the educational and technological environments will be more direct issues in choosing educational settings. Attendance will no longer be based on tradition and extracurriculars, the institutional quality may become to be solely judged by the technological faces and interfaces for learning.
So what criterion would be optimal in terms of evaluating the technological aspects of organizations and their delivery mechanisms? I offer one: transparency. Transparency that translates into ease of use, lack of distracters, clarity of purpose and function, minimized administrivia, simplicity in operation all will be features of successful technological environments for learning. In the same way that learning works best in well light, quiet rooms, with little cognitive distraction, the technological environments that allow us to interact in clean, efficient, unencumbered fashions will be both preferred and more successful.
Currently there are several asynchronous tools for communication, simulation and interaction with a variety of multimedia. Successful systems will have the standard benchmarks of transparent utility and function that devices such as the telephone and the water fountain have. Without directions is their use transparent? Does the medium disappear? Is the experience of extracting the message or the water more distracting than necessary? Is the placement central to purposes? Do the uses match the purposes? Or are placement and uses contrived? This simple benchmark seems to support most of the critical use issues associated with technology. Negroponte (1995) describes the interface as one of the most important issues in computing and technology and describes the best interface solutions as "intuitive." Without delving into common experience and intuition, the touchstone of transparency seems to fit as a useful criterion of technology placement and use.
Test this criterion on your use of other technologies. Does the programming of your VCR obscure your viewing movies? Does adjusting the various settings in your automobile preoccupy you and distract you from driving? Does your computer interfere with your work? With these types of comparisons and judgments, then apply this criterion to a hypothetical learning situation; does the delivery mechanism interfere with your learning? Does the involvement in groupwork in a distributed setting hamper your learning? Does the dialogue established between students flow, unimpeded by technology? Are the channels of delivery unencumbered by bandwidth, velocity, or needless user protocols? At times when data flow velocity is critical are the chosen modes capable? The use of the transparency criterion can be summarized: As a learner is your primary experience in a technologically assisted asynchronous learning network involved with learning or with technology?
Consider the stoas in ancient Greece. These were little more than covered pavilions or walkways. They were halls in which scholars could roam and discuss issues and ideas. They were open to the air and the public, and they had no walls. Imagine these elements of structure applied to technology. Does it pose barriers? Does it close off or partition learning into boxes and rooms? Asynchronous learning in technologically supported distributed communities would resemble CyberStoa™ in their ease of use, openness and simplicity. This simplicity and ease of use are targets of successful VWSU activities.
Conclusion
This paper briefly described the elements of asynchronous learning which often already exist on the university campus and then proceeds to describe ways that the asynchronous environments will benefit students and future universities. This paper describes methods and systems which foster the shift toward asynchronous learning networks and their evaluation. Shifts in the functions and roles of technology were explored by describing the successful criterion of transparency and an idealized model: the CyberStoa™. To the extent that these are testable hypotheses, the conditions and expectations described within, could be the basis for research into the efficacy of telecomputing in asynchronous learning networks.
References
[Barr & Tagg 1995] Barr, R. & Tagg, J. (1995). From teaching to learning: A new paradigm for undergraduate education. Change, November/December, 13-25.
[Casper 1995] Casper, G. (1995, April). Come the millenium: Where the university? Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American education research Association, San Francisco, CA.
[Cuban 1986] Cuban, L. (1986). Persistent instruction: Another look at consistency in the classroom. Phi Delta Kappan (68). 7-11.
[Fishback 1992] Fishback, G. (1992). Mind and brain. Scientific American, 267(3). 48-57.
[Gardner 1993] Gardner, H. (1993). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelegences. New York: Basic Books.
[Goodlad 1994] Goodlad, J. (1994). Educational renewal. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
[Kandel & Hawkins 1992] Kandel, E. & Hawkins R. (1992). The biological basis of learning and individuality. Scientific American, 267(3). 78-86.
[Langenberg 1996] Langenberg, D. (1996). Power plants or candle factories? Science, 272, 1721.
[Negroponte, 1995] Negroponte, N. (1995). Being digital. New York: Knopf.
[Nunn 1996] Nunn, C. E. (1996). Discussion in the college classroom. Journal of Higher Education, 67(3), 243-266.
[Senge 1990] Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline. New York: Doubleday/Currency.
[Wulf 1995] Wulf, W. (1995). Warning: Information technology will change the university. Issues in Science and Technology, 11(46), 46-52.
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by Virtual Washington State University, an initiative supported in part by Boeing, Microsoft, and Asymnetrix. The concept of Transparency was discovered with Kristi Rennebohm-Franz in conjunction with analyzing the ease of technology use by 6-8 year olds. The concept of the CyberStoa™ as a metaphor for electronic learning was originally articulated with and by Jon and Ellen Spaulding.