Different perspective of DL

I've read the concerns of those who think residency is essential, and I've read the posts of those who hear disparaging remarks being made about DL grads. I've seen a completely different attitude arise in the field of secondary education. I was the first teacher (in the 2nd largest school district in the U.S.) to complete a Masters online. A number of my colleagues have their PhD's, but were fearful of trying a "professional development" course offered through DL. There was no question of the validity of the courses, since venerable institutions such as UCLA and the University of San Diego were actively soliciting teachers for enrollment. Rather, the concern centered around the ability to succeed in a course dependent upon self discipline and self motivation. It seems their motivation in a face-to-face classroom was avoiding embarrassment when the professor held his hand out for the homework assignment due. A few brave souls decided to test the waters by enrolling in UoP courses. Although most completed the course and received the credit, many did not return. They chose less expensive options which required in-person meetings. They just didn't feel comfortable without the traditional hand hold. These are not computer-challenged individuals, in fact, they are required to include online curricula.
They are still in awe of the fact that I choose, and prefer, DL.
None of them perceived the coursework to be inferior-most inferred it was too demanding.
BTW, UoP is the only institute continually advertising. A rep drops by periodically to post flyers and leave brochures on the counter.

 

Hi, Bruins,

Yes, I've seen this perception too... particularly by b & M students who had to take mandatory online courses at a traditional university.
I still use the services from the University of South Florida here in Tampa, and I come across students who are not looking forward to mandatory online classes. Their rationale is that these are very demanding.

So many students and people do not perceive dl as inferior but as quite a rigurous self-disciplined isolated endeavor, and many are not too enamoured with it.


-S

 

Having been a student in both distance education and traditional university settings, as well as an educator in both settings, I can attest to the fact that self-discipline and the ability for independent problem solving are the two biggest differences in what makes a successful DL student.

I do not think that DL is for everyone. To be successful, one needs a firm grounding in the basics of a discipline (which is usually best obtained through traditional means, either in a solid HS or undergraduate program). Following that, however, it becomes a question of self regulation, detailed planning, and the ability to track down and figure out what you don’t know. Most of the students that I’ve taught (especially young undergraduates) would probably do poorly in a rigorous distance learning program. There is some measure of maturity and self-awareness that is usually involved in the development of a successful DL program.

Cheers,
Tony Maranto

 

This is such a true statement. I have had so many people say that they could not do DL because they felt they did not the disciplined. I would not go back to a traditional university if you paid me. I enjoy the freedom that DL brings.

 

It may be that DL is for the individualist not needing the safety of the herd.

 

My wife and I are both in DL programs, hers through Domingues Hills (CSUDH HUX), and mine through Colorado State. both of us have had all of our previous academic education hte regular B&M route, we both have discussed this issue and agree that DL is MUCH harder than B&M due to the need for self discipline. It is so easy to say that you have time so, I will get to that assingment later, and then really have to crash into getting it done.

Not having the other resources readily at hand (libraries, etc.) is also a problem.

Any one who says that DL is easier probably took the "give me a credit card # and here is the degree" route.

 

Mike is right. It takes a certain willingness to slash and burn through the rainforest of one's own schedule to make the time and crank up the emotional focus to get the stuff done.

(Oh goddess, what an un-PC metaphor. My bad.)

 

Hey Mike,

Hats off to you and your wife.

BTW, was it your wife, the journalist, who was writing a story at one time about DL? If so, whatever became of the research?

Thanks.

Roscoe

 

Yes, publish in the LA times several months ago.

 

I have a traditional BA in psychology from the University of Tampa (small private liberal arts college) and a distance learning M.S. in clinical psychology from Concordia University Wisconsin. Along the way I have taken some traditional graduate level classes as well. In my experience there actually is a significant difference in the level of difficulty one encounters in distance learning versus traditional classroom learning. In a more traditional venue, a student is exposed to lectures and classroom discussion. By contrast, web-based or distance learning does not provide that avenue. Secondly, a student in a traditional college classroom likley has their grade based on a few examinations and a paper.and perhaps their level of "classroom involvemnet." Often the tests given in large college classrooms are multiple choice/guess.

BY contrast, in the distance learning format where I got my masters, I had to demonstrate my mastery in a far more labor intensive manner than traditional learning venues. In my master degree program, I wrote and wrote and wrote and wrote and wrote and wrote, and then I wrote some more. I did so much writing and typing that I invested in DragonDictate voice transcription software to help with the drudgery of typing. Instead, in a traditional setting I'd attend the lectures, pass the tests and maybe write a paper. Usually I'd get an A or B with relatively modest levels of effort. For me. this was much easier and involved much less effort than what I did in a distance learning format.

I a sense I paid for the convenience of distance learning by having to work a lot more. Then there is the added difficulty of having to self-ace and self-structure my time. This was hard because I am basically a lazy person. However, I eventually got a hang of it . Now I am considering doing a Ph.D. at Fielding using this distance learning model. One of the nice things about distance learning is the fact that your relationship with faculty is on a different level. There are fewer faculty or departmental "head games" to play and the relationship is more facilitative. IMNSHO! One problem with traditional acdeme is that the environment tends to elicit pathological behavior and personality traits among faculty and often studnets get caught up in that. Another downside is that one feels isolated and alone in distance learning. The writing of my thesis was perhaps harder than it would have been in a more traditinal setting. However, as always everyone's milage may vary.

 

Chris Larsen wrote:

Life of David Gale?

If I may ask; in which setting would you say you learned more?

 

DL Perspective

If I may ask; in which setting would you say you learned more?

This question was probably intended for Chris, but I just have to throw in my two cents

How much we learn may have little to do with the method of delivery. The individual motivation, interest, and other personal factors are much stronger predictors. I recall as an undergraduate we all complained to the department's dean because one professor, who taught several required courses, taught us nothing and required nothing except a critique of a journal article. We all had the textbook, which was never used, and we all made no attempt to open that book and read-because we weren't instructed to do so. None of us had the motivation and desire to learn from it, even though the tool was there.

I've learned from good professors face-to-face, and I've learned with guidance fron online professors. I took a series of courses from a very highly rated university, all online, and came away with nothing. I also took courses at a lesser known state university online and was highly challenged. Doesn't your learning also have something to do with your expectations?

 

"If I may ask; in which setting would you say you learned more?"


I'd say I learned more in distance learning than in a traditional setting simply because I had to work harder. However there was also significant difference qualitatively. By this I mean I learned to think differently about the topics I was learning. The program I was in required students to structure their work so that they engage in a great deal of evaluation and synthesis of the material learned with other material learned in other courses. In my distance format, when writing (and writing and writing) it was not sufficient to simply create an essay that exhibitted a knowledge of the readings. Instead we were required to move beyond that and evaluate and *synthesize* all of the material we were exposed to at a higher level of analysis than was typical in a traditional format. Distance education required me to move beyond the basics of the material and form and defend my own ideas relating to various issues in psychology. Good distance education probably requires this sort of approach since I was essentially working with an "open book" and demonstrating my knowledge by simply spitting back information would not be satisfactory to the school. The only course I had that did not require a great deal of this higher level evaluation and synthesis was statisics. Incidentally, that course required a midterm and final and had to be proctored locally. (Being a Lutheran school they arranged for a local Lutheran church to be the place where I took thise proctoired exams.) Those were the only two "tests" I took during my entire masters program.

 

That's interesting. In traditional schools the emphasis seems to be on satisfying the next requirement (test or paper) and not on integrating, synthesizing or whatever it is that turns data into something learned.

 

When I first began my MS program at Concordia the faculty kept hammering away at that. I believe it is based on a "levels of knowledge" approach to education in which graduate training should consist of something beyond the simple learning of information. Anyone can spit back memorized information. However a sophisticated knowlege of particular subject matter requires someone to be able to analyse that information and even synthesize and integrate it in relation to other learning. One thing the faculty at Concordia harped on at first was my need to engage in original thinking about the and critical analysis of the books and journal readings I was doing. This was difficult at first since so much of my "traditional learning" as an undergraduate and in other graduate coursework was the assimilation and regurgitation of information. So I consider my distance learning experience to have been on a whole different level of difficulty and complexity.

 

When I first began my MS program at Concordia the faculty kept hammering away at that. I believe it is based on a "levels of knowledge" approach to education in which graduate training should consist of something beyond the simple learning of information. Anyone can spit back memorized information. However a sophisticated knowlege of particular subject matter requires someone to be able to analyse that information and even synthesize and integrate it in relation to other learning. One thing the faculty at Concordia harped on at first was my need to engage in original thinking about the subject matter and critical analysis of the books and journal readings I was doing. This was difficult at first since so much of my "traditional learning" as an undergraduate and in other graduate coursework was the assimilation and regurgitation of information. So I consider my distance learning experience to have been on a whole different level of difficulty and complexity.

 

Thanks. Now I'll know to avoid Concordia.

Seriously, I think that's good information. Helps people to know what they want from and are willing to do for a degree.

Sounds especially good for a degree in a subject like psychology. Is there a name for the psychosis that developes in people who have to listen to undergrads with a few psych courses under their belts?