Evolution of Distance Learning

Distance learning continues to change and evolve as it has for many decades and even centuries. Simpson claims that it dates back as far as Moses with the Ten Commandments and that “St. Paul’s epistles represent a very early form of distance education (Simpson, 2012).” Nasseh discusses the brief history of distance education in the United States from the early 19th century through the late 20th century. (Nasseh, 1997) We are now in the earliest of the 21st century and the definition is continuing to evolve at a frenetic pace. This is in large part due to the evolution of technology in education and knowledge sectors. This technological evolution does not show any signs of slowing down anytime soon either. We are really still in the infancy of what distance, now often called online, learning will eventually look like to students, instructors, educational institutions, countries and even the world. My prediction is that the biggest changes will occur when computer AI (artificial intelligence) is fully implemented into education and training. I have seen some remarkable projects still in their infancy using AI that would have a profound effect on learning and how we teach. It has the potential to meet each student where they stand in any subject, teaching the way they learn best, and re-teaching when mastery is not reached or when needing refreshment of skills or new knowledge in a particular subject. This will continue to drive the change in the definition of distance learning in the future.



My own experiences in distance education run the gamut. As a lifelong learner, I am always looking for new and better experiences. I cannot get enough of knowledge and learning. People (co-workers, friends, family) often ask me “How do you know so much about so many different topics?” My answer is that I am interested in everything and with the internet I can find answers, but always struggle to stay on top of everything I am interested in learning.” I would probably attribute this love of learning to my childhood experiences of growing up with a 1958 set of “World Book of Knowledge” reference books. I was a voracious reader and when I ran out of novels to read or couldn’t check out enough books to hold me until the next trip to our small rural library, I would read these reference books. They contained stories on everything from how a radio works to why there are stars in the sky.

Years later when computers were offered as home appliances (well they were first sold in home appliance stores in Chattanooga, TN anyway), I purchased the first non-IBM home computer on the market, the Commodore PC Colt. We had Atari’s and the Commodore 64 before this and I had worked on dumb terminals attached to entire buildings housing mainframe computers, but the PC Colt was the first technology that I could explore and learn with the way that I wanted. You had to program everything you did or have someone make a copy of their program so you could actually use it to any degree of helpfulness but it was continual learning. Distance learning became online learning in my world when the internet was introduced. This opened doors to learning not controlled by wealth, status or privilege. We have yet to reach the full implications of the potential of the web on distance education and the need for instructional design.

My first distance education course was through VHS tape with Saturday face to face meetings. Today this would be considered blended learning but at the time it was cutting edge for the University of SC. Since that time, I have worked in all three areas of distance learning discussed in the series of articles Implications for Instructional Design on the Potential of the Web by Moller et al. Though I started as a computer based classroom instructor for a telecommunications company which was using technology for training in a face to face classroom setting, this was a chance at experiencing technology in training when many organizations were still using lecture based training if they were doing any training at all. Then mergers and acquisitions, resulting in the company moving to the west coast happened. At a loss for a foreseeable career path that would stretch my knowledge as these cutting edge organizations had and after trying a few careers, I found myself in the classroom teaching 6th through 8th graders in a class called Industrial Technology. This class was underfunded to the point of not having any funding at all. I did however have use of a computer lab after much begging and it was wired for internet. They also had one of the first Smart Boards in the state though none of the teachers had been given any training so I had full use and taught myself along with the class. I have always felt that teachers should be guides teaching students how to learn rather than what to learn. This often put me at odds with the administration that I would definitely define as educational traditionalists. Perhaps because I had experienced what was to come in their working lives I wanted to better prepare my students to meet the upcoming information age. During this time I did get hired by my fellow teachers to tutor them on using technology in the classroom which at that time was PowerPoint. This instruction of adults to engage students in new and exciting ways thrilled me and became my next career quest.

I continued as a classroom teacher, moving to 1st and second grade the next 4.5 years and incorporating technology into the classroom in as many ways as possible, though not necessarily in the ways seen appropriate by administration. I think now this was because I was too far ahead of them in my understanding of what was around the corner. “Many teachers resist being taught to use technology. This also makes sense – teachers should resist, because it is not they who should be using the technology to teach students, but rather their students who should be using it, as tools to teach themselves. The teacher’s role should not be a technological one, but an intellectual one – to provide the students with context, quality assurance, and individualized help. (Of course, those teachers who love technology are free to learn and use it.) (Prensky, 2008).” This was my philosophy in my incorporation of technology in the classroom. My first and second graders, mostly under-privileged, low income students came to school early each morning so that they could set up my laptop, projector, and Smart Board, help each other determine lessons we might use for reading, math, science and social studies for the day based on the standards we were working on that week. Some students chose to play educational games of their choosing (I Spy, Where in the World is Carmen San Diego?, Curious George) on the two computers I had begged to have rather than tossing them in the dumpster when they ordered new computers for the computer lab. I was the “guide on the side” when they needed help but only after they had used all their other resources (fellow classmates). The irony is that now many of my former students are teaching and sharing their favorite apps, websites and even programming knowledge with my daughter as they hack the iPad and circumvent the current district parameters in place to curtail their quest for innovation in learning..

They are in a school district, along with my youngest daughter, who went one-to-one iPads this year. I would say it was pretty much a failure at her middle school based on anecdotal evidence and student survey results. The problem is that “teachers (if they are trained at all in ID theory and practice) are trained to design instruction for the traditional classroom. Presupposing that this training is sufficient to create solid, pedagogically sound, online instruction is a fatal flaw in the process. Expecting teachers to be instructors, content experts, distance education instructional designers, and technology experts, in addition to their other responsibilities, is asking too much (Huett et al, 2008).” The administration and teachers just complained that the students were abusing the technology and continually put more and more constraints to the point the students never even take them out of their book bags anymore except at the end of class to play games.

Prensky has a similar story he tells as “Some school districts added technology (e.g. by giving laptops to all students), but did not find that the technology was helping the kids’ learning, and so took it out (“Seeing No Progress, Some Schools Drop Laptops” The New York Times, May 4, 2007.) (Prensky, 2008)” This is a problem that many K-12 districts and schools are facing as they try to implant the technology into the traditional classroom rather than as a way for students to teach themselves. As Prensky put it “Students routinely “abuse” (from the teachers’ point of view) technology in class, using it, as one professor says, as “the new spitball.” This, too, makes sense – kids have in their hands powerful learning tools that they are being given no opportunity to use to learn (Prensky, 2008).” Instead they revert back to their iPhones without the constraints to Tweet, iMessage, Instagram, SnapChat, and Vine to keep them engaged while learning from each other far more than they are in the classroom.

Like Prensky, I believe that “before we can successfully introduce technology into our schools, we have to take a prior step. We must get our teachers – hard as it may be in some cases – to stop lecturing, and start allowing the kids to learn by themselves. Instead of coming in with lesson plans that begin “Here are the three causes of [whatever], please take notes,” they need to say “There are three main causes of [whatever it is]. You have 15 minutes to use your technology to find them, and then we’ll discuss what you’ve found. (Prensky, 2008)” This is an area where instructional design could be well used in K-12. Instructional designers understand pedagogy, learner engagement, and the proper use of the technology as a learning tool. As Prensky says “technology’s role – and its only role – should be to support students teaching themselves (with, of course, their teachers’ guidance.)” (Prensky, 2008)

So being frustrated with the lack of forward thinking in K-12, I moved into an environment of true distance education. As the three state manager of the PBS TeacherLine online professional development for teachers, I experienced firsthand what good distance learning could look like and how it could fulfill the promise of online learning which had fallen short in many ways. Some teachers, overworked but looking to embrace technology began taking the online courses and in addition to increasing their teaching content knowledge, they also began to see the possibilities of online learning. We actually had a 94-96% completion rate for these courses which was way ahead of other states offering the same courses and well more than competitive courses. I would definitely consider this a success story in distance learning. This success led me to transition satellite and DVD distance learning courses to online courses for education, build new courses for the SC Commission on Higher Ed, and later manage courses developed by the SREB for guidance counselors as a result of our successes in other courses we had developed. This then led to a contract with the state law enforcement agency to produce a pilot course for recertification for 16,000 officers across the state. This successful venture led to additional courses and additional state funding as well as many other state agencies starting their own online educational ventures.

As PBS stations were under fired from both the national and state level, funding began drying up and I decided it was time to go back to the private sector as an instructional designer. I carefully looked for a technology company as my thought was they would be on the cutting edge in training. My idea was also that the private sector, having more money and more at stake would fund online learning as a way to cut training costs if nothing else and that I could use my experiences to quickly make a positive impact to learning as I continued to learn and grow myself. “The challenge for ID professionals is not only to evolve the field, but also to assure the products of sound professional design practice lead the e-learning enterprise (Moller et al,part 1, 2008).” This I found to be the one stumbling block I have yet to overcome. “Unfortunately, in many corporate e-learning implementations, effectiveness is either naively assumed or not particularly valued (Moller et al, Part 1, 2008).”

As in the Moller article, the administration cares more about the appearance of online training rather than its actual value. I have been told by my own boss that administration (himself included) see little value in online training and feel the development time is too long. It has been a constant battle for the year I have been at this job to justify the need for online training. The problem is that just as Moller state “the shortage of trained people results in e-learning initiatives built by individuals who lack the expertise to produce effective products (Moller et al, Part 1, 2008).” His assertion that naive managers do not even recognize that there are specialized e-learning design and development skills is very true in my current organization and I continually fight the battle as they have two instructional designers by name with no training in adult pedagogy or instructional design. They think knowing how to use SnagIt, Camtasia and Captivate to produce a product makes them an instructional designer. I am encouraged with the idea espoused by Moller et al, Part 1, that like other professional fields (HR, accounting, project management) professional certifications and graduate academic recognition may soon allow both instructional designers and consumers to recognize and be assured they are getting high quality, instructionally designed e-learning (Moller et al, Part 1, 2008).” This give me the most hope for the future of instructional design as currently there are lots of people who call themselves instructional designers with no training or education in the field.


Huett, J., Moller, L., Foshay, W., & Coleman, C. (2008). The evolution of distance education: Implications for instructional design on the potential of the web (Part 3: K12). TechTrends, 52(5), 63–6 7.

King, A. (1993). From sage on the stage to guide on the side. College teaching,41(1), 30-35.

Moller, L., Foshay, W., & Huett, J. (2008). The evolution of distance education: Implications for instructional design on the potential of the web (Part 1: Training and development). TechTrends, 52(3), 70–75.

Moller, L., Foshay, W., & Huett, J. (2008). The evolution of distance education: Implications for instructional design on the potential of the web (Part 2: Higher education). TechTrends, 52(4), 66-70.

Nasseh, B. (1997). A brief history of distance education.SeniorNet, Retrieved from http://www.seniornet.org/edu/art/history.html

Simpson, O. (2012). Supporting students for success in online and distance education. (3rd ed., pp. 1-6). New York, NY: Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group.

Prensky, M. (2008). The role of technology. Educational Technology, 1-3.