1

Technological Challenges for DE Educators and E-Learners

Joanna Otten and

Robert Thomas Jordan

University of Maryland University College

November 22, 2011

2

Abstract

The technology revolution continues to impact every aspect of our

lives, from the workplace, to the battlefield, to how we play as

well as how we learn. For the past decade the evolution of Web

2.0, social virtual worlds, 3-D and mobile computing all

integrated with the learning world and continues to do so at an

exponential rate.  Research shows that “electronic learning

reached $27.1 billion in 2009 and will nearly double by 2014.”

The Department of Defense (DOD) budgets almost $14 million per

year for Advanced Distributed Learning (ADL) research and

development of "anytime, anywhere" individual distance virtual

and mobile training (President's Budget FY 2011, R-1 line item

#58). Online learning of the future is no longer in the future as

expectations for growth continue. Younger generations know no

other way of life except with the Internet and computers.

Generation Z (Gen Z), now many in their early teens, are the

youngest group born after the Internet boom.  While earlier

generations tended to thrive with personal face-to-face

interaction, Gen Z will have a digital mindset and flourish in

the non-traditional, more autonomic learning environments. We

3

will discuss how DE educators and learners face these exciting

technological challenges and opportunities.

Key Words: mobile, virtual, ADL, generation z, technology,

digital media

4

Technological Challenges for DE Educators and E-Learners

We have seen technology rapidly develop over the last two

decades with advances in speed and expanding in capacity while

becoming less expensive and much more accessible for billions of

students around the globe. Miniwatts Marketing Group (2011)

estimates that 30.5% (2.1 billion) of the world’s population of

6.9 billion people have Internet access. Younger generations

around the globe take for granted that their lives will be

intimately entwined with and impacted by the Internet and

computers.

The implications, in our view, is that both distance

education teachers and students will be impacted in profound

ways, both by the rapidly expanding demand for Internet and by

the rapidly evolving technology – and especially impacted by the

emergence and growth of ubiquitous and mobile learning

(mLearning), and virtual environmental training. “Although

technology on its own is incapable of engendering significant

educational change, when implemented in conjunction with

progressive attitude, results can be profound…” (Wolfson &

Willinsky,1998, p.109).

5

This paper focuses on the challenges presented to both

educators and online students as the digitally savvy younger

generations embrace mLearning and educators explore the

pedagogical implications of how best to exploit this emerging

educational medium. Leading that initiative is the Department of

Defense and the uniformed services—especially the U.S. Army.

Digital Youth

Strauss and Howe (1991) propose that even with various

backgrounds found throughout the globe there is a cultural

environment that prevails for each generation. Why is this

important? Understanding the characteristics, motivations and

barriers of our learners can have a great impact on the success

of online learners (Dabbagh, 2007). A good portion of ones

personality is often attributed to genetics and environment but

Twenge (2001) found in her research that the cultural climate of

a generation also has a significant role in a person’s

personality. Peer pressure and a desire to “fit in” is nothing

new, so it is not surprising that each generation gravitates to

6

the latest technology that serves as a catalyst to facilitate

that desire.

Children “born from 1980 to about 2000 are known as the

Millennials, Generation-Y or the Net Generation” (Jones, Jo & Martin,

2006, p.3). Jone, Jo and Martin (2006) also point out how this

birth cohort is very technologically savvy and their use of all

forms of technology is second-nature since they have been brought

up entirely in the age of these high-speed gadgets. The internet

is their method of choice for research, school work and staying

in touch with friends and teachers. For them the standard

telephone is an ancient artifact.

As seen in a recent YouTube video, that went viral with

thousands of viewers, an infant is using an Apple iPad with ease.

The intuitive motions of swiping the screen with his finger, gets

him to where he wants to go, however, when presented with a

magazine, this tech-savvy baby taps the printed pages, attempting

to swipe to get to the next screen only seemingly to be confused

when it does not work.

Military education of gen y and gen y

7

The U.S. Army was an early adopter of distributed learning

(DL) nearly 20 years ago. However, the program failed to fully

realize its intended goal of “anytime, anywhere training.” The

Army declares that “inferior technology, outdated processes, and

antiquated policies hamper today’s program. [The Army also cites]

slow contracting processes, inflexible updates, and inadequate

facilitator support [that] degrade the Army’s ability to meet

learning needs through distributed methods” (TRADOC Pam 525-8-2,

p. 7).

Army Gen. Robert W. Cone, commander, U.S. Army Training and

Doctrine Command, announced plans during an interview in Military

Training Technology (MT2) (2011) to employ technology to streamline

Doctrine 2015—the Army initiative that involves reducing the

Army’s current doctrinal documents from 500 to 50. The learner

outcome that the Army is looking for is to have soldiers develop

the ability to think quickly on their feet, processing

information as it unfolds, and then to be able to communicate it

quickly to other soldiers. By employing mobile media, the Army

plans to enhance the individual soldier‘s access to critical

information.

8

MT2 (2011) quotes Cone as saying that the Army wants to

“quickly and efficiently deliver critical knowledge to the point

of need—the leader and the soldier on the ground. Cone details

how the Army plans to accomplish this:

We want to reach what we like to call “doctrine at the speed

of war. It is technology that what will make this goal

feasible.” We will leverage current technologies, such as

the “MilWiki” platform and the Internet to retrieve

knowledge from soldiers operating in the combat. These

lessons learned in combat operations will quickly be

injected into current army doctrine that will be shared with

other soldiers as “best practices” in real time. We want an

ongoing professional dialogue (MT2 16.7, p.17).

The United States Army recognizes that this new breed of

soldier is already adept and comfortable with the emerging

technologies such as smart phones and tablets. Generation Y (Gen

Y) is generally defined as people born somewhere in the range of

the mid-70s to the mid-90s and as being associated with an

increase use of communication and technology. The Department of

Defense (DOD) is reaching out to leverage technology to educate

9

and enhance military performance of this new generation of

soldiers by applying emerging technology and handheld

communications devices in the virtual classroom and then on the

battlefield. This knowledge may then be injected into a virtual

world, such as Second Life, where soldier avatars engage each other

in mock combat or operations center drills to refine it and then

to teach it to others preparing to apply what is learned in the

chaos of a real battlefield.

The U.S. Army's approach to training Gen Y and Gen Z

soldiers over the next decade is to close this [technology] gap

in order to “attract and retain a generation of young people who

know how to use technology to learn both formally and informally.

The Army must leverage technology to establish a learning system

that provides engaging, relevant, and rigorous resident,

distributed, and mobile learning. Emerging technologies that the

Army will be employing for anytime, anywhere individual training

include: mobile computing, open content, electronic books,

augmented reality, gesture-based computing, and visual data

analysis” (TRADOC Pam 525-8-2, p.13).

10

Gen Z is often described as the birth cohort born in or

after the 90’s (Sparxoo,2010). This corresponds to a time when

the World Wide Web was also brought into mainstream existence.

This group, now teenagers, has been immersed in a very different

technological revolution from previous generations.

Mobile learning

Mobile learning is all about moving beyond content to

managing the mobile learner. The challenge of the new future is

managing that content so it is channeled where it needs to be in

the form that it needs to be to meet the needs of the mobile

learner.

Peters (2007) suggests that the ease with which individuals

may now acquire inexpensive mobile devices and to the Internet

now makes it possible for young people, for whom constant

communications are part of their daily interaction, and who are

“always on” to easily engage global groups in common communities

of interest.

“Content management is the set of processes and technologies

that support the collection, managing, and publishing of

information in any form or medium. The challenge of the new

11

future is managing that content so it is channeled where it needs

to be in the form that it needs to be to meet the needs of the

mobile learner” (Joha & Janssen, 2010).

The 2010 Generation Trend Report defines Gen Ys as:

connectors, forerunners, escapists and free thinkers. [Gen

Ys] thrive on connecting with the crowd and want to

participate. They are intellectually curious and always on

top of the latest trends. With highly imaginative thinking

they like to express their multiplicity in out of the box

ways. But while there are those social connectors a micro-

group enjoys escaping into their avatar worlds and viewing

YouTube videos and cartoons.

Gen Zs are characterized by The 2010 Generation Trend Report as:

speed demons, community-organizers, open books and micro-

miners. Gen Z is the instant generation. They have grown up

on iPhones, iPods, text messaging, Facebook and YouTube.

Blogging and digital publishing are second nature and their

coming of age is documented everywhere on the web. Privacy

isn’t a huge concern to them and just about everything is an

open book on the web. They live in a world of instant

12

gratification and high-speed technology. They love their

online community and spreading messages to the masses with a

press of a button. They have short attention spans and look

for information in micro, bite-size pieces.

Some researchers suggest that there is some overlap in these two

generations. What is obvious is that the younger of these groups

will live and learn in new and exciting ways. They will spend

most of their lives online and are joined by the commonality of

time spent using digital technologies and their philosophical

understanding of what human-to-human connection means. They will

be more singular, independent and creative in how they entertain

themselves. They are certain to be “less tolerable with rigid,

routine and stereotypic activities” (Palfrey and Gasser, 2008,

p.1) and these characteristics will likely spill over into their

learning motivations.

Changing technology

An MIT engineer, J.C.R. Licklider, first suggested in a 1962

memorandum the concept of a computer network capable of accessing

and sharing information in the form of electronic data. Today,

the evolution of Internet technology enables it to become a

13

platform where people may connect on exciting new levels. It also

encourages the production of fresh information, via video, audio

and 3-D. There is an array of digital gadgets at our fingertips,

from smart phones to tablets, GPS navigators, high-tech cameras

and more, each continually trending smaller and becoming more

affordable for the average person/learner.

As we move into the future we will most likely see the way

we interface with this technology to move away from the desktop

computer and more to a handheld device that fits neatly in your

pocket. New technologies will also find new ways for all of these

items to connect and communicate effectively – think home control

devices that allow you to turn on your stove, change the lighting

or see if you kids have arrived safely home from school, all at

the touch of a button.

FutureLab, an independent UK company, is looking at these

technology combinations and researching innovative ideas to put

them to use for education, teaching and learning.

FutureLab (2006) describes its Savannah Project as an impressive

blending of games technology, mobile computing and a fresh

approach to teaching with these methods. By taking a

14

Children in the Savannah project were given a handheld PDA,

headphones and GPS sensors. The combined technology allowed them

to receive the sights, sounds and imagined smells of the project.

They were to play at being a pride of lions and this mediascape

transformed their playground into an African Savannah. Creating a

high level of excitement and engagement, the students worked

together combing physical movement with cognitive challenges.

With the transformative quality of wireless technology this

project created a world where a group of seven year olds could

learn through a cycle of group experiences and reflections among

each other.

Blogs, podcasts, Facebook, Tweeting, and Skype are all

technologies that continue to blossom and create new worlds of

social networking. Jin, Wen and Gough, (2010) point out that the

viral spread of high-speed connections throughout homes and

schools, combined with strides in internet technology has

resulted in a plethora of social networking applications now

available and able to support synchronous, three-dimensional (3-

D) graphics and rich media integration over the Internet.

15

As a result computer worlds are created that enable a

network of social virtual surroundings, complete with interactive

3D environments where virgin user-generated content can be

exchanged collaboratively. One of the more successful of these is

Second Life. Launched in 2003, Second Life offers a number of

free programs that encourage users to interact, socialize and

participate in group activities. Second Life’s use continues to

rise as a potentially valuable tool at major colleges and

universities and is being used by DOD to develop virtual training

and educational environments.

Changing roles of students, faculty, curriculum, and institutions

Can the pedagogical methods of the traditional legacy

institutions morph and adapt to this? Can brick and mortar

institutions keep up with technology and integrate the two in

order to keep next generation student interested and still

produce successful learning results? Many researchers call for

transformation of tradition educational institutions and seem to

agree that the landscape of our schools must change to blend

emerging technologies with the needs of current students and

16

generations to come. One influential voice that seems to confirm

the need for change is Billionaire Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates.

Gates (2005) believes that American schools are broken,

underfunded and obsolete. He asserts that even when schools

“work exactly as designed”, that they cannot teach our children

what they need to know today. “Our high schools were designed

fifty years ago to meet the needs of another age. Until we design

them to meet the needs of the 21st century, we will keep limiting

– even ruining – the lives of millions of Americans every year.”

Gates believes in the need for transformation that he and his

wife have invested over a billion dollars in education.

Conclusion

One might suppose that leveraging this mobile and virtual

media might lessen the instructor’s role in DE instruction. But

recent studies indicate differently. DOD’s Advanced Distributed

Learning (ADL) initiative plans to leverage the experience of

commercial organizations and educational institutions with

successful ADL programs to see how they shifted the

instructor/professor’s role from teacher-centered to learner-

centered.

17

DOD (1999) found that teachers in higher education spend

more time interacting with their ADL students than they did with

their in-residence students. The conclusion as to why this occurs

is that the ADL teachers “need to communicate more frequently and

individually with students through e-mails and electronic forums”

(p.30).

It is DOD’s position that effective usage of handheld

devices can result in improved personalized learning—“the right

learning resources and performance aids, to the right person at

the right time and place” (ADL, 2011).

The future capabilities for education and training with

ubiquitous mLearning access to connected devices cannot be

overestimated. Smart phone growth continues to expand in all

areas, which will enable many more opportunities, many of which

will spawn from innovations that cannot even be envisioned. Soon

it will no longer be a rarity to see students carrying their

iPads , Kindles and Nooks into classrooms loaded with references,

background materials course curriculum and notes.

In fact, ADL presenters at the ADL Mobile Learning Workshop

(ADLMLW) in Alexandria, Va., on October 27, 2011, pointed out

18

that even though mLearning is rapidly outpacing eLearning , it

should be seen as a complement to eLearning rather than as

competition (ADLMLW, 2011) .

Instructors and course developers face new challenges in

developing content for the mobile learning devices. But that in

itself appears to be a good result because eLearning content will

be enhanced as the developments of less complex mobile

educational products gravitate from mobile media into eLearning

media (ADLMLW, 2011).

The reason is that the legacy computer content is

not adaptable to today’s mixed access environment of mobiles,

laptops, netbooks and tablets. Content must first be adapted to

mobile media and then migrated into legacy desktop computers

because using the legacy technology is not practical to do it the

other way around. That may be a challenge for the today’s online

content manager and for the teacher/course developer.

It may seem that the advent of mLearning devices would

minimize the involvement of a teacher or facilitator. However,

mobl2 (2011) infers that “self-learning” may still require some

sort of monitoring and/or assessment:

19

A successful mobile learning app will need to incorporate

“learning measurement” or tools that can grade levels of

education. To foster self-learning, it needs to provide the

learner with objective measurement for learning improvement.

To work in association with an educational environment, it

has to provide educators with the ability to monitor and

measure whether learning is taking place and how effective

it is for students at different levels (mobl2 2011).

This is an indication that the teacher will still be

intimately involved not only in preparing the proper packaging of

knowledge, but in assessment of the intended outcomes for the

student.

Virtual worlds and avatar characters are the trendiest of

toys for today’s generation; making them a foundation for

education as well is only fitting. But while a virtual

schoolhouse has no physical location, there may still a need for

social interaction among students.

“The nature and quality of the social and emotional interactions

between teacher and students is central to any discussion of

quality education” (McKenzie, 2003: Entz, 2006; McFarlane, 2011).

20

Teachers of online learning must ensure that they are

current on the latest technologies, how to use and translate into

motivation for their students. This can also include a change of

mind in how technology can function along side of learning. Many

find themselves with a need to overcome negative perceptions of

online learning equating to lower quality education and source of

possible student dishonesty. There are challenges of integration

with traditional pedagogical principles but considerable

strengths that will improve student engagement and motivation. We

suggest that ubiquitous mLearning and virtual worlds should be

embraced as part of that journey.

21

References

Dabbagh, N. (2007). The online learner: Characteristics and

pedagogical implicationsContemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher

Education, 7(3), 217-226. DOI:10.1.1.110.2248

Future Lab (2006). Create-a-scape. Retrieved from

http://www.createascape.org.uk/

Gates, B. H. (2005) Speech: 2005 education summit high schools. National

Governors Association/Achieve Summit, Washington DC USA.

Retrieved from

http://www.gatesfoundation.org/MediaCenter/Speeches/BillgSpe

eches/BGSpeechNGA-050226.htm

Geck, C. (2006). The generation z connection: Teaching

information literacy to the newest net generation. Red Orbit.

Retrieved from

http://www.redorbit.com/news/technology/397034/the_generation_z_c

onnection_ teaching_information_literacy_to_the_newest

Jin, L., Wen, Z., & Gough, N. (2010). Social virtual worlds for

technology-enhanced learning on an augmented learning

platform. Learning, Media and Technology, 35(2), 139-153. DOI:

10.1080/17439884.2010.494424

22

Joha, A & Janssen, M. (2011). Content management implemented as shared service: A public sector case study. E-Government, E-Servicesand Global Processes.

334/2010, 138-151. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-15346-4_11

Jones, V., Jo, J., and Martin, P. (2007). Future schools and how

technology can be used to support millennial and generation-z

students. 1st International Conference of Ubiquitous Information Technology.

Proceedings B. 886-891. Retrieved from

http://hdl.handle.net/10072/19022

Lyon, E. (2010). The 2010 Generation Trend Report. Sparxoo Blog: Tampa,

FL

References (cont’d)

McFarlane, D. (2011). A comparison of organization structure and

pedagogical approach: Online versus face-to-face. The Journal

of Educators Online. 8,(1) p.2.

Retrievedfromhttp://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/contentdel

ivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=EJ91787

Miniwatts Marketing Group (2011), Internet World Stats. Retrieved from

www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm

23

mobl2 (2011). Mobile learning – The road ahead. Retrieved from

http://www.mobl21.com/blog/20/the-importance-of-content-

management-in-mobile-learning/

Oblinger, D. (2003). Boomers, Gen-Xers & Millennials:

Understanding the new students. EduCAUSE Review, 38 (4) 37-47.

Palfrey, J. & Gasser, U. (2008) Born digital: Understanding the

first generation of digital natives. New York: Basic

Books, Perseus.

Peters, K. (2007). m-Learning: Positioning educators for a

mobile, connected future. The International Review of Research in Open

and Distance Learning. 8 (2).

Sparxoo. (2010).The 2010 Generation Trend Report. Retrieved from

http://www.slideshare.net/sparxoo/sparxoos-2010-trend-report.

Strauss W. & Howe, N. (1997). The fourth turning: An american prophecy.

New York: Broadway books, 1997.

TRADOC Pam 525-8-2 (2015). The army learning concept 2015. Retrieved

from tradoc. army.mil/tpubs/pams/tp525-8-2.pdf

References (cont’d)

24

Twenge, Jean M. (2001) Birth Cohort Changes in Extraversion: A

Cross-Temporal Meta-analysis, 1966-1993, Personality and

Individual Differences. 30, 735-748. doi:

10.1207/S15327957PSPR0504_3

U.S. Army, (2011). Doctrine innovator: Establishing a foundation

for training. Military Training Technology 16 (7). 16-18.