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.
Top Related