The E-learning Archetype

Education is experiencing a great disruption, much like the other business, fields of work and time. The entire education paradigm is staring at a large shift – and in all probability it could be pinned down to three reasons. The pressures of a large, growing young population, the exponentially increasing cost of education or the need to reach the unreached with quality as a prudent necessity. It could also be a sum total of these issues. That being said, Steve Jobs’ words from back in 2005 will ring true – “You can't connect the dots looking forward; you can only connect them looking backwards. So you have to trust that the dots will somehow connect in your future” We are all blessed with hindsight. So let’s see where this wisdom leads us.

Knowledge is of two kinds, deductive and experiential. While the student gets initial guidance and understanding of the subject from a teacher to understand the premises and continues studying with his discrimination, experiential knowledge on the other side, is supposed to be pursued on the job. In both, there is needed, an unwavering faith in the teacher, and a determination to follow his word on the path, irrespective of how it sounds to his discriminatory logic. 

Guru's presence is the object of meditation, his feet - the objects of worship, his words - the objects of chanting and in his grace lies the source of liberation. 

A traditional Guru-Sishya interface probably is the best way to learn. However, the current day pressures are such that education is sought to be imparted “online” a la Eklavya Parampara, only that no thumbs are given nor asked for, though Dronacharyas may be lurking in the shadows.

The University of London was the first to offer distance learning degrees, establishing its external Program in 1858. Criticised for being a "godless" university, as a compromise that emerged later, it also acted as an examining body along with the King's College London, and awarded degrees.

The widespread use of computers and the internet have made distance learning easier and faster, and today virtual schools and virtual universities deliver full curricula online. Many private, public, non-profit and for-profit institutions worldwide, now offer distance education courses from the most basic instruction, through the highest levels of degree and doctoral programs. Levels of accreditation vary. Widely respected universities such as Stanford and Harvard now deliver online courses.

Various methodologies have been experimented in both synchronous as well as asynchronous learning, over a period of time to impart both deductive and experiential learnings. The current delivery methods have been using all the innovations with a student centric doctrine. Hence we see the class room teaching, innovated through technology and the technology inspired online mode, using the traditional learning methods, often obliterating the differences and merging the gaps. This brings us to question the relevance of separately defining, open and distance learning (ODL) and Online mode of learning and separately regulating the two, though the fact remains that the class room teaching–learning is probably the best, for those who can afford it.  

The total enrolment in higher education is about 33 Million of which 11% currently is under ODL system in whatever form the same is being enforced. A targeted ODL of about 50% has been able to achieve only 24% to date. The country invests about 3.65% of GDP in education making it imperative to look at asynchronous learning methodologies that may cut the cost of education for the learner. In this process, all regulations must be enabling enough to reach the unreached.

Blended learning is a formal education program in which a student learns at least in part, through delivery of content and instruction via digital and online media with some element of student control over time, place, path, or pace. While still attending a “brick-and-mortar” school structure, face-to-face classroom methods are combined with computer-mediated activities. The terms "blended," "hybrid," "technology-mediated instruction," "web-enhanced instruction," "mixed-mode instruction (ODL)" and “on-line education” are often used interchangeably. 

Technology is the thread that binds all these together. Any hands-on skill, still is expected to be acquired hands-on, whichever may be the mode one uses to acquire the associated knowledge from. So why define ODL and On-line forms of delivery differently? Not to speak of the associated overlapping in the delivery mechanisms. 

All the modes of delivery other than the synchronous are eminently aimed at the unreached. In our country almost 80% of the population fall in this group. How justified is then, the transcript to limit the enrolment to a universities jurisdiction in the ODL mode. Does it not also foul with the provisions of fair play when the jurisdiction element is dispensed with, for “on-line” mode of delivery making it discriminatory? 

Logically, any course-work leading to the award of a degree or a diploma also would remain the same though it must be acknowledged here, that content creation is the heart of any e-learning paradigm. What differentiates then is the mode of delivery. Can a different degree or a diploma be awarded for the same course work completed under a legal set of conditions? Even mention of “ODL” or “Online” against a “B.A” (referred as an example) may defeat the very purpose for which these modes are created and practised for, notwithstanding their legality. 

Web-Conferencing, videoconferencing, educational television, instructional television are all used in delivery of education, as are direct-broadcast satellite (DBS), internet radio, live streaming, telephone, and web-based VoIP. Online meeting software such as Adobe Connect, Skype, and many other similar, has helped facilitate meetings in distance learning courses. Robot proxies have also been entering the classroom over the last couple of years.

Fundamentally segregating ODL and Online modes is faulty, in the light of widespread use of technology by both and nothing to actually separate them, except probably the assessment. Assessment can be the most difficult activity to conduct online, and can be quite different from the bricks-and-mortar version. Special attention needs to be devoted to proctoring and cheating. The two most common methods of assessment are machine-graded multiple-choice quizzes or tests and peer-reviewed written assignments. Machine grading, rubrics based answers, of written assignments also must be explored. Exams may be proctored at regional testing centers. Other methods, including "eavesdropping technologies allow testing at home or office, by using webcams, or monitoring mouse clicks and typing styles. Special techniques such as adaptive testing also may be used, where the test tailors itself given the student's previous answers, giving harder or easier questions accordingly. Whatever these are, principally, can we deny that the assessment is made of the student, albeit differently, the course work remaining the same?

Here again, the legality of award of the same degree or a diploma as is awarded for regular studies, would come into being, unless all forms of delivery and assessment are accepted as leading to the same end result. Added to this, creating two different sets of regulations or awarding two different sets of degrees or diplomas for different modes of delivery and assessment may actually compound the problem.

Accreditation obviously is the face saver, though is easier said than done. What is accredited in this context needs to be clearly comprehended. The effectiveness of delivery, the robustness of the model, the ability to weed out the deadwood, the content creation that is the heart of all delivery models, the accuracy and consistency of content delivery, the assessment of skills acquired, are all serious candidates for accreditation and assessment.

A university or an institution approved for rendering coursework in the regular mode is a priori assumed to provide quality education and is subjected to accreditation and assessment after two cycles of operation. It is another matter that though accreditation is mandatory, no provision to penalise those that do not pass the grade or even those that do not even apply exists today. How do we justify a university or an institution waiting for five years before it can cater to its asynchronous users? Further why must only an accredited university be treated differently for this mercy? Would an affiliated institution with a similar accreditation not deliver? A case in point would be for an institution accredited higher than the university to which it is affiliated and still not allowed to reach out to the masses. Establishment of virtual universities would suffer consequently.

All interventions and innovations must be inclusive. The regulations must also provide for Lifelong learning introduced first in Denmark in 1971 through the Bologna Process which is an "ongoing, voluntary, and self-motivated" pursuit of knowledge for either personal or professional reasons. Therefore, it not only enhances social inclusion, active citizenship, and personal development, but also self-sustainability, rather than competitiveness and employability. 

Like spinoffs that accrue out of an innovation, the spinoff of MOOCS, which actually was an expression of lifelong learning and similar other initiatives, must also be explored in our journey to reach the unreached. SWAYAM is a step in the right direction though it calls for a massive participation of all sections of the citizenry. 

Whether ODL, or Online, it is a great move to implement, in the country’s literacy juggernaut. However, we need to guard against some pitfalls like relying on user-generated content that can at times create a chaotic learning environment and creating or using substandard online materials. We also need to recognise that the time and effort required may exceed what students are willing to commit to an online course and that once the course is released, content will be reshaped and reinterpreted by the massive student body, making the course trajectory difficult for instructors to control. 

The challenge of e-learning is, like James Bates said: “The most profound words will remain unread unless you can keep the learner engaged. You can't see their eyes to know if they got it so... say it, show it, write it, demo it and link it to an activity”. Can our wisdom, entrepreneurship and passion make us swamp these challenges? Time will tell.

Dr. S.S. Mantha

Guest Author Former Chairman of AICTE, Dr. Mantha is an eminent academician. At present, he is Chancellor KL University and Adjunct Professor, NIAS, Bangalore.