As the system of distance studies is developed further, it will point out perspectives of learning in our information society. (BLK—German Federal Inter-State Commission, 1997, p. 5)
We understand distance studies and face-to-face studies as two organizational variants of learning that differ primarily in that in the former the didactic limits between teaching and learning have been abolished. As a result, Eckert (1994) defined the terms correspondence course studies, distance studies, and self-study as:
All modes of teaching and learning … which permit [and] demand a didactical and pedagogical individualization of learning that is predominantly independent of time, place and the personal conveyance of knowledge, and which at the same time transfer essential didactic functions of the teaching-learning process, such as the presentation of the subject matter, the check-up on the process of learning and the transfer of practice, to the (print, picture and sound) media, thus providing guidance for an individual learning process. (p. 32)
Consequently, the spatial and temporal noncoincidence of distance teaching and learning is transformed into one perspective of a didactic process and creates far-reaching expectations regarding the possibility of individualization of learning. In this connection, the simultaneous and immediate interactivity between teaching and learning that exists in face-to-face learning—at least as a possibility, though not always in reality—is assigned the function of an implicit yardstick: We regard distance studies in the light of face-to-face studies and therefore are inclined to conceptualize their necessarily different nature as a deficient mode of scientific teaching and learning. That is, we consider them as a mode to be as similar to face-to-face teaching-learning as possible by adding social and tutorial components. It is particularly the distance, that is, the didactic distance, the abolition of boundaries and the noncoincidence of teaching and learning that is regarded as problematic here. As a result, virtually everything is done to cause the distance in distance teaching-learning to diminish as much as possible.
In this article I deal with the question of whether the categories distance and proximity1 can still be considered relevant to university teaching today by presenting some rather fundamental considerations of this problem. In fact this question forces itself on us when we consider that the confinement of teaching and learning to the same place (i.e., the universities) is a pattern that owes its existence to the very lack or, to be more exact, the insufficient availability of media resources. My reference to the lack of media resources applies in the first place to the unavailability of sufficient quantities of books and teaching aids at universities that prevailed until well into the 19th century. Professors and students then had to come together for the conveyance of knowledge. This can be seen, for instance, from a remark related by Wirtz (1823) in his book Sitten und Gebrääuche an den deutschen Universitääten (Manners and Customs at German Universities) published in 1823. In this book a professor’s wife complained: “I don’t know what has happened. In former times my husband’s lectures always drew large audiences, but now the number of students who attend are declining constantly, although he still reads the same paper he read thirty years ago” (Ellwein, 1985, p. 53).
The spatial-temporal meeting of teachers and learners for “lectures” has survived until this day for reasons that have something to do with the tenacity of cultural patterns. And this is so although knowledge today can be conveyed in a different way that is more suitable pedagogically and ensures a greater learning effect. Lectures as such have long since degenerated into an academic teaching ritual. However, this does not apply to the idea of debate, although the possibility of discussing the subjects taught is fading ever more in view of the large number of students enrolled at our site-based universities. Against this background, what presents itself as distance in the system of distance studies and is consequently construed as an allegedly deficient mode of teaching-learning compared with face-to-face studies can also be interpreted altogether differently. It can be construed as a chance, long overdue historically, to overcome spatially and temporally coincidental teaching-learning, at least in universities and colleges in general. From this perspective, it is the disappearance of an (unnecessary) proximity or—to be more exact—the presence of lecturers and students in the same place and at the same time rather than the disappearance of distance that would indicate didactic progress on the road to a modern culture of learning. From here it is an extremely small step to the thesis that distance studies will take the place of face-to-face studies in the future. This thesis has been outlined in a number of relevant publications (Peters, 1996) and was taken up in the following statement made by the BLK (1997), a German federal commission: “As the system of distance studies is developed further, it will point out perspectives of learning in our information society” (p. 5).
From a systematic review of the didactic categories of proximity and distance I have identified the following theses:
A thorough examination of the difference between didactic nearness and remoteness inherent in each mode of study and involving as a decisive criterion the opportunity for interaction (between teachers and learners) shows that both face-to-face studies and distance studies are predominantly marked by structures that confine or channel interaction and consequently involve distance. In both modes of study the curriculum as a rule is compiled without any interaction between teachers and learners or coordination with the latter. The content is developed by the lecturer or the author, who also selects the topics to be covered and prepares their didactic presentation. Correspondence courses of study are compiled by the planner in a quasi-industrial production of the courses of study. Both the lecturer and the planner compose the layout of the courses and their implementation without systematically including the users, if one disregards the fact that their experience with previous courses and their anticipation of the users’ interests are naturally incorporated in this composition now and then. In spite of this, however, the statement remains valid that both modes of study have a distant planning process in common. Neither face-to-face nor distance-study courses are compiled and implemented in a direct interchange with the target group involved.
The real distance of distance studies does not occur until the courses actually begin. Here the correspondence course student is definitely in a position that differs from that of a regular university student. However, this does not imply that this situation is to be rated as worse or in some other way negative in regard to its relevance to learning. Rather, the contrary is true. Distance study students have to rely on themselves in larger measure than regular students because learning in the distance study mode is not based on teaching, but on the acquisition of knowledge by the individual student. For successful acquisition of the subject matter, however, distance study students must develop the ability to grasp the subject matter and a strategy for learning. These, incidentally, are individual qualities that are rated highly on the labor market today; regular university students, by contrast, have initial difficulties and perhaps not always sufficient opportunities for developing such overlapping competence or key qualifications. Nevertheless, university students have the opportunity to contact their lecturers and enter into discussion with them. This opportunity to take part in determining the learning target and assist in controlling the learning process is generally believed to be an indispensable element of educational courses that are aimed not only at conveying knowledge, but also at providing genuine education.
But does such education occur only in connection with a direct spatial-temporal interaction? Does it not also, and perhaps even more intensively, occur in courses that begin by providing the learner with certain methods of learning, comprehending, presenting, and documenting the subject matter, and by so doing create what in the theory of education is called formal education? And are such educational offerings that demand mental self-discipline on the part of the learner not closer to the subject of learning and to the development of an ability for solving problems? This is true if one interprets close not only as a spatial-temporal nearness, but also as the directness with which an educational effect is obtained. When we regard it this way, we must reassess our first-glance analysis of the proximity-distance relationship in distance and face-to-face studies. And this is all the more so because, as we see above, the opportunity of immediate interaction in university studies is no end in itself, and face-to-face studies often do not provide the opportunities they promise. In former times, when books were scarce, the permanence of the opportunity of interaction undoubtedly performed an historical function. Yet we cannot retain prevalent modes of spatial-temporal teaching and learning for nostalgic reasons, but at best for reasons of their newly proven functionality. However, this proof is still outstanding.
This thesis is based on the observation that some of the didactic aspects that at first glance were diagnosed as elements of distance on closer examination were found to enable a greater nearness between teacher and learner. In the following I wish to throw more light on this assertion on two levels.
At one level is the transparency of the expression of content. Although in distance studies this expression is not derived from a dialogue or a teacher-learner interaction, it is normally more clearly contained in correspondence course materials than in lectures and seminars that follow the rules of logic and are subject to the limitations of oral expression. Furthermore, distance study courses often include carefully devised connecting texts, exercises, and problems for reflection that challenge the learner in a quasi-virtual interactivity and stimulate him or her to comment. Viewed from this angle, the transparency and virtual interactivity inherent in these teaching materials enable the learner to be introduced to the object of study more closely and to penetrate it more deeply. In this mode of study it is possible to respond more promptly to individual questions and difficulties in learning that become apparent, for instance, in the homework sent in for evaluation. In face-to-face studies, on the other hand, all students are addressed simultaneously so that the process of conveying knowledge would stagnate if the lecturer concerned himself or herself with an individual problem. From this it follows that distance studies can involve more nearness than face-to-face studies. That is to say, they can be closer to the content of the learning process and closer to the comprehension and grasp of the problems by the individual learners.
Another level is that of the learner’s motivation. In my opinion, the mode of distance studies is closer in regard to both content and time. In many correspondence courses the students have numerous alternatives in the overall curriculum from which to choose. In ideal circumstances they can compile—within the scope of general and formal guidelines—an individual program of study to suit their interest in the subjects offered and their specific motivations, which frequently depend on their occupations. And even within a course of study they are not required, as in face-to-face studies, to devote their attention to a subject while it is being taught. In addition, they need not take note of everything if they are interested only in part of the subject matter or in a specific aspect of the themes broached.
When 1,300 distance education students were polled by the ZFUW, the Distance Studies and Continuing Education Center of the University of Kaiserslautern, Germany, 65% them stated that they “always” (12%) or “frequently” (43.4%) “determine themselves” the knowledge they want to acquire, whereas 7.9% said they did so “infrequently,” and 26.1% that “it varied.” By the same token, more than 70% of those interviewed said they let themselves be guided by predetermined targets of study “infrequently” (51.3%) or “never” (24.1%). And in reply to the question as to whether and to what extent they determined the intensity or depth of their studies themselves, more than 80% said they did so “frequently” (57.2%) or “always” (26.8%), while 35.1% replied “always” and 49.3% “frequently” how much they wanted to “know or comprehend,” and 25.5% determined “always” and 49.1% “frequently” what they wanted to apply in practice. This asynchronous use of the subject material that is presented in a textually (in contrast to a temporally) linear form in the final analysis also gives rise to greater structural nearness of the subject material offered in correspondence courses to the needs of the users and their requirements for practical application.
As regards learning and motivation for learning in distance studies, it was exactly the aspect of asynchronism that was valued highly as a motivating aspect by students from all branches of study who participated in the Kaiserslautern survey. They highly rated “free organization of time” and “extensive independence of a fixed place of study” (93.1% and 85.3% respectively). In regard to the general conditions of study, “sensitivity” varies according to the branch of study, with marked differences between students socially connected to the fields of engineering and natural sciences and those socially connected with other fields. The latter, who were enrolled in the correspondence courses of Erwachsenenbildung (adult education) and Total Quality Management, on the one hand, clearly placed greater value on the special didactic characteristics of correspondence courses (using didactic teaching materials in combination with phases of attendance) than those who had an engineering or natural-science background. On the other hand, however, they were less sensitive to predetermined deadlines, achievement standards, and learning targets inherent in distance studies. And, last but not least, they were less interested in a larger number of participants (e.g., regarding the decision on achievements obtained). We have the impression that on the whole distance study students with an engineering or natural science background are less typical, but more willing “to adapt themselves” (compare Arnold & Lehmann, 1997).
On the whole, the results of our survey corroborate the impression that although the type of the individual learner is predominant in distance studies, the didactic arrangement of this mode of study is also used by other types of learners, including such rather conventional types as, for instance, the teacher-oriented learner. This multiple use is made possible by the fact that distance studies are a mode of self-determined study organized by external instructors.2 The didactics applied to distance course studies must be geared not only to different expectations of the students, but also to different modes of study. The intention to develop distance studies gradually into an “independent mode of study” is welcomed by adult educators, because it is useful in many respects and can thus become a model for more self-directed learning in face-to-face studies. Yet care must be taken that this mode of study will also be of interest to students who are guided by strategies of learning that are not typical of distance studies, because their expectations must be met as well.
What remains to be proved: Spatial-temporal proximity of teaching and learning optimizes the sustainability of scientific learning.
It has already been pointed out that we are all inclined to measure distance studies by the yardstick of regular university studies and to conceptualize them against this background as a deficient mode of study. This applies also to the assumed sustainability of the learning process. In my opinion, however, we are all too willing to presume—because we were all educated in a system of face-to-face and keep-in-memory studies—that the mere, or at least predominant, oral presentation of the subject matter automatically results in its lasting acquisition. This is a hypothesis that Holzkamp called a “teaching-learning short circuit.” When I interviewed him in 1996 shortly before he died, he pointed out that learning that is enforced by teaching “passes above the heads of the students and primarily [causes] resistance, refusal and evasion. And, if they learn at all, the sole purpose of such `defensive learning’ is to satisfy’ their lecturers and keep them from imposing any sanctions rather than to delve into the subject matter” (p. 24). Holzkamp also pointed out the scandalously small sustainability of “lecture-focused learning” and compared the same with the model of “expansive learning,” which is linked more closely to the needs of the learners and their “projects of study.”
It is true that distance studies in many respects follow the pattern of lecture-focused learning too, but—to use a statement made by Weidenmann (1995)—they clearly “make no great demands on the working storage” of the students and, in contrast to face-to-face studies, give them leeway for acquiring the subject matter at their own pace, allowing them to stop now and then for dwelling on and delving into the subject matter at their own discretion.
Weidenmann (1995) wrote the following:
Words which are spoken and heard are short-lived. This is quite different with the page of a book or an illustration; I can look at them as long and as often as I like. As a listener I must therefore constantly rely on my short-term memory in order to establish a connection between what happened before and what is happening now. Since I cannot remember everything at once, I must constantly differentiate between what might be important and what might be unimportant. Perhaps I concentrated some time on decoding a message or reflecting on it; then I could not follow the lecture during that time because the capacity of my working storage was insufficient to simultaneously take up something new. So I possibly lost the thread of the lecture and had to devote mental capacity to find out what was said during the time I was “out.” As a result, I again missed part of the lecture. Mind you, this was no educational mishap, but rather the normal consequence of the limited working storage capacity of human beings. (pp. 56-57)
This minutely detailed description of the synchronous nature of lecture-focused, face-to-face learning clearly illustrates the structural limitations and peculiarities that impair its sustainability. In the first place, these are to be attributed to the fact that human beings engaged in a learning process obviously have difficulties in remaining continuously attentive and withstanding the tension connected therewith. Rather, they learn discontinuously so that a mode of study permitting a discontinuous acquisition of knowledge can—at least as far as the approach is concerned—ensure sustainability.
Another reason this appraisal appears to be justified is that it has been common knowledge for a long time that sustainability of learning (i.e., “keeping in mind”) increases clearly as the learner’s activity increases.3
When one brings into focus the qualitative and didactic advantages of teaching-material-aided learning outlined above, as well as its suitability to adult students, the thesis that distance studies act as a model for face-to-face studies is clearly evident. This applies especially to the assumption that self-directed learning in distance studies seems to have an effect on the development of comprehensive capabilities. If the dual-mode strategy of intertwining distance and face-to-face studies is preferred to a columniation of parallel structures, I believe it can be assumed that distance studies could indeed be a model for scientific learning in a knowledge society.
Arnold, R. (1996). Evolution und Qualifikation. Grundlagen einer systemisch-evolutionäären Didaktik beruflicher Bildung. In ders. (Hrsg.): Lebendiges Lernen. Schriftenreihe “Grundlagen der Berufs- und Ewachsenenbildung.” Bd. 5. Baltmansweiler, S. 10-21.
Arnold, R., && Lehmann, B. (1997). Selbstgesteuertes Lernen im Fernstudium. Vortrag, gehalten im Rahmen der Sitzung der Kommission Erwachsenenbildung der Deutschen Gesellschaft füü Erziehungswissenschaft am 03.10.1997 in Frankfurt.. Frankfurt.
BLK. (1997). Persepktiven füür das Studieren in der Informationsgesellschaft durch Weiterentwicklung des Fernstudiums. Heft 54 der BLK.. Bonn.
Eckert, S. (1994). Fernunterricht-—Lernen zwischen Selsbststeuerung und Anleitung. Hessische Bläätter füür Volksbildung, 44(1), 32-43.
Ellwein, T. (1985). Die deutsche Universitäät. Vom Mittelalter bis zur Gegenwart.. Köönigstein.
Holzkamp, K. (1996). Wider den Lehr-Lern-Kurzschlu: Interview zum Thema Lernen. In R. Arnold (Hrsg.), Lebendiges Lernen (pp. 21-30). Baltmannsweiler.
Peters, O. (1997). Didaktik des Fernstudiums. Erfahrungen und Diskussionsstand in nationaler und internationaler Sicht.. Neuwied.
Peters, O. (1996). Didaktik des Fernstudiums. Erfahrungen und Diskussionsstand in nationaler und internationaler Perspektive. Bergler, 7-29.
Weidenmann, B. (1995). Erfolgreiche Kurse und Seminare. Professionelles Lernen mit Erwachsenen.. Weinheim und Basel.
1. Peters (1997) devoted a whole chapter of a recent book to the topic of “Proximity and Distance” (pp. 35-36).
2. This aspect was emphasized by Jarvis (1995): “it is only with distance education that learners are apparently free from the immediate presence of teachers. But, and necessarily, distance education institutions are very centralized in many ways so there is no genuine learner autonomy in this form of education either” (p. 139).
3. Accordingly, we remember 20% of what we hear, 40% of what we see, 80% of what we can express ourselves, and 90% of what we (can) do ourselves (compare Arnold, 1996).
Rolf Arnold has been a full professor at the University of Kaiserslautern, Germany, since 1990 and has been in charge of the Center of Distance Studies and Continued University Education since 1992. His e-mail address is rarnold@rhrk.uni-kl.de.