Recent articles:
- Walton, R. (1997). New wineskins? Distance education and computer conferencing. British Journal of Theological Education 9(2), 38-48.
- Patterson, E. (1996). The questions of distance education. Theological Education 33(1), 59-74.
- Le Cornu, A. (2001). Is adult theological education through distance learning self-defeating? An exploration of the relationships between truth, authority and self-development. British Journal of Theological Education 11(2), 9-21.
One of the prominent themes emerging from my reading to date is that of formation. In many ways it seems a hot potato passed to and from one author to another, each of which provides a perspective before passing it on (and you can almost hear the 'ouch' in some articles!) The three articles read over the last few days also touch on this theme, which seems to me desperately needing some primary research activity. This could be my way to contribute something original (and useful!) to the literature.
Walton (1996) suggests four problems with distance education:
- Limited opportunities for dialogue and group interaction between students.
- The expense of updating and modifying mass-produced print and other resources.
- The relative inflexibility of distance education courses in response to individual learning needs.
- Less learner control and mutuality, amplified by the distance relationship between student and tutor.
To imagine that distance education does not already allow for personal construct building, does not take the learner’s context seriously and does not include conversation or collaboration, is to misrepresent the area… [for our students] there is a continual emphasis on enabling the learner to establish his or her own views, to engage with and learn from the local context and to dialogue with experts (through their writing), and others (in church, work or family)” (1999:43).
This is in contrast to Patterson (1996), who seems more detached in her analysis of distance education's potential. Patterson (1996) is one of the more challenging articles I have read of late, mainly because of the objectivity of the arguments presented. Patterson (1996) suggests that distance education is emerging as significant mainly because communications technologies are making a significant shift; she is critical of this 'pragmatism' and the dangers that it may present epistemology: “When information is a limited resource, seekers come to drink at the well of those who control that resource. When it becomes a commodity, those seekers become shoppers.” In other words, the very openness and accessibility that distance education provides challenges issues of quality and consumer choice: “education can be “purchased from competitive offers for the best deal, most painless terms, and highest payoff”. Were it not for accreditation and quality assurance criteria, such consumerism may well shape theological education at a distance.
I found Patterson (1996) a little alarmist, but she does raise pertinent questions that deserve a response. One of Patterson's (1996) main areas of concern is formation, however a novel angle is taken; rather than slamming DE as inferior to the classroom here, she draws attention to the need for theological educators to question their own assumptions:
What is it that we assume happens on campus? The defining issue in distance education is the distance, and yet the reality is that most theological schools no longer have much control or even connection with the lives of their students outside of their presence in class… Educational systems are a part of a lerger social context within which our students (and our faculty and staff) are shaped and developed. This is true for all of our students, but distance education has brought the question into high priority (1996:71).
For me this raises the question: To what extent should theological education be concerned with formation beyond the cognitive? A scripture that immediately springs to mind is Ephesians 4:11-16, which places formation and maturity in Christ in the context of the church, along with its various ministries and people of complementary emphases. Again, my thinking is drawn toward the role of the student's own church context as the primary means of true formation.
Finally, Le Cornu (2001). I met Alison four years ago when visiting the Open University; she was stationed at Oxford Brookes at the time. Le Cornu (2001:9) addresses the question of authority, which can be implicit in distance education materials and detrimental to “the growth and development of the self.” Le Cornu's concern is that formation may be hindered in distance education by nature of the course materials themselves:
…the communication of the ‘faith’ in assuming by its very nature an authoritative role, risks discouraging the formation and / or development of an independent self-identity… [when this takes place outside of the context of culture and society this] might prove to be one of the causes of the ‘split personality’ experienced by a number of theological students.
For distance education to overcome this split personality phenomenon, Le Cornu (2001:17) argues that a distance learning course should be conceptualised as “a tool for development and construction” of ideas rather than a prescriptive text book. Self-reflective questions, computer conferencing and student journaling are practical means by which students might express their own ideas and so assert more control over their own learning. Le Cornu (2001) speculates that, if done well, this may even lead to a formational advantage over classroom settings. And so the potato changes hands once again...
