A review of the three articles and video

As we learned through the text this week, “The goal of any instructional system is to promote learning" (Anderson, 2008, p. 18). The  most important goal is to provide a “different but equivalent learning experience to each learner (Simonson, 2000, p. 29),” which I agree not only important by essential! As Simonson states, “Despite the differences, every student should have the opportunity to learn in acceptable and appropriate ways” (Simonson, 2000). I completely agree with Simonson and almost all his views on student learning, and the three articles by Moller, Huett, Foshay and Coleman also supported my views on teacher accountability in regards to e-learning. 
The first in the three articles titled, “The evolution of distance education: Implications for instructional design on the potential of the Web,” (2008), stressed the need and importance for an effective measurement of the learning. As stated in the article, “Effectiveness is either natively assumed or not particularly valued” (Moller, Foshay & Huett, 2008). In the school I currently teach in, this “natively assumed effectiveness” is working against the diffusion of certain technologies. Teachers are also not seeing and effective measurement of learning from some of the e-learning experiences, therefore, they do not value these resources. However, some of our e-learning exercises have been introduced to us as effective measurements of learning. One program, SuccessMaker, adopts personal individualization strategies more quickly that I, as an educator, could individualize in the traditional classroom environment. However, SuccessMaker didn't use to be this effective. As I learned from other teachers SuccessMaker was a "system that learned from the learners" as stated on the elearnspace blog (2010). Teacher filled out surveys annually, stating what changes their students as learners were seeing that could be made to make the program more effective. Now, thanks to it "learning from the learners," SuccessMaker is a required educational tool at our school. 
In the second article, authors Moller, Foshay and Huett, discuss the craft approach. As stated by Moore and Kearsley (2006), “The craft approach is when the individual teacher designs and develops the course and related materials based on effective uses in the traditional classroom, and puts them on the web,” (Moore & Kearsley, 1996). While at first this sounded like a lot of work to me, I thought about how much easier it would be year after year, once the hard work was put in the first time it was implemented. The authors continue by stating, “Regardless of the size of the program…ID professionals are needed to create a clear framework outlining goals, delivery, and structure of the e-learning program with clear benchmarks for success” (Moller, Foshay & Huett, 2008). A clear framework is essential and needs to be posted and easily accessible to students and parents. Also, a consistent framework throughout learning institutions is also essential to eliminate student confusion. Clear and consistent benchmarks for success are also extremely important. As an early education educator, I can differentiate my instruction by using the data collected from the benchmark assessment. However, as I also discovered on the Palloff and Pratt blog on Insturctional Design Open Studio, "Four issues were identified as recurring ones in building learning communities virtually: (1) “virtual versus human contact, connectedness, and coalescence; (2) shared responsibility, rules, roles, norms, and participation; (3) psychological and spiritual issues; and (4) vulnerability, privacy, and ethics” (1999, p. 33)." As virtual learners ourselves, we have all heard or experienced these before. I personally think that "virtual versus human contact, connectedness, and coalescence," is what keeps many of my co-workers away from online learning because they need the personal and physical contact. 
Lastly, the third article, “The evolution of distance education: Implications for instructional design on the potential of the Web (Part 3: K12)” (2008), contained one of my favorite quotes of all time. It goes as follows, “Rice (2006) suggested that the effectiveness of distance education has more to do with who is teaching, who is learning, and how that learning is accomplished” ((Moller, Foshay,  Huett & Coleman, 2008).   I believe this is true not just for distance education, but education as a whole. We have all seen or experienced non-effective teachers, and regardless of how effective a distant education program might be, if the teacher of it, isn’t, that sadly the student might not experience much valuable learning. As distance education teachers, we also must utilize effective social networking and teach our students the difference between effective and ineffective internet resources. Sometimes, as stated on Stephen Downes blog, "The design of content provisioned on those networks, detracts from educational purposes. Moreover, the selection of content privileges advertisers." Therefore, it is our job as teachers to help students think critically about a sources content, to ensure it is a valid source to gain information from. 
Reference:
Anderson, T. (Ed.). (2008). The theory and practice of online learning. (2nd ed.). Edmonton, AB: Athabasca University Press

Downes, S. (2010, September 22). Education and the Social Web. Connective Learning and the Commercial Imperative. Retrieved from http://www.downes.ca/elearnspace
elearnspace. (2010, August 31st). 5 ways tech startups can disrupt education. Retrieved from http://www.elearnspace.org/blog/2010/08/31/5-ways-tech-startups-can-disrupt-education/
Huett, J., Moller, L., Foshay, W. & Coleman, C. (2008, September/October). The evolution of distance education: Implications for instructional design on the potential of the Web (Part 3: K12). TechTrends, 52(5), 63–67
 
Loginquitas, E. (2010, March 05). Advancing Distance Learning: The Palloff and Pratt Collection. Retrieved from http://id.ome.ksu.edu/blog/2010/mar/5/advancing-distance-learning-palloff-and-pratt-coll/
Moller, L., Foshay, W., & Huett, J. (2008, May/June). The evolution of distance education: Implications for instructional design on the potential of the Web (Part 1: Training and Development). TechTrends, 52(3), 70–75. Use the Academic Search Premier database, and search using the article's title.
 
Moller, L., Foshay, W., & Huett, J. (2008, July/August). The evolution of distance education: Implications for instructional design on the potential of the Web (Part 2: Higher Education). TechTrends, 52(4), 66–70. Use the Academic Search Premier database, and search using the article's title.
 
Moore, M.G. & Kearsley, G. (1996). Distance education: A systems view. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company. 
Palloff, R.M. & Pratt, K. (1999). Building learning communities in cyberspace. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers
 
Rice, K. (2006). A comprehensive look at distance education in the K-12 context. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38(4), 425-448.

Simonson, M. (2000). Making decisions: The use of electronic technology in online classes. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 84, 29–34.