Читать книгу Learning in Adulthood - Sharan B. Merriam - Страница 38

As noted previously, online can be seen as a site of learning, one that intersects with formal, nonformal, and informal learning. We now see learners engaged in individual or group learning via the Internet and smartphones, participating in teleconferences, and interacting from their homes with fellow participants and instructors from around the world. And although most of the research and theorizing about online learning is occurring in the formal education sector, online learning is also going on in nonformal settings. Many businesses have their own communications platforms where employees have access to company policies, events, and activities as well as learning that can be shared through chat rooms and e-mail. Local communities often use the Internet to stimulate citizen participation, and nonformal educational institutions such as museums facilitate learning through online activities. After getting a traffic ticket, one can even take a traffic school course online, endorsed by traffic court, to avoid getting “points” on one's driving record!

There are also thousands of online communities that fall into the “nonformal” sites of learning. Those with an explicit learning agenda are known as communities of practice (CoP). CoP “refers to relatively tightly knit groups of professionals engaged in a common practice, who communicate, negotiate, and share their best practice with one another directly… CoPs may also be composed of hobbyists or interest groups” (Harasim, 2017, p. 158). These online communities “not only accumulate knowledge, they also contribute to advancing knowledge” (p. 158). As another example of nonformal online communities, Hollenbeck (2005) explored how three online communities organized and educated their members worldwide in the art of social protest. She studied anti-McDonald's, anti-Walmart, and anti-Starbucks communities, which she labeled antibrand communities. All three had formed for the purpose of educating others “by providing resources for getting involved and taking action” against capitalist corporate giants (p. 207). Similarly, Yazicioglu and Borak (2012) studied the rhetoric and activities of anti-Coke online communities.

Informal learning has also been affected by this technology. How many of us have been curious about something and done a Web search to learn more about it? Even older adults are accessing the Web for up-to-date information on many aspects of their lives—from travel, to the “best places to live,” to their health condition. Ross-Gordon et al. (2017) note that technology “reflects both a blurring of historic separations among formal, nonformal, and informal knowledge, as well as the diminishing of prior sharper distinctions among providers” (p. 295). They go on to point out that

this shaping of our world incorporates the medium of written language with visual and auditory options….Internet technology has become a main medium for day-to-day living, while educators continue to experiment with defining and shaping that technology for specific learning experiences (p. 295).

As we noted earlier, it is from the formal education sector that we have learned the most about online learning, also called eLearning. Online or eLearning is defined as learning that “is computer-mediated, or facilitated by the use of technology and the World Wide Web. eLearning may occur in a range of formats, for instance blended (a mixture of face-to-face and online instruction) or 100% online” (Bierema, 2014, p. 248). Online learning is a form of distance education, which has a long history of serving adults who otherwise would not have access to continuing and higher education. The defining characteristic of all forms and generations of distance education is the separation of student and teacher in time or space. What in the literature is often termed first-generation distance education consisted of print-based correspondence courses, a form still in existence. How many generations follow differs by author, but the simplest model has the second generation being broadcast and television technologies, followed by the third generation of information technologies of which web-based courses are a part (Moore & Kearsley, 1996). This third generation is distinguished by “an increased degree of learner control and flexibility, interactive communication and group-oriented processes” (Conrad, 2005, p. 445).

Formal education institutions are experimenting with eLearning using various platforms and technologies in an effort to draw learners. The use of social media, virtual reality, podcasting, and MOOCs (Massive Open Online Courses) are just some examples. In addition to various platforms, there is growing attention to designing course offerings in this mode (Bierema, 2014; Harasim, 2017; King, 2017) and to issues of support for instructors, students, and the technology itself (Gibson, 2017).

The phenomenal growth of online learning is reflected in some statistics that will be outdated before this book is published. Pew Research Center (Anderson, Perrin, Jiang, & Kumar, 2019) estimates that 90% of Americans use the Internet. The 10% who do not use the Internet tend to be older, living in more rural areas, and of lower income. As online learning has become almost commonplace in higher education, research has shifted from its technical aspects and its staying power to more pedagogical concerns including curriculum design and online facilitation methods (see Bierema, 2014; King, 2017). At the same time, there are overarching concerns about this forum for learning. One big concern is with access, what some are characterizing as the digital divide. Distance education began in the nineteenth century to serve those who had little or no access to the traditional education system. Although online learning is also designed to open up access, and does so for thousands of adults who need the flexibility of time and space for their learning, it may also be widening the gap between the haves and the have-nots:

Roughly three in ten adults with household incomes below $30,000 a year (29%) don't own a smartphone. More than four in ten don't have home broadband services (44%) or a traditional computer (46%)…. Roughly two-thirds of adults living in high-earning households (64%) have home broadband services, a smartphone, a desktop or laptop computer and a tablet, compared with 18% of those living in lower-income households. (Anderson & Kumar, 2019, para. 2–3)

A more recent study on health-related Internet use among older adults found that “overall, the digital health divide between different demographic groups has narrowed, especially in terms of gender, racial/ethnic group, rural/urban residence and various health statuses; however, age, education, and household income remain persistent predictors of the digital divide” (Hong & Cho, 2017, p. 856).

From a global perspective, it is estimated that of the world's 6.4 billion people, 54.4% are Internet users (Internet World Stats, 2018). But the digital divide is not a matter of access alone. In a study of rural learners who had access to computers in community settings, Page (2005) found that other sociocultural and psychological factors impeded their use. Factors such as “uncertainty about change, fear of technology, need for guidance, inexperience, relevance, the social context of the persistently impoverished county, and the perceived need” revealed the complexity of the digital divide (p. 334).

There are other issues of concern to adult educators when considering the growth of online learning. Bok (2003) and others talk about the commercialization of Internet education. A number of private, for-profit institutions have sprung up promising learning anytime, anywhere, for anyone. But the promise of convenience and ease (for a price) may fool some students in terms of the commitment involved and the independent learning skills needed. Or, these institutions may have poor quality courses if instructors at the institution do not live up to its advertising. And, according to a September 22, 2016 Los Angeles Times (Associated Press, 2016) article, private, for-profit online higher education institutions are in fact experiencing major declines in enrollment. This decline seems to be benefiting traditional universities which have attracted students with innovative online programs.

In an analysis of the rhetoric of online learning, Kelland (2005) critiques three themes that characterize the promotion of online learning. The first theme, which she calls a myth, is that online learning is inclusive and democratic. In promoting online learning to disadvantaged groups (who, as we saw earlier, often do not have the cultural capital to take advantage of it), governments and institutions “continue to ignore barriers that discourage, and even prevent, disadvantaged learners from participating in on-campus programs” (p. 254). The second theme, that online learning is accessible and flexible, is countered by the digital divide that characterizes even Western countries such as the United States. The third theme, that online learning is cost effective, does not necessarily mean that lower institutional costs are passed on to students.

In summary, online or eLearning presents both opportunities and challenges to adult educators. As we have seen, online learning cuts across formal, nonformal, and informal settings. What we as adult educators need to think about is how the Internet is facilitating adult learning in all three settings and how we can maximize its potential. At the same time, online learning presents challenges particularly with regard to access, even in the information-rich, technologically advanced United States. Access issues, which are discussed more fully in the next chapter on participation, have haunted the field of adult education since its inception. It appears that online learning is yet another manifestation of this worrisome social issue at the heart of our adult education practice.