Microsoft Word - 07final_intro.doc


Journal of Distance Learning, Vol 11, No 1, 2007 © Distance Education Association of New Zealand 
 

1 

Introduction 
 

 
BILL ANDERSON, MARY SIMPSON 

MASSEY UNIVERSITY 
PALMERSTON NORTH, NEW ZEALAND 

 
Distance education has always had 
change as a central facet of its existence. 
In the past it has brought change to      
the lives of students who found they 
could access education while being 
remote from institutions of formal 
learning. It has brought change to the 
educative routines of many teachers who 
have found the process of course design 
has caused them to re-examine long-held 
beliefs and practices. Institutions, too, 
have found that involvement in distance 
education provides opportunities to 
reconsider matters such as student 
support, and other pedagogic, technical, 
and organisational practices necessary   
to cater for the needs of distance (in   
time or space) students. At a national 
level, policy makers are struggling          
to understand the complexity of the 
phenomenon, as learning at a distance     
is increasingly part of the experience      
of all students, on or off campus. Articles 
in this issue reflect and discuss some of 
these changes. 
 
Bill Rosenberg, the author of the first 
article, originally presented his ideas at 
the 2006 DEANZ conference and set     
the scene for a stimulating discussion. 
His premise is that e-learning has yet to 
take off in the New Zealand tertiary 
sector and that further staff professional 
development is a key to assisting that 
takeoff. The emphasis on professional 
development is one that has struck a 
chord within the Ministry of Education. 
Two of the three projects in Round   

Three of the Tertiary e-Learning Research 
Fund (TeLRF) focus on “articulation of a 
baseline for professional capability, and 
models to assist in achieving this  
baseline capability in TEOs” (Ministry of 
Education, 2007). But what do we 
currently know about the extent of 
uptake of e-learning in the tertiary system 
in New Zealand? 
 
The Ministry of Education collects data 
about the mode of Internet study of 
extramural and internal students at the 
tertiary level. The data collected show 
both the number and the equivalent full-
time (EFT) count of students engaged     
in the following forms of Internet-    
based study: 
 

No access: Where no part of the 
paper or course is accessible online. 
 
Web-supported: Where a paper    
or course provides students with 
access to limited online materials 
and resources. 
 
Web-enhanced: Where a paper or 
course expects students to access 
online materials and resources. 
 
Web-based: Where a paper or 
course requires students to access 
the accompanying online materials 
and resources. 

 
We have some concern about these 
categories, arguing elsewhere against the 



 

Journal of Distance Learning, Vol 11, No 1, 2007 © Distance Education Association of New Zealand 
 

2 

 

current three Web categories and for a set 
of three that would: amalgamate Web-
supported and Web-enhanced as the first 
category; leave Web-based as the second 
category; and include a new category that 
is “fully online.” However, the data we 
have relate to the Ministry categories. We 
report here 2005 EFTs-based data for    
the tertiary sector for enrolments in all 
formal courses above Certificate level, of 
a week or longer duration. What do they 
tell us? 
 
Just over 48 percent of all EFTs are in  
“no access” courses. Only 2.6 percent of 
all EFTs are in “Web-based” courses. In 
other words, students representing only 
2.6 percent of the tertiary study EFTs   
are required to access the Web for their 
courses. Of the total of just over 178,000 
EFTs in formal, Diploma-level and above 
courses longer than a week, extramural 
enrolments contributed over 13,600 EFTs. 
The percentage of extramural EFTs in “no 
access” courses was 61.5; the percentage 
in “Web-based” courses was 7.4. Using 
Rosenberg’s metaphor, we might ask, 
“Do these figures constitute taxiing, 
takeoff, or flight?” 
 
At a system level these figures give us 
some idea of the impact of policy 
decisions and strategy implementation.  
It is right to expect to see evidence          
of e-learning development given the 
investment in the projects of the              
e-Learning Collaborative Development 
Fund and the Tertiary e-Learning 
Research Fund. Whether the basis of this 
evidence is comparison with previous 
years or comparison with overseas 
experience, the figures we present are 
interesting but, from another perspective, 
not sufficient. There is another aspect that 
interests us as well. 
 

Metaphors are useful in helping to 
convey an image, but single metaphor 
discussions have their limitations.    
When it comes to answering the question 
we pose above, we want to avoid          
the thought, associated with a flight 
metaphor, that “What goes up, must … .” 
Instead we want to think in terms of     
the question, “What is the right mix of 
technologies for the context in which the 
teaching and learning is occurring?” 
What mix of Web content and inter-
action, print content and interaction,     
m-content and interaction, etc., is most 
advantageous for learning? What is right 
in the study of business communication 
may not be right for the study of 
chemistry. What is right for first-year 
tertiary students may not be right          
for those completing a postgraduate 
qualification. This question also makes us 
aware that what is right for today       
may not be right in five years’ time. In 
asking this question we probe into        
the data, cutting beneath the overview 
that the broad statistics provide,     
cutting to decisions about e-learning 
implementation for particular groups of 
students studying in particular fields       
at the level of institutions and, possibly, 
individual teachers or teams of teachers. 
 
To some extent we can see the decisions 
about e-learning implementation when 
we look at the different levels of 
engagement with e-learning that are 
indicated within the broad categories of 
the New Zealand Standard Classification 
of Education. Fewer than 30 percent of  
all EFTs in the natural and physical 
sciences (total EFTs just over 18,000) are 
in “no access” courses in comparison 
with over 70 percent in the creative arts 
(total EFTs just over 16,000). Lowest and 
highest percentages for “Web-based” 
courses are given by the 0.1 percent of   
all EFTs in the category of engineering 



 

Journal of Distance Learning, Vol 11, No 1, 2007 © Distance Education Association of New Zealand 
 

3 

 

and related technologies (total EFTs 
nearly 8,800) and the 9.9 percent in the 
category of education (total EFTs over 
16,800). Yet education has the fourth-
highest “no access” figure, at 64.6 
percent. The pattern of engagement with 
e-learning is not clear-cut. 
 
We have two quite distinct yet related 
questions here. In a broad sense, at the 
system level it is important to know    
that the investment in e-learning is 
worthwhile; that strategies for e-learning 
are driving change; that implementation 
is occurring and having an impact on   
the learning of students. At an 
institutional level there is a need to 
understand engagement with e-learning 
and the reasons for that engagement. The 
tactics of institutions and their staff      
are played out within the strategic 
environment of national policy. An 
appreciation of both strategies and tactics 
will be important to our understanding  
of how to gain the greatest benefit from      
e-learning. 
 
Gaining the greatest benefit from            
e-learning also means recognising how   
e-learning supports learning, teaching, 
and the activities that surround         
those core educational actions. Because  
e-learning supports the creation of 
collaborative, interactive, media-rich, 
personalised learning environments, it 
has a valuable role. But as educators we 
must understand the place of e-learning 
resources, practices, and processes 
alongside those associated with the       
use of other technologies and make      
choices about what works best in 
educational terms. 
 
Our remaining two articles both report 
on changes at different levels. The  
second article comes from Uganda, via    
a New Zealand connection. It reports    

on the outcome of a distance education 
training programme designed to address 
the knowledge and skill needs of staff 
required to deliver distance teacher 
training programmes throughout the 
country. While the technological context 
is very different from that faced by    
New Zealand educators, the message is 
the same. Teaching at a distance requires 
a particular set of knowledge and skills. 
Some aspects of that set are specific        
to particular technologies, but in large 
measure they are not. The national          
e-Learning Guidelines (see http://elg. 
massey.ac.nz/) demonstrate this fact.  
 
Our final article comes from Mavis Haigh 
and Margaret Turnbull, who are writing 
about their first experience teaching a 
course involving some element of online 
engagement. They report on feedback 
from their students, the impact that 
feedback has had, and the ways they 
have questioned their initial approach    
to teaching online. They look at how   
they come to question their pedagogical 
approach without losing sight of the 
principles driving their teaching. Overall, 
we have returned to Bill Rosenberg’s 
argument. Professional development is 
central to the task of enlarging the pool  
of people who are capable distance 
educators. Bringing about changes in 
professional practice is key to enhancing 
learning for our students. 
 
REFERENCES 
 
Ministry of Education (2007). Tertiary 
(e)learning research fund. Retrieved               
May 7, 2007, from http://cms.steo.govt.nz/ 
eLearning/Projects/Tertiary+eLearning+ 
Research+Fund.htm