1

Charissa Asbury
OMDE 601 - Section 9040
2/19/2010
To what extent does distance education expect students to be independent and to what
extent does it promote students' independence?

Holmberg (2005) in a work entitled The Evolution, Principles and Practices of

Distance Education observes, "Distance Education has usually been regarded as a type of

study requiring a certain amount of maturity and independence on the part of the

students. Many Distance educators have, on the other hand, claimed that it promotes

independence" (p.20). Under the construct of distance education as defined by Keegan

(1990 and 1998) and as referenced in Holmberg (2005), both of these claims hold true.

Distance education must both require and inspire the independence of the student.

Keegan (1990) defines five main characteristics of distance education. Each

characteristic has implications in regard to the independence of the distance education

student. The first characterization marks the separation of teacher and student. The

responsibility for learning is placed on the student who must be independent, self-

motivated, and able to seize control of his or her education. In contrast, as observed by

Peters (2001), this separation allows for a course of study that is restricted neither by

time nor location and "FORCES" the student to take control of their learning thereby

promoting independence (p.84).

The second characterization of distance education is the “influence of an

educational organization” (Keegan, 1990). The institution is responsible for adopting

the pedagogy of the distance education program. Under the pedagogy explained by

Holmberg (2005), the role of the organization is to develop and design courses
 2

specifically for the independent learner while providing student services that facilitate

this independence (p.81). The educational organization thus plays a dual role in

ensuring the autonomy of the student.

The third characterization of distance education is “the use of technical media to

unite teacher and learner and carry the content of the course” (Keegan, 1990). Moore

and Kearsely (2005) and Holmberg (2005) both present conceptual models of distance

education that use a systems approach in which the choice of media is based primarily

on the needs of the course under design. Technologies can only be chosen when the

purpose of the media is defined. Nevertheless, this process allows for the selection of

technologies that are likely to motivate students (Moore & Kearsely, 2005, p.93). This

motivation should help sustain independence in the learning process.

The fourth characterization of distance education is “the provision of two way

communication” (Keegan, 1990). The tutor model presented in Holmberg (2005) is a

striking feature of the distance education experience where an empathetic relationship

between tutor and student can “promote students’ motivation to learn” (p.121). Based on

the Cambridge University teaching model in which the student is encouraged to become

a creative and independent thinker, the tutor fully engages in a relationship with the

student and guides the student throughout the learning process. (Beck, 2007; Holmberg,

2005). As phrased by Moore and Kearsley (2005), the tutor-student relationship is

marked by a “respect for students learning independently and on their own

responsibility” (p.26).

Keegan’s final characteristic of distance education is “the quasi-permanent

absence of the learning group throughout the length of the learning process so that
 3

people are taught as individuals” (Keegan, 1990). He later extends his focus to include

the collaborative effort made possible by technological innovations (Holmberg, 2005).

In both cases, the lack of a formal study group provides a flexibility that both requires

and encourages the student to approach their studies independently

In conclusion, each of Keegan’s five characteristics of distance education sheds

light on the nature of student independence in the practice of distance education. A

picture emerges of an individual who must be self-motivated, independent, and willing

to actively engage in the learning process. The student is then fostered in an

environment that both respects and encourages this independence. By Keegan’s

definition, distance education must take on two functions. It must require that the

student be independent while it must promote this independence in turn.

References:

Bates, A.W., & Poole, G. (2003). Effective teaching with technology in higher education:
Foundations for success. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Beck, Robert J. (2007) The Pedagogy of the Oxford Tutorial: Lawrence University
Workshop on Tutorial Education Assessment March 31-April 1, 2007. Lawrence
University. Retrieved: February 15, 2009, from
fhttp://individualizedlearning.org/conference/tutorials/2007/rbeck.shtml

Holmberg, B. (2005). The evolution, principles and practices of distance education

(Volume 11). Oldenburg: Bibliotheks- und Informationssystem der Universität
Oldenburg.

Keegan, D. (1990). Foundations of distance education. London and New York:

Routledge.

Keegan, D. (1998). The two modes of distance education. Open Learning 13(3), 43-46.

Moore, M. G., & Kearsley, G. (2005). Distance education: A systems view (2nd ed.).
Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
 4

Peters, O. (2001). Learning and teaching in distance education: Analyses and

interpretations from an international perspective (2nd ed.). London: Kogan Page.