Gibson: life, work, and cultural legacy

¶ … Gibson see as some of the unanswered questions related to distance education?

Gibson wonders how distance education can become part of what the author proposes as emancipatory pedagogy: education for total liberation. One of the main unanswered questions related to distance education is how it is actually increasing access to learning opportunities. If distance education is increasing access -- which is questionable -- then why aren't more universities actually participating in the distance learning revolution? Gibson claims that Northeastern schools and smaller universities are developing the fewest distance learning programs. Funding may be part of the reason why distance learning is not more ubiquitous. Distance learning is one of the only ways to make education truly universal, and a true force for positive change. Corporations, the military, and government are digitizing their training courses. Distance learning eliminates geographic bias, class bias, and a number of other impediments to an emancipatory pedagogy.

Gibson also brings up the Raising Responsible Teens program at the University of Wisconsin extension. The Raising Responsible Teens program uses technology not just as a pedagogical tool for traditional classroom environments but also as a medium for broader social change. For example, the program allows at-risk youth to discuss controversial issues in an open but anonymous forum to foster dialogue between parents and teens, between policy officials and the youth they serve, and also for research. Gibson asks how more programs can serve whole communities by incorporating the principles and technologies used in distance learning to more progressive settings.

The author critiques attempts to transfer traditional models of pedagogy into a distance learning setting. For instance, the "talking head" in a teleconference or "hairy arm" of an impersonal lecturer are unlikely to evoke any substantive change in students or the educational system as a whole. Distance learning content providers and course designers need to develop new modes of delivery. Educators need new models of teaching to create meaningful distance learning scenarios. The delivery of the material is the key to creating quality content, one based on an emancipatory pedagogy.

Who is in control of content remains the most basic problem of education. Gibson claims that education is a for-profit endeavor. Run like businesses, institutions of higher learning want the most cost-effective way of creating distance education programs. The best graphic artists or content providers do not design distance education courses. The cheapest team possible designs them. Moreover, the opinions and voices expressed in distance learning courses are not from as diverse a population as would be expected given the presumably diverse student body. Course content is developed by people in positions of power, possibly squeezing out minority voices. Gibson asks how distance learning course developers can create more egalitarian material, especially given the large proportion of female students enrolled in distance education courses and degree programs. Issues related to race, class, gender, and power are the most salient ones in the study of distance education, notes Gibson.