US Policy on Digital Learning - Research Paper Example

US Policy on Digital Learning When Internet usage exploded into the social arena in the early 1990s, the latest technology was almost immediately integrated into the education platform. Schools were extremely enthusiastic to integrate technology in all areas of teaching, learning and overall school interaction. However, numerous educators considered technology as a hindrance to formal education. This was in spite of the outstanding impacts of the Internet in demonstrating the advancement of student knowledge. The US government, for instance, ensures the adoption of effectual digital learning policies to give leeway for the comprehensive adoption of digital learning into the education mainframe (Best & Dunlap, 2012). The intention of this exploration is to scrutinize the current US policy on digital learning, discussing pertinent components such as the digital learning ecosystem. The paper will provide viable alternatives for adoption in the policy frameworks. The thesis of this research is digital learning policies profoundly impact digital learning, which is highly advantageous in the progress of contemporary education systems. Digital Learning Ecosystem Digital ecosystem describes varied concepts concerning the field of Information Technology (IT), e-learning, as well as Information and Communications Technology (ICT). In the field of IT, digital ecosystem refers to an accessible networking infrastructure found on the Internet. Institutions continually adopt digital ecosystem services or solutions that enable them to use all available e-business solutions to enhance their operations. In contrast, when used in ICT, digital ecosystems establish viable business ecosystems (Jonassen & Land, 2000). However, in e-learning, which is the focus of this study, digital ecosystem or digital learning ecosystem is considered the ecological models of teaching and learning, appreciating infrastructure available for e-learning and implementing existing e-learning tools (Frielick, 2004). Weigel (2001) posits that digital learning ecosystems aid the design of innovative learning tools. Conventional, digital learning ecosystems, allow education stakeholders to appreciate the evolution of digital learning users, tools, services and policies. This is a noteworthy advantage of digital learning ecosystems, which was unavailable in traditional, virtual learning environments. Education stakeholders make use of the ecological approach and define the intricate interactions between students and instructors, students and interfaces, students and students and students and content. These relationships exemplify the elements existing in digital learning ecosystem and shape students’ learning outcomes. The examination of the aforementioned interactions is a vital part of creating in-depth appreciation of digital learning environments. This understanding helps in the standardization as well as promotion of effective digital learning practices. Digital learning ecosystem also encompass learning infrastructure such as software applications that support and manage digital learning. Since the 1990s, Learning Management Systems (LMS) were the conventional software applications used for managing and supporting digital learning. However, following the advent of the social media, education stakeholders continually challenge the place of LMS in digital learning ecosystem (Quellmalz & Kozma, 2003). These stakeholders appreciate and seem to prefer the use of personal and open digital learning tools, for instance blogs, social networking sites and wikis. In essence, the perspective of digital learning ecosystems considers all learning-related services and tools as species existing within a digital ecosystem – according to emerging points of view, the “species” inherent to digital learning ecosystems as living and continually evolving in symbiosis with different user communities such as developers, facilitators, learners and administrators. US Policy on Digital Learning The US Foundation for Excellence in Education implements digital learning policies established by the US Digital Learning Council. In 2010, the council defined the intricate elements of effective digital learning. These elements define the US digital learning policy (Uden, Wangsa, & Damiani, 2007). 1. Student Access The digital learning policy holds that all students are essentially digital learners and all students have a civil right to superior quality education. In the modern age, quality education must encompass digital learning. Therefore, the states should ensure student access to superior digital learning content and courses (Watson & Watson, 2007). The policy also holds the states accountable for the provision of access to superior digital learning content to K-12 students at all times during their academic careers. 2. Barriers to Access High quality digital learning should be accessible by all students since digital learning gives leeway to high quality education. Technology continually creates easy access to superior quality education; therefore, policies that create virtual barriers must come down. Consequently, neither arbitrary enrollment restrictions, nor budget should limit students’ access to digital learning (Uden, Wangsa, & Damiani, 2007). 3. Personalized Learning This element posits that students can utilize digital learning to adapt their education thereby providing individualized educational experiences. In the modern world, learning should not commence when students enter classrooms since students can access digital learning whenever or wherever they are figuratively and physically (Web-based Education Commission, 2000). 4. Advancement Students’ progress should center on their established competencies rather than traditional elements such as minimal achievement, attendance and age (Uden, Wangsa, & Damiani, 2007). Digital learning provides an opportunity for students to learn at their pace depending on their material mastery, and overall competency. 5. Quality Content Digital learning provides high quality courses and content since the dynamic character of digital content as well as its varied uses demands innovative approaches to guarantee quality content. 6. Quality Instruction The US policy on digital learning requires that digital instruction attains high quality by providing leeway for multi-location instruction. Digital learning expunges physical barriers to relations between eager students and effective instructors (Garrison & Anderson, 2003). 7. Quality Choices Policymakers desire all students to have access to diverse quality digital learning providers as states offer expeditious endorsements for digital learning providers (Uden, Wangsa, & Damiani, 2007). The digital age offers innovative and evolving learning systems allowing the location of providers in varied locations. 8. Assessment and Accountability The digital learning policy holds that student learning is the primary metric for assessment of quality instruction and content. Digital assessment is effective as computerized scoring saves costs and creates effective tests beyond conventional multiple choices. 9. Funding Sufficient funding of digital learning establishes incentives for innovation, options and performance. Therefore, paying for success creates success since funding allows education customization to students’ needs. 10. Infrastructure In essence, viable infrastructure reinforces, digital learning as digital learning supports educators in the identification and fulfillment of student needs (Uden, Wangsa, & Damiani, 2007). This is through the provision of real-time student performance information, as well as enhanced access to resources for individualized instruction. Policy Summary Student Access All students are inherently digital learners. All students have a civil right to superior quality education. Barriers to Access High quality digital learning must be universally accessible to all students since it gives leeway to high quality education. Personalized Learning Students can utilize digital learning to adapt their education. This will provide individualized educational experiences. Advancement Digital learning provides opportunities for students to learn at their pace conditional on their material mastery, and overall competency. Quality Content The digital age offers innovative and evolving learning systems. These allow the location of providers in varied locations. Quality Instruction Digital learning obliterates physical barriers to relations between eager students and effective instructors. Quality Choices The digital age offers innovative and evolving learning systems, which allow the location of providers in assorted areas. Assessment and Accountability The primary metric for assessment of both quality instruction and content is student learning. Funding Sufficient funding of digital learning provides incentives for innovation, options and performance. Infrastructure Viable infrastructure reinforces, digital learning as digital learning supports educators in the identification and fulfillment of student needs. The Case of Kentucky Kentucky is a notable leader in digital learning through the establishment of the Transforming Education task force and a committee on innovative pathways to graduation. Kentucky’s digital learning was informed by the Digital Learning Now report issued by the US Digital Learning Council. Kentucky’s Department of Education (KDE) transitioned from the direct provision of online courses by Kentucky Virtual High School (KVHS) to the provision of information and backing to schools and families to use in evaluation learning options available via diverse statewide digital learning providers (Normak, Pata, & Kaipainen, 2012). KDE offers support and guidance for best practices to assist families and schools in decision making concerning online courses and digital content. This has led to improved e-learning opportunities for all students in Kentucky. The KDE continually charters a fresh path for digital learning remaining committed to the improvement of education and excellence created by KVHS. KDE assists Kentucky districts and schools to ascertain their students have access to information on diverse digital learning options throughout school years. The KDE implemented international standards for online courses, programs and instructors established by the International Association of K-12 Online Learning (iNACOL). These standards are research-based and point toward best practice standards for online courses and providers. Examples of Online Learning Enterprises North Carolina-based Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools encompass 178 schools with approximately 133,000 students. The schools established online learning, as well as blended learning opportunities to enhance career and college readiness, on-time graduation and access to online courses (Hill & Roza, 2010). Such blended learning entailed students taking online classes with certified online teachers. These enabled students earn college credits and increase access to classes for remediation and content enrichment. Students in the schools are taught by subject-area teachers via the North Carolina Virtual Public School (NCVPS). Blended learning allows schools to exemplify the role of instructors in recognizing students’ needs and supporting students as they pursue online courses. Another notable example is the Laptop Program in the rural, low-income district in western Texas. The program shifts instructional approaches while also expanding online learning opportunities for students in low socioeconomic conditions. The closest community college is approximately 70 miles away, so Floydada ISD’s initiative to establish the Technology Immersion Pilot initiative was welcomed. The initiative allowed middle schools students and instructors to receive laptops to enable digital learning (Christensen, Horn, & Johnson, 2008). The program later expanded to encompass elementary and high school students, thereby allowing ongoing, sustainable, and job-embedded digital learning. This learning is the hub of transformational teaching and learning since it brought shifts in instructional approaches and digital courses and content, which allows in-depth appreciation of students’ needs. Floydada-based students also enjoy other experiences such as access to new opportunities to communicate digitally with state-wide experts. They are also able to take online college courses. The digital learning enterprise allowed students to appreciate career and school opportunities outside the district and state and see beyond the Floydada school district. Future Educational Landscapes and Portfolios The future landscape of education is quite bright, particularly considering the ongoing technological innovations, which will have a profound effect on education. In the future, students currently eligible for public school education will also be eligible for publicly financed digital learning. Therefore, the establishment of eligibility criteria, which creates unnecessary delays, will cease to exist. Notable increases in public school enrollment will emanate from low cost virtual courses, as well as overall savings attained by early graduation. In future, access restrictions based on geographical positions, for instance student locations will cease as digital learning will occur anywhere and at any time. Digital learning will artificially reduce class size thereby attaining best practice teacher-student ratios. The future educational landscape will also require students to take quality college online courses to prepare students to excel in life after graduation within the digital era. An extended offering of digital content will expand options and guarantee that students attain pertinent knowledge and skills from digital learning experience. Digital learning will ultimately extend school years and link students with community resources with little additional cost. Moreover, flexible scheduling will enable students to exploit their pinnacle learning times to acquire lesson materials comprehensively. States will also offer digital content throughout the year while also limiting instructional support to short periods. Digital learning provides opportunities for students to learn at their individual tempo and advance to high levels upon material mastery and competency. In essence, education will be student-centered rather than school-centered (US Department of Education, 2011). However, digital content will ally state academic standards and educational core standards for learning material. However, future educational landscapes will complement print content and establish greater freedom of interactive engagement, which will ultimately enhance student achievement and retention. Professional preparation programs will instruct administrators and teachers on effective ways to engage students, manage learning atmospheres, teach online courses and personalize learning. History shows that inputs, for instance, teacher certification, textbook reviews and programmatic budgets do not ascertain quality education but often suppress innovation and devalue quality. In the future, policymakers should not create checklists of inputs but rather focus on creating accountability frameworks based on outcomes. Recommendations It is pertinent that education stakeholders establish formidable strategies to ensure the attainment of extraordinary outcomes from digital learning (Weigel, 2001). In a time of extra economic burden, states should enhance their efforts in public education. Such transformational efforts should encompass rigorous standards of learning, summative and formative assessments, success in postsecondary education and public-private partnerships to enhance digital education competitive edge. IT and ICT corporations should enhance their support to provide innovation and information on digital learning to inform educators on ways to reduce hurdles to digital access. In addition, states should allow all students to take either full or part-time online classes depending on students’ needs and not limit the quantity of credits accessible online (Oblinger, 2005). States should also guarantee high-speed Internet access for all schools and students. They should also ensure local and state data systems are up-to-date to inform changes in management decisions and policy establishment. Education stakeholders should take advantage of mobile learning. The explosion of mobile phones, as well as other access devices, exemplifies opportunities for mobile learning. Conclusions Digital learning enables education providers to appreciate students’ needs and meet them in customized manners regardless of the students’ location. This paper has examined the US policy on digital learning providing a succinct description of the elements inherent in the policy. This policy essentially requires education providers to offer highly effective digital education to students in all regions of the US. Elements inherent in the US policy on digital learning include providing student access to digital learning tools while also dealing with barriers that infringe such access. Other elements of the US policy on digital learning include the provision of personalized learning, constant advancement, ensuring superior quality of learning content, quality instruction, quality choices, assessment and accountability, funding and infrastructure. Presently, several school districts within the US offer digital learning services to students of different ages (Christensen, Horn, & Johnson, 2008). A notable success story is the Kentucky case that exemplifies the importance of establishing viable parameters to guarantee digital learning effectiveness. References Best, J., & Dunlap, A. (2012). Beyond access: Effective digital learning for a globalized world. Denver: Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning. Christensen, C. M., Horn, M. B. & Johnson, C. W. (2008). Disrupting class: How disrupting innovation will change the way the world learns. New York: McGraw-Hill. Frielick, S. (2004). The zone of academic development: an ecological approach to learning and teaching in higher education. Johannesburg: University of the Witwatersrand. Garrison, D. R. & Anderson, T. (2003). E-Learning in the 21st century: A framework for research and practice. London: RoutledgeFalmer. Hill, P., & Roza, M. (2010). Curing Baumol’s disease: In search of productivity gains in K–12 schooling. Washington: Center on Reinventing Public Education. Jonassen, D. H., & Land, S. M. (eds.) (2000). Theoretical foundations of learning environments theory into practice. New York: Routledge. Normak, P., Pata, K., & Kaipainen, M. (2012). An ecological approach to learning dynamics. Educational Technology and Society, 15(3), 262-274. Oblinger, J. G. (2005). Educating the Net Generation. Washington: Educause. Quellmalz, E., & Kozma, R. (2003). Implications of technology for learning and assessment. Assessment in Education, 10, 389-407. Uden, L., Wangsa, I.T. & Damiani, E. (2007). The future of E-learning: E-learning ecosystem. Cairns: International Conference on Digital Ecosystems and Technologies. US Department of Education. (2011). Effects of technology on classrooms and students. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/pubs/EdReformStudies/EdTech/effectsstudents.html Watson, W. R., & Watson, S. L. (2007). An Argument for clarity: What are Learning Management Systems, what are they not, and what should they become. TechTrends, 51(2). Web-based Education Commission. (2000). The Power of the Internet for Learning: Moving from Promise to Practice. Washington: U.S. Department of Education. Weigel, V. B. (2001). Deep learning for a digital age: Technology's untapped potential to enrich higher education. San Francisco: Jossey Bass Wiley. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: learning, meaning, and identity. New York: Cambridge University Press. Read More