A. Introduction

From the beginning of the electronic communications era, there has been talk about how the world is shrinking. Over a decade ago, Francis Cairncross argued that with the introduction of the internet and new information and communications technologies, distance had become increasingly irrelevant (1997). The death of distance, she claimed, will become the single most important economic force shaping our global society in the new century.

Our question here: how has this affected Distance Education in the United States? In a very real sense, Distance Education exists because of distance; it was founded to overcome distance, to reach students who, because of distance, could not participate in more traditional instructional settings. Will the "death of distance" cause the "death" of Distance Education?

This paper will argue that: (a) Distance Education as a process and discipline of study is on the wane in US markets; (b) this is due primarily to the use of online technologies and how that has inaugurated a new era of convergence in US higher education institutions; and (3) we need a new discipline of study--Online Teaching and Learning--in our graduate schools of education, curriculum and instruction, and/or instructional technology to support these changes in higher education.

B. From Death of Distance To Convergence

With its roots in 19th century correspondence schools, Distance Education (DE) in the United States has had a long and varied history. Certainly the technologies have evolved over the years. Up until the dawn of the internet, the dominant technologies for distance learning were mail, radio, television, telephone, and/or video tape. But in the US, the type of DE organization has been even more varied than the technology. Distance learning has been practiced by state systems, private colleges, trade schools, community colleges, for-profit enterprises, for-profit colleges, and correspondence schools, as well as by embedded departments in larger institutions. But despite the variances in media and despite the many differences in educational types, "distance" was the key defining term for the DE organization. The point was to reach students at a distance who did not have access to a local --or appropriate-- institution of higher learning. Throughout all that time (pre-internet), students and faculty did not, indeed could not, share the same learning spaces, so DE pedagogies were primarily concerned with matters of delivery, and DE theories were primarily concerned with issues of distance and the independent learner (see Holmberg, 2001; and especially Moore, 1994).

But the explosion in the 1990s of new information and communication technologies changed all that. Throughout the United States, DE organizations, as well as traditional campus-based institutions, began using Web technologies to create virtual learning spaces. Almost over night, it became possible to create instruction where it mattered little whether the student was in the next room, the next town, or the next time zone. Students and faculty could come to the same "place" and interact in the same learning environment, regardless of geographical distance.

Whereas before, technology for distance learning had been primarily a choice of communication tools for reaching the independent learner, it suddenly became possible to use those tools to create learning spaces to support the social dimension of learning. That changed everything.

A typical response from many in the traditional distance education community was to view the use of virtual learning spaces as just another technology for instructional delivery. Some viewed it as a new stage or new era of distance education (Moore and Kearsley, 2005). Peters (2002) was one of the few distance education theorists who not only examined the pedagogical implications of virtual learning spaces, but also saw that this new technology was bringing in a new era in education. He noted that the change from real learning spaces to virtual learning spaces had caused a "breach," and that there had "never been a breach of this size in the history of teaching and learning, not even after the discovery and use of writing, printing or the audio-visual media radio, film and television" (p. 105). While Peters himself, by his own admission, is rooted in the culture of the industrial age, his analysis is a remarkable blend of the old (pre-digital) point of view and the new (digital). On the one hand, he argues that when we lose spatial and temporal contexts, we lose the authentic; and since people, objects, and situations become copies, "learning in virtual space will never be able to replace completely teaching in real spaces "(p. 104). On the other hand, he recognizes that:

People in the coming information era will differ from those in the industrial era in the same way that the later differed from those in the agricultural era. Paradigm changes, changes in values and completely new experiences will bring about new insights, attitudes, and habits. Essential activities will in any case make place increasingly in virtual space, including learning in higher and continuing education. Such people will probably regard those losses in a manner different to ours. (p.104)

Significantly, online classes were occurring not just in institutions that had previously (pre-internet) offered distance learning; online classes were occurring throughout US higher education. In 1993, almost no one was participating in online learning, but by 2002, 97% of all US public higher education institutions were offering at least one online class (Allen & Seaman, 2003, p. 2), and by the fall of 2006, nearly 3.5 million students were taking at least one online class each semester (Allen & Seaman, 2007, p. 1). Current yearly online enrollments in the US can only be guessed at, but in 2008-2009, it has to be in excess of ten million. Obviously, not all those classes are completely without an F2F component. But the point is: they are all using networked communities and virtual learning spaces to produce online instruction.

This online explosion has not been restricted to class enrollments; the use of online technologies has contributed to, if not redefined, how we design classes, develop classes, deliver classes, teach classes, communicate with students, support students, perform research, market ourselves, train ourselves, and how we perform the administrative processes that support our educational institutions. Indeed, almost every pedagogical and administrative function of the university one can think of has been--or is being--altered or redefined by online processes (see Trow, 1997, and Kvavik, et al., 2002 for more detailed discussion on the effect of information technology in higher education).

The point here is that it makes little sense to continue dividing pedagogies, processes, or institutions into ways institutions have identified themselves in the past (campus-based, distance, land-grant, liberal arts, private, public, single-mode, dual-mode, mixed mode, etc.). While certainly there are differences among our many types of educational organizations, this new era of online is taking higher education as a whole to a new landscape where previous organizational differences are being subsumed by increasing similarities in how classes are designed, taught, administered, and supported. Even if we do not see it clearly yet, and even if many of us cling to older systems, older theories, and older processes, we have entered a new era of digital/online convergence.

C. Convergence

The concept of convergence in higher education is nothing new. Nearly ten years ago, Tait and Mills (1999) noted that because of the advent of new information and communication technologies, distance education institutions and conventional education institutions were beginning to converge in terms of their pedagogical and administrative processes.  More recently, Otte and Banke (2006) argued that online learning has reached the core of the educational enterprise to such an extent that the dichotomies between distance learning institutions and campus based institutions have dissolved and the American academy has entered into a new paradigm of convergence. Hall (1995) used the term “convergence” in a similar, but slightly expanded way. In his seminal article, “The revolution in electronic technology and the modern university: The convergence of means,” he demonstrates that historically, because resources had been scarce, the primary organizing concept of the traditional university was convocation; but, in recent years, primarily because of the application of new technologies, scarcity has been replaced by multiplicity, exclusivity has given way to inclusiveness, and the organizing concept of the American academy has evolved from convocation to convergence. 

"Convergence" will be used in this paper to refer to how US institutions of higher learning of all types (campus-based, single-mode, dual-mode, online, community college, private, for-profit, land-grant) are, despite their many organizational and historical differences, becoming increasingly similar not only in how they use online technologies to design, teach, administer, and support instruction, but also in how they view the central organizing concept of higher education in the United States. This new era of convergence has three primary dynamics: (1) technological, (2) pedagogical, and (3) philosophical.

1. Technological: Growth of Internet and Digital Technologies. The term often used is "information and communication technologies" (ICTs), which, broadly defined, includes not just internet and digital technologies, but telephone, radio, television, video, and broadcast satellite technologies as well. Without question, all of these technologies have contributed to our new landscape, but the argument here is that it has been the recent explosion of the internet and digital technologies that has done the most to create our new era of convergence.

Obviously, "Internet and Digital Technologies" is a huge category that, in addition to the internet and the development of the so-called information age, includes computers, software, email, databases, collaborative networking, digital media, and multimedia applications. In terms of administrative processes, the increasing use of these technologies has allowed higher education institutions to implement portals, perform data integration, and generally provide greater access to information and data transfer. In terms of instruction, the phenomenon of information overload has naturally redefined how we acquire, consume, and manage information. Our whole relationship with information has changed from how to acquire it to how to sift through it, and this has had, of course, significant implications in how information is taught. But our focus here will be on the one new key technology that, with the exception of the internet itself, has probably done more to create this new landscape of convergence than any other single technical innovation--the online learning platform.

For the purposes of this brief explanation, the term "Online Learning Platform" will be used to refer to any system of hardware and software that uses distributed networks to create a virtual environment designed for instruction. This includes systems that have been variously termed Learning Management Systems, Content Management Systems, or Virtual Learning Environments. Indeed, there were such systems available in the early nineties, such as Lotus Notes and Convene International, although they were used almost exclusively by traditional distance learning institutions. Throughout the nineties, however, a number of Online Learning Platforms were founded and developed, some by private companies (e.g. LearningSpace, Desire2Learn, and Real Networks, which became eCollege), others by Universities (Blackboard from Cornell, Prometheus from George Washington University, CourseTools from University of Michigan), although again, most early adopters in the US were colleges and universities that already had a history with distance learning, such as the University of Wisconsin System, The University of Texas system, Penn State, and University of Maryland University College (see Morgan, 2003, for more detailed examination of the OLP in higher education).

In the late nineties and early part of the new century, however, when Blackboard and WebCT began offering instructors free "trial" use of their software, the technology began pouring into campus-based universities. For a while, online learning platforms were made available to anyone who could create a username. This was, of course, a marketing strategy. And it worked. Whether the platform was used by individual Instructors, whole departments, or entire schools, Blackboard and WebCT began entering institutions of higher learning with exponential adoption rates. By the time the software companies began restricting free use and charging for their products, higher education was hooked (Young, 2002).

For some early adopters, the appeal was to experiment with distance learning. For others, the appeal was to enhance the classroom experience by providing additional tools for communication and collaboration. But for whatever the reason, within a very few years, almost every institution of higher learning in the United States had an online learning platform and, as a consequence, the technological foundation for offering "distance learning" (see Allen & Seaman 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007 for documentation of online use in US higher education). Due in large part to the marketing strategy of a few software companies, a majority of campus-based institutions quickly acquired the technology to offer distance learning classes.

Of course it wasn't just software marketing strategies that fueled the revolution to online teaching and learning. In the late nineties, change was in the air, and so too, arguably, was some general trepidation about the future. Perhaps tellingly, the year Blackboard started as a company, Peter Drucker made his infamous prediction that within 30 years, universities would be relics of the past (1997). He based his prediction on the assumption that traditional higher education institutions had too much institutional inertia to respond to new markets and that for-profit educational organizations, far more responsive to market trends, would eventually take away much of their business. Almost certainly, higher education was listening. It wasn't long before strategic plans began addressing "distance learning," and marketing departments began targeting new sets of customers. After all, they already had the technological means to expand their markets. As huge a roadblock as institutional inertia can be in US higher education, it wasn't enough to counter the instructional technologies already "in house."

Certainly, the technology of online instruction evolved in its first decade, with new features and new functionalities being added almost every year. For instructors, it became increasingly easier to put up courses, use ePortfolio assessment systems, and generally integrate instructional multimedia. For administrators, it became increasingly easier to integrate content management systems with student information systems, so that enrollments and class-assignments could be done automatically (Kvavik, et al., 2002).

2. Pedagogical: Influence of new learning theories. During the last four or five decades, researchers and educators have learned much about the human brain and the learning process that has seriously challenged the efficacy of what we might call the traditional practice of educational delivery: the lecture.

Bransford, Brown, Ann, Cocking, and Rodney (1999), for instance, have gathered and distilled much of the recent research in neuroscience, which, in broad summary, suggests that the brain is a pattern seeking devise that physically changes with learning (neuroplasticity) and builds new neural pathways based on past knowledge and social environment. The authors take key findings in neuroscience and connect them with specific approaches to learning. In sum, they advise teachers to: (a) work with student preconceptions and prior knowledge, (2) provide multiple examples of the same concept, and (3) help students to develop metacognitive skills, so that students can take control of their own learning.

Hergenhahn and Olson (2004) provide a fairly comprehensive overview of learning theory, presenting the key arguments and research in the words of the theorists themselves, which include Thorndike, Pavlov, Skinner, Vygotsky, Erickson, Guthrie, Estes, Piaget, Bandura, Bruner, and Hebb.

Gillani (2003) looks broadly at the field and divides the major learning theories into four basic categories:

1. Behavioral (e.g. Pavlov, Skinner, Thorndyke). This has been the dominant theory of education over the years and was extended from the classical conditioning studies of Pavlov and Skinner. Behavioral theory supports setting specific goals and sequencing instructional materials from simple to complex.
2. Cognitive (e.g. Piaget, Bruner, Johanssen, Tam). The research in this area has supported the constructivist movement in education, which suggests that students best learn when they are allowed to construct new knowledge from their experiences by assimilation (incorporating new knowledge into existing frameworks) and accommodation (reframing knowledge of the external world to fit new experiences). In constructivist approaches, teachers are viewed more as facilitators than classroom authorities. Constructivism supports recent movements in education such as active learning, discovery learning, and problem-based learning.
3. Social (e.g. Vygotsky). Social theories of learning begin with Vygotsky, who taught that learning originates and develops out of social and cultural interactions. Vygotsky emphasized the role of development in learning and insisted that we cannot understand the learning process by studying just the individual; we need also to examine the external, historical, and social world in which that individual develops.
4. Psychological (e.g. Erikson) The psychological category is more akin to the work of Bransford et al. (above) that considers recent discoveries in neuroscience and human biological development. Broadly speaking, psychological learning theories emphasize how memory is formed and offer more integrated thematic approaches to how students learn.

After all this, do instructors still use the lecture mode of delivery? Of course they do. In many of the more elite universities, and especially in those higher education institutions that have long stressed scholarship over teaching, the faculty member as classroom authority, fount of wisdom, and "deliverer" of instruction will likely live well into the next generation. But it can be predicted with some confidence that the lecture mode of teaching will increasingly diminish as the influence of the new learning theories continues to gather steam. And the notion that course content is something to be delivered by an instructor will be increasingly challenged by the very real fact that in the information age, content is everywhere. We need instructors for guidance and perspective. Not content.

In the field of instructional design, it is becoming increasingly accepted that students are better served if we design instruction based on their needs instead of based on the needs of instructors. Jonassen and Land (2000) demonstrate how learning theory can be used to create constructivist, student-centered learning environments. Weimer (2002) offers specific strategies for implementing learner-centered instruction in the college classroom. Bonk & Cunningham (1998) and Sanders (2001) take constructivist learner-centered approachs and offer practical strategies for implementing active learning, collaborative learning, and problem-based learning in online learning environments.

Howard Gardner did his own research (1983, 1996), challenged the basic assumption that we all learn roughly in the same way and suggested that humans have different "learning styles." In essence, he argues, all learners have "multiple intelligences," though not in the same proportion: (1) verbal-linguistic, (2) logical-mathematical, (3) spatial, (4) musical, (5) bodily-kinesthetic, (6) interpersonal, (7) intrapersonal, and (8) naturalist. While Gardner's research and metaphorical approach has had its detractors (Richardson, 1991; Klein, 1997; Stahl, 1999), few dispute the larger claim that there is a diversity in the way students learn.

And, as has been so often noticed (Bates, 2003, pp. 84-86), online technologies provide us with opportunities to present instruction in multiple channels, using multiple approaches to account for the diversity of our learners and their own learning styles.

One other dynamic that must be mentioned here: outcomes assessment. In the last decade, US higher education institutions have been under increasing pressure from U.S. regional accrediting organizations (Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools, New England Association of Schools and Colleges, North Central Association of Colleges and Schools, Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities, Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, and Western Association of Schools and Colleges) to implement outcomes assessment programs--to set goals, measure student learning, and gather evidence of student performance (CHEA, 2008). This push for standards-based, outcomes-focused accountability systems has not been without resistance (Field, 2006; Fendrich, 2007), but all over the country, institutions of higher learning are engaging in such initiatives, if for no other reason but to maintain accreditation. But the point here is that this increased focus on outcomes, accountability, and student performance has not only led to increasing use of student-centered learning pedagogies and performance-based assessment strategies, but also to increasing the use of technologies that can gather student data and display student performance (Hernon & Dugan, 2004).

Because of the influence of recent research in how students learn and because of the nationwide push for outcomes assessment, there is an increasing emphasis in higher education on student performance, standards-based outcomes, and student-centered learning pedagogies. Regardless of institution type, higher education institutions in the US are increasingly becoming the same in terms of their online capabilities, technical infrastructures, assessment strategies, and student-centered pedagogies.

3. Philosophical: Convergence as organizing concept. We've discussed convergence as it is manifested technologically and pedagogically. But there is also a broad conceptual dynamic to convergence that deals with convergence as an organizing concept of the university.

James Hall, in his seminal article, "The revolution in electronic technology and the modern university: The convergence of means" (1995), argues that the conceptual structure of the traditional university has been going through a fundamental change in the past few decades, and is about to change even more radically. For years, Hall points out, the organizing concept of the traditional university was essentially convocation (generation after generation, gathering together, cloistered, guarding the gates, convening in a single place and using/providing resources for a select few). For generations, scarcity was the controlling condition, both for resources and for those who could take advantage of them. Too often, this dynamic spawned a critical (but false) qualitative measure of a university's excellence--how few of its student applicants could actually become matriculates. In recent years, however, for political, practical, and technological reasons, this organizing concept has evolved. Over the last half of the 20th century, the growth of the large land grant universities, the implementation of the GI Bill after WWII, the growth of the community colleges, along with some distance education initiatives have all helped to undercut that organizing concept (though still present in many of our so-called prestigious universities). Hall points out that technology is redefining the university itself--not only distance education, but all of learning. Hall's central argument is that through applications of technology, the traditional university of convocation is about to become the university of convergence.

For Hall, convergence is the dynamic in which scarcity has been replaced by access and multiplicity, where exclusivity has given way to inclusiveness. When the "tyranny of the classroom hour" finally fades away, and when classroom instruction is redefined as student learning, then the transforming possibilities of the new university will be complete (p. 44).

Hall concludes his article by considering whether or not distance education can survive when the traditional university is no longer traditional. He acknowledges that DE might indeed have a dim future, but he believes that the distinguished track record of distance education of the past several decades will give distance education universities a head start on traditional universities.

In 2008, thirteen years later, it looks as if DE's future in the United States is dim. Even though traditional DE institutions indeed had a head start, even though they were among the first to employ online technologies for US markets, traditional colleges and universities caught up quickly. The predominance of online technologies in all of US higher education has helped bring us to this new paradigm of the convergent, networked university, where distance is almost irrelevant. And so is traditional distance education.

D. Distance Education in the United States

After making the bold claim that traditional distance education in the US has become almost irrelevant, it might be countered that "traditional distance education" has not yet clearly been defined.

The easy response would be that we are referring to the "single mode" DE institution, which has distance education as its sole activity. These institutions are easily contrasted with "dual mode" institutions, which are typically campus-based institutions that have incorporated DE initiatives into their course offerings (Moore and Kearsley, 2005, p. 4). If it were that simple, then the argument would be: because of online technologies, dual mode institutions are taking over single mode markets. This has certainly been noticed before (see Rumble, 2004a and 2004b). But the argument is not quite that simple. When we suggest that distance education has become almost irrelevant, we are not just referring to types of institutions, we are referring to distance education as a discipline, as a set of ideas and practices uniquely related to teaching students at a distance.

This is more difficult to define, especially if our focus is primarily on US markets. Much of DE theory and literature of DE is, quite naturally, concerned with DE as it exists internationally. That causes some of the difficulty because DE in the US has never quite been like DE in Great Britain, Europe, Australia, South Africa, India, China-- those parts of the world that tend to have large national universities. No such institutions exist in the US because, as Miller (1989) notes, "the United States Constitution prohibits the government from taking a direct role in education" (p. 23). Additionally, in most other parts of the world, Distance Education has a distinct association with Open Learning. This is typically not the case in the US, where DE has been either associated with correspondence schools, or extensions of some other larger University System (such as Wisconsin, Penn State, and Texas).

The closest thing to Open Learning in the US is the community college system, where access typically trumps exclusivity and, not unexpectedly, where online classes have become increasingly dominant--more so, even, than the typical campus-based institutions (Allen & Seaman, 2007, p. 1). But by definition, the community colleges are smaller, more local, and, since they are restricted to two-year Associate Degree programs, they are fundamentally designed to provide (a) some students with basic trade skills needed in that particular community, and (b) other students with a more supportive (economic and/or academic) means to enter into a traditional four year institution (Cohen & Brawer, 2002).

Miller (1989) took a good look at DE in America and noted how DE in the US is more localized, varied, and "deeply rooted in the American traditions of the 'utilitarian' university and the community college dedicated to meeting local community needs" (p.27). What has happened since 1989, largely as a consequence of new information and communication technologies, is that that tradition has moved to online teaching and learning at about the same time that online teaching and learning has established a beach head in the other types of US higher education institutions, such as the private liberal arts colleges and the large land grant universities. Colleges and universities that never did DE began offering online classes, along with those types of institutions that had always done DE. Convergence.

In terms of definitions, theories, and history of DE, there is no shortage of overviews. Simonson, Smaldino, Albright, & Zvacek (2006) provide a balanced overview of DE history and theory, as well as a consideration from the US perspective. Garrison (2000) provides a more in depth analysis of DE theory and suggests that the theoretical models of the past are not adequate to account for our collaborative virtual environments, where social learning takes place supported by a variety of organizational structures. Pittman (2003) takes a good look at how DE in the US has its roots in correspondence study. Saba (2003) provides a useful outline of key issues and theories of DE, from Holmberg's focus on the individual and Peters' focus on industrialization to Keegan's typology of systems and the more recent work by Garrison and Anderson on post-industrial education. Moore and Kearsley (2005) might be the choice if one wants to examine Distance Education studies as it has been--bound in systems theory, industrial production, and technology choices.

Indeed, it is the Moore and Kearsley approach to distance education as a discipline that is becoming increasingly irrelevant in the US. While admittedly, Distance education: A systems view (2005) is less an examination of theory and definitions and more a general overview of the field, the book still presents the general point-of-view that:

1. the role the DE institution is to create an efficient industrial system where courses are designed by instructional designers, content is produced by content experts, and courses are taught by trained facilitators; and, since the cost of such teams is high, enrollments need to be high for the course to pay for itself
2. emphasizes the students' geographical place and the need to select the best technology to deliver instruction to that place
3. recognizes the learner is central to the system, yet emphasizes the learner's independence and separation from the system
4. undercuts the role of teacher (p.19) and almost completely ignores learning theory that supports the social aspect of learning or interacting in virtual spaces

One of the strengths of the book is its emphasis on a systems approach to explaining DE. But their systems framework misses the dynamic that online technologies have changed our pedagogies and administrative systems. A brief nod is given to the social aspect of learning, but no theory fully explained takes into full account the social aspect of learning in a virtual learning environment. No analysis of course development takes into account that faculty are usually in charge of curriculum and that most US higher education institutions function to some degree in a shared governance organizational structure. No analysis of costs takes into account that most colleges and universities have implemented technological infrastructures to support campus-based instruction and that expansion into distance learning is often a matter of leveraging fixed costs and balancing them with variable costs, which are, in any case, usually associated with increased revenue streams. No analysis presented takes into account that online is our new context. Indeed, they view online as just another technology--one that inaugurates in a new generation of Distance Education.

Admittedly, their focus is broader than US Markets. But the point here is that Moore and Kearsley's Distance Education: A Systems View is an explanation and analysis of a discipline that is becoming increasingly marginalized in US higher education. While it may very well be appropriate in contexts where there are large national open universities (with weak faculty governance and strong industrial course development processes), it is not adequate to address what is occurring in the United States when students take higher education courses online.

In the context of the US higher education, Moore and Kearsley's systems approach misses our systems.

If we are searching for a more detailed systems analysis of distance education theory, Saba (2003), much like Moore & Kearsley, offers a specific systems point-of-view. When making his analysis, however, his focus is more on the dynamics of learning than on the dynamics of the learning organization. And when he applies his systems methodology to the entire field, he claims that DE is not a subset of education, but, rather, the center of the entire educational enterprise. So, according to Saba, distance education theory must account for the whole of education and not just when learner and teacher are separate in space and time. One might counter: if what Saba identifies as DE is at the center of the educational enterprise, then why are we still calling it DE? It seems that, without quite intending to, Saba has made an excellent argument for convergence. One might argue that a systems-based model, which accommodates traditional education, traditional distance education, and distance education in our new paradigm of networked communities, is itself a model for online convergence, however one labels it.

We can dispute analysis, we can dispute definitions, we can dispute interpretations, we can dispute theory, and we can dispute points-of-view. What we cannot really dispute are two significant facts.

1. What accounts for the recent increase of "distance education" in the US today is the number of online classes offered by institutions that previously had little or no distance education initiative. The yearly Sloan Consortium reports (Allen and Seaman, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007) provide overwhelming evidence for this.
2. A number of recent attempts at implementing large distance education initiatives in the US, along the Moore & Kearsley model, have failed. The most notable failure was the Open University of the US. They attempted to implement distance education for US markets on the model of the British OU; and, after spending a reported 20 million dollars, ended up having to shut down after only two years (Arnone, 2002). There have been a number of other similar failures: NYUonline, Columbia University's Fathom, and The California Virtual University among them (see Keegan, et al., 2007, and Zemsky & Massey, 2004 for attempts at explaining why). Illinois Global appears to be the most recent example of a US institution trying to implement distance learning along the Moore & Kearsley model: industrial course production, reduction of faculty role in curriculum development, seeking economies of scale (Foster, 2007). Initial reports, however, are not promising. After spending more than 2.8 million on the Global Campus, enrollments for their first classes were "less than 15" (Cohen, 2008). Perhaps they will eventually succeed. Perhaps Illinois Global has plans for international expansion and cross-border initiatives that are not yet evident. But at this point, it does not look promising.

In the United States, DE has always worked best when there were few other options for students. With the overwhelming number of local colleges and universities offering online classes, students now have more options than ever.

E. OTL in the United States

In examining distance education theory, Garrison, Anderson, & Archer (2003) accept the notion that online learning has brought us to a new paradigm, not only for distance and distributed learning, but also for education in general; and the key component that creates this new paradigm, they argue, is the ability to use online to create what they call "critical communities of inquiry." Like Saba (see above), they assume that online is a "subfield" of distance education. It appears, however, this gives them some difficulty as they try to reconcile how a subfield of distance education has become / is becoming a central dynamic in education as a whole. But definitions, fields, and subfields aside, their primary focus is to outline a theory of online that can help educators "think through their needs and understand the pedagogical, technological, and organizational options open to them" (113). Perhaps the strongest part of the article is the proposal that a functioning community of inquiry contains three overlapping elements:(1) a social presence, (2) a cognitive presence, and (3) teaching presence.

Garrison, Anderson, & Archer's work would be an excellent foundation for a theory of online teaching and learning.

If OTL is to succeed as a discipline of study, it will need to establish a strong theoretical foundation that (a) focuses on social learning in virtual learning environments, (b) takes into account online convergence, and (c) is appropriate to the variety in organizational types, including embedded initiatives in existing campus-based programs. Further, whereas Distance Education studies tends to leave technological issues to the technologists and instructional design issues to the instructional designers; OTL studies, in order to meet teachers and practitioners where they are, should incorporate competencies in teaching, technology, and instructional design. In DE studies, it is often a matter of selecting the best technology; in OTL studies, online technology is the context--technology is the place. OTL studies should be able to produce instructors/practitioners/trainers who have the theoretical knowledge and the practical skills to design--and teach in--online learning environments.

It appears that OTL studies is beginning to take form in US higher education. University of Wisconsin-Stout, New Mexico State University, and California State University East Bay, for example, now offer graduate certificate programs that combine theory with practice and focus on issues pertaining to online teaching and learning, as opposed to issues pertaining to traditional distance education. All three are new programs, begun within the last two years and are likely to be the beginning of a significant trend as graduate programs of education, instructional technology, and curriculum and instruction begin incorporating this new dimension of learning into their programs of study.

While this paper suggests that DE studies in the Moore and Kearsley mode is not adequate to address the new landscape of online teaching and learning in the US, it does not follow that Distance Education studies are completely irrelevant. Indeed, DE in the Moore & Kearsley model still exists in the US, primarily in institutions such as University of Maryland University College and Penn State World Campus. Although both institutions now offer the majority of their "distance" classes online, they began as distance learning institutions and so already had industrial course development processes and DE organizations in place. Also, DE in the Moore & Kearsley model exists in a number of single-mode, for-profit institutions, for which University of Phoenix and Capella University are the most prominent examples.

There is no reason why DE studies cannot evolve from the Moore & Kearsley model and begin incorporating newer theories, more appropriate pedagogies, and studies of costs, management, and organizational politics that are appropriate to higher education institutions as they exist. It must be acknowledged, however, that the term "distance education" is somewhat tainted in the higher education community. While a historical connection to correspondence schools and continuing education programs may be admirable in social terms, it has done little to accord respect for the discipline. The term "Online Teaching and Learning" just fits better into traditional colleges and universities. One could make an argument for OTL, merely on the basis of the baggage the term "distance education" has for many in higher education.

The table below attempts to distinguish in broad generalities the differences between traditional Distance Education and Online Teaching and Learning as disciplines of study.

DE Studies	OTL Studies
theoretical models focus on industrialization of teaching, independent learner, and distance	theoretical models should focus on learning in a virtual community, in which there is social presence, cognitive presence, and teaching presence.
course development as industrial process that depends on work from instructional design teams and content experts	course development left primarily to faculty and individual departments; some support from instructional designers possible
large classes: seek economies of scale in course production	small classes; seek efficiencies in course replication
taught by facilitators	taught by faculty
organizational model: management dominated	organizational model: faculty dominated (shared governance)
build technical infrastructures and invest in instructional delivery methods	leverage fixed costs on infrastructures already in place
pedagogies of delivery	pedagogies of design

F. Conclusion

Convergence has happened. Education has undergone a shift. Technology has come to function as a place. And distance is no longer a defining term in "distance education."

But because so many of us view the world from pre-digital contexts, a kind of cognitive dissonance naturally occurs. It is not always so easy to recognize new eras when viewed from old frameworks. Arguably, technology has changed before our ways of looking at the world have changed (see Prensky, 2001). Understandably, many theorists and educators who got their degrees, wrote their books, and formed their opinions about what it means to educate at a distance are naturally still looking at distance education as if distance were still a defining component instead of an irrelevant component. To many, online learning looks like a new stage of distance education, instead of a new era in education.

Online Teaching and Learning is going on. And we need a discipline of study that supports it--one that promotes sound theory, effective pedagogy, and practical implementation strategies that are appropriate for educational organizations that actually exist in the US. Even if DE studies did (or could) satisfy that need, for reasons of institutional inertia, as well as the historical baggage the term "Distance Education" has in the US, it is not likely that Distance Education studies could be integrated into existing US graduate programs to any significant degree. It is possible, however, that OTL studies will become a new discipline of study within existing programs of curriculum and instruction, instructional technology, and various graduate education programs with technology tracks.