Saba: The terminology in the theoretical literature of distance education is very clear. The field has more than 40 years of organized theoretical literature in which terms have been defined operationally, and measurable variables have been introduced to study them.

In recent years, many new practitioners have joined the field who, simply did not bother to look at the literature. So, when they came across something that was new to them, they simply ascribed a new name to the phenomenon that was unfamiliar to them. Therefore, you see a conceptual confusion in the lay literature.

Saba: In our age of instant media communication, it is not only up to those who are looking for valid and reliable information about distance education, but for information in any subject, to be discerning consumers. When reading about the field, it is a good idea to ask who wrote the article, what are his/her credentials and how was the article written? Is it data-based and theory-driven or just based on data without regard for theory? How was the data analyzed? How were the conclusions made? Did the analysis meet the critical criteria expected in a scholarly work?

In looking through many articles each week, I see that most of the articles published are based on the personal conjectures of the author. Very few articles are informed by carefully collected data when such data collection and analysis is informed by theory. So, we have a situation now that the majority of published information in the field consists of uninformed opinion.

Saba: The research that I have conducted on the subject over the years is very clear about this matter. Simply put, each learner requires a certain amount of dialog and structure to succeed. The amount varies for each student. Some learners are comfortable with a high amount of structure (low dialog); while others require high dialog (low structure). The problem arises when institutions and faculty forget that distance education is a postmodern practice, and does not lend itself to modern practices.

Modernism was about standardization. Its objective was to make sure that one size would fit all. Postmodern practices are about fulfilling individual needs.

Distance in education is therefore defined by the requisite dialog and required structure. Its level differs for each student, subject matter and other variables involved. The "transaction" between the student and the instructor determines the level of dialog and structure at each moment in time during a course of instruction.

Saba: Well, faculty, usually do not have any training whatsoever to teach in conventional education either. So, why would anyone think that they need special training for distance education? The dirty little secret is that teaching in higher education has been a craft oriented profession. Each faculty has had his or her style and strategy for teaching. It has been a pre-modern practice.

Distance education is a postmodern practice. This means that it requires a certain level of standardization before faculty can exert their individual styles with confidence and respond to the individual needs of their learners with assurance.

To achieve that level of modern standardization, faculty need to know about pedagogy and technology. There are no requirements for faculty to have this knowledge at the present time. Faculty are hired and promoted everyday who are not aware of any pedagogical principles, and they are not familiar with instructional technology even for classroom teaching, let alone for distance teaching and learning.

Another aspect of this problem is that in modern institutions there is a division of labor. Modernism, in part, is defined by a division of labor.

Again, teaching in higher education is in a pre-modern stage of development. So, there are no instructional designers, programmers, graphic designers, videographers, marketing experts, etc. helping faculty to teach a course. Can you imagine if a Detroit auto worker was asked to design a car, build it single handedly, ship it, market it, etc.?

Finally, why would any faculty lend his or her time to further training - to have the privilege of teaching the same number of students with more complicated means? See, distance education is a system of interrelated parts. Faculty are just one part of that system, albeit an important part. When there are parts that are missing, you cannot just dump additional tasks on facultys’ shoulders and blame them for not having the training to perform those tasks. Faculty development would work, only when other parts of the system are in place. No matter how much training you offer faculty, he or she cannot compensate for a good programmer, or a graphic designer; as a pilot, for example, cannot compensate for an air traffic controller even with additional training.

Saba: I designed my own and built it with the assistance of a very talented student who is now a colleague at Distance-Educator.com. At the time, there were no course management (or learning management) systems in the market, and I was teaching about the subject. So, I had to create my own solution. But you cannot expect a faculty in history, geology or math to build his or her own system. That is just not feasible.

A complete response to your question, however, requires at least a chapter in a book, if not a complete book. There are many variables that are involved in selecting CMSs. We offer guidelines on Distance-Educator.com for such selections. We also publish new information about products, and product upgrades in the Daily News, so professionals can make informed decisions.

Saba: The variables are numerous. But at the highest level of design, the most important element is the extent to which a course, or an instructional module can respond to a learner’s individual need for dialog and structure. These are the variables for which we have solid data and theoretical confirmation.

For further information on this please, see: Saba, F. , & Shearer, R. L. (1994). Verifying key theoretical concepts in a dynamic model of distance education. The American Journal of Distance Education, 8 (1), 36-59.

Saba: This is also a huge subject on which books have been written. In a nutshell, libraries play a central role in individualizing learning for students. I am not sure if they see their role as such. I have seen some librarians who have become instructional designers, and are helping faculty to organize their course content. That may be necessary in the short to mid range, but in the long run librarians have to realize that learning is a self-organized human activity, and to the point that they can make this self-organization possible for the learners they are going to succeed.

Saba: Again, this is another major topic that requires chapters, if not volumes, to discuss. In short, they need to find out why education is the only human institution in which the introduction of technology has not brought down the cost of individuals served. In education, in most cases, we have managed to do the same old thing with more expensive means! In many distance education operations that I have examined, significant elements of a successful system are missing. Therefore, contrary to what was believed a few years ago, distance education has not brought down the cost of education, let alone turn in a profit.