Design and Development of Third Generation Distance Learning Materials: From an Industrial Second Generation Approach Towards Realizing Third Generation Distance Education

  • Paul Kirschner
  • Martin Valcke
  • Dominique Sluijsmans


Distance education is going through a paradigm shift from the second to the third generation. In the first generation (correspondence education) teachers were craftsmen who coupled traditional learning materials to self-made personalised lessons that they mailed to their students at a distance. In the second generation new, pedagogically enhanced materials were designed and developed via an industrial model specifically for distance education, but the accent remained on a traditional learning paradigm. In the third generation personal, competence based, interactive materials for learning communities are being designed and developed.

This chapter first outlines the characteristics of the first two generations. It then presents a framework for the design, development and delivery of distance education study materials according to the industrial approach. It concludes with a look at how this will change as we go to the third generation. In chapter 21 an environment for this new paradigm is worked out.

Key words

Distance education Educational model Paradigm shift 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bates, A.W., 1994, Educational multi-media in a networked society, World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Ottman and Tomek, Vancouver.Google Scholar
  2. Bates, A.W., 1995, Technology, open learning and distance education, Routledge, London.Google Scholar
  3. Boyatzis, R.E., 1982, The competent manager. A model for effective performance, John Wiley & Sons, New York.Google Scholar
  4. Dede, C, 1996, Distance learning-distributed learning: Making the transformation, Learning and Leading with Technology, 23,7, 25–30.Google Scholar
  5. Dede, C, 1997, Distributed learning: How new technologies promise a richer educational experience connection, New England’s Journal of Higher Education and Economic Development, 12,2, 12–16.Google Scholar
  6. Dillenbourg P., Baker M., Blaye, A. and O’Malley, C, 1995, The evolution of research on collaborative learning, In Reimann, P. and Spada, H. (Eds.), Learning in humans and machines. Towards an interdisciplinary learning science, 189–211, Pergamon, London.Google Scholar
  7. Dochy, F.J.R.C., 1992, Assessment of prior knowledge as a determinant for future learning, Lemma, Utrecht.Google Scholar
  8. Exley, K. and Gibbs, G., 1994, Course design for resource based learning, Centre for Staff Development, Oxford Brookes University, Oxford.Google Scholar
  9. Gibbs, G. (Ed.), 1992, Improving the quality of student learning, Educational and Technical Services, Bristol.Google Scholar
  10. Hawkridge, D., 1996, The next educational technology in higher education, Innovations in Education and Training International, 33,1, 5–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gastkemper, F., 1993, Development of media, methods and technology: central issues in higher distance education, In Vocht, C. de and Henderikx, P. (Eds.), Flexible responses in higher education. Strategies and scenarios for the use of open and distance education in mainstream higher education, 13th-14th December 1993, Brussels, Belgium, 129–137.Google Scholar
  12. Johnson, D. and Johnson, R., 1993, What we know about cooperative learning at the college level, Cooperative Learning, 13(3); also
  13. Kirschner, P. A., 1996, Design, development and delivery of distance study materials: An industrial approach to distance education, In Coetzee, J.H. and Smith, T.G. (Eds.), Proceedings International Conference on Education and Change, University of South Africa: Pretoria.Google Scholar
  14. Kirschner, P. and Valcke, M., 1994, From supply-driven to demand-driven education: new conceptions and the role of ICT therein, Computer in Human Services, 10, 31–53.Google Scholar
  15. Martens, R.L., 1998, The use and effects of embedded support devices in independent learning, Lemma, Utrecht.Google Scholar
  16. Mirande M., Riemersma, J. and Veen, W., 1997, De digitale leeromgeving,[The digital learning environment], Wolters Noordhoff, Groningen.Google Scholar
  17. Moerkerke, G., 1996, Assessment for flexible learning, Lemma, Utrecht.Google Scholar
  18. Moerkerke, G. and Terlouw, C., 1998, Herontwerp Van toetsing [Redesigning assessment], Tijdschrift voor Hoger Onderwijs en Management, 1, 19–25.Google Scholar
  19. Morris, R., 1997, Adaptive learning systems, National Institute of Standards and Technology,
  20. Nilsen, E., 1986, On the definition of correspondence education, Epistolodidaktika, 1986/1, 3–30.Google Scholar
  21. Pilot, A., 1997, Curricula voor een op informatie gerichte maatschapp— [Curricula for an information society], Paper presented at the Consortium COO HBO and SUNCOO conference, December 11-12, 1997, Utrecht.Google Scholar
  22. Slater, J., 1996, The impact of TLTP, Active Learning, 4, 3–6.Google Scholar
  23. Snoeck, J. de, 1997, Zoeken naar de receptuur: competentiemanagement [Searching for a recipe: Competency manager], In N.V. Bekaert S.A., Gids voor Personeelsmanagement, 76(11), 40–45.Google Scholar
  24. Tait, B., 1997, Object orientation in educational software, Innovations in Education and Training International, 34,3, 167–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Valcke, M. and Vuist, G., 1995, A model-based design approach for the flexibilisation of courses, In Lockwood, F. (Ed.), Open and distance learning today, pp. 185–196, Routledge, London.Google Scholar
  26. Valcke, M. and Dam-Mieras, M.C.E. van, 1998, Designing flexible learning material resources in natural sciences in natural sciences to support tailor-made courses, In (Eds.), Proceedings Bite-Conference “Bringing Information Technology to Education ”, pp. 472–484, Universiteit Maastricht, Maastricht.Google Scholar
  27. Vilsteren, P. van, Hummel H., Kirschner, P. and Wigman, M., 1997, Het verwerven Van competenties bij de Open Universiteit [The acquisition of competencies at the Open University of the Netherlands], Open University of the Netherlands (Center for Educational Technology and Expertise), Heerlen.Google Scholar
  28. Wijnen, W.H.F.W., Wolfhagen, H.A.P., Bie, D. de, Brouwer, O.G., Ruijter, C.T.A. and Vos, P., 1992, Te doen of niet te doen— Advies over de studeerbaarheid Van onderwijsprogramma’s in het hoger onderwijs [To do or not to do— Advice on approproateness of study of educational programmes in higher education], Ministerie Van Onderwijs, Cultuur & Wetenschappen, Zoetermeer.Google Scholar
  29. Willis, B., 1998, Instructional development for distance education, University of Idaho,
  30. Wolf, H. de and Valcke, M., 1996, Onderwijsfuncties en multimedia-Competentiegericht onderwijs en het ontwikkelen Van flexibele leermaterialen [Educational functions and multimedia-Competency based education and the development of flexible learning materials], In Wolf, H.C. de (Ed.), Het onvermijdelijke samengaan Van onderwijs en multimedia. LUC, Diepenbeek.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paul Kirschner
    • 1
  • Martin Valcke
    • 2
  • Dominique Sluijsmans
    • 1
  1. 1.Open UniversityUK
  2. 2.University of GentBelgium

Personalised recommendations