Using Distance Learning to Reduce Absences from Home: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

by Major (retd.) Marshall Gerbrandt, CD

INTRODUCTION

Large-scale exercises and operational deployments represent unavoidable absences from home. In contrast, the predominately face-to-face nature of military training and education signifies an opportunity to reduce time away from home by increasing distance learning (DL). The author believes that the use of DL within the Canadian Army (CA) is presently limited even though the COVID-19 pandemic forced the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) to re-examine training delivery methods, given the need to train members.

According to the 2016 Minister of National Defence, members of the CAF spend 25 percent of their time away from home.^{Footnote 1}  For members of the CA, absences from home are unevenly divided between the individual training (indiv trg) system, collective training (CT), and operational deployments. Studies suggest that time away from home has a negative impact on the quality of life for members and their families.^{Footnote 2}  Quality of life is a combination of multiple factors, including well-being, work environment and living conditions.^{Footnote 3}  In particular, well-being is influenced by personnel tempo—a term used in the CAF to measure how long and how frequently individuals spend tasked away from home.^{Footnote 4}  A high personnel tempo can result from deployments and training and is associated with increased family stress. This increased stress is “disruptive to family life”^{Footnote 5}  and negatively associated with CAF retention,^{Footnote 6}  whereas additional time home between deployments has a positive effect.^{Footnote 7}

Based upon an empirical investigation exploring how an increase in the use of DL could affect the quality of life of individual members and their families, this article explores elements specific to members’ perception of existing and potential DL. While both CT and operational deployments require one’s physical presence, it may not always be necessary for indiv trg. Carefully increasing the CA’s usage of DL represents an opportunity that can reduce, but not necessarily eliminate, absences from home. Increasing DL within CA indiv trg by adopting a blended approach to instructional delivery offers an opportunity to reduce absences from home without sacrificing quality.^{Footnote 8}  This is currently being implemented in the CA’s Army Operations Course and the CAF’s Joint Command and Staff Program. That noted, simply increasing the number of asynchronous modules—via the Defence Learning Network or delivering generic presentations through video conferencing—fails to replicate the instructor and peer interactions of face-to-face learning.

One way the CA might approach DL is by utilizing the community of inquiry (CoI) model. CoI is a theoretical framework designed to promote higher-level thinking and facilitate beneficial learning experiences within an online environment.^{Footnote 9}  This is achieved through three distinct but interdependent presences: cognitive presence, social presence, and teaching presence. Following an examination of relevant literature, this article will describe current CAF DL experiences. At this juncture, it is pertinent to briefly describe the CoI framework. Using CoI as a framework, the findings will be discussed and compared to existing research while simultaneously providing presence-specific recommendations for expanding DL within CA indiv trg.^{Footnote 10}

COMMUNITY OF INQUIRY AND ELEMENTS

In the context of online learning, the term “community” is often described as the “cognitive or emotional connections established between physically separated learners.”^{Footnote 11}  Existing literature supports the importance of peer interactions within online environments as an indicator of success.^{Footnote 12}  According to Garrison, Anderson and Archer, the CoI model aims to create a “meaningful educational experience”^{Footnote 13}  through three essential elements: cognitive presence, social presence and teaching presence. These elements are summarized below:

Cognitive Presence – Within the CoI model, Garrison et al. consider cognitive presence to be “the most basic [element] to success in higher education.”^{Footnote 14}  Cognitive presence describes the extent to which students can construct meaning through communication. This is in part dependent upon how communication is facilitated within a given medium. Case vignettes and problem-based learning are two examples that allow students to apply knowledge to real-world problems and further their cognitive presence. Critical thinking is a shared process that results in personal understanding through reflection and examination of shared knowledge. If critical thinking is the goal, the practical inquiry model, a multi-step shared process, is the answer. The practical inquiry model provides a generic structure to guide analysis from the identification of a problem through to resolution.^{Footnote 15}  Upon initiating an inquiry, one progresses through the following steps:

1. identification of the problem, which contributes to cognitive presence;
2. exploration, which orients one to the problem;
3. integration, where similar and competing concepts are formed into a single concept; and
4. resolution, which may see a hypothesis applied successfully or the continuation of inquiry.^{Footnote 16}

Social Presence – Within the CoI framework, social presence enables individual learners to project as well as be perceived by peers as real people within the digital domain.^{Footnote 17}  This can be achieved in three ways:

1. emotional expression, which permits the individual learner to share their personal beliefs and values;
2. open communication, represented through mutual understanding and acknowledgement of peers; and
3. group cohesion, seen through the development and sustainment of group commitment.^{Footnote 18} 

Creating a virtual space for students to interact informally or through weekly instructor videos are possible means of increasing social presence by decreasing any sense of distance or isolation that may exist. When the CoI was initially theorized, online communication was predominately done through the written word, either through asynchronous forum postings or via synchronous text-based chat. Garrison et al. address this by stating that social presence is not developed by the specific medium being used but instead is the result of discourse being used for participants to develop and share.^{Footnote 19}  The validity of social presence was further explored and found to “positively affect student and instructor course satisfaction.”^{Footnote 20}

Teaching Presence – Teaching presence consists of course design, facilitation of learning and direct instruction.^{Footnote 21}  Considering what constitutes teaching presence, it is difficult to rank the relative importance of each component.^{Footnote 22}  The outcome is influenced by student dynamics and educational context, and thus it is not necessarily an instructor-centric endeavour.^{Footnote 23}  Its sub-components may include either the student or teacher. However, within the context of the CA, the focus will most likely be solely on the educator. While instructors are primarily responsible for designing and delivering courses, the facilitation of knowledge can be seen as a shared responsibility between instructors and students and amongst students as peers. As one of the three presences within the CoI, teaching presence is best viewed to “support and enhance social and cognitive presence for the purpose of realizing educational outcomes.”^{Footnote 24}  This can be achieved by designing collaborative online learning environments that promote engagement and allow the instructors to adopt the role of a facilitator.

EXISTING LITERATURE

The well-being of military members and their families remains one of the top priorities for research within the CAF.^{Footnote 25}  Despite this, literature discussing CAF training and education is minimal, and focused research on DL is almost non-existent outside of graduate work.^{Footnote 26}  Beyond the CAF, the research focused on advanced education aimed at senior leadership (major to lieutenant-colonel) found that DL yielded results comparable to face-to-face delivery.^{Footnote 27}  Alleviating this gap in the literature is important to the well-being of military members, given the significant period of time they devote to their professional education and development.

Institutionally, significant resources are invested in training and educating CAF members. However, analysis or scholarly reflection on this large-scale effort is not well represented within the CAF’s professional journals. Of published articles, few are research-based and are better categorized as individual opinion pieces,^{Footnote 28}  historical accounts,^{Footnote 29}  or, most frequently, a medium to promote new endeavours.^{Footnote 30}  While this represents continued discussion about education and training within the CAF, it also highlights the lack of discourse directed toward the education and training of CA members.

Scoppio and Tregunna conducted a broad examination of CAF-delivered education and found DL allowed members to “engage in higher level thinking on a frequent basis.”^{Footnote 31}  DL was seen as a solution that allowed the CAF to respond to quick deployments and support members working in remote locations. While perceptions about DL varied amongst participants, an increased use of blended learning—combining both distance and face-to-face components—was seen as a viable way to implement new technologies while meeting the needs of future students.^{Footnote 32}

Kimberly Jones of Athabasca University (former training development officer in the CAF)^{Footnote 33}  expanded on Christine Vaskovics’^{Footnote 34}  theoretical examination of asynchronous communication and synchronous conferencing by undertaking research that focused on CAF members’ level of satisfaction with DL experiences. Jones’ exploration of member satisfaction within the CAF DL (n=368) is particularly important given the range of courses explored (primary leadership qualification to Joint Command Staff Programme) and the lack of existing research on individuals within the CAF training and education system. During qualitative interviews, many participants noted that DL had a positive effect on their quality of life, as they were able to remain home with family, but this was offset by the additional workload resulting from their regular employment.^{Footnote 35}

Bernie Thorne’s research found that the impact of part-time DL on individual well-being, when associated with full-time employment and family commitments, negatively affected their quality of life.^{Footnote 36}  Thorne examined the individual and organizational costs of distance education and found that part-time students needed institutional support to enable learning and prevent burnout as they sought to balance competing academic, work, and family demands.^{Footnote 37} 

The extent to which DL is used across the CAF varies greatly, and there is limited research exploring the development and delivery of these courses or how DL affects individual members. The CA employs both part-time and blended DL as methods of instruction. Asynchronous training most often occurs through the Defence Learning Network and often consists of a variety of professional development courses ranging from the delegation of financial responsibilities to those focused on more mission-specific training. The Canadian Army’s Army Operations Course^{Footnote 38}  and Army Tactical Operations Course^{Footnote 39}  represent examples of blended learning wherein a DL portion (done via synchronous conferencing) precedes the period of residency.

RESEARCH QUESTION

Within the overarching research question, it is crucial to explore how an increase in the use of DL would affect the quality of life of individual members and their families. This article explores elements specific to member perception of existing and potential DL.

RESEARCH METHOD

To best understand participant experiences and beliefs about increasing the use of full-time DL within the CA, a case study method was selected.^{Footnote 40}  This method allowed for an in-depth examination within a real-life context and provided an opportunity to identify categories across multiple sources. The present study received approval from the CAF’s Social Science Research Review Board and the University of New Brunswick’s Research Ethics Board.^{Footnote 41}  Given the author’s experience as an artillery officer and instructor-in-gunnery, the study focused on the artillery as a case for examination. Eliminating actual or perceived authority over potential participants was achieved through the use of an anonymous questionnaire and by intentionally not selecting their current regiment as a site for exploration. Potential participants were identified through purposeful sampling and needed to meet the following criteria:

1. Participants should have attended a Royal Canadian Artillery School Developmental Period 2 or higher course between January 2018 and August 2020, resulting in 312 unique individuals. 
2. Participants should be serving (fall 2020) within the 1st or 2nd Regiment, Royal Canadian Horse Artillery (RCHA), but not be operationally deployed. This yielded 53 potential participants, and a response rate of 32% (n=17) was achieved.

Data collection consisted of an anonymous questionnaire and individual interviews with two participants. The questionnaire consisted of 18 items, including both demographic questions and a series of questions based upon a four-point scale (no impact to a lot of impact), with an opportunity to expand for the responders to answer in an open format.^{Footnote 42}  The electronic questionnaire and individual interviews focused on exploring four aspects: 1.) Indiv trg experiences, 2.) effects of indiv trg on the member and their family, 3.) the effects of personal tempo (i.e. the sum of demands that military service imposes upon the member), and 4.) individual perceptions on increased use of DL. The individual interviews used the same topics as probes to spark discussion and further one’s understanding of the subject.

Coding was an iterative process. First, respondents’ own words were used to produce an initial list of codes. The list evolved as codes with similar meanings or redundant terminology were consolidated.^{Footnote 43}  During this process, descriptive narratives were created for each code. These narratives ensured a consistent application of codes and increased one’s understanding of the data. Additionally, the narratives helped identify and consolidate codes that captured similar sentiments. This process produced a refined list of eight codes divided into three overarching categories. The three categories, including their associated codes, are as follows: 1.) “family and partner relationships,” consisting of absence, partner pressure and parental presence, 2.) “distance learning,” which is the focus of this article, consisting of instructional design, DL beliefs and networking/socialization, and 3.) “quality of life,” which comprises well-being and personal tempo.

RESULTS OF THE STUDY

One might reasonably expect that decreasing the frequency of training-related absences would positively affect the quality of life. However, the responses of the participants offered a nuanced view and identified how full-time DL had the potential to increase tensions at home. Given this background, it is pertinent that unintended consequences are considered prior to implementing DL as a medium for full-time or blended instruction. The DL category captured the experiences of participants and their beliefs on DL as a medium for instruction. The DL consisted of three codes (i.e. networking/socialization, DL beliefs, and instructional design). Following a brief description of the 17 participants, this section presents the participant responses by code.

Participants – The diversity of responses provided an overview of the effects of DL across various ranks and family situations. However, it remains narrow in overall demographic scope, as the participants were predominantly male (n=16).^{Footnote 44}  The majority were either married or common-law (n=14), with an average of three people living in the household. From the respondents, most were senior non-commissioned officers (n=10) and junior officers (n=6), which aligned with the inclusion criteria. 

Instructional Design – Instructional design defines responses focused on how a course is developed, designed, and delivered. This item was the third most coded item overall but most coded within this category, selected 29 times out of 148 responses. Opinion was evenly split between those who articulated positive views towards the use of DL and those who believed it would reduce learning quality or be detrimental to their family situations. Respondent (R) 5 believed technology and method of instruction can lend itself to “efficiently conduct[ing] DL.” R10 thought DL would limit time spent away from home and have a “healthy impact on [their] quality of life.” However, they also believed that DL should only be used where suitable, noting the “negative impacts [of non-virtual courses] on [their] quality of life are limited” (R10) and accepted within their household as “face to face instruction is a must” (R10). R13 contrasted the benefits of face-to-face instruction with the “opportunities to stay home,” as it reduces their personal tempo but also noted DL’s applicability to “specific subjects.”

Amongst those who associated DL with positive outcomes, a number were adamant that certain skills are unteachable via DL. Participants felt that practical or hands-on training are not viable for DL. R2 identified “fire planning,” which is a team task normally simulated or completed under real-world conditions, as an example of a topic that could not be taught via DL. R11 added that material taught via DL “would not receive the same skill level.” R2 noted that, while certain material is not suitable for DL, “ [m]ost other lecture[s] can be done [through] DL with [an] instructor available for questions.” R16 highlighted how DL could be a “great tool [for] keeping people at home for long courses,” especially during theory portions.

R3’s experience with DL was “VERY negative.” They highlighted a few reasons for it. First, R3 believed that DL is “generally not taken seriously by soldiers due to repetitive” material or a perceived “disconnect between the course and the job,” which is due to poor instructional design combined with outdated information. Second, they believe a compromise in quality would occur as “[p]ractical applications are almost always required as a means to ensure members have actually learned what has been taught.” Finally, they noted the lack of available technology at home and limited access to computers at work. R1 and R14 expanded upon R3’s first point and identified the need to change the culture around DL, with their experience consisting of “click until your [sic] done” (R1).  While not citing a specific example, R20 suggested output “would likely be 70% of full potential” and argues that “instructors cannot truly identify where students are struggling.”

Networking/Socialization – Networking/socialization describes responses about interactions amongst students and interactions with the instructor and was the least coded item. While some respondents discussed perceived affordances for instruction delivered face-to-face and at a distance, most focused either on the reasons why face-to-face instruction is preferred or how DL is ineffective. These comments were primarily in response to three questions that addressed their actual experiences with DL or perceptions about how the possible use of DL may have shaped their learning experience. R8 stated DL would “increase the difficulty to plan, coordinate and study with other candidates” while also noting instructor availability may be “significantly reduced.” R15 shared similar sentiments and believed that face-to-face instruction “provides a better feedback system due to being involved directly with instructors.”

Respondents also noted that face-to-face learning provides an opportunity to establish professional networks. R13 highlighted the importance of meeting members from other organizations because they “bring so much value to the experience,” and face-to-face learning allows individuals to see what “other units are doing different… and it widen[s] our knowledge and experience.” R11 built upon these connections through their preference for residency, as it permits “[bonding]” with peers.

Distance Learning Beliefs – DL beliefs encompass responses dealing with DL perceptions and values. It coded ten times out of 148. While some respondents identified advantages of DL, most underscored the negative experiences regarding part-time DL. R5 suggested full-time DL would be beneficial if learning was “the only task and responsibility you have for work.” However, many were skeptical that full-time DL would be respected by their units based on their experiences. R6 captured this sentiment in a frank manner: “Front line units will never be given the time to work from home. They just have to use their weekends and nights FACT (i.e. we have to work weekends no matter what people or policy says).” R18 balanced their optimism about working “9–5 on online lectures,” leading to improvements in their home life with the fear (previously highlighted by others) that they “will still get tapped with work/duties from the unit” and ultimately end up with an increased tempo. For some, the geographic separation associated with individual training allows them to “concentrate fully on the course” (R2), “facilitates concentration” (R11) or allows them to “get more out of the course” (R13) while reducing the number of tasks they normally face from their unit (R8).

While considering the possibility of full-time DL, respondents generally provided negative descriptions of their previous experience related to learning online. R1’s experience of “click until your [sic] done” was also reinforced by R3: “I’m usually done in 10 minutes depending on how fast I can click through the slides and get to the test at the end.” In response to Q15 (“Are there sufficient benefits to DL?”), R3 expressed a similar sentiment to R11 that the “quality of training will always be lessened” (R3), and members experiencing learning through DL would not achieve “the same skill level” (R11).

Using much stronger language, R14 responded to the same question on the benefits of DL: “Absolutely not. [If] anything, we need to refine HOW we conduct our DL…  just sending out a [PowerPoint] and moving on is a terrible way of doing business.” R14 concluded by saying that the system needs to be “refined,” which R15 expanded on in great detail, responding to two issues simultaneously. Specifically, for DL to be viable, R15 remarked: “1. Unit cannot use you for any tasks/duties while taking part in DL,” and “2. Training standard [must] be maintained via more effective lectures and readings.” R20 spoke to the instructor’s perspective and believed an instructor could not “truly identify where students are struggling, nor can they have developmental chats in the sidelines” in the online learning environment.

DISCUSSION

The study sought to discover how increasing DL within the CA indiv trg system could improve the quality of life for individual members and their families. The article focused on data related to one of the three categories identified within the study: distance learning. Compared to the other two categories, DL represented the most polarizing views, with very few respondents opting for the middle ground. Compared to the high levels of satisfaction identified by Jones,^{Footnote 45}  most respondents in the study conducted by the author described their DL experiences in negative terms. This difference may be attributed to the smaller sample size (n=17 compared to n=368), types of courses attended (part-time DL vice both and full-time DL), gender, and exploration of a single occupation within the CA.

Maintaining the CoI as a framework for discussion, the following section addresses three areas. First, the trends that surfaced in the research (conducted by the author) mentioned above will be discussed. Second, the findings of that study will be compared with the findings in Jones’s work with a view to identify both strengths and weaknesses of current CAF DL. Third, different approaches, grounded in recent research, to delivering effective online instruction will be presented as a means to mitigate perceived issues with the current DL delivery.^{Footnote 46}

Social Presence – Reflecting upon previous DL experiences, respondents highlighted the importance of face-to-face learning as a means of interacting with peers and developing professional networks. DL experiences were often described as isolating and lacking opportunities to learn from peer experience. Respondents noted that the absence of peer interaction negatively affects knowledge acquisition and the overall experience of the course. Consequently, residency-based training is preferred, as it provides direct interaction with peers and instructors. This sentiment aligns with Jones’ study, which found that the most cited reason for preferring classroom learning was peer interaction.^{Footnote 47}  The lack of meaningful connections during DL was the greatest dissatisfier.^{Footnote 48}  Notwithstanding the limited full-time or synchronous DL experience, the respondents that participated in Jones’ research and in the study by the author shared the same sentiment. Considering that this issue has been identified as the single biggest dissatisfier, it is increasingly important to address the gap by incorporating strategies to increase social presence within DL.

Another common finding in the two above-mentioned studies is the lack of connection among peers or a sense of cohesiveness. In a classroom, the lack of peer interaction as part of course design is minimized by proximity and the opportunity to engage during non-instructional moments. Therefore, how can members, disconnected by geography, develop a sense of group cohesion in a virtual classroom? One recommendation is to include activities that are designed to ensure greater student engagement and interaction with one another. This could occur through problem-solving tasks or small group discussions,^{Footnote 49}  but simply delivering a lecture and posing questions individually to test for comprehension will not create the desired effect. While positive effects can be achieved through asynchronous communication (forum posts), synchronous video conferencing (even within a larger asynchronous course) is a viable method to reduce the physical distance between students,^{Footnote 50}   as is also recommended by Jones in her study.^{Footnote 51}

Teaching Presence – Comments focused on course development, overarching design, and method of delivery speak directly to teaching presence within the CoI framework. When comparing the methods of instructional delivery, respondents expect significantly less interaction with instructors during DL. More concerning is the respondents’ belief that useful or meaningful feedback can only occur via face-to-face interactions and, as a result, students that are struggling with the course may not be adequately identified within a DL environment. The lack of interaction with peers or instructors was a common justification for respondents to prefer a classroom over a virtual environment. However, this may be better described as a pedagogical issue as opposed to being specific to DL.

Conversations that focused on the method of delivery elicited strong responses about what should and should not be taught via DL. Many respondents were unwavering in their comments about certain material or tasks that must not be taught via DL. There was a general sense that theory was more suitable for DL when compared to applied or practical material. Given that technological issues were the second greatest dissatisfier in Jones’ work, short-term DL within the CA is probably better suited to adapt to the affordances of what is readily available within the CA at this time. 

In physical classrooms, instructors can expand upon material through personal experiences and can help students that are struggling by giving them additional attention and address their concerns on the sidelines of the course. While similar experiences can be incorporated into an online synchronous environment, asynchronous courses will likely prove more challenging and require instructional material to be developed prior to the start of the course. While synchronous instruction provides a medium to share personal experiences, instructors can leverage short videos to achieve the same effect in an asynchronous environment.^{Footnote 52}  Discussion can be encouraged through an active approach that sees the instructor facilitating discourse by summarizing student discussions or posing specific questions to assess comprehension or advance discussion.^{Footnote 53}    

Cognitive Presence – While considering what they were learning, many respondents doubted both the quality and the necessity of the material being presented. Bearing in mind the options for delivery, respondents expressed concerns that DL would offer inferior versions of residential programs. Participants in Thorne’s research noted their belief that DL programs were perceived as second-tier relative to their full-time equivalents.^{Footnote 54}  A lack of engagement, combined with a sense that DL is predominately an exercise in clicking through slides, limits the possibilities of developing critical thinking. The lack of a cognitive presence is perhaps the most challenging of the three presences to change, as it requires individual buy-in. In view of the negative comments about course design (teaching presence) and peer interactions (social presence), it may be more sensible and easier to adapt the current material to address these two presences before trying to improve cognitive presence.

Because of the nature of CA indiv trg, strategies such as allowing students to self-select topics^{Footnote 55}  of interest may prove difficult to achieve within the limitations of a specific training plan. However, changes to instructional approach provide opportunities for improvements. Using small groups or role-playing as a means to develop social presence,^{Footnote 56}  tactical decision games^{Footnote 57}  represent an opportunity to improve cognitive presence by allowing students to move through each stage of the practical inquiry model, from triggering event to resolution.^{Footnote 58}

CONCLUSION

Quality of life is adversely affected by the time military members spend away from their families. This article found that even though increased usage of full-time DL could positively affect the quality of life of individual members and their families, the current experiences related to part-time DL and perceptions of full-time DL are not positive or encouraging. The article sought to highlight current perceptions and offer solutions that could be implemented within the constraints of current training plans. By highlighting a lack of peer interactions, networking or learning from shared experiences, it becomes clear that the current DL lacks social presence. Improving social presence represents an opportunity to address issues surrounding a sense of isolation or lack of networking within the digital domain. Increasing access to instructors, either through synchronous discussions (ideal) or asynchronous communication, provides occasions to bring lived experiences into the discussion and help students better understand the applicability of the material being presented.

The proposed solutions are designed to contribute to community building and address the sense of isolation amongst students. The author also acknowledges that this study is not an end in itself but another step toward a better understanding of the challenges and opportunities offered by DL. The author hopes that this article inspires future research endeavours because additional research is necessary to explore effective approaches to DL within the CAF in general and, more specifically, in the CA. 

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Major (retired) Marshall Gerbrandt, CD, is a doctoral student at the University of New Brunswick researching education, culture, and online learning within the military context. Previously, he served as 4th Artillery Regiment’s second-in-command, as a battery commander within 2nd Regiment, Royal Canadian Horse Artillery, and as an instructor-in-gunnery within the Royal Regiment of Canadian Artillery School. He deployed on Operations ALTAIR, ATTENTION, and IMPACT.

This article first appeared in the April, 2024 edition of Canadian Army Journal (20-2).