LTEC 6040: Reflection on My Evolving Understanding of Distance and Online Learning

Over the first half of this course, my understanding of distance and online learning has grown in a way that feels more layered and intentional. Coming into the course, I viewed online learning mainly through an instructional design lens. My focus was on structure, usability, and building effective courses using models like ADDIE and Quality Matters. That perspective still matters, but I now see that distance learning is much more than design. It is about how people think, interact, and stay engaged in environments where presence is not physical.

One of the biggest shifts for me came through engaging with the Community of Inquiry framework. It helped me better understand that online learning is not just about delivering content but about creating a space where cognitive, social, and teaching presence all work together. I also found Connectivism and Self-Regulated Learning to be impactful, especially as they connect to how learners navigate information and stay motivated in digital environments. These ideas align closely with my work in AI and learning technologies, where learning is no longer confined to a single system or instructor.

My research problem has become more focused over time. At the start, I was broadly interested in AI in education. Through the course activities and discussions, I refined that into a more specific focus on AI literacy among non-technical higher education professionals, particularly instructional designers. Writing the problem statement helped me realize that I needed to be more precise about who I am studying and why it matters. That said, one of my biggest challenges has been aligning everything together. Bringing theory, literature, and methodology into one clear direction is not as simple as it sounds. I have had to slow down and really think about how frameworks like TAM and UTAUT connect with learning theories and my design-based research approach.

As I have spent more time in the literature, I have also started to notice gaps in the field. One thing that stands out is how quickly technology, especially AI, is moving compared to how slowly theory adapts. Many existing models do not fully capture what it means to learn with or through AI tools. I also see a tension between access and effectiveness.

Online learning increases access, but that does not automatically mean learners are supported in ways that lead to strong outcomes. There is still a gap in how we design for real understanding and not just participation. I see my study contributing by focusing on AI literacy in a practical, applied way that connects directly to how instructional designers work.

Looking ahead, I know there are areas I need to strengthen. Research design is one of them, especially around Design-Based Research and instrument development. As I continue developing the SNAIL instrument, I need to make sure it is not just useful but also valid and reliable. I also want to tighten my theoretical alignment so that everything feels connected instead of pieced together.

For the second half of the semester, my plan is to stay focused on refinement. I want to strengthen my literature review so it clearly supports my research direction. I also plan to be more intentional about my methodology, making sure each decision has a clear purpose. Finally, I will continue to lean into feedback, both from class discussions and my instructor, to make sure I am not overlooking gaps in my thinking.

Overall, this course has pushed me to move beyond just building learning experiences and start thinking more deeply about how and why they work. That shift has been valuable for both my research and my professional growth.