Distance Education or Distance Learning

The terms “distance education” or “distance learning” have been applied interchangeably by many different researchers to a great variety of programs, providers, audiences, and media. Its hallmarks are the separation of teacher and learner in space and/or time, the volitional control of learning by the student rather than the distant instructor and noncontiguous communication between student and teacher, mediated by print or some form of technology (Keegan, 1986; Garrison and Shale, 1987).

A rich history of distance learning has accumulated as each form of instructional media has evolved, from print, to instructional television, to current interactive technologies. The earliest form of distance learning took place through correspondence courses in Europe. This was the accepted norm until the middle of this century, when instructional radio and television became popular.

It is important that research is done to determine if distance education is as effective as traditional education. The writer prefers the face-to-face course of study. Due to current responsibilities, and schedule will not allow the writer to obtain an Ed.D in the traditional setting. A person has to be very familiar with the new technology in order to be able to successfully complete a distance-learning program.

References

Garrison, D. R., Shale, D. (1987). Mapping the Boundaries of Distance Education: Problems in Defining Distance. The American Journal of Distance Education, 1(1), 7-13.

Keegan, D. (1986). The Foundations of Distance Education. London: Croom Helm.

Is "As Good As Face-To-Face" As Good As It Gets?

We are constantly being asked to compare distance education to traditional education. But by striving to make distance education “as good as” face-to-face education what are we overlooking or sacrificing? Dr. Jeannette McDonald explored these issues by first reviewing background information from the literature about new teaching theories, methods and technology. She also looked at the impact of online learning and whether it can support, or even expand, the new teaching theories and strategies, based on research. Dr. McDonald then accumulated a general overview of the quality in distance education principles and guidelines currently in use. Questions that she addresses are: Is the institutions evaluating their learning objective? Are teachers teaching what the learners need to learn? Are the learner’s outcomes appropriate and relevant to the student’s purposes and needs (McDonald, 2002)? If the students’ needs are not being met, this could cause the student to drop out. The writer poses the question of what can institutions do to keep online students from dropping out?

Reference

McDonald, J. (2002). Is “As Good As Face-To-Face” As Good As It Gets? JALN, 6(2).

Online vs. Face-To-Face Instruction

In study conducted by Barbara Stern of James Madison University examined the similarities and differences for one course, Foundations of American Education, when offered in traditional face-to-face and online formats. The data analysis used both qualitative and quantitative measures. Several conclusions were reached: (a) for the course to be effective, the time that must be allotted for online teaching will remain an issue that instructors may struggle with as the workload is significantly higher; (b) for students, a familiarity with their own learning styles and the desire and motivation to shoulder responsibility for online learning will be major factors in their success; (c) while the instructor can, and should, design and monitor the course to ensure that all students are kept on track and participating, student time management and organizational skills will remain of paramount importance; and (d) students with more proficient reading and writing skills will perform better in online classes (Stern, 2004). The writer suggests that further research needs to be done to include focusing on whether or not certain types of courses are more appropriate for online instruction and developing a repertoire of instructional strategies to accommodate a range of learning styles.


Reference

Stern, B. S. (2004). A comparison of online and face-to-face instruction in an undergraduate foundations of American education course. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education,4(2). Retrieved July 17, 2008 from www.citejournal.org/vol4/iss2.

Effects of Personality and Learning Styles

A study conducted by Capella University sought to establish a connection between personality types, learning styles, and Internet-based instruction. A high correlation between certain traits and styles can be used as an indicator of a predisposition for Interned-based instruction. Independent variables for this study include psychological type as determined by the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) and learning style determined by the Kolb Learning Styles Inventory (LSI). The dependent variable of achievement was determined by the standardized COMPASS placement test. The delivery strategy divided respondents into four groups: (a) Internet-based MAT 080, (b) face-to-face traditional “seat” class of MAT 080, (c) Internet-based ENG 11, and (d) facet-to-face traditional “seat” class of ENG 111. The same faculty taught the ENG sections and the same faculty taught the MAT sections.

The study found no discernable correlation between course format and achievement. Did not find a discernable correlation between personality type, learning styles and a propensity for achievement in Internet-based instruction. However, appear to be a correlation between the personality type of Introversion and the preference for Internet-based instruction as well as the personality type of Extroversion and the preference for traditional “seat” sections of classes when the independent variables of psychological type were simplified into categories (Elliott, 2006). Does a person’s personality type and learning style have an effect on them being successful in taking an Internet-based course vs. face-to-face?

Reference

Elliott, K. (2006). The Effects of Personality and Learning Style on the Achievement of Adult Learners in Community College Online Education: An investigation Based on the Myers- Briggs Type Indicator and the Kolb Learning Styles Inventory. Capella University. 170.

Comparing Learning Outcomes and Course Satisfaction

Extensive evaluative literature has pointed to the conclusion that there is “no significant difference” between the face-to-face and the various models of distance learning, especially Internet based distance education. Examination test scores and satisfaction survey results from participants are used as evidence for most studies. Nevertheless, there exists the other face of the fact that some authorities still maintain that online education is never equal to traditional classroom instruction.

The quantitative results of the study “Comparing the Learning Outcomes and Course Satisfaction of Web-based vs. Classroom-based Instruction” showed that there are no statistically significant differences in learning outcomes and course satisfaction between the two courses, suggesting that students can learn and experience course satisfaction as much on-line as they can in the classroom-based sessions. Also, qualitative reports support that both courses were a success in terms of the learning outcomes and course satisfaction (Unal, 2005).

The questions that came to me after reading this study were: Can students truly learn and receive complete satisfication from a course taught on-line vs. face-to-face? Are the students who take a course on-line just as prepared and ready to move to the next level as the students who take the same course face-to-face? Do the students who take a course on-line vs. face-to-face engage in interaction with their peers as well as the instructor, especially when assistance is needed?

Reference

Unal, Z. (2005). Comparing the Learning Outcomes and Course Satisfaction of Web-based vs. Classroom-based Instruction. The Florida University, 122.

Online vs. Traditional Settings in Higher Education

In the same way that transitions between technological epochs often breed transitional names that are shed as the new technology becomes established (e.g., the automobile was called the “horseless carriage” and the railroad train was called an “iron horse”), research in new applications of technology in education often focuses, initially, on comparisons with more established instructional applications (e.g., classroom instruction). In the 1950s and 1960s, the emergence of television as a new medium of instruction initiated a flurry of research that compared it with “traditional” classroom instruction. Similarly, various forms of computer-based instruction (1970s and 1980s), multi-media (1980s and 1990s), teleconferencing (1990s) and distance education (spanning all of these decades) have been investigated from a comparative perspective in an attempt to judge their relative effectiveness. It is arguably the case that these comparisons are necessary for policymakers, designers, researchers and adaptors to be certain of the relative value of innovation. Questions about relative effectiveness are important both in the early stages of development and as a field matures to summarize the nature and extent of the impact on important outcomes, giving credibility to change and helping to focus it (Bernard, Abrami, Borokhovski et. al., 2004). Which setting is more effective and beneficial for the students?

Reference

Bernard, R. M., Abrami, P. C., Borokhovski, A. (2004). How Does Distance Education Compare to Classroom Instruction? A meta-analysis of the Empirical Literature. Review of Educational Research. Retrieved December 4, 2006, from Concordia University database.