What’s the Difference: a Review of Contemporary Research on the Effectiveness of Distance Learning in Higher Education

Journal of hold Education/ Revue de lenseignement a duration Spring/Printemps 1999 Vol. 14, No. 1, 102-114 Whats the Difference A Review of Contemporary Research on the long suit of Distance Learning in Higher Education Ronald Phipps and Jamie Merisotis American league of Teachers, content Education Association, 1999, 48 pages Available online at http//www. ihep. com/difference. pdf Mark Bullen With the increase popularity of web-based instruction, it seems thither has been an explosion of published investigate, evaluation, and other writings related to surpass tuitional activity.For some time now I have found it more and more difficult to stay on cap of this growing body of literature. So when this treat first came across my desk (or screen), I felt a soul of relief that finally somebody had cultivaten the time to synthesize and estimate some of this growing body of distance educational activity question. The stated answer of this 48-page report is to examine the explore on the effectivity of distance education in order to inform public policy. The specific questions the report desire to answer were 1. What are the findings of the seek on the effectiveness of distance education? 2. Are they valid? . Are there gaps in the research that petition further investigation? 4. What does the literature suggest for the future? The report is divided into four main sections 1. What Does the Original Research Say About the military capability of Distance Learning? 2. What Are the Key Shortcomings of the Research? 3. What Are the Gaps in the Research that Require Further Investigation and Information? 4. Implications. It is important to tear down that the revaluation is limited to material published in the 1990s that dealt with bipartizan interactive impression, angiotensin-converting enzyme-way prerecorded video, two-way audio/ championway video, and computer-mediated learning.No definitions of these technologies are provided, which is speci ally problematic for computer-mediated learning because it could refer to online technologies as closely as stand-alone computer-based technologies, multimedia technologies, text-based computer conferencing, and both synchronous and asynchronous technologies. Not surprisingly, the chapter that reviews the accepted research concludes that the observational studies tend to show that distance students perform as well as or better than campus-based students and that the descriptive and ase studies show primarily positive student and faculty attitudes. The authors say they analyzed 40 of the most(prenominal) important and salient research studies of the 1990s and that they collected several cytosine articles, essays, and other writings published in major daybooks on distance learning. However, alone five journals appear to have been consulted. The list includes one journal that ceased publication in 1993 (Research in Distance Education) and does non include one of the most high ly regarded journals in the field, Distance Education. In the review chapter, only 10 studies are cited.Three of these are from the American Journal of Distance Education, one is from the Journal of Distance Education, four are papers from a regional American distance education conferences, one is a paper from the internal American conference of the Association for Educational Communications and applied science, and one is a case study prepared for the California State University system. The limited research on which this review appears to be based is critically important to wear off in mind when reading the chapter on the key shortcomings of the research.This chapter concludes that much of the research is flawed and therefore of questionable value. Specifically the report suggests 1. Extraneous variables were muchtimes non controlled for 2. Researchers failed to use random assignment of subjects to treatment and control groups 3. The harshness and reliability of measurement instruments are suspect 4. Reactive effects of subjects were not properly controlled for. Two studies not cited in the review chapter are cited here, which brings the substance number of studies cited to 12.One of the additional studies is from a paper presented at a regional American distance education conference, the other from a meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching. What stands out clearly in this chapter is the objectivist/quantitative frame of reference from which the research is critiqued. There is no alteration for research informed by subjectivist epistemologies that use interpretivist/qualitative methods. In fact, before in the report only four research approaches are expound descriptive, case study, correlational, and experimental.I suspect the criticisms of the research in the report are not far off the mark. Several years ago I conducted a similar review and reached similar conclusions (Bullen, 1990). However, the answer does not lie in tightening the methodological screws, but in rethinking the whole research approach. respectable and practical considerations make it almost impossible to conduct truly experimental studies in education. Students cannot be randomly assigned to control and treatment groups in these kinds of situations.Controlling extraneous variables means that technologies cannot be used in ways that take advantage of their unique characteristics. For example, imposing this kind of control when comparing video with classroom instruction would mean simply producing a videorecording of the classroom showing for the distance students instead of exploiting the unique symbol system offered by video. another(prenominal) implicit assumption underlying this report is that classroom-based instruction is the norm and that whatsoever new technology must measure up to this.The report suggests that the research on the effectiveness of distance education places too much stress on the utopian possibilities of the technology and its potential to do as well as classroombased instruction. But not enough pragmatism has been applied to appropriate for a discussion of distance learnings practical implications as a supplement to enhance teaching and learning (p. 30). In fact there is probably far less research on the effectiveness of traditional classroom-based instruction at the higher education level than there is research that focuses on distance education.The two chapters that deal with the gaps in the literature and the implications are probably the most useful, even if they are based on a rather weak foundation. Among the more useful recommendations for further research are the following 1. More emphasis should be placed on the evaluation of whole programs rather than single courses 2. There extremitys to be more emphasis on individual differences such as gender, age, educational experience, motivation and learning style 3. Research should focus on the interaction of multiple techno logies rather than the impact of single technologies.The report concludes with three grand implications 1 Access is more than a technical issue it depends on quality and student skills to use the technologies 2 Faculty roles will smorgasbord from content expert to a combination of content expert, learning influence forge expert, and process implementation manager and 3 Technology is often not nearly as important a factor as issues such as learning tasks, learner characteristics, student motivation, and the instructor. Reports that thoroughly review and analyze different strands of the literature help usy distance education practitioners immensely. Although this report makes some valuable recommendations for future research, its narrow scope, limited reach, and epistemological prepossession mean it does little to help us stay on top of the literature. Reference Bullen, M. (1990). Learner responses to television in distance education The need for a qualitative approach to researc h. In B. Clough (Ed. ), Proceedings of the ninth yearbook conference of the Canadian Association for the Study of Adult Education (pp. 48-53). Victoria, BC University of Victoria.Mark Bullen Mark Bullen is Assistant Director in the Distance Education and Technology division of Continuing Studies at the University of British Columbia. He assists in the intend and management of the unit, participates in the strategic planning for the development of distance education and distributed learning programs and courses, and provides leadership in the application of educational technology to the design and development of distance education and distributed learning courses and other educational materials (email mark. emailprotected ca).