Research on media-assisted distance education has been conducted since the 1930s, and most studies agree that when such courses are well designed, they are as effective as those taught in a traditional environment. Most of this research is based on a limited population however, and the extent to which it can be generalized to other groups is questioned. More recent research focuses on broader issues, such as new models of distance learning and interactivity strategies for learners at a distance. There are still some unanswered questions relating to the most effective types of interaction between learners and their teachers.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
1. Frank Withrow, “Star Schools Distance Learning: The Promise,”Technological Horizons in Education Journal, 17(9):62-64 (May 1990).
2.
2. Sue Willis and Susan E. Bridwell, Directory of Distance Education through Telecommunications (Washington, DC: National University Continuing Education Association, 1989).
3.
3. Dwight Dively, Educational Telecommunications in the West: 1989 State Legislative Actions, WICHE 2A195 (Boulder, CO: Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education, 1989).
4.
4. D. C. Cook and C. L. Nemziek, “The Effectiveness of Teaching by Radio,”Journal of Educational Research, 33(1):105-109 (1939).
5.
5. Maureen P. Gibbins, “The Effectiveness of Technology Applied to Instruction: A Summary of the Research Literature” (Paper prepared for the Center for Communications, San Diego State University, 1989), pp. 2-5.
6.
6. Will Kitchen, “Education and Telecommunications: Partners in Progress,” ERIC ED 282 551 (Testimony before U.S., Senate, Committee on Labor and Human Services, 11 Mar. 1987).
7.
7. Rhonda S. Robinson, “An Investigation of Technical Innovation: Interactive T.V.,” ERIC ED 256 331 (Paper delivered at the Annual Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Anaheim, CA, Jan. 1985).
8.
8. Bruce O. Barker, “The Effects of Learning by Satellite on Rural Schools,” ERIC ED 284 693 (Paper delivered at Learning by Satellite Conference, Tulsa, OK, Apr. 1987).
9.
9. Anne Batey and Richard N. Cowell, Distance Education: An Overview, ERIC ED 278 519 (Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory, 1986).
10.
10. Helen Blackwood and Curtis Trent, A Comparison of the Effectiveness of Face-to-Face and Remote Teaching in Communicating Educational Information to Adults, ERIC ED 028 324 (Manhattan: Kansas State University, Cooperative Extension Service, 1968).
11.
11. David A. Puzzuoli, A Study of Teaching University Extension Classes by Telelecture, ERIC ED 042 961 (Morgantown: West Virginia University, 1970).
12.
12. Donald P. Hoyt and David W. Frye, “The Effectiveness of Telecommunications as an Educational Delivery System,” ERIC ED 070 318 (Manuscript, Kansas State University, 1972).
13.
13. Alphonse Chapanis, Human Factors in Teleconferencing System: Final Report, ERIC ED 163 902 (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University, Department of Psychology, 1976).
14.
14. Debb Vandehaar, “Learning between Here and There: Quality Teleconference Classrooms,” in Teleconferencing and Electronic Communications V, ed. L. Parker and C. Olgren (Madison: University of Wisconsin—Extension, Center for Interactive Programs, 1986).
15.
15. Delores J. Davis, “Evaluation and Comparison of Teleconference Training with Face-to-Face Training and the Effects on Attitude and Learning” (Ph.D. diss., Drake University, 1985).
16.
16. U.S., Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Linking for Learning: A New Course for Education, OTA-SET-430 (Washington, DC: Office of Technology Assessment, 1989), p. 44.
17.
17. The one exception to this is in the area of computer-assisted instruction, which is widely regarded as an effective tool for raising achievement among low-achieving students, increasing student motivation to learn, and increasing student attention. This research is summarized in U.S., Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Power On: New Tools for Teaching and Learning (Washington, DC: Office of Technology Assessment, 1988). The current article does not claim to cover the research on technologies considered as “teaching tools.”
18.
18. Withrow, “Star Schools Distance Learning.”
19.
19. William D. Eiserman and David D. Williams, Statewide Evaluation Report on Productivity Project Studies Related to Improved Use of Technology to Extend Educational Programs, subreport 2, Distance Education in Elementary and Secondary Schools: A Review of the Literature, ERIC ED 291 350 (Logan, UT: Wasatch Institute for Research and Evaluation, 1987).
20.
20. Helen P. Warriner-Burke, “Distance Learning: What We Don't Know Can Hurt Us,”Foreign Language Annals, 23(2):129-133 (Apr. 1990).
21.
21. Godwin C. Chu and Wilber Schramm, Learning from Television: What the Research Says, ERIC Document Reproduction Service, ED 109 985 (Washington, DC: National Association of Educational Broadcasters, 1967).
22.
22. Nil Whittington, “Is Instructional Television Educationally Effective? A Research Review,”American Journal of Distance Education, 1(1):47-57 (1987).
23.
23. Kay W. Gilcher and Sally M. Johnstone, A Critical Review of the Use of Audiographic Conferencing Systems by Selected Educational Institutions (College Park, MD: International University Consortium, 1988).
24.
24. Vandehaar, “Learning between Here and There.”
25.
25. Connie L. Dillon and Charlotte Gunawardena, Learner Support as the Critical Link in Distance Education: A Study of the Oklahoma Televised Instruction System, Oklahoma Research Center for Continuing Professional and Higher Education Report (Norman, Oklahoma Research for Continuing Professional and Higher Education, Jan. 1990).
26.
26. “Teaching and Learning at a Distance,”Workshop jointly sponsored by the University of Northern Colorado and the Western Cooperative for Educational Telecommunications, Greeley, CO, June 1990.
