The two systems used in this study of six students in a teacher preparation program for students with visual impairments were an interactive video, audio, and data network system and a web-based course-management software package. Overall, the students were positive about the interactive video system, and those who reported that they had moderate to high technology skills reported positive outcomes from the course-management component.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
CrowS. (1999, October 29). Virtual universities can meet high standards. Chronicle of Higher Education, pp. B5–B6.
2.
DeMarioN. C., & HeinzeT. (2001). The status of distance education in personnel preparation programs in visual impairment. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 95, 525–532.
3.
FeenbergA., & BellmanB. (1990). Social factor research in computer-mediated communications. In HarasimL. M. (Ed.), Online education perspectives on a new environment (pp. 67–97). New York: Praeger.
4.
FosterL. (1997). A collaborative distance graduate degree program: A case study for building the professional community within schools.Phoenix, AZ: American Association of Colleges of Teacher Education (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 406 358).
5.
GrashaA. F., & Yangarber-HicksN. (2000). Integrating teaching styles and learning styles with instructional technology. College Teaching, 48, 2–10.
6.
HannafinM. J., & LandS. M. (1997). The foundations and assumptions of technology-enhanced student-centered learning environments. Instructional Science, 25, 167–202.
7.
HenrichsenL. (2000). Distance education insights from eight case studies in TESOL teacher preparation. Paper presented at the 11th international conference of the Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education, San Diego, CA.
8.
HolsteinJ. A., & GubriumJ. F. (1994). Phenomenology, ethnomethodology, and interpretive practice. In DenzinN. K., & LincolnY.S. (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 262–272). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
9.
HuebnerK. M., & WienerW. R. (2001). Distance education in 2001. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 95, 517–524.
10.
KeeganD. (1996). Foundations of distance education. (3rd ed.). New York: Routledge.
11.
KoenigA. J., & RobinsonM. C. (2001). Online instruction in braille code skills for preservice teachers. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 95, 543–557.
12.
LaferriereT., BreuleuxA., & BracewellR. (2000). Collaborative inquiries into the networked classroom. Paper presented at the 11th international conference of the Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education, San Diego, CA.
LudlowB. L. (1998). Preparing special education personnel for rural schools: Current practices and future directions. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 14(2), 57–75.
MasonR., & KayeT. (1990). Toward a new paradigm for distance education. In HarasimL. M. (Ed.), Online education perspectives on a new environment (pp. 15–38). New York: Praeger.
17.
MiltiadouM., & MclsaacM. S. (2000). Problems and practical solutions of web-based courses: Lessons learned from three educational institutions. Paper presented at the 11th international conference of the Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education, San Diego, CA.
18.
MoodT. A. (1995). Distance education: An annotated bibliography.Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.
19.
MooreM. G., & ThompsonM. M. (1990). The effects of distance learning: A summary of the literature.University Park: Pennsylvania State University.
20.
PattonM. Q. (1980). Qualitative evaluation methods.Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
21.
PattonM. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
22.
PaulsenM. F. (1991). Some pedagogical techniques for computer-mediated communication. In VerdejoM. F., & CerriS. A. (Eds.), Collaborative dialogue technologies in distance learning (Vol. 133, pp. 33–45). New York: Springer-Verlag.
23.
PetersO. (1998). Learning and teaching in distance education.London: Kogan Page.
24.
PorterL. R. (1997). Creating the virtual classroom distance learning with the Internet.New York: John Wiley & Sons.
25.
RitchieD. C., & HoffmanB. (1997). Using instructional design principles to amplify learning on the World Wide Web. (ERIC Documentation Services, ED 415 835, 1–6)
26.
RosenblumL. P. (2001). One professor's perspective: Preparing teachers of students with visual impairments at a distance. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 95, 558–562.
27.
SchwandtT. A. (1994). Constructivist, inter-pretivist approaches to human inquiry. In DenzinN. K., & LincolnY. S. (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 118–137). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
28.
Sujo di MonesL. E., & GonzalesC. L. (2000). More than having a connection: Qualitative factors that affect learning in a web-based university course. Paper presented at the 11th international conference of the Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education, San Diego, CA.
