This article reports findings of a meta-analytical study of research on distance education. The purpose of this study was to identify factors that affect the effectiveness of distance education. The results show that although the aggregated data of available studies show no significant difference in outcomes between distance education and face-to-face education as previous research reviews suggest, there is remarkable difference across the studies. Further examination of the difference reveals that distance education programs, just like traditional education programs, vary a great deal in their outcomes, and the outcome of distance education is associated with a number of pedagogical and technological factors. This study led to some important data-driven suggestions for and about distance education.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AllenM., BourhisJ., BurrellN., and MabryE. (2002). Comparing student satisfaction with distance education to traditional classrooms in higher education: A meta-analysis. American Journal of Distance Education, 16(2), 83—97.
2.
ArbaughJ. B. (2000). Virtual classroom versus physical classroom: An exploratory study of class discussion patterns and student learning in an asynchronous Internet-based MBA course. Journal of Management Education, 24(2), 213—233.
3.
BaderM. B., and RoyS. (1999). Using technology to enhance relationships in interactive television classrooms. Journal of Education for Business, 74(6), 357—362.
4.
BarkhiR., and BrozovskyJ. (2000). An analysis of the dynamics of a distance course. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 28(4), 311—325.
5.
BatesA. W. (1995). Technology, open learning and distance education. London: Routledge.
6.
BeckerB. J. (2000). Multivariate meta-analysis. In TinsleyH.A., and BrownS. (Eds.), Handbook of applied multivariate statistics and mathematical modeling (pp. 499—525). Burlington, MA: Academic Press.
7.
BeggC. B. (1994). Publication bias. In The handbook of research synthesis (pp. 399—409). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
8.
BouletM.-M., BoudreaultS., and GuerettL. (1998). Effects of a television distance education course in computer science. British Journal of Educational Technology, 29(2), 101—111.
9.
BraunK. L., RobertsE., and DubanoskiJ. (1998). Evaluating a telecourse on aging. Educational Gerontology, 24(2), 141—157.
10.
CarlD. R., and DensmoreB. (1988). Introductory accounting on Distance University Education via Television (DUET): A Comparative Evaluation. Canadian Journal of Educational Communication, 17(2), 81—94.
11.
Carr-ChellmanA. A., DyerD., and BremanJ. (2000). Burrowing through the network wires: Does distance detract from collaborative authentic learning?Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), 39—62.
12.
CavanaughC. S. (2001). The effectiveness of interactive distance education technologies in K-12 learning: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Educational Telecomunications, 7, 73—88.
13.
ChengH.-C., LehmanJ., and ArmstrongP. (1991). Comparison of performance and attitude in traditional and computer conferencing classes. American Journal of Distance Education, 5(3), 51—64.
14.
ChisholmM. A., MillerA. W., and SpruillW. J. (2000). Influence of interactive videoconferencing on the performance of pharmacy students and instructors. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 64(2), 152—158.
15.
ClarkR. A., and JonesD. (2001). A comparison of traditional and online formats in a public speaking course. Communication Education, 50(2), 109—124.
16.
ClarkR. E. (1983). Reconsidering research on learning from media. Review of Educational Research, 53(4), 445—459.
17.
ClarkR. E. (1994). Media will never influence learning. Educational Technology Research & Development, 42(2), 21—29.
18.
ClarkR. E., and SalomonG. (1986). Media in teaching. In and and WittrockM.C. (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 464—478). New York: MacMillan.
19.
CollinsM. (2000). Comparing Web, correspondence and lecture versions of a second-year non-major biology course. British Journal of Educational Technology, 31(1), 21—27.
20.
CookT. D., and CampbellD. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design & analysis issues for field settings. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
21.
CooperH. (1998). Synthesizing research: A guide for literature reviews. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
22.
CooperH., ValentineJ. C., CharltonK., and MelsonA. (2003). The effects of modified school calendars on student achievement and on school and community attitudes. Review of Educational Research, 73(1), 1—52.
23.
DayT. M., RavenM. R., and NewmanM. E. (1998). The effects of World Wide Web instruction and traditional instruction and learning styles on achievement and changes in student attitudes in a Technical Writing in Agricommunication course. Journal of Agricultural Education, 39(4), 65—75.
24.
DellanaS. A., CollinsW. H., and WestD. (2000). On-line education in a management science course–Effectiveness and performance factors. Journal of Education for Business, 76(1), 43—47.
25.
DickersinK. (1990). The existence of publication bias and risk factors for its occurrence. Journal of the American Medical Association, 263(10), 1385—1389.
26.
DubinR., and HedleyR. (1969). The medium may be related to the message. Eugene: University of Oregon Press.
27.
FrearV., and HirschbuhlJ. J. (1999). Does interactive multimedia promote achievement and higher level thinking skills for today's science students?British Journal of Educational Technology, 30(4), 323—329.
28.
Furst-BoweJ. A. (1997). Comparison of student reactions in traditional and videoconferencing courses in training and development. International Journal of Instructional Media, 24(3), 197—205.
29.
GlaserB. G. (1992). Basics of grounded theory analysis: Emergence vs. forcing. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
30.
GlaserB. G., and StraussA. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.
31.
GlassV. G. (1976). Primary, secondary, and meta-analysis research. Educational Researcher, 5(10), 3—8.
32.
GlassV. G., McGawB., and SmithM. L. (1981). Meta-analysis in social research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
33.
GunawardenaC. N., and McIsaacM. S. (2004). Distance education. In and and JonassenD.H. (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (2nd ed., pp. 355—396). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
34.
HackerR., and SovaB. (1998). Initial teacher education: A study of the efficacy of computer mediated courseware delivery in a partnership context. British Journal of Educational Technology, 29(4), 333—341.
35.
HeadJ. T., LockeeB. B., and OliverK. M. (2002). Method, media, and mode: Clarifying the discussion of distance education effectiveness. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 3(3), 261—268.
36.
HolmanL. (2000). A comparison of computer-assisted instruction and classroom bibliographic instruction. Reference & User Services Quarterly, 40(1), 53—60.
37.
Institute for Higher Education Policy. (1999). What's the difference? A review of contemporary research on the effectiveness of distance learning in higher education. Washington DC: Author.
38.
Institute for Higher Education Policy. (2000). Quality online: Benchmark for success in Internet-based distance education. Washington, DC: National Education Association.
JackmanD. H., and SwanM. K. (2000). Comparing the success of students enrolled in distance education courses vs. face-to-face classrooms. Journal of Technology Studies, 26(1), 58—63.
41.
JohnsonM. (2002). Introductory biology “online”: Assessing outcomes of two student populations. Journal of College Science Teaching, 31(5), 312—317.
42.
JoyE. H., and GarciaF. E. (2000). Measuring learning effectiveness: A new look at no-significant-difference findings. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Network, 4(1), 33—39.
43.
KingP., and HildrethD. (2001). Internet courses: Are they worth the effort?Journal of College Science Teaching, 31(2), 112—115.
44.
KirmanJ. M., and GoldbergJ. (1982). Distance education: Simultaneous one-way television and group telephone conferencing for satellite map instruction. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 28(1), 51—57.
45.
KoumiJ. (1994). Media comparison and deployment: A practitioner's view. British Journal of Educational Technology, 25, 41—57.
46.
LantK. M. (2002). Flesh and bone: Information literacy, teaching and the connected classroom. Paper presented at the Annual Mid-south Instructional Technology Conference. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED464624)
47.
LeasureA. R., DavisL., and ThievonS. L. (2000). Comparison of student outcomes and preferences in a traditional vs. World Wide Web-based baccalaureate nursing research course. Journal of Nursing Education, 39(4), 149—154.
48.
LevinS. R., LevinJ. A., and ChandlerM. (2001, April). Social and organizational factors in creating and maintaining effective online learning environments. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA.
49.
Lia-HoagbergB., VellengaB., and MillerM. (1999). A partnership model of distance education: Students’ perceptions of connectedness and professionalization. Journal of Professional Nursing, 15(2), 116—122.
50.
LipseyM. W. (1994). Identifying potentially interesting variables and analysis opportunities. In CooperH., and HedgesL.V. (Eds.). The handbook of research synthesis (pp. 111—123). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
51.
LockJ. V. (2002). Laying the Groundwork for the Development of Learning Communities within Online Courses. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 3(4), 395—408.
52.
LockeeB. B., BurtonJ. K., and CrossL. H. (1999). No comparison: Distance education finds a new use for “no significant difference.” Educational Technology Research and Development, 7(3), 33—42.
53.
MachtmesK., and AsherJ. W. (2000). A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of telecourses in distance education. American Journal of Distance Education, 14(1), 27—46.
54.
MagieraF. T. (1994). Teaching managerial finance through compressed video: An alternative for distance education. Journal of Education for Business, 69(5), 273—277.
55.
McFallJ. P., and FreddolinoP. P. (2000). Quality and comparability in distance field education: Lessons learned from comparing three program sites. Journal of Social Work Education, 36(2), 293—307.
56.
McGrealR. (1994). Comparison of the attitudes of learners taking audiographic teleconferencing courses in secondary schools in Northern Ontario. Interpersonal Computing and Technology Journal, 2(4), 11—23.
57.
McIsaacM. S., and GunawardenaC. N. (1996). Distance education. In and and JonassenD.H. (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology: A project of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology (pp. 403—437). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.
58.
MillerG., and RicherC. L. (2001). Levels of cognition reached in agricultural distance education courses in comparison to on-campus courses and to faculty perceptions concerning an appropriate level. Journal of Agricultural Education, 42(1), 20—27.
59.
MillerJ. W., McKennaM. C., and RamseyP. (1993). An evaluation of student content learning and affective perceptions of a two-way interactive video learning experience. Educational Technology, 33(6), 51—55.
60.
MooreM. G., and ThompsonM. M. (1996). The effects of distance learning (Rev. ed.; Research Monograph No. 15). University Park: Pennsylvania State University, American Center for the Study of Distance Education.
61.
MurphyT. H. (2000). An evaluation of a distance education course design for general soils. Journal of Agricultural Education, 41(3), 103—113.
62.
National Center for Education Statistics. (1999). Distance education at postsecondary education institutions, 1997–98 (Statistical analysis report, NCES No. 2000–013). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved May 23, 2005, from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2000/2000013.pdf
63.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2003). Distance education at degree-granting postsecondary institutions: 2000–2001 (NCES No. 2003–017). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
64.
NeslerM. S., HannerM. B., and MelburgV. (2001). Professional socialization of baccalaureate nursing students: Can students in distance nursing programs become socialized?Journal of Nursing Education, 40(7), 293—302.
65.
PhelpsR. H., WellsR. A., AshworthR. L.Jr., and HeidiA. H. (1991). Effectiveness and costs of distance education using computer-mediated communication. American Journal of Distance Education, 5(3), 7—19.
66.
PhillipsM. R., and PetersM. J. (1999). Targeting rural students with distance learning courses: A comparative study of determinant attributes and satisfaction levels. Journal of Education for Business, 74(6), 351—356.
67.
ReddingT. R., and RotzienJ. (2001). Comparative analysis of online learning versus classroom learning. Journal of Interactive Instruction Development, 13(4), 3—12.
68.
RoblyerM. D. (1999). Is choice important in distance learning? A study of student motives for taking Internet-based courses at the high school and community college levels. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 32(1), 157—171.
69.
RosenthalR. (1991). Meta-analytic procedures for social research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
70.
RussellT. L. (1999). The no significant difference phenomenon. Chapel Hill: North Carolina State University, Office of Instructional Telecommunications.
71.
RyanM., CarltonK. H., and AliN. S. (1999). Evaluation of traditional classroom teaching methods versus course delivery via the World Wide Web. Journal of Nursing Education, 38(5), 272–277.
72.
RyanW. F. (1996). The effectiveness of traditional vs. audiographics delivery in senior high advanced mathematics courses. Journal of Distance Education, 11(2), 45—55.
73.
SchlosserC. A., and AndersonM. L. (1994). Distance education: Review of the literature. Ames, IA: Iowa Distance Education Alliance. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED382159)
74.
Schoenfeld-TacherR., McConnellS., and GraM. (2001). Do no harm–A comparison of the effects of on-line vs. traditional delivery media on a science course. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 10(3), 257—265.
75.
SchrammW. (1962). Learning from instructional television. Review of Educational Research, 32(2), 156—167.
76.
SchwabJ. H. (1983). The practical 4: Something for curriculum professors to do. Curriculum Inquiry, 13(3), 239—265.
77.
ShadishW. R., and HaddockC. K. (1994). Combining estimates of effect size. In The handbook of research synthesis (pp. 261—284). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
78.
ShaleD. (1990). Toward a reconceptualization of distance education. In and and MooreM.G. (Ed.), Contemporary issues in American distance education (pp. 333—343). Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press.
79.
SimpsonH., PughH. L., and ParchmanS. W. (1991). An experimental two-way video tele-training system: Design, development and evaluation. Distance Education, 12(2), 209—231.
80.
SmeatonA. F., and KeoghG. (1999). An analysis of the use of virtual delivery of undergraduate lectures. Computers & Education, 32(1), 83—94.
81.
SmithS. B., SmithS. J., and BooneR. (2000). Increasing access to teacher preparation: The effectiveness of traditional instructional methods in an online learning environment. Journal of Special Education Technology, 15(2), 37—46.
82.
SonnerB. S. (1999). Success in the capstone business course–Assessing the effectiveness of distance learning. Journal of Education for Business, 74(4), 243—247.
83.
SowinskiK. M., ScottS. A., and CarlstedtB. C. (2000). An Internet training module for traditional and nontraditional doctor of pharmacy students: Content and evaluation. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 64(1), 15—19.
84.
SpoonerF., JordanL., AlgozzineB., and SpoM. (1999). Student ratings of instruction in distance learning and on-campus classes. Journal of Educational Research, 92(3), 132—140.
85.
SteynM. M. d. V., AlexanderP. M., and RohmD. (1996). CAL for first year analytical chemistry by distance education. Computers & Education, 27(2), 95—101.
86.
StickellD. W. (1963). A critical review of the methodology and results of research comparing televised and face-to-face instruction. University Park: Pennsylvania State University.
87.
StockW. A. (1994). Systematic coding for research synthesis. In CooperH., and HedgesL.V. (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis (pp. 125—138). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
88.
SugrueB., RietzT., and HansenS. (1999). Distance learning: Relationships among class size, instructor location, student perceptions, and performance. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 12(3), 44—57.
89.
SummersM., AndersonJ. L., LinesA. R., GelderB. C., and DeanR. S. (1996). The camera adds more than pounds: Gender differences in course satisfaction for campus and distance learning students. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 29(4), 212—219.
90.
ThyerB. A., ArteltT., and MarkwardM. (1998). Evaluating distance learning in social work education: A replication study. Journal of Social Work Education, 34(2), 291—295.
91.
TwiggC. A. (2001). Innovations in online learning: Moving beyond no significant difference. Taylor, NY: Pew Learning and Technology.
92.
United States General Accounting Office. (2002). Growth in distance education programs and implications for federal education policy: Statement of Cornelia M. Ashby, Director. Washington, DC: Author.
93.
WagnerN., and CraftE. H. (1988). Instructional television fixed service in Arizona. American Journal of Distance Education, 2(1), 76—80.
94.
WangA. Y., and NewlinM. H. (2000). Characteristics of students who enroll and succeed in psychology Web-based classes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(1), 137—143.
95.
WilkinsonK. L., and HembyK. V. (2000). An examination of perceptions of the use of virtual conferences in organizations: The Organizational Systems Research Association (OSRA) and the Association for Business Communication (ABC) Members. Information Technology, Learning, and Performance Journal, 18(2), 13—23.
96.
WisherR. A., and CurnowC. K. (1999). Perceptions and effects of image transmissions during Internet-based training. American Journal of Distance Education, 13(3), 37—51.
