There has been a proliferation of college courses and programs offered via distance education and particularly via the Internet (online). Although there is evidence that distance education using video conferencing or off-campus classes is effective, there is insufficient research addressing the online classes. Much of the existing research has investigated perceptions rather than outcomes. In contrast, this research presents a comparison of performance of candidates in introductory special education classes presented in traditional and online formats. Pretests and posttests of course content and attitudes toward inclusion, and rubric scores from three performance products were used to compare the outcomes in the course. The results support the “no significant difference” phenomenon and the use of distance education as a valid mechanism for delivery of teacher education.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Andrews, L. (2002). Preparing general education pre-service teachers for inclusion: Web-enhanced case-based instruction. Journal of Special Education Technology, 17(3). Retrieved August 14, 2003, from http:// jset.unlv.edu/17.3/issuemenu.html.
2.
Antonak, R. F., & Larrivee, B. (1995). Psychometric analysis and revision of the opinions relative to mainstreaming scale.Exceptional Children, 62, 139–149.
3.
Beard, L. A., & Harper, C. (2002). Student perceptions of online versus on campus instruction.Education, 1224, 658–664.
4.
Blackhurst, A. E., Hales, R. M., & Lahm, E. A. (1998). Using an education server software system to deliver special education coursework via the world wide web.Journal of Special Education Technology, 134, 78–98.
5.
Broad, M. C. (1997). The dynamics of quality assurance in on-line distance education. Electronic Journal of Instructional Science and Technology, 3(1), 12–21. Retrieved July 8, 2002 from http://www. usq.edu.au/ electpub/e-jist/docs/old/vol3no1/article2/index.htm.
6.
Caro, P., McLean, M., Browning, E., & Hains, A. (2002). The use of distance education in a collaborative course in early childhood special education.Teacher Education and Special Education, 25, 333–341.
7.
Caywood, K., & Duckett, J. (2003). Online vs. on-campus learning in teacher education.Teacher Education and Special Education, 26, 98–105.
8.
Clark, R. (1994). Media will never influence learning.Educational Technology Research and Development, 422, 21–29.
9.
Clay, M (1999). Development of training and support programs for distance education instructors. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 2(3).
10.
Cooke, N. L., & deBettencourt, L. (2001). Using distance education technology to train teachers: A case study.Teacher Education and Special Education, 24, 220–228.
11.
Daniel, J. (1996). Mega-universities and knowledge media: Technology strategies for higher education. London: Kogan Page.
12.
Daniel, G., & Cox, K. (2002). Can technology reduce education expenditures without compromising teaching. Web Tools Newsletter. Retrieved April 23, 2002, from http://webtools. cityu.edu.hk/news/newslett/ costeffectiveeducation.htm.
13.
Egan, M. W., Dyches, T. T., Young, J. R., Ingram, C. F., Gibb, G. S., & Allred, K. W. (2001). What's Best for Matthew. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
14.
Ferrell, K. A., Persichitte, K. A., Lowell, N., & Roberts, S. (2001). The evolution of a distance delivery system that supports content, students, and pedagogy.Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 9510, 597–619.
15.
Fisher, S., & Nygren, T. I. (2000). Experiments in the cost-effective uses of technology in teaching: Lessons from the Mellon program so far. Mellon Foundation. Retrieved on April 23, 2002, from http://www.ceutt.org/.
16.
Gibb, G., & Dyches, T. (2000). Guide to writing quality individualized education programs: What's best for student with disabilities?Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
17.
Griffin-Shirley, N., Almon, P., & Kelley, P. (2002). Visually impaired personnel preparation program: A collaborative distance education model.Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 964, 233–245.
18.
Gruenhagen, K., McCracken, T., & True, J. (1999). Using distance education technologies for the supervision of student teachers in remote rural schools. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 18(3/4), 8756–8705.
19.
Gunawardena, C. & McIsaac, M. (2002). Distance Education. In D. H. Johassen (ed.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 355–395). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
20.
Hallahan, D., & Kauffman, J. (2003). Cases for reflection and analysis for exceptional learners (9 ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
21.
Hallahan, D., & Kauffman, J. (2003). Exceptional learners: Introduction to special education (9 ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
22.
Halmhuber, N., & Beauvais, K. (2002). Case studies about children and adolescents with special needs. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
23.
Kaufman, R., & Watkins, R. (2000). Assuring the future for distance learning.The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 11, 59–68.
24.
Knapczyk, D., Chapman, C., Rodes, P., & Chung, H. (2001). Teacher preparation in rural communities through distance education.Teacher Education and Special Education, 24, 402–407.
25.
Lewis, L., Snow, K., Farris, E., & Levin, D. (1999). Distance Education at Postsecondary Education Institutions: 1977–98. National Center for Education Statistics, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
26.
Lock, R.H. (2001). Using web-based information to facilitate inclusion practices in rural communities.Rural Special Education Quarterly, 204, 3–11.
27.
Ludlow, B.L. (2001). Technology and teacher education in special education: Disaster or deliverance?Teacher Education and Special Education, 24, 143–163.
28.
Ludlow, B.L., Foshay, J.D., Brannan, S.A., Duff, M.C., & Dennison, K.E. (2002). Updating knowledge and skills of practitioners in rural areas: A web-based model.Rural Special Education Quarterly, 212, 33–44.
29.
Nair, P. (2003). The changing shape of learning: Technology and tight budgets force a fundamental rethinking of the higher education enterprise.Connection: New England's Journal of higher Education & Economic Development, 175, 21–23.
30.
Pindiprolu, S. S., Peterson, S. M., Rule, S., & Lignugaris-Kraft, B. (2003). Using web-mediated experiential case-based instruction to teach functional behavioral assessment skills.Teacher Education and Special Education, 26, 1–16.
31.
Ramage, T.R. (2001). The “no significant difference” phenomenon: A literature review. E-Journal of Instructional Science and Technology, 5(1). Retrieved April 23, 2003, from http://www.usq. edu.au/electpub/e-jist/ docs/html2002/ramage.html.
32.
Russell, T. L. (2001). The no significant difference phenomenon. Montgomery, AL: International Distance Education Certification Center.
33.
Saba, F. (2000). Research in distance education: A status report.International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 11, 1–9.
34.
Spooner, F., Jordan, L., Algozzine, B., & Spooner, M. (1999). Student ratings of instruction in distance learning and on-campus classes.The Journal of Educational Research, 923, 132–140.
35.
Spooner, F., Spooner, M., Algozzine, B., & Jordan, L. (1998). Distance education and special education: Promises, practices, and potential pitfalls.Teacher Education and Special Education, 21, 121–131.
Stallings, D. (2002). Measuring success in the virtual university.The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 281, 47–53.
38.
Visser, J.A. (2000). Faculty work in developing and teaching web-based distance courses: A case study of time and effort.American Journal of Distance Education, 143, 21–32.
39.
Waits, T., & Lewis, L. (2003). Distance Education at Degree-Granting Postsecondary Institution: 2000–2001. National Center for Education Statistics, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
40.
Western Cooperative for Educational Telecommunications (2000). Best Practices for Electronically Offered Degree and Certificate Programs. Retrieved July 8, 2002 from http://www.wcet.info/ resources/accreditation.
41.
Willis, E., Tucker, G., & Gunn, C. (2003). Developing an online master of education in educational technology in a learning paradigm: The process and the product.Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 111, 5–21.
