While the use of distance technology has been touted as having the potential to reform leadership preparation, there is little to no research on students’ experiences or outcomes in educational leadership. The authors sought to understand, through a descriptive survey design, whether or not distance technology is a viable competitor to face-to-face instruction. The purpose of the study was to gain perspectives from students in leadership preparation programs as consumers of instructional distance technology and to understand perceptions of the impact of distance technology on transfer of knowledge to practice. Findings provide readers with insider knowledge from consumers who utilize distance technology and indicate that while students feel online course experiences have been equally successful as compared to face-to-face instruction, they do not find that online courses have an advantage over face-to-face instruction.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AdamsJ.GarethM. (2007). “Second generation” e-learning: Characteristics and design principles for supporting management soft-skills development. International Journal on E-Learning, 6(2), 157–185.
BergeZ. (1995). Facilitating computer conferencing: Recommendation from the field. Educational Technology, 35(1), 22–30.
4.
CarrS. (2000, February 11). As distance education comes of age, the challenge is keeping the students: Colleges are using online courses to raise enrollment, but retaining it is another matter. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 46(23), A39.
5.
Carr-ChellmanA.DuchastelP. (2000). The ideal online course. British Journal of Educational Technology, 31(3), 229–241.
6.
ConceicaoS. C. O. (2006). Faculty lived experiences in the online environment. Adult Education Quarterly, 57(1), 26–45.
7.
CooperK. J. (2008). The world wide web of Ed.D.s. Issues in Higher Education, 25(18), 24–25.
8.
CorreiaA.DavisN. (2008). Intersecting communities of practice in distance education: The program team and the online course community. Distance Education, 29(3), 289–306.
9.
CreswellJ. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
10.
DixonM. (2006). Globalisation and international higher education: Contested Positionings. Journal of Studies in International Education, 10(4), 319–333.
GhezziP. (2007). The online doctorate: Flexible, but credible?School Administrator, 64(7), 30–35.
13.
GlasmanN.CibulkaJ.AshbyD. (2002). Program self-evaluation for continuous Improvement. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38(2), 257–288.
14.
GlassT.BjorkL.BrunnerC. C. (2000). The 2000 study of the American school superintendency.Arlington, Virginia: American Association of School Administrators.
15.
GrenzkyJ.MaitlandC. (2001, March). Focus on distance education. Update, 7(2).
16.
JensenM. (2001, September 14). Academic press gives away its secret of success. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 48(3). Retrieved March 13, 2009, from http://chronicle.com/weekly/v48/i03/03b02401.htm.
17.
KemelgorB. H.JohnstonS. D.SrinivasanS. (2000). Forces driving organizational change: A business school perspective. Journal of Education for Business, 75(3), 133–137.
18.
KitchenhamA. (2006). “Teachers and technology. A transformative journey”. Journal of Transformative Education, 4(3), 202–225.
19.
KramaraeC. (2003). Gender equity online, when there is no door to knock on. In MooreM.AndersonW. (Eds.), Handbook of Distance Education (pp. 261–272). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
20.
LimD. H.MorrisM. L.KuprtizV. W. (2006). Online vs. blended learning: ∗Differences in instructional outcomes and learner satisfaction. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 11(2), 31–42.
21.
MacFarlandT. (1999, February). Fall term 1999 Nova Southeastern University students respond to a broad-based satisfaction survey: A comparison of campus-based students and distance education students. A report published by Nova Southeastern University Research and Planning, Report 01–03. (Eric Document Reproduction Service No. ED453732).
22.
MadduxC. (2004). Developing online courses: Ten myths. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 23(2), 27–33.
23.
MenchacaM. P.BekeleT. A. (2008, November). Learner and instructor identified success factors in distance education. Distance Education, 29(3), 231–252.
24.
MilliganA. T.BuckenmeyerJ. A. (2008). Assessing students for online learning. International Journal on E-Learning, 7(3), 449–461.
25.
MooreM. (1986). Self-directed learning and distance education. Journal of Distance Education, 1(1). Retrieved March 13, 2009, from http://cade.athabascau.ca/vol1/moore.html.
26.
MullerT. (2008, June). Persistence of women in online degree-completion programs. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 9(2).
27.
MyersC. B.BennettD.BrownG.HendersonT. (2004). Emerging online learning environments and student learning: An analysis of faculty perceptions. Educational Technology and Society, 7(1), 78–86.
28.
O'SullivanP. B. (2000). Communication technologies in an educational environment: Lessons from a historical perspective. In ColeR. A. (Ed.), Issues in web-based pedagogy: A critical primer (pp. 49–64). Westport, CT: Greenwood.
29.
PeterK.HornL (2005, February). Gender differences in participation and completion of undergraduate education and how they have changed over time (NCES 2005–169). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Retrieved [date], from the NCES website: http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2005/2005169.pdf.
30.
RichardsonJ. C.SwanK. (2003, February). Examining social presence in online courses in relation to students’ perceived learning and satisfaction. Journal for Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(1), 68–88.
31.
RobertsonJ. M.WebberC. F. (2000). Cross-cultural leadership development. International Journal of Leadership in Education: Theory and Practice, 3(4), 315–330.
32.
SenerJ.HumbertJ. (2003). Student satisfaction with online learning: An expanding universe. In BourneJ.MooreJ. C. (Eds.), Elements of Quality Online Education: Practice and Direction, 4, 245–260 (Needham, MA: Sloan Center for OnLine Education).
33.
SheaP.LiC.SwanK.PickettA. (2006) A study of teaching presence and student sense of learning community in fully online and web-enhanced college courses. The Internet and Higher Education, 9(3), 59–82.
34.
ShermanW. H.BeatyD. M. (2007). The use of distance technology in leadership preparation. Journal of Educational Administration, 45(5), 605–620.
35.
SikoraA. (2002, November). A profile of participation in distance education: 1999–2000. Postsecondary education descriptive analysis reports (NCES 2003–017). Retrieved at: http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2003154.
36.
SwanK. (2002). Building communities in online courses: the importance of interaction. Education. Communication and Information, 2 (1), 23–49.
37.
TimmonsG. (2002). Exploring leadership in distance education, the blueprint for success. A case study of self-reported leadership practices and institutional characteristics. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, OH.
38.
TornatzkyL. G.FleischerM. (1990). The process of technological innovation.Toronto: Lexington Books.
39.
Von PrummerC. (2000). Women and distance education: Challenges and opportunities.New York: Routledge.
40.
WagschalP. H. (1998). Distance education comes to the academy: But are we asking the right questions?The Internet and Higher Education, 1(2), 125–129.
