What’s the Difference: a Review of Contemporary Research on the Effectiveness of Distance Learning in Higher Education

diary of Distance Education/ revaluation de lenseignement a keep Spring/Printemps 1999 Vol. 14, no(prenominal) 1, 102-114 Whats the Difference A freshen up of Contemporary Research on the potency of Distance erudition in high Education Ronald Phipps and Jamie Merisotis American Federation of Teachers, depicted object Education joining, 1999, 48 pages Available online at http//www. ihep. com/difference. pdf Mark Bullen With the increasing popularity of web-based instruction, it seems at that place has been an plosion of published seek, evaluation, and opposite literature colligate to out blank fostering.For some time right stumble I have found it progressively difficult to stay on top of the inning of this growing personate of literature. So when this history first came across my desk (or screen), I matt-up a sense of relief that in conclusion somebody had concurn the time to synthesize and evaluate some of this growing body of distance education research. T he stated character of this 48-page storey is to examine the research on the effectiveness of distance education in order to inform public policy. The particular questions the report sought to answer were 1. What be the findings of the research on the effectiveness of distance education? 2. argon they valid? . argon there gaps in the research that take in except investigation? 4. What does the literature aim for the rising? The report is divided into iv main sections 1. What Does the Original Research presuppose Ab emerge the Effectiveness of Distance Learning? 2. What Are the Key Shortcomings of the Research? 3. What Are the Gaps in the Research that Require kick upstairs Investigation and Information? 4. Implications. It is authoritative to tonus that the review is limited to material published in the 1990s that dealt with cardinal-way synergistic video, one-way prerecorded video, two-way auditory sensation/oneway video, and computer-mediated accomplishment.No defi nitions of these technologies be provided, which is particularly problematic for computer-mediated instruction because it could refer to online technologies as well up as stand-alone computer-based technologies, multimedia technologies, text-based computer conferencing, and two synchronous and asynchronous technologies. Not surprisingly, the chapter that reviews the overlord research concludes that the experimental studies tend to march that distance schoolchilds perform as well as or better than campus-based schoolchilds and that the descriptive and ase studies show generally positive student and faculty attitudes. The authors say they analyzed 40 of the most important and salient research studies of the 1990s and that they collected several century articles, essays, and other writings published in major journals on distance learn. However, unaccompanied when five journals appear to have been consulted. The itemization takes one journal that ceased publication in 1993 (Research in Distance Education) and does not include one of the most highly regarded journals in the field, Distance Education. In the review chapter, only 10 studies atomic number 18 cited.Three of these argon from the American Journal of Distance Education, one is from the Journal of Distance Education, four-spot are cover from a regional American distance education conferences, one is a study from the national American conference of the friendship for Educational Communications and Technology, and one is a eccentric study prepared for the calcium State University system. The limited research on which this review appears to be based is critically important to bear in listen when reading the chapter on the key shortcomings of the research.This chapter concludes that untold of the research is flawed and therefore of dubious value. Specifically the report suggests 1. Extraneous variables were a great deal not controlled for 2. Researchers failed to use random duty assign ment of subjects to give-and-take and control groups 3. The validity and reliableness of valuement instruments are suspect 4. thermolabile effects of subjects were not properly controlled for. devil studies not cited in the review chapter are cited here, which brings the total number of studies cited to 12.One of the additional studies is from a paper presented at a regional American distance education conference, the other from a meeting of the National knowledge for Research in Science Teaching. What stands out clearly in this chapter is the objectivist/quantitative digit of reference from which the research is critiqued. There is no grantance for research informed by subjectivist epistemologies that use interpretivist/qualitative methods. In fact, anterior in the report only four research approaches are described descriptive, case study, correlational, and experimental.I suspect the criticisms of the research in the report are not far off the mark. Several years ago I ta rgeted a alike review and reached similar conclusions (Bullen, 1990). However, the answer does not lie in tightening the methodological screws, but in rethinking the whole research approach. Ethical and hard-nosed considerations make it almost impossible to conduct truly experimental studies in education. Students cannot be randomly assigned to control and treatment groups in these large-hearteds of situations.Controlling extraneous variables means that technologies cannot be used in ways that take advantage of their unique characteristics. For example, imposing this kind of control when comparing video with classroom instruction would mean simply producing a videorecording of the classroom presentation for the distance students quite of exploiting the unique symbol system offered by video. Another implicit assumption key this report is that classroom-based instruction is the norm and that both new technology must measure up to this.The report suggests that the research on the effectiveness of distance education places likewise much emphasis on the utopian possibilities of the technology and its potential to do as well as classroombased instruction. But not enough pragmatism has been applied to allow for a discussion of distance eruditions practical implications as a supplement to enhance teaching and encyclopedism (p. 30). In fact there is in all probability far less research on the effectiveness of traditional classroom-based instruction at the higher education level than there is research that focuses on distance education.The two chapters that deal with the gaps in the literature and the implications are probably the most useful, even if they are based on a rather weak foundation. Among the more than useful recommendations for further research are the following 1. more than emphasis should be placed on the evaluation of whole programs rather than whiz courses 2. There needs to be more emphasis on individual differences such as gender, age, e ducational experience, motivation and information style 3. Research should focus on the interaction of multiple technologies rather than the impingement of single technologies.The report concludes with three colossal implications 1 Access is more than a technical issue it depends on type and student skills to use the technologies 2 dexterity roles will change from content intelligent to a combination of content expert, learning process figure expert, and process execution manager and 3 Technology is oft not nearly as important a factor as issues such as learning tasks, learner characteristics, student motivation, and the instructor. Reports that thoroughly review and analyze antithetic strands of the literature help usy distance education practitioners immensely. Although this report makes some valuable recommendations for future research, its narrow scope, limited reach, and epistemological persuade mean it does little to help us stay on top of the literature. speech Bu llen, M. (1990). Learner responses to television in distance education The need for a qualitative approach to research. In B. Clough (Ed. ), Proceedings of the 9th annual conference of the Canadian Association for the Study of Adult Education (pp. 48-53). Victoria, BC University of Victoria.Mark Bullen Mark Bullen is Assistant Director in the Distance Education and Technology stratum of Continuing Studies at the University of British Columbia. He assists in the planning and management of the unit, participates in the strategic planning for the development of distance education and distributed learning programs and courses, and provides leadership in the application of educational technology to the design and development of distance education and distributed learning courses and other educational materials (email mark. email&160protected ca).