This article was downloaded by: [The Aga Khan University]On: 27 October 2014, At: 05:46Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

The Journal of Educational ResearchPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjer20

Student Ratings of Instruction in Distance Learning and On-Campus ClassesFred Spooner a , Luann Jordan a , Bob Algozzine a & Melba Spooner aa The University of North Carolina at CharlottePublished online: 01 Apr 2010.

To cite this article: Fred Spooner , Luann Jordan , Bob Algozzine & Melba Spooner (1999) Student Ratings of Instruction in DistanceLearning and On-Campus Classes, The Journal of Educational Research, 92:3, 132-140, DOI: 10.1080/00220679909597588

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00220679909597588

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in thepublications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations orwarranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsedby Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings,demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectlyin connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Student Ratings of Instruction in Distance Learning and On-Campus Classes FRED SPOONER LUANN JORDAN BOB ALGOZZINE MELBA SPOONER The University of North Carolina at Charlotte

requires effective use of media. Thus, distance learning rep- resents a myriad of possibilities in the delivery of knowl- edge and skills.

Keegan (1980) suggested the following six defining char- acteristics Of distance learning:

ABSTRACT Student ratings in 2 special education cours- es offered on campus and off campus using different means of instruction, including electronic media, were compared. Rat- ings also were compared when distance classes were taught at local and remote facilities. End-of-course student evaluations were examined using a counterbalanced design. A comparison of outcome measures revealed no difference in the overall course means. Outcome measures for on-campus students ver- sus off-campus students for the 2 courses were examined, but no differences were found in the overall ratings. Course, instructor, teaching, and communication ratings were similar across settings and courses. Implications for future research in evaluating instruction at a distance are suggested.

earning at a distance, alternatively referred to as corre- L spondence study, home study, independent study, external study, distance education, and distance learning, has been a method of delivering instructional courses for many years. For example, correspondence study was initi- ated in the late 19th century to enable learners to receive instruction when they could not attend traditional classes. It has evolved to include a wide variety of subjects including, in many cases, electronic media; correspondence study re- mains an important distance learning option (Moore & Thompson, 1997). Other types of distance learning oppor- tunities such as independent or home studies also have been popular; students enrolled in those types of study complete course work off campus with ongoing supervision from an instructor. Learning at a distance provides many education opportunities, a significant number of which involve emerg- ing technologies and similar overall definitions.

Moore and Thompson ( 1997) described distance learning as any instructional arrangement in which the teacher and learner are geographically separated to an extent requiring communication through media. They added that distance education has become a new approach to instruction that

1. Separation of the teacher and the student (i.e., separa- tion vs. face to face, in the same room lecturing).

2 . The influence of an educational organization (e.g., department or college) in the planning, preparation, or de- livery of material (vs. a stand-alone professor responsible for content generation and delivery of course information). This is a component not typically found in most on-campus courses.

3. Use of technical media. Historically, in most cases this has been print, but as technology advances, electronic media (computers, TV studio delivery, and computer soft- ware presentation packages) contribute to a list of technical options.

4. Provision for two-way communication, which could be via a prearranged telephone conference with a single stu- dent or group of students at a central location at a prescribed time.

5. The possibility of an occasional seminar, which could allow students working independently, perhaps viewing prerecorded video tapes, receiving paper assignments via regular mail, or watching the lecture via cable or satellite TV in their own homes, to assemble as a group in the pres- ence of the instructor of record for the class.

6. Evidence of a division of labor (i.e., a team of individ- uals involved in the preparation and delivery of course con- tent). Members of the team might include a content expert (e.g., a faculty member in elementary education for a course

Address correspondence to Bob Alp,- ,- inr, EART/Educution, The University of North Cmdincr Lit Charlotte. 9201 Univer.sity City Boulerwd, Chtrrlotte. NC 28223-0001.

132

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

46 2

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

JanuaryRebruary 1999 [Vol. 92(No. 3)] 133

offered from that program), graphic illustrators (who for all practical purposes have no knowledge of the content but bring it to life with related illustrations), and a TV person- ality (i.e., an individual trained to work in the presence of the camera and the voice of a TV or radio announcer to deliver the content).

Neil ( 198 I ) distinguished whole svstem models of dis- tance education such as nationwide open universities from ernbedded systeins, which are a part of other educational institutions and agencies. Evans ( 1986) defined distance learning as the delivery of credit or noncredit instruction where a majority of the content expertise and management is at one location and a majority of the students reside at another location. Audiences for the two authors included corporate and government employees, GED students, tradi- tional college students (at both the graduate and undergrad- uate levels), and adult learners, with instruction delivered through a variety of means including satellite, open air broadcasts, cable, computer, videodisc, and correspondence.

Other definitions, or forms of definitions, also exist. For example, Feasley ( 1983) suggested that distance learning, or distance education, is simply learning what takes place at a site remote from the instructor. That definition, like the others, includes various types of media: correspondence courses, television classes, and even interactive systems via TV and the computer.

Although education obtained at a distance was viewed to be effective by some, in the eyes of others it has been seen as something less than education received on a college or uni- versity campus. In the technology age, the adage “necessity is the mother of invention” is being replaced by the saying that “invention is the mother of necessity” (Molnar, 1997, p. 63). Technology innovations have created a vastly different arena in which distance learning can operate; the potential for professionals preparing education personnel is immense.

Research on the effectiveness of distance learning is var- ied in representation and outcome. To illustrate, a recent historical review of technology research in special educa- tion does not mention distance learning (see Woodward & Reith, 1997). In a summary of research on learning out- comes and attitudes for students in higher education, Moore and Thompson ( 1997) reviewed comparisons of distance learning instructional technology comparable with that used in the present study (two-way audio and video, teleconfer- encing vs. traditional or face-to-face teaching).

Studies that compare cognitive factors such as amount of learning, academic performance, achievement, and exami- nation and assignment grades in distance learning and cam- pus courses are summarized in Table 1 . In general, the out- comes of that body of research reflected no differences in cognitive factors between the distance and traditional class- es. Other factors (i.e., student satisfaction with the course, comfort, convenience, communication with instructor, in- teraction and collaboration between students, indepen- dence, and perceptions of effectiveness) illustrate more

mixed results (e.g., Crump, 1928; Kuramato, 1984; Pirrong & Lathen, 1990; Ritchie & Newby, 1989). In the majority of research in which instructional factors were studied, oppor- tunities for interaction between students and instructor seemed to be negatively affected in the distance condition (Davis, 1984; Pirrong & Lathen, 1990); in Weingand ( 1984), however, they were not affected. In contrast, Jaeger (1995) found that collaboration and interdependence among students and support for independent learning activities were positive- ly affected by distance education. Some of the differences in the more qualitative aspects of the educational experience may be related to differences in the course content, program, or method of assessment (i.e., survey vs. interview).

Comfort and convenience were cited repeatedly as posi- tive elements of the distance condition. Essentially, students in those studies like the convenience of distance education, but if given a choice to be in the same room with the in- structor, most students will choose the personal contact.

Spooner, Spooner, Algozzine, and Jordan ( 1998) asserted that education, learning, attending classes, and obtaining in- formation should become more accessible through distance learning. For example, students with physical disabilities who have difficulty moving about on large college campus- es could be empowered by obtaining information via the comfort of their own homes. Students should be able simul- taneously to maximize their lifestyle and obtain an educa- tion. A promising characteristic of one of the studies de- scribed distance education as “an acquired taste.” Students reported that the more experience they had with distance education technology and conditions, the more comfortable they became with the course and mode of interaction (Jones, 1992). Perhaps the lessening of distance tension would allow students to enjoy the benefits of distance education (e.g., comfort, convenience) to a greater extent.

The purpose of this research was to evaluate student opinions after their participation in a teacher education course work that included distance learning options. Sever- al different coniparisons were completed. First, we com- pared opinions for the same course delivered on campus and off campus in different semesters. Second, we com- pared student ratings for distance learning classes for stu- dents participating at local and remote facilities.

Method

We compared standard course evaluation ratings of instruction provided in distance learning courses with rat- ings from the same courses taught on campus. We also com- pared ratings of students participating in distance learning courses on and off campus.

Participants

Students participating in a graduate teacher preparation program at a medium-sized state university in the Southeast represented the sample for this research. Participants were

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

46 2

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

134 The Journal of Educational Research

Table 1.-Research in Distance Education Using Interactive Technology

What was measured? Author(s) (date) Journal (source) Setting Technology (dependent variable) Results

Nunley (1965) Doctoral dissertation

Retraining of mathematics teachers

Cooperative extension class

Face-to-face vs. telelecture

Pretests and posttests of achievement, mathematical ability, and attitudes

Amount of learning; amount of learning associated with age, level of education, time of day. and attitude

There were significantly greater mean changes in content mastery for the telelecture group.

No difference was found in amount learned; there were no associations hetween the amount of learning and age, level of education, time of day. and attitude.

Blackwood and ERIC document Trent ( 1968)

Telelecture vs face-to-face

Davis (1984) Dissertation Not described Teleconferenc- ing, face-to-face teaching. combi- nation of the two methods

Learner satisfaction (attitude), achievement

Face-to-face resulted in more posi- tive attitudes. learner satisfaction with the method of instruction in- creased as face-to-face contact increased; no significant relationship between attitude and achievement was found.

All 3 delivery models were effective in increasing cognitive knowledge.

Kuramato ( 1984) Teleconferencing mid Electronic Conimunications I"

Continuing education for nurses

Face- to- face, teleconferencing. correspondence

Effectiveness in terms of academic oerformance and learners' attitudes and behaviors Findings relative to attitude were --cognitive pre- and posttest scores, attitude scores, intent to use and actual use of course content, attendance, and attrition were analyzed

Differences in student performance

- mixed and inconclusive.

Weingand (1984) Teleconfermcing und Electronic Comniuriiccitions 111

Graduate-level library science

Teleconferencing vs. traditional

N o evidence was found to support the idea that face-to-face instruction is the optimum delivery method. Instruction by teleconferencing can facilitate learning as well as or better than classroom instruction. Absence of face-to-face contact is not detrimental to the learning process.

Pretests and posttests, quizzes and final examinations were comparable between the two groups. Retention rate was identical between the two groups.

Traditional classroom and live studio classroom expressed greater satis- faction with instruction than the stu- dents in the distance group, per- ceived comfort in the learning situation was similar. No differences were found.

McCleary and Egan ( 1989)

The Anierictm Journal of Distance LRarning

Special education certification program

Traditional vs interactive television

Student achievement

Ritchie and Newby ( 1989)

The American Journal of Distance Learning

Undergraduate course. random

Traditional class- room with in-

Attitude and achievement

assignment of 26 structor, TV undergrads to studio classroom three treatment with instructor groups (live studio).

studio classroom with television monitors rather than instructor (distance)

Three-group de- Interactive sign, introduc- television tory financial accounting course delivered via interactive television

Satisfaction-student attitudes about the course. instruction, instructor, and facilities

Mixed results were found. No significant differences were found in teaching ability. Distance students were significantly less satisfied with their ability to communicate with the instructor, legibility of the instructor's writing, and readability of visual aids.

Pirrong and Lathen ( 1990)

Educutional Technology

Table continues

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

46 2

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

Januarymebruary 1999 [Vol. 92(No. 3)] 135

Table 1.-Continued

What was measured‘! Author(s) (date) Journal (source) Setting Technology (dependent variable) Results

Lombardi, ERIC document Graduate-level Distance courses Bauer. teacher-prepara- Peters. and tion programs 0’ Keefe ( I99 I )

Number of students who registered and completed courses. Student course grades. Student evalu- ations of faculty

Courses were judged to he effective.

Jones (1992) ERIC document University of Two-way video/

Stahmer, Smal- Paper presented dino, Hardman, at annual meet- and MuffakttO ing of the Asso. ( 1992) ciation for Ed-

cational Com- muncation and Technology

Souder (1993) The Anrericun Journal of Distancv Learning

Naber and The Anwricon LeBlanc (1994) JournuI of

Distance burning

Jaeger (1995) The Anwricun Journal of DistancP Leuming

Thomserson and The Aniericcin Smith (1996) Journd of

Disrance Learning

Alabama Inter- campus Inter- active Tele- communications System (IITS)

Community college

Master’s program in technology

Human biology laboratory delivered via distance

Hands-on instruction to science teachers

Courses in education

audio IITS de- livery of courses to remote campuses

Interactive television

Traditional vs. distance

Distance learning

Interactive video- conferencing between beveral sites

Traditional vs. remote-site and host-\ite settings

Attitudes, opinions. preferences measured with 77-item question- naire with seven categories-instructional administration, teacher- room coordinator, course judgment, empathy. motivation and accomplishment, video technology

Attitudes

Achievement as measured by exams, homework assignments, term papers

Course objectives met; student grades

Assessment of course outcomes

Effective perceptions including student-teacher interaction, course structure, physical learning environment, and overall enjoyment of the course

Student responses were generally positive toward the instructors and coordinators, amount learned, and toward distance education as a way of offering them academic and professional advantages. Students were neutral in their atti- tudes toward the technology itself; most reported that interacting with the technology became easier with the passage of time.

Students reported that instructional television was an effective delivery medium, and they were willing to take additional courses at a distance.

Distance group scored significantly higher than traditional students on exams and homework assignments; there were no significant differences in performance on term papers. Distance students also reported gaining more information than usual.

Course objectives were satisfactorily met with 99% of the students com- pleting the course and 83% of the students receiving a course grade of either A or B. A generally positive reception was given to distance delivery.

Benefits: participants became more independent and self-directed rather than relying on their instructors; interdependence and collaboration with peers increased; students in- corporated new goals for teaching learning into the courses.

No differences in student-teacher interactions and course structure were found. Remote- and host-site groups re- sponded significantly less positively to questions addressing physical learning environment. Host-site responded significantly less positively to questions address- ing overall course enjoyment/ satisfaction.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

46 2

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

136 The Journal of Educational Research

graduate-level master’s degree students who were mem- bers of the first phase in a distance learning project in which teachers were prepared to work with students with severe disabilities. All of the students had a baccalaureate degree. Most of them had an undergraduate teaching license in education (e.g., special education). Almost all of the students at all locations were employed full time as teachers of persons with severe disabilities; they also attended one or two classes a semester. Students at the remote sites were enrolled in the distance class for the spe- cific semester that it was offered in the respective phase of the project (e.g., SPED 61 26, Methods of Teaching Persons With Severe Disabilities). On-campus students enrolled frequently in both of the classes in the severe sequence that were offered in the spring semester (i.e., SPED 6126 and SPED 6 127).

The first phase of the project served the eastern portion of the state; two branch campuses within the state’s university system were the remote sites. A group of students at the home campus interacted with the students at the remote sites via a two-way interactive TV broadcast on a weekly basis for the duration of that phase of the project. Sixty-two students (54 women, 8 men) were enrolled in the two classes across the two types of content delivery modes (on-campus learning vs. distance learning). Because the students were members of a cohort for Phase 1 of the project, there was considerable overlap but not an identical one-to-one corre- spondence in the student population from course to course. That is, many of the students were enrolled in both of the classes under investigation because the classes were part of their curriculum sequence in severe disabilities.

The end-of-course evaluations by the participants are the data on which this investigation is based. The following information includes the total number of students in each class and the percentage of those students who formally evaluated the course on the night that the evaluation was scheduled. The first course offered in the spring semester of the first project year and taught via distance learning included 40 students, 23 (58%) of whom evaluated the course. The course also was offered on campus without distance learning in the spring semester of the following year; 6 students were enrolled, 4 (67%) of whom evaluat- ed the course. The second course offered in the spring semester of the second year of the project included 16 stu- dents, 13 (8 1 %) of whom evaluated the course. That course was offered on campus in the spring semester of the previ- ous year; I I of the 13 participating students (85%) evalu- ated the course.

Procedu res

n o courses in a special education preparation program for teachers of students with severe disabilities were deliv- ered on campus and off campus via distance learning in a counterbalanced design controlling for order of presenta- tion. One section of each course was offered during the

same semester in two consecutive years. Standard course evaluation ratings were collected during the final class ses- sion for each course. Ratings were compared across settings (on-campus vs. off-campus) for each course and across par- ticipants (on-campus vs. off-campus) within courses offered via distance learning.

Course descriptions. The two courses under investigation were 3-semester-hr graduate-level classes for master’s stu- dents who were enrolled as part of a required 36-hr sequence leading to an advanced degree in special education with an emphasis in teaching students with severe disabilities, and graduate-level licensure. The two courses addressed meth- ods (SPED 6126) and curriculum (SPED 6127).

The catalog description for Methods for Teaching Per- sons With Severe Disabilities indicates that the course was designed around principles and procedures used to pro- gram instruction for persons with severe disabilities and that students are required to design and implement an instructional program. Specific content defines, describes, and discusses the implementation of procedures such as chaining, time delay, and response-prompting techniques as well as functional assessment and program planning and evaluation.

The second course that we investigated is the curriculum course listed as Curriculum for Persons With Severe Dis- abilities. Program recommendations indicate that students take both courses concurrently because there is considerable interchange between the curricular components that are taught (e.g., leisure and recreation skills) and the instruc- tional methods (e.g., chaining, time delay) that are used to assist individuals with severe disabilities acquire those skills. The catalog description indicates that the curriculum course is designed around a selection of instructional pro- grams appropriate for use with persons with severe disabil- ities, and students identify strengths and weaknesses of edu- cation programs and make recommendations for their use with such persons. Curricular content like community and domestic living skills, vocational training, supported em- ployment and transition, leisure and recreation, communica- tion skills, augmentative and alternative communication, and strategies and instructional procedures to promote social interactions and relationships is addressed.

The instructor of record for both courses under each of the delivery formats (i.e., on-campus learning vs. distance learning) was the senior author and the principal investiga- tor of the project. The course content for both courses under each delivery format was comprised of material from a leading methods and curriculum text in the area of severe disabilities (Cipani & Spooner, 1994). The Cipani and Spooner text was a unique collection of edited chapters from experts in the area of curricular and instructional issues in severe disabilities, and i t was compiled in such a way that a specific section of the text could be used for cur- riculum issues (i.e., Section 11, chapters 6-1 3) and instruc- tional issues (i.e., Section I , chapters 1-5).

As would be expected in graduate courses taught by the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

46 2

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

JanuaryEebruary 1999 (Vol. 92(No. 3)] 137

same instructor, grade distributions in each course on and off campus were comparable. Approximately half of each group of students received A's and B's; no students received grades of C or below.

Instrumentation. The course and instructor appraisal sys- tem used in this research were based on a structured method for collecting student opinions about their instruction. The system was adopted as a means of evaluating instruction in SPED 6126 and SPED 6127, as well as all other courses in the College of Education where the research occurred. Rat- ings were based on the following 5-point Likert-type scale: 1 = very poor; 2 = below average, 3 = average, 4 = above

combined for an overall rating. Five cluster ratings were derived from the original items, each reflecting a different aspect of the overall rating. Cluster ratings provided evalu- ations of the course (5 items), instructor (4 items), organi- zation (4 items), teaching (5 items), and communication (8 items).

Reliability. Internal consistency estimates (i.e., coeff- cient alpha) were obtained for the total evaluation instru- ment and each cluster of items. In general, reliabilities for the overall scale (rxx = .98) and each cluster (course = .99, instructor = .77, organization = .90, teaching = .99, and communication = .99) were considered very reliable for . .

average, 5 = excellent. Twenty-five items (see Table 2) were purposes of an evaluation study.

Table 2.4tems Included in Student Evaluation of Instruction Survey

Area of evaluation Item Overall Course Instructor Organization Teaching Communication

I . Content of course 2. Rigor of course 3. Textbook used in

4. Required reading course

materials other than text

5. Contribution of course assignments

6. Match between exams and course material

7. Match between syl- labus and content

X. Effectiveness in teaching class

10. Ability to simplify difficult material

I I . Motivation of student to do best work

12. Clarity of presentation 13. Effectiveness in using

class time 14. Clarity of directions

for assignments IS. Stimulation of student

interest in subject 16. Competence in eval-

uating student work

17. Ability to hold student interest

I X. Knowledge of subject 19. Preparation 20. Willingness to help

students 2 I . Explanations of what

was expected 22. Contribution to

student learning 23. Quality compared to

other instructors 24. Recommendation for

instructor 2.5. Overall recommenda-

tion for the course

9. Organization

X X X

X

X

X

X

X

X X

X

X X

X

X

X

X

X X X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

46 2

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

138 The Journal of Educational Research

Table 3.-Means, Standard Deviations, and t Statistics for On-Campus and Distance Course Evaluation Comparisons

SPED 6 I26 SPED 6 I27 Campus Distance Campus Distance

Evaluation area ( n = 4) ( n = 23) Obtained I (n = 1 I ) ( n = 13) Obtained I

Overall rating M 3.69 3.94 -0.8 I 3.69 3.79 -0.48 SD 0.59 0.33 0.28 0.44

M 3.56 3.88 -1.82 3.72 3.60 1.14 SD 0.33 0.3 I 0.29 0.22

M 3.65 3.88 -0.15 3.65 3.65 0.00 SD 0.59 0.34 0.19 0.43

Course

Instructor

Organization M 4.15 4.23 -0.44 3.83 4.25 -6.70* SD 0.34 0.17 0.19 0.10

M 3.48 3.62 -0.56 3.58 3.42 I .09 SD 0.47 0.44 0.44 0.23

M 3.49 3.79 -1.26 3.56 3.63 4 . 5 4 SD 0.48 0.27 0. I3 0.40

Teaching

Communication

*p<.o1.

Results

Means, standard deviations, and obtained t statistics for distance education and on-campus course evaluation com- parisons are presented in Table 3. No differences were evi- dent in overall ratings. Students’ overall perceptions of SPED 6126 were similar, t(25) = -0.81, p > .01, when the course was taught on campus ( M = 3.69, SD = 0.59) or off campus with distance education technologies ( M = 3.94, SD = 0.33). Overall ratings of instruction were equivalent also in SPED 6127, r(22) = 0.48, p > .01, when the course was taught on campus ( M = 3.69, SD = 0.28) or off campus with distance education technologies ( M = 3.76, SD = 0.44). Organization ratings were similar, t(25) = 4.44, p > .01, for SPED 6126 taught on campus ( M = 4.15, SD = 0.34) and off campus ( M = 4.23, SD = 0.17), but they were different, r(22) = -6.70, p < . O l , for SPED 6127. Students participating in the distance education SPED 6 127 course rated its organization higher ( M = 4.25, SD = 0.10) than did students who took the course on campus ( M = 3.83, SD = 0.19). Course, instructor, teaching, and communication rat- ings were similar across settings and courses (see Table 3); similarities in students’ ratings of instruction for SPED 6 126 are illustrated in Figure I .

Means, standard deviations, and obtained t statistics for on-campus and off-campus distance education course eval- uation comparisons are presented in Table 4. No differences were evident in overall ratings. Overall perceptions of the North Carolina Research and Education Network on-cam- pus SPED 6126 students ( M = 3.83, SD = 0.41) were simi- lar, t(21) = 1.01, p > .01, to those of students taking the course off campus ( M = 3.66, SD = 0.37). Overall ratings of

technology-based instruction on campus ( M = 3.36, SD = 0.78) and off campus ( M = 3.67, SD = 0.44) also were equivalent in SPED 6127, t( 1 1 ) = -0.55, p > .01. Course. instructor, teaching, and communication ratings were simi- lar across settings and courses (see Table 3). Organization ratings were similar, t( 1 1 ) = -0.30, p > . O l , for SPED 6127 taught on campus ( M = 4.00, SD = 0.65) and off campus ( M = 4.14, SD = 0.1 O), but they were different, t(2 I ) = 3.36. p < .01, for SPED 6126. Students participating in the off- campus sections of SPED 6126 rated its organization lower ( M = 3.84, SD = 0.19) than did students who took the course on campus ( M = 4.08, SD = 0.15).

Discussion

Electronic information systems are a phenomenon of the second half of the 20th century. Information technology and the use of electronic information systems have changed the world at a rate never before experienced in history. The effects of this explosion were immediate and obvious with- in education. For example, distance learning, initiated as an inexpensive way for rural universities to increase course offerings, rapidly changed with the potential for electronic information transmission. I t has found a permanent niche among the instructional alternatives available at many uni- versities around the world. Distance learning is popular because it works and is more flexible for students, instruc- tors, and institutions than is traditional instructional course delivery. I t allows educational institutions to multiply the number of people served with the same resources. In gener- al, its success has been attributed to access to the best instructors and educational resources.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

46 2

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

Januarymebruary 1999 [Vol. 92(No. 3)]

4 -

w 3 -

1 2 -

1 -

0

139

I I I 1 I

Table 4.-Means, Standard Deviations, and t Statistics for On-Campus and Off-Campus Distance Course Evaluation Comparisons

SPED 6 I27 SPED 6 I26 (NC-REN) (NC-REN)

Campus Distance Campus Distance Evaluation area ( n = 9) (n = 14) Obtained t (n = 2) (n = 1 I ) Obtained t

Overall rating M SD

Course M SD

Instructor M SD

M SD

Teaching M SD

M SD

Organization

Communication

______

3.83 0.4 I

3.92 0.43

3.73 0.33

4.08 0.15

3.46 0.60

3.58 0.2 I

3.66 0.37

3.83 0.49

3.5 1 0.27

3.84 0.19

3.30 0.50

3.44 0.24

1.01 3.36 0.78

0.46 3.10 0.27

1.61 3.25 1.22

3.36* 4.00 0.65

0.68 2.90 0.45

I .so 2.94 0.68

3.67 4 . 5 5 0.44

3.67 -2.78 0.22

3.49 -0.27 0.43

4.14 4 . 3 0 0.10

3.27 -1.13 0.28

3.5 I -1.15 0.44

Note: N G R E N is the acronym for the North Carolina Research and Education Network. *p<.o1.

The continuing need for qualified teachers and other school personnel create increased potential for developing distance learning programs. The medium provides opportu- nities with particular relevance for preparing special educa- tors. For example, distance education courses reach wider audiences than traditional classes on campus; the enhanced potential in meeting teacher shortages, especially in areas related to low incidence disabilities, is obvious. The possi-

bility for involving outside speakers who would otherwise be unavailable also creates conditions for meeting continu- ing challenges in the preparation of personnel to meet the needs of individuals with disabilities.

In this research, ratings of content, rigor, and other as- pects of distance learning and traditional courses were sim- ilar. Global ratings for the instructor (e.g., effectiveness, contribution to learning, overall quality compared with oth-

Figure 1. SPED 6126 Course Ratings

5 1

Evaluation Area Note. Filled bar = on campus; open bar = distance education.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

46 2

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

140 The Journal of Educational Research

ers) and opinions about teaching skill (e.g., clarity and effectiveness of presentations, ability to hold interest, moti- vation to do best work) were not different. These findings were evident across courses (i.e., SPED 6126 and SPED 6127) as well as across locations within the distance learn- ing experiences (i.e., on-campus and off-campus students).

Clearly, the future will be driven by technology and its applications. Continuing interest in distance education like- ly will result in significant efforts to demonstrate that it is an effective method of instruction. Fundamental research and evaluation questions probably will cluster in five areas:

1 . Is technology-assisted personnel preparation as effective as traditional face-to-face teaching?

2. What factors are associated with the most effective mix of technology and traditional instruction?

3. What are the characteristics of students and teachers who profit from distance education experiences?

4. How important is interpersonal communication in dis- tance education classes, and what factors increase the likelihood of positive teacher-student and student-stu- dent interaction?

5. What cost factors are critical in effective distance educa- tion programs?

As evidenced by this research, data on outcomes of dis- tance learning experiences are favorable. The challenge of the future for distance learning remains to demonstrate what works for whom, under what circumstances, at what cost, and why. Within the context expanded by data on such issues, the promises of technology-improved distance learn- ing experiences will be realized and education for all stu- dents will be greatly enhanced.

REFERENCES

Blackwood. H., & Trent, C. (1968). A comparison of the effectiveness of jhce-to:firce rind remote teaching in conimunicating education i n f w rntrtiori to adults. Manhattan: Kansas State University, Cooperative Extension Service. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 028-324)

Cipani. E. C., & Spooner, F. (1994). Curricular and instructional approuche.sfi)r persons with severe di.strbi1itie.s. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Crump, R. E. ( 1928). Correspondence and class extension work in Okla- homa. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Columbia University, Teach- ers College.

Davis, D. J. ( 1984). Evaluation and comparison of teleconference training with face-to-face training and the effects on attitude and learning. Dis- serttrtion Ahstructs International. 46. (No. AAC850579)

Feasley, C. (1983). Serving 1eurner.s at ( I distance. Washington, DC: ASHE. (ERIC Higher Education Research Report No. 5)

Jaeger, M. (1995). Science teacher education at a distance. The American Journal of Distance Education, Y(2), 6 1-75.

Jones, T. ( 1992). Student.s'evalucrtion questionnuire&)r the fall semester of 1991. A summary and report. (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. ED 345 7 16)

Keegan, D. J. (1980). On defining distance education. Distance Education.

Kuramoto, A. (1984). Teleconferencing for nurses: Evaluating its effec- tiveness. In L. Parker & C. Olgren (Eds.), Teleconferencing and elec- tronic communications 111. Madison: University of Wisconsin-Exten- sion, Center for Interactive Programs.

Lombardi, T., Bauer, D., Peters, C.. & O'Keefe, S. (1991). Satellite dis- tance courses: A collahorutive effort for meeting demcinds f . r special education teachers. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 332 481)

McCleary, I. D.. & Egan, M. W. (1989). Program design and evaluation: Two-way interactive television. The American Journal of Distcince Edu- cation, 3(1), 50-60.

Molnar, A. R. (1997). Computers in education: A brief history. Technology Horizons in Education Journal. 24( 1 I ) , 63-68.

Moore, M. G., & Thompson, M. M. (1997). The effects ofdistance learn- ing (Rev. ed.). (ACSDE Research Monograph No. 15). University Park: The Pennsylvania State University, American Center for the Study of Distance Education.

Naber, D., & LeBlanc, G. (1994). Providing a human biology laboratory for distant learners. The Anrericun Journal of Distance Education. X(2). 58-70.

Nunley, B. G. (1965). A study of effectiveness of telelecture in the retrain- ing .f elementary teachers in mathematics. Doctoral dissertation, Uni- versity of Texas.

Pirrong, G., & Lathen. W. (1990, May). The use of interactive television in business education. Educational Technology, 49-54.

Ritchie, H., & Newby, T. J. (1989). Classroom lecture/discussion vs. live televised instruction. A comparison of effects on student performance, attitude, and interaction. The Anierican Journal of Distance Education, 3(3) , 3645.

Souder, W. E. (1993). The effectiveness of traditional vs. satellite delivery in three management of technology master's degree programs. The Anierican Journal of Distance Education, 7( I ) , 37-53.

Spooner, F., Spooner, M., Algozzine, B., & Jordan, L. (1998). Distance learning: Promises, practices, and potential pitfalls. Teacher Education and Special Education, 21, I 2 1 -I 3 1 .

Stahmer, G., Smaldino, S., Hardman, R., & Muffaletto, R. (1992, Febru- ary). A survey of students currently enrolled in interactive instructional television cour.ses in community colleges in Iowa. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Washington, DC.

Thomerson, J. D., & Smith, C. L. (1996). Student perceptions of the affec- tive experiences encountered in distance learning courses. The American Journal of Distance Education. 10(3), 3 7 4 8 .

Weingand, D. E. (1984). Telecommunications and the traditional class- room: A study of the delivery of education. In L. Parker & C. Olgren (Eds.), Teleconferencing and electronic communications 111. Madison: University of Wisconsin-Extension, Center for Interactive Programs.

Woodward, J . , & Reith, H. (1997). A historical review of technology research in special education. Review of Educational Research, 67, 503-536.

I , 13-36.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

46 2

7 O

ctob

er 2

014