Moore and Kearsley examine conventional learning and distance learning and argue that it is not necessary to research whether or not one of them is more significantly effective than the other one. Instead, they believe it is more practical to research whether "(1) there is insufficient evidence to support the idea that classroom instruction is the optimum delivery method; (2) instruction at distance can be as effective in bringing about learning as classroom instruction; (3) the absence of face-to-face contact is not in itself detrimental to the learning process; and (4) what makes any course good or poor is a consequence of how well it is designed, delivered, and conducted, not whether the students are face-to-face or at a distance." (p.65). The authors claim that in terms of learner achievement there is no difference between one and the other. The problem with this thesis is that there is newer research that perceives this differently.
Moore and Kearsley state that there are two main tenets of media effectiveness research. First, they list descriptive case studies. Descriptive case studies require the researcher to report what they find out about a particular situation at hand such as an untested technology. For example, many online journals and magazines like C/Net (http://www.cnet.com/), ZDNet (http://www.zdnet.com/), Distance Education (http://www.usq.edu.au/dec/decjourn/demain.html), and the American Journal of Distance Education (http://www.cde.psu.edu/ACSDE/Jour.html) just to name a few that submit reports on some of these case studies now. Moore and Kearsley cite several examples of these case studies (p.61). These examples are dated 1987 to 1992. Only one example, BESTNET, was using computer technology. The authors' seem to give the impression that these case studies are primarily a description of the distance education program and are usually generalized. However, this one too, is dated to 1990. All of these case studies are like a snapshot in time. They will reflect what has happened at that particular time. The studies do not necessarily reflect what may be true now. This is important since one year in technological time is similar in many ways to five years in real time.
Second, Moore and Kearsley explain the other tenet of media effectiveness, learner achievement. This is essentially using and measuring grades as an outcome in the conventional classroom vs. the distance classroom to determine which one is more efficient, if any. Here, the studies that the authors examined are dated from 1968 to 1993. Out of seven studies presented, five out the seven reported that there is no significant difference in outcome between distance and conventional learning. However, two of the studies did find a difference in the outcome between the two learning styles. These two studies found that the advantage went to the distance learner. Both of these studies were from 1993 and appear to have used computer technology for the method of delivery. This disparity in the studies could indicate a movement towards better results with distance education via computer technology.
An article published by Edupage in February of 1997 and written by Kelly McCollum asks the question: "Is Distance Education Any Good (http://teleeducation.nb.ca/anygood/betteronline.shtml)"? A sociology professor performed an informal test to see which students would do better; the ones left in his classroom or the ones that he divided and kept them out the classroom and then used computer technology via email, newsgroups, and discussion forums to communicate with them. As part of his strategy, he required group efforts to encourage collaboration. As time went on, he discovered that the students that were online were doing 20% better than the ones in his classroom. The professor speculated that the reason may have been the collaboration outside the classroom vs. collaboration inside the classroom. Many students are more comfortable away from the classroom. One of his students commented that "In this class I feel even with everyone, I don't feel intimidated by that 'A' person sitting next to me." Some students apparently are also motivated by the opportunity to learn more about the Internet as well as the subject class. However, there were some students that were intimidated by the Internet use because of a lack of face-to-face contact with the professor.
An experimental quantitative study that has been followed up online by C/Net (http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,7147,00.html) that was done by Jerald G. Schutte in the fall of 1996 at the California State University at Northridge (http://www.csun.edu/) is called "Virtual Teaching in Higher Education: The New Intellectual Superhighway or Just Another Traffic Jam? (http://www.csun.edu/sociology/virexp.htm)." This study also suggests that students learn better online. However, the catch is that in each of these studies the professor attributes collaboration to the success of the programs, both online and traditional learning. The study demonstrates that the student's attitude toward math significantly increased as did student contact, time spent on class, perception of the flexibility of the class, and the understanding of the material. In another study done at the University of Missouri (http://www.ssu.missouri.edu/) by Dr. Michael K. Swan called Effectiveness Of Distance Learning Courses - Students' Perceptions(http://www.ssu.missouri.edu/SSU/AgEd/NAERM/s-a-4.htm), which is a mixture of quantitative and qualitative research that examined interactive video, the students were found to be satisfied with the quality of the technology, did not want to be singled out, were excited about the technology and thought that it should be expanded, enjoyed the face-to-face interaction, and were concerned about a lack of discipline in remote classrooms. In addition, the professor thought that it would be good to do a longitudinal study to see how things improve over time.
Therefore, there is sufficient evidence that is currently coming in to support the idea that classroom instruction is not the optimum delivery method and that distance education is becoming a method of delivery that is preferred. The assertion that instruction at distance can be as effective in bringing about learning as classroom instruction appears to be consistent with current research. The absence of face-to-face contact is not in itself detrimental to the learning process is true. However, it may be an advantage for some students in some programs in distance education. What makes any course good or poor is a consequence of how well it is designed, delivered, and conducted, not whether the students are face-to-face, or at a distance is not a fair blanket statement to make considering that the new research is indicating differently.
Jim Bunnell
james_bunnell@hotmail.com
diamondback@netscape.net