In Chapter 4 of Distance Education: A Systems View, Moore and Kearsley assert that the bulk of research that has been conducted in the field of distance education has been in two categories: case studies and the effect on learner achievement.
The case studies available are typically anecdotal reports of successful programs. Many of these reports are based on unsophisticated methodology, and may even be tainted by the bias of the reviewers. Of the research that has employed more sophisticated methods of data collection and analysis, much of the focus has been on evaluating the effect of distance education on learner achievement. As a whole, this research has shown no difference between achievement of learners in traditional classroom settings versus those in distance education. The authors conclude that there is ample evidence that distance education as a whole works; future research should now focus on the specific components of distance education, and what makes these components particularly effective for various learners.
Searching for Additional Research
I did an online ERIC search, looking specifically for research that had employed quantitative methodology and/or an experimental approach. In this brief search I found evidence to support the authors' claim; there is indeed a dearth of experimental research, and much of what I found were descriptive studies of programs, which may or may not be generalizable. However, I unearthed two studies that were interesting, both of which investigated the importance of interactivity in distance education.
A Multi-Institutional Evaluation of Video-Based Distance Engineering Education
Dr. Harvey R. Stone, of the University of Delaware, conducted a review of data from eight schools of engineering, including both Arizona State University and the University of Arizona. Dr. Stone analyzed grades of graduate engineering students according to their age, gender, and the type of instruction they received. The type of instruction varied from traditional on-campus to non-interactive videotape to off-campus interactive (although the article never explains what "interactive" means).
Dr. Stone found statistically significant interactions between type of instruction and gender, as well as between type of instruction and age: Males, especially those aged 26 to 35, performed as well as or better than their cohorts when receiving non-interactive video instruction. Dr. Stone postulates that this may be because men in this age group have many extra demands on their time, and their achievement is enhanced when they are in control of the timing and the location of their learning.
While this research is merely a crunching of associational data, and the article is very sparse in narrative, it nevertheless advances some interesting ideas about the effectiveness of instructional methods (including level of interactivity) as they pertain to gender and age.
Live vs. Taped: New Perspectives in Satellite-Based Programming for Primary Grades
Dr.Patricia Boverie and her colleagues from the University of New Mexico studied two Star Schools satellite based programs, "Geonauts," produced by Northern Arizona University, and "Elementary German," produced by Oklahoma State University. They were examining interactivity between the learners and the instructor, social presence of the instructor, and satisfaction with the programs. Their data were collected through surveys of students and teachers, as well as interviews and observations.
Dr. Boverie and her associates found no significant difference between the satisfaction of students who watched the programs live versus those who watched it on tape. However, students were more satisfied with the programs when they felt the television instructor made them feel involved (social presence of the instructor). An interesting finding was that although students were not affected by the level of interactivity with the television instructors, the classroom teachers preferred having access to the television instructors, both for call in questions during live broadcasts, and for after hours questions.
Implications
Both of these studies hint at the possibility that live interaction is not necessary for effective instruction. It can certainly be de-emphasized in favor of other factors, such as an on-screen "warmth" from the television instructor. Communication between the learners and the instructor (or in the case of the Star Schools projects, between the on-site facilitator and the instructor) is still vital, but these two studies suggest that asynchronous communication is an effective means of interaction.
Future Research
Moore and Kearsley lament the fact that much of the research in the field lacks a theoretical framework. Without this framework, descriptive studies become individual reports, without any links to the existing body of knowledge. This is why Moore and Kearsley are proposing their "systems view," so that research in distance education can become more rigorous, with a systematic investigation into its distinctive features. Future research should apply sophisticated methodology, including both quantitative and qualitative data and experimental formats, to isolate the important variables in an effective distance education program.
Boverie, P., Murrell, W.G., Lowe, C., Zittle, R., Zittle, F, Gunawardena, C. (1997). Live vs. taped: New perspectives in satellite-based programming for primary grades. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 407 939)
Stone, H. R. (1990). A multi-institutional evaluation of video-based distance engineering education. University of Delaware. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 325 072)