While several questions continue to be asked about Distance Education, one of the most frequent is "how effective is Distance Education compared to "traditional" instruction?" Moore and Kearsley assert that "given the evidence of research . . . it seems unreasonable to ask if distance education courses can be as effective as conventional classroom instruction. (1996, p. 65). They assume that it does and justify their assertion on a variety of research which they categorize in two ways; descriptive case studies and learner achievement studies.

They classify descriptive case studies as "one shot" narratives which report primarily anecdotal evidence that describe the ways in which varying modes of distance education were used. The authors do concede that the results from descriptive studies are not rigorous but may in many cases provide pointers for controlled and systematic studies. Moore and Kearsley then suggest that learner achievement studies represent a more systematic and controlled approach for uncovering the effectiveness of distance education.

Their initial assertion however, that there in no difference in effectiveness, remains problematic for several reasons. First, Moore states that the "usual" findings from comparative studies find no significant difference between traditional and distance learning environments (1996, p. 62). While the "correctness" of this statement may initially seem to be a semantic issue, he assumes this stance again while discussing media effectiveness when he writes that:

For any group of students, the environment in which learning occurs and the medium of communication between teacher and student are not significant as predictors of achievement (1996, p. 65)

While the environment may not be significant as a predictor of achievement, Moore's comments minimize the role of human communication in learning.

Berlo, Goffman and the other scholars who have laid the groundwork for communication and social interaction have made it clear that the environment does make a difference in not only what is communicated, but how that communication is interpreted. As it is related to distance education, the communication process clearly effects learning outcomes in a myriad of ways. Guerrero found that "high levels of (instructor) composure (in a videotaped class) may sometimes backfire, causing students to regard a course as less interesting, valuable and enjoyable" (Gurrero & Miller, 1998). Dwyer found that a relationships exist between Communication Apprehension[ and Learning style preference (Dwyer, 1988). She found for example, that individuals with low communication apprehension preferred a hands on approach. Moore's comments however, discount the way in which communication apprehension and other facets of human communication might play out in a televison course or computer mediated learning environment.

He does concede though, that "much of what is written is based on anecdotal evidence offered by persons and institutions with vested interests in the techniques being evaluated or in the very program they are evaluating" (Moore & Kearsley, 1996). Moore and Kearsley's admission of this is consistent with the work of other scholars (Oppenheimer, 1997; Turkle, 1997) who feel the effectiveness of these technologies, particularly computing technologies must continue to be questioned. It's clear that one of the reasons problems about gauging effectiveness continue to exist, is precisely because the environment does make a difference.

How does one for example, design a valid experiment to gauge multi-modal (1) distance learning against traditional classroom learning? How does one take into account student apprehension generated by a malfunctioning computer, a satellite link that fails, a correspondence package damaged by the postal authorities against traditional classroom students? Unfortunately, creating a study that can account for these variables, is probably impossible. We are left then, in the position of attempting to formulate a better more effective products based on questionable measures of efficacy.

Perhaps the best place to start then, is with teaching strategies and effective course design. While they were not referring directly to distance education and focusing their discussion on K-12 teachers, Pellegrino and Altman's argument that teachers are fundamentally unprepared to deal with the way in which technology is altering learning still holds true (Pellegrino & Altman, 1997). At the university level, this situation is exacerbated because unlike K-12 teachers that have been trained to teach, the majority of college professors teaching have come to teaching through a quasi-formal apprenticeship process and in many cases, may never have even been exposed to any type of learning theory.

Pellegrino and Altman assert that technology will continue to play an increasing role in instruction and that it will move students from "knowledge consumers" to "knowledge producers." They then lay out a model that illustrates the way in which technology transforms a course and posit that at the high end of the continuum, technology becomes central to course content (1997, p. 96). Moore and Kearsly would probably agree with Pellegrino and Altman's contention as it would apply to distance education.

The instructor must shift their teaching strategy and relinquish to role of expert and assume the role of facilitator. In addition, there is little question that they (Moore & Kearsly) would agree that because of the way in which technology plays a central role in the content, the instructor must also relinquish the role of sole creator and rely on a team or systematic approach to course production. Finally, implicit in Pellegrino and Altman's argument that some instructors are simply not candidates for alternative modes of presentation or methods of teaching normally associated with distance education.

Wegerif on the other hand argues that the most effective course design/teaching strategy should rely on a socio-cultural paradigm in which knowledge is created through "cultural practices." The culture in this case in the community of learners which engage in what Wegerif calls "exploratory talk" to collaborate in problem solving. In this case, his argument is aimed specifically at computer mediated communication (CMC) and in many respects, the real strength of these systems is their ability (if used correctly) to create synchronous/asynchronous collaborative learning environments.

Moore might reject portions of Wegerif argument because Moore seems to see distance education more in the vein of learner as independent and singular agent. While this mode of learning is still possible in distance education courses mediated by computer, there are those such as Christopher Dede who have concluded that technologically mediated interaction and collaborative processes is the way in which distance education must evolve (Dede, 1990).

(1) As computing technologies continue to rapidly infuse into distance learning programs, more classes are becoming multi-modal. For example, the instructor may lecture via ITFS but the student may respond and submit assignments via the Internet.

Dede, C. J. (1990). The Evolution of Distance Learning: Technology-Mediated Interactive Learning. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 22(3), 247-264.

Dwyer, K. K. (1988). Communication Apprehension and Learning Style Preference: Correlations and Implications for Teaching. Communication Education, 47(2), 137-150.

Gurrero, L. K., & Miller, T. A. (1998). Associations between Nonverbal Behaviors and Initial Impressions of Instructor Competence can Course Content in Videotaped Distance Education Courses. Communication Education, 47(1), 30-42.

Moore, M. G., & Kearsley, G. (1996). Distance Education: A Systems View. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company.

Oppenheimer, T. (1997, ). The Computer Delusion. The Atlantic Monthly Unbound.

Pellegrino, J. W., & Altman, J. E. (1997). Information Technology and Teacher Preparation: Some Critical Issues and Illustrative solutions. Peabody Journal of Education, 72(1), 89-121.

Turkle, S. (1997). Seeing Through Computers: Education in a Culture of Simulation. The American Prospect, 31(March-April), 76-82.