Moore and Kearsly contend that exhaustive research has eliminated the need to more comparison of effectiveness between distance education and traditional education environments. (1996, pg.65) We must be careful not to take this statement too generally. They go on to say, "...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." (Moore, 1996, pg.65) Although we may have shown that location isn't a factor, we must continue to identify the factors within each environment that contribute to well conducted, designed, and delivered courses. The effectiveness of distance education teaching, as compared to traditional classroom teaching, depends greatly on the type of institution, the student interaction, and the teachers expertise.
The Institution
Distance education institutions that use a "total systems approach" (Moore, 1996, pg. 125) have instructional design and development teams that are separate from the person who actually interacts with the students. The students in these environments usually receive their instruction completely from a selected set of media and are helped through the lessons by a "tutor".
In other distance programs the actual instructor is involved in the development as well as the delivery of the instruction. Regardless of weather a team of people assisted in the development, the instructor will be involved with the content and the students through the design, development, implementation and assessment phases.
The effectiveness of the institutional strategy would rely greatly on the effectiveness of design and methods of delivery for each course, as well as the ability of the tutor. If the tutor, in contrast to group lecture, can provide individualized student attention and facilitate the students ability to retain and apply the information. According to Robert Gagn‚, "Compared with conventional instruction, student achievement under tutoring [in face-to-face environments] increases 50 percent." (Gagn‚, 1988, pg. 160) Regardless of the label, tutors and instructors in distance environments must develop effective ways to interact with students.
Student Interaction
According to Moore and Kearsly, there are three types of student interaction: learner-content, learner-instructor, and learner-learner (1996, pg 127.) McIsacc and Gunawardena suggest a fourth interaction of learner-interface, saying "The learner must interact with the interface or the technological medium in order to interact with the content, instructor and other learners." (1996)
It is important to consider the learner-interface interaction since the use of the selected technology may greatly impact student success due to anxiety or time constraints. This interface sets the environment for all other types of student interaction.
The success of learner-content interactions are greatly dependent on the students ability to create their own knowledge. (Moore, 1996, pg. 128) Additionally, resources to support the main content impacts the students ability to catch-up or clarify. These types of resources are usually left to other types of interactions.
Motivation of students and providing information and guidance to assimilate the content are two important roles of learner-instructor interaction. In LTB - Biology 20, a distance high-school biology course, the content is primarily delivered via videotape. However, students receive as many as three phone calls from the instructor and telephone tutoring as needed.
Learner-learner interaction positively affects the students experience in conventional classrooms (Kagan, 1992. 3:1) as well as in distance environments (Schutte, 1996). These effects are seen not only in achievement, but also in social skills. One reason that achievement increases when learner interactions increase is peer tutoring. One idea is that the best person to teach someone something is a person who know the content just a little better. The student learns the content in useful chucks and the teacher learns by formulating instruction. In fact, 87 percent of studies have shown that students in programs with peer tutoring achieved more than students in other programs (Kagan, 1992, 3:3.) MDDE 601: Introduction to Distance Education and Training, offered by Athabasca University, requires student to communicate online in order to discuss the content as it relates to their "own personal and professional experiences (1998)." The success of these student interactions needs to be facilitated by the instructor.
Teaching Expertise
Throughout the interaction processes of students, the teacher has a contributing role. Additionally, their role includes activity structure, motivation, and class management. This role is very different from a conventional classroom where an instructor lectures, but is not so different from a cooperative learning classroom. To accomplish these tasks in a distance environment, the teacher must also have the skills to operate and apply the technology (Moore, 1996, pg. 152).
The transformation of traditional teachers into distance education teachers will require administration support for faculty development and pre-service programs that incorporate these skills.
Conclusion Although the walls don't count, we must continue to identify factors within distance learning environments that have significant affect on student outcomes. Additionally, initial research is showing that conventionally proven activities, such as learner-learning interaction are also effective in distance environments. The key to much of this success depends on teacher effectiveness and institutional support for change. According to Geoghegan, efforts to integrate instructional technologies "is moot if the institution itself fails to articulate and act upon a solid commitment to continuous improvement in the quality of teaching and learning." (1994, pg.21)
Gagn‚, Robert M. and Driscoll Marcy P. (1988) Essentials of Learning for Instruction. New Jersey: United States: Prentice Hall. (pg. 160)
Geoghegan, William H. (1994) What Ever Happened to Instructional Technology? Reaching Mainstream Faculty. IBM Academic Consulting Report. Connecticut: United States: International Business Schools Computing Association. (pg.21)
Kagan, Spencer. (1992) Cooperative Learning. California, United States: Resources for Teachers, Inc. (pgs. 3:1, 3:3)
Moore, M. G. and Kearsley, G. (1996) Distance Education: A Systems View, California, United States: Wadsworth (pgs. 65, 125-152)
Online
McIsaac, M.S. and Gunawardena, C.N. (1996). Distance Education. In D.H. Jonassen, ed. Handbook of research for educational communications and technology: a project of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology. 403-437. New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan. URL: http://seamonkey.ed.asu.edu/~mcisaac/dechapter/index.html
Massy, William F. and Zemsky, Robert. (1995) Educom Roundtable. URL: http://www.educom.edu/program/nlii/keydocs/massy.html
Schutte, Jerald G. (1996) Virtual Teaching in Higher Education:
The New Intellectual Superhighway or Just Another Traffic Jam? URL:
http://www.csun.edu/sociology/virexp.htm