Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vjeb20
Journal of Education for Business
ISSN: 0883-2323 (Print) 1940-3356 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjeb20
Faculty and Student Use of Technologies, User
Productivity, and User Preference in Distance
Education
Jensen J. Zhao , Melody W. Alexander , Heidi Perreault , Lila Waldman & Allen
D. Truell
To cite this article: Jensen J. Zhao , Melody W. Alexander , Heidi Perreault , Lila Waldman & Allen D. Truell (2009) Faculty and Student Use of Technologies, User Productivity, and User Preference in Distance Education, Journal of Education for Business, 84:4, 206-212, DOI: 10.3200/JOEB.84.4.206-212
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/JOEB.84.4.206-212
Published online: 07 Aug 2010.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 75
View related articles
ABSTRACT.
R
ith technological advancement, Internet-basedteachingandlearn-ing tools have become more versatile, userfriendly,andcosteffective.TheInter-netisbeingusedmorethanotherdistance educationdeliverymethodssuchasinter-activeTV,mailcorrespondence,andlive– remotelocationcombinations(Hickman, 2003; Zhao, Whitesel, Truell, & Alex-ander, 2007). The Internet has reshaped education on all levels and encouraged educators to envision all the possibili-ties (Shank, 2000). The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES; 2003) reportedthatapproximately90%ofpublic collegesanduniversitiesoffereddistance education. Among them, 90% reported that they offered Internet courses using asynchronous computer-based instruc-tion as a primary mode of instructional delivery.Inaddition,51%reportedusing two-way video and audio, 43% offered Internetcoursesusingsynchronouscom-puter-based instruction, 41% reported using one-way prerecorded video, and only 29% reported using CD-ROM as a primary mode of instructional deliv-ery(NCES).Mostuniversitiesconsidered onlinedistancecoursestobeacrucialpart oftheirlong-termstrategy(SloanConsor-tium,2004).As Internet course delivery systems changed the educational mode from traditional instructor-centered teaching to student-centered learning, educators were eager to explore how new
infor-mation technologies and their grow-ing convergence—such as voice-over Internet, Internet interactive TV, wire-lessInternet,mobilelaptopcomputing, personaldigitalassistants,Web-confer-encing,video-streaming,virtualreality, and gaming environments—influence distance teaching and learning (Craw-ford,Rudy,&theEDUCAUSECurrent Issues Committee, 2003; Hay et al., 2007;Metcalfe,2000;Sass,2006).
A survey of business faculty and graduatestudentsindistanceeducation (Zhao, Alexander, Waldman, & Per-reault,2003)reportedthat(a)e-mailand Internet lecture notes and assignments weremostheavilyusedbyfacultyand students, followed by Internet discus-sion groups, TV-based two-way video and audio, Internet two-way video and audio, Internet chat groups, and tele-phone and voicemail; (b) e-mail and Internet lecture notes and assignments wereratedasthebestinenhancinguser productivity; and (c) Internet two-way video and audio were most preferred by faculty and students, followed by e-mail. The survey also identified the importance of technology training in distanceeducation.
Researchalsofoundthatthestudent-centeredInternetonlinecoursesrequire instructors to be role models, facilita-tors, coaches, supervisors, organizers, problem solvers, and liaisons (e.g., Roberson & Klotz, 2002; Scagnoli,
FacultyandStudentUseofTechnologies,
UserProductivity,andUserPreference
inDistanceEducation
JENSENJ.ZHAO
MELODYW.ALEXANDER BALLSTATEUNIVERSITY MUNCIE,INDIANA
HEIDIPERREAULT
MISSOURISTATEUNIVERSITY SPRINGFIELD
W
ABSTRACT. Theauthorssurveyedfac-ultyandstudentsinAssociationtoAdvance CollegiateSchoolsofBusiness-accredited U.S.businesscollegesontheiruseofinfor-mationtechnologiesindistanceeducation andtheirperceptionsofthetechnologies’ effectonproductivityandtechnologypref-erence.Theauthorscollecteddatafrom 140professorsacrossthenationand300 studentsfrom4states.Thefindingsindi- catedthatfacultyandstudentsusedInter-net-basedtoolsheavilyandperceivedthem asproductivityenhancers.However,sig-nificantdifferencesexistedbetweenfaculty andstudents(e.g.,althoughsignificantly moreinstructorspreferredusingTV-based livevideoandaudio,significantlymore studentspreferredusingInternetlivevideo andaudio).
Keywords:distanceeducation,impactoftech-nologies,userpreference,userproductivity
Copyright©2009HeldrefPublications
LILAWALDMAN
UNIVERSITYOFWISCONSIN–WHITEWATER
ALLEND.TRUELL BALLSTATEUNIVERSITY MUNCIE,INDIANA
2001).Instructorsprovidedtheresourc-es, activiti2001).Instructorsprovidedtheresourc-es, and feedback, whereas students determined how fast and how in-depthtoexamineasubject(Appleton, 1999). However, shifting the programs and courses from the physical campus to the digital campus was not an easy undertaking;considerableplanningand developmentofaninfrastructurewould be needed to avoid problems associ-atedwithdistanceeducation(Boettcher & Vijay-Kumar, 2000). Faculty and students’ unfamiliarity with or inade-quate use of technologies was a major cause of the problems and failures in distance education (Boulton, 2008; White,2000).
Although distance educators rated their personalized feedback to stu-dentsthroughe-mailasimportant,they reportedthatthesheervolumeofe-mail becomes problematic. In traditional courses, students did not expect feed-back until the next scheduled meeting, but with online courses they expected immediate feedback. This expectation caused some instructors to feel that theyhadtobeavailabletothestudents 100% of the time, including evenings andweekends(White,2000).
Alternatively, online students’ responses from several studies at vari-ouseducationallevelsrevealedthatthe onlineeducationalenvironmentbrought benefits, limitations, and challenges to learners. Students selected online edu-cation for its flexibility, 24/7 availabil-ity, and luxury of not commuting to class (Choj, Kim, & Kim, 2007; Insti-tuteforHigherEducationPolicy,2000; Lüdert, Nast, Zielke, Sterry, & Rzany, 2008).Althoughstudentslikedthecon-venience and flexibility of the online courses, they encountered problems suchasthoseofbecomingfamiliarwith thenewtechnologiesandlearninghow toaccessandnavigatesites,howtocom-municatewithprofessors,participatein online discussion, collaborate on team projects, and take online assignments and tests (e.g., Motteram & Forrester, 2005; Mupinga, Nora, & Yaw, 2006; Temple,Kemp,&Benson,2006).
Researchersalsoreportedthatonline students perceived e-mail communica-tion with instructor and posted course materials as most valuable to learners (Frey, Yankelov, & Faul, 2003; Zhao
et al., 2003). Online students expected faculty to initiate e-mail communica-tion,teachonlinecoursesaschallenging asthetraditionalclassroomcourses,and providestudentswithquickfeedbackon their assignments. Online students felt that frequent communication with the instructor put them at ease, reassuring them that they were not missing any-thing from the classor were not alone in cyberspace (e.g., Lorenzetti, 2005; Mupingaetal.,2006).
Because Internet technologies are the driving force of fast-growing dis- tanceeducation,aneedexistsforeval-uating how faculty and students use information technologies in distance education now and how information technologiesaffectteachingandlearn-ing productivities and users’ prefer-encesoftechnologies.
Purpose
Thepurposeofthepresentstudywas to assess how faculty and students use information technologies for distance courses and how faculty and students perceive the impact of information technologies on their productivity and technology preference. To make that assessment,weaddressedthefollowing researchquestions:
ResearchQuestion1(RQ1 ):Whatinfor-mation technologies do faculty and students use more or less frequently in teaching and learning distance courses?
RQ2:Do significant differences exist betweenfacultyandstudentsinusing information technologies for their distancecourses?
RQ3: How do faculty and students perceivetheimpactofinformationtech-nologiesontheirteachingandlearning productivityindistancecourses?
RQ4:Do significant differences exist between faculty and students in per-ceiving the impact of information technologies on their teaching and learningproductivity?
RQ5:Which information technologies do faculty and students prefer more orlessfordistancecourses?
RQ6:Do significant differences exist between faculty and students in the preference of information technolo-giesfordistancecourses?
The purpose of the study was to provide (a) school administrators with the findings they need to make acost-effectivetechnologyinvestment in distance programs, (b) information for educators who plan to teach or to improve distance courses, and (c) the participating schools and faculty with feedbackonhowinformationtechnol-ogiesareusedinotherschoolsandhow users perceive the impact of informa-tiontechnologiesontheirproductivity andtechnologypreference.
Procedures
Following the guidelines for survey questionnaireconstruction(Frey,Botan, Friedman,&Kreps,1991),weprepared two questionnaires to identify faculty andstudentexperiencesofdistanceedu-cationandtheirperceptionsoftheimpact ofinformationtechnologiesontheirpro-ductivityandtechnologypreference.We used perceptions in the study because theyconstitutepeople’sobservationsand recognitions of reality; people do not deal with reality per se, but rather with perceptionsofreality(Watzlawick,1978; Werther,Ruch,&McClure,1986). Pro-ductivity, as commonly defined, refers totherelationbetweeninputandoutput, or the measure of how well resources (e.g., human, technological, financial) are combined and used to produce a desired result (Ivancevich & Matteson, 1996; Schuler, Beutell, & Youngblood, 1989;Wertheretal.).
Wedevelopedbothquestionnaireson thebasisoftherelatedliteraturereview and our experience with distance edu-cation. The questionnaires contained thefollowingsections:(a)demographic profiles of the participants, (b) use of informationtechnologiesinteachingand learning online courses, (c) technology impactonteachingandlearningproduc- tivity,and(d)facultyandstudentprefer-encesofthetechnologies.A12-member panel of experts that included distance educators and administrators validated the content of the questionnaire. The panel’s evaluation indicated that the instrumentcoveredthestatedobjectives.
In 2006, there were 436 Association toAdvanceCollegiateSchoolsofBusi-ness (AACSB) International-accredited businessschoolsintheUnitedStates.An
advanced search we performed on the AACSBWebsite,whichresultediniden-tifying414collegesthathadsometype ofdistanceeducationcourseinplace.To increase the response rate, we sent the deans of all 414 colleges a cover letter with five faculty questionnaires and a Websurveylink.Thecoverletterinvited the schools to participate in the present study and asked the deans to randomly identify up to five professors who have been teaching distance courses. Of the 414deanscontacted,34calledtoreport thattheydidnothavedistanceeducation coursesinplacebutwereinthedevelop-ment phase and planned to offer them shortly. An additional nine sent back blankthesurveys,indicatingnodistance education was in place. Therefore, 393 ofthe436AACSB-accreditedU.S.busi-ness schools offered distance education in2006.Fromtheseschools,wereceived 140 usable responses with 51 (36.4%) from the Web survey and 89 (63.6%) frompapermail.Wewereunabletofol-lowupbecausetheAACSBlabelswere received with a stipulation of one-time useonly.
To obtain student input we asked facultyrespondentswhowereteaching graduatedistancecoursestoencourage their distance students to volunteer for thestudy.Inall,18professorsindicated theywouldencouragetheirdistancestu-dents to participate in the survey. Stu- dentswereinformedthattheirparticipa-tionwasvoluntaryandhadnoeffecton their final grades. Data were collected from students in 2006. This volunteer sampling procedure (Frey et al., 1991) resultedinatotalof300usablerespons-eswith152(51%)frompapermailand 148(49%)fromtheWebsurvey.
We edited and coded each com-pleted questionnaire and prepared fre-quencycounts,percentagedistributions, weighted means, and cross-tabulations for data analysis. For the 5-point Lik-ert-type scale, we used the midpoints ofeachscalerange(therealouterlim-its) to determine participants’ degree of technology preference: Weighted mean responses of 5.0–4.5 indicated mostpreferred,4.4–3.5indicatedmore preferred, 3.4–2.5 indicated preferred, 2.4–1.5 indicated less preferred, and 1.4–1.0 indicated least preferred. We also conducted the Pearson chi-square
testtodetermineanysignificantdiffer-encesatthe.05alphalevelbetweenthe faculty and students in distance edu-cation. Tables 1 and 2 illustrate the demographicprofilesofthefacultyand studentparticipants.
Findings
The present findings are reported in thefollowingsequence:(a)facultyand studentuseofinformationtechnologies indistancecourses,(b)facultyandstu-dent perceptions of technology impact on their teaching and learning
produc- tivity,and(c)facultyandstudentpref-erence of information technologies in distancecourses.
FacultyandStudentUseofInformation Technologies
Amajorityoffacultyreportedheavy useofInternetlecturenotesandassign-ments(64%)ande-mail(60%),whereas only 48% of students reported heavy useofthesetwotechnologies(seeTable 3).Incontrast,lessthanonequarterof facultyreportedregularuseofthesetwo technologies, whereas approximately
TABLE1.DemographicProfilesofDistanceEducationFacultyin2006
Characteristic Frequency(%) n
Gender
Male 63 88
Female 33 47
Unidentified 4 5
Rank
Fullprofessor 29 40
Associateprofessor 26 37
Assistantprofessor 17 24
Other 28 39
Distanceteachingexperience
1–2years 24 34
3–4years 22 31
5yearsormore 54 75
Note.N=140.
TABLE2.DemographicProfilesofDistanceEducationStudentsin2006
Characteristic Frequency(%) n
Gender
Male 43 129
Female 51 152
Unidentified 6 19
Age
Youngerthan25 20 59
25–30 37 110
31–40 24 72
41orolder 13 39
Unidentified 6 20
Program
Masterofartsormasterofscience 12 37
Masterofbusinessadministration 85 254
Other 3 9
Distancelearningexperience
Firstsemester 24 72
Morethanonesemester 70 209
Unidentified 6 19
Note.Otherreferstoresponsesthatincludeddoctoralprograms.N=300.
40% of students indicated regular use of them. Approximately one third to one half of faculty and students indi-catedthattheyusedthefollowingthree technologiesheavilyorregularly:Inter-net- or Web-based discussion groups, Internet chat groups, and Internet one-waylivevideoandaudio.Bycontrast, only 10% or fewer of the faculty and students reported using these four tra-ditional tools heavily or regularly:TV-based one-way live video and audio, fax, traditional mail correspondence, and TV-based one-way live video and two-wayaudio.
Morethan50%offacultyandstudents reported they did not use the following eighttechnologies:Internettwo-waylive videoandaudio,TV-basedtwo-waylive video and audio, special computer net-work, Internet one-way live video and two-way audio, TV-based one-way live video and audio, fax, traditional mail correspondence, andTV-based one-way livevideoandtwo-wayaudio.
ThePearsonchi-squaretestidentified significant differences between faculty andstudentsinusingtechnologies(see Table3).Weusedtheadjustedresidual analysis to follow up on statistically significantcross-tabulationsincategori-cal data analysis (Agresti, 1996). As
the asterisks in Table 3 show, signifi-cantlymorefacultyreportedheavyuse of Internet lecture notes and assign-ments, e-mail, and Internet two-way live video and audio when compared with students. In contrast, significantly more students reported regular use of Internet lecture notes and assignments, e-mail,andInternetone-waylivevideo andaudio.
TechnologyImpactonTeachingand LearningProductivity
Most faculty reported that e-mail (81%),Internetlecturenotesandassign- ments(79%),Internet-orWeb-baseddis-cussiongroups(68%),andtelephoneand voicemail(54%)helpedtoincreasetheir productivityinteachingdistancecourses (see Table 4). Most students reported approximatelythesamemeansofassis-tanceexceptfortelephoneandvoicemail (28%). Only a minority of faculty and studentsreportedthatthelisted15tech-nologies had not affected or impeded their productivity in distance education. Approximately 30–83% of faculty and studentsdidnotreporttheirperceptions on11ofthe15technologies.
Theasterisks inTable4indicatesig-nificantdifferencesbetweenfacultyand
studentsintheirperceptionsoftechnol- ogyimpactontheirproductivityindis-tanceeducation.Althoughsignificantly more faculty respondents perceived telephone and voicemail andTV-based two-way live video and audio as pro-ductivity enhancers, significantly more students considered Internet one-way live video and audio and Internet two-waylivevideoandaudioasproductivity enhancers.
FacultyandStudentPreference ofTechnologies
Table 5 illustrates the weighted meansoffacultyandstudentpreferenc-esoftechnologies.Facultyandstudents ranked 12 information technologies as morepreferredorpreferred,withInter-netlecturenotesandassignmentsatthe topofthepreferencelist.Facultyrated three traditional technologies as less preferred: traditional mail correspon-dence, telephone and voicemail, and fax. However, students rated fax, TV-basedone-waylivevideoandtwo-way audio, and traditional mail correspon-denceaslesspreferred.
Significantdifferencesexistedbetween facultyandstudentsintheirpreferences of using information technologies (see
TABLE3.ComparisonofFacultyandStudentUseofInformationTechnologiesforDistanceEducation
Heavy(%) Regular(%) Occasional(%) None(%)
Technology Faculty Student Faculty Student Faculty Student Faculty Student
Internetlecturenotesandassignments 64* 48* 19* 41* 1 9 16 2
E-mail 60* 48* 24* 39* 9 12 7 1
InternetandWeb-baseddiscussiongroups 46 39 21 27 15 18 18 16
Internetchatgroups 21 13 19 21 24 26 36 40
Internettwo-waylivevideoandaudio 19** 2** 12 4 16 7 53** 87**
Internetone-waylivevideoandaudio 18 28 12* 24* 13 12 57* 36*
TV-basedtwo-waylivevideoandaudio 17 3 9 3 6 2 68* 92*
Telephoneandvoicemail 16 3 17 11 38 37 29* 49*
Videotapes,CDs,DVDsmailedtostudents 15 10 11 21 24 32 50 37
Specialcomputernetwork 11 7 11 10 6 6 72 77
Internetone-waylivevideo
andtwo-wayaudio 9 7 9 8 16 9 66 76
TV-basedone-waylivevideoandaudio 4 3 6 3 4 3 86 91
Fax 3 4 4 8 26 12 67 76
Traditionalmailcorrespondence 2 1 4 5 30 27 64 67
TV-basedone-waylivevideoand
two-wayaudio 1 4 6 3 7 3 86 91
Note.Forfaculty,N=140;forstudents,N=300.
*p<.05.**p<.01.
Table5).Althoughthefacultypreferred usingTV-basedtwo-waylivevideoand audioandTV-basedone-waylivevideo and two-way audio significantly more than did students, students preferred using Internet two-way live video and audiosignificantlymore.
SummaryandDiscussion
Thepresentstudyshowedthatamong 436 AACSB-accredited U.S. business schools, 393 indicated offering distance education, and those 393 are 90% of all the AACSB-accredited U.S. business
schools.Thisfindingisconsistentwiththe reportoftheNCES(2003)thatapproxi- mately90%ofpubliccollegesanduniver-sitiesoffereddistanceeducation.
Internetlecturenotesandassignments ande-mailwerethetwomostheavilyor regularlyusedtoolsamongmostfaculty andstudentsindistanceeducation.Also used heavily or regularly by 30% to morethan60%offacultyandstudents were Internet or Web-based discus-sion groups, Internet chat groups, and Internet one-way live video and audio. These fiveheavily or regularly used tools all belong to the Internet-based technologies. This finding is in line withHickman’s(2003)conclusionthat
t
he Internet was being used more than otherdistance-educationdeliverymeth-odssuchasTV-basedvideoandaudio, telephone, and voicemail, which were identifiedasfrequentlyusedindistance education a few years earlier (Zhao et al.,2003).Thefindingalsosupportsthe viewpointthattheInternettechnologies were reshaping education on all levels and that educators should envision all thepossibilities(Shank,2000).Most faculty and students stated that e-mail, Internet lecture notes and assignments,andInternetorWeb-based discussiongroupshelpedincreasetheir
TABLE4.ComparisonofFacultyandStudentProductivityInfluencedbyInformationTechnologiesin DistanceEducation
Increase(%) Noimpact(%) Impede(%) Noreport(%)
Technology Faculty Student Faculty Student Faculty Student Faculty Student
E-mail 81 81 6 6 6 1 7 12
Internetlecturenotesandassignments 79 79 6 6 3 0 12 15
InternetandWeb-baseddiscussiongroups 68 69 7 9 4 3 21 19
Telephoneandvoicemail 54* 28* 23 24 4 1 19* 47*
Internetchatgroups 42 43 22 16 4 2 32 29
Videotapes,CDs,DVDsmailedtostudents 31 44 24 13 1 2 44 41
TV-basedtwo-waylivevideoandaudio 23** 5** 26 10 1 2 50** 83**
Fax 21 11 36 26 2 3 41 60
Internetone-waylivevideoandaudio 19* 47* 27 9 2 1 52 43
Specialcomputernetwork 19 14 26 13 3 1 52 72
Traditionalmailcorrespondence 13 19 36 19 11 2 40 60
Internettwo-waylivevideoandaudio 10* 32* 28 29 1 3 61* 36*
Internetone-waylivevideoandtwo-way
audio 8 16 27 14 3 2 62 68
TV-basedone-waylivevideoandtwo-way
audio 6 9 26 10 4 1 64 80
TV-basedone-waylivevideoandaudio 4 12 27 10 4 2 65 76
Note.Forfaculty,N=140;forstudents,N=300.
*p<.05.**p<.01.
TABLE5.ComparisonofFacultyandStudentPreferencesofInformation TechnologiesinDistanceEducation
Faculty Student
Technology M SD M SD
Internetlecturenotesandassignments 4.1 1.171 4.1 1.125
TV-basedtwo-waylivevideoandaudio 3.9** 1.570 2.5** 1.721
InternetandWeb-baseddiscussiongroups 3.6 1.237 3.5 1.565
Internetone-waylivevideoandaudio 3.5 1.137 3.2 1.435
E-mail 3.2 1.186 3.2 1.184
Internettwo-waylivevideoandaudio 3.1* 1.367 3.9* 1.563
Specialcomputernetwork 3.0 1.628 2.5 1.871
Internetone-waylivevideoandtwo-wayaudio 2.9 1.526 3.2 1.509
TV-basedone-waylivevideoandtwo-wayaudio 2.9* 1.754 2.0* 1.854
Videotapes,CDs,DVDsmailedtostudents 2.8 1.592 2.9 1.919
Internetchatgroups 2.6 1.323 3.1 1.534
TV-basedone-waylivevideoandaudio 2.6 1.128 2.7 1.545
Fax 2.4 1.366 1.8 1.486
Telephoneandvoicemail 2.3 1.246 2.7 1.396
Traditionalmailcorrespondence 1.8 1.143 2.2 1.190
Note.ResponseswereratedonaLikert-typescalerangingfrom1(leastpreferred)to 5(mostpreferred).
*p<.05.**p<.01.
teaching and learning productivity in distance courses. Few faculty and stu-dents reported that the 15 technolo-gieslistedimpededtheirproductivityin distance education. However, approxi-mately30–83%offacultyandstudents did not report their perceptions on 11 of the 15 technologies, which include Internetlivevideoandaudio,telephone andvoicemail,andTV-basedlivevideo and audio. The findings support the research results of Frey et al. (2003) and White (2000) that distance educa-torsratede-mailasanimportanttoolfor sending their personalized feedback to students,andstudentsperceivede-mail communicationwithinstructorsandthe online course materials as most valu-abletolearners.Thefindingsalsoimply thatalthoughmostfacultyandstudents experienced e-mail, Internet lecture notes and assignments, and Internet or Web-based discussion groups as pro-ductivity enhancers, a significant per-centage of them were uncertain of the growing convergence or complexity of Internet, Internet protocol television, and voice-over Internet protocol tech-nologies(Crawfordetal.,2003;Hayet al., 2007; Metcalfe, 2000; Sass, 2006) and did not report their perceptions of those related technologies. These findings also support the importance of technology training among faculty and students. To encourage their full useofnewtechnologiesasproductivity enhancers, faculty and students need training(Daily,2000;Sitze,2000).
Internet lecture notes and assign-ments, Internet- or Web-based discus-siongroups,Internetone-waylivevideo and audio, and e-mail were ranked by faculty and students as most preferred. Except for theInternetone-way live videoandaudio,whichhadabetween-group difference, these Internet tech-nologieswerealsousedheavilybyboth groups and considered as productiv-ity enhancers. Although 47% of the students perceived Internet one-way live video and audio as a productivity enhancer, only one fifth of the faculty didthesame.Additionalsignificantdif-ferences existed mainly in traditional technologies.Significantly more fac-ulty perceived telephone, voicemail, and TV-based live video and audio as productivity enhancers and preferred
using TV-based live video and audio as compared with students. Such dif- ferencescouldbeexplainedbythedif-ferencebetweenusers’familiaritywith andpreferencefortechnology.Instruc-tors have used telephone, voicemail, andTV-based video and audio as their deliverymethodsofdistanceeducation
foralongtime.However,studentspre-fertotakeclassesontheInternetforthe convenience and flexibility of learning at home, at work, or on business trips, without physically commuting to cam-pus. Such convenience and flexibility arethebenefitsthatstudentsneedfrom distance education (Choj et al., 2007; Institute for Higher Education Policy, 2000;Lüdertetal.,2008).
PedagogicalImplications
The findings of the present study and the related literature indicate that Internet-based teaching and learning toolsareusedmorethanotherdistance-education delivery methods. School administrators should consider saving resourcesbyreducingtraditionalpaper mail,fax,andTV-basedlivevideoand audio,andbyprovidingmoreInternet-based technologies in distance educa-tion.Astheindustryresearchreported, the cost of Web-based annual reports was only 3% of the cost of the paper versions, and the cost of distributing coupons by e-mail was just 2% of the costofmailingpapercouponsbypostal service(Zhaoetal.,2007).
For schools still using traditional paper mail, fax, and TV-based live videoandaudioastheprimarydelivery methods in distance education, admin-istrators and faculty should consider adopting Internet live video and audio as the primary mode for various ben-efits.Thisadoptionwouldmeetdistance without physical constraints. In addi-tion, the adoption of Internet-based course delivery would help schools to reducecostsofclassrooms,TVs,paper, andpostalservices,tonameafew.
Tohelpinstructorsandstudentsmove smoothly from traditional paper mail,
fax, and TV-based distance delivery modes to Internet-based online deliv-ery,schoolsneedtoprovideinstructors andstudentswithnewtechnologytrain-ing and online assistance. With proper training, instructors and students will effectively use new Internet technolo-giestomakeonlinedistanceeducation asuccess.
NOTES
Jensen J. Zhao is a professor of information systems. He teaches undergraduate and gradu-ate courses in information systems management, information systems security, e-business, and business communication and negotiations. His researchareasincludecommunicationandinfor-mation sciences, business negotiations, and dis-tanceeducation.
MelodyW.Alexander isaprofessorofinfor-mationsystems.Sheteachescoursesincomputer applications,databasemanagement,andbusiness communication. Her research interests include computer-aidedlearning,distanceeducation,and businesscommunication.
Heidi Perreault is a professor of information systems. She teaches undergraduate and gradu-atecoursesininformationsystemsandcomputer technology. Her research areas include informa-tion systems management, computer technolo-gies,anddistanceeducation.
Lila Waldman is an associate professor of informationtechnologiesandbusinesseducation. Sheteachescoursesininformationsystems,com-puter applications, and business teacher educa-tion. Her research interests include applications ofinformationtechnologies,effectivenessofbusi-nessteachereducation,anddistanceeducation.
Allen D. Truell is a professor of informa-tion systems and business education. He teaches undergraduate and graduate courses in computer applications, business communication, and busi-nessteachereducation.Hisresearchareasinclude business teacher education, computer applica-tions,anddistanceeducation.
Correspondence concerning this article should beaddressedtoDr.JensenJ.Zhao,MillerCollege ofBusiness-ISOM,BallStateUniversity,Muncie, IN47306,USA.
E-mail:jzhao@bsu.edu
REFERENCES
Agresti,A.(1996).Anintroductiontocategorical dataanalysis.NewYork:Wiley.
Appleton, E. (1999, March). The state of online learning.InsideTechnologyTraining,14. Boettcher,J.,&Vijay-Kumar,M.S.(2000,June).
The other infrastructure: Distance education’s digitalplant.Syllabus,14–22.
Boulton, H. (2008). Managing e-learning: What aretherealimplicationsforschools?Electronic Journalofe-Learning,6(1),11–18.
Choj,D.H.,Kim,J.,&Kim,S.H.(2007).ERP training with a Web-based electronic learning system:The flow theory perspective. Interna-tional Journal of Human–Computer Studies, 65,223–243.
Crawford,G.,Rudy,J.A.,&theEDUCAUSECur-rentIssuesCommittee.(2003,November).Fourth annualEDUCAUSEsurveyidentifiescurrentIT issues.EducauseQuarterly,26(2),12–26.
Daily, M. (2000). Faculty support for distance learning.AcademyOnline. Retrieved March 2, 2002, from http://www.academyonline.com/ field/index.htm
Frey, L. R., Botan, C. H., Friedman, P. G., & Kreps, G. L. (1991).Investigating communi-cation: An introduction to research methods.
UpperSaddleRiver,NJ:PrenticeHall. Frey,A.,Yankelov,P.,&Faul,A.(2003).Student
perceptionsofWeb-assistedteachingstrategies.
JournalofSocialWorkEducation,39,443–457. Hay, D. B., Kehoe, C., Miguel, M. E., Hatzi-panagos, S., Kinchin, I. M., Keevil, S. F., et al.(2007).Measuringthequalityofe-learning [Electronicversion]. BritishJournalofEduca-tional Technology, 39,1037–1056. Retrieved January 11, 2009, from http://www3.inter-science.wiley.com/journal/120119985/abstract Hickman, C. J. (2003, March 29).Results of
survey regarding distance education offerings. Washington, DC: University Continuing Edu- cationAssociationDistanceLearningCommu-nityofPractice,ResearchCommittee. Institute for Higher Education Policy. (2000,
April).Quality on the line: Benchmarks for success in Internet-based distance education.
Washington,DC:Author.RetrievedJanuary11, 2009, from http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/ custom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini.jsp?_ nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_ 0=ED444407&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_ 0=no&accno=ED444407
Ivancevich, J. M., & Matteson, M. T. (1996).
Organizationalbehaviorandmanagement(4th ed.).Chicago:Irwin.
Lorenzetti, J. P. (2005). Lessons learned about studentissuesinonlinelearning. DistanceEdu-cationReport,9(6),1–4.
Lüdert, T., Nast, A., Zielke, H., Sterry, W., & Rzany,W.B.(2008).E-learninginthederma-tologicaleducationattheCharité:Evaluationof thelastthreeyears.JournalofGermanSociety ofDermatology,6,467–472.
Metcalfe, R. (2000). The next big thing in the world of convergence: The broadcast Inter-net.RetrievedSeptember8,2002,fromhttp:// www.infoworld.com/articles/op/xml/00/06/05/ 000605opmetcalfe.html
Motteram, G., & Forrester, G. (2005). Becom-ing an online distance learner: What can be learnedfromstudents’experiencesofinduction todistanceprogrammers?DistanceEducation, 26,281–298.
Mupinga, D. M., Nora, R. T., & Yaw, D. C. (2006). The learning styles, expectations, and needsofonlinestudents.CollegeTeaching,54, 185–189.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2003, July).Distance education at degree-granting postsecondary institutions: 2000-2001. Wash-ington, DC:Author. Retrieved June 20, 2007, from http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/peqis/publica-tions/2003017
Roberson, T. J., & Klotz, J. (2002, Winter). How can instructors and administrators fill themissinglinkinonlineinstruction?Online JournalofDistanceLearningAdministration, 5(4).RetrievedJune5,2003,fromhttp://www .westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/winter54/rober son54.htm
Sass, E. (2006, February 10). TV, Internet con-vergence yields cultural chasm. Media Post. Retrieved January 11, 2009, from www.mediapost.com/publications/index. cfm?fuseaction=Articles.showArticle&art_ aid=39667
Scagnoli, N. I. (2001). Student orientations for onlineprograms. JournalofResearchonTech-nologyinEducation,34(1),19–27.
Schuler,R.S.,Beutell,N.J.,&Youngblood,S.A. (1989).Effective personnel management. New York:West.
Shank, R. (2000).A vision of education for the 21stcentury. TechnologicalHorizonsinEduca-tionJournal,27(6),43–49.
Sitze, A. (2000, April). Teachers at a distance.
InsideTechnologyTraining,4(4),40–45. Sloan Consortium. (2004).Entering the
main-stream: The quality and extent of online edu-cation in the United States, 2003 and 2004. Retrieved January 11, 2009, from http://www. sloan-c.org/enteringthemainstream_survey04_ns Temple, N. J., Kemp, W. C., & Benson, W. A.
(2006).Computertechnologyandstudentpref-erences in a nutrition course.Open Learning, 21(1),71–77.
Watzlawick, P. (1978). The language of change. NewYork:BasicBooks.
Werther, W. B., Ruch, W. A., & McClure, L. (1986). Productivity through people. St. Paul, MN:West.
White, C. (2000). Learn online.Technological HorizonsinEducationJournal,27(9),66–70. Zhao, J. J., Alexander, M., Waldman, L., &
Perreault, H. (2003). Impact of information technologies on faculty and students in online distance education.Delta Pi Epsilon Journal, 45(1),17–33.
Zhao,J.J.,Whitesel,J.A.,Truell,A.D.,&Alex-ander, M. W. (2007). Corporate cyberspace communication vs. paper-based communica-tion:The impact of media choice on cost and benefit.Issues in Information Systems, 8(2), 83–88.
