Manajemen | Fakultas Ekonomi Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji 08832320209599681

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vjeb20

Download by: [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] Date: 13 January 2016, At: 00:28

Journal of Education for Business

ISSN: 0883-2323 (Print) 1940-3356 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjeb20

Overcoming Barriers to Successful Delivery of

Distance-Learning Courses

Heidi Perreault , Lila Waldman , Melody Alexander & Jensen Zhao

To cite this article: Heidi Perreault , Lila Waldman , Melody Alexander & Jensen Zhao (2002) Overcoming Barriers to Successful Delivery of Distance-Learning Courses, Journal of Education for Business, 77:6, 313-318, DOI: 10.1080/08832320209599681

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08832320209599681

Published online: 31 Mar 2010.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 109

View related articles

Overcoming Barriers to Successful

Delivery of Distance-Learning Courses

HEIDI PERREAULT

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

Southwest Missouri State University

Springfield, Missouri

LILA WALDMAN

Bloomsburg University

Bloomsburg, Pennsylvania

MELODY ALEXANDER

JENSENZHAO

Ball State University

Muncie, Indiana

eb-based distance education

W

offers the ideal combination of self-paced learning and interactivity. With distance-learning courses, stu- dents can schedule their learning for convenient times and take courses from either work or home at any hour of the day or night. On-line discussions, e- mail-support collaboration, and interac- tive presentations provided through Webcasts create a sense of community

for students (Frankola, 2001,

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

p. 16).

As distance learning expands and

matures, it is important for researchers to (a) identify those factors that make a distance-learning course successful and (b) determine strategies for supporting faculty members and students partici- pating in on-line courses. They should also identify, address, and remedy barri- ers and problems.

Purpose and Problem Statements

Our purpose in this study was to examine perceptions on the important problems in the development and deliv- ery of distance-learning courses among college of business faculty members who deliver such courses. Once the factors deemed most important for the success- ful delivery of a course are identified, strategies for improving development and delivery can be defined and shared.

ABSTRACT. For this study, the

authors collected data from 81 busi- ness professors who taught distance- learning courses at 61 U.S. business

schools accredited by the American Assembly of Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB). Findings indicate

that the professors (a) primarily used self-training for the design and deliv- ery of on-line courses, (b) believed

that the technology was not suffcient-

ly reliable, (c) believed that the great- est benefit of distance learning was

flexibility for students, and (d) per-

ceived a student-centered teaching

approach as necessary for successful distance-education courses.

Related Literature Review

According to the U.S. Department of Education (1999), one in three higher education institutions in the United States offered some type of distance education during the 1997-98 academic year. Nearly 80% of all 4-year and almost two thirds of 2-year public insti- tutions made distance education avail- able to students during this period. Of the institutions that did not offer distance education, 20% planned to offer some type of remote delivery service by 2002 (U.S. Department of Education, 1999).

To clarify the need for this study and the specific research areas, we focused our review of the related literature on the following three issues: (a) distance- learning instructional issues, (b) instruc- tor and course preparation considera-

tions, and (c) factors associated with offering and delivering distance-educa-

tion courses.

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

Distance-Learning Instruction

Students who participate in distance- learning courses may encounter several technology-related difficulties. Students taking a course at the Grant MacEwan Community College in Alberta, Canada, indicated that they had problems submit- ting assignments by e-mail and obtain- ing and locating information. They also reported that the difficulties subsided as they gained experience in using the courseware. Faculty members at Grant MacEwan agreed that many of the prob- lems associated with their distance- learning courses were technology relat- ed. Many of the teachers felt that students overestimated their computer expertise when they enrolled in the course. To assist the students with tech- nology-related problems, instructors can provide support through an on-line help desk and student tutorials (White, 2000). A common barrier or disappointment reported by distance-learning students is the lack of face-to-face interaction with the professor and other students. Sometimes students need to talk to the instructor outside of class time. Stu- dents in a distance setting may not be able to drive to campus during the

July/August

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

2002 31 3

instructor’s office hours. Loeding and Wynn (1 999) noted the importance of providing students with opportunities to talk to the instructor and suggested that instructors encourage students to use the telephone, faxes, e-mail, and other means for communication.

The increased reliance on e-mail can become a problem. Although distance- education faculty members consider their personalized feedback given to students through e-mail important, they note that the sheer volume of e-mail often becomes problematic. In tradition- al courses, students expect feedback at the next scheduled meeting: however, when communicating on-line, students expect immediate feedback. This expec- tation causes some faculty members to feel that they must be available to the students 100% of the time, including evenings and weekends (White, 2000). Therefore, by sharing guidelines with students on expected turnaround time for answering e-mails, instructors can avert unrealistic student expectations regarding response times to their e- mails or assignments. Setting on-line “office hours” for student participation in instant messaging or chat room con- versations is another means of provid- ing students with planned access to the instructor (Berger, 1999).

Student-to-student communication is also important to the success of a course. Collaboration and team projects are standard components of college classes. On-line courses often incorporate a threaded discussion as part of the course requirements. Students make comments, ask questions, and respond to other classmates’ input. Cooper (2000) encouraged the use of a computer-based classroom management system. Such systems provide tools that support stu- dent interaction and collaboration as well as monitor student participation

Cooper (2000) also noted that on-line testing can be problematic. If the course uses an objective test format, a benefit of most on-line course management systems is the provision of automatic grades and immediate feedback to the students. However, objective test for- mats are not appropriate for all courses. A possible solution is the use of alterna- tive assessment strategies such as port- folios (Carlson, 2000). Instructors may

need training on developing and using alternative assessment techniques.

Boettcher and Vijay-Kumar (2000) warned that shifting programs and courses from the physical to the digital campus is not an easy undertaking. Considerable planning and the develop- ment of an infrastructure are necessary for circumventing the common prob- lems associated with distance-learning programs. Loeding and Wynn (1999) strongly recommended that faculty members attend training sessions and/or participate in the type of distance course that they will be delivering so that they can design the course and prepare mate- rials more appropriately for the instruc-

tional medium used. bani &

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

Telg (2001)

recommended formal training in both the technology and distance education methodology. Too often, training is lim- ited to the use of a specific software package or particular technology such

as video conferencing.

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

Instructor and Course Preparation Considerations

At some institutions, faculty mem- bers are expected to create distance- education courses with little or no sup- port, whereas other institutions provide technical support and faculty training (Boettcher, 1999). Barbara Maaskant, director of information services at Emory’s Goizueta School, agreed that support and encouragement of faculty members involved in developing non- traditional courses varies widely across educational institutions (Daily, 2000). Financial incentives, through grants or additional salary options, may be offered to faculty members for develop- ing on-line courses. Some institutions provide faculty members with training on using Web-based technology and expect faculty members to take full responsibility for the course develop- ment. Other institutions have created on-line educational support centers with technology support personnel and cur- riculum designers. Faculty members provide the subject-matter expertise, and the support-center personnel con- vert the course materials to an on-line format (Daily, 2000).

Riley and Gallo (2000) stressed the importance of designing all aspects of

the instructional process for courses delivered in a distance setting. Design includes incorporation of the instruc- tor’s and the students’ viewpoints, back- grounds, and tools. Some of the factors included in instructional design are pro- viding support for the curriculum, using teaching and learning management tools, and selecting the best mix of available technologies. Educators should not be expected to make all of the design decisions. We suggest a team approach using instructors, curriculum designers, and technology experts.

Whatever combination of training and support is offered to faculty members, adapting to the new delivery format still will be a challenge. According to Gene Ziegler, a consultant on distance educa- tion, the biggest change is moving from a lecture to a coach or mentoring style for teaching on-line courses (Daily, 2000). Building a personal relationship with students whom the instructor may never meet in person is very difficult. White, who teaches on-line facilitation techniques for a Seattle consulting group, stressed that instructors must be willing to put in extra work to make on- line courses as successful as classroom- delivered courses (Sitze, 2000).

Instructor and student communica- tions in all distance-learning formats differ from the communications in a classroom-based course. In the class- room, there are multiple opportunities for immediate two-way communication. Berger (1999) suggested that instructors need to make a special effort at the start of a distance-learning course to build an effective communication framework. Her research indicates that student anx- iety levels are highest at the start of a distance-learning course. Students, con- cerned that they are missing important announcements or misunderstanding the responsibilities or expectations of the course, contact the instructor to seek assurances and clarification. The vol- ume of e-mail and voice messages from the students then overwhelms the facul- ty members.

Extra communication effort is needed at other times in the course as well; Kiser (1999) stressed the need to incor- porate the “human touch” to motivate and support learners throughout the

course. Offering assistance and oppor-

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

31 4 Journal of Education for Business

tunities for discussion of course-related materials supports the distance-learning environment. She noted that an on-line course without collaboration had a com- pletion rate of only 25%. When the same course was offered with access to a tutor through e-mail or telephone and collaboration was supported through a discussion list, the completion rate

increased to 75%.

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

Distance-Learning Factors

From a student perspective, the advantages associated with distance- learning courses are very personalized. According to a review of numerous studies on distance learning in the National Education Association and American Federation of Teachers com- missioned report, What’s the Differ-

ence, students select a distance-learn- ing format for its flexibility and the “luxury” of not commuting to class (Institute of Higher Education Policy, 1999). Distance learning is indeed a viable alternative to classroom instruc- tion and provides increased learning opportunities for traditional and non- traditional students (Cooper, 2000). Students can participate in distance courses from any location at any time instead of traveling to a campus on spe- cific days. However, to truly meet the needs of the students, distance courses must be student centered (Graves, 2000).

By moving from instructor-centered teaching to student-centered learning, the instructor becomes a facilitator or coach who prompts learners and clari- fies expectations. Students have differ- ent learning styles and backgrounds. Distance education provides a means for customizing the learning environ- ment by allowing a student to deter- mine how fast and how deeply to exam- ine a subject. The instructor provides the resources, activities, and feedback, but the student selects the pace. Dis- tance learning allows the student who just needs an overview to move quick- ly through the information, while giv- ing the student who needs more thor- ough coverage the opportunity to examine multiple resources and review as many times as necessary the activi-

ties and readings (Appleton, 1999).

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

Method

To investigate the perceptions of dis- tance-education instructors, we devel- oped a questionnaire based on the relat- ed literature review and researchers’ experience of distance education. The questionnaire covered the following areas: (a) distance-education teaching experience, (b) distance-education course development and training, (c) problems and issues relating to distance education, and (d) factors relating to distance education.

Content Validity

A ]%-member panel of experts that included distance educators and admin- istrators validated the content of the questionnaire. Panel members were involved in the development and teach- ing of distance education courses. The panel’s evaluation indicated that the instrument covered the stated objectives.

Survey Participants and Data Analysis

Through Website e-mail addresses and phone numbers, we contacted all

335 business schools accredited by the AACSB in the United States and asked them to provide the names of professors teaching a distance-learning courses in a business area. Sixty-one institutions agreed to participate in the study and provided names and mailing addresses of 184 professors who taught business courses through distance learning. We conducted the study during the 2000-2001 academic year, sending business professors a cover letter with

the questionnaire. After

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

6 weeks, we

sent a follow-up letter and with the

questionnaire to nonrespondents. Of the

184 professors identified as possible

participants, usable responses were received from 81, resulting in a

response rate of 48.5%. We analyzed

data through descriptive statistics, including percentages and frequencies. Statistical significance was tested between different groups.

The participants in our study ( N =

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

8 1)

were relatively new to distance educa- tion, with the majority having taught distance-learning courses for no more than 3 years. However, 23% indicated

that they had been teaching some types of distance-learning courses for 5 or more years. Most participants indicated that their experience with distance- learning courses involved either only Web-based or both Web-based and interactive television courses.

Findings

Though problems and frustrations exist in all learning situations, the respondents in our study provided an insight into the issues that they found to be most troublesome in the delivery of a distance learning course. They also pro- vided insight into how their courses were developed and what kind of train- ing they received for creating and/or delivering them. Finally, the respon- dents provided their opinions on the qualities that make a course successful.

Technology and Instructional Delivery Issues

The respondents identified technolo- gy itself as an issue, and technology reliability as a major issue. Even a small

I

TABLE 1. Percentage of Respondents Indicating Problems Associated

With Technology

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

(N

= 81)

Technology- related issues

Somewhat No Problematic problematic problem

Reliability of 51

Technology support 19

Student technology 13

technology

provided by institution

competence

competence

Teacher technology

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

4

29 20 39 41

50 37 37 59

July/August

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

2002 31 5

technical “glitch,” such as a server being temporarily unavailable or a minor transmission interruption, disrupts the

learning process. In Table

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

1, we present

the percentage of respondents reporting problems associated with technology- related issues. Eighty percent of the respondents indicated that technology reliability was problematic or somewhat problematic. Over 50% of the respon- dents indicated that the technical sup- port provided by the institution to sup- port the delivery of the course was problematic or somewhat problematic.

Another technology-related problem was student and instructor levels of technology competence. Sixty-three percent of the respondents reported that student technology competence was problematic or somewhat problematic. However, only 41% felt that the instruc- tor’s technology competence was prob- lematic or somewhat problematic.

Other instruction-related issues noted by the respondents involved access to

resources, students’ communicating with the instructor and with other stu-

dents, and testing (see Table

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

2). Sixty-

eight of the respondents considered stu- dent access to course-related resources as problematic or somewhat problemat- ic. Another access issue listed as being problematic by a majority of the respon- dents was student-to-teacher communi- cation. Communication among students working on team projects was consid- ered problematic by 50% of the respon- dents. Although included in Table 1 as an instructional problem, test adminis- tration was perceived as problematic or somewhat problematic by only 47% of

the respondents

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

Course Development and Instructor Training

[image:5.612.46.389.356.729.2]

The majority of the respondents indi- cated that they had created the distance- learning course themselves. Some had received technical support from the

TABLE 2. Percentage of Respondents Indicating Problems Associated With Instruction

Instruction-

related issues problem

No

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

I

Somewhat

Problematic problematic

I

Student access to

resources 26

Student and teacher

communication 21

Team projects 17

Administering tests 15

42

40 33 32

32

39 50 53

TABLE 3. Respondents’ Perceptions of the Importance of Factors

Associated With Distance Education (“h)

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

Factor

Very Not

important Important important Unsure Flexibility for

student New opportunity

for adult learni Cost efficiency

for students Faculty member

as facilitator New teaching

approach Student-centered

learning

64 26 4 6

‘“g 37 36 5 22

15 29 19 37

39 47 3 11

37 36 6 21

33 26 5 36

institution, and a few were provided with a graduate assistant. Fifty-three percent indicated that they created the course in their spare time, and 16% stat- ed that they received release time to develop it. Nearly half of the respon- dents (47%) received at least some tech- nical support from their institutions, and a few (7%) had a graduate assistant assigned to help while they developed the course. Thirteen percent indicated that the development was a team effort among colleagues. Very few (4%) of the respondents indicated that the course was purchased from a third party.

Sixty-three percent of the respondents said that they mainly had taught them- selves how to create and deliver dis- tance-learning courses without any for- mal training. In-house workshops (53%) and mentoring or coaching (31%) were the typical types of training offered by the respondents’ schools. Only a few respondents participated in a traditional workshop (1 1 %) or a Web-based work- shop (6%) outside of their institutions to learn about creating and/or delivering distance-learning courses.

Importance

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

of Selected Factors in

Distance Learning

The two student-related factors receiving the highest importance rating were (a) flexibility provided to students (90%) and (b) new opportunities pro- vided to adult learners (73%). Two fac- ulty-related factors involved methods for course delivery: (a) Eighty-six per- cent of the respondents believed that the instructor’s role as a facilitator when teaching a distance-learning course was very important or important, and (b) 73% believed that the use of new teach- ing approaches was important or very important (see Table 3).

Fifty-nine percent of the respondents rated student-centered learning in dis- tance education as important or very important. However, 36% were unsure about the importance of this factor. The unsure response could indicate that some respondents were not familiar with the term “student-centered learn- ing.” When asked about the cost-effi- ciency issue in distance education, only 44% of the respondents rated it very important or important. In contrast,

31 6 Journal of Education for Business

37% were unsure, and 19% rated it as

not important.

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

Discussion

Distance-education courses present some unique problems within the learn- ing environment. A majority of the respondents in our study reported prob- lems with the reliability of the technol- ogy, student technology competence, and technical support provided by the institution. These findings are consis- tent with the literature indicating that students often overestimate their techni- cal expertise when selecting an on-line course (White, 2000). The American Association of University Professors Statement on Distance Learning stated that the institution must take responsi- bility for the technological delivery of the course. Carr (2000) reported that some schools have rushed to develop an on-line presence and that the resulting courses are prone to design and techni- cal problems. Courses that experience continued technical problems fail to meet the educational needs of students.

A second category of problems noted by the respondents was instructional but still included technology use. The prob- lems were student access to needed course materials and communication issues between the teacher and students and among students. Both faculty mem- bers and students may need training on how to best use the resources provided through distance-education technology. Rosenblum (2000) suggested that the key challenge for the instructor is to design a learning environment in which learning does not rely on face-to-face communication. He stressed the need for students to have easy access to course materials, both on-line and offline. The course design should encourage independent learning by pro- viding self-paced tutorials, opportuni- ties for engaged learning, and self- assessments. Too many distance- education courses follow the same de- sign as classroom-based courses and fail to make use of the technology available. Keeping up to date with technology is a major challenge for educators (Schank, 2000). Converting courses to an on-line format requires using tech- nology and instructional methodologies

in new ways. The “Quality on the Line” report prepared by the nonprofit Insti- tute for Higher Education Policy (2000) has specified that faculty members must be assisted in the transition from class- room teaching to on-line instruction. The results of our survey indicate that such support is not yet available to most instructors. About half of the respon- dents (53%) had participated in at least one in-house workshop on distance- learning technologies and/or distance- learning course development, and under a third of the respondents indicated that a mentoring or coaching relationship was available to them when they pre- pared for and delivered their distance- learning course.

Although problems and concerns were identified, the majority of the respondents perceived distance educa- tion to be of value to students, primarily for the flexibility and increased oppor- tunities for adult learning that it pro- vides. The new facilitator role and the new teaching approaches required were the two most important factors concern- ing faculty members.

Recommendations

Our purpose in this study was to determine issues and problems associat- ed with distance-learning courses so that solutions can be found that improve their development and delivery. The main problems identified related to the relia- bility, support for, and use of the tech- nology. Other problems noted related to adapting teaching styles to the distance format and fostering communications.

Training is the most obvious solution to the problems noted by the educators. To use the technology effectively, edu- cators need opportunities to use and experiment with the technologies and the software outside of an actual class situation. As the educators become more familiar and comfortable with the distance-education technologies, the training needs can be refocused onto curriculum design and delivery issues. Until educators have such experience with the technology, strong technical and curricula support must be provided. Teaming educators with curriculum designers and technology support spe- cialists can provide a means for creating

distance-learning courses that provide students a challenging and supportive learning environment. We recommend the following steps for solving or decreasing the severity of the identified problems:

1. Provide technical support both to faculty members and students for tech- nology issues.

2. Provide training to instructors on use of all the technologies available for the distance-learning course. The technolo- gies would include course management and other software packages, fax, e-mail, scanners, and other technologies.

3. Team instructors with curriculum developers who have expertise in dis- tance-learning design and technologies and incorporate student-centered activi-

ties into distance-learning courses.

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

4. Conduct workshops for instructors on how to take on the role of a facilita- tor in the distance-education learning format.

5. Incorporate into all distance-courses multiple means for communicating with students including e-mail, course dis- cussion boards, the telephone, and on-

line office hours.

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

6 . Work with curriculum designers to

create activities that foster student-to- student collaboration.

7. Provide training or tutorials to stu- dents planning to take their first dis- tance-learning course to help them learn how to use the technologies and how to communicate with a faculty member

and/or other students.

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

8. Provide students with easy access to

resources. The resources may be print materials or CD-Roms sent to the stu- dent when she or he registers or links to on-line resources.

REFERENCES

Appleton, E. (1999). The state of on-line learning.

Inside Technology Training, March, 14. Berger, N. (1999). Pioneering experience in dis-

tance learning: Lessons learned. Journal

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

of

Management Education,

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

23(6), 684-691.

Boettcher, J. (1999). Another

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

look at the tower of

WWW. Syllabus, October, 50-52.

Boettcher, J., & Vijay-Kurnar, M. S. (2000). The other infrastructure: Distance education’s digi- tal plant. Syllabus, June, 1 4 2 2 .

Carlson, R. (2000). Assessing your students: Test- ing in the on-line course. Syllabus. March, 16-18.

Carr, S. (2000, June 9). Faculty members are wary

of distance-education ventures. Chrunick

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

of

Higher Education, A4 1 4 2 .

Cooper, L. (2000). On-line courses tips for mak-

ing them work.

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

Technological Horizons in Edu-

cation Journal, 27(8), 87-92.

Daily, M. (2000, March 30). Faculty support for distance learning. Academyon-line. [On-line].

Available:

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

http://www.academyonline.con/field/

index.htm

Frankola, K. (2001). The e-learning taboo: High dropout rates in on-line courses. Syllabus, June, 14-16.

Graves, W. (2000). The dot.xxx challenge to high- er education, Syllabus, June, 30-36.

lnstitute for Higher Education Policy. (1999, April).

What's the di$erence?

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

A review of contemporary

research on the effectiveness of disrance learning in higher education. A report prepared for the American Federation of Teachers and National

Education Association, 1320 19th Street,

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

NW,

Suite 400, Washington, DC 20036.

Institute for Higher Education Policy. (2000). Quality on the line: Benchmarks for success in Internet-based distance education. Institute for Higher Education Policy. [On-line]. Available: http://www.ihep.com/quality.pdf

lrani, T.,

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

& Telg, R. (2001). Going the distance;

developing a model distance education faculty training program. Syllabus, August, 14-1 7. Kiser, K. (1999). Ten things we know so far about

on-line learning. Training, November, 66-74. Loeding, B., & Wynn, M. (1999). Distance learn-

ing planning, preparation, and presentation: Instructors' perspectives. International Journal of Instructional Media, 26(2), 181-182. Riley, P., & Gallo, L. (2000). Electronic learning

environments: Design considerations. Techno- logical Horizons in Education Journal, 27(6).

[On-line].Available: http://www.thejournal.cornl

magazine/vault/A2595.cfm

Rosenblum, J. (2000). Design and development of on-line courses: Faculty working in collabora- tion. Syllabus, March, 10-14.

Schank, R. (2000). A vision of education for the 21st century. Technological Horizons in Educa- tion Journal, 27(6), 4 3 4 9 .

Sitze, A. (2000, April). Teachers at a distance. Tech- nology Training. [On-line]. Available: http://www.trainsupersite.com/ittrain/fea~re3.thm U.S. Department of Education, National Center

for Education Statistics. (1999). Distance edu- cation at postsecondary education institutions: 1997-98. NCES 2000-13. Washington. DC: Author.

White, C. (2000). Learn on-line. Technological

Horizons in Education Journal, 27(9), 66-70.

zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

JOURNAL OF

EDUCATION

FOR

BUSINESS

W W W W W w W W W W W B WMW W W W W W W W W W

W

YES!

I would like to order a one-year subscription to the Journal of Education

,

w

w

w

w

W

ORDER FORM

for Business published bi-monthly. I understand payment can be made to Heldref Publications or charged to my VISA/MasterCard (circle one).

$47.00 Individuals

a

$80.00 Institutions

ACCOUNT # EXPIRATION DATE SIGNATURE

NAME/INSTITUTION W W

ADDRESS W

ClTYlSTATELl P

COUNTRY

w

W

'

ADD $16.00 FOR POSTAGE OUTSIDE THE U.S. ALLOW 6 WEEKS FOR DELIVERY OF FIRST ISSUE. SEND ORDER FORM AND PAYMENT TO: _W

W

w

W

HELDREF PUBLICATIONS, Journal of Education for Business

1319 EIGHTEENTH ST., NW, WASHINGTON, DC 20036-1802 PHONE (202) 296-6267 FAX (202) 296-5149

SUBSCRIPTION ORDERS 1(800)365-9753, www.heldref.org

The Journal of Education

for Business readership includes instructors, supervi- sors, and administrators at the secondary, post- secondary, and collegiate levels. The Journal features basic and applied research- based articles in accounting, communications, economics, finance, information sys- tems, management, market- ing, and other business dis- ciplines. Articles report or share successful innovations, propose theoretical formula- tions, or advocate positions on important controversial issues and are selected on a blind, peer-reviewed basis.

31 8 Journal of Education for Business