Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

The Paradox Of Distance Education

2016, European Scientific Journal, ESJ

Abstract

Over the last several years distance education (DE) class offerings at U.S. universities and colleges have been increasing at a rate of approximately 10% or more per year (Allen & Seaman, 2014). While the effectiveness of DE courses vis-à-vis face-to-face (F2F) courses has been sufficiently documented, there are few studies that compare student evaluations of the two class delivery systems. Therefore, we sought to answer the question, is there a significant difference between student evaluations of the teaching methods and styles (TM&S) of DE and F2F classes as measured on a student completed class and instructor survey, examined through the lens of Moore's Transactional Distance Theory's (TDT) constructs of student autonomy, dialogue and structure (1997, 2010, 2012)? Moore maintains that DE is not only a geographical separation of student and teacher; it is also a psychological and pedagogical separation. The twenty TM&S questions included in the survey data for 765 classes offered from September 6, 2011 to December 19, 2013 were collected and analyzed for classes identified as SOC 101 Introduction to Sociology through SOC 340 Applied Research in the Behavioral Sciences that are offered by the College of Social and Behavioral Sciences at a Mid-Atlantic Open University. A t-test analysis of variance was conducted and analyzed. The results of the study indicate that 16 of the 20 TM&S questions returned statistically significant results, 3 of 4 for student autonomy, 8 of 10 for dialogue and 5 of 6 for structure. Three of the TDT construct dialogue/interaction questions and 2 of the TDT construct structure questions returned medium effect size magnitudes. Three of the TM&S questions associated with the TDT construct autonomy returned statistically significant results with low effect size magnitudes. Based on the results of the study, we have concluded that psychological and pedagogical separation, or TD between student and teacher is reduced when the DE course structure

References (24)

  1. References: Allen, I. E. & Seaman, J. (2014). Grade change: Tracking online education in the United States. Babson Park, MA: Babson Survey Research Group. Benton, S. L., & Cashin, W. E. (2012). Student ratings of teaching: A summary review and literature [Electronic Version], #50. Retrieved from www.theideacenter.org.
  2. Bernard, R. M., Abrami; P. C., Lou, Y., Borokhovski, E., Wade, A., Wozney, L., Wallet, P. A., Fiset, M. & Huang, B. (2004). How does distance education compare with classroom instruction? A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Review of Educational Research, 74(3), 379-439.
  3. Benson, R., & Samarawickrema, G. (2009). Addressing the context of learning: Using transactional distance theory to inform design. Distance Education, 30(1), 5-21.
  4. Campbell. D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1963). Experimental and quasi- experimental designs for research. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.
  5. Connolly, M., Jones, C., & Jones, N. (2007). New approaches, new visions: Capturing teacher experiences in a brave new online world. Open Learning, 22(1), 43-56.
  6. Dewey, J. & Bentley, A. F. (1949). Knowing and the known. Boston: Beacon Press.
  7. Dron, J., Seidel, C., & Litten, G. (2004). Transactional distance in a blended learning environment. ALT-J, Research in Learning Technology, 12(2), 163- 174.
  8. Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics: And sex drugs and rock 'n' roll (4 th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
  9. Fulford, C. P., & Zhang, S. (1993). Perceptions of interaction: The critical predictor in Distance Education. The American Journal of Distance Education, 7(3), 8-21.
  10. Gorsky, P., & Caspi, A. (2005a). A critical analysis of transactional Distance theory. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 6(1), 1-11.
  11. Gorsky, P., & Caspi, A. (2005b). Dialogue: A theoretical framework for distance education instructional systems. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(2), 137-144.
  12. Gorsky, P., Caspi, A., & Trumper, R. (2004). Dialogue in a distance education physics course. Open Learning, 19(3), 265-277.
  13. Hinkle, D. E., Wiersma, W., & Jurs, S. G. (2003). Applied statistics for the behavioral sciences (5 th ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.
  14. Holmberg, B. (2003). A theory of distance education based on empathy. In M. G. Moore & W. G. Anderson (Eds.), Handbook of distance education (2nd. ed., pp. 79-86). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publisher. IDEA. (2013). Feedback services for higher education since 1975. IDEA Center: Insight Improvement Impact. Retrieved from www.theideacenter.org/services
  15. Jacki. (2010). E-reflections: Salmon's five stage model. Retrieved from www.gillysalmon.com/five-stage-model.html.
  16. Kanuka, H., Collett, D., & Caswell, C. (2002). University instructor perceptions of the use of asynchronous text-based discussion in distance courses. The American Journal of Distance Education, 16(3), 151-167.
  17. Lear, J. L., Isernhagen, J. C., LaCost, B., & King, J. W. (2009). Instructor presence for Web-Based classes. Delta Pi Epsilon, LI(2), 86-99.
  18. Moore, M. G. (1997). Theory of transactional distance. In D. Keegan (Ed.), Theoretical Principles of Distance Education (pp. 22-38). London: Routledge.
  19. Moore, M. G. (2010). The theory of transactional distance. In The Handbook of Distance Education (pp. 1-21). University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University.
  20. Moore, M. G. (2012). The theory of transactional distance (pp. 1-25). University Park, PA.
  21. Murphy, K. L., & Cifuentes, L. (2001). Using Web tools, collaborating, and learning online. Distance Education, 22(2), 285-305.
  22. Renaud, R. D., & Murray, H. G. (2005). Factorial validity of student ratings of instruction. Research in Higher Education, 46(8), 929-953.
  23. Salmon, G., & Shephard, D. (2004). All things in moderation. Retrieved October 30, 2012, from http://www.atimod.com/profile/atimod.shtml Theall, M., & Franklin, J. (2001). Looking for bias in all the wrong places: A search for truth or a witch hunt in student ratings of instruction. New Directions for Institutional Research, 109(Spring), 45-56.
  24. Tsui, A. B. M., & Ki, W. W. (1996). An analysis of conference interactions on TeleNex: A computer network for ESL teachers. Educational Technology Research and Development, 44(4), 23-44.