# data[].attributes.body
Title: Student Outcomes in a Pathophysiology Course Based on Mode of Delivery: Distance Versus Traditional Classroom Learning.
Source: Google Scholar
DOI: None

Credibility Evaluation: Group 1 (Scholarly Books and Articles)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Background and Purpose.

Distance learning is a growing trend in physical therapy education; little is known about its impact on learning outcomes. The purposes of this study were to: 1) compare student performance based on mode of delivery (distance education versus traditional classroom presentation); 2) investigate the relationship between students' previous academic performance and difference in performance based on mode of delivery; and 3) explore students' perceptions of, and preferences for, distance education and traditional classroom instruction.

Subjects.

Ninety-six physical therapist students, enrolled in 2 successive pathophysiology courses, were included in this study.

Methods.

Each student received half of the course instruction in a traditional classroom mode and half in a distance mode. Student learning was measured by multiple-choice exams. The percent correct was calculated for questions relating to the content presented in classroom versus distance modes of instruction. Matched pair t-tests were used to compare the means. Pearson product moment correlations were used to examine the strength of the association between student cumulative GPA (grade point average) and differences in scores based on mode of presentation. A survey was conducted to obtain the students' perceptions of the learning experience based on format of delivery. Qualitative and quantitative methods were used to analyze the survey responses.

Results.

Students performed significantly better on questions based on material presented in the distance format ( t = 5.16, P < .001); however, students expressed a strong preference for the traditional classroom format. Increases in exam scores based on distance learning were inversely correlated to cumulative GPAs. Themes emerged that describe the students' perceptions of, and preferences for, distance versus classroom learning formats. Student recommendations also raised questions that warrant future investigation.

Discussion and Conclusion.

Although students preferred traditional classroom instruction, they performed significantly better on questions related to material that was presented in a distance format. Students with less academic ability may benefit from the self-paced learning and internet resources to master coursework requiring factual recall of information.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Student Outcomes in a Pathophysiology Course Based on Mode... : Journal of Physical Therapy Education

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
tation); 2) investigate the relationship between students' previous academic performance and difference in performance based on mode of delivery; and 3) explore students' perceptions of, and preferences for, distance education and traditional classroom instruction. Subjects. Ninety-six physical therapist students, enrolled in 2 successive pathophysiology courses, were included in this study.

# data[].attributes.body
Title: Distance Education: Better, Worse, Or As Good As Traditional Education?
Source: Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3928/0148-4834-19990901-03

Credibility Evaluation: Group 1 (Scholarly Books and Articles)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This study examined pre-test and post-test scores, homework grades, research paper grades, final exam scores, final course grades, learning styles, and ages of distance education and traditional students enrolled in a business communications class to determine if distance education is better, worse, or as good as traditional education. Significant differences were found for post-test scores, final exam scores, and age. There were no significant differences in pre-test scores, homework grades, research paper grades, and final course grades. Both groups preferred clearly organized coursework and performing at an above-average level--ranking in the top 25 to 33% of their class. Recommendations for research include investigating student social interaction and increasing the number of classes studied to compare results.
Introduction
Distance education is becoming a more vital part of the higher education family. Just about every major American university offers these courses. Distance education reaches a broader student audience, better addresses student needs, saves money, and more importantly uses the principles of modern learning pedagogy (Fitzpatrick, 2001). Public as well as political interest in distance education is especially high in geographic regions where the student population is widely distributed (Sherry, 1996). In fact, public policy leaders, in some states, are recommending the use of distance education as opposed to traditional learning.

As distance education increasingly becomes a vital part of higher education, one must ask, if distance education is in fact better, worse, or as good as traditional education? A vehement argument is being waged, pitting distance education against traditional face-to-face education. Some argue that distance education is viewed as being different from other forms of education. Many educational-technologists view it as being linked to technology (Garrison, 1987), an aspect that may play a role in course development and acceptance problems (Jeffries, 1996). According to Fox (1998), what is in dispute is not whether distance education is ideal, but whether it is good enough to merit a university degree, and whether it is better than receiving no education at all. He alludes to an argument that states students learn far too little when the teacher's personal presence is not available because the student has more to learn from the teacher than the texts. Thus, in order for the student to be taught well, does the teacher have to be personally present?

Many advocates of distance education are ardent about their venue and very critical of traditional education. These online education devotees view traditional classes as being unchangeable, inflexible, teacher-centered, and static (Fitzpatrick 2001). However, proponents argue that many simply would not be able to get a degree without distance education—the full-time police officer, the mother of four, or the individual living in a rural area approximately 100-200 miles away from any educational institution. Many individuals desperately need distance education courses because they "have jobs, families, civic responsibilities. They are thirsting. But some want us to say, 'Sorry you don't want to drink the water there, but we can't bottle our fresh spring water, so you'll have to come here or drink nothing" (Fox, 1998, p. 5). Proponents contend that distance education is "as good as" traditional education. In other words, learning occurs as much in distance education as it does in traditional education. However, is this really so? Does distance education work better for some students as opposed to others? Does student assessment in distance education differ from that in the traditional classroom (Phipps and Merisotis, 1999)?

Opponents of distance education may agree that it is possible for some learning to occur through this medium, but that isn't enough. They stress focusing on the fullness of learning (Fox, 1998).
Review of Literature
A profusion of online articles presents arguments both for and against distance education. Why such a dichotomy of opinions? It is because in spite of all of the research studies conducted as well as the large amount of written material focusing on distance education, "there is a relative paucity of true, original research dedicated to explaining or predicting phenomena related to distance learning" (Phipps and Merisotis, 1999, p. 2). Most original research focuses on student outcomes (grades, test scores), student attitudes, and overall student satisfaction toward distance education. Moreover, most of these studies conclude that distance education compares favorably with classroom-based instruction. In fact, Fox (1998) stated that only theories, not proof, allude to the fact that distance education students' education is not worthy of a degree. He stated he found no actual evidence from a single study, from distance education teaching experiences, or from students has provided proof of such a deficiency. Fox, along with other distance education supporters, students, and professionals, support the idea that distance education classes are good enough and feel that students are not sacrificing an on-campus education in order to get an education through distance education.

With few exceptions, students using technology in distance education have similar learning outcomes to students in the traditional classroom setting (Beare 1989; McCleary & Egan 1989; Sonner 1999). Souder (1993) conducted a natural experiment that compared traditional students and distance education students in management of technology master's degree programs. Results indicate that distance learners should not be viewed as disadvantaged in their learning experiences. Further, distance learners can perform as well as or better than traditional learners as measured by homework assignments, exams, and term papers. Equally important, as noted by researchers, is the fact that students in distance learning courses earned higher grades than those in the traditional classroom setting (Bartlett 1997; Bothun 1998; Heines & Hulse 1996; Kabat & Friedel 1990; Schutte 1996; Souder 1993). Gubernick and Ebeling (1997) stated that distance education students scored from five to ten percent higher on standardized achievement tests than did students in the traditional classroom setting. Conversely, as reported by other researchers, there are no significant differences in grades for distance education students versus traditional students (Freeman 1995; Mortensen 1995; McKissack 1997).

Wiesner (1983) notes that an important question still remaining to be answered is, what are the factors that account for student success or failure in distance learning programs? Is it possible that student learning style preferences have an affect on whether or not students succeed or fail? Students who had learning preferences (that is, strengths) that were not supported were identified by their instructors as being slow or poor achievers (Marshall, 1991). According to Sherry (1996), student preference for a particular mode of learning is an important variable in learning effectiveness, and effective learning requires knowledge of learner styles. What may work for one type of learner may not necessarily work for another. Learning style, as defined by Canfield (1992), is the moving component of educational experience that motivates students to perform well. Recognizing the existence of alternate learning styles may be helpful to the instructor in developing a local instructional theory and, according to Owens and Straton (1980), localized theory has a greater prospect of success as opposed to a general instructional theory. According to Dunn, Beaudry, and Klavas (1989), if learning preferences were supported through altering educational conditions to meet learning style preferences, statistically significant improvements in behaviors, grades, and attitudes would be observed. This philosophy can be referred to as "the match of critical learning style factors to environment and instruction" (Marshall, 1991, 226). In addition, there is a relationship between learning style variables and the satisfaction and completion of distance learning programs (Thompson 1984; Moore 1976).
Purpose of the Study
This study, which was conducted in 1999, compared traditional face-to-face education and distance education in an attempt to determine if distance education is better, worse, or as good as traditional education. Both groups were studied to determine whether there were significant differences in preferred learning styles, age, homework grades, research paper grades, final exam scores, final course grades, and subject matter knowledge as measured by a pre-test and post-test.
Methodology
Research participants were 47 undergraduate students enrolled in a business communications class at a large urban university in North Carolina. The university offers doctoral, masters, and baccalaureate degrees in liberal arts, professional fields, and sciences. The business communications course was designed to develop an understanding of the need for effective communications in business. Application of basic principles of written communications was utilized to solve specific business problems. Twenty-three students were enrolled in the traditional face-to-face class. Their ages ranged from 19 to 33 with the average age being 23. These students were comprised of different majors that included Business, Vocational, and Technical Education; Social Work; General College; Geology; and Library Science. Four percent of the students were freshmen, 13% sophomores, 35% juniors, and 48% were seniors. The distance education class consisted of 24 students. Their ages ranged from 22 to 51 with the average age being 38. These students were from different majors that included Foreign Language, General College, Nutrition and Hospitality Management, Social Sciences, and University College. Two percent of the students were classified as visiting students, 9% were freshmen, 29% were sophomores, 21% were juniors, and 33% were seniors. Students enrolled in the courses opted to take the course either because it was required or because it was to be used as a free elective. A quasi-experimental research design was used to collect data for the study.

The researcher and the instructor of the course are the same person. Both classes had the same instructor, studied the same course content, used the same course materials, completed the same assignments, and were allotted the same time frame for completion of assignments. All were given the same pre-test, post-test, homework, research project, and final exam. The pre-test and post-test were designed, by the author of the course textbook, to test students' knowledge of grammar and punctuation as well as knowledge of the basic concepts crucial to business communication. Students were assigned the same homework problems taken from the end of each chapter covered during classes, and all were graded using the same grading criteria. Every student was required to complete a research project dealing with international business. Students had to select a country other than the United States and prepare a seven to nine page paper that focused on the culture of that country as well as how to successfully conduct business in that country. They were allowed to choose the country. The same grading matrix was used for both classes. Students completed the same final exam. Three-fourths of the final exam was composed of multiple-choice questions. These questions were designed as case scenarios or situations that required students to apply the knowledge learned throughout the course in order to provide correct responses. One-fourth of the test consisted of true/false questions. Other similarities are that both classes were able to contact the instructor by e-mail, telephone, during office hours, by appointment, and by FAX. Additionally, both classes were required to participate in class discussions. The traditional class participated orally; the distance education class participated through electronic threaded discussions. The traditional class handed in their assignments. The distance education class submitted assignments as attachments to e-mail. Assignments for both classes were graded in color ink—the traditional class by colored ink pen, the distance education class by color font.

The classes differed in terms of: scheduling (the campus class met on Tuesday evenings from 7:00 – 9:00 with the instructor present; course material for the distance education class was posted on Monday evenings by 6:30 p.m. However, all students were not required to be on-line at this time. They were not required to meet together as a class with the instructor. Course material was posted and students were given a one-week span of time in which to log into the course and complete assignments); class location (traditional students met in the classroom, distance education students worked from home or a nearby community college computer lab); instructional method (The traditional lecture was the instructional method used with the traditional class. The distance education class received lecture notes in the form of audio links and written notes); accessibility to the instructor; and instructional media. Instructional media used in the traditional class included computers, PowerPoint presentations, and transparencies. The distance education class downloaded course content that included audio links, which allows the students to hear voice recordings of lectures from the instructor; video links, which allows students to not only hear the instructor's voice, but see the instructor as well while providing lectures; text links, which provided students with typewritten lecture notes; PowerPoint slide shows; and other technology such as RealPlayer (can be downloaded free from the Internet) which makes it possible for students to see and hear audio and video links. The instructor used QuickCam to record audio and video files.

The Canfield Learning Styles Inventory (CLSI) was used to determine preferred learning styles of the students. The CLSI is a 30-item assessment using a 4-point rank order procedure for each item. Students ranked these choices in the order that best described their preferences or reactions. Each item was ranked on a scale of 1 to 4: 1 = most preferred choice, 2 = second preferred choice, 3 = third preferred choice, and 4 = least preferred choice. A ranking process was used to obtain the raw scores. Thus, the lower the score, the stronger the preference. The lowest possible score is 6, and the highest possible score is 24. Therefore, the lowest possible score of 6 would denote the strongest preference for a scale. The least preferred scale would be denoted by the highest possible score, which is 24. Ranking of the four responses on each item equates to six paired comparison items in which the student chooses one item from each pair. For example: Peer, Organization, Goal Setting, and Competition each are ranked on a total of 6 items within the inventory (1, 6, 11, 16, 21, 26). The CLSI has 21 subscale variables that are grouped into four major categories:

1. Conditions for Learning (Peer, Organization, Goal Setting, Competition, Instructor, Detail, Independence, Authority) - constitutes about two-fifths of the items in the inventory. These items, phrased in typical classroom situations, are designed to measure student motivational qualities. These motivational areas center on affiliation, structure, eminence, and achievement.

2. Area of Interest (Numeric, Qualitative, Inanimate, People) measures students' preferred subject matter or objects of study.

3. Mode of Learning (Listening, Reading, Iconic, Direct Experience) concentrates on identifying the specific modality through which students learn best.

4. Expectation for Course Grade (A, B, C, D, and Total Expectation) is designed to predict the failure or success of a learner. The A- to D- Expectation scales reflects the level of performance anticipated. See Appendix A. (Canfield 1977).

Validity
Validity is the extent to which an instrument measures what it is supposed to measure. Traditionally, validity refers to testing the relationship of a given measure to some standard measure of success such as comparing a new measure of math aptitude results to criteria of a widely accepted math achievement test or math course. The CLSI is not this type of traditional test. For example, there is no expectation that consequences in any broadly defined area will be derived from a student's preference for the Iconic or Competition scale. Instead, the CLSI provides students with a detailed description of their characteristic preferred learning styles. The expected outcome is that greater success and satisfaction will be provided to the students when their learning style is matched to the instructional environment.

Collecting learning style preferences in a group for whom one has prior expectations is the most obvious test of whether those preferences are sensibly estimated. Is the Numeric scale a preference for math majors, or the Direct Experience scale for trade school students? Research studies reveal that there is a relationship between the academic and career choices of those tested and the preferences revealed by scales and sets of scales of the CLSI. For example, Llorens and Adams (as cited in Canfield, 1992) studied occupational therapy students and found that they had a higher preference for Direct Experience, Instructor, Goal Setting, People, and Independence than the normed group. These students had a lower preference for Numeric and Reading than the normed group. Additionally, Pettigrew and Zakrajsek (as cited in Canfield, 1992) studied physical education majors and found that they, in comparison to the normed group, had a higher preference for Direct Experience, Iconic, and Organization, but a lower preference for Numeric and Reading. These reports collectively reflect hundreds of administrations of the CLSI providing solid preliminary evidence that the academic and career choices of those tested are related to the preferences discriminated by scales and sets of scales.

The ability to demonstrate whether teaching students through techniques congruent with their learning style preferences will enhance achievement and satisfaction with the learning experience is another more critical kind of validity test (Canfield, 1992). Studies that used different curricular content and a variety of student characteristics demonstrated this concept in the affirmative. For example, Pettigrew and Heikkinen (as cited in Canfield, 1992). Students taught through techniques congruent with their learning style preferences were compared to psychomotor learning in junior high school students who were taught using eclectic techniques that took their learning style preferences into account. Students who were taught through techniques congruent with their learning style preferences performed better on 9 of 12 tasks. They did not perform any lower on the remaining three tasks.
Reliability
Brainard and Ommen (as cited in Canfield, 1977) conducted numerous standardization and reliability studies using the CLSI at a community college in Missouri in 1976. They administered the CLSI to over 3,000 community college students. A sample of 1,397 students was used to study internal consistency. To correct for the fact that the reliability of a larger scale was being estimated from a reduced number of items, coefficient correlations were used. Values ranged from a low of .87 to a high of .965. Split-half reliability scores obtained for each scale were higher than those for the analyses of individual items. The high was .99, and the low was .96.
Results and Discussion
To determine whether distance education is better, worse, or as good as traditional education, this study examined pre-test and post-test scores, age, preferred learning styles, homework grades, research paper grades, final exam scores, and final course grades. T-statistics, means, and standard deviations were obtained for both classes. Significant differences were found at the .05 alpha level for post-test scores, final exam scores, and age. No significant difference at the .05 alpha level between the two groups was found with regard to pre-test scores, homework grades, research paper grades, and final course grades. See Table 1 for the results. Effect size (practical significance) was measured using Cohen's d. Effect size, according to Cohen (1988), can be categorized as small ( d = 0.2), medium (d = 0.5), and large (d = 0.8). And, (d = 1) indicates a change in magnitude equivalent to one standard deviation.

*Significant difference at 0.05 level

Practical significance was small for the pre-test (d = .31), homework grades (d = .47), final course grades (d = .33), and research paper grades (d = .17). For post-test scores (d = .68) and final exam scores (d = .72) significance was medium. The practical significance for age was large (d = 2.0). The possibility of intercorrelation among the dependent variables was reviewed. Correlations were strongest and significant at the .05 level for final exams, final grades, research paper, homework, and post-test. With the exception of homework, they may be related because all of the other variables occur close together near the end of the semester.

T-test results revealed no significant differences between pre-test scores of the two groups. This data may suggest that the two groups were similar in knowledge of course content at the beginning of the semester. The F-ratio of .291 was not significant at the .05 alpha level. Due to the fact that the sample size is small and the variances for the two groups are different, Levene's test for equality of variances was used to determine if there was heterogeneity of variance between the two groups. The only variable where variances of the two groups were heterogeneous was age. Results revealed F=9.1, which was significant at an alpha of .004. There were, however, significant differences between post-test scores of both groups. Distance education students scored higher than traditional students. The F-ratio of .026 was significant at the .05 alpha level. When looking solely at the pre-test scores, it appears as though the distance education students outperformed the traditional students by about 3.69 points. However, when considering the pre-test with the post-test, the traditional students gained 10.03 points between the pre-test and post-test, and distance education students gained 13.22 points. Thus, both groups increased from the pre-test to the post-test, yet they kept their same relative position.

T-test results revealed a significant difference in students' ages. The age of distance education students ranged from 22 to 51 with the average age being 38. The age of traditional students ranged from 19 to 33 with the average age being 23. The F-ratio of .000 was significant at the .05 alpha level. Age is the one variable that does not correlate with the other variables. Results of the correlation between the variables revealed that the variance between the two groups is heterogeneous; the variance is larger for distance education students. This variance may be due in part to the fact that students self-selected the class themselves. Older students may have chosen distance education because it fits well with their schedule. The instructor could not control the types of classes the students enrolled in. Age does not play a significant role in how well students did on the pre-test, post-test, final exam, final course grade, research paper, or homework. Students older in age did not do systematically better or worse than students other ages. In essence, being younger or older does not mean that you will do better or worse. For example, older students may not do consistently better than younger students because they may have been out of school for a while and may not realize the amount of time it will take to complete a task. Also, younger students may not do consistently better than older students because of lack of life experience. Thus, while age may make up for motivation, life experience, or the lack of educational experience, it did not make a difference between these two groups.

T-test results revealed a significant difference between final exam scores of both groups. The F-ratio of .017 was significant at the .05 alpha level. The mean score of distance education students was 86 and for traditional students, 78.

No significant differences were found between the two groups with regard to homework grades. Homework requirements were identical for both groups. The F-ratio of 1.42 was not significant at the .05 alpha level.

Both groups were required to develop a research paper on international business communication. T-test results revealed that there were no significant differences between the two groups with regard to the research paper grade. The F-ratio of 1.42 was not significant at the .05 alpha level.

T-test results revealed an F-ratio of .263 for final course grade at the .05 alpha level. There were no significant differences between both groups for final course grade.

Learning style preferences for both groups, as measured by the CLSI was obtained. Both groups preferred Organization and B-Expectation for Course Grade. Both groups desire well-organized course work, meaningful assignments, as well as a logical sequence of activities. They work well with lecture note-, course-, chapter-, and topical outlines. Both groups expect to perform at an above average level in a learning situation, but not necessarily at a superior level. They expect to be within the top 25 to 33 percent of the class. Additionally, both groups least preferred the Numeric scale.

Distance education students also preferred working with People and Direct Experience whereby they can have direct contact with materials, topics, or situations. They least preferred Authority and Listening. They tend not to like classroom discipline or maintenance of order, nor do they like listening to lectures, tapes, and speeches. The traditional students preferred Inanimate and Iconic. They like working with things, and they like interpreting movies, slides, and illustrations. They least preferred Independence and Reading.
Conclusion
It is important that research be done to determine if distance education is as effective as traditional education. The major goal of this study was to determine if distance education is better, worse, or as good as traditional education. The same instructor taught both classes and ensured that the requirements for both classes were the same. Both classes required the use of technology and provided considerable rigor and value to the education process. This study concurs with the general body of knowledge that distance education can be just as good as traditional face-to-face education. No significant differences were found between pre-test scores, homework grades, research paper grades and final course grades. However, there were significant differences between the two groups with regard to age, post-test scores, and final exam scores. Distance education students scored higher in all three categories. Yet, this is not sufficient evidence to conclude that distance education is superior to traditional education. Other factors may have contributed to these results. For example, the distance education delivery method catered to, in part, students' preferred learning styles. They preferred Direct Experience, and the structure of the course allowed for considerable hands-on experience in learning course content. They least preferred Authority, and the structure of the course allowed them the freedom to work Independently on course material.
Recommendations for Further Research
Policymakers, faculty, and students need to make properly informed judgments with regard to key issues in distance education. Distance education students preferred the People learning style scale. Thus, a study should be conducted to investigate the issue of social interaction within distance education courses. Do these students feel like they are alone while taking courses, or are they being made to feel like they are part of a community of learners. Additionally, this study focused on only one course. Further study should be done to determine if the kind of knowledge acquired is the same, particularly if more than one or two courses, possibly an entire academic program, is offered through distance education.

The age variable was intriguing because it did not produce expected results. Age was found to be heterogeneous, the Cohen d was very large (2 standard deviations), and there was no significant correlation to the other variables. Further study should be conducted to determine why. Other variables to study should include motivation, discipline, gender, etc.
Summary
This study adds to the growing body of research regarding distance education. It is important to note that a lack of significant difference in final course grades may indicate that one delivery method is not superior to the other. Thus, this study can conclude that while distance education may not be superior to or better than traditional face-to-face education, it is not worse than traditional education. It can be an acceptable alternative because it is just as good as traditional education.
References

Bartlett, T. (1997). The hottest campus on the Internet. Business Week, 3549, 77-80.

Beare, P. L. (1989). The comparative effectiveness of videotape, audiotape, and telecture. The American Journal of Distance Education 3(2), 57-66.

Bothun, G. D. (1998). Distance education: Effective learning or content-free credits? Cause/Effect, 21(2), 28-31, 36-37.

Canfield, A. A. (1992). Canfield Learning Styles Inventory Manual. Los Angeles: Western Psychological Services.

Clark, T. (1983). Attitudes of higher education faculty toward distance education: A national survey. The American Journal of Distance Education, 7(2), 19-31.

Dunn, R., Beaudry, J.S., & Klavas, A. (1989). Survey of research on learning styles. Educational Leadership, 46(6), 50-58.

Fitzpatrick, R. (2001). Is distance education better than the traditional classroom? Retrieved July 31, 2001 from http://www.clearpnt.com/accelepoint/articles/r_fitzpatrick_060101.shtml.

Fox, J. (1998). Distance Education: is it good enough? The University Concourse, 3(4), 3-5.

Freeman, V. S. (1995). Delivery methods, learning styles and outcomes for distance medical technology students. (Doctoral Dissertation, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, 1993).

Garrison, D. R. (1989). Understanding distance education: A framework for the future. New York: Routledge.

Gubernick, L., & Ebeling, A. (1997). I got my degree through e-mail. Forbes, 159(12), 84-92.

Heines, R. A., & Hulse, D. B. (1996). Two-way interactive television: An emerging technology for university level business school instruction. Journal of Education for Business, 71(2), 74-76.

Henson, K. T., & Borthwick, P. (1984). Matching styles: A historical look. Theory Into Practice, 23(1), 3-9.

Jeffries, M. (n.d.) IPSE – Research in Distance Education. Retrieved July 28, 2001 from http://www.ihets.org/consortium/ipse/fdhandbook/resrch.html.

Kabat, E. J., & Friedel, J. (1990). The development, pilot-testing, and dissemination of a comprehensive evaluation model for assessing the effectiveness of a two-way interactive distance learning system. ERIC, ED 322690.

Kaplan, E. J., & Kies, D. A. (1993). Together: Teaching styles and learning styles improving college instruction. College Student Journal, 27(4), 509-13.

Lane, C. (1992). Distance education. In P. S. Portway and C. Lane (Eds.), Guide to teleconferencing and distance learning. 2nd Ed. San Ramon, CA: Applied Business Telecommunications.

McCleary, I.D., & Egan, M. W. (1989). Program design and evaluation: Two-way interactive television. The American Journal of Distance Education, 3(1), 50-60.

McKissack, C. E. (1997). A comparative study of grade point average (GPA) between the students in traditional classroom setting and the distance learning classroom setting in selected colleges and universities. (Doctoral Dissertation, Tennessee State University, 1997).

Marshall, C. (1991). Teachers' learning styles: How they affect student learning. The Clearing House, 64(4), 225-227.

Moore, M. (1976). Investigation of the interaction between cognitive style of field independence and attitude to independent study among adult learners who use correspondence independent study and self-directed independent study. (Doctoral Dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1976).

Mortensen, M. H. (1995). An assessment of learning outcomes of students taught a competency-based computer course in an electronically-expanded classroom (distance education). (Doctoral Dissertation, University of North Texas, 1995).

Perraton, H. (1988). A theory for distance education. In D. Sewart, D. Keegan, & B. Holmberg (Eds.), Distance education: International perspectives (pp. 34-45). New York: Routledge.

Phipps, R., & Merisotis, J. (1999). What's the Difference? A review of contemporary research on the effectiveness of distance learning in higher education. Washington: THE INSTITUTE for Higher Education Policy.

Schramm, W. (1977). Big media, little media. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Schutte, J. G. (1996). Virtual teaching in higher education: The new intellectual superhighway or just another traffic jam? Retrieved July 7, 2001 from http://www.csun.edu/sociology/virexp.htm.

Sherry, L. (1996). Issues in distance learning. Retrieved July 7, 2001 from http://www.cudenver.edu.public/education/edschool/issues.html

Sonner, B. (1999). Success in the capstone business course—assessing the effectiveness of distance learning. Journal of Education for Business. 74(4), 243-248.

Souder, W. E. (1993). The effectiveness of traditional vs. satellite delivery in three management of technology master's degree programs. The American Journal of Distance Education, 7(1), 1993.

Thompson, D. G. (1984). Designing for diversity: The interaction between cognitive style of Field Dependence/Independence and the provision or absence of systematic telephone tutoring upon persistence and course evaluation scores of students enrolled in correspondence study. (Doctoral Dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1984).

Verduin, J. R., Jr. & Clark, T. A. (1991). Distance education: The foundations of effective practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Wiesner, P. (1983). Some observations on telecourse research and practice. Adult Education Quarterly 33(4), 215-221.

Willis, B. (1993). Distance education: A practical guide. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

Appendix A

Description of Scales – Canfield Learning Styles Inventory (Canfield, 1992).

Conditions for Learning (8 Scales): Preferred situation or context of instruction.

Peer: Enjoys teamwork, maintaining good relations with other students, having student friends, etc.

Organization: Desires clearly organized course work, meaningful assignments, and a logical sequence of activities.

Goal Setting: Wants to set own objectives, use feedback to modify goals or procedures, and makes his or her own decisions on objectives.

Competition: Desires comparison with others, needs to know how he or she is doing in relation to others.

Instructor: Wants to know the instructor personally and have a mutual understanding and liking for him or her.

Detail: Likes to know specific information on assignments, requirements, rules, etc.

Independence: Prefers working alone, determining his or her own study plan, and doing things independently.

Authority: Desires classroom discipline, maintenance of order, and having informed knowledgeable instructors.

Areas of Interest (4 Scales): Preferred subject matter or objects of study.

Numeric: Prefers working with numbers and logic, solving mathematical problems, etc.

Qualitative: Likes working with words or language—writing, editing, talking.

Inanimate: Enjoys working with things—building, repairing, designing, operating.

People: Prefers working with people—interviewing, counseling, selling, helping.

Mode of Learning (4 Scales): Preferred manner of obtaining new information.

Listening: Prefers hearing lectures, tapes, speeches, etc.

Reading: Enjoys examining written information, reading texts, pamphlets, etc.

Iconic: Likes interpreting illustrations, movies, slides, graphs, etc.

Direct

Experience: Desires hands-on or performance situations, such as shop, field trips, practice exercises, etc.

Expectation for Course Grade (5 Scales): Level of performance anticipated.

A-expectation: Outstanding or superior level.

B-expectation: Above average or good level.

C-expectation: Average or satisfactory level.

D-expectation: Below average or unsatisfactory level.

Total Expectation: Weighted sum of A, B, C, and D expectations.

Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, Volume IV, Number IV, Winter 2001 State University of West Georgia, Distance Education Center

Back to Journal of Distance Learning Administration Contents

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Distance Education: Better, Worse, Or As Good As Traditional Education?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This study examined pre-test and post-test scores, homework grades, research paper grades, final exam scores, final course grades, learning styles, and ages of distance education and traditional students enrolled in a business communications class to determine if distance education is better, worse, or as good as traditional education.

# data[].attributes.body
Title: The "Next Generation" Distance Education: Beyond Access and Convenience
Source: Healio
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3928/0148-4834-19990901-03

Credibility Evaluation: Group 1 (Scholarly Books and Articles)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Nurse educators have been using distance education (DE) for several decades, with the primary goal of making education accessible and convenient for students at a distance from the campus. Using video, audio, and print, DE typically replicated the teacher-centered classroom, involved mostly synchronous communication, and often left students at the receiving sites isolated and disengaged. Recently, however, the Internet and emerging collaborative learning tools are enabling new ways of teaching and learning in networked communities characterized by group communication, place independence, asynchroncity (time independence), multimedia, and computer-mediated messaging (Bonk & King, 1998; Harasim, Hiltz, Teles, & Turoff, 1996). The information technologies used to support these communities promote active learning, enable rich and rapid feedback, establish access to a wide variety of learning resources, and promote interaction among students and faculty. The articles in this issue of the Journal reflect these changes in DE and raise, for our consideration, questions about the best practices for DE in nursing.

The next generation DE focuses on the learner. As noted by Wambach and her colleagues, faculty use learner-centered, constructivist, and socioculturel philosophies and theories to guide students as they construct their understanding of professional nursing practice. Learning occurs through social activity- interaction with classmates, colleagues, and clients. The technology-enhanced learning environment of the next generation DE situates faculty, expert practitioners, and more capable peers, as models, mentors, guides, and coaches. The learning community supports learners through socially interactive relationships- cognitive apprenticeships- as learners acquire the skills, values, and roles of the profession.

The next generation DE also prepares learners for real-world practice by enabling access to multimedia learning resources, clinical databases, and simulated and actual case studies. In a learner-centered environment, learning experiences are connected to the real world, are problem based, and foster application to practice.

Distance education is no longer a delivery system connecting students to a campus classroom, but rather a set of integrated information tools designed to promote learning. The tools and strategies of DE are no longer just for use in extending the campus but also are integral to supporting a learner-centered environment in the campus classroom (distributed education). Proficiency in using these tools is critical for both faculty and students. Information literacy as described in the article by Verhey is essential for career success. Learning to use these tools requires considerable orientation and support, and as the articles by Verhey and Austin remind us, information literacy and computer skill proficiency for faculty is the first step to incorporating learning experiences that require the use of information tools in the curriculum.

Next generation DE requires rethinking course and program outcomes, course redesign, and reconfiguration of learning activities, resulting in profound changes in faculty teaching practice, and faculty roles, workload, rewards, and recognition. Ryan, Hodson Carlton, and Ali have identified the need for faculty development in designing Web courses and support in managing changing roles and workloads. There is an urgent need for both faculty development and colleague and administrator support for faculty who are pioneers in developing and testing next generation DE.

As suggested in many of the articles in this issue of the Journal, research about the best practices for the next generation DE will focuses on the learners, the faculty, pedagogical practices, and the appropriate use of information technologies. For example:

* What constitutes optimal learner support for DE?

* What strategies develop self-directed learners?

* Can Internet-based student exchanges increase global awareness and respect for diversity?

* How are faculty and student roles being redefined?

* What encourages faculty to develop and teach in networked learning communities?

* What workload and reward structures support faculty in DE learning environments?

* What are the best practices for teaching and learning in on-line learning communities?

* What strategies are most effective in guiding students to construct their own knowledge through active and self-directed learning, inquiry, and reflection?

* What real-world learning experiences contribute to the preparation of competent and caring nurses?

* How does socialization, mentoring, cognitive apprenticeship, and use of experts occur in DE?

* What learning theories and philosophies best guide educational practices?

* What mix of DE, distributed education, and traditional classroom experiences is appropriate to achieve program outcomes?

* What is the impact of course management software on discourse and learning?

As Mallow and Gilje point out, technology-based nursing education is mushrooming. Distance education in nursing has moved beyond the use of a single-mode delivery system connecting geographically dispersed learners to the use of an ubiquitous set of information tools that can be used to create learning communities to support educational programs both on and off campus. Nurse educators must continue the dialogue about our values and processes and seek empirical evidence on which to base our teaching practices. The articles in this issue of the Journal have provided the inspiration to do this.

REFERENCES

Bonk, C.J., & King, KS. (Eds.). (1998). Electronic collaborators, learner-centered technologies for literacy, apprenticeship, and discourse. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaurn.

Harasim, L., Hiltz, S., Teles, L., & Turoff, M. (1996). Learning networks: A field guide to teaching and learning online. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The "Next Generation" Distance Education: Beyond Access and Convenience

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Journal of Nursing Education | Nurse educators have been using distance education (DE) for several decades, with the primary goal of making education accessible and convenient for students at a distance from the campus. Using video, audio, and print, DE typically replicated the teacher-centered classroom, involved mostly synchronous communication, and often left students at the receiving sites isolated and disengaged.

# data[].attributes.body
Title: Students views of integrating web-based learning technology into the nursing curriculum – A descriptive survey
Source: Science Direct
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nepr.2005.05.005
Credibility Evaluation: Group 1 (Scholarly Books and Articles)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Summary

This paper describes students' experiences of a Web-based innovation at one university. This paper reports on the first phase of this development where two Web-based modules were developed. Using a survey approach ( n = 44) students' access to and use of computer technology were explored. Findings revealed that students' prior use of computers and Internet technologies was higher than previously reported, although use of databases was low. Skills in this area increased during the programme, with a significant rise in database, email, search engine and word processing use. Many specific computer skills were learned during the programme, with high numbers reporting ability to deal adequately with files and folders. Overall, the experience was a positive one for students. While a sense of student isolation was not reported, as many students kept in touch by phone and class attendance continued, some individual students did appear to isolate themselves. This teaching methodology has much to offer in the provision of convenient easy to access programmes that can be easily adapted to the individual lifestyle. However, student support mechanisms need careful consideration for students who are at risk of becoming isolated. Staff also need to supported in the provision of this methodology and face-to-face contact with teachers for some part of the programme is preferable.

View full text

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Students views of integrating web-based learning technology into the nursing curriculum - A descriptive survey

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This paper describes students' experiences of a Web-based innovation at one university. This paper reports on the first phase of this development where two Web-based modules were developed. Using a survey approach ( n = 44) students' access to and use of computer technology were explored.

# data[].attributes.body
Title: Face-to-Face vs. Cyberspace: Finding the Middle Ground
Source: Camous Technology
DOI: None
Credibility Evaluation: Group 1 (Scholarly Books and Articles)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Face-to-Face vs. Cyberspace: Finding the Middle Ground
Although not as contentious as the conflict in The War of the Worlds, there has long been a division between distance learning and face-to-face, on-campus programs. Here, W. Sean Chamberlin explores the middle ground, where the best elements of distance and face-to-face learning can be merged.
In H.G. Wells' 1898 novel The War of the Worlds, an army of nefarious Martians attacks Earth in an attempt to destroy humanity and wrest control of our planet. All attempts by humans to stop the invaders fail, yet Earth is saved when the aliens succumb to a fatal microscopic infection.

To some, the invasion of cyber teaching in the landscape of academia incites an equally repulsive reaction. The invaders who hail online education as the "end of teaching as we know it" are temporarily driven back with comments such as "it's only a fad" or "they said the same thing about tele-courses." Proponents may cite benefits or no significant difference, while naysayers see detriments and high dropout rates.

This war of the worlds between on-campus teaching and online teaching rages on nearly every campus and fuels debate about the usefulness of cyberspace as an environment for teaching and learning. Some desire an end to cyber teaching similar to that which befell Wells' Martian invaders, while others envision a world bathed in the peaceful glow of computer monitors from which all knowledge emanates.

Thankfully, there is a middle ground. Many of us use the Internet to supplement our campus courses or teach hybrid courses, partially on-campus and partially online. Some of us teach fully on-campus and fully online courses at the same time. But all of us who teach in both worlds are double agents, caught in a struggle to bridge those worlds, and make effective use of both face-to-face and online environments to ensure successful teaching and learning.

By taking advantage of the pedagogical strengths of on-campus and online teaching, instructors can offer students the greatest chance to discover their strengths and weaknesses as learners and the best opportunity to find their path to achieving success. In my courses, this result has been accomplished by using the same syllabus and course guidelines for all students, regardless of whether they are enrolled on-campus or online.
What are the Differences?
It is beyond the scope of this article to discuss the entire range of differences between face-to-face and online teaching, but let's examine a few examples of key areas in which differences are exposed.

The differences are perhaps most obvious in terms of communications. Direct face-to-face interactions between student and instructor and/or other students may or may not occur on campus, but communications are virtually impossible to avoid online.

Clearly, each of these types of communications has its benefits. Although in-person communication provides opportunities to clarify and restate (and to take advantage of tone of voice and body language), many students are reluctant to engage in direct communication with an instructor or their fellow classmates. Online communications via e-mail, mailing lists, and discussion boards or chat rooms can level the playing field and remove some of the psychological and social barriers to student-teacher and student-student interactions.

Sign up for our newsletter.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
security solutions for the campus enterprise

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
advanced networking for the campus enterprise

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
networking and infrastructure for campus enterprise

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
mobile computing for the campus enterprise

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Face-to-Face vs. Cyberspace: Finding the Middle Ground -- Campus Technology

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Although not as contentious as the conflict in The War of the Worlds, there has long been a division between distance learning and face-to-face, on-campus programs. Here, W. Sean Chamberlin explores the middle ground, where the best elements of distance and face-to-face learning can be merged. In H.G.

# data[].attributes.body
Title: Title: Student Perception of Online versus On Campus Instruction
Source: Google Scholar
DOI: None
Credibility Evaluation: Group 1 (Scholarly Books and Articles)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The College of Education and Professional Studies at Jacksonville State University provides numerous opportunities for distance education among its various program offerings. The purpose of this study was to compare student attitudes and opinions toward in class and online course instruction.

Teaching without the teacher's personal presence in the classroom to provide direct instruction is a modem day miracle of 21st century education. Computer-related course instruction has made a tremendous impact on the provision of instruction and student learning at colleges and universities (Piotrowski & Vodanovich, 2000). Distance education opportunities have brought the classroom from the university setting to the home. allowing students the privilege to pursue college degrees without the inconvenience of actually traveling to campus for course completion. Literally thousands of students are earning college degrees with little or no traditional college participation and/or interaction with professors or other college students.

The Internet is currently the advanced technological mode used to support distance education course presentation in higher education (Owston, 1997; Rossman, 1992). Published literature supports the advantages of Internet use for instruction. Chamberlin (2001) offers the suggestion that by taking advantage of the pedagogical strengths of on campus and online teaching, instructors can offer students the greatest chance to discover their strengths and weaknesses as learners and the best opportunity to find their path to achieving success. Distance education Internet based instruction translates to the fact that students spend less time in the college classroom and are able to complete course work at their convenience in the privacy of their own homes. Less money is spent on travel since class attendance is often not required or is optional. Additionally, more seats are often available in classes taught by distance education, which tends to reduce the concern that some students have regarding course closure due to high enrollment. Chamberlin (2001) further states that online communication can diminish student inhibitions regarding communication by removing psychological and social barriers to student-teacher and student-student interactions.

While there are advantages to instruction provided through distance education. perceived disadvantages appear to exist. Many students learn best through direct interaction provided by professors and other students. Distance education often prohibits this interaction, making learning and direct involvement less personal. The socialization so traditional to standard college attendance is often lacking, especially if instructors fail m utilize available opportunities for student interaction through various online software packages. In addition, students who lack the technological skills required for various types of distance education may fear approaching learning situations provided through nontraditional modes. Problems related to privacy issues, technological difficulties, and technology rather than content focus have been noted (Piotrowski & Vodanovich, 2000).

The College of Education and Professional Studies at Jacksonville State University provides numerous opportunities for distance education among its various program offerings. One of the most recent opportunities for nontraditional course presentation is through Blackboard. Blackboard is a Web-based server software system that offers industry-leading course management, an open architecture for customization and interoperability, and a scalable design that allows for integration with student information systems and authentication protocols (Yaskin & Gilfus, 2002). Blackboard provides a structured format for teachers to post announcements, assignments, course documents, faculty credentials, and course notes for easy student access. Opportunity for direct communication between teacher and students through Email, Discussion Boards, and the Virtual Chat Room make Blackboard attractive as the chosen distance education format for online instruction for many universities. The Virtual Chat Room can be described as an open forum opportunity for active participation and learning for both students and teachers. It serves as an excellent vehicle for topic discussion, individual and group participation. as well as content and assignment clarification and expansion.

The purpose of this study was to compare student attitudes and opinions toward in class and online course instruction. The course was offered through both on campus and online (Blackboard) instructional formats to graduate students enrolled in Special Education. Attitudes and opinions were determined using a questionnaire that surveyed both on campus and online course instruction.

Participants

The participants were 42 students enrolled in a Characteristics of Severe Disabilities class. Questionnaires were distributed during the final examination period and 25 were collected. Of the respondents, 21 were female and 3 were male. Eleven were aged from 22-35. 10 were 36-50 and 3 were 50+. Seven were enrolled in the non-traditional 5th year program and 16 were in the graduate program. Eight were specializing in the K-6 Collaborative Teacher program, 8 were enrolled in the 6-12 Collaborative Teacher program, 4 were enrolled in both programs and 1 was enrolled in the Early Childhood Education for the Handicapped program. Twenty were teaching full time with 14 residing in Alabama and 11 residing in Georgia.

Setting

This study took place in a university setting in the southeastern United States. Participants were enrolled in the graduate level Characteristics of Severe Disabilities class during the fall semester. The class was conducted using a traditional method of lecture only for the first half of the class with the second half conducted by the instructor using Blackboard to post the lecture notes and supplemental materials for the students. With the material posted on the web, attendance became optional.

Method

Traditional classroom instruction began in the fall semester with 42 students enrolled in the characteristics course. Classroom instruction was to continue for 6 weeks. Then the class was switched to using Blackboard as a supplemental teaching aid. Classroom attendance became optional, as the classroom lecture notes were available outside the lecture hall.

Lecture notes were posted in the Digital Drop Box on Blackboard. Students would then simply log on and double-click on the appropriate file, which would then be opened on their personal computer in either a PowerPoint presentation, in Microsoft Word format or in WordPerfect format.

A set of questions was developed to determine student responses to the two modes of instruction -- traditional classroom and Web based. Questions and student responses are detailed in Table !. Further, data were kept on the attendance of students who did come to class. Average attendance before posting notes on the Internet was 37. Attendance after posting was 15, with 7 of these students driving from Georgia to attend class. (See table 1) Written comments:

During the course of the semester, written student comments regarding course presentation were collected. Comments typically provided Support for Internet instruction. Several students continued to favor and participate in both modes of instruction. Table 2 provides a sampling of student written comments. (See table 2)

Discussion

Averages ranged from a high of 4.72 on item 10 (I would recommend this class format to my friends) to a low of 4.28 on item 9 (I prefer to take internet classes to traditional classes). Lower scores were reported in the areas of student interaction (4.36) and helping select curriculum content (4.44). Students reported that the class format allowed them to proceed at an individualized pace (4.68), and allowed them to further their working knowledge of working with students with disabilities (4.64).

Conclusion

This was the first time many of the students had taken an Internet based course. Some expressed concern about the lack of instructor interaction (as did the instructor) and the inability to interact with other students. There were also the hardware and software concerns, as some students expressed their frustrations at trying to connect to the website. However, all students stated that they would take another Internet course, and many said they would take another Internet course, but they preferred interaction with the instructor.

Written comments on the survey tended to focus on flexibility and stress release. Students, especially teachers who work full time, occasionally have problems making classes at given times. Using this format, students who cannot attend class still have access to the instructor's notes and, when used in conjunction with the text, reported that they learned as much as coming to class (average 4.48).

Table 1

Student Questions and Average Responses

  Question                                    Average Response

1. The class content lends itself             4.56
easily for an Internet class

2. I have the opportunity to interact
with other people in the class                4.36

3. The class has allowed me to
further my working knowledge of
students with disabilities 4.64 4. The class allows for reasonable accommodations forstudents with disabilities 4.6 5. The class allows me to proceed at an individualized pace 4.68 6. This class helped me select curriculum content forstudents with disabilities 4.44 7. This class helped me learn new teaching techniques forstudents with disabilities 4.52 8. I learned as much from this Internet class as I would have learned from a traditional lecture class 4.48 9. I prefer to take Internet classes to traditional classes 4.28 10. I would recommend this class format to my friends 4.72

Table 2

Written Comments

* Teaching full time, the day doesn't end at 3:30. Sometimes, it's 4:30-5:30 before I can leave due to meetings, activities, etc. This format gives me the flexibility to do what I need to get done & still attend class, if I can.

* Enjoyed the class discussions. Having a choice seems very fain By using the Internet and coming to class, my old mind seemed to grasp important information.

* I feel I learned a lot from learning about your experiences. This type of practical experience is more valuable in many ways than some of the book theory. I liked the format of the notes on the Internet.

* This class was handled in a manner that I really enjoyed and was very helpful. To be honest, it took a lot of stress off the GA and local students. I look forward to my next semester class with you.

* I enjoyed the class time as well as the flexibility.

* Decrease on long distance driving & works well with a work schedule.

* I choose to get the notes from the Blackboard web page and by coming to class.

* I enjoyed both because it gave me an opportunity to come when I could from GA and not miss that much class. I enjoyed having an option because it gave the class a very relaxed feeling. I truly enjoyed this way of learning.

* Classes need to have some professor contact.

* If I use to attend class as well as use the Internet because if an emergency should arise I would feel comfortable just knowing I could miss and still not get behind because I could get it on the Internet. Just to know it won't be held against me if I wasn't able to make it to class although I prefer being in class.

* Although Internet classes have some advantage for "distance learners" only the live format can offer spontaneous digressions, which may lead to new perspectives, opinions, and so forth.

* I would prefer to take Internet classes because of the distance I have to travel. I have to arrive to class late because I can't leave class to get here.
Chamberlin, W.S. (2001). Face to face vs. cyberspace: Finding the middle ground, Syllabus, 15, 11. Owston, R. (1997). The World Wide Web: A technology to enhance teaching and learning, Educational Researcher 26 (2). 27-33. Piotrowski, C. & Vodanovich. S.J. (2000). Are the reported barriers to Internet-based instruction warranted?: A synthesis of recent research. Education. 121.48-53. Rossman, P. (1992). The emerging worldwide electronic university: Information age global higher education. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Yaskin, D. & Gilfus, S. (2002). Blackboard 5: Introducing the blackboard 5 learning system [On-line]. Available: www.Blackboard.com
~~~~~~~~

By Lawrence A. Beard, Assistant Professor and Cynthia Harper, Acting Associate Dean, College of Education and Professional Studies Jacksonville State University, Jacksonville, Alabama 36265

Lawrence A. Beard is an Assistant Professor of Special Education in the Department of Curriculum and Instruction at Jacksonville State University, Jacksonville, Alabama.

Cynthia Harper is the Acting Associate Dean in the College of Education and Professional Studies at Jacksonville State University, Jacksonville, Alabama.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The College of Education and Professional Studies at Jacksonville State University provides numerous opportunities for distance education among its various program offerings. The purpose of this study was to compare student attitudes and opinions toward in class and online course instruction .

# data[].attributes.body
Title: Web‐based distance learning for nurse education: a systematic review
Source: Wiley Online Library
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/inr.12015
Credibility Evaluation: Group 1 (Scholarly Books and Articles)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Corresponding Author

Professor

School of Nursing, Nanjing University of Chinese Medicine, Nanjing, China

Correspondence address: Guihua Xu, School of Nursing, Nanjing University of Chinese Medicine, 138 Xianlin Road, Qixia District, Nanjing, Jiangsu Province 210046, China; Tel: 86‐25‐85811648; Fax: 86‐25‐85811648; E‐mail:
xgh_88@126.com
. Search for more papers by this author

First published:

Get access to the full version of this article. View access options below.

Abstract

Background

Web‐based distance learning is considered a promising approach to replace or supplement conventional nursing instruction. However, no systematic review has been seen to explore the effect of web‐based distance education in nursing.

Aim

To examine the efficacy of the web‐based distance education for nursing students and employed nurses.

Methods

A systematic review of randomized controlled studies was undertaken. Multiple search strategies were performed in PubMed and Embase until July 2012. Two reviewers independently selected trials, conducted quality critical appraisal, and extracted the data from the included studies.

Results

Nine randomized controlled trials met inclusion criteria, among which five studies were rated as A quality level, and the other four studies as B quality level. The results showed that web‐based distance learning has produced equivalent or better effects in knowledge acquisition. For nursing skill performance, four studies revealed a positive role for the new teaching mode, and one study showed a negative viewpoint. This review also demonstrated that participants generally accepted web‐based education with high satisfaction rates. Two studies reported a more positive trend for self‐efficacy in performing nursing skills in the experiment group compared with control group. Some negative feedbacks were also expressed.

Conclusion

Web‐based education has encouraging effects in improving both participants' knowledge and skills performance, and in enhancing self‐efficacy in performing nursing skills, with a high satisfaction rate expressed by participants. More rigorous experimental studies are advocated.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Web‐based distance learning for nurse education: a systematic review

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Corresponding Author Professor School of Nursing, Nanjing University of Chinese Medicine, Nanjing, China Correspondence address: Guihua Xu, School of Nursing, Nanjing University of Chinese Medicine, 138 Xianlin Road, Qixia District, Nanjing, Jiangsu Province 210046, China; Tel: 86‐25‐85811648; Fax: 86‐25‐85811648; E‐mail: xgh_88@126.com .

# data[].attributes.body
Title: Barriers to Learning in Distance Education.
Source: Google Scholar
DOI: None
Credibility Evaluation: Group 1 (Scholarly Books and Articles)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Distance learning is an excellent method of teaching adult learners because they need flexibility to contend with competing priorities. Adult learning is not without problems, however, such as loss of motivation because of lack of face-to-face contact with teachers and peers, potentially prohibitive start-up costs, and lack of faculty support. In addition to these barriers to distance learning, a literature review found that learners involved in distance education are more likely to have insecurities about the following: learning, self-evaluation problems, lack of support services such as tutors and technical assistance, feelings of isolation, and inexperience with this mode of learning, which leads to academic problems. Faculty barriers to distance learning include lack of training in course development and technology, lack of support for distance learning, and inadequate faculty selection for distance learning courses. Organizational barriers include infrastructure, lack of technology, course curriculum, and student evaluation. Research aimed at countering these problems should be undertaken so that distance learning, which can be a valuable learning method, can be carried on more effectively. (Contains 27 references.) (KC)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
ERIC - ED416377 - Barriers to Learning in Distance Education., 1998

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Distance learning is an excellent method of teaching adult learners because they need flexibility to contend with competing priorities. Adult learning is not without problems, however, such as loss of motivation because of lack of face-to-face contact with teachers and peers, potentially prohibitive start-up costs, and lack of faculty support.