Distance education

From Wikipedia, the Iree encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
This article is about education over a distance. For learning that is spaced over time, see
Distributed learning.
Distance education or distance learning is a Iield oI education that Iocuses on teaching
methods and technology with the aim oI delivering teaching, oIten on an individual basis, to
students who are not physically present in a traditional educational setting such as a classroom. It
has been described as "a process to create and provide access to learning when the source oI
inIormation and the learners are separated by time and distance, or both."
|1|
Distance education
courses that require a physical on-site presence Ior any reason (including taking examinations)
have been reIerred to as hybrid
|2|
or blended
|3|
courses oI study.
Contents
|hide|
O 1 History and development
O 2 Technologies used in delivery
O 3 Major beneIits oI use: an institutional perspective
O See also
O ReIerences
O External links
edit] History and development
Distance education dates to at least as early as 1728, when "an advertisement in the Boston
Gazette...|named| 'Caleb Phillips, Teacher oI the new method oI Short Hand" was seeking
students Ior lessons to be sent weekly.
||

Modern distance education initially relied on the development oI postal services in the 19th
century and has been practised at least since Isaac Pitman taught shorthand in Great Britain via
correspondence in the 18s.
||
The University oI London claims to be the Iirst university to
oIIer distance learning degrees, establishing its External Programme in 188. This program is
now known as the University oI London International Programmes and includes Postgraduate,
Undergraduate and Diploma degrees created by colleges such as the London School oI
Economics, Royal Holloway and Goldsmiths.
||
In the United States William Rainey Harper,
Iirst president oI the University oI Chicago developed the concept oI extended education,
whereby the research university had satellite colleges oI education in the wider community, and
in 1892 he also encouraged the concept oI correspondence school courses to Iurther promote
education, an idea that was put into practice by Columbia University.
|7|
In Australia, the
University oI Queensland established its Department oI Correspondence Studies in 1911.
|8|

More recently, Charles Wedemeyer oI the University oI WisconsinMadison is considered
signiIicant in promoting methods other than the postal service to deliver distance education in
America. From 19 to 198, the Carnegie Foundation Iunded Wedemeyer's Articulated
Instructional Media Profect (AIM) which brought in a variety oI communications technologies
aimed at providing learning to an oII-campus population. According to Moore's recounting, AIM
impressed the UK which imported these ideas when establishing in 199 The Open University,
which initially relied on radio and television broadcasts Ior much oI its delivery.
|9|
. Athabasca
University, Canada's Open University, was created in 197 and Iollowed a similar, though
independently developed, pattern
|1|
. Germany's FernUniversitt in Hagen Iollowed in 197
|11|

and there are now many similar institutions around the world, oIten with the name pen
University (in English or in the local language). All "open universities" use distance education
technologies as delivery methodologies and some have grown to become 'mega-universities',
|12|
a
term coined to denote institutions with more than 1, students.
The development oI computers and the internet have made distance learning distribution easier
and Iaster and have given rise to the 'virtual university, the entire educational oIIerings oI which
are conducted online.
|13|
In 199 Jones International University was launched and claims to be
the Iirst Iully online university accredited by a regional accrediting association in the US.
|1|

In 2, the Sloan Consortium, a body which arguably has a conIlict oI interest in the matter,
reported that:
More than 9 percent oI the very largest institutions (more than 1, total enrollments) have
some online oIIerings, which is more than double the rate observed Ior the smallest institutions.
and that almost 3.2 million US students were taking at least one online course during the Iall
term oI 2.
|1|

Today, there are many private and public, non-proIit and Ior-proIit institutions worldwide
oIIering distance education courses Irom the most basic instruction through to the highest levels
oI degree and doctoral programs. Levels oI accreditation vary: some oI the institutions receive
little outside oversight, and some may be Iraudulent diploma mills, although in many
jurisdictions, an institution may not use terms such as "university" without accreditation and
authorisation, oIten overseen by the national government - Ior example, the Quality Assurance
Agency in the UK.
|1|
In the US, the Distance Education and Training Council (DETC)
specializes in the accreditation oI distance education institutions.
|17|

edit] Technologies used in delivery
The types oI available technologies used in distance education are divided into two groups:
synchronous learning and asynchronous learning.
Synchronous learning technology is a mode oI delivery where all participants are "present" at the
same time. It resembles traditional classroom teaching methods despite the participants being
located remotely. It requires a timetable to be organized. Web conIerencing, videoconIerencing,
Educational television, Instructional television are examples oI synchronous technology, as are
direct-broadcast satellite (DBS), internet radio, live streaming, telephone, and web-based
VoIP.
|18|

The asynchronous learning mode oI delivery is where participants access course materials on
their own schedule and so is more Ilexible. Students are not required to be together at the same
time. Mail correspondence, which is the oldest Iorm oI distance education, is an asynchronous
delivery technology and others include message board Iorums, e-mail, video and audio
recordings, print materials, voicemail and Iax.
|18|

The two methods can be combined in the delivery oI one course. For example, some courses
oIIered by The Open University use periodic sessions oI residential or day teaching to
supplement the remote teaching.
|citation needed|

Other technology methods used in the delivery oI distance education include online three-
dimensional (3D) virtual worlds. A popular 3D virtual world, Active Worlds, is used Ior
synchronous and asynchronous learning. Active Worlds provides opportunities Ior students to
work collaboratively.
|19|

edit] Major benefits of use: an institutional perspective
Diana G. Oblinger,
|2|
writing speciIically oI the US context, has identiIied Iour broad reasons
why educational institutions might embrace distance learning:
O panding access: distance education can assist in meeting the demand Ior education
and training demand Irom the general populace and businesses, especially because it
oIIers the possibility oI a Ilexibility to accommodate the many time-constraints imposed
by personal responsibilities and commitments.
O lleviate capacity constraints: being mostly or entirely conducted oII-site, the system
reduces the demand on institutional inIrastructure such as buildings.
O Making money from emerging markets: she claims an increasing acceptance Irom the
population oI the value oI liIelong learning, beyond the normal schooling age, and that
institutions can beneIit Iinancially Irom this by adopting distance education. She sees
sectors oI education such as courses Ior business executives as being "more lucrative than
traditional markets".
O Catalyst for institutional transformation: the competitive modern marketplace
demands rapid change and innovation, Ior which she believes distance education
programs can act as a catalyst.
Casey and Lorenzen have identiIied another Iinancial beneIit Ior the institutions oI the US,
stating that distance education creates new graduates who might be willing to donate money to
the school who would have never have been associated with the school under the traditional
system.
|21|


AUTHOR`S NOTE You`re reading the HTML version oI a chapter Irom the book uilding
Accessible Websites (ISBN -737-11-X). Copyright Joe Clark, 22 (about the author).
All rights reserved. Back to Contents
Accessibility advocates and nondisabled people can both be wrong at the same time. Or iI not
wrong, misinIormed or misguided. Case in point: Terminology.
We have decades oI history oI stigmatizing terms used Ior people with disabilities. Crip and
gimp were seen as disparaging Ior decades (and still are in many usages), but have been slowly
reclaimed by disability activists. Handicap really does derive Irom 'hand in cap, which we
would now describe as a 'disempowering mental image. Deaf and dumb technically means deaf
and mute, which would be OK iI the phrase weren`t misunderstood to mean deaf and stupid and
iI deaI people were all unable to speak, which is hardly the case.
In any event, disabled people and their advocates (I suppose I would Iall into the same category)
have spent years raising the consciousness oI average people so that outdated and stereotyped
terminology might Iall by the wayside. But unIortunately, a certain overcorrection has taken
place.
Handicap was replaced by disabled, a value-neutral term that is and should be widely used. But
then we were told a phrase like disabled person could never be used; we were to say person with
a disability in order to 'put the person Iirst. (Up with people!) Well, maybe. Forcing people to
use some maladroit, saccharine, ill-gotten catchphrase instead oI plain words seems like a cure
that`s worse than the disease. (We are also told not to use constructs like 'the deaI or 'the
disabled Ior similarly weak reasons.)
And oI course many readers will be Iamiliar with querulous but well-meaning ninnies
overconcerned with 'oIIending anyone who love to suggest nauseating euphemisms like
handicapable or my personal Iavourite, physically challenged. ('Challenged? Meaning disabled
people merely have to try a bit harder? Someone in a wheelchair merely has a bigger
'challenge in climbing stairs than a nondisabled person? II that person tries really, really hard,
his or her 'challenge will disappear?)
Neither are disabled people 'diIIerently abled. A person who cannot hear or see or walk clearly
does have abilities 'diIIerent Irom a nondisabled person`s, and in accessible Web development
we may in Iact create 'diIIerent or analogous Iorms, but nonetheless, the term doesn`t tell us
much. Differently abled seems to apply more to zoology, where, say, raccoons can climb trees
but dogs can`t, or kookaburras can Ily while ostriches cannot. Those animals are all differently
abled when compared across species, but they aren`t missing an ability that other members oI
their species typically have, which is actually the case when considering human disability. It`s
not as though disabled and nondisabled people merely hold diIIerent portIolios oI abilities that
are equal in number or capacity, like maintaining a diverse envelope oI stocks and bonds.
Shall we cut the crap, Iolks?
Now, then. There actually are salient diIIerences in meaning among the various terms used to
describe disability groups. Some examples:
eufhurJ-of-heurlngheurlng-lmpulreJ
Everyone with signiIicantly impaired hearing is deaf in a generic sense. But someone with a
lower degree oI impairment may be more accurately called hard-of-hearing. Hearing-impaired is
a more medical-sounding term that not many people voluntarily use to describe themselves.
DeaI people tend to have the least hearing (and 'culturally DeaI people issue eye-rolling
demands to capitalize the D); they are the most apt to use whatever sign language or language is
native to their region. (American Sign Language isn`t the only one in the world; yes, they are
real languages; no, iI you know one oI them, you can`t understand any other; no, you don`t have
to be deaI to be Iluent in, or a 'native speaker oI, a sign language.)
DeaI people are most apt to attend segregated deaI-only schools or classrooms, though
'mainstreaming oI disabled students (including them in nondisabled classrooms) has been an
ongoing trend Ior 3 years. There tends to be such a thing as a 'deaI community in any given
city, state, or province.
Hard-oI-hearing people tend to have a greater degree oI usable hearing than deaI (or DeaI)
people. They can oIten speak intelligibly (more oIten than deaI people, at least), and are more apt
not to have attended a school Ior the deaI. II they receive special education Ior deaI students, it is
more likely in the oral tradition (teaching lipreading and use oI residual speech rather than sign
language). Many hard-oI-hearing people deny categorically that they are in any way diIIerent
Irom hearing people. There is much less cohesiveness among hard-oI-hearing people; it is
diIIicult indeed to Iind a genuine 'hard-oI-hearing community.
The term used to reIer to someone with no auditory disability is hearing.
Most deaI, hard-oI-hearing, or hearing-impaired hearing either now have or used to have some
actual hearing. In addition, a late-deafened person lost his or her hearing in adulthood or at least
aIter completely learning a spoken language. Having been hearing people Ior many years, late-
deaIened persons tend to have the best understanding and production oI spoken language (which
comes up in discussions oI reading level oI television captioning, Ior example).
Whenever you have the time or space, it is generally preIerable to reIer generically to deaf and
hard-of-hearing people. It`s more inclusive and acknowledges that deaI and hard-oI-hearing
people actually are diIIerent. But it isn`t wrong to use the single term deaf. In a long text like this
book, you can mix and match according to the sense you require.
lnJvlxuu-lmpulreJow-vlxlon
Everyone with signiIicantly impaired vision is blind in a generic sense. But someone with a
lower degree oI impairment may be more accurately called visually-impaired. A low-vision
person is not signiIicantly diIIerent Irom a visually-impaired person, but the Iormer term is
preIerred by some.
Blind people are most apt to have attended a school Ior the blind, though the same
mainstreaming trend aIIects blind students. Not many people with any kind oI visual impairment
read Braille estimates run as low as 1. Visual impairment is largely a condition oI age; there
are not that many very young blind or visually-impaired people.
As in the previous case, when you can swing it, a phrase like blind and visually-impaired is most
inclusive and correct, but in a pinch blind will do.
obllt-lmpulreJ
A bit oI a tricky group to discuss as Iar as this book is concerned. When you think oI a disabled
person, I`d wager that the Iirst image that pops to mind is a person in a wheelchair. But
wheelchair users are not a group that`s entirely relevant to accessible Web design. Instead,
people with mobility impairments have diIIiculty moving one or more parts oI the body. Where
Web design is concerned, a mobility impairment that aIIects use oI a computer or device (chieIly
a disability involving the hands and/or arms) is really the only relevant disability. Some oI those
people may also be wheelchair users (Ior example, quadriplegics).
eurnlng-JlxubeJ
earning disabilities aIIect the perception, processing, understanding, and reception oI
inIormation and other stimuli. Dyslexia is the most Iamous learning disability (it causes
conIusion in reading and a Iew other tasks), but there are many others. 'Learning per se is not
always the issue; the last time you stepped Ioot in a classroom may have been years ago and
you may nonetheless have a learning disability.
You may also run across the term cognitive disabilities, where cognitive reIers to the Iunctions oI
the brain ('the mental process oI knowing, including aspects such as awareness, perception,
reasoning, and judgement).
What about mental retardation? It`s not the same as a learning disability, and the phrase mentally
retarded is somewhat stigmatized. (Actually, the worst similar term I`ve run across is 'trainably
mentally handicapped. How`d you like people calling you that?) Yet the suggested substitute,
developmental disability, is too baIIlingly vague. (Development? Like development oI the Ietus?
Like not walking till you`re three and a halI years old?) At a conIerence I attended, a researcher
in the Iield tended to use both terms together, as mentally retarded/developmentally disabled, a
mouthIul that is oIten contracted to MR/DD. I`m mentioning the issue because, iI you develop
educational Websites, you may be required to accommodate learning-disabled students (not very
easy) and MR/DD students, too, the latter being even more diIIicult.
Adaptivetecbnology
Here`s a related term that comes up in the Iield oI accessibility oI computer hardware
speciIically: Adaptive technology is any implement that modiIies existing hardware or soItware
Ior use by a disabled person. It doesn`t have to be anything special an oII-the-shelI trackball
can constitute adaptive technology. Screen readers and magniIiers are two examples oI adaptive
technology relevant to Web development.
How do disabled people use computers?
Now that you know a bit more about disability in general, the obvious question becomes: How
do disabled people use computers?
A typical nondisabled person (is that you?) does not have many or any disabled Iriends. This
is understandable: Despite the insinutations oI cheerily multicultural advertising, it`s diIIicult to
expand your social sphere outside your own group. Think oI that smug expression 'It`s a black
thing. You wouldn`t understand. And even aIter decades oI Ieminism, how many men have
Iemale friends?
Anyway, even iI you did have a Iriend with a disability, what can your Iriend teach you about
other disabilities?
On the whole, then, you probably aren`t exactly conversant with the ways in which people with
disabilities use computers. There`s no shame in that.
Let`s start with the basic issues. The 'correct thinking holds that disability is never the problem;
it`s barriers in the outside world, including barriers oI attitude, that are the problem. This is a bit
de trop, in my experience. Here in the real world, the general issue oI accommodating people
with disabilities does relate to the speciIic disability and to what the person is trying to do. One
cannot separate the two.
In this case, the question to ask is: Is your disability severe enough to aIIect your use oI a
computer?
In some cases, the answer is a clear no. A single-leg amputee, Ior example, has no barriers at all
to using a computer. But other disability groups do Iace barriers:
O lf you're bllnd or vlsuallylmpalred how do you read and lnLerpreL Lhe LexL graphlcs menus
dlalogue boxes and oLher vlsual deLalls onscreen? Pow do you read Lhe legends on Lhe
keyboard? Pow do you read sofLware documenLaLlon? WhaL abouL mulLlmedla?
O lf you're deaf or hardofhearlng how wlll alerL sounds (llke error beeps) acLually manage Lo
alerL you? Pow do you beneflL from soundLracks found ln mulLlmedla?
O lf you have a moblllLy lmpalrmenL LhaL prevenLs you from movlng Lhe mouse or Lyplng on a
keyboard whaL do you do?
O lf you have a learnlng dlsablllLy llke dyslexla [usL how do you read and declpher all LhaL colourful
LexL onscreen?
It`s actually not too complicated: Some disabled computer users do nothing diIIerent Irom
nondisabled people, while others (indeed, Ior some disabilities, the majority) require so-called
adaptive or assistive technology hardware or soItware that eliminates barriers to using a
computer. In the olden days (like the era oI the Apple II, when adaptive technology Iirst
blossomed as a consumer-level industry), adaptive technology was kludgey and homemade; a lot
oI it looked like warmed-over Heathkit experiments. Now, though, aIter two decades oI
development and maturity, adaptive technology is generally quite sophisticated and impressive
or, to apply the highest praise the geek crowd could possibly conIer, cool.
Here is a guide to disability groups and the relevant adaptive technology.
Mobility impairment
The requirements oI someone who cannot readily type or use a mouse (or press a switch, or
engage any other hardware interIace) are the easiest Ior accessibility neophytes to understand.
Why? Because the adaptive technology they use generally takes the Iorm oI alternative
keyboards and mice, and hardware oI that sort makes Ior tidy photographs. You can immediately
see the necessary modiIications, iI not actually understand every detail oI their operation.
For the purposes oI this book, 'mobility-impaired people have trouble using the hardware oI
their computers rather than understanding or interpreting inIormation.
So what`s the solution? There are actually tons oI options; only some have a bearing on writing
accessible Websites, but as in every sphere oI understanding, you need to know more than the
bare minimum to be considered civilised.
O eyboard guards and overlays A sheeL of Lhlck plasLlc wlLh holes leLs you gulde your flngers Lo
[usL Lhe rlghL key useful lf you have cerebral palsy or a Lremor LhaL makes you depress more
Lhan one key aL a Llme or lf Loo many erranL keysLrokes precede or follow a correcL keypress
O low keys and onscreen keyboards ofLware can auLomaLlcally dlscard keysLrokes Lyped ln Loo
qulck a sequence and can show you a plcLure of a keyboard LhaL you can acLuaLe wlLh a swlLch
or a mouse (1he really good onscreen keyboards predlcL Lhe words you're Lrylng Lo Lype and
Lhe nexL word or phrase afLer LhaL lL's surprlslngly efflclenL)
O eplacemenL mlce LveryLhlng from fooL pedals Lo glganLlc Lrackballs are used as dlrecL mouse
surrogaLes An ordlnary offLheshelf Lrackball can be a good adapLlve Lechnology for some
people
O wlLches and scannlng sofLware lf you can Lake one acLlon rellably (bllnklng an eye flexlng your
wrlsL [osLllng your knee or ln Lhe besLknown case slpplng and pufflng on a sLraw) Lhen you
can acuLaLe an on/off swlLch lnce compuLers are blnary devlces LhaL's all Lhe ablllLy you need
Whlle sLlll laborlous swlLch access ls now much less so Lhan say back ln Lhe mld1980s when
quadrlpleglcs' use of slpandpuff swlLches began Lo be covered as a humanlnLeresL sLory ln
newspapers (!usL as people seem Lo know Lhe phrase carpalLunnel syndrome" buL noLhlng
abouL repeLlLlvesLraln ln[urles ln general Lhe use of personal compuLers by blowlng on a sLraw
seems Lo be a facL wldely known ln Lhe absence of oLher dlsablllLy knowledge) noLe Lhough
LhaL Lhe days of slpandpuff swlLches are largely behlnd us ln Lhe 21sL cenLury swlLch access"
may sLlll rely on a slngle on/off slgnal buL hardware swlLches are now more sophlsLlcaLed
(requlrlng say a slmple head nudge) ofLware now does a beLLer [ob of lnLerpreLlng and
predlcLlng Lhe lnLenL behlnd LhaL slgnal ?our onscreen keyboard may dlvlde and subdlvlde lLself
lnLo quadranLs for you unLll Lhe rlghL leLLer appears under your cursor and also predlcL Lhe
words you wlsh Lo Lype
How does this adaptive technology relate to accessible Web design? Page navigation becomes
the big issue. II you the Website visitor are using particularly primitive adaptive technology (or
none at all some disabled people are too poor, or too proud and stubborn, to modiIy their
machines), you may be stuck pressing the %,- key repeatedly to move Irom link to link, Irom
link to image, Irom Iield to image, and every other combination within a Web page. II your site
loads up three dozen (or a hundred, or 2) navigational links in a leIt-hand table cell, a visitor
with this disability has to tab through them one at a time.
Just how long would you put up with that, iI you don`t already?
Fortunately, there are solutions usually not great and oIten not really enough, but solutions
nonetheless. I`ll get to those in Chapter 8, 'Navigation.
Hearing impairment
The access requirements oI deaI and hard-oI-hearing people are quite modest given that, even in
a post-Napster demimonde, computers are largely silent devices that communicate visually. You
can, Ior example, simply turn the alert-sound volume to zero, which might cause the menubar to
Ilash as a replacement Ior an audible beep.
Adaptive technology? There really isn`t any. A hard-oI-hearing person may use ampliIied
headphones or a particularly high-powered speaker, but those are oII-the-shelI additions with no
bearing on Web design or programming.
Visual impairment
OI all the disabilities aIIected by computer use, visual impairment is the most signiIicant. As we
have seen with devices varying as widely as the Palm (and the Newton remember the
Newton?) and a range oI tablet computers and Internet reIrigerators and whatnot, in real-world
use a computer is mostly a display. And iI you can`t see a display, how do you use a computer?
Well, iI you have a relatively modest visual impairment, all you may need is screen
magniIication. You can blow up the size oI text, menubars, icons, and everything else to any
necessary size. (That really means everything else. Your whole system, including menubars, has
to be made accessible, not just the text in a single window in a browser.) SoItware designed just
Ior this purpose can also scroll text horizontally Ior you within a window oI Iixed position, alter
Ioreground and background colours, and turn the mouse cursor into a moving magniIying glass.
(Don`t underestimate the issue oI screen colours. Many visually-impaired people Iind dark text
on a brilliant white background unbearable. Such settings are quite easy to change Ior Web sites,
as we`ll see in Chapter 9, 'Type and colour, but it`s a process oI trial and error, and iI you, as a
Web author, don`t code your pages properly, your text might just disappear altogether!)
II you`re blind enough that you can`t really see a monitor, you need something called a screen
reader a program that reads aloud onscreen text, menus, icons, and the like.
(They`re not called 'talking browsers, 'text readers, or 'speech browsers. There`s one and
only one generic term Ior the technology: Screen reader. Having made this categorical
declaration, I note that there are programs that do nothing but provide voice output Ior Web
browsers to the exclusion oI all other soItware on a computer, like IBM Home Page Reader and
pwWebSpeak, and I suppose we could call those talking browsers, but I am eliding that
distinction Ior the purposes oI this book.)
Screen readers don`t simply spit out a monotonous sequential verbal itemization oI a Web page.
Developed in the late 197s on character-mode platIorms like Apple II and MS-DOS, screen
readers have evolved out oI view oI the rest oI the computer industry, like some Iorm oI
underground dance music beloved by recherche klub kidz worldwide but unknown to their
parents. Screen readers are sophisticated enough to use multiple voices and (limited) sound
eIIects to interpret Web sites. It`s quite commonplace to listen to screen-reader speech at speeds
no human being, not even an auctioneer, could produce. At 3 words a minute (twice the speed
oI a vibrant human conversation), you can zip through even a verbose Web page pretty
eIIiciently, though that is no excuse Ior you to produce verbose Web pages.
One crucial Iact to understand about screen readers, though: They`re run Irom the keyboard. The
mouse is still usable but in practice is not used. A mouse requires hand-eye cordination, and a
blind person is missing halI oI that. Accordingly, anything you design that seems to require a
mouse also has to work without one.
Another curious Iactoid: Some totally-blind people don`t bother installing a monitor at all.
(Computers can oIten run 'headless.)
A deaI-blind person will rely exclusively on a Braille display: Nylon or metal pins controlled by
soItware protrude upward through a grid, Iorming the cells used in Braille writing. Characters are
replaced ('reIreshed) either automatically at intervals or aIter you press a switch. Typical
Braille displays reveal two to Iour lines oI text, but truly gigantic displays, almost equivalent to
the 8-character-by-2-row screens oI MS-DOS, can also be Iound, at prices rivaling the
equivalent weight in platinum.
While a Iew blind people rely on Braille displays alone, without screen readers, oI more interest
are the Iew super-elite blind people who use a Braille display in tandem with a screen reader.
One such use: The screen reader speaks onscreen text and interIace elements, while the Braille
display gives system and status-line messages. Practical Ior blind computer programmers
especially.
Since the canonical group served by Web accessibility is indeed the blind and visually-impaired,
the bulk oI this book is devoted to documenting how to accommodate them.
earning disabilities
Without a doubt the most neglected disability group online, and, not coincidentally, the very
hardest to accommodate, learning-disabled Web surIers Iace Irustrating barriers.
The issue here is comprehension oI visible language in the broadest sense. Words are the biggest
problem, one that is ostensibly alleviated by providing pictures and sounds. Yet even pictures
and sounds may cause conIusion, particularly iI all the above are provided simultaneously. (I
speciIically advocate watching, listening, and reading simultaneously in Chapter 13,
'Multimedia, but that may be unsuitable Ior a section oI this population.)
However, the essence oI the Web is text. Almost no Websites lack text altogether, and that
cohort tends to cluster around all-Flash experimentation (like Praystation.com); while the Web is
the delivery mechanism Ior such experiments, it is debatable whether they actually are Websites
at all rather than online cinema.
Text is not a feature oI Websites; it is a primitive, a Iundamental and unalterable component.
An existing requirement oI the Web Accessibility Initiative`s Web Content Accessibility
Guidelines (N 1, 'Ensure that documents are clear and simple so they may be more easily
understood) makes a Ieeble and inconsequential eIIort at solving the inaccessibility oI textual
Websites Ior people who cannot read well. Checkpoint 1.1 tells us: 'Use the clearest and
simplest language appropriate Ior a site`s content. Nowhere does this guideline explain how you
will aIIord an editor Ior your site, or how you or that editor will know in specific how to write so
that learning-disabled people can understand you. Are there proven techniques? And iI so, how
do they apply to the tens oI thousands oI topics discussed online?
As I write this book, the Web Accessibility Initiative is actively considering an update to its Web
Content Accessibility Guidelines that would require all Web authors everywhere and without
exception to add images or other 'non-text content to their Websites iI they wish their sites to
be certiIied as complying with the WCAG. Essentially every concept would require an
illustration, irrespective oI these undeniable Iacts:
O ome concepLs cannoL be lllusLraLed (emember Lhe parlour game on 1be 5lmpsoos ln whlch
Lhe lmpsons' nelghbours Lhe van PouLens are asked Lo lllusLraLe dlgnlLy"? Luanne van
PouLen acLually does lL buL we never see Lhe acLual drawlng raLher provlng Lhe polnL l hope lL
ls noL baLheLlc Lo suggesL Lhe WCAC learn from carLoons)
O ,any Web auLhors are noL professlonal lllusLraLors many do noL own lllusLraLlon sofLware
O 1he requlremenL dlscrlmlnaLes agalnsL oLher dlsabled groups Pow do bllnd WebmasLers draw
plcLures?
O lmllarly each added lmage or mulLlmedla flle requlres an equlvalenL (llke an ,9 LexL or
capLlonlng) 1he addlLlon of lmages lmplles Lhe addlLlon of more LexL a LauLology and a source
of frusLraLlon for bllnd vlslLors
O lmage and mulLlmedla flles cause page slzes hence download Llmes Lo balloon ln Lurn harmlng
usablllLy
O 1he requlremenL naively assumes LhaL all WebslLes are cusLomcreaLed and conLlnuously
overseen by experL human belngs many WebslLes llke dlscusslon fora and malllngllsL archlves
are auLogeneraLed by sofLware ,any pages aL Lhe World Wlde Web ConsorLlum's own slLe
W3org fall lnLo Lhls caLegory Pow do we lllusLraLe Lhem?
O 1here ls no proof LhaL lllusLraLlons wlll be as effecLlve aL guaranLeelng comprehenslon for Lhe
learnlngdlsabled as say ,9 LexLs are for Lhe bllnd
It is not at all clear that this proposed requirement will actually be ratiIied by the World Wide
Web Consortium; it Iaces strong and reasoned opposition Irom people like me. The needs oI
learning-disabled Web visitors and everyone else with a mental impairment are real; they`re also
ill-understood by Web designers and by Web-accessibility experts both.
Still, the proposed cure is worse than the disease. It is apparent that there is no practical way to
make textual Websites genuinely accessible to people who cannot read well. Q.E.D.
So what are the real options? They don`t have a lot to do with your work as a designer or
developer. The use oI adaptive technology in accommodating learning disabilities is relatively
uncommon, but the big surprise is how applicable the gear intended Ior the blind can be.
Dyslexic kids and adults oIten Iind speech output useIul, though usually at Iar slower speeds than
blind users are accustomed to. Screen magniIication is helpIul. There`s certain limited evidence
(included on this book`s CD-ROM) that audio description helps kids with dyslexia concentrate.
Long descriptions, used Ior blind access to Websites, may work the same way, but there is no
research on that topic.
There is no plan oI action available to you in order to accommodate learning-disabled visitors in
the way that plans oI action are available Ior other disability groups, however contingent and
Iractured those latter plans might be. There are no simple coding or programming practices or
even complex practices, Ior that matter in which you can engage to accommodate this group.
We are leIt with the knowledge that our sites are inaccessible to a known group with next to
nothing we can do about it. However antithetical that may seem at Iirst blush, in Iact it responds
to the real world. Recall that antidiscrimination legislation includes exemptions Ior undue
hardship or burden. Recall also that some Ieatures oI the physical world cannot be made
accessible without destroying or Iundamentally altering them antique streetcars, Ior example,
or the ancient pyramids. On all counts, these are unavoidable exceptions which we have no
choice but to live with.
PSE
Research in Distance Education
by Michael Jeffries
ssistant Director of Educational Services, HETS
The History of Distance Education
&nderstanding the history of distance education is valuable in that it shows there was more than one
historical path to distance education and that the evolution of distance education has not been easy.
Many of the same problems facing implementation and acceptance of educational innovations today have
been faced by distance education throughout its history.
The history of distance education could be tracked back to the early 1700s in the form of correspondence
education, but technology-based distance education might be best linked to the introduction of
audiovisual devices into the schools in the early 1900s.
The first catalog of instruction films appeared in 1910 (Reiser, 1987) and in 1913, Thomas Edison
proclaimed that, due to the invention of film, "Our school system will be completely changed in the next
ten years" (Saettler, 1968, p. 68).
This dramatic change didn't occur, but instructional media were introduced into many extension programs
by 1920 in the form of slides and motion pictures just as they were in the classroom.
n tracing the history of distance education, the introduction of television as an instructional medium
appears as an important entry point for theorists and practitioners outside of the correspondence
education tradition, and marks parallel paths for correspondence study and instructional media.
lthough instructional radio failed in the 1930s, instructional television was viewed with new hope. n
1932, seven years before television was introduced at the New York World's Fair, the State &niversity of
owa began experimenting with transmitting instructional courses.
World War slowed the introduction of television, but military training efforts had demonstrated the
potential for using audio-visual media in teaching (Wright, 1991).
The apparent success of audio-visual generated a renewed interest in using it in the schools and in the
decade following the war there were intensive research programs (Reiser, 1987). Most of these studies
were directed at understanding and generating theory on how instructional media affected classroom
learning.

The 1940s saw great interest in television by educators but little action (dams, 1958), and by 1948 only
five &.S. educational institutions were involved in television with owa State being the first on the air.
Early studies by educators tended to show that student achievement from classroom television was as
successful as from traditional face-to-face instruction. study by Parsons (1957) showed only borderline
differences in achievement, and Lapore and Wilson (1958) offered research showing that learning by
television compared favorably with conventional instruction.
By the late 1950s, 17 programs used television in their instructional materials. The use of educational
television tended to grow slowly but by 1961, 53 stations were affiliated with the National Educational
Television Network (NET) with the primary goal of sharing films and coordinating scheduling (Hull, 1962).
lthough instructional television would never realize what many thought was its potential, it was having
limited success and had, unlike instructional radio, established a foothold in the minds of educators.
n 1956 the Correspondence Study Division of the N&E conducted a study of the use of television to
support correspondence instruction (Wright, 1991). The survey report recommended research to measure
the effectiveness of television as an educational tool and, with a grant from the Ford Foundation, Gayle
Childs studied television instruction in combination with correspondence study.
n one of the earliest education vs. media studies, Childs concluded that television is not an instructional
method, but an instrument for transmitting instruction. He also found no appreciable difference in the
achievement level of students taught in regular classrooms by means of television or by a combination of
correspondence study and television (lmeda, 1988).

n the early 1960s, the innovative Midwest Program on irborne Television nstruction (MPT) launched
its "flying classroom" from an airfield near Purdue &niversity in Lafayette, ndiana to broadcast
instructional programs to school systems and the general public in ndiana and five surrounding states
(Smith, 1961).
t its peak, MPT would transmit educational television programs to nearly 2,000 public schools and
universities reaching almost 400,000 students in 6500 classrooms in ndiana and five surrounding states
(Gordon, 1965).
This experiment in learning was the culmination of an educational vision for some educators and the
result of a $7 million grant from the Ford Foundation (Carnegie Commission, 1979), a small part of the
$170 million spent by the foundation.
lthough the airborne teaching experiment came down in 1968, the MPT project succeeded in several
ways, including stimulating enough interest in educational television (ETV) in its region that new ETV
stations were started. Many schools began using their own closed circuit television (CCTV) systems, and
others began experimenting with nstructional Fixed Television Service (TFS) microwave systems.
n even greater accomplishment (Wood and Wylie, 1977, p. 209) was that the MPT project got
educators from the six-state region to work together to select curriculum and to design and produce "the
best example of an agreed-upon body of inter-institutional curriculum materials." nd finally, it succeed in
organizing hundreds of autonomous school districts to work together for a common educational goal.
The number of educational television stations grew more rapidly in the 1960s and, by 1972, 233
educational stations existed (Carnegie Commission, 1979). Ohio &niversity, &niversity of Texas and the
&niversity of Maryland were among the earliest universities to create networks to reach for both on-
campus and off-campus student populations (Brientenfield, 1968), and many universities were
considering how to bring distance learning to select student populations.
By the mid 1960s, much of the interest in funding instructional television had abated, and the Ford
Foundation shifted its support to public television. Much of the blame was placed on the mediocre quality
of the instructional programming which was often little more than a teacher delivering a lecture (Reiser,
1987).
The 1967 Carnegie Commission on Higher Education concluded that "the role played in formal education
by instructional television has been on the whole a small one... With minor exceptions, the total
disappearance of instructional television would leave the educational system fundamentally unchanged"
(pp. 80-81). Reasons given for instructional television not being adopted included teacher resistance to
television in the classroom, the expense of the television systems, and the inability of television alone to
meet the various conditions for student learning (Reiser, 1987).
n the late 1960s and early 1970s, microwave technology developed, costs went down, and universities
began to set up microwave networks to take advantage of the nstructional Television Fixed Service
(TFS) authorized by the Federal Communications Commission. The Carnegie Commission on Higher
Education predicted that, by the year 2000, more than 80 percent of off-campus and 10 to 20 percent of
on-campus instruction would take place through telecommunications (Carnegie Commission, 1972).
Systems utilizing TFS technology were able to reach regional campuses and other universities, but it
remained a closed circuit concept (Wood and Wylie, 1977) reaching only the sites linked to the system
and not the general public. t did appear that, for the first time, distant students were considered part of
the extended classroom, and television existed to access those not able to come to campus (Dean,
1982).
Educational Experiments and Change
lternatives to traditional higher education emerged in the &.S. in the 1960s and 1970s. Trends such as
escalating college costs, a renewed interest in nontraditional education by a more mobile population, and
success of Britain's Open &niversity paved the way for numerous experiments in higher education
(Gerrity, 1976).
Programs such as the &niversity Without Walls, external degree programs, and imitations of the British
Open &niversity were encouraged by large grants from the Carnegie Commission on Higher Education.
The instructional technology movement was defining its purpose during the late 1960s and moving further
away from equating instructional technology with audio-visual devices (Reiser, 1987). n 1970, the
Department of udiovisual nstructional changed its name to the ssociation for Educational
Communication and Technology, and defined educational technology as "a field involved in the facilitation
of human learning through the systematic identification, development, organization, and utilization of a full
range of learning resources ....(ECT, 1972, pp. 36-37). The same period saw an increased attention to
instructional technology and "systems" approaches to the design of instruction based on theories of
cognitive psychology and individualized instruction (Reiser, 1987).
Distance education programs which exist today have a wide range of approaches. The CLS program
offers independent study courses through computer networking and relies heavily on computer-based
student contact and feedback. Nova &niversity offers computer-delivered instruction; and the students
communicate with instructors through electronic mail, attend some concentrated centralized class
sessions, and meet in weekend cluster groups. The Mind Extension &niversity offers undergraduate and
graduate degrees through cable networks, and it supplements video courses with texts and other
collateral materials.
n summary, the history of distance education shows a field that appears to be in a constant state of
evolution, that is supported by theory, but in need of research which can fill many unanswered questions.
The historical view of distance education shows a stream of new ideas and technologies balanced
against a steady resistance to change, and it often places technology in the light of promising more than it
has delivered. History shows nontraditional education trying to blend with traditional education while
striving to meet the challenge of constantly changing learning theories and evolving technologies.

Defining Distance Education
"Distance education is beset with a remarkable paradox - it has asserted its existence, but it cannot
define itself." (Shale, 1988, p. 25).
How distance education is best defined or differentiated from other educational approaches has been the
subject of much debate. From the perspective of many educationaltechnologists, distance education is
"inexorably linked to the technology" (Garrison, 1987) and seems to be viewed as different from other
forms of education, a factor which may contribute to course development and acceptance problems.
Focusing on the distance factor and on technology takes the emphasis off the "dialectical relationship
between teacher and student" which Shale feels is the foundational principle in the educational process
(Shale, 1988, p. 25). To Shale, "distance" (and the technology which accompanies it) is an incidental
consideration and not a "defining criterion" for education.
broadening of the definition of distance education is urged by Barker, Frisbie and Patrick (1989) who
acknowledge correspondence study as the historical foundation of distance education but suggest that
there is really two forms of distance education. One is the traditional correspondence- based distance
education which is independent study oriented and the second is telecommunications-based distance
education which offers the teaching and learning experience simultaneously (1989, p. 23).
The Garrison and Shale definition of distance education (1987a, p. 10-11) offers a minimum set of criteria
and allows more flexibility. They suggest that:
O distance education implies that the majority of educational communication between teacher and
student occurs non contiguously
O distance education involves two-way communication between teacher and student for the
purpose of facilitating and supporting the educational process
O distance education uses technology to mediate the necessary two-way communication.
Philosophy and Organization of Distance Education
The organizational pattern and operating practices of a distance education facility are generally based
upon the educational philosophy of that institution as well as economic and political restrictions (Verduin
& Clark, 1991). Most educators would prefer a more student-centered model while politics and economics
might dictate a more institution-centered approach with greater control and a larger number of students.
Three different modes of operation under which distance education can operate are identified by Rumble
(1986), including:
Sole responsibility - where the institution and its administration have distance education as their sole
responsibility and purpose, such as with the Open &niversity in the &nited Kingdom. dministration and
faculty focus on distance education teaching methods and student needs, and are not controlled by other
programs or purposes. Development of teaching techniques and innovative practices are seen as primary
benefits.
Mixed mode - institutions where both distance and conventional education occur, such as the &niversity
of New England in ustralia and most traditional merican universities. Organization may fall under a
single department with university administration being responsible, several departments may offer
distance education with each department administering its own program, or a distinct unit may offer
distance education in a variety of areas and be solely devoted to this purpose. The mixed mode approach
may have the advantage of being able to draw upon the resources of the resident faculty and services,
but a disadvantage is that some faculty and administrators may consider distance education to be less
effective and less important than campus-based instruction.
Consortium - a group of institutions or distance education programs devoted to distance education as a
means of broadening or sharing distance education programming. Students may register with their own
institution and use centrally-developed learning materials with credits being easily transferable. This is
one of the fastest growing segments of distance education (Verduin & Clark, 1991) but it also experiences
administrative problems when it comes to collaboration between universities and conflicts in philosophical
differences, teaching resources, and cost sharing. The &niversity of Mid-merica failed in its attempt at a
consortium but efforts such as the Mind Extension &niversity(r) are viewed as a success.
ny organizational or administrative structure must have effective communication for it to succeed.
Distance education, with its diversity of activities and staffing, the nature of its students, and externally
based instructional programming, requires very effective communication. ccording to Verduin and Clark
(1991), information must flow in such a manner that all involved are aware of common goals, activities
and procedures, and the appropriate feedback is possible whenever necessary.
Kaye and Rumble (1981) cite the problems of educational institutions in introducing distance learning
programs, and suggest that a major issue confronting many universities is how to resolve the conflict
between distance education, which often requires the management and structure of a business
enterprise, and traditional academic areas which have a completely different style of governance. These
differences "often find expression in a conflict between academic 'freedom of action' and the necessity for
maintaining effective production mechanisms" (p. 179) necessary for distance education course
development and distribution.
The separation between innovation and organization can "converge" as the innovation moves toward
institutionalization through boundary expansion and resolution of conflicts (Levine, 1980, p. 14). t is this
integration process which is the goal of most distance education programs at traditional universities, but
studies suggest that there are often institutional barriers to the convergence of distance and mainstream
education.
To focus on technologies without considering their role as a catalyst for change can adversely affect the
ability of technologies to enact change (Heinich, 1982). Heinich suggests that we tend to treat all
technological innovations almost the same, yet technologies such as television can affect the power
structure in education, and faculty prefer the power structure the way it is.
Power and politics are primary forces in the implementation process; and school systems, like other social
systems, have to be viewed in terms of the seeking, allocation and use of power (Meyer & Rowan, 1978).
ccording to Sarason (1990), the communication network, which is dependent on personal contact and
on who knows whom, often identifies the path for implementation of an innovation.
nnovators have been accused of being so passionate about their innovation that their reality is distorted
and they fail to consider the importance of building constituencies to help support their cause (Sarason,
1990) and Rogers (1983) even identifies a "pro-innovation bias" which often appears in the
implementation of an innovation and any related research which follows. Educational innovations seem to
receive strong support from a relatively small segment of adopters but may have limited support from the
group effected. Bardach (1978) suggests that even when an effort is made to develop support from
constituents, it is difficult to find a cause with "a broad commonality of interest that would form the basis
for coalition building" (p. 42).

Educational change is technically simple and socially complex, and definitely not a linear process.
Educational innovations such as the early distance education programs were probably motivated by a
"vision" that Fullan (1991) would suggest "permeates the organization with values, purpose, and integrity
for both the what and how of improvement ... its formation, implementation, shaping and reshaping in
specific organizations is a constant process" (p. 81-82). For a vision to become a reality, Miles stresses
that it must be "shareable" and be shared with others; "it provides direction and driving power for change,
and the criteria for steering and choosing" (1987, p. 12). nd this vision must include a shared vision of
the change process which can provide a strategy for implementation.

lthough there are clear strategies for implementing innovations, change is often at the mercy of
organizational culture. "ttempts at innovation in schools have usually ignored the cultural and structural
traditions of the sociocultural system ... f a school has a culture in place, and there is ample evidence to
suggest it does, those involved in the rigorous maintaining of the status quo are not going to be eager
candidates for innovation" (Schrum, 1991, p. 37).

case study of thabasca &niversity in lberta, Canada by Shale (1985) showed some surprising
results. lthough the university was an "open" distance education facility and with a commitment to trying
innovative educational approaches, over time it had become more and more traditional. n the beginning,
the core of the academic program was the instructional designer with few academic staff, and multi-media
was used heavily. But this emphasis on innovation changed and now the role of the instructional designer
is not as important as that of the teacher, courses follow a more traditional lecture approach, and little use
is made of media except to enhanced written materials.
Shale suggests that understanding this shift back to the traditional lies "in a deeper understanding of what
a university is" (1985, p. 11) and whether a traditional university allows for change and innovation. The
educational technology point of view appears to regard education as "packageable" while universities are
traditionally characterized by process, academic staff, and research. Costs andthe time required to
produce distance education courses are two factors suggested for this tendency to the traditional, but
Shale also feels distance education has not dealt with some of the natural boundaries such as jurisdiction
and coordination, factors which impact on the institutionalization of distance education programs.

Directions in Research
Much of the research done to date has centered around the use of new technologies for teaching and
distance education's effectiveness as a teaching medium. predominance of this research has used
survey questionnaires with closed-ended questions with the range of options determined by the
researcher (Morgan, 1984). This empirical research is useful for studying drop-out rates, learning about
student preferences, and attempting to compare the variety of media used for delivery, but Morgan (1984)
has urged that qualitative research methods be used to study distance education as a whole. Coldeway
(1988) acknowledges that the focus of most distance education institutions is on the technology but
suggests that the research is shifting to "the more human side" of the system as the programs age.
Holmberg (1984), as an international authority on distance education, strongly urges undertaking
inductive studies of distance education "organization" to look at administrative framework, processes of
developing and distributing learning materials, interaction between system members, and other activities
required by society and the educational establishment. This type of study has not been done and seems
to have value for establishing new distance education programs or making comparisons with other
traditional and nontraditional programs.
Roles in the nstructional Process
team approach to the development of learning materials is often considered the most appropriate for
distance education. The team would be responsible for assessing adult needs, designing learning
packages, providing guidance, and assessing performance, and it would include academic content
specialists, instructional designers, writers and editors, media specialists, and specialists in adult learner
behavior and curriculum development (Verduin & Clark, 1991). These instructional development activities
should support the institution's philosophy and goals, and the mission of the distance education program.
f anything is evident in this team approach, it has the potential to be complex and open to interpretation.
The roles of academic content specialists, instructional designers, writers and editors, media specialists,
and specialists in adult learner behavior and curriculum development can be seen to overlap and to not
be very clearly defined. n educational technologist may have skills in instructional design, as a media
specialist, in adult learning behavior and in curriculum development, and their job may begin with
assessing program needs and end with product implementation. But their role may be perceived as
someone working primarily to implement electronic technology into the learning system or simply be
misunderstood. The counter problem is that "use of computers, television, teleconferencing, and other
means of transmission does not make one an educational technologist" (Wagner, 1990, p. 62).
The relationship between distance education and educational technology is viewed as strong, but the
problem of defining roles for instructional designers/ developers is difficult. nd the role of the educational
technologist may be defined, not by the field, but by the organization's philosophy of education and their
broader educational goals. Wagner (1990) suggests that an issue to consider is whether "distance
education can afford to emphasize technology" or whether "it must emphasize instruction" (p. 62).
Wagner suggests that educational technology can serve as a holistic approach where process and
product are both components of the system.
Teachers in Distance Education
The likelihood of significant increases in distance learning enrollments within the next decade will have a
profound impact on faculty members' instructional roles, according to Beaudoin (1990). The changes that
he envisions are tied to distance education's more learner-centered system, and he predicts that teachers
accustomed to more conventional teaching modes will have to "acquire new skills to assume expanded
roles not only to teach distance learners, but also to organize instructional resources suitable in content
and format for independent study" (Beaudoin, 1990, p. 21)
key player in the distance education team should be the teacher since the use of telecommunications
inhigher education requires faculty acceptance (Dillon, 1989). But "negative faculty attitudes, ranging from
apathy to open antagonism, remain a major barrier" to implementation of distance education programs
(Brock, 1987, p. 40). growing acceptance among university faculty is acknowledged by Brock and he
blames faculty attitude on a resistance to required changes in familiar teaching patterns and the faculty
having to relinquish a degree of control over the teaching-learning process.
survey of Oklahoma administration, faculty and telecourse coordinators led Dillon to suggest expanded
rewards and more faculty development efforts, and to express the belief that the success of distance
education will "require changes in the practices and attitudes of faculty in an environment that is still
suspicious of or threatened by the nontraditional. Only the system which effectively rewards it will
succeed at change" (1989, p. 42). survey of teachers using satellite delivery methods showed a
significant growth in credit course delivery since 1984, but it also identified several problem areas.
ccording to lbright (1988), needs assessments were rarely conducted prior to course development,
interactivity was minimal due to the practice of uplinking videotaped lectures, the visual components of
most courses were underutilized, faculty training was limited to technical considerations, and faculty
efforts were largely unrecognized for promotion and tenure. study by Clark (1993) has also attempted
to measure faculty attitudes toward distance education and specific media used in distance education.
mong Clark's finding were: 1) that university faculty who were slightly positive about the concept of
distance education were more negative about their personal use of distance education, 2) faculty who
were more familiar with distance education were more receptive, and 3) faculty was more positive toward
telecourses and video conferencing, and less positive toward correspondence and audio conferencing.
Respondents expressed the normal concerns about course quality, student-teacher interaction, and
faculty rewards for teaching distance education courses. Clark suggests that, with faculty still being
ambivalent about distance education, a cautious optimism regarding the future of distance education in
the &.S. is appropriate.
Technology and Teaching
Most educational technologists do link distance education to technology (Garrison, 1987) and may view it
as different from other forms of education. Claims about the affect of new technologies on learning have
caused many people to suggest a change in the way new technologies are evaluated for distance
learning (Clark, 1989). lthough Salomon (1981) and Clark (1991) make the point that instructional
strategies and not the medium are the key to effective learning, technology and production considerations
rather than teaching-learning theory or the instructional development process are often the driving force
behind distance education programs.
The interest in utilizing "instructional technologies" to accomplish a variety of educational delivery needs
has grown to the point where "preparing teachers to use technologies is assumed to be the main function
and primary intellectual interest of the educational technologist" (Heinich, 1982). While Heinich feels that
teacher preparation is needed, he points to this as a problem in defining the field of educational
technology. Romiszowski (1981) suggests that the educational field "has been plagued with more than its
fair share of solutions looking for problems" and suggests that developers often reflect a vested interest in
technology or make premature decisions to the instructional solution before fully understanding the
problem.
Studies on the use of various media in distance education have supported Schramm's view that "learning
seems to be affected more by what is delivered than by the delivery medium" (1977, p. 273) and Clark's
analogy of media "not influencing learning any more than the truck that delivers groceries influences the
nutrition of a community" (1983, p. 3). lso, studies comparing education in the classroom with
technologically-deliveredclasses (Beare, 1989; McCleary and Egan, 1989) showed no significant
differences in academic performance.

Recent developments in technology are believed to be removing some of the disadvantages associated
with media in distance education. Bates (1984) suggests that new technologies promise "a wider range of
teaching functions and a higher quality of learning, lower costs, greater student control, more interaction
and feedback for students" (p. 223). n fact, the 1990s are experiencing the emergence of digital media
which has the potential to blur the lines which separate various media, as predicted by Baltzer (1985).
The issue of media vs. method is likely to continue to be debated in relation to distance education, but
there is no doubt that distance education is different from other instructional approaches. study by
Gehlauf, Shatz and Frye (1991) on the reaction of teachers to the teaching experience in the traditional
classroom compared to interactive television shows teachers wanting to cling to more traditional
approaches but finding these methods not as effective, teachers feeling the need to be better organized,
and feeling the need for training for distance education teaching.
hLLp//wwwdlglLalschoolneL/edu/uL_hlsLory_m!effrleshLml

Adult Education Web Design Articles We are Photography Links E-mail
Barriers to Learning in Distance
Education
ill M. Galusha
University of Southern Mississippi

-stract
Distance learning is an excellent method of reaching the adult learner. Because of the
competing priorities of work, home, and school, adult learners desire a high degree of
flexibility. The structure of distance learning gives adults the greatest possible control over
the time, place and pace of education; however, it is not without problems. Loss of student
motivation due to the lack of face-to-face contact with teachers and peers, potentially
prohibitive startup costs, and lack of faculty support are all barriers to successful distance
learning. This literature review explores distance learning and its barriers.


Barriers to Learning in Distance Education

Introduction
While distance education has been in existence for at least 100 years, the medium has
changed from pencil and paper correspondence courses to real-time Internet courses. But
regardless of the medium, distance courses have common characteristics and, likewise,
have similar problems. This literature review examines the different types of distance
education and its significance as a learning method. Student demographics are presented
and their relevance to distance learning barriers established. Lastly, the nature of student,
faculty, organization, and course curriculum and their respective impact on distance
learning are explored.

Definition and Context of Distance Learning
A brief discussion of the underlying principles behind distance learning is necessary to
understand the associated problems. In 1973 Moore introduced the theory of independent
study. An important foundation of distance education, it suggests that successful teaching
can take place even though teacher and learner are physically separated during the learning
process. While this separation can occur in several ways depending on the nature of the
course content and delivery medium, this paper will not differentiate between non-
traditional, electronically mediated (i.e., real-time, computer network or
videoteleconferencing) and traditional coursework (i.e., correspondence courses) because
many of the barriers exist within both types of distance education. Electronic mediated
courses use telephone lines, cable, satellite, and microwave networks to transmit voice,
video, and data.
Most distance education programs employ a combination of audiovisual media to facilitate
learning. As in the entertainment industry, audiocassette, telephone, radio, compact disc,
television, video, computer and printed resources are used to deliver instruction.

$ignificance of Distance Education
In preparing to enter the next century, educators of adults face the challenge of serving a
student population and society that is increasingly diverse. Moving into the next century,
the adult student population is expected to be the fastest growing segment of higher
education and, in fact, older students will constitute the majority. Cantelon, in his 1995
book, Facilitating Distance Education, projects "... most of higher education will take place
off-campus through technological methods of delivery (p. 5). While distance education is
already a fact of life for most universities and an increasing number of community colleges,
knowing the intrinsic problems and overcoming them will be critical to successful
implementation of distance programs on a larger scale in the future. In distance learning
students and teachers will find themselves playing different roles than is the norm in
traditional education. The teacher is no longer the sole source of knowledge but instead
becomes a facilitator to support student learning, while the student actively participates in
what and how knowledge is imparted. More than any other teaching method, distance
learning requires a collaborative effort between student and teacher, unbounded by the
traditional limits of time, space, and single-instructor effort.
Technology has also changed the face of education. Advances in telecommunications
technology has opened up the possibility of personal and group interaction in distance
education.
Both computer and audio conferencing permit the introduction of class discussions without
the group meeting face to face. Phone calls and electronic mail replaces personal office
visits. The distance learner can now have almost the same instructional contact and
interaction as the student on campus. But remote access education does not need to
eliminate all the benefits of human contact. In fact, the proliferation of the modem,
teleconferencing, and the World Wide Web provide a rich expanse of both information and
contacts that were previously unavailable. Albeit two dimensional, these media lend
themselves to pure ideas and thought processes. This purity lends itself to isolation of both
the cognitive and affective domains - an additional benefit of this communication medium.

$tudent Demographics
Changes in technology have accelerated the growth of distance learning. The improved
access and availability of electronic technology has enabled more adult students to
participate in the learning process. Students who enroll in distance learning courses do so
for convenience. They are either time-bound due to work or travel schedules or location-
bound due to geographic or family responsibilities.
Distance learning is student-centered learning; thus knowing the characteristics and
demographics of the distance learners helps us understand the potential barriers to leaning.
Although students' characteristics and needs may not guarantee success in a distance
education course or program, it is easy to defend these factors as contributing to success.
Additionally, knowledge about student characteristics and motivators help us understand
who is likely to participate in distance education and, conversely, why others choose not to
participate.
Student motivation has a powerful affect on attrition and completion rates, regardless of
institutional setting. Motivators for adult distance students are often different from those of
traditional students. Knowles (1980), in explaining the advantages of knowing the learner,
believes that learner behavior is influenced by a combination of the learner's needs plus the
learner's situation and personal characteristics. Knowing these personal characteristics is an
important aspect of planning distance learning courseware and strategies. More importantly,
knowing the participants can help drive program planning and policy formation, factors that
are important to participation and success in distance learning.
Knox's (1977) developmental-stage orientation of adult life stresses the importance of
understanding an individual's contextual situation, that is, he believes their family, work,
and community roles; physical condition; personality; and earning interests all affect the
adults ability and willingness to participate in adult education. Further complicating the
issue, deterrence to participation is exasperated by a prospective student's perception of the
magnitude of his problems. In other words, "deterrents" is a multidimensional concept. No
single factor appears to cause nonparticipation; however, individual student characteristics
and life circumstances appear to have the greatest impact on participation (Kerka, 1986).
A 1984 survey of tele-course participants found that about two-thirds were women, and
about half of the students were at least thirty years old. Over half had at least one
dependent and two-thirds were married. Eighty percent were employed, and over half of
these were working full-time while pursuing their studies (Sheets, 1992). More recent
information seems to confirm these statistics. Over 70% of recent graduates who studied by
the distance mode are in full-time employment. This suggests that a significant proportion
were employed while they were involved in the learning process (Wood, 1996). Educational
level prior to enrollment in a distance course or program has been found to be significantly
related to persistence (Rekkedal, 1983). The educational background of distance students
ranges from less than high school to completion of a university degree. However, 20% of
U.S. tele-course students had at least an associate degree (Sheets, 1992). It is plausible
that these students have and edge over new students because they already have study
habits necessary to be successful in any academic setting. It is not surprising that
researchers have found that students who had prior experience with nontraditional
education were more likely to persist than those with exclusively conventional experience
(Rekkedal, 1983).
In addition to prior educational level and prior experience level, personal factors and
academic information help us to understand what motivates, and therefore, what potential
barriers exist, in educating the distance student. Older students (over 50) appear to have
higher course completion rates (Rekkedal, 1983). This makes sense in that older students
probably have greater coping skills in dealing with the problems of distance learning.
Interestingly, Carr and Ledwith (1980) found that housewives tended to drop out less than
the general distance learner population. Conversely, the course dropout rate of those who
listed manual trades as an occupation was 50% higher than the overall rate (Cookson,
1989). Putting student demographics together, one can see adult distance learners are a
diverse population; however, in general one can say the adult distance learner is typically
employed full time, and has personal commitments that compound his efforts in furthering
his education.
While these are characteristics shared by most adult learners, the distance learner has
additional barriers to learning that is particular to the distance learning environment.

$tudent Barriers to Distance Learning
Problems and barriers encountered by the student fall into several distinct categories; costs
and motivators, feedback and teacher contact, student support and services, alienation and
isolation, lack of experience, and training.
More so than traditional students, distance learners are more likely to have insecurities
about learning (Knapper, 1988). These insecurities are founded in personal and school
related issues such as financial costs of study, disruption of family life, perceived irrelevance
of their studies and lack of support from employers. These pressures often result in higher
dropout rates than among traditional students (Sweet, 1986).
A second area of concern for the distance student is the perceived lack of feedback or
contact with the teacher. Because there is not daily or weekly face to face contact with
teachers, students may have trouble in self-evaluation. Keegan (1986) believes that the
separation of student and teacher imposed by distance removes a vital "link" of
communication between these two parties. The link must be restored through overt
institutional efforts so that the teaching-learning transaction may be "reintegrated"
(Keegan, 1986, p. 120). Citing Tinto (1975), Keegan hypothesized that students who did
not receive adequate reintegration measures such as electronic or telephone
communication, would be less likely to experience complete academic and social integration
into institutional life. Consequently, such students would be more likely to drop out (Sheets,
1992).
These barriers can be mitigated through technological methods such as e-mail. Computer
conferencing and electronic mail can be integrated into the delivery of the course to provide
the missing interactivity. Because both are essentially asynchronous, they continue to leave
the student in charge of setting his or her own work times -- a critical success factor for the
distance student. It is important that the student receive prompt feedback in any
institutional setting, particularly in distance learning where the learner is impaired by the
lack of casual contact with the teacher and other students. This is especially important for
those students who live outside metropolitan areas. They may not have access to reliable
telecommunications, computers, and postal mail. The frustrations resulting from problems
with communication between student and academic institution are factors of which distance
education planners should be well aware (Wood, 1996).
A third area of concern for distance students is the lack of support and services such as
providing tutors, academic planners and schedulers, and technical assistance. The isolation
that results from the distance learning process can complicate the learning process for adult
students. Support for distance learners should not be overlooked when planning distance
programs. Students need tutors and academic planners to help them complete courses on
time and to act as a support system when stress becomes a problem. Planners from
Washington State University (WSU) note that "student services are a significant part of the
budgeted costs of the program." They also believe that " success in attracting, serving, and
retaining students will hinge more on excellent student support services than on any
technology issues." (Oaks, 1996). Technology costs and considerations can be a source of
budgeting problems; however, student support for distance learners should take
precedence.
A fourth problem area is the feelings of alienation and isolation reported by distance
students. Students of all kinds want to be part of a larger school community, and simply a
member of a "correspondence" course. For many traditional students, this is an important
part of their social lives.
The "distance" aspect of distance learning takes away much of the social interactions that
would be present in traditional learning environments. This problem must be mitigated by
institutions providing a sense of personal involvement between the student and the
institution. One way to help solve this problem is through the use of tutors that
communicate with students either electronically or by phone. Students believe that having a
good tutor is vitally important in helping them get the most out of a course and achieve a
credit (Meacham & Evans, 1989). Geographical isolation has been identified as one of the
major problems for distance students (Meacham and Evans 1989). In addition to the
practical problems of contacting academic and administrative staff, obtaining study
materials and borrowing library books, distance students suffer from the disadvantage of
being unable to interact with other students and are often denied the perception that they
belong to a scholarly community. This may lead to feelings of inadequacy and insecurity,
and a lack of confidence in their own abilities (Wood, 1996).
A fifth problem is prevalent with newer distance students. If distance learning institutions
are serious about providing equity of educational opportunity to all, then careful
consideration must be given to the special needs of students undertaking distance education
for the first time. Of particular importance is the design of study materials for distance
students.
Study materials must take into account the significant proportion of students who enroll
with little or no experience of distance study. These students are at risk of dropping out
unless they develop study survival skills as rapidly as possible (Wood, 1996).
Another problem encountered by students is the lack of student training, particularly in
reference to technical issues. Many adult students are not well versed in the uses of
technology such as computers and the Internet. Using electronic medium in distance
learning can inadvertently exclude students who lack computer or writing skills. These skills
are required if computer technology is used. Students will typically be offered volumes of
electronic-based information. Using this information will be a problem for some non-
technical students. They must be taught how to manage, not only their study time, but the
materials presented as well.
If students are undertaking distance learning courses that require knowledge of computers,
then the students must be taught, at a minimum, the fundamentals of operating the system
of choice of the distance-taught course. If distance learning is to be successful, technical
barriers must be made a non-issue.

aculty Barriers in Distance Learning
Faculty experience problems such as lack of staff training in course development and
technology, lack of support for distance learning in general, and inadequate faculty selection
for distance learning courses. Sometimes the coursework for traditional and distance
students is the same. Often it is not. There can be a lot of up front effort in designing
distance learning material. This can impose a burden on teachers who already have material
for traditional classrooms. Computers, video equipment, communications software, and the
like, present challenges and frustrations. Faculty must know how to the use these
technologies if they are to teach distance courses. Training students and staff, particularly in
troubleshooting problems, is imperative to success in technical distance learning.
Perhaps the biggest problem for distance programs is the lack of support by the faculty. The
endorsement by department faculty is viewed as a critical instructional element in any
distance education program. More than any other participant, faculty roles must change the
most in administering distance learning programs. This can be difficult adjustment for some
teachers. They must change teaching styles to that of a mentor, tutor, and facilitator. They
must meet the needs of distance students without face-to-face contact. Since the majority
of distance learners are adults, teachers may need to change their teaching style. This may
be challenging for teachers who are used to teaching with 18 to 22-year-olds. Faculty is
responsible for changing their course content to accommodate diverse student needs and
expectations. So long as college faculty feels there is a burden associated the distance
education program currently in place, there will be little support for expanding distance
education opportunities. There are a number of reasons for this lack of support.
Teachers may lack the basic skills or hardware to fully participate in distance education.
The advent of computers, telecommunications, and the World Wide Web provides an
unprecedented opportunity for faculty and students to learn in a cooperative environment.
It is interesting to note, however, that students respond to this changing environment more
adeptly than teachers do. At California State University, for example, more than 50% of the
student body own home computers while less than 50% of the faculty (Syllabus Magazine,
1996). Obtaining proper equipment and training is critical in teacher acceptance of distance
learning.
Another problem perceived by faculty is the threat to tenure and human resource staffing.
Depending on the school and the academic department, courses taught as part of a distance
program may not always count toward tenure considerations, thus causing a disincentive for
participation by some non-tenured faculty (Oaks, 1996). Additionally, if one professor can
serve thousands of students there will obviously be fewer professors and fewer departments
and faculties. Schools must not underestimate this resistance and should be very aware of
the possibility of overburdening faculty and staff.
Teachers also have problems respecting the academics of distance courses. One way of
enhancing commitment is by forcing distance courses through the same approval process as
on-campus courses. In 1994, Chou wrote, "By going through the same stringent approval
process as on-campus courses, the acceptance...among college faculty is enhanced." (p.
25). The final barrier is the teacher's acceptance of distance learning programs. Teachers
with enthusiasm for this non-traditional coursework are best suited to teach them. One way
to mitigate these potentially serious problems is by selecting teachers who are relatively
senior people, good teachers, like the idea of distance learning and want to participate in it.
Interest and motivation are not success factors reserved only for the student. Faculties who
want to teach distance courses are certainly more likely to be successful than faculty that
are forced to teach these courses.

rganizational Barriers in Distance Learning
Student and teacher concerns represent the human aspects of distance programs.
Organizational problems, especially infrastructure and technology problems, also present
challenges. Faculties who teach distance education courses need organizational and
administrative support from the institution. Funding should be provided to create an
administrative unit that is to be responsible for managing the program. Institutional leaders
must be committed to distance programs. Marrs (1995) agrees when he says, "Without this
support, distance education is at risk of becoming a peripheral activity, without commitment
from or significance to the institution." (p. 21)
Technology considerations are self-evident but are the most easily solved. Technology
problems include; financing new technology, telecommunications, hardware issues, course
production and technology, and Internet problems.
A primary concern for both learning institutions and students is availability of funds. When
technology is used, the costs increase substantially for both the student and the institution.
Universities must consider the initial costs as well as the continuing costs of installing,
maintaining, using, and upgrading technology to support distance services.
Telecommunications and connectivity costs such as those needed to use the Internet, are
ongoing costs. Washington State University (WSU) did not anticipate connectivity costs and
subsequent barriers in planning their distance program. This led to additional investments in
toll-free lines and computers (Oaks, 1996). Institutions must also plan to have competent
computer staff to support Internet use. These staff must then be kept up-to-date on the
newest, fastest, cheapest technology available; therefore, ongoing staff training costs must
be considered. The student must also incur technology costs. If the Internet is used, then
the student must have access to a computer, modem, and associated software. Additionally,
telephone charges to the Internet service provider will be incurred. For many institutions;
however, technology pays for itself in terms of allowing more students to participate, thus
increasing tuition funding. This sounds good on paper but technology must not be abused to
save money. Regardless of cost issues, distance education should be instituted to advance
the cause of education for the institution, not as a sole effort to save money. Kinnaman
(1995) cautioned that "It's about a collaboration between teachers and technology that
overcomes the restrictions of time and space, enabling students to learn more in less time,
and with far less overhead." (p. 58).
In addition to cost considerations, the technology itself presents many problems. One issue
is inadequate telecommunications facilities. Harry (1992) mentions that "the existing
telecommunications systems are inefficient and/or expensive to use, so that educational
institutions are unlikely to place too much reliance on them for teaching, support, or
information searching" (p. 190). That is the reason why some developing countries still use
print, cassettes, and radio delivery methods. Such circumstances prevent some instructors
from producing or using advanced media and providing higher quality material for students.
Distance education via simultaneous two-way audio-visual interaction systems such as video
teleconferencing, brings an additional set of issues to be considered by the instructor and
effective models for this delivery system need to be identified (Sweet, 1986).
Some students, particularly those without home computers with modems could have
difficulty communicating with the university or teacher. Lack of adequate hardware and the
subsequent cost barrier of obtaining equipment could place undue hardship on some remote
students. However, implementing other communications systems (phone mail, etc.) could
help overcome this barrier.
Learning institutions must develop distance learning course material or pay a hefty price to
order materials from distributors. For some institutions, the investment in production
technology may be worth the cost; however, a significant investment is necessary for
production facilities, equipment, and personnel to produce videotapes. Using the Internet
instead can overcome some of this problem but it poses additional difficulties in insuring all
students have adequate access to the Internet.
The Internet is proving to be an effective delivery medium that enables communication of
knowledge at the student's convenience. It has the potential, in fact, to change the nature
of distance learning. But it is not without problems. Some fear the existing world wide
telecommunications network is ill equipped to handle the rapid expansion of the Internet.
Relying solely on the Internet for courseware and communications transmission is risky. In
addition, using the Internet can degrade of the quality of interactions between and among
staff and students. Due to the perceived anonymity provided by the Internet, abusive
behavior could become a problem; however, these problems can be mediated with proper
care and regulation.
The newest of the technological challenges lies in complying with government regulations.
Course content may need to be limited based on the requirements in the decency section of
the 1996 Telecommunications Act (Oaks, 1996). This section describes material deemed
suitable for the Internet. Some courses, such as Anthropology or Human Sexuality, may not
be appropriate for the Internet. Distance learning institutions must be aware of, and plan
for, regulatory issues if the Internet is used for conveying course content.
Certainly not all distance courses use the Internet. Other technologies present ergonomical
problems. For distance programs that implement video teleconferencing techniques, the
physical environment and equipment set up is important. Because a classroom is often a
noisy place, sensitive microphone equipment and non-sound absorbing rooms can seriously
diminish the sound quality. Likewise, inadequate lighting and improper camera placement
can diminish the video quality. Some experimentation may be needed to solve these
ergonomic problems.

Course Considerations
The last area of concern lies in the distance courses themselves. Institutions must consider
course standards, curriculum development and support, course content, and course pacing
in developing distance learning programs.
Many believe distance courses are inferior to traditional courses. Careful attention must be
paid to the quality of the material presented in distance courses. Curriculums and
assessment materials must be developed that equal that of the traditional classroom if
distance courses are to receive the respect they deserve. Maintain the same course content,
learning objectives, standards, and credits for all sections, regardless of method of delivery.
Assessing student performance is a problem area in distance learning. It is a commonly held
belief that distance students perform more poorly in assessment than do internal students
because of the additional pressures and burdens of distance study.
However, a study of the results of 67 science subjects at California State University (CSU)
over a six-year period showed conclusively that there was no difference between distance
and internal students in the proportions of students in each grade category (Harden et al,
1994). However, objective testing does not reward soon enough for adequate
reinforcement. Since one key to a successful learning campaign is positive reinforcement,
testing methods must be developed to interactively test distance students.
More research into instructional methods and models is needed to identify those that work
well in distance learning (Jackman, et, 1994). Participatory and active learning models are
preferred by distance learning students. In a study of 93 Interactive Video Network (IVN)
graduate students at North Dakota State University (1993 and 1994) found that IVN
students placed high importance on active learning models (Jackman et, 1994). However,
IVN teachers need to know the variety of teaching models available for use in the classroom
so they can make educated choices in designing their coursework.
The course content affects student persistence. Some coursework is more conducive to
distance classes. The course content itself cannot be ignored in any theoretical or practical
consideration of distance education attrition (Bullen, 1996). Poorly designed course
materials are key contributors to student attrition rates.
The last course consideration is the use of pacing techniques. Pacing material presented to
students appears to have a positive effect course completion rates. In a 1986 completion
rate study found that universities which used pacing techniques had completion rates that
more than doubled those institutions in which the courses were open-ended (Coldeway,
1986). Although the coursework and delivery methods were the same, those institutions
that paced student work were more successful at retaining distance learning students.


$ummary and Conclusions
Although distance learning is not new, it has not received respect in the academic
community because of the number and seriousness of problems presented here. The
dramatic growth of the adult learner population is making distance learning an increasingly
popular choice of learning techniques. Further study of student demographics and
motivators will help target the adult learner population and will help institutions develop
course materials and techniques appropriately. Close scrutiny of the intrinsic problems in
distance education will help overcome problems encountered by students and faculty.
Understanding and mitigating technology problems are important, especially with the rapid
expansion of technology. Further research into course development techniques will help
learning institutions understand which methods work best in the distance learning
classroom.


#eferences

Anglin, G. (Eds.). (1991). Instructional Technology Past, Present, and
Future. Englewood, Colorado: Libraries Unlimited, Inc.
:llen, M. (1996). Distance Education & Technology Continuing Studies.
http://www.cstudies.ubc.ca/disted
Cho:, P. (1994). Guide to managing a telecourse/distance learning program.
Suisun, California: Learning Resources Association.
Coldeway, D. (1986). Learner characteristics and success. Distance
Education in Canada , 81-87.
Cookson, P. (1989). Research on Learners and Learning in Distance
Education: A Review. American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 22-34.
Creating the Virtual Community, (1996, Nov/Dec). Syllabus magazine, 10(4),
p. 38.
Harden, T., arnard, I. & Donnan, P. (1994). Success with science at a
distance. OLAA Occasional Papers. Number 1, p.15-19.
Harry, K. (1992). Distance education today and tomorrow: A personal
perspective. Educational Media International, 29(3), 189-192.
Hartsh:h, T. (1991, Fall). Technology in the classroom of the future. New
Horizons In Adult Education, 5(2), p. 4.
Jackman, D. & Swan, M. (1994). Alternative instructional models for IVN
delivery (Vol. 1). Fargo: North Dakota State University, Central Duplicating.
Keegan, D. (1986). The Foundations of Distance Education. London: Croom
Helm.
Kerka, S. (1986). Deterrents to Participation in Adult Education, ERIC
Digest No. 59, ED275889 86,
HTTP://www.ed.gov/databases/ERIC_Digests/ed275889.html.
Kinnaman, D. (1995, January). The future of distance education.
Technology and Learning, 15(4), p. 58.
Knapper, C. (1988). Lifelong Learning and Distance Education. American
Journal of Distance Education, 2(1), 63-72.
Knowles, M. (1980). The Modern Practice of Adult Education: From Pedagody
to Androgogy. Chicago: Follett Publishers.
Knox, A. (1977). Adult Learning and Development. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Marrs, L. (1995, June). An analysis of distance education and educational
technology. Offices of Continuing Education and Information and
Telecommunication Services. Bellingham, Washington: Western Washington
University.
Meacham, D. & Evans, D. (1989). Distance Education: The Design of Study
Materials. Open Learning Institute, Charles Stuart University, Wagga Wagga.
(1973). Towards a theory of independent learning and teaching.
Journal of Higher Education, 44, 661-679.
Oaks, M. (1996). Western Cooperative for educational telecommunications,
Washington State University. http://www.wiche.edu/telecom/techWASU.html
Rekkedal, T. (1983, Summer). Enhancing student progress in Norway.
Teaching at a Distance, 23, 19-24.
Sheets, M. (1992, Spring). Characteristics of Adult Education Students and
Factors Which Determine Course Completion: A Review, New Horizons in Adult
Education, 6, Number 1,
HTTP://www2.nu.edu/nuri/llconf/conf1995/rezabek.html
Sweet, R. (1986). Student Drop-out in Distance Education: An Application of
Tinto's Model. Distance Education, 7, 201-213.
Verd:in, J. & Clark, T. (1991). Distance Education: The foundations of
effective practice. San Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Verloove, G. (1993). Pedagogical applications of telematics. Educational
Media International, 30(4), 205-208.
http://seamonkey.ed.asu.edu/~mcisaac/emc523old/wu523/paper523.html
Wood, H. (1996). Designing Study Materials for Distance Students",
HTTP://www.csu.edu.au/division/oli/oli-rd/occpap17/design.htm

hLLp//wwwlnfrasLrucLloncom/barrlershLm
Distance earning Vs. Classroom earning
Out oI the diIIerent methods oI education, distance learning and classroom learning are the two
methods that have been largely discussed and debated on. Here is an account oI the advantages
and disadvantages oI the two methods in a nutshell.

Ads by Google
MT Download Trade Forex Markets Free Download Metatrader Here www.Alpari.co.uk
Guided Reading Course Online Course Ior Teachers Learn this Critical Strategy
LiteracySolutions.com.au/GR
Education is an important aspect in a person's liIe. People acknowledge this Iact, and hence
spend a lot oI time and thought about which school they want to put their children into, which
college or university they would like to get their children admitted into, what kind oI courses
they think are going to prove beneIicial to their children, etc. Along with the actual Iield or
discipline one chooses to study, the method oI learning is also important. Distance learning and
classroom learning are two types oI education systems that come with their own pros and cons.
However, beIore we take a look at them, let us try to understand both these methods oI learning.

Understanding the Concepts
Distance learning is deIined as a Iorm oI education in which the source oI inIormation or
knowledge and the students are separated by time and space. Hence online learning, e-learning,
home learning, everything is included in distance learning. As opposed to distance learning,
classroom learning is the traditional method oI teaching or education in which all the students oI
a course are united in a class, with a teacher. Classroom learning is something we are all Iamiliar
with, Ior we have all received a major chunk oI our primary education by attending classes in a
classroom.

Distance earning vs. Classroom earning - dvantages and Disadvantages
Distance education, it is claimed, was Iirst oIIered by the University oI London as early as the
18s. Distance learning is hence quite old. However, it is a concept that is gaining popularity
now. As people are becoming more receptive to new ways and methods oI learning, distance
learning is gaining more Iollowers. However, some people still believe in the old school method
oI classroom learning. Here is an account oI distance learning vs. classroom learning.
Distance earning
dvantages Disadvantages
1. Pace of earning: DiIIerent students
will Iind diIIerent concepts diIIicult.
When you enroll in a distance learning
program, you can study it at your own
pace, spending more time on concepts
you Iind diIIicult and less on those you
Iind easy. The structure oI the course is
hence less rigid.
2. $tudy Hours: You can choose your
study hours when in a distance learning
course. This leaves you enough time to
pursue your other interests.
3. Independent earning: The inIormation
or knowledge you acquire will have
greater scope in case oI a distance
1. o Teacher: This is the most signiIicant
disadvantage oI distance learning. With
no teacher around, you have to learn
completely on your own. You do not
have somebody who will explain things
to you that you don't understand.
2. Personality Development: Distance
learning cannot add all those Iacets to
your personality that a classroom
learning course would. You may not
develop such traits as conIidence,
assertiveness, ability to mix up with
people, make Iriends, etc.
3. imits $ocial Interaction: One oI the
beneIits oI classroom learning is that it
learning course. Your knowledge will
not remain conIined to your course
material or the teacher or proIessor. You
can explore the domain that interests
you, and you can choose the depth to
which you want to study a subject.
. Time, Money and Comfort: Distance
learning saves a lot oI time and money
with respect to traveling. Other
expenses like stationary material, bags,
books, etc. can also be saved on. Plus
you can choose a study environment
you are most comIortable with - your
room, the terrace garden, or a local caIe.
allows you to meet diIIerent kinds oI
people. It gives you the opportunity to
learn about diIIerent cultures. This will
not happen in a distance learning course.
. Periodic Evaluation: A teacher in a
classroom sees to it that students Iare
well in all the subjects. Apart Irom the
regular exams that are conducted a
teacher may hold quizzes, or surprise
tests to evaluate students. This doesn't
happen in a distance learning program.
You may not always be able to evaluate
yourselI properly.
Classroom earning
dvantages Disadvantages
1. Presence of a Teacher: A teacher is an
indispensable catalyst in education, in
my opinion. A teacher can guide the
students well. He/she can help them
understand diIIicult concepts, and
thereby develop eIIicient studying
techniques. This is the biggest
advantage oI classroom learning.
2. roup $tudy: A classroom provides the
perIect setting to Iuel brainstorming and
group study. Helping each other is one
oI the best ways to clear your concepts
and strengthen them. You can learn how
to prepare better Ior your exams by
taking tips Irom each other.
3. Presentations: Oral presentations and
seminars give you the opportunity to get
over stage Iright and gain conIidence
too. This goes a long way in making you
more able when you step into the
proIessional world.
. Wider Exposure: In terms oI subjects
you study as well as people you meet,
classroom education gives you a wider
exposure. Through interaction with
students Irom diIIerent disciplines, you
can better evaluate your own interests
and choose a career that is perIect Ior
1. Rigid $tructure: Classroom learning has
a rather rigid structure with respect to
the studying pattern, evaluation
methods, strategy to tackle diIIerent
topics, etc. Much oI this depends on the
teacher and how he/she approaches
diIIerent concepts. This can itselI
become a limiting Iactor.
2. Peer Pressure: Peer pressure is a
signiIicant and unavoidable aspect oI
classroom learning. An education
should give you an opportunity to make
a liIe you desire, irrespective oI your
Iamily background. However, peer
pressure can prove to be a negative
inIluence to this. Pressure to have good
Iriends, wear good clothes, use certain
gadgets, do certain things can aIIect
students rather deeply.
3. Innovation: At times the rigid structure
oI learning can limit the growth and
scope oI a student's creativity and
innovation. Classroom learning may not
always provide an environment that is
conducive to developing such traits as
imagination, novelty, etc.
. An Expensive Affair: Classroom
learning can be a lot more expensive in
you. In the process, you may even make
Iriends Ior liIe, who knows!
terms oI course material, tuition Iees,
accommodation Iees, commutation
expenses and myriad other expenses.
So that was an account oI distance learning vs. classroom learning. In my opinion, an education
system that incorporates the beneIits oI both and tries to minimize the disadvantages oI both
would be the best Ior students. Already a lot oI schools and universities are opting Ior blended
learning - a method that incorporates mobile learning, classroom learning as well as online
learning. The day isn't too Iar when everyone will adopt this method oI learning.