a comprehensive look at distance education in the k–12...

Journal of Research on Technology in Education 425

AComprehensiveLookatDistanceEducationintheK–12Context

KerryLynnRiceBoise State University

AbstractThis review provides a comprehensive examination of the literature surround-ing the current state of K–12 distance education. The growth in K–12 distance education follows in the footsteps of expanded learning opportunities at all levels of public education and training in corporate environments. Implementation has been accomplished with a limited research base, often drawing from studies in adult distance education and policies adapted from traditional learning en-vironments. This review of literature provides an overview of the field of distance education with a focus on the research conducted in K–12 distance education environments. (Keywords: Distance education, distance learning, virtual schools, cyber-schools, K–12.)

Adultdistanceeducationisnotanewphenomenon,butinrecentyearsagrowingnumberofdistanceprogramshavebeenaimedatprimaryandsecond-aryschoolstudents.Nationalpolicyinitiativesfocusedonexpandingeduca-tionalopportunitiesforallstudents(Hassel&Terrell,2004;U.S.DepartmentofEducation,2004;Web-basedEducationCommission,2000),fundingshort-ages,overcrowdedbrickandmortarfacilities(Fulton,2002;Clark,2001),andexplorationofalternativeroutesforeducation(Collins,2001;Herring,2004)arejustafewexamplesoftheforcesfuelingtheexpansionofK–12distanceeducationprogramsandschools.

Thisarticlepresentsacomprehensiveexaminationoftheliteraturesurround-ingthecurrentstateofK–12distanceeducation.Despitethenotedlackofqualitystudiesindistanceeducationingeneral(Bernard,Abrami,Lou,&Borokhovski,2004;Phipps&Merisotis,1999),theresearchbaseinK–12dis-tanceeducationcontinuestoexpandandincludesbothcomparativestudiesandstudiesthatattempttoidentifythefactorsassociatedwithinstructionalqualityandeffectiveness.

Inconductingthisreview,ageneralsearchoftheliteraturewasperformedinnumerousdatabases,journals,Websites,andbibliographicresourcesusingthedescriptors:distancelearning,onlinelearning,Web-basedinstruction,distanceeducation,onlineeducation,interactions,virtualK–12,virtualprogram,virtualschool,e-learning,cyberschool,andcybercharter.ElectronicsearcheswereconductedintheLILI-D,ERIC,WilsonEducation,andEBSCOdatabases.Inaddition,asystematicsearchofthejournalsspecificallyrelatedtodistanceeducationand/oreducationalresearchwasalsoconducted.TheseincludedRe-view of Educational Research,Distance Learning,International Journal of Distance Education,American Journal of Distance Education,Educational Technology,Jour-

426 Summer2006:Volume 38 Number 4

nal of Asynchronous Learning Networks,Educational Technology and Society,andOpen Learning.Morethan20nationalandstateWebsitesrelatingtodistancelearningand/orvirtualschoolsweresearched,includingtheU.S.DepartmentofEducationandTheNationalCenterforEducationStatisticsWebsites.

OVERVIEWOFTHEFIELDDistanceeducation,distancelearning,e-learning,Web-basedinstruction,vir-

tualschools,andonlinelearningarealltermsusedinterchangeablytodescribethisbroad,somewhatconfusing,andconstantlychangingfieldofnontradition-alinstruction(Carnevale,2001;Saba,2005).Althoughdistanceeducationhasbeendefinedfromavarietyofperspectives(Kaplan-Leiderson,n.d.;NationalCenterforEducationalStatistics,1999),perhapsthemostcomprehensivedefi-nitionisthatofferedinapublishedmonographbyTheAssociationforEduca-tionalCommunicationsandTechnology(Schlosser&Simonson,2002).Theydefinedistanceeducationas:

Institution-based,formaleducationwherethelearninggroupissepa-rated,andwhereinteractivetelecommunicationssystemsareusedtoconnectlearners,resources,andinstructors.(p.1)

AccordingtoSchlosserandSimonson,fourmaincomponentsarecriticaltothisdefinition.First,inordertodifferentiatedistanceeducationfromselfstudy,dis-tanceeducationmustbeinstitutionallybased.Second,theremustbeaseparationofteacherandlearnerintermsofgeography,time,andknowledgeoftheconceptstobetaught.Thirdly,someformofinteractivetelecommunicationsmustbeavail-ableforlearnerstointeractwitheachother,withtheresourcesofinstruction,andwiththeteacher.Inthiscase,telecommunicationsisdefinedas“communicatingatadistance”(p.2)anddoesnotnecessarilymeantheuseofelectronicmediabutcanalsoincludenon-electronicformsofcommunicationsuchasthepostalsystem.Thefinalconceptstressestheinclusionofinstructionalenvironmentsandresourcesthatfacilitatelearningexperiencesandpromotelearning.

Themeansbywhichdistanceeducationisaccomplishedarevariedandmayincludevideoconferencing,audioconferencing,Web-basedcommunications,oranycombinationofelectroniccommunicationandmanagementtools(RuralSchoolandCommunityTrustandtheStateTechnologyDirectorsAssociation,2003).Inadditiontothevarietyintypesofmediatoolsused,theinstructionmaybedeliveredsynchronously,withstudentsandteacherscommunicatinginrealtime,asynchronously,withstudentsworkingatdifferenttimes,oranycombina-tionofthetwo,oftenwiththeinclusionofphoneconversations,onlinechats,orface-to-facemeetings.Distanceeducationprogramsmayalsobeself-paced,struc-turedtofitintothetraditionalacademiccalendar,orfallanywhereinbetween.

Asinadultdistanceeducationprograms,K–12distanceeducationexistsonacontinuumfromtraditional“homestudy”ortext-basedcorrespondenceprogramstoprogramsthatutilizethefullpotentialoftechnology-mediatedinstruction.DistanceeducationprogramstargetinggradelevelsK–12,oftenre-ferredtoas“virtualschools”or“cyberschools,”areoperatedbyavarietyofenti-tiesthatmayincludestates,schooldistricts,charterschools,consortia,higher


educationinstitutions,for-profitcompanies,ornonprofitorganizations(Fulton&Kober,2002).Researchershaveattemptedtodefinethemultiplemethodsinwhichdistanceeducationprogramsmaybeorganizedwithintraditionalstateandlocaleducationalsystems.

Watson,Winograd,andKalmon(2004)haveidentifiedfivebasictypesofon-lineprogramsthatexistacrosstwodimensions.Onedimensionconcernshowtheprogramoperateswithinthestate’seducationalhierarchy,suchasstatewide,multi-districtorsingledistrict.Theotherconcernswhethertheprogramoper-atesasacyberschoolwherestudentsareenrolledandgarnercreditsanddiplo-mas,orprovidessupplementalonlinecoursestostudentswhoareenrolledinanotherschool.Table1(below)outlinesfivetypesofonlineprograms(Watsonetal.,2004).

Table1:FiveTypesofK–12OnlinePrograms

Type DescriptionStatewidesupple-mentalprograms

Studentstakeindividualcoursesbutareenrolledinaphysicalschoolorcyberschoolwithinthestate.Theseprogramsareauthorizedbythestateandoverseenbystateeducationgoverningagencies.

District-levelsupple-mentalprograms

Aretypicallyoperatedbyautonomousdistrictsandaretypicallynottrackedbystateagencies.

Single-districtcyberschools

Provideanalternativetothetraditionalface-to-faceschoolenvironmentandareofferedbyindividualdistrictsforstudentswithinthatdistrict.

Multi-districtcyberschools

Areoperatedwithinindividualschooldistrictsbutenrollstudentsfromotherschooldistrictswithinthestate.ThisrepresentsthelargestgrowthsectorinK–12onlinelearn-ing.

Cybercharters Arecharteredwithinasingledistrictbutcandrawstu-dentsfromacrossthestate.Inmanycasestheyarecon-nectedinsomewaytocommercialcurriculumproviders.

InadditiontodefiningpotentialorganizationalschemesforK–12distanceeducationprograms,descriptive,anecdotal,andsurveyevidenceidentifiesabroadpopulationofstudentsservedbythisnontraditionalformofeducation.Distanceeducationprogramscanserveentirepopulationsofstudentsthattra-ditionalclassroomsdonotbyprovidingincreasedopportunitythroughchoice,tutoring,andsupplementalservicesto:studentswholiveinremoteareas,stu-dentsinhomeschoolsettings,thosewhoarehospitalizedorhomeboundforhealthreasons,professionalathletes,studentswhoareincarcerated,studentswhoneedflexibleschedulesforemployment,orstudentswhowanttoenrichtheireducation,moveattheirownpace,orexperiencelearningthatfitstheirparticularlearningstyle(Bogden,2003;Chaney,2001;Patrick,2004).Virtualschoolingprovidesflexibilitytomeetschedulingdemands,offersanopportuni-tyforstudentstotakecoursesoverholidayorsummerbreaks,andcanprovide


remediationandtutoringondemand(Fulton&Kober,2002;RuralSchoolandCommunityTrustetal.,2003;Setzer&Lewis,2005).

In2001,itwasestimatedthat14stateshad“aplannedoroperationalstate-sanc-tioned,state-levelvirtualschoolinplace”(Clark,2001,p.1),withanestimateden-rollmentof40,000–50,000K–12students.A2003reportbytheEducationCom-missionoftheStates(Long,2004)estimated60cybercharterschoolsin13statesforthe2002–2003schoolyear,anumberthatwasdoublethatofthepreviousyear.Theestimatedenrollmentforthatyearwas100,000students(NationalAssociationofStateBoardsofEducation[NASBE],2002).Althoughexactnumbersaredif-ficulttodetermine,amorerecentreportestimatesthatvirtuallyeverystatenowhassomeformofcyber-schooloperatingwithinitsboundaries(Long,2004).

Despitethepotentialforexpansionofdistanceeducationprogramsatalllev-els,severalfactorshavebeenidentifiedthatmaylimitgrowth.Theseinclude:

coursedevelopmentand/orpurchasingcosts;limitedtechnologicalin-frastructuretosupportdistanceeducation;concernsaboutcoursequal-ity;restrictivefederal,state,orlocallawsorpolicies;concernsaboutreceivingfundingbasedonstudentattendancefordistanceeducationcourses;orsomeotherreason.(Setzer&Lewis,2005,p.15)

InadditiontotheimpedimentsidentifiedintheNCESstudy,factorsassoci-atedwithequity,access,andaccountabilityhavealsobeenidentified(Fulton&Kober,2002;Watsonetal.,2004).Policyinitiativesatalllevelsandbyavarietyofentitiesandorganizationscontinuetoaddresstheseissuesandwillbedis-cussedindetailbelow.

POLICyLeadingthewayineffortstopromoteachangeintraditionalviewsofedu-

cationintheK–12environmentistheNationalEducationTechnologyPlanpublishedbytheU.S.DepartmentofEducation:Toward a New Golden Age in American Education: How the Internet, the Law and Today’s Students are Revolu-tionizing Expectations(2004).Theplanproposessevenmainobjectivestoassistschoolsinimplementingsystematicchange:(1)strengthenleadership,(2)con-siderinnovativebudgeting,(3)improveteachertraining,(4)supporte-learningandvirtualschools,(5)encouragebroadbandaccess,(6)movetowarddigitalcontent,and(7)improveachievementthroughstudentdatamanagement.Particularlyrelevantforthisreportistheplan’semphasisone-learningasoneofthekeyissuesfacingfederal,state,andlocaleducationagencies.Theirrecom-mendationsforstates,districts,andschoolsinclude:

•Provideeverystudentaccesstoe-learning.•Enableeveryteachertoparticipateine-learningtraining.•Encouragetheuseofe-learningoptionstomeettheNoChildLeftBe-

hindrequirementsforhighlyqualifiedteachers,supplementalservicesandparentalchoice.

•Explorecreativewaystofunde-learningopportunities.•Developqualitymeasuresandaccreditationstandardsfore-learning

thatmirrorthoserequiredforcoursecredit.(p.42)


TheemphasisonvirtualschoolsintheNationalEducationTechnologyPlanisnocoincidence.UndertheNoChildLeftBehind(NCLB)Act(U.S.Depart-mentofEducation,2001),virtualschoolsareconsideredalegitimateoptionforschoolchoice:“Avirtualschoolcanbeamongschoolstowhicheligiblestudentsareofferedtheopportunitytotransferaslongasthatschoolisapublicelementaryorsecondaryschoolasdefinedbystatelaw”(U.S.DepartmentofEducation,2004,p.13).Infact,virtualschoolsmaypresenttheonlyoptionfordistrictsthatlacktheresourcesnecessarytomeettheschoolchoicerequire-mentsofNCLBwithtraditionalbrickandmortarclassrooms(Hassel&Terrell,2004).Thecurrentandpredictedtrendinonlinecourseenrollmentseemstounderscorethisneed.

Implementingtheseandothersimilarrecommendationshasbeenthetopicofnumerousstate-level,local-level,andorganizationalpolicybriefs,initiatives,andexistingdistanceeducationprogramevaluations(Freedman,Darrow,&Watson,2002;Fulton&Kober,2002;NASBE,2001;NationalSchoolBoardsAssocia-tion,2002)But,researchersfromtheNCREL(Watsonetal.,2004)concludedfromempiricaldataaswellasanecdotalevidencethatonlyafewstateshavees-tablishedpoliciesinplaceforthedevelopmentofK–12onlinelearningprograms.Further,theyfoundthatinmostcases,onlinelearningislittleunderstoodbypolicymakers.Theresultistheapplicationofexistingpolicies—policiesthatad-dresstheneedsofphysicalschools—toonlineprograms,whichmaynotfitwellandthusmaynotbeinthebestinterestsofstudents.Theyurgestatesto“developappropriatemechanismstoprovideaframeworkofsustainabilityandvaluethatwillenableonlineeducationtoflourishandtomeetthediverseneedsofstudents”(Watsonetal.,2004,p.7).

Manyoftheissuesaddressedintheprecedingpolicyguidelineshavebeendrivenbyevaluationsoffullydevelopedprogramsalreadyinplace.PerhapstheearliestandmostwidelyknownK–12onlineeducationprogramsaretheFloridaVirtualSchool,astatewideprogram,andtheVirtualHighSchool,createdbytheHudson,MassachusettsPublicSchoolsandtheConcordCon-sortium,acollaborativeendeavorbetween125highschoolsacrosstheUnitedStates(Clair,2002;Freedmanetal.,2002).AlthoughtheseprogramsandotherstateswithmatureK–12onlineeducationprogramsoffercomprehensivepro-gramevaluations,theyofferlittleguidanceinthewayofstandardizedpolicydevelopment.Ofthe11statesincludedinthefirstNCRELstudy(Watsonetal.,2004),CaliforniaandMinnesotahaddevelopedthemostextensivepoliciesregardingonlineeducation.

Asubsequentreport,publishedbyNCRELin2005,furtherelaboratesonthefindingsintheinitialreportbyexaminingstatelevelpolicyandpracticeinall50states(Watson,2005).Inthisupdate,theauthorconcludesthat“about50percentofallstateshaveoneorbothof:(a)astatewideonlinelearningpro-gramwithdevelopedpoliciesandpractices;(b)state-levelpoliciesthatgovernonlinelearningprogramsacrossthestate”(p.120).Inadditiontothesegeneralconclusions,severalrecommendationsareoffered.First,althoughnosinglestatehasanidealsetofpolicies,thosepoliciesthathavebeendevelopedcanserveasexamplesforotherstates.Second,basicresearchexaminingtheeffectiveness


ofonlinelearningandthecostsassociatedwithitisneededinordertoinformpolicydecisions.Associatedwiththisrecommendationisthecallforcommonmeasuresacrossstatesandprogramstobenefitresearchandpolicy,andtheuseofdatagatheredfromseveralstateswithreportingrequirementsalreadyinexistencetoinformfuturepolicydecisions.Third,althoughtherehasbeenandcontinuestobeaninformalsharingofideasandbestpractices,therehasbeennoformalattempttodocumentbestpracticesacrossprograms.

Thesereportsandothersunderscoretheneedforthecreationofacentralbodytofacilitatethestandardizationofonlineeducationthroughthesharingofinformationregardingpoliciesandpractices.TheNorthAmericanCouncilforOnlineLearning(NACOL)(2005),foundedinSeptember2003,istheresultofeffortsbythoseinvolvedintheearlydevelopmentofvirtualschoolsandtheneedforcommunicationandinteractionamongthem.NACOLrepresentstheinter-estsofadministrators,practitioners,andstudentsinvolvedinonlinelearning.Majorinitiativesinclude:conductingresearchtoenhanceK–12onlinelearn-ing,encouragingcollaborationamongstakeholders,andpromotingthesuccessandeffectivenessofonlinelearning.Inaddition,oneofthestrategicobjectivesofNACOListhecreationandmanagementofaK–12onlinelearningknowl-edgebasethatcontainscurrent,accurateinformationaboutonlinelearningintheUnitedStates,Canada,andMexico.Asanexample,NACOLcurrentlylistsmorethan144onlineschoolsorprogramsinitsonlinelearningdatabase.TheSouthernRegionalEducationBoard(SREB)(2005)hasalsotakenontheroleofdisseminatorofinformationrelatedtoeffectiveonlinelearningpracticeandpolicy.AspartoftheirEducationalTechnologyCooperative,thenewlydevel-opedOnlineLearningTaskGroupisoneexampleoftheireffortstodevelopandimproveimplementationofqualitye-learningprogramsintheK–12context.

K–12DISTAnCEEDUCATIOnRESEARCHAlthoughresearchintheareasrelativetogeneraltechnologyandInternet

useinschoolsisfairlyabundant,apaucityofresearchexistswhenexamininghighschoolstudentsenrolledinvirtualschools,andtheresearchbaseissmallerstillwhenthepopulationofstudentsisfurtherednarrowedtotheelementarygrades.Inanattempttopresentacompletepictureofresearchinthisfield,studiesforthisreviewweredrawnfromavarietyofresources,includingrefer-eedjournals,conferenceproceedings,governmentreports,dissertations,unpub-lishedstudies,andreportsfrompublicandprivateorganizations.Withsuchlittleavailableresearch,andtheintentofanexhaustiveandevaluativereview,onlystrictlyanecdotalstudiesweredeemedinappropriateforinclusion.

Unlikeearlyresearchthatfocusedmoreheavilyondistancetechnologiesthatinvolvedaudioandvideoconferencing(Downs&Moller,1999),currentre-searchfocusesmorecloselyonWeb-basedtechnologies,deliverysystems,andthespecificattributesofthosesystemsandtheirrelationshipwithstudentlearn-ingoutcomes.Inthisreview,researchwascategorizedintotwobroadcategories:(1)Comparativestudiesexaminingstudentperformanceindistanceeducationversusstudentperformanceintraditional,face-to-faceclassroomsand(2)stud-iesexaminingthequalitiesandcharacteristicsoftheteaching/learningexperi-


ence.Thiscategorywasfurthernarrowedintotheareasoflearnercharacteris-tics,learnersupports,andaffectivelearningdomains.

ComparativeStudiesAswiththeresearchinadultdistanceeducation,thestartingpointformost

studiesinK–12distanceeducationisananalysisofstudentachievementrela-tivetotraditionalface-to-faceinstruction(Cavanaugh,2001).Mediacompari-sonstudiesinK–12distanceeducationappeartosupportthesame“nosignifi-cantdifferencephenomenon”reportedinadultstudies(Phipps&Merisotis,1999;Russell,1999).Analysisinthisareaisparticularlydifficultduetoalackofconsistentexperimentalcomparativemethodologiesthatcontrolforamul-titudeofconfoundingvariables.Studiesinthisareaarealsooftenchallengedwithissuesofsmallsamplesize,dissimilarcomparisongroups,anddifferencesininstructorexperienceandtraining(Kozmaetal.,2000;Mills,2003).

McLeod,Hughes,Brown,Choi,andMaeda(2005)attemptedtolimitthesechallengesbycontrollingforstudentdemographicsandacademiccharacteristicsintheirstudyexaminingacademicperformanceofstudentsenrolledinAlgebraIclassesinthreevirtualschoolsandtwoface-to-faceschoolsinthreedifferentstates.Sixteachersand81studentsparticipatedinthestudy.Thefindingsin-dicatedthatvirtualstudentsoutperformedstudentsintraditionalface-to-faceclasses.Particularlynoteworthyabouttheirfindingsisthatstudentsintheface-to-faceclassesweremuchmorelikelytobeinacollegepreparatoryprogramthanvirtualstudents,andvirtualstudentsweremorelikelytobeenrolledinthemathcoursebecauseofapreviousfailure.Unfortunately,anumberofaddition-alvariables,suchasearlydropoutandvoluntarytestinginthevirtualschool,raisequestionsconcerningthecausalityofthefindings.

Fortunately,twometa-analysesexistthatmayassistingeneratingabetterunderstandingofthefindingsofresearchstudiesthathaveexaminedstudentachievementthroughcomparativestudies(Cavanaugh,2001;Cavanaugh,Gil-lan,Kromrey,Hess,&Blomeyer,2004).Meta-analysisisanappropriatemeth-odologybecauseitallowscomparisonofdifferentstudiesbycomputinganeffectsizeforeachstudy,aswellasinvestigationintotherelationshipamongstudyfeaturesandoutcomes.AccordingtoKrathwohl(1998),“ameta-analysiscanplotthenatureofcausalrelation,showhowitisaffectedbyothervariables,anddeterminewhereevidenceisneededformorecompleteunderstanding”(p.152).

Inameta-analysisconductedin2001,Cavanaughanalyzedtheeffectsizesof19experimentalandquasi-experimentalstudies(n=929)examiningstudentacademicachievementinK–12interactivedistanceeducationsettingsintheresearchfrom1980–1998.Thefindingsindicatedhighereffectsizesconsistentlyreportedindistanceeducationenvironmentscharacterizedbysmallersizedgroups,shorterduration,anddistanceeducationthatwasusedtosupplementorsupporttraditionalclassroominstructionratherthanastheprimarymodeofinstruction.Thesignificanceofthefindingshavebeencalledintoquestion,however,becauseatthetimetheinitialmeta-analysiswasconducted,theK–12virtualenvironmentwassonewthatnoachievementdatafromstudentsinfullyonlineprogramswereavailable(Blomeyer,2002).


Asubsequentmeta-analysispublishedin2004byCavanaugh,Gillan,Krom-rey,Hess,andBlomeyerexamined116effectsizesonnearly40factorsfrom14Web-deliveredK–12distanceprogramsbetween1999and2004.Usingonlystudiesthatfitthedefinitionofscientifically-basedresearchasdefinedbytheU.S.DepartmentofEducationinitscallforevidence-basedprogramdecisionsthroughtheNoChildLeftBehindActof2001(U.S.DepartmentofEducation,2001),14studieswith116outcomeswereexamined(N=7,561students).

Thefindingsfromthisstudysupportpreviousfindingsofadultonlineeduca-tionprogramsthatsuggestthereisnosignificantdifferencebetweencoursesde-liveredonlineandthosedeliveredintraditionalface-to-faceclassrooms(Phipps&Merisotis,1999).Theresearchersconcluded,“Asdistanceeducationiscur-rentlypracticed,educatorsandotherstakeholderscanreasonablyexpectlearninginawell-designeddistanceeducationenvironmenttobeequivalenttolearninginawell-designedclassroomenvironment”(Cavanaughetal.,2004,p.20).

Inadditiontothefindings,thereportcontainsextensiverecommendationsforfutureresearch,policy,andpractice.Theauthorsencouragepolicymakersandevaluatorstomovebeyondquestioningwhetherdistanceeducationisaseffectiveastraditionalface-to-faceinstructionandbegintoevaluatethespecificcharacteristicsofeffectivedistanceeducationprogramsintheK–12arena.Fol-lowinginthefootstepsofthenationalcalltoactionforthoseintheadultdis-tanceeducationfield(Web-basedEducationCommission,2000),theauthorsofthisreportcallfortheuseofcomprehensiveprogramevaluationplanningtoleadthewayforqualityresearchagendasinK–12.Itistheauthors’contentionthatthedetailedcollectionandreportingofdatacanonlybeginwhencommongoalsareidentifiedbypolicymakersandevaluators.

TherecommendationbyCavanaughetal.toredirectresearcheffortshasbeenechoedbyothersinthefield.RoblyerandKnezek(2003)suggestthatcom-parativestudiestendtobeonedimensionalintheirdesign,focusingonlyonthedeliverymedium(theuseoftechnologyvs.notechnology)ratherthanthemultidimensionalaspectsofteachingpracticeandthelearningprocess.Theseargumentsarealsosupportedbyresearchinadultdistanceeducation.Sener(2005)andBernardetal.(2004)arguethatevenwhensignificantdifferencesarefound,theyaremorelikelytobeattributabletofactorsunrelatedtodeliverymode,suchasinstructorexperienceandquality,orvariationsamongstudentcohorts.Indeed,Bernardetal.alsofounddifferencesinresultsbasedonmeth-odologicalfeaturesused.Forexample,studiesthatinvolvedresearcher-madetestsfavoreddistancelearningoverface-to-face,whilestudiesusingteacher-madetestsfavoredface-to-faceclassroomsoverdistancelearning.Calculatedef-fectsizesfavoreddistancelearningwhileestimatedeffectsizesfavoredtheclass-room.Althoughnoneoftheeffectsizesinhismeta-analysisweresignificant,thedifferencesilluminatethelargerproblemofconfoundingvariablesinherentisthistypeofresearch.

Theundeniablefactisthatsomestudentssucceedinthevirtualeducationalenvironmentandsomefailjustastheydointraditionalclassroomenviron-ments.Thekeyliesinunderstandingthecriticalcomponentsinaneducationalcontextthatpromoteandencouragestudentsuccess,notthemediathatwas


usedtodelivertheinstruction(Clark,1994;Gunawardena&McIsaac,2004).Blomeyer(2002)suggests

Infinalanalysis,onlinelearningore-learningisn’taboutdigitaltechnologiesanymorethanclassroomteachingisaboutblackboards.E-learningshouldbeaboutcreatinganddeployingtechnologysystemsthatenableconstructivehumaninteractionandsupporttheimprove-mentofall teachingandlearning.(p.19)

CriticalComponentsinTeachingandLearningBuildinguponthefindingsofcomparativestudiesareavarietyofstudiesthat

examinethequalitiesofboththelearningexperienceandteachingpracticeinon-lineenvironments.Althoughthemajorityofcomparativestudiesmaypresentonlyaone-dimensionalapproach,thestudiesinthisrealmareanattempttoaddressthecriticismsmentionedabove—thefailureofmostcomparativestudiestotakeintoaccountthecomplexsystemsinwhichdistanceeducationoperates.Ratherthancomparing,thesestudiesattempttoidentifytheimportantvariablesthatcre-atesuccessfulandeffectiveonlinelearningenvironmentsandmakerealeffortstotransformlearningexperiencesandteachingpractices.Researchinthissectionofthereviewhasbeencategorizedintostudiesthatexaminethreeareas:(1)Learnercharacteristics,(2)learnersupports,and(3)affectivelearningdomains.

Learner Characteristics Therelationshipbetweenpersonalvariables,(i.e.,learningstyle,self-esteem

beliefs,demographics,etc.),andsuccessisthefocusofstudiesinthisarea.Wehavelearnedfromadultresearchthatmanyfactorscoexistandmayberespon-sibleforpromotingstudentsuccessindistanceeducationenvironments.Forexample,greaterlearnerautonomyandstudentresponsibilityarecharacteristicsoftenfoundinsuccessfuldistanceeducationstudents(Fjortoft,1995;Morris&Wu,2005;Parker,1999).Inexaminingdistanceeducationstudies,however,Cavanaughetal.(2004)warnthatitisimportanttodifferentiatebetweenadultlearnersandlearnersinK–12classroomsettings.Younglearnersmaypresentfundamentallydifferentcharacteristicsthantheiradultcounterparts.Inaddi-tion,althoughmostadultshavedevelopedthesecharacteristicstosomeextent,youngerstudentsneedtoacquirenecessaryskillsthroughcarefulinstruction.

Whatarethecharacteristicsofthetypicaldistanceeducationstudent?Ac-curatestatisticaldataofyoungerstudentsparticipatingindistanceeducationisdifficulttolocate.InhisevaluationofaMidwesternvirtualhighschool,Mills(2003)examinedfrequencycountsof2,600onlinestudentenrollmentsandfoundthatthetypicalonlinestudentwasjustaslikelytobemaleasfemale,andwasanAorBstudentwhowaseitherajuniororsenior.RoblyerandMar-shall(2003)foundthatofthestudentswhoparticipatedintheirstudyoftheConcordConsortium’sVirtualHighSchoolProject(N=135),abouthalfwerefemale,mostwere16–17yearsold,and70%identifiedthemselvesaswhite.Whatseemstobemoreimportantthanspecificdemographicdescriptorsarelearnerattributesthatmayindicateastudent’spotentialsuccessorfailureindis-


tanceeducationenvironments.Mostreportsexaminingcharacteristicsofonlinestudentshypothesizethatacombinationoffactorsmaycontributetostudentsuccess.Aswithcomparativeresearch,theresearchexaminingstudentcharac-teristicsconsistsmainlyofstudiesthataredescriptiveandanecdotalinnature.

Studiesthatexaminereasonsforparticipatingindistanceeducationmayofferinsightintotherelationshipbetweenmotivationandstudentsuccess.Studentsacrossstudiesappeartoenrollinonlinecoursesforsimilarreasons.Convenience,flexibilityinscheduling,creditrecovery,acceleratedlearningop-portunities,conflictavoidance,andtheabilitytotakecoursesnotofferedatalocalschoolarejustsomeofthereasonsidentifiedintheresearch(Mills,2003;Tunison&Noonan,2001)Researchalsoindicatesthatfactorssuchasstudentattributesandtheirchoiceofcoursedeliverymethodmayalsoinfluencemo-tivation(Roblyer,1999;Tunison&Noonan,2001).Hypothesizingthatthereisarelationshipbetweenstudentattributes,motivation,andsuccess,RoblyerandMarshall(2003)usedtheresultsfromaneducationalsuccessinstrumenttopredictstudentsuccessinonlinecourses(n=94).Successwasdefinedaspass-ingwithagradeinthecourseofA,B,orC(n=73).StudentswhowithdreworreceivedaDorFinthecoursewerenotincludedinthepassinggroup(n=21).Seventyitemswithinfourmajorfactorsthoughttoberelatedtosuccessfulbehaviorinonlineenvironmentswereconstructedandpresentedasasurveytostudentsenrolledinvirtualhighschoolcourses.Descriminantanalysisofthe70itemsindicatedthattheinstrumentwassuccessfulatpredictingstudentsuccesswith100%confidence,orfailurewith95%confidence.

Thefirstfactorinthepredictioninstrument,achievementandself-esteembeliefs,revolvesaroundthedegreeoflocusofcontrolandself-efficacybeliefsthatstudentshave.Thisfactorisimportanttothesuccessofstudentsbecauseofthedegreeofself-motivationnecessarytocompleteworkinanonlineenviron-ment.Thesecondfactor,responsibilityandrisktaking,centersonthedegreeofindividualinitiativeandtakingresponsibilityforone’sactions.Thethirdfactor,technologyskillsandaccess,assesseshowskilledstudentsareinusingtechnol-ogyandtheirdegreeofaccesstothetechnology.Thefinalfactor,organizationandself-regulation,centersonstudyskillsandthenecessitytoapproachtasksinanorganizedway.Qualitativedataintheformofinstructorinputwasalsoexaminedandcorrespondedtoeachofthefactorsmentionedabove,withtheexceptionthatgoodparentalsupportwasmentionedbyteachersascontribut-ingtogoodworkhabits.Inadditiontothesefactors,theresearchersalsoex-aminedpersonalcharacteristicsofstudents(i.e.gradelevel,age,jobstatus)andtheirrelationshipwithstudentsuccessorfailure.Theonlystatisticaldifferenceoccurredwhenthenumberofhoursspentinoutsideschooljobswasexamined(t=2.73,p<.01).Notsurprisingly,studentswhoaresuccessfulspendfewerhoursworkinginjobsoutsideoftheschoolenvironment.

Onefindingillustratesthepotentialofdistanceeducationandmotivationinthedevelopmentoflearnerautonomy.TunisonandNoonan(2001)examinedonlinehighschoolsstudents’firstexperiencesinanonlinecourse.Theylookedatthedemographicsandperceptionsoflearnerexperiencesof126studentsen-rolledincoursesofferedthroughavirtualschoolcreatedasanalternativeschool


withinanexistingdistrictinamid-sizedCanadiancity.Theresearchersreport-edanemergentthemeofstudentappreciationforthefeelingofempowermentandfreedominthedirectionoftheirlearning.

Themostcommonstudentresponsetothequestionofbenefitsofavirtualschoolcoursewastheirappreciationoftheautonomyandfreedom.Althoughmoststudentsidentifiedtheteacherastheultimatesourceofinformation,manystudentsenjoyedtheopportunitytoworkontheirownandtofigureoutthingsforthemselveswithouthavingtowaitfortheirteachertotellthemwhattodo.(p.503)

Inadditiontothisfinding,studentsreportedappreciatingmostthefactthattheycouldworkaheadandattheirownpaceandtheopportunitytodevelopnewskills.Finally,studentsstatedbenefitsintheirinterpersonalrelationships.Studentsalsoreporteddisadvantagesintakinganonlinecourse.Timemanage-mentwasanissue,asweretechnologyproblems.Althoughingeneralthere-searchersconcludedthatstudentsenjoyedtheironlineexperience,theydidpointouttheneedforstudentsupportsasamajorchallengetoonlineinstruction.

Learner SupportsLearnerattributesappeartoplayaroleinthesuccessofstudentsindistance

education,butwhataboutmeetingtheneedsofstudentswhomaylackthosequalities?Inaddition,evenifstudentsarehighlymotivatedandself-directed,inadistanceeducationenvironmenttheycanstillfindtheexperienceisolating,difficult,anddiscouraging.Inadultresearch,instructionalsupport,technicalsupport,servicesthatpromoteasenseofcommunity,andthedesignofthelearningenvironmenthaveallbeenfoundtoinfluencestudentsuccess(LaPad-ula,2003;McLoughlin,2002).WhatcomponentsofthistypehavebeenfoundtoaffectstudentoutcomesintheK–12arena?Unfortunately,inthisreviewoftheresearch,veryfewstudieswerefoundthataddressthespecificneedsofK–12studentsintheformofstudentsupports.Thefewstudiesthatwerelocatedtendtobedescriptiveinnatureandfunctionasaninitialinquiry.

SimilartotheTunisonandNoonanstudydiscussedabove,astudyconductedbyFrid(2001)concluded,inthedescriptivestudyreferencedpreviously,thatexperi-encesinadistanceeducationenvironmentcanactuallyimprovelearnerautonomyandindependencebutalsoindicatestheimportanceofstudentsupports.Inthiscase,theamountofengagementbytheadultsupervisorseemedtoinfluencetheamountofandqualityofparticipationbystudents.Participantsincluded28stu-dentsrangingingradelevelfromtwotosevenandinagefrom7–12yearsold,livinginfourdifferentAustralianterritoriesorstates.Participantswhodidnothaveanadultsupervisoreitherdidnotfinishthecourseorexhibitedamarkeddecreaseintheamountandqualityofparticipation.Finally,interactionswithpeersap-pearedtohaveaneffectontheresults;whenevidenceofinteractionwithpeerswasapparent,studentsweremorelikelytopersistwithachallengingproblem.

Weiner(2003)examinedinformationgatheredthroughsurveysandinter-viewsinaqualitative,descriptivecasestudythatrevealedstudents’attitudesto-


wardslearning,motivationalissues,academicachievements,andstrengthsandweaknessesofWeb-basedinstruction.Insummarizingtheresultsshereports,

Theresearchfindingsconfirmedthatahighdegreeofstudent-teacherinteraction,includingfeedbackandsummariestothestudents,areanecessityinthevirtualclassroom,otherwisestudentsfeltignored,lonelyandlostintheircourses.(p.49)

TheroleoftheteacherhasbeenthetopicofasignificantnumberofadultdistanceeducationstudiesaswellasstudiesassociatedwithtraditionalK–12classroomenvironments.Severalstudiesindicatethemostinfluentialfactorinstudentsuccessorfailureintraditional environments,evenwhenaccountingforminorityandsocio-economicstatus(SES),maybeteacherquality(Ascher&Fruchter,2001;DarlingHammond,2000;Sanders&Rivers,1996).Notsurprisingly,ithasalsobeenpositedthatteacherqualityplaysasignificantroleindistanceeducationoutcomes(Cavanaughetal,2004).Indeed,oneofthemotivationalinfluencesforthedevelopmentofdistanceeducationprogramsinK–12educationisthenotionofincreasedaccesstohighlyqualifiedteachers.

Hughes,McLeod,Brown,Maeda,&Choi(2005)examinedstudentpercep-tionsofthelearningenvironmentinacomparisonstudyofanonlinehighschoolalgebraclassandaface-to-facecourseandtherelationshipnotonlywithstudentoutcomesbutwithteacherprofessionaldevelopment(face-to-facestudents,n=85;onlinestudents,n=31).Majorfindingsindicatedfirstthatstudentsinthetraditionalclassperceivedsignificantlyhighercooperation,studentcohesiveness,andinvolvementthantheirvirtualcounterparts.Sec-ondly,studentsinthevirtualclassperceivedsignificantlymoreteachersupportthanstudentsintheface-to-faceclass.Althoughtheauthorscautionedagainstgeneralizationsbecauseofthe“smallsamplesizeinthesample(n=7),”itisimportanttonotethattherewasasignificantrelationshipbetweenthenumberofprofessionaldevelopmentexperiencehoursandthreeofthestudentsupportcomponents(p.35).Therewasasignificantrelationshipbetweenthenumberofhoursofprofessionaldevelopmentinmathematicalcontentandperceivedinvolvement(r=0.872),betweenteachingmathematicsandperceivedteachersupport(0.852),andbetweenteachingtechnologiesandperceivedstudentco-hesiveness(-0.819).Onceagain,however,thisstudyisplaguedbyunansweredquestions.Forexample,anexaminationacrosslocationsindicatessignificantvariationincohesivenessacrossvirtualschools.Becauseofthelackofdescrip-tiveinformationregardingcoursestructureandlearningactivities,itisimpos-sibletomakeinferencesaboutthenatureofthisvariation.

Advocatesofcomputer-basedlearninghavetraditionallyadvocatedashiftinthetheoreticalfoundationsofpedagogicalpracticefromthatofbehavioristteacher-centeredinstructiontomorestudent-centeredconstructivistapproaches(Herring,2004;Hill,Wiley,Nelson,&Han,2004).Attheheartofthisshiftisachangeinthewayweviewtheroleoftheteacher.

Theinteractionmodelsthatareconsideredcharacteristicoftoday’stechnology-richlearningenvironmentsandtheincreasingemphasison


synthesisandapplicationofknowledgetoauthentictasksandproject-basedstudentworkmostoftenaredescribedasbeingstudentcentered.Studentsoftenworkindependentlyasindividualsoringroups.Theteacher’srolechangesfrombeingtheprimarysourceforknowledgeanddirectiontobecomesomethingmorelikeafacilitatoroflearningor(speakingmetaphorically)akindofringmasterinacircusoflearn-ingevents.(Blomeyer,2002,p.8)

Herring(2004)examinedtheissuessurroundingthisshiftinteachingprac-tices.InaDelphistudyconductedusingtheWeb,apanelofexpertsinuni-versitypositionsfrom13stateswasaskedtoidentifycoreconstructivist-basedexperiencesorelementsnecessaryfortheirimplementationindistanceeduca-tionsettings.Theresultisalistofpedagogicalguidingpracticesforcurriculumandprofessionaldevelopmentactivitiesthatpromotethetenetsofconstructivistlearningenvironments.Perhapsamoreimportantoutcomefromthisstudywasanacknowledgmentoftheprimaryroleoftheinstructionalprocessindistanceeducationratherthanafocusonoperationalissuessuchastimemanagement,classroommanagement,interaction,anddeliverymechanisms.

Althoughintheorywemayknowwhattodo,itismoredifficultinprac-ticetoimplement.McLoughlin(2002)providedinsightintohowthecoreprinciplesofeffectiveinstructionespousedbyconstructivisttenetsmaybeimplementedinadistanceeducationsettingthroughadetailedexaminationofscaffoldingandassociatedtechnologicaltools.“Effectivesupportwouldneedtoincludetheencouragementofreflectivethinking,provisionofsocialsupportfordialogue,interactionandextensionofideaswithfeedbackfrompeersandmen-torsonemergingissues”(p.152).

Thereisgeneralagreementthatdistanceeducationpresentsanopportunitytomovetowardarestructuringofeducation,butthismoverequiresashiftintheroleoftheteacher(Vornberg&Maris,2003).Inreality,however,thereareoftenbarrierstoimplementationthatmayinclude:inadequateprofessionalde-velopment,lackoftimefordevelopmentofcoursecontent,problemswiththetechnology,andresistancetochange.

Thereissomeevidencethatoncebarriersareremoved,thereisapotentialforchangeandpositiveoutcomesforstudents(Collins,2001).

Affective Learning DomainsRelatedtostudentsupportsandinstructionalqualityandeffectivenessisa

bodyofresearchthathasinvestigatedtherealmofaffectivelearningdomainsandtheireffectsonstudentperformance,satisfaction,andretentionindistanceeducationenvironments.Oneofthegreatestconcernssurroundingdistanceeducationmaybethelackofsocialinteractionandthepotentialharmthismaycause,especiallytoyoungerstudentsTheperceptionofstudentisolationinthevirtualenvironmentisoftenseenasonedrawbackofthisformofeducation(Fulton,2002).Improvementsindistanceeducationtechnologiesthatassistinprovidingenhancedopportunitiesforinteraction,suchasthreadeddiscussionboardsandreal-timeaudioandvideocommunicationtools,areexamplesofourperceivedneedtoreplicateclassroominteractionsascloselyaspossible.Forthis


reason,socialdimensionsandaffectivelearningdomainscontinuetogenerateinterestinbothtraditionalandvirtuallearningenvironments.Ofparticularinterestisresearchthatexaminesstudentperformancethroughthelensofthetheoriesoftransactionaldistance,interaction,andsocialpresence.

Theresearchprovidesevidencethatinteractionindistancecoursesinvolvesacomplexarrayofvariables:social,instructional,andtechnological.Interac-tionalsoplaysaroleinsocialpresence,andWolcott(1996)confirmedthatpsychologicaldistanceisaprobleminherentinmostdistancecourses.Moore(1989)positedthatdistanceisnotamatterofgeographybutratherpsychology,andalthoughgeographicalorphysicaldistancemaybeincreasedindistanceeducationsettings,itseffectcanbedecreased.Hesuggestedthattheinterchangewithinadistanceeducationcontextischaracterizedbythreedifferenttypesoflearnerinteractions:learner-to-content(appropriatenessofthecoursematerialanddeliveryvehicleconsideringtheobjectivesandlearners),learner-to-in-structor(typesofcommunicationandfeedback,accessandsupport,etc.),andlearner-to-learner(typesofcommunicationandfeedback,supportsystems,andproceduresfordialogue,etc.).Hillman,Willis,andGunawardena(1994)addanadditionalmodeofinteractionrelateddirectlytodistanceeducation;learner-to-interface,whereinteractionisrelatedtouseraccesstoandcompetencywiththespecifictechnologyemployed.

Inonlinecourses,thereareoftenavarietyofinteractiontypes.Currentcomputer-mediatedcommunications(CMC)researchidentifiestwobroadcat-egoriesofcommunication:synchronous(real-time)andasynchronous(delayed-time)(Romiszowski&Mason,2004).Typicaldistanceeducationsynchronouscommunicationtoolswouldincludethetelephone,instantmessagingorchattools,andvirtualclassroomtoolsthatallowfilesharing,audio,andevenvideocommunications.Asynchronouscommunicationsencompassthosetechnologiesthattypicallyinvolveadelayinwhenamessagehasbeensentandwhenithasbeenread.Letterwriting,fax,e-mail,andthreadeddiscussionsareallexamplesofasynchronouscommunications.

Preventingdropoutbehaviorisacriticalconcernofonlineprograms.Aswithonlineprogramsthatserveadultpopulations,K–12virtualschoolsandprogramshaverelativelyhighdropoutandfailurerates;asmuchas50%insomecases(Carr,2000;Roblyer&Elbaum,2000;Simpson,2004).Studiesofinteractivityinvolvingadultsenrolledinonlinecoursesrevealthatstudentshavearealneedtomakeconnectionswiththeirinstructorandtheirpeersandresearchconsistentlysupportstheconceptthatfaculty-to-studentandstudent-to-studentinteractionsareimportantcomponentsinstudentsatisfactionandstudentretention(Downs&Moller,1999;Kuh&Hu,2001;Muirhead,2001;Picciano,2002;Stein,Wanstreet,Calvin,Overtoom,&Wheaton,2005;Stith&Fitz,1994).Butdoesthesameholdtrueforyoungerstudents?

Theresearchconcerningpersistenceofat-riskyouthtendstosupportthisnotion.LeeandBurkham(2001)examinedavarietyoffactorsassociatedwithpersistenceandconcludedthatalthoughotherfactorssuchascurriculumandschoolsizeareimportant,themostimportantfactorinstudentsatisfactionandpersistencemayhavemoretodowiththesocialorganizationoftheschoolthan


withanyotherfactor.Inshort,studentswhoexperienceconsistent,positiverelationshipswiththeirteacherswerelesslikelytodropout.Studentswhodon’texperiencethesekindsofpositiverelationshipsoftenbecomedisconnectedanddropout(Zweig,2003).AlthoughnoresearchcouldbelocatedthataddressesthisrelationshipinthecontextofdistanceeducationinK–12,thereisnorea-sontobelievethatthefindingswouldnotbeconsistentacrossinstructionalmo-dalities.Passey(2000)suggeststhebasisforimplementingdistanceeducationinK–12shouldreflecttheneedtostrengthensocialsupportsratherthan“provid-ingacost-effectivesolutionwhichlowerslevelsofsocialinteraction”(p.48).Unfortunately,thereisverylittleresearchexaminingtherelationshipbetweenK–12interactionthatdirectlyrelatestostudentperformance,satisfaction,andretentioninadistanceeducationcontext.

AninternalevaluationofavirtualhighschoolinIllinois,witharetentionrateofmorethan95%,doeshighlighttheimportanceofinteractiontosomeextent.Usinginterviewtranscripts,classroomdocuments,memos,andsurveyresults,evaluatorswereabletoestablishthatthequalitiesmostresponsibleforsuccesscouldbeattributedinparttohighqualitymaterialsandfrequentteacher-stu-dentinteraction(Vrasidas&Zembylas,2003).

Studiesarealsobeginningtoappearthatattempttoevaluatesomeofthelat-estcomputer-mediatedcommunicationtoolsforevidenceofthequantityandqualityofinteractivity.Throughobservationsandinterviewsofoneteacherand20highschoolstudentsusingaWeb-basedsynchronoustool,researchersexam-inedthetypesofinteractionsoccurringwithinandamongtheteachersandstu-dentsparticipatinginsixseparateclassobservations(Murphy&Coffin,2003).AlthougheachofthethreetypesofinteractionsdescribedbyMoore(1989)andthefourthinteractiondescribedbyHillmanetal.(1994)occurredwithuseofthistool,nodataweregatheredexaminingtherelationshipbetweeninteractionandstudentachievementorsatisfaction.

Therelationshipbetweeninteractionandstudentachievementislesssupport-edintheadultresearchbaseaswell(Simonson,Smaldino,Albright,&Zvacek,2006)butthereareindicationsinadultstudiesthattheuseofinteractive,asyn-chronoustoolssuchasdiscussionboardsmaybelinkedwithhigherachieve-ment(Kawachi,2003)andthedevelopmentofhigher-orderthinkingskills(Meyer,2003).Lapadat(2002)arguesthatthetext-based,nonlinearcharacter-isticsofthreadeddiscussionsmayprovideincreasedopportunitiesforreflectionandsense-makingbasedonconstructivistcognitivefoundations.Inessence,thistypeofcommunicationallowsstudentsto“writeone’swayintounderstanding”(p.27).NoresearchcouldbefoundintheK–12contextthatdirectlyaddressesthisissuebuttheremaybeindicationsofarelationshipbetweenstudent-to-stu-dentinteractionandlearning.Frid(2001)concluded,inthedescriptivestudyreferencedpreviously,thatincreasedinteractioninfluencedmotivationandengagementinactivitiesthatresultedinincreasedstudentpersistencewithachallengingproblem.

RoblyerandWiencke(2003)assertedthatidentifyingobservablebehaviorswithinteractivequalitiesisessentialinstudyingtheeffectofinteraction.Theyhaveformulatedarubricdesignedtoassesstheinteractivequalitiesofonline


courses.Preliminaryresultsfromaformativeevaluationsuggesttherubricwasshowntoexhibitusefulnessindefiningandclarifyingexpectedinteractiveper-formance.Hirumi(2002)alsosuggestsusinganapproachgroundedinlearningtheoryindevelopinginteractiveexperiencesandprovidesexplicitguidelinesfordoingso.

Researchinthesocialdimensionsofdistanceeducationiscomplexandacomprehensiveevaluationofthefieldisbeyondthescopeofthisreview.Simon-sonetal.(2006)summarizethat,“althoughinteractionseemsintuitivelyim-portanttothelearningexperience,interactionshouldnotbeaddedwithoutrealpurpose”(p.81).Additionally,“Focusingonbuildingcollaborationandgroupinteractionmaybemoreimportantthanfocusingonindividualparticipation”(p.81).ThelimitedresearchbaseandthedescriptivenatureofexistingresearchintheK–12realmmakesitdifficulttopresentevenabasicsummary.Obvious-ly,moreresearchisneededtodeterminetherelationshipbetweentheaffectivedomainsofdistanceeducationandstudentperformanceandwhethertheuseofasynchronousandsynchronoustechnologytoolsmayleadtoenhancedlearn-ing,butitcanbesurmisedthatineffectivepracticesusedintraditionalclass-roomswillalsobeineffectiveindistanceeducation.TranslatingalecturecoursetotheWeb,forexample,willlikelynotgeneratetheinterestandmotivationinstudentsthatahighlyinteractivecoursemight.Inaddition,caremustbegivenwhengeneralizingadultresearchtotheK–12studentpopulation.Asstatedearlier,youngerstudentsneedtobeprovidedguidanceindevelopingcharac-teristicsofsuccessfuldistancestudents.Commonsensewoulddictatethatthisappliestothesocialdomainsaswell.Enhancedcomputer-mediatedcommuni-cationtoolscannotsubstituteforwell-designedinstructionandopportunitiestoengageinpurposeful,interactivelearningactivities.

COnCLUSIOnThecurrentstateofdistanceeducationresearch,ingeneral,hasbeende-

scribedasoneofconfusion(Saba,2005).ItisapparentfromthisreviewthatresearchintherealmofK–12distanceeducationisfollowingcloselyinthefootstepsofadultdistanceeducation.Theresearchislimitedandmanyofthestudiesreviewedinthisreportprovideonlylimitedinsightintothecomplexitiesofthefield.Someoftheblameforthishasbeenplacedonthedoorstepoftheresearchcommunityforalackofatheoreticalrationaleformostdistanceedu-cationresearchaswellasalackofadequatetrainingfornewresearchersinthefield(Bernardetal.,2004;Saba,2005).Thecomplexnatureofthefieldonlyaddstotheconfusion.

Onethingwedoknowisthattheeffectivenessofdistanceeducationap-pearstohavemoretodowithwhoisteaching,whoislearning,andhowthatlearningisaccomplished,andlesstodowiththemedium.Attheveryleast,worksuchasthatbyRoblyerandMarshall(2003)andSimpson(2004)shouldcontinueandexpandonpredictioninstrumentsandmethodologiesthatassistinidentifyingthosestudentswhoarelesslikelytosucceed.Simpsonsuggestscollectingdemographicdataonstudentcohorts,linkingresultstoachievement/completiondata,andperforminglogisticregressionanalysisontheresultsof


apreviousstudentcohorttoassistinpredictingthefuturecohortresults.Thiswouldrequireaconcertedefforttocollect,organize,andmanagedataonstu-dents.Hiscurrenteffortsattain65%accuracyinpredictingwhetherstudentswillpassorfailandeffortsareunderwaytoimprovethisaccuracyrating.

TheKozmaetal.(2000)studyisalsoagoodexampleofaprogramevaluationthathasfollowedthisleadandtakenamorecomprehensiveviewofthepoten-tialfactorsresponsibleforstudentsuccessindistanceeducation.Whilepaintingamorecomprehensivepicture,thisstudyalsoillustratesthedifficultiesinisolat-ingcomplexinteractionsthatoccurinbothface-to-faceanddistanceeducationenvironments.Thedevelopmentofvalidandreliabletoolsdesignedtoidentifyexpectedbehaviorsassociatedwithinteractivity,suchastherubricdevelopedbyRoblyerandWiencke(2003),willlikelyassistinthisprocess,aswilltheworkbyHirumi(2002)intoguidingprinciplesofinteractiveexperiencesthroughthelensesoflearningtheoryandinstructionaldesign.

Technologyinandofitselfmayhavenospecialpowerstoimprovelearning,butithasbeenarguedthatdistancetechnologiescouldoffermorepowerfullearningopportunitiesthantheirface-to-facecounterpartswhenembeddedwithinstructionthataddressesthecognitiveandsocialprocessesofknowledgeconstruction(Kozma,1991).Qualityresearchinthisareawouldnotonlyexpandourknowledgeofdistanceeducationbutwouldbeavaluablecontribu-tiontotheknowledgebaseofexistingresearchintoteachingandlearningingeneral.

ThequestionoftheeffectivenessofstudentsupportsiscriticalintheK–12context,especiallywhenconsideringthealternativenatureoftheeducationalexperienceandtheproclivityforitsattractivenesstoat-riskstudentpopulations.Thecharacteristicsidentifiedassuccessfulwithat-riskstudents—instructionalenvironmentsthatareself-paced,personalized,utilizediverseinstructionalmethods,andarefacilitatedbycompetent,caringadults(Barr&Parrett,2001)—aretheverycharacteristicsthathavebeenlaudedindistanceeduca-tioncircles.Researchexaminingtherelationshipbetweenstudentsupportsandat-riskstudentneedsinrelationtodistanceeducationisessentialinansweringquestionsaboutthebenefitsordrawbacksofdistanceeducationnotonlyforthisspecialpopulationofstudentsbutforallstudents.

Wecanonlyexpectthemyriadaspectsofdistanceeducationtobecomemorecomplexastechnologicalimprovementsaremadeinsuchareasasspeechpro-cessing,gaming,3Dsimulations,andautomatedspeechtranslations.Thiscon-tinuedexpansionofdistanceeducationopportunitiesforprimaryandsecond-arystudents,particularlydistanceeducationthatusesInternetorWeb-basedtechnologies,warrantsacomprehensiveexaminationoftheneedsandissuesfacingnational,state,andlocaleducationagencies,policymakers,andresearch-ers.Inaddition,responsibilitiescannotbeexaminedfromjustaproprietaryorcentralizedperspective.Theadvancesthataremadeencourageandinfluenceeducationpolicyandpracticeonaglobalscale(Lin,2003).

Theresultsofthisinvestigationareusefulinthattheyprovideaframeofref-erencefromwhichtoviewthiscomplexandrapidlyevolvingfield.Asummaryofthefindingssuggestaneedto:


• Improvethequalityofresearchthatexaminesthecriticalcomponentsoflearningdirectlyrelatedtoyoungerlearners.

•Continueandexpandonthedevelopmentofpredictioninstructionsthathelpidentifysuccessfullearnerattributes.

•Developorganizedstudentevaluationsystemstofacilitateconsistentdatacollection.

• Investigatetherelationshipbetweenstudentsupportsandat-riskstudentneedsinrelationtodistanceeducation.

• Investigatethesocialandcognitiveaspectsofdistanceeducationandtheeffectonknowledgeconstruction.

•Developvalidandreliabletoolsforidentifyinginteractivequalitiesincoursedesignandinstruction.

ContributorKerryRiceisaninstructorandcoursedeveloperfortheonlinemaster’spro-

gramintheDepartmentofEducationalTechnologyatBoiseStateUniversity.Inadditiontocoursedevelopmentandteaching,shehascollaboratedonthedevelopmentofaninteractive,onlineproject-basedlearningWebsiteforagrantreceivedfromFIPSEandTheBuckInstituteforEducationandcreatedthecampus-wide,onlineorientationcourseforBoiseStatestudents—Introduc-tion to E-Learning at Boise State.(Address:KerryLynnRice,BoiseStateUniver-sity,DepartmentofEducationalTechnology,1910UniversityDrive,BoiseID83725;[email protected].)

ReferencesAscher,C.,&Fruchter,N.(2001).Teacherqualityandstudentperformance

inNewYorkCity’slowperformingschools.Journal of Education for Students Placed At Risk, 6(3),199–214.

Barr,R.D.,&Parrett,W.H.(2001).Hope fulfilled for at-risk and violent youth: K–12 programs that work.Boston:AllynandBacon.

Bernard,R.M,Abrami,P.C.,Lou,Y.,&Borokhovski,E.(2004).Amethod-ologicalmorass?Howwecanimprovequantitativeresearchindistanceeduca-tion.Distance Education, 25(2),175–198.

Blomeyer,R.(2002).Online learning for K–12 students: What do we know now? Naperville,IL:NorthCentralRegionalEducationalLaboratory.RetrievedJanuary,15,2005,fromhttp://www.ncrel.org/tech/elearn/synthesis.pdf.

Bogden,J.(2003).Cyber charter schools: A new breed in the education corral.RetrievedSeptember8,2004,fromhttp://www.nationaledtechplan.org/bb/dis-cuss2.asp?mode=ga&catID=202&status=approved&bm=318-0.

Carnevale,D.(2001).It’seducationonline.It’ssomeplaceyouaren’t.What’sitcalled?Chronicle of Higher Education, 47(8),A33.

Carr,S.(2000).Asdistanceeducationcomesofage,thechallengeiskeepingthestudents[Electronicversion].Chronicle of Higher Education, 46(23),A39–A41.

Cavanaugh,C.S.(2001).TheeffectivenessofinteractivedistanceeducationtechnologiesinK–12learning:Ameta-analysis.International Journal of Educa-tional Telecommunications, 7(1),73–88.


Cavanaugh,C.S.,Gillan,K.J.,Kromrey,J.,Hess,M.,&Blomeyer,R.(2004).The effects of distance education on K–12 student outcomes: A meta-analy-sis. Naperville,IL:LearningPointAssociates.

Chaney,E.G.(2001).Web-basedinstructioninaruralhighschool:Acol-laborativeinquiryintoitseffectivenessanddesirability.NAASP Bulletin, 85,20–35.

Clair,C.A.(2002).Thevirtualhighschool:America’slearningfrontier.Vir-ginia Society for Technology in Education, 16(2),32–38.RetrievedSeptember9,2004,fromhttp://www.vste.org/communication/journal/attach/vj_1602/vj_1602_06.pdf.

Clark,R.E.(1994).Mediawillneverinfluencelearning.Educational Technol-ogy Research and Development, 42(2),21–29.

Clark,T.(2001).Virtual schools: Trends and issues: A study of virtual schools in the United States [Electronicversion].Malcomb,IL:WesternIllinoisUniversity.

Collins,J.(2001).UsingtheInternetasadistanceeducationtoolinselectedsecondaryschoolareas.Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 33(4),431–456.

DarlingHammond,L.(2000).Teacherqualityandstudentachievement:Areviewofstatepolicyevidence.Educational Policy Analysis Archives[Online].Available:http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n1.

Downs,M.,&Moller,L.(1999).Experiencesofstudents,teachers,andad-ministratorsinadistanceeducationcourse. International Journal of Educational Technology, 1(2).RetrievedJune25,2005,fromhttp://www.ao.uiuc.edu/ijet/v1n2/downs/index.html.

Fjortoft,N.F.(1995).Predicting persistence in distance learning programs.Chi-cago:Mid-WesternEducationalResearchMeeting.

Freedman,G.,Darrow,R.,&Watson,J.,(2002).The California virtual school report: A national survey of virtual education practice and policy with recommenda-tions for the state of California.SantaCruz,CA:UniversityofCaliforniaCollegePreparatoryInitiative.RetrievedSeptember8,2004,fromhttp://www.uccp.org/docs/VHS_Report_lowres.pdf.

Frid,S.(2001)Supportingprimarystudents’onlinelearninginavirtualen-richmentprogram.Research in Education, 66,9–27.

Fulton,K.(2002).BravenewworldofvirtualschoolingintheU.S.National Association of State Boards of Education. RetrievedSeptember12,2004,fromhttp://www.nasbe.org/Standard/10_Summer2002/fulton.pdf.

Fulton,K.,&Kober,N.(2002).Preserving the principles of public education in an online world: What policy makers should be asking about virtual schools.Wash-ington,DC:CenteronEducationPolicy.RetrievedSeptember22,2004,fromhttp://www.ctredpol.org/democracypublicschools/preserving_principles_on-line_world_full.pdf.

Gunawardena,C.N.,&McIsaac,M.S.(2004).Distanceeducation.InD.H.Jonassen(Ed.),Handbook of research on educational communications and tech-nology(pp.355–395).Mahwah,NJ:LawrenceErlbaumAssociates.

Hassel,B.C.,&Terrell,M.G.(2004).HowcanvirtualschoolsbeavibrantpartofmeetingthechoiceprovisionsoftheNoChildLeftBehindact?Virtual


School Report.RetrievedSeptember6,2004,fromhttp://www.connectionsacad-emy.com/PDFs/VirtualNews704.pdf.

Herring,M.C.(2004).Developmentofconstructivist-baseddistancelearn-ingenvironments:AknowledgebaseforK–12teachers.The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 5(4),231–242.

Hill,J.R.,Wiley,D.,Nelson,L.M.,&Han,S.(2004).Exploringresearchoninternet-basedlearning:Frominfrastructuretointeractions.InD.H.Jonas-sen(Ed.),Handbook of research on educational communications and technology(pp.433–460).Mahwah,NJ:LawrenceErlbaumAssociates.

Hillman,D.C.,Willis,D.J.,&Gunawardena,C.N.(1994).Learner-inter-faceinteractionindistanceeducation:Anextensionofcontemporarymodelsandstrategiesforpractitioners.The American Journal of Distance Education, 8(2),30–42.

Hirumi,A.(2002).Thedesignandsequencingofe-learninginteractions.In-ternational Journal on E-Learning, 1(1),19–27.

Hughes,J.E.,McLeod,S.,Brown,R.,Maeda,Y.,&Choi,J.(2005).Staff development and student perceptions of the learning environment in virtual and traditional secondary schools.Naperville,IL:NorthCentralRegionalEducationalLaboratory,LearningPointAssociates.

Kaplan-Leiderson,E.(n.d.).ASTD’ssourcefore-learning:Glossary.Learning Circuits.RetrievedJuly,182005,fromtheAmericanSocietyforTrainingandDevelopmentWebsite:http://www.learningcircuits.org/glossary.

Kawachi,P.(2003).Vicariousinteractionandtheachievedqualityoflearn-ing.International Journal of E-Learning, 2(4),39–45.

Kozma,R.(1991).Learningwithmedia.Review of Educational Research, 61(2),179–211.

Kozma,R.,Zucker,A.,Espinoza,C.,McGhee,R.,Yarnall,L.,Zalles,D.etal.(2000).Theonlinecourseexperience:Evaluationofthevirtualschool’sthirdyearofimplementation,1999–2000.SIR International Project 7289.RetrievedSeptember22,2004,fromtheCenterforTechnologyandLearningWebsite:http://ctl.sri.com/publications/displayPublication.jsp?ID=197.

Krathwohl,D.R.(1998).Methods of educational and social science research: An integrated approach.LongGrove,Illinois:WavelandPress,Inc.

Kuh,G.D.,&Hu,S.(2001).Theeffectsofstudent-facultyinteractioninthe1990s.TheReview of Higher Education, 24(3),309–332.

Lapadat,J.C.(2002).Writteninteraction:Akeycomponentinonlinelearn-ing.Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 7(4).RetrievedJuly12,2005,fromhttp://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol7/issue4/lapadat.html.

LaPadula,M.(2003).Acomprehensivelookatonlinestudentsupportservicesfordistancelearners.The American Journal of Distance Education, 17(2),119–128.

Lee,V.E.,&Burkham,D.T.(2001).Dropping out of high school: The role of school organization and structure.PaperpresentedattheDropoutsinAmerica:HowSevereistheProblem?WhatdoWeKnowAboutInterventionandPre-vention,HarvardGraduateSchoolofEducation:Cambridge,MA.

Lin,C.(2003).The challenge of elearning on K–12 in Taiwan.Proceedingsofthe10thKACEWinterConference,KoreanAssociationofComputerEduca-


tion,Korea(pp.1–14).RetrievedSeptember20,2005,fromhttp://linbo.nutn.edu.tw/document2005/challenge_eLearning_k12_taiwan_apec2003.pdf.

Long,A.(2004).Cyber schools.RetrievedOctober27,2004,fromtheEdu-cationCommissionoftheStatesWebsite:http://www.Ecs.Org/ecsmain.Asp?Page=/search/default.Asp.

McLeod,S.,Hughes,J.E.,Brown,R.,Choi,J.,&Maeda,Y.(2005).Algebra achievement in virtual and traditional schools.Naperville,IL:NorthCentralRe-gionalEducationalLaboratory,LearningPointAssociates.

McLoughlin,C.(2002).Learnersupportindistanceandnetworkedlearningenvi-ronments:Tendimensionsforsuccessfuldesign.Distance Education, 23(2),149–162.

Meyer,K.(2003).Face-to-faceversusthreadeddiscussions:Theroleoftimeandhigherorderthinking.Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(3).Available:http://www.aln.org/publications/jaln/v7n3/v7n3_meyer.asp.

Mills,S.C.(2003).Implementingonlinesecondaryeducation:Anevaluationofavirtualhighschool.InC.Crawfordetal.(Eds.),Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference 2003(pp.444–451).Norfolk,VA:AACE.

Moore,M.G.(1989).Threetypesofinteraction.The American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2),1–6.

Morris,L.V.,&Wu,S.(2005).Predictingretentioninonlinegeneraleduca-tioncourses.The American Journal of Distance Education, 19(1),23–36.

Muirhead,B.(2001).Interactivityresearchstudies.Educational Technology & Society, 4(3),108–112.

Murphy,E.,&Coffin,G.(2003).SynchronouscommunicationinaWeb-basedseniorhighschoolcourse:Maximizingaffordancesandminimizingcon-straintsofthetool.The American Journal of Distance Education, 17(4),235–246.

NorthAmericanCouncilforOnlineLearning.(2005).About NACOL.Re-trievedAugust8,2005,fromhttp://www.nacol.org/about/.

NationalAssociationofStateBoardsofEducation(NASBE).(2002).Cybercharterschools.Policy Update, 10(5),1–2.RetrievedSeptember8,2004,fromtheNationalEducationTechnologyPlanWebsite:http://www.nationaledtech-plan.org/bb/discuss2.asp?mode=ga&catID=202&status=approved&bm=320-0.

NationalCenterforEducationStatistics.(1999).Distance education in post-secondary education institutions 1997–1998.RetrievedNovember3,2004,fromhttp://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2003051.

NationalSchoolBoardsAssociation.(2002).Are we there yet?RetrievedSep-tember8,2004,fromhttp://www.nsbf.org/thereyet/online.htm.

Parker,A.(1999).Studyofvariablesthatpredictdropoutfromdistanceedu-cation.International Journal of Educational Technology, 1(2),1–10.

Passey,D.(2000).Developingteachingstrategiesfordistance(outofschool)learninginprimaryandsecondaryschools. Educational Media International, 37(1),45–58.

Patrick,S.(2004).Are schools ready for today’s students? A sneak preview of the national education technology plan (NETP).PresentedattheNationalEduca-tionalComputingConference,Seattle,WA.RetrievedSeptember9,2004,fromhttp://necc2004.minds.tv/.


Phipps,R.,&Merisotis,J.(1999).What’s the difference? A review of contempo-rary research on the effectiveness of distance learning in higher education.Washing-ton,DC:InstituteforHigherEducationPolicy.RetrievedJune25,2005,fromhttp://www2.nea.org/he/abouthe/diseddif.pdf.

Picciano,A.G.(2002).Beyondstudentperceptions:Issuesofinteraction,presence,andinanonlinecourse.Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 6(1),21–40.RetrievedNovember22,2004,fromhttp://www.sloan-c.org/pub-lications/jaln/v2006n2001/pdf/v2006n2001_picciano.pdf.

Roblyer,M.D.(1999).Ischoiceimportantindistancelearning?Astudyofstudentmotivesfortakinginternet-basedcoursesatthehighschoolandcom-munitycollegelevels.Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 32(1),157–172.

Roblyer,M.D.,&Elbaum,B.(2000).Virtuallearning?Researchonvirtualhighschools.Learning & Leading with Technology, 27(4),58–61.

Roblyer,M.D.,&Knezek,G.A.(2003). Newmillenniumresearchforedu-cationaltechnology:Acallforanationalresearchagenda.Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 36(1),60–71.

Roblyer,M.D.,&Marshall,J.C.(2003).Predictingthesuccessofvirtualhighschoolstudents:Preliminaryresultsfromaneducationalsuccesspredictioninstrument.Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 35(2),241–256.

RoblyerM.D.,&Wiencke,W.R.(2003).Designanduseofarubrictoas-sessandencourageinteractivequalitiesindistancecourses.American Journal of Distance Education,17(2),77–99.

Romiszowski,A.,&Mason,R.(2004).Computer-mediatedcommunication.InD.H.Jonassen(Ed.),Handbook of research on educational communications and technology(pp.397–431).Mahwah,NJ:LawrenceErlbaumAssociates.

RuralSchoolandCommunityTrust&StateTechnologyDirectorsAssocia-tion.(2003).2003 state distance learning policy study: A non-interpretive analysis.RetrievedSeptember9,2004,fromhttp://www.ruraledu.org/docs/2003_state_distance_learning_policy_study.pdf.

Russell,T.L.(1999).The no significant difference phenomenon. Montgomery,AL:IDECC.

Saba,F.(2005).Criticalissuesindistanceeducation:AreportfromtheUnit-edStates.Distance Education, 26(2),255–272.

Sanders,W.L.,&Rivers,J.C.(1996).Cumulative and residual effects of teach-ers on future student academic achievement.Knoxville:UniversityofTennesseeValue-AddedResearchandAssessment Center.

Schlosser,L.,&Simonson,M.(2002).Distance education: Definition and glossary of terms.Bloomington,IN:AssociationforEducationalCommunica-tionsandTechnology.

Sener,J.(2005).Escapingthecomparisontrap:Evaluatingonlinelearningonitsownterms.Innovate: Journal of Online Education, 1(2).RetrievedJanuary5,2005,fromhttp://www.innovateonline.info/index.php?view=article&id=11.

Setzer,C.J.,&Lewis,L.(2005).Distance education courses for public elemen-tary and secondary school students: 2002–2003(No.NCES2005-010).Washing-ton,DC:NationalCenterforEducationStatistics.


Simonson,M.,Smaldino,S.,Albright,M.,&Zvacek,S.(2006).Teaching and learning at a distance: Foundations of distance education (3rded.)UpperSaddleRiver,NJ:Pearson.

Simpson,O.(2004).Theimpactonretentionofinterventionstosupportdis-tancelearning.Open Learning, 19(1),79–96.

SouthernRegionalEducationBoard.(2005).SREB educational technology co-operative.RetrievedJuly2,2005,fromhttp://www.sreb.org/programs/EdTech/EdTechindex.asp.

Stein,D.S.,Wanstreet,C.E.,Calvin,J.,Overtoom,C.,&Wheaton,J.E.(2005).Bridgingthetransactionaldistancegapinonlinelearningenviron-ments.The American Journal of Distance Education, 19(2),105–118.

Stith,P.L.,&Fitz,R.(1994).Faculty/student interaction: Impact on student retention.PaperpresentedattheAnnualForumoftheAssociationforInstitu-tionalResearch.,NewOrleans,LA.(ERICDocumentReproductionServiceNo.ED373650).

Tunison,S.,&Noonan,B.(2001).On-linelearning:Secondarystudents’firstexperience.Canadian Journal of Education, 26(4),495–514.

U.S.DepartmentofEducation.(2001).No Child Left Behind Act of 2001.RetrievedDecember2,2005,fromhttp://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/index.html.

U.S.DepartmentofEducation.(2004).Toward a new golden age in American education: How the Internet, the law and today’s students are revolutionizing expec-tations. National Education Technology Plan 2004.WashingtonDC:Author.

Vornberg,J.A.,&Maris,C.(2003).Implementingvideodistanceeducation:Problems,policiesandprocedures.Catalyst for Change, 33(1),5–9.

Vrasidas,C.,&Zembylas,M.(2003).Complexitiesintheevaluationofdistanceeducationandvirtualschooling.Educational Media International.Re-trievedSeptember22,2004,fromtheInternationalCouncilforEducationalMediaWebsite:http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals.

Watson,J.F.(2005).Keeping pace with K–12 online learning: A snapshot of state-level policy and practice.Naperville,IL:NorthCentralRegionalEduca-tionalLaboratoryatLearningPointAssociates.Available:http://www.ncrel.org/tech/pace2/.

Watson,J.F.,Winograd,K.,&Kalmon,S.(2004).Keeping pace with K–12 online learning: A snapshot of state-level policy and practice.Naperville,IL:NorthCentralRegionalEducationalLaboratoryatLearningPointAssociates.Re-trievedSeptember22,2004,fromhttp://www.ncrel.org/tech/pace/index.html.

Web-basedEducationCommission.(2000). The power of the Internet for learning: Moving from promise to practice.RetrievedAugust15,2005,fromhttp://interact.hpcnet.org/webcommission/index.htm.

Weiner,C.(2003).Keyingredientstoonlinelearning:Adolescentstudentsstudyincyberspace—thenatureofthestudy.International Journal on E-Learn-ing, 2(3),44–50.

Wolcott,L.L.(1996).Distant,butnotdistanced:Alearner-centeredap-proachtodistanceeducation.Techtrends, 41(4),23–27.


Zweig,J.M.(2003).Vulnerable youth: Identifying their need for alternative educational settings.WashingtonDC:UrbanInstitute.RetrievedSeptember20,2005.fromhttp://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=410828(ReportNo.Ud035872).

a comprehensive look at distance education in the k–12...

Documents