modern distant education through multi media adoption

Running Head: IMPROVING EFFECTIVENESS IN DISTANCE EDUCATION 1

Improving Effectiveness in Distance Education through Multi-media Tools

William T. Butler, Ph.D.


Abstract

There is a lack of research establishing delivery methods to learning styles for online courses.

Even more apparent is the reluctance of institutions to use existing technology to accommodate

the growing number of online students with different learning styles. Published scholarly articles

were reviewed and sometimes compared to determine the effectiveness of prior studies in

establishing basic effectiveness measures in distance education. Five research areas identified as

standard measures of effectiveness in distance education emerged. Three of the five areas based

on quantitative measurements are: 1) graded assignments that reflect regurgitation of reading

assignments, 2) measurements of written interactive participation in online discussions, and 3)

demonstrated levels of increasing knowledge through interactive discourse with instructors.

These three are the institutional norm for most online course sessions. With the emergence of

multimedia tools on the web, their introduction as standard training tools into distance education

need to be considered. These two additional areas are: 4) course presentation as a function of

learning styles, and 5) determining course structure using multimedia tools.

Keywords: distance education, multi-media, distance learning


Introduction

There is a lack of research establishing delivery methods to learning styles for online

courses. Even more apparent is the reluctance of institutions to use existing technology to

accommodate the growing number of online students with different learning styles. Published

scholarly articles were reviewed and sometimes compared to determine the effectiveness of prior

studies in establishing basic effectiveness measures in distance education. Five research areas

identified as standard measures of effectiveness in distance education emerged. Three of the five

areas based on quantitative measurements are: 1) graded assignments that reflect regurgitation of

reading assignments, 2) measurements of written interactive participation in online discussions,

and 3) demonstrated levels of increasing knowledge through interactive discourse with

instructors. These three are the institutional norm for most online course sessions. With the

emergence of multimedia tools on the web, their introduction as standard training tools into

distance education need to be considered. These two additional areas are: 4) course presentation

as a function of learning styles, and 5) determining course structure using multimedia tools.

The analysis of available research, identified a gap in the research of quantifying

effectiveness by institutions in Distance Education (DE). This research indicates that use of new

technology such as multi-media tools, has been generally overlooked by scholarly research

sources especially when applied to developing post-graduate effective learning methods. In the

past, research involved measuring effectiveness of DE delivered via the internet using text

delivery and limited instructor-student interchange. Modern multi-media tools change the

paradigm of delivered course methodology. This paper reviews the use of multi-media tools and

how these tools affect student learning styles.


Definition

This section provides definitions of three key subjects necessary to identify effective

delivery of online courses, distance education (DE), effectiveness measurements, and online

training environments.

Distance Learning

The Distance Education and Training Council (2009) has been identified as an accepted

standard for accrediting DE institutions with the Department of Education. Utilizing their definition

which was refined in 2009 included printed materials, videotapes, audio recordings, facsimiles,

telephone communications, and the internet through e-mail and Web-based delivery systems as

acceptable forms of DE training. In the Distance Education Accreditation Handbook, (DETC,

2009) which was the guideline for accrediting higher educational institutions, the subject of

measuring the effectiveness of the training was never broached. DETC is primarily concerned

with the administration and record keeping that accredited institutions use to maintain accurate

data on the enrollment, progress, and graduation of the students. The closest statement of

measuring the effectiveness of the learning experience is summarized in one statement. “The

institution documents that students complete their studies at rates that compare favorably to those

of courses/programs offered by similar DETC-accredited institutions.” DETC further explains

that “compare favorably” means each program’s graduation rate falls within 15 points of the

mean for courses/programs at similar DETC institutions. Apparently, it is left to the institution

to survey and discover the mean for each course offered. This indicates that there exists a need to

define a measure of effectiveness that can be calculated or derived by institutions offering

distance education. Although DETC is vague as to the DE methods of delivery, it is understood

that traditional DE methods were first introduced in the late 1920's. Videotaped subjects have

been used in distance education at the postgraduate level since the 1980’s (Stephen, 1982).


Audio recordings were first produced for distance education in the 1960’s for the training of

newscasters, sportscasters and music announcers. Facsimile machines were first invented in the

late 1870’s but in the 1990’s facsimiles connected to video conferencing equipment were

predicted to be the wave of the future for distance education (Barron & Orwig, 1997).

Telecommunications has progressed rapidly in the past decade. Virtual learning classrooms

(Weiss, Nolan, Hunsinger, & Trifonas, 2006), interactive online dialogue and online

conversational design (Luppicini, 2008), interactive video and even three dimensional erasable

holographic displays (Savage, 2008) have an effect on how students can learn through distance

education.

Effectiveness Measurements

Educational institutions should try to establish a means of measuring educational successes.

Innovative distance education delivery techniques are being introduced sporadically and with

little dissemination among competing institutions. Although some of the methods are

groundbreaking, there is a lack of documentation on the effectiveness of these methods. Trying

to quantify success rates among educational institutions is tantamount to counting heads. How

many graduates in each subject and how many drop outs in each subject, only serve to mask the

issue of effectiveness. The question should be relegated to whether the student learns the subject

matter presented in each course. The tools needed to measure learning effectiveness, have

historically been written exercises. The tool utilizes the same delivery technique that many

educational researches believe to be a deterrent to visual and auditory learners. There is prior

research and substantial empirical groundwork on learning methods that have not been applied to

distance education (Bangurah, 2004). Specifically, the area of interest selected in this paper is

identifying and measuring effectiveness of media based interactive distance learning utilizing the


most common delivery techniques in a stand-alone mode or in combinations. The potential

relevance of choosing this topic is valid due to an abundance of prior qualitative studies but a

dearth of quantitative studies. There are many problems encountered by students (Ransdell and

Gaillard-Kenney, 2009) when they are placed in a self-motivated training environment. There is

a perception that the introduction of the computer into this environment has decreased attrition

rates previously experienced by correspondence courses (Picciano, 2002). The question that is

left unanswered is what role IT has played in changing students perceptions of effective learning

through DE. Most advanced learners are very familiar with interactive tools, instant messaging

(IM), video on demand, audio and video streaming and newer tools incorporated in You Tube,

U-stream, and other interactive online sessions. With the introduction of multimedia tools, and

instantaneous connectivity, the student should be required to be more engaged in their own

learning process. Attrition due to long delay in grading assignments, or lack of contact with the

instructor (Beckstrand, 2003) is no longer the reason provided for dropping out. Instead, the

paradigm has shifted to keeping the content meaningful, current and in some cases entertaining.

This paper does not agree with prior research that correlated effectiveness measures as the

number of visits or posts the student places in a forum (Ransdell & Gaillard-Kenney, 2009).

However, it is believed there are quantitative measures that can be used other than regurgitating

reading gmaterial and replying with social network comments. Exposing students to new

interfaces such as interactive audio, web page animation, streaming, groupware sessions and

gaming can be an overwhelming experience for a DE student but rearding when engaged. With

very little preparation the effectiveness of these tools can prove useful for developing an

effectiveness gradient that can be used by educational institutions to advance their curriculums.

Therefore, the definition of effectiveness measurements will be centered on the student and will


be defined as the student's ability to successfully complete a course based on a style of learning

that keeps the student actively engaged through course completion.

Online Training Environment

Product developers such as Cisco and Microsoft recognized the need for interactive

education through online courses over ten years ago and developed certification programs

accessible through distance education. Duffy and Kirkley (2004) performed a case study that

highlighted the reluctance of educational institutions to implement new DE technology. Schrum, L.

& Ohler, J. (2005) reviewed a case study to determine the “perceptions, problems and opportunities presented by DE” using

surveys. This qualitative approach revealed an overwhelming desire by the student to understand how DE would

contribute to their educational goals before enrolling in an online course. The Cardean University case

study addressed by Duffy and Kirkley (2004) revealed an overall reluctance to move from the front of

the classroom to the front of a monitor by the instructors not the students. The antagonistic

environment between learners desiring DE training and institutional instructors resenting the new

technology forced a compromise in DE delivery. Thus, the current online environment utilized by most

institutions is a read and write environment. The instruction is broken into unit lessons with reading

assignments, augmented by instructor recommendations and the learner has to respond in writing to

each assignment. In the past ten years, many institutions started implementing course management

systems (CMS). These products help facilitate a more interactive DE environment but they are not

being used to their full potential. These pre-developed CMS software systems are promoted as one

size fits all institutions (Blackboard Inc., 2009). The responsibility of customizing the

presentation of the software to the students is developed by the institution’s IT staff. Therefore,

the online environment varies by institutional involvement in the course design but the important

issue is that the institution has full control of the delivery method and the content of each course.

The institution has the ability to improve the delivery of a subject as well as present the course in

different delivery modes but instiutions have reluctantly experimented with new technology. It is

believed that this situation persists because instructors are still resisting technology. Very few


industrial online courses are presided over by an instructor yet corporations and government

agencies are using these new technologies for everything from orientations to technical

certification including job learning simulators.

Review and Analysis

Measuring Effectiveness

According to Poulin (2002) distance learning can overcome the barriers of learning styles

that has been known for the past forty years when first addressed by Knowles (1984). "We now

know that people learn in different ways, and that because some students do not absorb

information well from a lecture style of instruction does not mean they are stupid…. But research

won't change things until its findings are put to use" (Hull, p. 7). The common complaint about

distance learning is that it does not accommodate the learning styles of a large contingent of

students. This complaint could have been made of the lecture method of teaching for decades,

but it still is the dominant form of training on higher education campuses. "Using video, audio,

active learning, simulations, and electronic advances can overcome problems encountered by

learners who do not adapt to just one learning style" (Poulin, 2002). With the academic world

lending credence to the work of Dunn and Dunn (1979), Kolb (1981), and Knowles (1984) it

seems logical that educators would add media to enhance educational delivery, even creative

techniques such as virtual classrooms on a level with Second Life virtual reality.

Quantifying Effectiveness

Quantitative research usually involves the collection and analysis of data. There have

been several surveys on distance education satisfaction but none specifically addressed the

delivery of the subject. Paechter (2010) addressed a survey performed on college students that

consisted of 2196 participants in Austria. Overwhelming response to questions on student


satisfaction dominated the answers. "Besides the instructor’s expertise and support, only a few

variables proved to be important for students’ perceptions of learning achievements and course

satisfaction. These variables describe three fields in which instructors need professional

expertise: the structure and coherence of the learning material and the course, the stimulation of

learning motivation, and the facilitation of collaborative learning." (Paechter, 2010) For the

majority of students to chose stimulation of learning motivation as a primary area of importance

demonstrates the need for institutions to re-assess online course delivery techniques. Paechter

(2010) concludes from the survey that students measure effectiveness by determining whether a

course can "contribute to learning achievements or satisfaction: students’ motivation,

opportunities for self-regulated and collaborative learning, and the clarity of the course structure"

are the primary measure of effectiveness.

An effective quantifying measurement tool from an institutional viewpoint would be a

satisfaction survey similar to the survey offered in the Paechter (2010) research. Each student

would participate in an online survey after each online course that would address delivery issues

in the course.

Mena (2007) addressed research that incorporated twenty five additional references the

majority addressing the issue of quality in distance education from a global perspective. This is

important in assessing the effectiveness of distance education because a global perspective would

benefit from a multi-media presentation of course material. Any measurement standards that are

developed should be able to stand up to the scrutiny of a global review in education and global

industry. Mena (2007) reflects that distance education should not be limited to a localized region

but must take into account the diversity of a global learning environment. The only variation in

effectiveness of a distance education model would be the translation from one language to


another of the content of the course being offered. The global perspective offered by this paper

directly relates to online DE courses that are accessible to any learner. Although she does not

address any quantitative measures for her opinions, her years of experience do lend some

qualitative significance to her statements. The article relates to the papers subject because it

opened a window of research previously not considered, the fact that my research should address

a global market to be citable.

Approach

Matching multi-media to leaning styles

Kolb (1981), Dunn and Dunn (1979), and Honey and Mumford (as cited in Santally and

Alain, 2006) have stated that learning styles are key to defining how an institution can best

service its online DE students. Kolb developed a subdivision of learning styles based on Gregorc

and Butler's (as cited in Santally and Alain, 2006) earlier research on defining learning styles

based on a scale. Kolb is considered the leading authority on defining learning styles in the field

of education. His insight can be translated into an effective approach for improving DE from a

learning viewpoint.

Kolb later defined a research model to match his learning style subdivision of Gregorc

and Butler. The model can be migrated into a DE effectiveness model, which can serve as a

guideline for institutions to use in setting up online DE courses.

Dunn and Dunn (1979) describes the various learning styles utilized by students in

various educational environments. The authors defined five categories that influence learning.

The five styles determine the adaptability of students into different teaching methods. How an

individual is taught is just as important as the tools used to teach. These learning environments


affect how well we receive information and retain it. It is important to define the type of multi-

media in the DE course as well as the content of the DE course. Two courses on the same

subject, at the same level can be taught two different ways. Would you teach a sightless person

the same way you would teach someone who can see? The sightless person has to visualize

through audio input what the instructor is trying to relate (audio intensive learning) where the

person with sight needs very little audio input but can see how equations are solved through

visual input (visually intensive learning). Which is more effective? Both are depending on the

learner. This is the learning styles addressed by Kolb (1984).

Santally and Alain (2006) developed an effectiveness model for cognitive learning. They

address previous learning styles and survey methods by Honey and Mumford in particular. Using

Honey and Mumford questionnaire style they surveyed students at the University of Mauritius on

preferences of learning styles divided by visual, auditory, and kinaesthetics. Student preferences

are a learned response over time. This is usually fully developed by adulthood. Most adult

learners which can be categorized as any individual over the age of eighteen, have no idea or

awareness of their learning style.

Evaluating Relevance, Reliability and Validity

In a study by Schrum and Ohler (2005), the authors presented an academic case for their conclusions

and immediately determined that they were going to use qualitative methods to unveil the

perceptions, problems and opportunities presented by distance education. The study subdivided three

groups into levels of experience with distance education and then presented each group with a battery

of questions based on a five point scale. One question presented to faculty inquired as to what role

they would like to play in developing distance education at the university. Half of the instructors not

currently involved in distance education declined to accept any role. This response is indicative of the

traditionalist classroom professor. The response itself provides insight into the difficulty of introducing


new technology into academic institutions. The study incorporated 2,300 students and the results

provided yielded 355 valid surveys. From the results of the surveys the highest response to students

feelings toward distance education centered on how well distance education would contribute toward

meeting their educational goals. This emphasizes the need for distance education effectiveness to be

measured in terms of meeting the educational goals of the end user not the desires of the instructor.

The primary purpose of distance education is to provide all learners a method of meeting their

educational goals. Since distance education is an IT function then all research should have started with

a user requirements statement. This is the essential element that was never defined when online

learning was offered. The Schrum and Ohler (2005) article identifies this initial system failure when

the institution involved aligned IT staff with instructors, instructors with the institution, and left the

students out of the equation. The issue should not be whether an instructor likes teaching online DE

course, but how the instructor is involved in online DE courses. This paper recommends a paradigm

shift as part of the method to improving the effectiveness of DE courses using multi-media. The paper

offers nothing revolutionary, but instead requires a different way of thinking about the delivery of

courses utilizing IT tools that are commonplace.

Justification for Research

Iriberri and Leroy (2009) developed a life-cycle perspective for online community success. The

number of higher education institutions offering distance education is increasing. According to the

Institution of Education Sciences’ National Center for Education Statistics in the academic year 2006–

2007, 66 percent of the 4,160 post-secondary degree granting institutions both 2-year and 4-year

schools offered college level courses through distance education. Overall 97 percent of public 2-year

institutions, and 89 percent of public 4-year institutions, 53 percent of private not-for-profit

institutions, and 70 percent of private for-profit 4-year institutions joined the ranks of those schools

offering remote training. Lagging behind the curve, only 18 percent of the 2 year private for-profit

institutions embraced distance education as a viable form of learning. According to the Department of

Education distance education is defined as a formal education process in which the students and the

instructor are not in the same place. The definition continues to state the type of media the school

may use, with emphasis on the word may. It does not specifically categorize or classify distance


education any further. The graduate level e-learning community has determined that a human

instructor needs to be a part of the distance education process in order for distance education to be

effective. Interactive computer learning tools simulating training through trial and error programs

have been used by the military for several decades and no interaction between student and instructor

is present. This statement is relevant because the military has been able to quantitatively demonstrate

inherent benefits derived from an e-learning environment. Iriberri and Leroy (2009) state that there

exists a general acknowledgement that the need for DE is growing. This being agreed upon, then why

would an institution be reluctant to improve the delivery of the DE courses offered. By improving the

course, more students would enroll and the institution would gain more revenue. It might even

emerge as a model institution for instruction. That is the reason this paper is relevant to educational

institutions as well as the individual student.

Ward and Riley (2008) researched and expostulated the idea that e-learning is the cost-

effective way to train in tough economic times. This is timely in the current economy which suffers

from rising fuel costs and diminishing individual incomes. Employee training is still viewed as an area

that has very positive returns to most companies. Therefore Ward and Riley (2008) is credible from an

industry perspective because it addresses the substitution of traditional training for distance education

in the work place. The ideas presented by Ward and Riley (2008) are speculative and not based on

any quantitative measures. The authors address qualitative features realized from their e-learning

experience but they do not explain how the quality of the training was determined other then to

mention employee satisfaction. Since this paper's area of interest is in the effectiveness of distance

education using multi-media, it includes the premise that anytime industry embraces an idea, that

idea will continue to grow until it is fully integrated into the fabric of daily operation.

Method

Learning Style Correlation to Kolb’s Learning Theory


Kolb (1984) defined learning styles as falling into one of four quadrants. In effect these

quadrants represent the comfort zones for adult learning. Basically, the quadrants respresent

students that learn most effectively through visual communication, auditory communication,

physical participation and cognitive retrospection. In order to perform a self assessment of the

learning style an individual possesses is through a self examination of Figure 1. Figure 1 displays

the Kolb’s idea of adult learning as influenced by adult learning processes (Chapman, 2005-06).

Within Kolb’s model there are four quadrants of styles, where the individual fits within the

quadrants determines the categorization as established by Kolb’s Theory. It is understood that

adult learners try to adapt to institutional teaching methods, but the level of effective learning is

reduced if the instruction is not correlated to the adult learning style. Learning is either an on or

off process. If an adult turns off the learning process, innovative approaches, novel

presentations, even reward-base processes cannot make the adult learn. There has to be a

willingness to absorb information with the personal goal of retaining that information for

personal improvement. When the ability to absorb the information is not offered then the learner

turns off the learning process and the training is ineffective.


Figure 1. Kolb's learning style.

Approach

Matching Learning Styles to IT DE multi-media delivery methods

Kolb's learning styles are most adaptable to an online learning environment. Students

would be classified as either divergers, convergers, assimilators, or accommodators. Courses

could be delivered around these four learning styles. Individual students approach learning from

different backgrounds. Kolb understood that background and environment affect the way

students absorbed knowledge and the different rates of absorption and retention. Understanding

this, he developed the learning styles that encompassed the majority of the population. The range

of absorption relies on multi-sensory inputs to simple logic input. Kolb's delineation lends itself

to a classification system that can be adapted to distance education courses. A normal traditional


classroom learning environment cannot begin to offer the many advantages that DE using multi-

media sensory input can offer to accommodate all four learning styles.

Analyzing the four categories it becomes evident that Kolb's analysis is simple and

complex. An individual with a learning style adaptable to the standard classroom would be

classified by Kolb as assimilating. A student that learns through hands on replication would be

classified as accommodating. This learning style would discover an interactive holographic

learning experience as the most effective learning process. An individual that absorbs through

visual would be categorized as reflective but how they learn could be divided between feeling an

experience, which could be accommodated by online role playing. The visual learner that

absorbs through reflection is well suited to the standard read and respond online training that is

current prevalent method.

There are various combinations of learning styles but all the styles can be accommodated

through online delivery. The solution is provide training with the end user being the beneficiary

of the CMS system not the institution offering the training. Luppicini (2008) defined the role of

conversation in instruction, especially in the design and development of technologically advanced

educational environments. Conversation poses serious challenges for online course designers and

instructors. Luppicini's approach added another online tool to defining and developing effective

techniques for distance education courses. Luppicini(2008) borders on reaching the same conclusion

addressed in this paper. Online DE courses needs more then written input to be effective for learning.

Courses can be conversational or experiential to influence a learner's memory. Conversational learning

can occur in multiple ways. Vocal delivery and response is the most common and would accommodate

another learning style that of the accommodator that has have an emotional response to learning and

need that classroom emotional feedback and assurance in order to feel accomplished. Individual

retention can occur in two ways, experiential (swimming for example), and absorption (reading).

Some combination of experiential and conversational is needed to make an online learning experience

effective.


Conclusion

Widening the scope of research into student learning styles in an IT multi-media rich DE

environment is a relatively new area. As the demand for DE courses increases, so does the

expectations of the learner. In the majority of articles researched for this paper, the overriding

view by institutions is one of letting the learner adjust to the multi-media online style of the

institution. If the learner wants to learn, then the learner will adjust to the institution style. This is

outdated thinking. It is the wrong attitude in a competitive environment, where the learner has a

growing list of institutions from which to choose. It would be helpful for every learner to

understood what type of learning environment produces the best results for their learning style.

In the past, institutions of higher learning defined effectiveness in terms of attrition. Students that

drop out just did not have enough motivation to succeed. From multiple research studies, we now

know that this idea is false. Students, once they reach adulthood cannot change their learning

style regardless of their motivation. In most cases, students do not know what type of learning

style they possess, however institutions know that different learning styles exist because of thirty

years of proven academic research. This paper presents the issues involved in learning accepted

by higher education institutions from forty years of accepted research. The author has also

offered the solution of treating the student as the user of the system not the institution. A new

paradigm requires new applications. These applications already exist but now they need to be

implemented.

References

Bangurah, F. M. (2004). A study of completion and passing rates between traditional and web-based instruction at a two-year public community college in northeast Tennessee. East Tennessee State University. Retrieved January 27, 2010, from http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=765274731&Fmt=7&clientId=62763&RQT=309&VName=PQD


Barron, A.E. & Orwig, G.W. (1997). New technologies for education: A beginner’s guide.

Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited. (3rd ed.).

Beckstrand, S. (2003). Reduction of attrition and fail grades in an online module using student screening and supplemental instruction lectures. In D.Lassner & C. McNaught (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications (pp. 361-362). Chesapeake, VA.

Blackboard Inc. (2009). Engaging learners, for engaging learning. Retrieved July 31, 2009, from http://www.blackboard.com/Teaching-Learning/Learn-Platform.aspx

Chapman, A. (2005-06) Kolb Learning Style. Retrieved from http://www.businessballs.com /kolblearningstyles.htm

Distance Education and Training Council (2009). DETC Accreditation Handbook – 2009: Accreditation standards, 41 Washington, DC: Author.

Duffy, T.M. & Kirkley, J.R. (2004). Learner-centered theory and practice in distance education: Cases from higher education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Retrieved January 27, 2010, from http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=104720804

Dunn, R. S. & Dunn, K. J. (1979, January). Learning styles/teaching styles: Should they… Can they… Be matched? Educational Leadership 36(4) 234-244, (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ194046)

Hull, D. (1995). Who Are You Calling Stupid? Waco, TX: Cord.

Iriberri, A. & Leroy, G. (2009, February). A life-cycle perspective on online community success. ACM Computing Surveys, 41 (2), 1-29.

Knowles, M. S. (1984). The adult learner. A neglected species.(3rd ed.). Houston:Gulf.

Kolb, D.A. (1981). Learning styles and disciplinary differences. Retrieved June 26, 2009, from http://www.learningfromexperience.com/images/uploads/Learning-styles-and-disciplinary-difference.pdf

Kolb, D. (1984). Learning styles model and experiential learning theory. Retrieved January 27, 2010, from http://www.businessballs.com/kolblearningstyles.htm

Luppicini, R. (2008). Handbook of conversational design for instructional applications. Idea Group Inc. 2008. Retrieved May 28, 2009, from http://www.igi-global.com/reference/details.asp?id=7280

Mena, M. (2007 April-June). E-Learning quality: A look towards the demands of its good practices. Journal of Cases on Information Technology, 9(2), 1-11. Retrieved May 18, 2009 from http://proquest.umi.com.library.capella.edu


Paechter, M., Maier, B., & Macher, D. (2010). Students' expectations of, and experiences in E-

learning: Their relation to learning achievements and course satisfaction. Computers & Education, 54(1), 222-229. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.library.capella.edu/login?url= http://search.ebscohost.com.library.capella.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ860890&site=ehost-live&scope=site; http://dx.doi.org.library.capella.edu/ 10.1016/j.compedu.2009.08.005

Picciano, A.G. (2002). Beyond student perceptions: Issues of interaction, presence, and performance in an online course. Journal for Asynchronous Learning Networks. 6(1). Retrieved May 28, 2009, from http://scholar.google.com/scholar

Ransdell, S. & Gaillard-Kenney, S. (2009, January). Blended learning environments, active participation, and student success. The Internet Journal of Allied Health Sciences and Practice. 7(1). Retrieved May 28, 2009, from http://ijahsp.nova.edu /articles/Vol7Num1/pdf/Ransdell.pdf

Poullin, R. (2002). Distance Education in Higher Education. 2nd ed. Ed. James W. Guthrie Vol 2. p 589-593. New York: MacMillan

Santally, M. I., & Alain, S. (2006). Personalisation in web-based learning environments. International Journal of Distance Education Technologies 4(4). Retrieved June 30, 2009, from http://www.eurodl.org/?keyword=e-learning&article=166

Savage, N. (2008, February). The erasable holographic display. IEEE (2008 February). Retrieved May 28, 2009, from http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/feb08/5995

Schrum, L. & Ohler, J. (2005). Distance education at UAS: A case study. Journal of Distance Education, 20(1), 60-83. Retrieved June 2, 2009, from ProQuest Education Journals database. (DOI: 886738981)

Ward, J.L. & Riley, M. (2008, August). E-Learning: The cost-effective way to train in tough economic times. New York: [Electronic version]. Employee Benefit Plan Review, 63(2), 12-14. New York. Retrieved June 25, 2009, from http://www.esiintl.com.sg/site _press.asp?news_id=news20080000028SG

Weiss, J., Nolan, J., Hunsinger, J. & Trifonas, P. (Eds.). (2006). The international handbook of virtual learning environments. Springer Handbooks of Education (vols. 2). Abstract retrieved May 27, 2009, from http://www.springer.com

modern distant education through multi media adoption

Documents