The Evolution of Distance Education: Implications for Instructional Design on the Potential of
the Web
Leslie Moller
University of South Dakota
Wellesley R Foshay
Director, Research
Education Technology Group
Texas Instruments, Inc.
Jason Huett
Assistant Professor
University of West Georgia
The growth of online distance learning (e-learning) is explosive in almost all sectors and
in many developed and developing countries. However, we believe that the dominant approach
now realizes very little, if any, of e-Learning’s transformational potential. In addition, we cannot
be assured that high instructional quality is recognized and valued. The challenge for ID
professionals is not only to evolve the field, but also to assure that the products of sound
professional design practice lead the e-Learning enterprise.
In these three articles, we will look briefly at the major e-Learning trends that we have
observed in the training, higher education, and K-12 education sectors. We will then examine
how each sector is affecting (or ought to affect) the ID field. We offer our arguments as
opinions. Our hope is that the thoughts presented here will be the beginning of many dialogues
on the future of ID and e-Learning—not the last word.
The Evolution of Distance Education: Implications for Instructional Design on the Potential of
the Web (Part 1: Training and Development)
Wellesley R Foshay
Research Manager
Texas Instruments, Inc.
Leslie Moller
University of South Dakota
Jason Huett
Assistant Professor
University of West Georgia
Key Trends in Training
The motivating factors for corporate e-Learning are predominantly economic. Over the
past 20 years, businesses of all kinds have greatly increased their productivity by reengineering
their business processes to exploit information and communications technology. Today, it would
almost be unthinkable to perform many strategic business functions any other way. This
represents transformational, not just incremental, change.
Enterprise managers now demand transformative change of the training function. The
most direct rationale for this change is based on reductions in training delivery costs.
Information technology infrastructure is a “sunk cost;” ergo, the training function does not have
to cost-justify it. “Letting the electrons do the traveling” offsets the costs of travel to the training
center, the overhead of the classroom, and much of the loss of trainee productivity. Furthermore,
e-Learning is instantly available, providing timely and on-demand learning access impossible in
a traditional training center. Finally, e-Learning is scalable: once developed tens of thousands of
employees or customers can use it immediately. When the training supports a change
management or technology dissemination initiative, this capability can be crucial. These benefits
far outweigh the relatively high up-front cost of training development using e-Learning.
Unfortunately, in many corporate e-Learning implementations, effectiveness is either
naively assumed or not particularly valued. Evaluation of any kind beyond the “smile sheet” is
not planned, and, often, there is no provision for the measurement of learning outcomes or
utilization. More cynical practitioners observe that it often seems that managers or customers
care only about the appearance of training. These practitioners argue that managers promote eLearning only because it is relatively cheap to deliver, and it absolves them from the obligation
to provide potentially more expensive or involved training. Training often is judged solely by
the number of learner hours logged or by pure appearance. Instructional designers also may be
contributing to the lack of rigorous evaluation by not adequately advocating evaluation’s benefits
in less than supportive environments. And, some trainers may fear that evaluation may indicate
that a given program did not produce the desired results.
While this view probably does not accurately portray the majority of managers, there is
more than a grain of substance within such cynicism: current models of evaluation for business
settings (often called Return on Investment, or ROI, models) are used rarely to assess eLearning. This lack of evaluation often is taken as evidence of the low priority many managers
place on evaluative practice. However, when a procedure is honored more in breach than in
practice, it is wise to question the utility of the model. In truth, it may be that current evaluation
models are not adequate for the requirements of e-Learning. Since evaluation of e-Learning is
necessary to demonstrate its worth, the need for better and more widely used evaluation models
is critical to the future of e-Learning.
Many ID professionals have observed that one result of this lack of evaluation is that
most web-based training products lack effectiveness because they violate basic principles of
instructional design. Regardless of which theoretical framework one ascribes to, it is not only
possible, but likely, that users of e-Learning have never encountered a product built according to
sound ID principles. This trend does nothing to further the web’s reputation as the technology of
choice for e-Learning.
ID practitioners are inclined to underestimate the importance of this damaging trend. If
we agree that sound ID (by any definition) makes a difference in effectiveness (and perhaps even
in utility and learner satisfaction) then we must also agree that most users of e-Learning will find
their experience wanting. Furthermore, most learners are not currently able to discriminate
between well-designed and poorly-designed e-Learning; nor can they recognize the relative
value of one school of learning theory over another. We run the danger of learners assuming that
all e-Learning is like their personal experience: weak. Poor quality hurts everyone involved in eLearning.
Implications for ID
The trends discussed above have at least five potentially profound impacts on the field of
ID. These five effects concern (1) quality; (2) needs assessment, ROI and measurement of
outcomes; (3) the influence and fusion of training, performance support, and knowledge
management; (4) the need for better instructional systems design (ISD) methodologies, and (5)
the revision of learning models. Taken together, these factors will affect dramatically the
evolution of ID as a field—and the effect may be a transformative one.
(1) Quality
The enthusiasm and demand for e-Learning development far outstrips the available
supply of people with the competency to develop it—regardless of whether such competency is
gained from an academic program, a commercial workshop, or even gifted intuitive practice.
We should legitimately call for more training programs of all types to meet the demand. In the
mean time, the shortage of trained people results in e-Learning initiatives built by individuals
who lack the expertise to produce effective products. Naïve managers and subject matter experts
may not even recognize that there are specialized e-Learning design and development skills.
The end result is a lack of sound e-learning instruction. This situation has the potential of
creating general disillusionment with e-Learning. If mediocrity becomes the norm, then ID
practitioners will all be tarred with the same brush regardless of their competence or the
theoretical persuasion of their training.
We believe these issues (the need for improved, accelerated and large-scale professional
training; the need for change in methodology and tools; the poor quality of much—perhaps
most—e-Learning) make a compelling case for a renewed emphasis on asserting a strong
professional identity for the field. A first step is development of competencies (such as those
produced by IBSTPI). After that, graduate academic recognition or professional certification is
likely to play a critical role as well. There must be a means for both producers and consumers to
recognize high quality e-Learning.
(2) Needs Assessment and ROI
The changes in the business environment also affect the way in which training
development projects are defined and ultimately assessed. We refer to this as needs assessment
and evaluation or ROI.
Conventional approaches to needs assessment are based on gap analysis (Rossett, 1987).
Central to an effective gap analysis is adequate definition (and ultimately measurement) of
critical performance. This is difficult, costly, and time-consuming enough when the cycle time is
relatively long. However, when product development and business process cycle times are short
(measured in weeks or months), anticipating the probable performance problems and measuring
them cost-effectively is much more difficult. Almost equally difficult is performance
measurement in situations of high uncertainty. If one’s enterprise is in an extremely volatile
business environment (a familiar situation for many technology companies—especially those
based on the Internet), it may be very difficult to adequately describe desired performance (much
less measure it) more than a few weeks or months in advance –if at all. In such an environment,
the thoughtful ID practitioner is placed in the situation of having to train a workforce so they will
be ready to execute innovations which have not yet been identified.
Faced with such challenges, a common reaction is to forego sound needs assessment and,
instead, to rely on Kirkpatrick’s Level 1 (smile sheet) or Level 2 (knowledge test) measurements.
Or, almost equally slipshod, a needs assessment is done with a focus only on easily defined and
measurable performance problems—often well away from the “cutting edge” of the enterprise.
With either of these approaches to needs assessment and performance measurement, the almost
inevitable result is that the training becomes trivialized or irrelevant. Conventional approaches
to needs assessment are subject to the pitfalls of either type.
Conventional ROI assessment, the sibling of needs assessment, presents similar
limitations. Specifically, Watkins, Leigh, D., Foshay and Kaufman (1998) argued that
Kirkpatrick’s (1994) familiar 4-level model for evaluation of training effectiveness (extended by
Phillips (1994) to include ROI) has three limitations. First, the model’s highest level of
evaluation is impact on the businesses’ bottom line. Except in cases where the training results in
a cost savings, connecting training to the bottom line is often tenuous. Cases based on value
added by the training are often much harder to measure because the value-added chain in most
enterprises is itself not well measured. Because they do not directly result in more sales, many
value-added characteristics of a company’s outputs are difficult to relate to the bottom line. For
example, product innovations or service qualities which are viewed as competitive necessities (or
which are important to customer satisfaction, safety, or the reliability and effectiveness of a
product or service) has a bottom line impact measured only by a rather indirect opportunity cost
argument. Training via e-Learning may be one of the mandatory requirements to grow a line of
business. However with the many other things a company must do in order to succeed in a line of
business, it is often difficult to isolate an effect due to training.
Second, the Kirkpatrick/Phillips ROI model stops short of measuring value to clients and
to society in general. This is important because many of the kinds of value added by many
business practices (including training) can be measured more directly by customers than they can
by the provider’s bottom line. Consistent with Kaufman’s1998 argument, measurement of value
to the customer is ultimately more important—and can be more direct. In such cases, looking to
a change only in the provider’s bottom line can be difficult or even misleading. Again, this is
particularly important to training because too limited a view of the impact of training can lead
trainers to focus on the wrong things.
Third, the Kirkpatrick/Phillips ROI model does not adequately deal with intellectual
capital. Stewart (1999) has championed the recognition of knowledge as an asset in our
increasingly knowledge-based economy. He argues that the generally recognized accounting
practices, which govern business globally, recognize only the costs associated with knowledge—
not the assets. In a knowledge industry business, this means that the accounting picture of the
business, with its focus on the bottom line, is profoundly misleading. While the fad for
knowledge management technologies may have run its course, Stewart argues that the
importance of intellectual capital to the enterprise is basic and will become increasingly
apparent. If he is right, then the implications for building a sound ROI case for training are
profound. It may mean that an ROI case based on bottom-line impact (and usually based on cost
savings) grossly underestimates the benefits of training.
A bottom-line-driven needs assessment will lead to the authorization of distance
education projects which save the greatest cost rather than those which are most effective and
which address the most important business needs. This is one way to make even wellintentioned trainers vulnerable to the common complaint that they are not focused on what’s
important to the company, or that they seem to focus more on delivery of training (by distance or
other means) rather than its purpose or effectiveness.
The alternative, Watkins, Leigh, Foshay, and Kaufman (1998) argued, is to focus on
important benefits to the client and the client’s client (and ultimately society as a whole)
regardless of whether the benefits can be cleanly projected to the bottom line. For this to work,
one must build needs assessment and “return on investment” evaluations based on
accomplishments which are meaningful beyond the boundaries of the company. Often these
performances and their measures cannot easily be expressed in bottom line terms but can be
measured by other means (such as customer and satisfaction, environmental impact, adaptability
to changing global economic conditions, increased demand, rate of innovation, positive impact
on brand integrity, etc.)
(3) The Influence and Fusion of Training, Performance Support, and Knowledge Management
Using the framework of cognitive psychology, a major result of research has been a
vastly improved understanding of the nature of knowledge structures and their importance to
performance. Learning models such as Anderson’s ACT-R (Anderson, 1999) have been used as
the basis of greatly improved accounts concerning the nature of expert and novice problemsolving, the role and structure of knowledge (schemata), and the syntheses of instructional
strategies and performance-support strategies such as van Merrienboer’s (1997).
The same theoretical framework can serve as a basis of cognitively-oriented electronic
performance support systems (EPSS), which focus on delivery of knowledge (especially facts
and well-structured procedural knowledge) “just in time” as it is used. The benefits of
performance support have been well documented (Villachica and Stone, 1999). Some
practitioners have made similar arguments for knowledge management (KM) (Allee, 1997
For both EPSS and KM, however, a major challenge is determining how to structure the
knowledge for maximum usefulness. Tools of cognitive task analysis (Jonassen, Tessmer and
Hannum, 1999), which are based on cognitive models such as ACT-R, have the potential to
make a tremendous contribution. Going one step further, these same analyses of knowledge
structures can be used as a basis for defining training. Thus, we have the possibility of using a
single, unified analysis of knowledge structures as a basis of the two most powerful strategies in
the enterprise for management and dissemination of intellectual capital: KM/EPSS and training.
Strategies which combine knowledge delivery and cognitive strategy training, such as van
Merrienboer’s model, are an important result. Furthermore, these same techniques for defining
knowledge structures can serve as the basis of the definition of intellectual capital, and thus may
be used as the basis for a new generation of ROI justification based on treating knowledge as an
asset.
To make all this happen, however, new methodologies are needed urgently, which
integrate development of EPSS/KM and training components, and which take the new approach
to needs assessment and ROI evaluation discussed above. This is an excellent challenge for the
field of Instructional Design and may well transform the scope, definition and even the name of
the field over the next decade or so.
(4) The Need for Better ISD Methodologies
The current business climate places a premium on speed. Speed of development,
delivery and dissemination is critical even at some sacrifice of quality and even if there is some
elevation of cost. Furthermore, the uncertainty of the current climate challenges a basic
assumption of conventional, top-down (linear or “waterfall”) ISD models: that it is possible to
fully define the training need before designing the solution. In conventional ISD, changes in
scope greatly increase project risks and costs and are to be avoided if at all possible. Yet, such
changes are often unavoidable and are so common that one must ultimately wonder if the
problem is with the client or with the methodology itself.
Tennyson and Foshay (2000) are among those who argue for a “4th generation” of ISD
methodology based on the principles of rapid prototyping, iterative design and development, and
incorporating frequent learner trials in a learner-centered approach to design and development.
The arguments in favor of such methodologies are precisely analogous to those used in
engineering fields such as software development and manufacturing engineering.
While Merrill’s ID2 project, the AIDA project, and a handful of commercial efforts (such
as Designer’s Edge) made some progress, more than a decade ago, in scaffolding and automating
the front-end design process, much remains to be done. In software development and in a variety
of engineering fields, tools for rapid prototyping and iterative, user-centered development are
widely available. In ID, we are not so lucky.
As a field, therefore, ID is at a crossroads. If the field undertakes the development of true
“4th generation” tools and ISD methodologies, then the “ISD model” will successfully evolve. If
not, then practitioners will continue to honor it more in the breach than the practice, and
ultimately, ISD methodology will become irrelevant to the practice of ID.
(5)The Revision of Learning Models
Just as we need new methods for designing and developing web-based instruction, we
need better models that provide instruction that is actually used by learners. In examining the
potential of web-based learning, the focus must contain capabilities not possible or at least highly
impractical in a traditional classroom. Thus technology fulfills its potential by enlarging from
simply carrying information or instruction to being a communication platform, expanding
cognitive capabilities, and a context or laboratory for manipulating the learner’s internal and
external environments, provided ID can develop learning models for distributed learning thus
evolving distance education from its current status as a delivery medium to a learning model.
E-Learning allows for learning strategies that are may not be possible in a classroom or
other traditional environments. However, regardless of its theoretical currency, the most
effective strategy is the one learners actually use. One of ID challenges is to determine how
learners actually interact with the various e-Learning instructional models, and the contexts in
which they do so.
Two forces are converging in the e-Learning space to create the promise of improved
learning models. First is a reexamination of the process of learning. New models and theories
emphasize the cognitive processes of knowledge building and problem solving—greatly
elaborating on the earlier concept of far transfer. This redefinition of learning theory focuses on
instruction which prepares learners to solve ill-structured problems through transformative or
generative processes. Transformative or generative processes focus on thinking, creativity,
collaboration, dialogue, and argumentation and are directed toward solving ill-structured
problems.
The second force shaping new learning models is the reconsideration by contemporary
views of what constitutes instruction. This is leading to increased acceptance of models which
are alternatives to direct instruction. Many contemporary approaches assert that while most
traditional instruction does well to control and to manage the educational experience, it does
little to maximize and, may even inhibit, natural human learning abilities (Marshall, 1997).
While traditional instruction supports individual pursuit of objective and well-defined learning, it
appears to be incompatible with the more social collaborative and dialogue-based learning
models.
Web based instruction thus holds the promise of increasing communication among
learners, including reconceptualizing learning from a one-shot fixed term to an on-going event
that is intermingled with the actual work processes. As part of the process of mastering content,
significant learning often occurs as the result of learner-to-learner communication. Logically,
meaningful learning is more likely to occur when learners have access to a supportive
community that encourages knowledge building and social reinforcement (Moller, 1998). It is
evident that while our own views and beliefs may be individually held, our views are, in fact,
influenced and expanded by information we receive from other perspectives. Thus, we are more
able to enlarge our own beliefs and more likely to take risks when supported by a community of
other learners (Grabinger, 1996).
However, in web-based instruction, learning communities may not be beneficial for
everyone. Some of the research is mixed as to what type of interaction distance learners prefer or
should be expected to engage in. It seems plausible that, given the lack of collaborative learning
background of many learners, our educational system is producing learners who prefer, or at
least able only, to interact with the content and/or the instructor but not each other. It also seems
plausible that the type of learner who typically engages in web-based educational courses (adult,
independent learners with higher internal loci of control) have significantly different goals and
preferences when it comes to online learning that may not lend themselves well to learning
communities (Navarro & Shoemaker, 2000; Reisetter & Boris, 2004). It may also be that
collaborative learning environments are not a good fit with some corporate training
requirements, such as the need for just-in-time individualized learning. Whether one prefers to
learn individually or within collaborative environments, E-Learning presents a new opportunity
to adopt potential individualization strategies that are not possible in traditional classroom
environments. Web-based instruction has the potential for never-before-seen levels of personal
customization. If the most important training is that which is actually used by learners, it stand to
reason that, as web-based instruction evolves and learners become more adept at maneuvering
within the environment, they will come to demand greater customization of the learning process
to cater to their individual interaction needs—whatever those needs might be.
In the second part of this three part series, we will continue to examine instructional
design issues and the future of distance education –this time focusing on higher education.
References
Grabinger, R. S. (1996). Rich environments for active learning. In D.H. Jonassen (Ed.) The
handbook of research for educational communications and technology, 403-437: New
York: Mcmillan.
Kirkpatrick, D.L. (1994). Evaluating training programs: The four levels. San Francisco: BerrettKoehler.
Marshall, S. (1997). Creating sustainable learning communities for the twenty-first century, in
Hesselbein, F., Goldsmith, M., & Beckhard, R. (Eds.). The organization of the
future,177-188: Jossey-Bass, San Fransisco.
Moller, L. (1998). Designing communities of learners for asynchronous distance education.
Educational Technology and Research Development Journal,46(4), 115-122.
Navarro, P. & Shoemaker, J. (2000). Performance and perception of distance learners in
cyberspace. The American Journal of Distance Education, Vol. 14(2), 15-35.
Reisetter, M. & Boris, G. (2004). What works: Student perceptions of effective elements in
online learning. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 5, 277-91.
Rossett, A. (1987). Training Needs Assessment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology
Publications.
Tennyson, R. & Foshay, W.R. (2000). Instructional systems development. In Tobias, S. and
Fletcher, J.D. Training & Retraining: A handbook for industry, government and the
military. New York: McMillan.
Van Merrienboer, J.J.G. (1997). Training complex cognitive skills: A four component
instructional design model for technical training. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational
Technology Publications.
Watkins, R., Leigh, D., Foshay, R. & Kaufman, R. (1998). Kirkpatrick plus: Evaluation and
continuous improvement with a community focus. Educational Technology Research
and Development Journal, 46 (4), 90-96.
The Evolution of Distance Education: Implications for Instructional Design on the Potential of
the Web (Part 2: Higher Education).
Leslie Moller
University of South Dakota
Wellesley R Foshay
Director, Research
Educational Technology Group
Texas Instruments, Inc.
Jason Huett
Assistant Professor
University of West Georgia
The explosive growth of distance education is rapidly transforming post-secondary
education. As in the training arena, the primary driving forces are economics and access.
Distance learning is rapidly becoming a popular choice for continuing professional education,
mid-career degree programs, and lifelong learning of all kinds. As so-called “non-traditional”
students become an increasingly large segment of the student body at the post-secondary level,
campus-based programs, residential or otherwise, may be leveling off in enrollment. So,
colleges and universities see distance education as a way of sustaining growth. For some
institutions, even a modest distance education program (say, 5% of enrollment) could mean the
difference between a budgetary surplus and a loss—especially for tuition-driven instructional
programs. Thus, distance education has an importance much greater than the enrollment figures
may suggest.
For many institutions, a principal motivator is the relatively unfamiliar force of
competition. For-profit, private-sector competitors are breaking the monopoly of conventional
institutions—provoking a fast-moving entrepreneurial response by some schools while leaving
others at a standstill. Since distance education programs can theoretically serve remote learners
as well as they serve local ones, even institutions with traditionally isolated service areas are in
competition. Often, the result seems to be an ill-considered “land rush” mentality: “we’d better
stake out our claim before all the good territory is gone; we’ll worry about effectively mining it
later.”
As we have seen in other periods of exuberance, quality becomes a lesser concern.
Traditionally, quality of instruction at the post-secondary level is almost entirely the affair of the
individual faculty member. Accreditation typically focuses on resources and offerings, not
program performance. In distance education, however, we are beginning to see alternatives to
this model emerge. The spread of performance-based testing and the growing quality concern
with distance education are leading a number of providers to examine models of quality based on
learner performance (University of Illinois, 1999). These same standards may eventually begin
to apply to classroom-based academic programs as well—most likely as demand increases from
prospective employers and learners. Thus, distance education could eventually be the point of
leverage to develop and to propagate performance-based quality standards throughout postsecondary education. We have observed that for the most part, post-secondary curriculum
standards and tests are rare even at the department level. Neither faculty nor students make
much of distinction between information and instruction or even between factual knowledge and
skill. It is too early to confidently predict that meaningful quality standards for instruction will
emerge from the present confusion over quality in distance education. For now, at least, there is
little consensus over the definition of quality in distance education. However, in the absence of
the traditional “territory” concept, we predict competition will become a much more significant
issue with quality being the predominant distinguishing attribute.
Faculty, E-learning, and ID
The Distance Education and Training Council (DETC) calls distance education a
“mainstream” educational delivery method and predict more than a 300% increase in terms of
students served in the next five years (DETC, 2004). With such explosive e-Learning growth,
most colleges and universities are willingly evolving to this new environment and providing
some, if not a significant portion, of their educational offerings in web-based or other
nontraditional formats. Faculty at these institutions are also being asked, and sometimes forced,
to evolve as well.
As in business training, most of the development work in distance education is being
done by faculty with no formal training in teaching of any kind: not to mention training in ID or
any of the related e-Learning fields. Sophisticated programs use instructional designers and
other specialists in a supporting role to develop distance education, but this is still relatively rare
in our experience. This leads faculty members, in most e-Learning initiatives, to adopt a craft
approach. Essentially, under the craft approach, the individual teacher fully designs and
develops the course and the related materials based on what has worked for him or her in the
traditional classroom and puts it on the Web (Moore & Kearsley, 1996). However, the classroom
models of instructional delivery and models of online delivery systems are vastly different; they
should not be seen as one and the same. Taking what one is familiar with and/or using what
works in one environment and simply duplicating it in a new environment can lead to limited
positive results.
There are many problems with this type of craft approach. For starters, there is little
evidence that traditional classroom models are all that effective to begin with. Moller (1998)
points out that while traditional institutions can benefit from using electronic delivery methods,
new ways of using technology have to be employed and understood by educators and merely
“recreating the present [classroom experience] in a more efficient manner seems wasteful when
the status quo is of questionable effectiveness” (p. 121). Educators in the distance medium are
faced with new pedagogical issues surrounding student interactions, course content design and
delivery, multiple levels of communication, defining new types of assignments and performance
expectations, and different assessment and evaluation techniques (to name a few).
Second, such an approach usually makes little real use of the wealth of technology
available. The craft approach often takes advantage of only the simplest of available technology
with little regard to how advances in streaming video, voice, print, and data resources can be
utilized to enhance instruction. Third, this approach can be very time-intensive for the faculty
member in question, leading to feelings of isolation and a sense of being overworked. Even
among faculty who find teaching in the online environment to be a positive and rewarding
experience, the most common complaint is that the environment can be too personally
consuming. The very nature of producing an educational process in which the learner and teacher
are separated by time and space, communicating through technology and probably using
different instructional strategies is markedly different than face-to-face traditional instruction. It
is not simply a matter of the faculty member’s content knowledge. Not only is there a
pedagogical difference, but also the inclusion of technology often requires new skill sets, new
ways of thinking, new time and resource management skills, new ways of communicating and
new communication boundaries, additional workers, and inter-departmental coordination to be
done successfully. Fourth, such an approach is not rooted in sound ID theory and does little to
further a comprehensive vision of a university-wide e-Learning program or e-Learning as a
whole.
The craft approach is also related to faculty trying to exert traditional control over the
learning process. In traditional face-to-face classes, faculty have direct control over most, if not
all, aspects of their instruction. In e-Learning, faculty are faced with the challenge of
collaborating with other departments, often including newly formed departments created with the
sole purpose of managing development and controlling the quality of the university’s e-Learning
initiatives (such as Distance Education Departments). In some instances, faculty are required to
teach classes already created by someone else and are ill-suited to their own personal style. This
also brings to the fore issues of intellectual property rights. Faculty who create classes are often
not given intellectual control over developed courses.
Course development, control of the learning process, collaboration, and intellectual
property rights are not the only adjustment issues for faculty. Faculty also have concerns about
training, salary, workload, and promotion and tenure. Generally, the research supports three
contentions about e-Learning course design:

It is more work than traditional face-to-face classes (at least at first). This applies to
development time, maintenance, and contact hours with students, etc

Professors often fear that student evaluations will be lower for e-Learning courses than
for face-to-face courses, and there is growing literature to support the merit of this
concern. This may be attributable to the difficulty inherent in creating the relationships
which influence ratings and which are necessary for effective instructional delivery.
Faculty fear tenure and promotion repercussions.

E-Learning courses can carry a certain "stigma" with them that, in some places, reduces
the credit given to professors for the work put into the classes.
In their own way, each of these three contentions is directly related to a lack of sound ID
methodology. This, of course, begs the question: If e-Learning is more work, has the potential
for lower evaluations, and can lead to less reward, who would want to embrace it? Interestingly
enough, a study conducted by the National Education Association (2000) showed that 75% of
faculty currently held positive feelings about distance learning. Some of the reasons faculty have
cited for these feelings are flexibility, greater individual student participation, and the
asynchronous nature of conversations that allow students and faculty more time to think about
and formulate responses and make greater connections. This allows for longer, more in-depth
and higher quality discussions. Faculty also seem to generally appreciate the opportunity to
advance their technical know-how and develop new teaching and presentation skills. Currently,
despite challenges, the faculty are there, and they appear willing.
Regardless of the size of the program, these are all areas where ID professionals
(regardless of philosophical bent) are needed to create a clear framework outlining the goals,
delivery, and structure of the e-Learning program with clear benchmarks for success. Such
efforts would go a long way toward improving e-Learning initiatives and such a collaborative
effort between ID professionals and faculty would also aide in alleviating faculty concerns and
help to bring more faculty into the “fold” of e-Learning.
According to Jones and Moller (2003), e-Learning programs that desire to build and
maintain long-term quality need faculty buy-in. In the end, without a motivated self-interest on
the part of faculty, individual participation will wane, and e-Learning will suffer. If e-Learning is
to become a truly viable environment for learning, we have to develop new processes with clear
guidelines that support a “systematic examination of our pedagogical underpinnings (Lynch,
Corry, and Koffenberger, 1999, ¶ 20) and take care of faculty concerns. These are areas of
challenge where ID professionals can make a critical difference.
Promoting Faculty Buy-In
If distance education is to become “mainstream” with continued productivity, we need to
begin to clearly address e-Learning issues such as course development, salary, workload,
intellectual property rights, and promotion and tenure. Each of these concerns can be seen as
integral components in an e-Learning system. In order to ensure the highest level of faculty
performance in e-Learning, the following suggestions are offered for discussion:
Training and Course Development

Whether development is by the individual faculty member or a team, the need is for
simple, highly templated instructional models and tools for building learning objects and
entire courses. Given the relatively limited economies of scale which are likely to be
possible in many distance education contexts, these tools must be cost-effective to use.

Training for faculty deploying online courses should be available (particularly in the
areas of online instructional design, teaching, and course revision), should be required
and should come with some form of compensation (pay, release time).

Faculty must be given a voice in the process, and faculty concerns about the program’s
effectiveness must be addressed.
Salary, Workload, and Intellectual Property Rights

Standards for course payments, royalty payments, intellectual property contracts,
workload reductions, and/or supplemental pay should be established.

Faculty, at a minimum, should be paid at the same rate for a distance education course as
for a comparable face-to-face course.

Faculty should be granted paid training or leave time to develop online classes to reduce
workload constraints and improve morale.

If faculty will be teaching a class created by someone else, they should be given time to
adjust the materials and to get up to speed with the class.

Class size in distance education classes should be strictly controlled.

Faculty need to be granted intellectual property rights over their creations and paid when
their creations are used.

The institution should have a support system in place for faculty (such as a distance
education center) to handle technical issues related to the course as this should not be a
management issue for faculty.
Promotion and Tenure

Distance education pursuits are legitimate scholarly work and the academic community
should respect them as such.

Junior faculty should be encouraged to engage in distance education pursuits.

For promotion and tenure, teaching distance education courses should carry the same
consideration as face-to-face courses.

There should be an understanding that distance environment requires a significant
“orientation” period where faculty are learning the necessary skills to be successful and
thrive in the environment. As a consequence, student evaluations may be lower than
traditional (face to face, or FTF) evaluations for a while. In general, comparisons between
FTF and online instruction are not particularly valid in most all contexts.

Development of distance education courses is a worthy professional scholarship/service
activity that should be counted toward tenure consideration and promotion.
Implications for ID
These observations lead to the conclusion that, as in training, ID should be at the
forefront of creating cost-effective models and tools for distance education. Such ID initiatives
would serve to improve training, course design, delivery and evaluation. They would also
function to improve instruction, to increase all manner of interactions, to provide for appropriate
student activities and, consequently, to eliminate some of the course development and workload
concerns of faculty. Ideally, such models should have templated learning objects based on the
full range of available options for computer-based instruction. They would go well beyond the
now-dominant “online textbook” models for distance education and, to the extent which can be
cost-justified, they would probably emphasize meaningful interaction. The models and tools
would foster an economy of learning objects to achieve economies of scale where possible. For
example, these models and tools could:

Use classical CBT tutorial and simulation techniques only for high-volume or high-criticality
course components—due to the high cost of development for these systems.

Use case/problem-based (“constructivist”) techniques only for low-volume, high-criticality
integration of learning and moderate-to-ill-structured problem-solving. These techniques
have a moderately high cost of development coupled with costly, labor-intensive
implementation.

Use knowledge management as much as possible for factual knowledge and for low-volume
and low-criticality declarative knowledge and well-structured procedures.

Integrate knowledge management, community, and tutorial techniques within the context of
the entire curriculum to support a certification or degree program.

Vary degree and kind of interaction and feedback depending on learning needs and types of
learners.

Use performance-based assessment which is simple to develop and only moderately costly to
use.
Fully developed models of this sort might even include a mix of online and campus-based
learning events and, perhaps, even some conventional classroom-based seminars. However,
such “traditional” program components would come to be viewed by the learners as high-cost
(they have to come to campus) and would tend to be reserved for high-value learning events such
as face-to-face team projects, community-building and work sessions, or lectures on topics too
new, too ephemeral or otherwise inappropriate for online presentation.
It is unclear how (or if) a market will emerge for learning objects (or whatever the
scalable technology-based components of distance education courses turn out to be). If a market
does emerge, it is unclear how (or if) such a market will value ID’s potential contributions.
Thus, a major challenge for the ID field is to get faculty and learners to recognize the value of
sound instructional design regardless of the medium of delivery or the theoretical framework
used to define it. In the absence of meaningful performance-based quality standards for distance
learning, this may not be possible.
The conclusion, therefore, is to understand that the faculty, the distance education
organizations, the learners and their employers, and the ID field all have a common interest in
performance-based definitions of quality. In the short term, ID faculty should lead the effort to
shape institutional policies on distance education quality standards and accreditation and should
actively engage in consultation and development. The time for such initiatives is now. To abuse
a cliché whether in training or higher education, “the train is leaving the station, but it’s not clear
that ID, as a field, will be on board.”
We will finish out this three part series with an examination of instructional design issues
and the future of distance education in the K-12 educational sector.
References
Corry, M., Koffenberger, W. & Lynch, W. (1999). Web-based distance education: Faculty
recruitment and training. In Proceedings of 1999 (pp. 671-676). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
Distance Education Survey. (2004). A report on course structure and educational services in
distance education and training council member institutions.
Jones, A., & Moller, L. (2003). Comparison of continuing education and resident faculty’s
attitudes towards distance education, College and University Media Review, 9(1),11-38.
Moller, L. (1998). Designing communities of learners for asynchronous distance education,
Educational Technology and Research Development Journal, 46(4, : 115-122.
Moore, M. G., & Kearsley, G. (1996). Distance education: A systems view. Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth Publishing Company.
National Education Association. (2000). A survey of traditional and distance learning higher
education members. Washington, DC: Author.
The Evolution of Distance Education: Implications for Instructional Design on the Potential of
the Web (Part 3: K-12)
Jason Huett
Assistant Professor
University of West Georgia
Leslie Moller
University of South Dakota
Wellesley R Foshay
Research Manager
Texas Instruments, Inc.
Craig Coleman
University of West Georgia
Although the training and development and higher education environments lead K-12
schools in embracing distance learning technologies, there is modest growth in distance
education efforts in the K-12 environment, and the steady rate at which distance learners are
enrolling emphasizes the importance of this population (Saba, 2005). In many ways, this
uncharted territory offers some of the most exciting challenges to be found in distance education
today.
While online learning in K-12 schools is addressing previously unmet needs, it is also
making headlines. Policy issues include funding of online learning programs and general
resistance to distance learning. Online learning is often not understood by policymakers resulting
in the application of existing policies for physical schools to online programs (Rice, 2006). State
governments typically establish virtual K-12 schools directly or provide funding to traditional
schools to create online programs. Equivalent funding of online and face-to-face courses implies
the instruction delivered is equally effective—an invalid comparison and potentially dangerous
assumption as rapid changes in the field of online learning may not result in high quality
programs (Conceição & Drummond, 2005). Quality indicators used to measure the success of
online programs are similar to those used with traditional K-12 programs including academic
performance, retention, academic achievement, and satisfaction (Ronsisvalle & Watkins, 2005).
However, Rice (2006) suggested that the effectiveness of distance education has more to do with
who is teaching, who is learning, and how that learning is accomplished and less to do with the
medium.
Distance education in the K-12 arena is often referred to as “virtual schooling” and
learning through virtual schooling is one of the fastest growing areas for K-12 schools (Roblyer,
2006). Virtual schools offer distance education courses in basically two formats: site based—part
of a traditional brick and mortar school and non-site based—usually in the form of virtual high
schools and charter schools.
Site Based Distance Education
The No Child Left Behind Act requires states to offer alternative schooling options to
students attending schools that fail to make adequate yearly progress. Some states, school
districts, and local administrators see site-based distance education as a viable option for choice.
Mupinga (2005) identified current teacher shortages and overcrowded schools as two
motivational factors for the rise in site-based distance education. Rather than hire new teachers,
some rural schools offer online courses allowing highly qualified teachers to instruct students in
locations where teaching shortages exist. With student populations increasing faster than new
facilities can be built, distance education classes are one option states are using to serve students
without the capital expenses required to build new schools (Ronsisvalle & Watkins, 2005).
In addition to teacher shortages, O’Dwyer, Carey, and Kleiman (2007) suggested the
need to broaden the variety of courses offered by schools as a reason schools implement online
courses. Expanding curricular offerings through online courses may include advanced, remedial,
elective, or credit-recovery courses. Ideally by offering online courses, a small school can
provide rich and varied options normally available only at larger schools (Pape, 2005).
There are other benefits to site-based distance education. Benefits for administrators
include the option of ensuring course content is aligned to standards and providing resources to
high-risk students. Teachers benefit by having potentially greater contact with students who are
not normally communicative in a face-to-face classroom. Benefits for parents include being able
to see assignments, resources, and readings available to their child. Learners benefit by having
access to all the tools for success available in one setting, being able to review and practice as
needed, and going at their own pace (Abram, 2005).
Non-Site Based Virtual Schools
Most of the emphasis on virtual schooling is at the high school level (Mupinga, 2005).
Online high schools are often state-centered initiatives established to expand course offerings
and meet the needs of certain populations of students. Some online high schools allow students
to take courses from home while others require students to take courses in monitored computer
labs supervised by teachers or facilitators.
A more controversial example of K-12 online learning is virtual charter schools, which
offer distance education to public school students while operating independently of local school
districts. Huerta, d’Entremont, and González (2006) identify two forms of virtual charter schools
that have developed: home-school and cyber-charter. Home-school charter schools require
parents to serve as the primary educator while cyber-charter schools offer computer-based
learning either synchronously or asynchronously with teachers filling the role of educational
facilitator. In some instances, online programs are now enabling home-schooled students to
receive a publicly-funded education in the home environment. Both forms have attracted large
numbers of students impacting the budgets of local districts.
Implication for Instructional Design
The trends discussed above have at least four potentially profound impacts on the field of
ID. These four effects concern the student or learner population, research-based approaches,
lack of trained professionals, and organizational change.
Student/Learning Population
Perhaps, the biggest concern is the student. Distance education initiatives may serve the
least homogenous group of learners than any other modality or learning environment. We fear
that distance education may become little more than a “dumping ground” for credit recovery as
well as a repository for those unable or unwilling to function in the more traditional classroom
environment (Ronsisvalle & Watkins, 2005). This represents a vast underutilization of an
incredibly promising educational medium; it is also the exact opposite population the research
says tends to thrive in the distance environment (Kachel, Henry, & Keller, 2005; Sharp & Huett,
2006).
K-12 distance education learners include students who have social commitments, are
being home-schooled, live in rural areas, are hospitalized, are homebound, who require flexible
hours for employment, are incarcerated, who want to enrich their education, are traveling, have
difficulty in regular classrooms, or are in need of courses not offered during the regular school
day (Mupinga, 2005; Rice, 2006; Ronsisvalle & Watkins, 2005). This brings with it a host of
issues that has to be taken into account when considering instructional design parameters for this
audience.
Although K-12 students can benefit from the independence offered by virtual schooling,
this same independence can also have potentially negative impacts. While synchronous courses
offer real-time interaction with the teacher and, potentially, with peers, a course taught
predominantly through asynchronous instruction may offer few opportunities for personal
interaction. Like classroom schooling, virtual schooling must deal with student-related issues
such as feelings of isolation and concerns about social development that may exceed classroom
based instruction (Cavanaugh, Gillian, Kromrey, Hess, & Blomeyer, 2004). In addition, virtual
learning potentially has some specific audience issues.
Personal and psychological characteristics of successful online learners include their
autonomy, metacognition, self-regulatory skills, positive self-efficacy, motivation, and internal
locus of control (Cavanaugh et al., 2004; Ronsisvalle & Watkins, 2005). The development of
many of these characteristics is age-dependent raising the possibility that younger students may
be less successful online learners. Cavanaugh et al. (2004) stated that younger students require
more supervision, simpler instructions, and a more extensive reinforcement system than older
students. The question of how effective distance learning can be with younger students has yet to
be addressed. The amount of independence given to younger students, the use of synchronous
versus asynchronous instruction, the characteristics required of a successful young distance
learner, and the technology best used to deliver materials to younger learners are all areas that
need further research. Instructional designers bring a much needed and research-based
perspective on how “learners learn” to this diverse audience. Ideally, ID professionals would
play a key role in researching and designing K-12 distance education environments to carefully
accommodate diverse learners with varying degrees of maturity.
Research-Based Approaches
We have become a bit cynical that some K-12 educational personnel, whom always seem
to seek out the “magic elixir” that cures all ills, will, in overly simplistic fashion, embrace
distance education as the latest in a long line of “perfect” solutions to a diverse and highly
complex problem. ID professionals, perhaps in partnership with academic researchers, can play a
key role in making sure that distance education initiatives truly serve the needs of students.
Instructional designers must stay on top of the current research and be able to (1) defend
decisions regarding who should and should not enroll in the available distance education
offerings and (2) promote designs which have the capability to serve the actual student
population that was targeted. In this way, instructional designers are actually protecting students
by promoting solid distance learning practices based on research and theory.
Unfortunately, little research currently exists to inform decisions about online learning in
K-12 schools. Instructional designers are uniquely qualified to help fill this research gap. Few
high-quality, evidence-based research studies have examined the effectiveness of online learning
at the high school level compared to face-to-face instruction with even fewer studies examining
curriculum specific interventions (Conceição & Drummond, 2005; O’Dwyer et al., 2007). The
majority of research on student success in online courses has been conducted in higher education
settings (O’Dwyer et al., 2007; Ronsisvalle & Watkins, 2005). How this research translates to the
K-12 setting is unknown. Cavanaugh et al. (2004) caution against applying the findings of higher
education research in distance education to the K-12 setting adding that K-12 distance education
is fundamentally unique. ID professionals are needed to direct research concerning which
distance education learning models work best with certain groups of students. Finally, the
majority of K-12 distance education research has been conducted in grades 6-12. The
effectiveness of online learning for all grade levels is, at best, unclear. K-12 instructional
designers for distance education need to be aware of the lack of a clear research agenda as well
as the controversies surrounding this new delivery medium. ID professionals have an exciting
opportunity to guide the development of K-12 distance education to make sure that the needs of
learners are met.
As with research in adult distance education, studies in the K-12 setting focus primarily
on comparisons of student achievement in online versus face-to-face courses. The popularity of
studies comparing distance courses with face-to-face instruction stems from the longstanding
curiosity about the legitimacy of distance education as an alternative to traditional settings
(Bernard et al., 2004). Comparison studies in both higher education and K-12 environments
appear to show no significant difference based on the delivery medium. Cavanaugh et al. (2004)
completed a meta-analysis reviewing web-delivered K-12 distance education programs and
found that student achievement was similar between online courses and classroom-based
courses.
We agree with the suggestion by Bernard et al. (2004) that the need for studies comparing
distance education with traditional classroom instruction is nearing its end. ID professionals
should begin to direct a research agenda involving comparisons within distance education
environments. A review of existing K-12 distance education literature by Rice (2006) supported
this assertion adding that distance education research should move beyond comparative studies
to focus on the factors that ensure successful teaching and learning. In general, the requirements
of non-traditional settings, like online learning environments, have received only a small amount
of research and are not well understood. The systems thinking of an instructional design
researcher could be invaluable in the investigation of these models.
There are also issues concerning evaluation. Already, it is clear that issues of quality and
assessment are as critical in distance education as in traditional forms of education, but nontraditional programs often must “prove” their worth in ways not expected of “mainstream”
schools. The instructional design perspective can inform evaluation strategies to ensure that
naïve questions about technology and online educational delivery are not the primary ones being
asked.
Lack of Trained Professionals
In terms of instructional design, teachers (if they are trained at all in ID theory and
practice) are trained to design instruction for the traditional classroom. Presupposing that this
training is sufficient to create solid, pedagogically sound, online instruction is a fatal flaw in the
process. Expecting teachers to be instructors, content experts, distance education instructional
designers and technology experts, in addition to their other responsibilities, is asking too much.
There is a strong need for instructional designers, specifically trained in distance education
technologies and design, which are ready to tackle distance education challenges at all levels.
Such collaboration would allow for instructors to focus on their role as content knowledge expert
and teacher while allowing instructional designers to work with teachers, and within the medium,
to facilitate delivery of specific instructional strategies and design features for successful
implementation. Since the cost-benefit characteristics of online programs are very different from
the traditional education systems, we can predict that there will be substantial implications for
what kinds of technology solutions will be feasible and cost-effective. Again, instructional
design research on feasibility of technology in these contexts is needed.
The overwhelming demand in the training field for people with instructional design
backgrounds has diverted much of the ID attention away from education. Now that technology
is finally entering the educational system in substantial quantity (and with the growing interest in
online course offerings), we can hope that the trend reverses. Bringing instructional designers
into “the fold” allows us to move away from individual initiatives and more toward a
collaborative approach where instructional designers partner with teachers to create dynamic and
engaging distance learning environments. Kachel et al. (2005) listed three critical elements for
exemplary K-12 online learning: “the features and design of the course, the role of the teacher or
facilitator, and the characteristics that successful online learners exhibit” (p. 14). If one agrees
with this assertion, then it could follow that the first point should be the new domain for
instructional designers. However, instructional designers may also have a role that extends
beyond the preliminary design of the course. In many distance education initiatives, the class
“shell” or template is initially designed with the idea that the section can and will be taught by
multiple instructors in different locations with varying backgrounds. The classes can then be
“packaged” for distribution to many different school settings. A key role that instructional
designers may play in the success of distance education initiatives is in helping to ensure that the
environment in which the course is delivered is supportive of (and consistent with) the initial
design of the class and to make adjustments accordingly. This could help maintain an invaluable
user-centered design perspective for each location and audience.
Organizational change
What we are witnessing with the current evolution of distance education, and the
technologies that support it, is nothing less than the single most important reorganization of how
we will engage learners since we started to gather students together in school buildings. If
schools are going to make a commitment to delivering education in this format, it will require a
restructuring of how schools are organized. The hiring of ID professionals would bring a much
needed “awareness” of sound distance education design to the process.
In the traditional self-contained classroom, almost all aspects of the complete educational
service are presumed to be provided by the teacher – in the simplest case, with no additional
resources beyond a textbook and state or local curriculum standards. This traditional model
breaks down in the virtual or site-based online school environment. It is clear to us that
development of complete e-learning instructional environments, that use sound principles of
design and assessment, is beyond the time and talents of all but the most exceptional teachers.
Thus, we have seen most virtual learning systems quickly discover the need to separate the roles
of curriculum developer (often into a team of specialists) and teacher. As these systems grow in
sophistication, it is easy to imagine that the role of teacher may be further separated into the
online teacher, subject matter expert, and the local learning facilitator/coach. While this kind of
differentiation of roles is new to the K-12 environment, we see it as a natural evolutionary
direction for online learning at the K-12 level.
Note, however, that this differentiated model demands large scale in order to be costeffective. Since, in the U.S., K-12 schooling is primarily a state and local enterprise, structures
needed to achieve a cost-effective scale for online learning are only beginning to emerge (most
often in the form of regional and statewide consortia, with some private-sector activity). In those
few cases where a curriculum has gained national recognition (such as Advanced Placement or
International Baccalaureate courses), we are beginning to see national offerings as well.
However, it is unclear if the economies of scale promised by e-learning will ever be
substantial in the U.S. K-12 context beyond a variety of niche applications such as those
mentioned above. It may be that countries with national curricula will see these benefits long
before the U.S. does.
Conclusion
Is e-Learning (and the technologies that support it) truly a breakthrough or is it only the
latest “miracle” which promises solutions to all the problems associated with education and
training? Clearly, our society loves simple answers to complex problems—especially if those
answers require little or no effort. It is impossible to deny the benefits and ubiquity of the
Internet. Yet, the history of education is a history of so-called advances and new ideas which fail
to hold up to scrutiny over time. Rushing to adopt “distance education,” or any new technology,
to avoid being seen as out of touch or outdated certainly is as ephemeral as most fads. We agree
with those who argue that education and training are costly endeavors that are not presently
serving our schools, our business organizations, or our society well. We need training and
educational solutions, and e-Learning holds out promise. Unfortunately, much of real promise is
buried under the hyperbole of a quick fix: much like a TV commercial which makes exaggerated
claims of losing weight while one sleeps. While some may view this as a cynical opinion, our
view for the future is actually quite positive: we just need to choose to view e-Learning as the
question rather than the answer. In short, the Internet and e-Learning make wonderful things
possible if we decide, as educators and trainers, to intelligently and systematically exploit those
possibilities.
The multitude of possibilities outlined in this three part series illustrate that there are
opportunities to evolve and to grow the field of instructional design in many directions. At the
same time, however, researchers and practitioners are facing such a demand for their talents that
getting the support and the time for disciplined research and theory building is often extremely
difficult. This makes for tricky but exciting challenges.
For instructional design and technology, this is “stand and deliver” time. Professionals in
the field are finally getting their chance to make good on the visions of learning transformed by
technology. However, we have neither unlimited time nor unlimited resources to prove our
worth to the current leaders aggressively advocating the use of technology in training and
education. If the expectations of the public and policy makers are not realized, it will not matter
which learning theory, design methodology, academic program or software company did or did
not succeed. The credibility of technology as a transformative force will be damaged. It is
incumbent upon all professionals with a commitment to the potential of technology in education
and training, no matter what their theoretical or ideological bent, to think “outside the box,” to
collaborate and to advance the common vision. As much as our understanding of technology in
education and training has developed over the past 40 years, we still understand only a small
fraction of what is required to transform the craft of instructional technology and design into an
engineering or science-style discipline.
Given the challenges we face, practitioners in the field have little time for ideological
bickering about various theoretical positions. No single line of research can possibly lay a
unique claim to ultimate wisdom and understanding. There is much to be accomplished and little
time to do it. Let us proceed then, together, with the hard work of building a cumulative and
unified base of knowledge for e-Learning and the field of instructional design.
References
Abram, S. (2005, March). The role of e-learning in the K-12 space. MultiMedia &
Internet@Schools, 12(2), 19-21.
Bernard, R., Abrami, P., Lou, Y., & Borokhovski, E. (2004). A methodological morass? How we
can improve quantitative research in distance education. Distance Education, 25(2), 175198.
Cavanaugh, C., Gillan, K., Kromrey, J., Hess, M., & Blomeyer, R. (2004). The effects of distance
education on K-12 student outcomes: A meta-analysis. Naperville, IL: Learning Point
Associates. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED489533)
Conceição, S., & Drummond, S. (2005). Online learning in secondary education: A new frontier.
Educational Considerations, 33(1), 31-37.
Huerta, L., d’Entremont, C., & González, M. (2006). Cyber charter schools: Can accountability
keep pace with innovation? Phi Delta Kappan, 88(1), 23-30.
Kachel, D., Henry, N., & Keller, C. (2005). Making it real online: Distance learning for high
school students. Knowledge Quest, 34(1), 14-17.
Mupinga, D. (2005). Distance education in high schools. The Clearing House, 78(3), 105-108.
O’Dwyer, L., Carey, R., & Kleiman, G. (2007). A study of the effectiveness of the Louisiana
algebra I online course. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 39(3), 289306.
Pape, L. (2005). High school on the web. American School Board Journal, 192(7), 12-16.
Rice, K. (2006). A comprehensive look at distance education in the K-12 context. Journal of
Research on Technology in Education, 38(4), 425-448.
Roblyer, M. (2006). Virtually successful: Defeating the dropout problem through online school
programs. Phi Delta Kappan, 88(1), 31-36.
Ronsisvalle, T., & Watkins, R. (2005). Student success in online K-12 education. The Quarterly
Review of Distance Education, 6(2), 117-124.
Saba, F. (2005). Critical issues in distance education: A report from the United States. Distance
Education, 26(2), 255- 272.
Sharp, J., & Huett, J. (2006). Importance of learner-learner interaction in distance education.
Information Systems Education Journal, 4(46).