Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

An Analysis of Success and Failures: Focusing on Learner–Content Interactions for the Next Generation of Distance Education

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Next Generation of Distance Education

Abstract

With each new technological innovation, we have added another layer of complexity on top of the existing classroom without seeking to redesign the very foundation on which the instruction is based. In this chapter, we will examine the lessons learned from past and present technologies to propose how to use both old and new technologies to refine and evolve the first four generations of distance education to design the next generation of distance education. In particular, we suggest that a self-regulated, individualized approach to the design of distance learning instruction should be considered. The design team approach includes a focus on designing course materials that emphasize the learner–content interactions using generative strategies.

*AECT 2010 Summer Research Symposium, Bloomington, IN, July 20–23, 2010.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Anderson, T. (2003). Getting the mix right again: An updated and theoretical rationale for interaction. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 4(2), 2–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bean, J. P., & Metzner, B. S. (1985). A conceptual model of nontraditional undergraduate student attrition. Review of Educational Research, 55(4), 485–540.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berge, Z. L., Muilenburg, L. Y., & Haneghan, J. V. (2002). Barriers to distance education and training. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 3(4), 409–418.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernard, R. M., Abrami, P. C., Borokhovski, E., Wade, C. A., Tamim, R. M., Surkes, M. A., et al. (2009). A meta-analysis of three types of interaction treatments in distance education. Review of Educational Research, 79, 1243–1289. doi:10.3102/0034654309333844.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bork, A. (1987). Personal computers for education. New York: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, B. (2009). Barriers to adoption of technology mediated distance education in higher-education institutions. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 10(4), 333–338.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, R. E. (1983). Reconsidering the research on media. Review of Educational Research, 53(4), 445–459.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, R. E. (1994). Media will never influence learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 21–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cone, J. W., & Robinson, D. G. (2001). The power of e-performance. Training and Development, 55(8), 32–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dibiase, D., & Rademacher, H. J. (2005). Scaling up: Faculty workload, class size, and student satisfaction in a distance learning course on geographic information science. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 29(1), 139–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ellis, E. M. (2000). Faculty participation in the Pennsylvania State University world campus: Identifying barriers to success. Open Learning, 15(3), 233–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fabry, D. L. (2009). Designing online and on-ground courses to ensure comparability and consistency in meeting learning outcomes. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 10(3), 253–261.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fish, W. W., & Wickersham, L. E. (2009). Reminders. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 10(3), 279–284.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garrison, D. R. (2009). Implications of online learning for the conceptual development and practice of distance education. Journal of Distance Education, 23(2), 93–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2–3), 87–105.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garrison, D. R., & Shale, D. (1987). Mapping the boundaries of distance education: Problems in defining the field. American Journal of Distance Education, 1, 4–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grabowski, B. J. (2004). Generative learning contributions to the design of instruction and learning. In D. J. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of educational communications and technology (2nd ed., pp. 719–743). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hawkes, M., & Coldeway, D. O. (2002). An analysis of team vs. faculty-based online course development: Implications for instructional design. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 3(4), 431–441.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heinich, R. (1984). The proper study of instructional technology. Educational Communications and Technology Journal, 32(2), 67–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heinich, R. (1985). Instructional technology and the structure of education. Educational Communications and Technology Journal, 33(1), 9–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holmberg, B. (1977). Distance education: A survey and bibliography. London: Kogan Page.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holmberg, B. (1989). Theory and practice of distance education. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horton, D., & Wohl, R. R. (1956). Mass communication and para-social interaction. Psychiatry, 19(3), 215–229.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D. (1988). Integrating learning strategies into courseware to facilitate deeper processing. In D. Jonassen (Ed.), Instructional designs for microcomputer courseware (pp. 151–181). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D. H., & Grabowski, B. L. (1993). Handbook of individual differences, learning, and instruction. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kanuka, H. (2006). Instructional design and eLearning: A discussion of pedagogical content knowledge as a missing construct. E-Journal of Instructional Science and Technology, 9(2).

    Google Scholar 

  • Kanuka, H., & Brooks, C. (2010). Distance education in post-fordist time. In M. F. Cleveland-Innes & D. R. Garrison (Eds.), An introduction to distance education: Understanding teaching and learning in a new era (pp. 69–90). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keegan, D. (1996). Foundations of distance education (3rd ed.). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keller, F. S. (1968). Goodbye teacher…. Journal of Applied Behavioral Analysis, 1, 79–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koszalka, T. A., & Ganesan, R. (2004). Designing online courses: A taxonomy to guide strategic use of features available in course management systems (cms) in distance education. Distance Education, 25(2), 243–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kulik, C.-L. C., & Kulik, J. A. (1986). Effectiveness of computer-based education in colleges. AEDS Journal, 19, 81–108.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kulik, C.-L. C., & Kulik, J. A. (1991). Effectiveness of computer-based instruction: An updated analysis. Computers in Human Behavior, 7, 75–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kulik, C.-L. C., Kulik, J. A., & Cohen, P. A. (1980a). Instructional technology and college teaching. Teaching of Psychology, 7(4), 199–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kulik, J. A. (1983). Effects of computer-based teaching on learners. In Paper presented at the National Forum of the College Board symposium on computer competency and the curriculum, Dallas, Texas. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=ED246877&site=ehost-live Access on May 24, 2010.

  • Kulik, J. A., Kulik, C.-L. C., & Cohen, P. A. (1979). A meta-analysis of outcome studies of Keller’s personalized system of instruction. The American Psychologist, 34(4), 307–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kulik, J. A., et al. (1980b). Effectiveness of computer-based college teaching: A meta-analysis of findings. Review of Educational Research, 50(4), 525–544.

    Google Scholar 

  • Markle, S. (1969). Good frames and bad: A grammar of frame writing. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? The American Psychologist, 59(1), 14–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E. (2010). Merlin C. Wittrock’s enduring contributions to the science of learning. Educational Psychologist, 45(1), 46–50. doi:10.1080/00461520903433547.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2002). Aids to computer-based multimedia learning. Learning and Instruction, 12, 107–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore, M. (1990). Background and overview of contemporary American distance education. In M. Moore (Ed.), Contemporary issues in American distance education (pp. xii–xxvi). New York: Pergamon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morrison, G. R., & Anglin, G. J. (2006). An instructional design approach for effective shovelware: Modifying materials for distance education. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 7(1), 63–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morrison, G. R., Ross, S. M., Kalman, H. K., & Kemp, J. E. (2011). Designing effective instruction (6th ed.). Hoboken: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peters, O. (1993). Distance education in a postindustrial society. In D. Keegan (Ed.), Theoretical principles of distance education (pp. 39–58). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poellhuber, B., Chomienne, M., & Karsenti, T. (2008). The effect of peer collaboration and collaborative learning on self-efficacy and persistence in a learner-paced continuous intake model. Journal of Distance Education, 22(3), 41–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pomales-Garcia, C., Lopez, A. D., & Liu, Y. (2010). Design dimensions and attributes for web-based distance learning modules. American Journal of Distance Education, 24(1), 21–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Postlethwait, S. N., & Hurst, R. N. (1972). The audio-tutorial system: Incorporating minicourses and mastery. Educational Technology, 12(9), 35–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rourke, L., & Kanuka, H. (2009). Learning in communities of inquiry: A review of the literature. Journal of Distance Education, 23(1), 19–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • SACs. (2009). Distance and correspondence education: Policy statement. Decatur: Southern Association of Schools and Colleges.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simonson, M., Schlosser, C. A., & Hanson, D. (1999). Theory and distance education: A new discussion. American Journal of Distance Education, 13(1), 60–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simonson, M., Smaldino, S., Albright, M., & Zvacek, S. (2000). Teaching and learning at a distance: Foundations of distance education. Columbus: Merrill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tessmer, M. (1988). What’s on second. Performance and Instruction, 27(9), 5–6. doi:10.1002/pfi.4170270903.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Winne, P. H., & Hadwin, A. F. (1997). Studying as self-regulated learning. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. C. Graeser (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 279–306). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winne, P. H., & Stockley, D. B. (1998). Computing technologies as sites for developing self-regulated learning. In D. H. Schunk & B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Self regulated learning: From teaching to self-reflective practice. New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wittrock, M. C. (1974a). A generative model of mathematics education. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 5(4), 181–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wittrock, M. C. (1974b). Learning as a generative process. Educational Psychologist, 19(2), 87–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wittrock, M. C. (1989). Generative processes of comprehension. Educational Psychologist, 24, 345–376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woloshyn, V. E., Paivio, A., & Pressley, M. (1994). Use of elaborative interrogation to help students acquire information consistent with prior knowledge and information inconsistent with prior knowledge. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(1), 79–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, B. J. (1990). Self regulated learning and academic achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 25, 3–17.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. STEM and Professional Studies, Old Dominion University, 228 Education Building, Norfolk, VA, 23529, USA

    Gary R. Morrison Ed.D

  2. Curriculum and Instruction, University of Kentucky, 137 Taylor Education Building, Lexington, KY, 40506, USA

    Gary J. Anglin Ed.D

Authors
  1. Gary R. Morrison Ed.D
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gary J. Anglin Ed.D
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gary R. Morrison Ed.D .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Professor, Educational Tech., Walden University, 155 Fifth Ave S, Minneapolis, 55401, Minnesota, USA

    Leslie Moller

  2. , Assoc. Dean, Online Develop. & USG eCore, University of West Georgia, Maple St. 1601, Carrollton, 30118, Georgia, USA

    Jason B. Huett

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Morrison, G.R., Anglin, G.J. (2012). An Analysis of Success and Failures: Focusing on Learner–Content Interactions for the Next Generation of Distance Education. In: Moller, L., Huett, J. (eds) The Next Generation of Distance Education. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-1785-9_16

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation