You are here:

Beyond Classroom Comparisons in the “What Works in Distance Education” Question: A Meta-Analysis of DE vs. DE Comparative Studies
PROCEEDINGS

, , , , , , , Concordia University, Canada

E-Learn: World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education, in Quebec City, Canada ISBN 978-1-880094-63-1 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), San Diego, CA

Abstract

This is a meta-analysis of the experimental literature of distance education (DE) comparing different instructional treatments with each other. A framework was developed around three major dimensions of DE: Student Interactivity, Student Autonomy, and Technological Functionality, and used to categorize studies for analysis. For example, Student Interactivity contained three categories of independent studies: those exploring Student-Student Interaction, Student-Teacher Interaction, and Student-Content Interaction. This allowed the effect size valences to be determined. Forty-five studies of achievement were included, yielding 107 effect sizes. There were 50 effect sizes for Interactivity, 25 effect sizes for Autonomy, and 32 effect sizes for Technological Functionality. Weighted average effects for the three dimensions were: g+ = 0.089, p < 0.05, g+ = -0.104, and g+ = 0.055, p < 0.05, respectively. All distributions were significantly heterogeneous, suggesting caution in interpretation.

Citation

Bernard, R., Abrami, P., Borokhovski, E., Wade, A., Tamim, R., Surkes, M. & Bethel, E. (2007). Beyond Classroom Comparisons in the “What Works in Distance Education” Question: A Meta-Analysis of DE vs. DE Comparative Studies. In T. Bastiaens & S. Carliner (Eds.), Proceedings of E-Learn 2007--World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education (pp. 2345-2353). Quebec City, Canada: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved March 21, 2019 from .

Keywords

View References & Citations Map

References

  1. Allen, M., Mabry, E., Mattrey, M., Bourhis, J., Titsworth, S., & Burrell, N. (2004). Evaluating the effectiveness of
  2. Andrews, R., & Harlen, W. (2006). Issues in synthesizing research in education. Educational Research. 48(3), 287299.
  3. Borenstein, M., Hedges, L.V., Higgins, J., & Rothstein, H. (2005). Comprehensive Meta-analysis Version 2. Englewood, NJ: Biostat.
  4. Cavanaugh, C.S. (2001). The effectiveness of interactive distance education technologies in K-12 learning: A metaanalysis. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 7, 73-88.
  5. Hedges, L.V. & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
  6. Jahng, N., Krug, D., & Zhang, Z. (2007). Student achievement in online education compared to face-to-face education. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning. Retrieved February 21, 2007 from http://www.eurodl.org/materials/contrib/2007/Jahng_Krug_Zhang.htm.
  7. Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T., & Stanne, M.E. (2000). Cooperative learning methods: A meta-analysis. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
  8. 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 Psychologies, 41(2), 75-86.
  9. Lazarus, B.D. (2003). Teaching Courses online: How much time does it take? Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(3) 47-53.
  10. Lipsey, M.W., & Wilson, D.B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  11. Machtmes, K., Asher, J.W. (2000). A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of telecourses in distance education. American Journal of Distance Education, 14(1), 27-46.
  12. Moore, M.G. & Kearsley, G. (2005). Distance education: A systems view, 2nd Edition. Belmont: CA: Thompson/Wadsworth.
  13. Moore, M.G. (1989). Three types of interaction. American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1-6.
  14. Moore, M.G., & Thompson, M.M. (1990). The effects of distance learning: A summary of the literature. Research Monograph No. 2. University Park, The Pennsylvania State University, American Center for the Study of Distance Education (ERIC Document Reproduction No. ED330321).
  15. Phipps, R. & Merisotis, J. (1999). What’s the difference? A review of contemporary research on the effectiveness of distance learning in higher education. Washington, DC: Institute for Higher Education Policy.
  16. Russell, T.L. (1999). The no significant difference phenomenon. Chapel Hill, NC: Office of Instructional Telecommunications, North Carolina State University.
  17. Shachar, M., & Neumann, Y. (2003, October). Differences between traditional and distance education academic performances: A meta-analytical approach. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Education. Retrieved May 5, 2005, from http://www.irrodl.org/content/v4.2/shacharneumann.html.
  18. Sitzmann, T., Kraiger, K., Stewart, D., & Wisher, R. (2006). The comparative effectiveness of web-based and classroom instruction: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 59(3), 623-664.
  19. Ungerleider, C. & Burns, T. (2003). A systematic review of the effectiveness and efficiency of networked ICT in education. A state of the field report to the Council of Ministers of Education, Canada and Industry Canada, 64 pages.
  20. Wickstrom, C.D. (2003). A funny thing happened on the way to the forum. Journal of Adolescent& Adult Literacy, 46(5) 414-424.
  21. Zhao, Y., Lei, J., Yan, B, & Tan, S. (2004). What makes the difference? A practical analysis of research on the effectiveness of distance education. Retrieved February 22, 2007, from http://ott.educ.msu.edu/literature/report.pdf

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact info@learntechlib.org.