Towards a Course Development Model for Graduate Level Distance Education |
In distance education instructional designers and subject specialists are hampered in their efforts by poorly defined course development models and a dearth of heuristics for effective design. The authors argue that in spite of these difficulties academics can prepare and teach distance education courses using basic instructional design practices drawn from theory-based research found in the general education literature. Several of these were incorporated into a teleconference course offered through The University of Calgary. Students were surveyed to determine the effectiveness of these strategies from both a learning and a motivational perspective. Early results indicate very positive outcomes to the approach used. It appears that the groups surveyed were favorably disposed to the means and methods employed.
Dans le domaine de l'éducation à distance les efforts des concepteurs pédagogiques et des spécialistes d'une discipline sont entravés par des modèles insuffisamment définis de développement de cours et par des carences, au niveau heuristique, d'analyses effectives. Les auteurs veulent montrer qu'en dépit de ces lacunes les universitaires sont en mesure de préparer et d'offrir des cours à distance en s'aidant de stratégies de base de mise en forme issues de la recherche théorique générale déjà publiée dans le domaine. Plusieurs de ces stratégies de structuration ont été appliquées lors d'un cours par téléconférence offert par l'université de Calgary. Un sondage mené auprès des étudiants en vue de déterminer l'efficacité de telles stratégies tant au niveau de l'apprentissage que de la motivation a donné des résultats préalables très positifs. Les réponses des sujets sondés nous ont laissé entendre qu'ils étaient satisfaits tant des méthodes que des moyens utilisés.
A review of the literature on developing university courses at the graduate level, especially those aimed at the education of instructors for distance education, yields very little in the way of theory-based guidelines.
Keegan (1990) discusses the lack of theory and quotes Wedemeyer who stated that ". . . the failure of correspondence study to develop a theory related to the mainstream of educational thought and practice has seriously handicapped the development and recognition of the field" (p. 51). Despite the lack of guiding principles, the review revealed that important advances had been made in the instructional strategies used in distance education. This progress, one suspects, has evolved as a consequence of the increasing number of colleges and universities offering courses and programs to remote learners and the increasing number of learners accessing these courses and programs.
The lack of theory, however, remains problematic. Several authors have addressed this issue with a view to identifying concerns common to a wide range of applications (e.g., Holmberg, 1982; Kelly, 1990; and Smith, 1980). Unfortunately, there is surprisingly little in these discussions that would help an instructional designer to develop a course that is uniquely distance education in nature. Comprehensive descriptions of the heuristics that could be valuable standards or benchmark considerations are also lacking.
Kelly (1990) suggests that existing systems for course development, such as the one employed by the British Open University, work well for the environment in which it operates but do not necessarily transfer well to smaller scale institutional applications (p. 79). Furthermore, Holmberg (1982), in reviewing several course development approaches, suggests that when course structuring is decided upon by the institution alone, these efforts tend not to be student-centred. In referring to a study conducted by Boud (1981), he states that:
Course content as decided on by a distance-study institution to some extent tends to become autocratic. Distance teaching may then mean teacher centered education, where the media are used as substitutes for the teacher, "telling" students what they ought to know. (p. 24)
Holmberg (1982) goes on to discuss another aspect of highly structured course design models and their failings:
Most distance education courses with their various components aim at leading their students straight to specific goals and do so on condition that the students are capable of following the exposition, doing the exercises and solving the problem set. The course developers then tend to regard each study unit as an integral part and thus as a compulsory course component which is only rarely regarded as replaceable. This all-embracing course structure is often too rigid. (p. 24)
Following the extensive review of the course development literature and finding it lacking in theoretical orientations, a project was proposed and implemented that was intended to overcome the theoretical void. It was based on design features found in the work of Daniel, Stroud, and Thompson (1982) who advocate the use of teaching models and who support the notion of basing distance education development on grounded theory. In their work they integrate the models generated by Ausubel (advance organizer model), Bruner (discovery learning model), Egan (structural communication model), Gagné (general teaching model), Rogers (facilitation of learning model), Rothkopf (model for written instruction), and Skinner (behaviour control model).
In approaching this task, the research team decided that a practical approach to identifying the required heuristics for the generation of courses would be attempted. A review of the literature on the strategies of advance organizers (Ausubel, 1960; Ausubel & Fitzgerald, 1962), graphic organizers (Barron, 1970), and concept and cognitive mapping (Novak 1979, 1981) was undertaken and integrated into the model-building exercise. The structures adopted were also drawn from the literature on general course development and were enhanced by learner and instructional considerations peculiar to distance learning environments.
Reflections by graduate level students who have completed at least one of a series of innovative telecourses were solicited to check the applicability of the design structures selected. The students were asked to consider: the advantages and disadvantages of the strategies designed into these innovative courses; their potential impact on learning; the means for interacting with other students as well as instructors; provision of choice regarding course assignments; and what it was like to participate in a course of this nature.
In designing these courses, the developers sought to emulate a philosophy espoused by Kaufman (1984) who emphasized that a blueprint for distance education course development must be learner centred and must employ an integrated approach (p. 239). In working toward this end, the features noted below were incorporated into the course:
A survey instrument was developed to determine learner preferences for selected instructional strategies. The survey included Likert-type statements, yes/no questions, and open-ended or anecdotal assessments. The instrument included both statements and questions.
The survey was mailed to 33 respondents after the completion of two courses focusing on instructional development. The target group was composed of adult learners who generally were involved in the field of education from the elementary through to the community college level. The majority of these students were enrolled in graduate programs at several institutions, including several from outside the province of Alberta. Most had previously taken courses via teleconferencing, and, therefore, had some experience against which they could compare their recent course experience.
This was considered to be a prototype project and therefore a relatively small number of respondents was sought. Additional surveys are to be administered over the next three years, this being the minimum amount of time necessary to collect sufficient data to ensure reliability of findings.
Each session had a specific topic for which pre-readings were assigned. Pre-readings were carefully selected to provide a broad introduction to the differing opinions and perspectives of those writing in the area of distance education.
The learners responded positively to the pre-readings, with 20 of 21 respondents agreeing that the pre-readings advanced their understanding of distance education theory and research. They recognized that the prereadings related well to the course objectives (19 of 21) and saw the session objectives as useful guides to the reading material (19 of 21).
The learners did not indicate a clear preference for journal articles over a textbook; however, several commented on the general currency and variability of journal articles. One student reported that: "As long as the material relates well to that week's lesson, it doesn't really matter what the source is."
Pre-readings were seen as valuable resources for completing course assignments (19 of 21), with comments indicating that: "Readings helped as a starting point" and "I often referred to the print materials."
The basis for the planning of any educational activity ought to focus on what the goal or purpose of the teaching-learning event should be. Recognizing this, Tyler (1949) argued for the careful delineation of quantifiable performance objectives. This line of thought has been supported by Bloom (1956), Mager (1962), Krathwohl (1964), Gagné (1970), and others who have pointed out that well-defined performance objectives allow teach-ers to be explicit about what they expect students to learn. Another important reason for specifying performance objectives "is that often they are the only means of properly evaluating the effectiveness of what the teacher is doing in the classroom" (Gibson, 1980, p. 244).
However, the use of learning objectives has met with some criticism. Schubert (1986), for example, identified four areas of concern. First, performance objectives may cause teachers to perceive students as having unconnected affective or cognitive or psychomotor characteristics. Second, breaking the subject-matter into discrete components is inconsistent with a holistic approach to knowledge. Third, it is not always possible to predict how or when learners will incorporate content into their personal "repertoires" of knowledge. Finally, acquisition of values, understandings, attitudes, and appreciations is problematic in terms of performance because these are matters more concerned with a learner's consciousness than with his or her measurable behaviour (pp. 192–193).
In spite of these arguments against the use of performance objectives - especially in courses at the graduate level - the decision was made to incorporate them into the course design in a rather strict and formal sense. That is, two or three objectives were listed at the beginning of the agenda for each of the teleconference sessions in each course. Each objective contained a clear indication of the expected behaviour. While such a highly structured approach might normally be considered indefensible at the graduate level in that the research interests of particular students might be stifled, the developers of the course justified their decision on the grounds that distance students, perhaps much more than on-campus students, need the support and guidance that performance objectives provide.
Overall, the students reacted favourably to the use of performance objectives. For example, 14 (out of 21) of the students indicated that objectives were helpful in preparing for sessions. Of particular interest was the relatively strong agreement among the students (17 of 21) that graduate level courses require this type of objective. Learners also indicated (15 of 21) that written objectives were instrumental in expanding their understanding of distance education.
To facilitate preparation and organization on the part of the learner, the familiar meeting tool, the agenda, was developed for each session. Learners were able to determine from the agenda what their responsibilities were in terms of the teleconference component of the course. Although the timing of the agenda items was displayed on the instructor copy only, the agenda served to keep the activities moving along, with learners being kept informed as the session progressed. Learners generally agreed that the agendas were used to prepare for sessions (19 of 21), and that they liked knowing the format of each session (19 of 21).
These three elements of the course design - pre-readings, objectives, and agenda - informed learners of where they were going and how they were going to get there.
Learners were introduced to the idea of structured note-taking in the first session, not just to help them to develop an effective set of notes, but also to provide them with a cognitive strategy to encourage active learning. DiVesta and Fray (1972) researched listening and note-taking and indicated that, "the behavior [sic] of the student employing encoding or other transformational processes reflects a transaction between the learner and the material to be learned" (p. 8). The structure in the form of prompts, headings, boxes, and lines (advance organizers and concept maps) was intended to provide learners with an organizational tool to use prior to the teleconference as well as during the on-line discussion. Structured note-taking draws on the work of Cyrs & Smith (1988) and is related to the construction of an interactive study guide. According to these researchers note-taking behaviour is superior to note-copying behaviour in that the attention of the learner is focused on listening and engaging in the discussion rather that on writing fast (p. E-l).
Some of the learners (13 of 21), considered structured note-taking a useful learning strategy, as indicated by the following comments: "I found it most useful as it helped to organize, summarize the learning process"; ". . . it helps to focus the thoughts"; "My initial reaction was that structured note-taking was kindergarten stuff. My view changed as I used it. It often is an appropriate learning strategy."
Learners who used the structured note-taking (11 of 21) used it before (9 of 21), during (14 of 21), and after the session (6 of 21). Some commented that: "This was a very useful strategy in class and after class" and "I have old habits for note-taking. The structure was useful, (however) in setting up a perceptual framework similar to objectives."
There is considerable support in the literature for the view that distance education should involve some type of interaction in which learners become active participants in the learning process (Sewart, 1981; Morgan, 1985; Rumble, 1986; Moore, 1988). Garrison and Shale (1990) have concluded that this type of interaction can be promoted by appropriate teaching methods.
Teaching must be concerned with the critical analysis of beliefs, norms, and accepted knowledge and under-standings. Teaching must also encourage the development of new perspectives based upon the integration of students' existing knowledge with newly acquired knowledge. Finally, the student must validate this emerging knowledge through collaborative and sustained interaction with a teacher and other students. (pp. 29–30)
Recognizing the importance of learner/instructor interaction in distance education, course developers included interaction strategies such as breakaway sessions (i.e., where learners can interact in small groups in the teleconference sessions), class discussions, student presentations, and question and answer periods in each of the teleconference sessions. Learners enrolled in the courses could interact with the instructor on an individual basis through a journal.
Twenty of 21 learners indicated that the amount of interaction was appropriate in the teleconference sessions and that the teaching strategies used, in general, made up for not having face-to- face contact with their instructor (19 of 21).
From a list of seven possible interaction strategies, class discussions in the teleconference sessions were seen as the single most important means of promoting learner/instructor interaction (i.e., 10 of the 21 respondents ranked class discussions as the most important strategy, 9 respondents ranked them as being second in importance, and 1 respondent ranked them as being third in importance). Breakaway sessions were seen as the second most important strategy for encouraging interaction (i.e., 16 learners indicated breakaway sessions as either their first, second, or third choice). Communication through the dialogue journal was seen as the third most important strategy with 12 learners ranking it as either their first, second, or third choice for interaction with their instructor. Student presentations and viewing video tapes were seen as the least effective strategies in terms of promoting interaction.
The use of journals in education is a strategy that has enjoyed increasing popularity in recent years. Practising educators ranging from elementary school teachers to university instructors have used the innovation with their students for a variety of reasons. Carswell (1988) has identified at least four ways that journals can be used in education: for a therapeutic effect, a means to improve writing skills, as a way to record information, and as a way for students ". . . to clarify their understandings and relate their learning to their personal and professional lives" (p. 104). Journals have also been used as data collection instruments in qualitative research in education (Clandinin, 1985; Johnson, 1990).
Students enrolled in graduate level teacher education courses have not escaped the journal experience either. For example, False and Burge (1984) argue that the journal is a valuable tool because it enables the student to engage in what they call "personal reflective learning" (p. 74).
There are those who see journal writing at the graduate level as an important device for allowing dialogue between the instructor and the student (Mikkelson, 1985; Carswell, 1988; Newman, 1988). Newman (1988) also argues that journal writing is useful because it can promote an under-standing of learning and teaching. Referring to the use of journals in graduate level teacher education courses, she states that they
Would allow the teachers to write regularly. It would encourage personal expression. Most important, it would let them use writing to discover their ideas. (p. 134)
In these graduate level courses, journal entries were faxed back and forth between the instructor and the students on an individual basis. This was not an unreasonable instructional approach in that the plan was for the journal, coupled with the group interactional capability of the audio teleconferencing system, to enable the distance students to enjoy the seminar experience in a way similar to that of on-campus students (i.e., where a group of students studying with a professor do original work and all exchange work through reports and discussions). The instructor frequently urged students to limit their journal entries to one page. On average, each student exchanged seven or eight journal entries with the instructor over the four months of the course. Entries were typed, single spaced and averaged about two pages in length by students and one page in length by the instructor.
Over three quarters of the students (14 of 17) who used journals to communicate with the instructor indicated that the activity served a useful purpose. There appears to be no agreement on what the journal entries should actually include. Approximately 50% of the students pointed out that entries should include personal reflections on the issues discussed in the teleconference sessions, whereas just over 50% of the students suggested that the topics for journal entries should be determined by the instructor. Finally, 50% of the students indicated that journal entries should be limited to one page. This finding is particularly interesting considering the observation that very few students limited themselves during the course to one page journal entries.
Not only do learners need to read about and listen to new and different ideas regarding distance education and distance education course development, but the need to expand and relate to personal experience some of these ideas is the basis for breakaway activities. Adult learners bring life experiences to the learning situation and share these experiences with peers. Discussion of course content in small groups fosters active, participatory learning. Given the constraints of audioteleconferencing, the course designers considered it important to build into the course opportunities for groups of learners to talk to one another. These opportunities were provided in breakaway sessions and were scheduled regularly throughout the course.
With directions for the breakaway activity given by the instructor (e.g., "brainstorm the differences between face-to-face and distance learning"), the teleconference sites were electronically connected to enable discussion groups. Learners were given 10 to 15 minutes for discussion, then came back on-line to share the results with the whole teleconference group.
Learners generally considered the breakaway activities to be important (16 of 21), and indicated that the amount of interaction was generally appropriate during the sessions (15 of 21). On a ranking scale of 7, 16 out of 21 learners ranked breakaway sessions as number either 1, 2, or 3. Comments from the learners about the breakaway activities indicated a desire to be connected to different teleconference sites, (i.e., they did not wish to discuss issues with the same group each time). More breakaway sessions were also requested. These suggestions were incorporated into the 1991/92 versions of the courses.
The literature clearly indicates that choices and options should be provided for distance education learners (Ljosa & Sandvold, 1988). There is every indication that when alternatives are provided within the framework of the course, motivation is improved and attrition is reduced. Given these important factors, the developers designed several features into the courses in order to take advantage of them.
With regard to assignments, the topic for the mid-term research paper was to be either selected from a list of 20 suggestions (for which reference material was provided in the course packet) or students could identify a topic of their choosing (they were to identify and locate reference sources). The learners reported that they generally agreed with the instructor-selected topics (10 of 21), with only a few disagreeing (5 of 21), with the remainder (6 of 21) indicating that the matter was not of great concern to them. They further reported (9 of 21) that they generally preferred several shorter papers (1000–1500 words) with only one individual indicating a preference for longer papers (2500–3000 words). Eleven learners apparently had no clear preferences.
It was of interest to the developers to note that these learners reported support for a final exam in the courses (20 of 21). Comments such as the following were typical of the responses: "I find a take-home exam to be more sensible approach to examinations if they are required." "I feel the take-home exam gave more time for reflection and checking back on what was learned." "Take-home exams gave me time for proper reflection on questions. It became a sort of `think' project." When asked whether a final exam gave added rigor to the course, comments such as these were given: "In large part the exam helped to bring together and synthesize the ideas in the course," "I found it a most valuable part of the course as far as tying everything together." "Yes, it challenged me to integrate material from throughout the course."
When these pilot-phase courses were being developed there were no provisions with the Library Services group of the main university library to obtain assistance with assignments. To accommodate the special requirements of the learners in this aspect of the course, the developers included most of the needed material in the course packet. This included additional material in the form of unpublished articles, reprints of colloquials presented at conferences, and published monographs.
Provision of access to resources such as a university library was deemed to be of great importance by the course designers. For the 1991/ 92 offerings of these telecourses, support of a librarian specifically assigned to distance education learners and a library on-line service was made available.
What could reasonably be asked of distance learners in the area of cost recovery? The survey indicated that the learners generally found the costs of distance education, beyond that of tuition, to be reasonable (18 of 21). These costs included: course package, texts, fax charges, and telephone calls to the instructor. The learners also indicated a willingness (17 of 21) to pay for any additional resources (photocopying, postage) that could be provided by The University of Calgary's librarians.
On the question of library accessibility, the learners in the project indicated that they were not negatively impacted (15 of 21). They further reported that it was not acceptable to use libraries that required two or more hours of travel to access library materials (11 of 21).
Are these distance learners prepared to be connected electronically? Interestingly, the learners responded quite positively to the questions related to use of personal computers with modems. Out of 21 learners, 13 indicated a willingness to purchase a personal computer and modem to participate in computer conferencing as part of a distance education course. That same number, 13 of 21, indicated that they would access The University of Calgary's library on-line, even when long distance telephone tolls would be levied.
In situations where resources for elaborate development of courses are not available or are undesirable, a few academics can prepare and teach a distance education course if basic instructional design practices are used. These practices must be drawn from the theory-based research found in the general education literature. What must be avoided is the standby approach where traditional on-campus courses are re-worked slightly and offered as lectures by audio or video teleconference.
Courses developed without due concern for the needs of remote learn-ers are often inadequate and possibly disastrous when sound design principles are not followed. Any course development exercise must be learner centred and must adopt an integrated approach in order to accommodate the complete scholarly needs of the learners.
In the project described in this paper, the designers used many opportunities for participation and interaction on the premise that remote learners would benefit from these opportunities. As well, it was felt that these opportunities for interaction needed to be flexible so that students could choose those strategies that were most appropriate for them, as was suggested by Ljosa and Sandvold (1988).
On the surface it may appear that the course design is structured and rigid (course design elements 1, 2, and 3) and that learners have little personal choice in how they work through the material. It is argued here that the structured approach paradoxically provides flexibility. For example, if a learner has completed the required readings and then turns to an agenda that guides the reflective process, ideas, analyses, and synthesized relationships may emerge that might not have otherwise occurred. Learners, for instance, may be asked to consider the potential impact of the readings on their personal experiences and work situations. They can then be prepared to share these personal experiences during the teleconference. Such strategies encourage the student to focus on themes and issues and better prepares them to bring particular views and skills to the session. It is of interest to note that the students often indicated in their dialogue journals that they found the course to be quite flexible and that their individuality was not threatened by the course design.
Course design elements 1 to 5 and 9 were specifically aimed at providing basic guidance for the course content through advance organizers, graphic organizers, and embedded concept and cognitive mapping.
Any models that evolve from this project will depend on several factors. These factors might best be illuminated by asking questions such as the following. Does the process work? Is the innovation as or more stimulating than previous approaches? Are the established instructional designer goals of increased participation, interaction, and motivation being met? Clearly the courses being surveyed in the project must be offered over several semesters in order to obtain evidence that learners gain both intellectually and motivationally in from such strategies.
The course structure described here provides learners with needed information and resources and guides them through the learning process. The philosophy of the authors is concomitant with many learning strategies generally employed in distance education course development. Seen from the perspective of graduate level programs, an approach such as the one described can offer a "shell" for development for academics and instructional designers.
Ausubel, D. P. (1960). The use of advance organizers in the learning and retention of meaningful verbal material. Journal of Educational Psychology, 51(5), 267–272.
Ausubel, J. D., & Fitzgerald, D. (1962). Organizer, general background, and antecedent learning variables in sequential verbal learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 54(2), 73–84.
Bååth, J. A. (1982). Teaching models for designing courses creatively. In J. S. Daniel, M. A. Stroud, & J. R. Thompson (Eds.), Learning at a distance: A world perspective (pp. 37–40). Edmonton, Alta: Athabasca University.
Barron, R. F. (1970). The effects of the advance organizers upon the reception learning and retention of general science content. (ERIC Document Service No. ED 061 554)
Bloom, B. S. (Ed.). (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: Cognitive domain. New York: David McKay.
Carswell, R. J. B. (1988). Journals in graduate curriculum courses. English Quarterly, 21(2), 104–114.
Clandinin, J. (1985). Personal practical knowledge: A study of teachers classroom images. Curriculum Inquiry, 15, 361–385.
Cyrs, T. E., & Smith, F. A. (1988). Teleclass teaching: A resource guide. New Mexico: Regents of New Mexico State University.
Daniel, J. S., Stroud, M. A., & Thompson, J. R. (Eds.). (1982). Learning at a distance: A world perspective. Edmonton, Alta: Athabasca University.
DiVesta, F. J., & Fray, G. S. (1972). Listening and note-taking. Journal of Educational Psychology, 63(1), 8–14.
False, A. W., & Burge, J. B. (1984). Self-direction by design: Self directed learning in distance course design. Canadian Journal of University Continuing Education, 10(1), 68–78.
Gagné, R. M. (1970). The conditions of learning. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Garrison, D. R., & Shale, D. (1990). Education at a distance: From issues to practice. London: Routledge.
Gibson, J. T. (Ed.). (1980). Psychology for the classroom. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice- Hall.
Holmberg, B. (1982). Recent research into distance education (vols. 1 and 2). Hagan, Germany: Zentrales Institut fur Fernstudienforschung Arbeitsbereich: Fernstudienentwicklung.
Johnson, B. ( 1990). The journal as a research tool: Added dimensions. (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. 182 465)
Kaufman, D. (1984). Practice and theory of distance education: Course blueprint. Distance Education, 5(2), 239–251.
Keegan, D. (1990). Foundations of distance education (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
Kelly, M. (1990). Course creation issues in distance education. In R. Garrison & D. Shale (Eds.), Education at a distance: From issues to practice (pp. 77–100). Malabar, FL: Peter E. Krieger.
Krathwohl, D. R. (1964). The taxonomy of educational objectives - Its use in curriculum building. In C. M. Lindvall (Ed.), Defining educational objectives. Pittsburgh, PA: The University of Pittsburgh.
Ljosa, E., & Sandvold, K. E. (1988). The student's freedom of choice within the didactical structure of a correspondence course. In D. Sewart, D. Keegan, & B. Holmberg (Eds.), Distance education: International perspectives (pp. 291–315). London: Routledge.
Mager, R. F. (1962). Preparing instructional objectives. Palo Alto, CA: Fearon. Mikkelson, N. (1985). Teaching teachers: What I learn. Language Arts, 62(7), 742–753.
Moore, M. (1988). On a theory of independent study. In D. Sewart, D. Keegan, & B. Holmberg (Eds.), Distance education: International perspectives (pp. 68–94). London: Routledge.
Morgan, A. (1985). What should we do about independent learning? Teaching at a distance, 26, 38–45.
Newman, J. M. (1988). Sharing journals: Conversational mirrors for seeing ourselves as learners, writers, and teachers. English Education, 20(3), 134–156.
Novak, J. D. (1979). The reception learning paradigm. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 16(6), 481–488.
Novak, J. D. (1981). The use of concept mapping and Gowen's "V" mapping instructional strategies in junior high schools science. The Cornell University, "Learning How To Learn Project." (ERIC Document Service No. ED 280 720)
Rumble, G. (1986). The planning and management of distance education. London: Croom Helm.
Schubert, W. H. (1986). Curriculum: Perspectives, paradigm and possibility. New York: MacMillan.
Sewart, D. (1981). Distance education a contradiction in terms. Teaching at a distance, 19, 8–18.
Smith, K. C. (1980). Course development procedures. Distance Education, 1(1), 61–67.
Tyler, R. W. (1949). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Dr. Erv Schieman has a background as an instructor, course developer,
administrator and project evaluator in the area of distance education. As well, he teaches undergraduate and
graduate courses in educational technology in the Department of Curriculum and Instruction, the University
of Calgary. He has pursued this field of study since being introduced to teleconferencing by Dr. Barry Ellis,
in 1978, at the University of Calgary.
With a background in nursing education, Sylvia Teare has a M.ED in
Educational Technology from the University of Calgary, specializing in instructional design and distance
education. Currently she is a consultant in program development for a post-diploma baccalaureate degree in
nursing, organized by the University of Calgary Faculty of Nursing. As well, she is consulting on the Adult
Critical Care Nursing Program in development at the Foothills School of Nursing.
Jim MacLaren is a full-time graduate student in the Department of
Curriculum and Instruction, University of Calgary, specializing in distance education. He has a background
in educational technology and has taught school in Canada and with CUSO in Africa. Jim is currently
completing a thesis, where an investigation of student's attitudes towards distance education strategies is
described.