Students' Motivation for Learning at a Distance
Student Motivation for Learning at a Distance: Does Interaction Matter?
Kathleen D. Kelsey, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
Oklahoma State University
466 Agricultural Hall
Stillwater, OK 74078 kelseyk@okstate.edu Alan D 'souza, Ph.D.
Director of Research and Development for TRiO Programs
Wichita State University
105 Grace Wilkie Hall
Wichita, KS 67260-0008 dsouzaalan@yahoo.com Acknowledgement: This research was paid for by the Oklahoma Agricultural Experiment Station through HATCH funds.
Abstract
The case study evaluated a distance education program offered by a land-grant university agricultural college. The study used Holmberg 's and Moore 's theoretical frameworks of didactic conversation and multiple interactions to determine the importance of interaction on the efficacy of distance learning. The mixed methods approach used an original survey instrument and long faculty interviews. While students found the technology manageable, the faculty perceived technology as a barrier to effective instruction. Both, students and faculty were satisfied with the nature of interactions between them, although the faculty had individual preferences and faced some barriers to interaction. The study supported Holmberg 's and Moore 's contention that interaction may be a predicating factor for the success of distance education courses. The study also found that student-student interaction was not considered critical to learning. More research is necessary in the direction of curriculum modification to suit distance student needs.
Introduction
Offering distance education courses is consistent with the mission of the land-grant university and is a critical endeavor for the survival of the modern educational institution (Kambutu, 2002). Keegan (1990) defined distance education as a system characterized by 1) the separation of instructor and student during most of the instructional process, 2) the influence of an educational organization, 3) provision of student assessment, 4) use of
Kathleen D. Kelsey, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
Oklahoma State University
466 Agricultural Hall
Stillwater, OK 74078 kelseyk@okstate.edu Alan D 'souza, Ph.D.
Director of Research and Development for TRiO Programs
Wichita State University
105 Grace Wilkie Hall
Wichita, KS 67260-0008 dsouzaalan@yahoo.com Acknowledgement: This research was paid for by the Oklahoma Agricultural Experiment Station through HATCH funds.
Abstract
The case study evaluated a distance education program offered by a land-grant university agricultural college. The study used Holmberg 's and Moore 's theoretical frameworks of didactic conversation and multiple interactions to determine the importance of interaction on the efficacy of distance learning. The mixed methods approach used an original survey instrument and long faculty interviews. While students found the technology manageable, the faculty perceived technology as a barrier to effective instruction. Both, students and faculty were satisfied with the nature of interactions between them, although the faculty had individual preferences and faced some barriers to interaction. The study supported Holmberg 's and Moore 's contention that interaction may be a predicating factor for the success of distance education courses. The study also found that student-student interaction was not considered critical to learning. More research is necessary in the direction of curriculum modification to suit distance student needs.
Introduction
Offering distance education courses is consistent with the mission of the land-grant university and is a critical endeavor for the survival of the modern educational institution (Kambutu, 2002). Keegan (1990) defined distance education as a system characterized by 1) the separation of instructor and student during most of the instructional process, 2) the influence of an educational organization, 3) provision of student assessment, 4) use of
References: Biner, P. M., Welsh, K. D., Barone, N. M., Summers, M., & Dean, R. S. (1997). The impact of remote-site group size on student satisfaction and relative performance in interactive telecourses. The American Journal of Distance Education, 11(1), 23-33. Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Hillman, D. C. A., Willis, D. J., & Gunawardena, C. N. (1994). Learner-interface interaction in distance education: An extension of contemporary models and strategies for practitioners. The American Journal of Distance Education, 8(2), 30-41. Holmberg, B. (1983). Guided didactic conversation in distance education. In D. Sewart, D. Keegan, & B. Holmberg (Eds.), Distance Education: International Perspectives (p. 114-122). New York: St. Martin 's Press. Holmberg, B. (1995). The evolution of the character and practice of distance education. Open Learning, 10(2), 47-53. Kambutu, J. (2002). Administrators prefer technology-based distance learning. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 3(3), 341-343. Keegan, D. (1990). Foundations of distance education. London: Routledge. Merriam, S. B. (1995). What can you tell from an N of 1? Issues of validity and reliability in qualitative research. PAACE Journal of Lifelong Learning, 4, 51-60. Moore, M. G. (1989). Three types of interaction. The American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1-6. National Governors Association. (2003). The state of e-learning in the States. Retrieved June 1, 2003, from Available: http://www.ecs.org/html/Document.asp?chouseid=2705 Patton, M Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. London: Sage Publications. Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods. (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.