Editor’s Note: Explosive growth of online learning made the face of the teacher invisible as institutions abandoned television for low cost web alternatives. This paper reminds us that interactive television is effective for student centered learning. It explores relationships between teaching style, instructor training, teaching experience, interactive classroom type, curriculum and instructional design. The research is based on a large population and a correlational quantitative design. It demonstrates how quality of learning is influenced by preparation, teaching styles and student participation.

Variables Related to
Interactive Television Teaching Style:
In Search of Learner-Centered Teaching Styles

Pamela A. Dupin-Bryant

Abstract

As supported by many studies, effective distance education revolves around learner-centered teaching styles that decrease psychological distance and increase student participation in the teaching-learning process. Knowing variables that help explain or predict learner-centered teaching styles will help institutions refine their programs to better serve the needs of students. This study identified variables that account for interactive television teaching style. Interactive television instructors (N = 203), representing nine land-grant universities in the United States participated in the study. Regression analysis revealed a six variable model accounted for 37% of the variance in teaching style as measured by the Principles of Adult Learning Scale (PALS), including: (a) training in philosophy, history, and/or foundations of adult/continuing education; (b) interactive classroom type; (c) training in psychology of adult development/learning; (d) training in teaching methods for adults; (e) consultation with other distance education instructors; and (f) training in the development of curricula for distance education courses. Correlational analysis found teaching style was also related to education level, academic rank, teaching experience, and training in teaching methods for distance education.

Introduction

During the past few decades, distance education has grown to become an established presence in higher education with more than 80% of institutions delivering courses via audio-video interactive conferencing technologies (Lewis, Snow, & Farris, 1999). Although online distance education has received more attention in current literature, interactive television—characterized by multiple classroom sites in which participants see and hear each other simultaneously via audio-video interactive conferencing technology—is a commonly used delivery type that is projected to thrive in the future (Lewis, et al., 1999; McGlothlin, 2001; Mottet, 1998; Ostendorf, 1997).

As students continue to enroll in interactive television courses, effective instruction becomes paramount. Many have postulated that the success and growth of distance education depends on minimizing the psychological distance inherent in most distance education settings (Moore & Kearsley, 1996; Wolcott, 1996). The combination of psychological and physical distance poses many potential problems to effective distance learning (Wolcott, 1996).

To reduce psychological distance many believe that special teaching behaviors are necessary in distance education environments (Moore & Kearsley, 1996; Verduin & Clark, 1991). Wolcott (1996) suggested “one solution to bridging the psychological distance is to adopt a learner-centered approach to distance teaching” (p. 25). The development of learner-centered skills in course planning, delivery, and evaluation are believed to be essential to effective distance instruction (Belanger & Jordan, 2000; Butcher, 2002; Duffy & Kirkley, 2004; Verduin & Clark, 1991). Effective distance teaching is believed to revolve around a learner-centered system of instruction (Beaudoin, 1990; Dillon & Walsh, 1992; Gehlauf, Shatz, & Frye, 1991) “that demonstrate[s] a bias for direct learner involvement and participation throughout the process” (Ostendorf, 1997, p. 51).

Learner-centered distance educators encourage personal growth and stress facilitation of learning and construction of knowledge rather than diffusion of information (Beaudoin, 1990; Duffy & Kirkley, 2004; Granger & Bowman, 2003). The tenets of learner-centered distance teaching parallel the collaborative, learner-centered teaching styles heralded in adult education literature as the most effective way to teach adults (Gibson, 2003; Verduin & Clark, 1991).

Purpose of the Study

A primary goal of distance education is to provide quality educational experiences to geographically dispersed individuals. Yet, due to geographic separation students are often socially and psychologically isolated in interactive television classrooms. As the number of students participating in interactive television courses continues to increase it is imperative for institutions of higher education to refocus on the goal of serving the needs of students. To serve students well, it is therefore crucial that interactive television instruction revolves around learner-centered teaching activities that decrease psychological distance and increase student participation in the entire teaching-learning process.

Numerous studies support the assertion that utilizing more learner-centered instructional approaches enhances the effectiveness of the distance learning process (Butcher, 2002; Dillon & Gunawardena, 1995; Dillon & Walsh, 1992; Hackman & Walker, 1990; Silvernail & Johnson, 1992; Wilkes & Burnham, 1991; Zhang & Fulford, 1994). Yet, until variables that relate to learner-centered teaching styles are more clearly identified, instructional changes will not be made and students may continue to remain psychologically isolated and dissatisfied with the distance education experience. This study provided the next step in improving interactive television instruction by answering the research question:

Which variables account for teaching styles of university interactive television instructors?

Background

Many variables have been hypothesized to be related to interactive television teaching style. Much of the literature on distance teaching was based on the premise that well-designed training programs help instructors shift from teacher-centered to more learner-centered teaching styles. Training topics believed to enhance learner-centered approaches to distance teaching included: (a) the use and application of distance education technologies; (b) the development of curricula for distance education courses; (c) teaching methods for distance education courses; (d) philosophy, history, and/or foundations of adult/continuing education; (e) psychology of adult development and/or learning; and (f) teaching methods for adults (Chin & Horton, 1994; Hoskins, 1998; Jadun, 1998; Kearsley, 1998; Moore & Kearsley, 1996; Wolcott, 1993, 1996). The literature also suggested that consultation with support staff and with other distance education instructors promotes more learner-centered teaching strategies (Armstrong, 1998; Hoskins, 1998). Teaching experience, education level, academic rank, technology type, and distance teaching experience were also noted as variables that may contribute to more learner-centered teaching (Moore & Kearsley, 1996; Wolcott, 1996).

The effect of training, institutional support, and technology on distance education teaching style has been tested in several small qualitative studies (Hoskins, 1998; Armstrong, 1998). These studies identified many variables that foster learner-centered distance teaching strategies, including training in the use and application of technology, training in curriculum development, training in distance teaching methods, consulting with support staff, and speaking with other distance education instructors. No specific studies were found that tested the relationships between teaching experience, education level, academic rank, and teaching style. Although variables that are related to learner-centered teaching styles have been studied in numerous adult education settings, only a few interactive television studies have reported evidence of specific variables that account for learner-centered teaching styles.

Methodology

This study sought evidence from university interactive television instructors in the United States that would lead to general conclusions about relationships between teaching style, instructor training, teaching experience, interactive classroom type, and other variables using a correlational quantitative research design. A random sample was drawn from the accessible population of interactive television instructors from nine land-grant universities who agreed to participate in this study. The sampling frame included university instructors who had taught via interactive television at Colorado State University, Iowa State University, North Dakota State University, Oregon State University, Purdue University, University of Maine, University of Minnesota, University of Wyoming, and Utah State University. A research questionnaire, including a demographic survey and the Principles of Adult Learning Scale (PALS), was used to collect data.

Teaching style is a relative construct representing various identifiable and pervasive traits, characteristics, behaviors, and qualities a teacher exhibits in any given educational setting that reflects the teacher’s educational philosophy (Darkenwald & Merriam, 1988). The Principles of Adult Learning Scale (Conti, 1990) was used in this study to measure the degree a university interactive television instructor accepts and practices a particular teaching style. In this study, a composite score on the PALS instrument operationally defines teaching style. Teacher-centered teaching style is a construct defined as a style of instruction that is formal, controlled, and autocratic in which the instructor directs how, what, and when students learn. In this study, low composite scores on PALS provided the operational definition of teacher-centered teaching style. Learner-centered teaching style is a construct defined as a style of instruction that is responsive, collaborative, problem-centered, and democratic in which both student and instructor decide how, what, and when learning occurs. In this study, high composite scores on PALS provided the operational definition of learner-centered teaching style.

PALS is a highly reliable and valid rating scale (Conti, 1983; Parisot, 1997; Premont, 1989) that consists of 44 items and uses a modified six-point Likert scale to assess the degree to which a respondent accepts and employs principles associated with the collaborative, learner-centered mode for teaching adults (Conti, 1990). PALS has been used in many research studies. In a review of dissertation abstracts international, 74 recent studies were listed as having used PALS as a research tool. Although, PALS was originally designed to measure teaching style in Adult Basic Education settings, it has been widely used in higher education research and has also been used in several studies to assess the teaching style of distance educators.

A limitation of this study was that teaching style assessed by interactive television instructors is in a self-report format. Reliability and criterion-related validity have been established to confirm the assertion that the PALS assesses the actual classroom behaviors of instructors (Conti, 1990). However, whether or not each instructor actually exhibits these styles in the distance education classroom may not be independently discernable in this data.

Results

Descriptive Statistics

Three hundred and thirty university interactive television instructors were randomly selected to receive the research survey. A total of 225 surveys were returned for a response rate of 69%. Of those surveys returned, only 22 were deemed unusable due to missing data. These surveys were eliminated from analyses. Thus, a 62% usable survey response rate was achieved. Using the data collected from respondents, descriptive statistics were generated to identify the appropriate group to whom statistical inferences apply.

Interactive television instructors (N = 203), representing nine land-grant universities in the United States, participated in the study. Two-thirds (n = 136) of the sample were male and one-third (n = 67) were female. Three percent reported their highest level of completed education was a bachelor’s degree, twenty-four percent a master’s degree, while seventy-three percent noted they had completed a doctoral degree. The current academic rank reported by respondents included Graduate Assistant (2%), Adjunct/Other (14.3%), Lecturer/Instructor (14.8%), Assistant Professor (15.8%), Associate Professor (25.6%), and Full Professor (27.6%).

Respondents ranged in years of overall teaching experience from 1 to 48 years, with a mean of 17.64, mode of 20, and median of 15 (SD = 11.1). Forty-nine percent (n = 99) had taught the majority of their interactive television courses on a Two-Way Audio/One-Way Video system, while fifty-one percent (n = 104) experienced teaching interactive television on a Two-Way Audio/Two-Way Video system. The number of courses respondents had taught via interactive television generated a positively skewed distribution with a mean of 6.96, mode of 1, and median of 4 courses (SD = 8.79). The maximum number of courses taught was 60 and the minimum modal score was one. The instructors taught various course types including agriculture (2%), education (25.6%), family life (7.9%), social science (22.2%), business (15.8%), engineering (2.5%), humanities and arts (8.4%), science (10.8%), and other (4.9%).

On all but one of the forty-four items in the Principles of Adult Learning Scale (PALS), instructor self-ratings ranged from zero to five on the modified six-point Likert scale. Twenty items were recoded to make them amenable to analysis. Omitted items were assigned a neutral value of 2.5 in agreement with PALS scoring procedures (Conti, 1990). Although assigning neutral values has its limitations, this relatively impartial procedure was employed since there were a small number of non-responses.

The item results on PALS were calculated to form a single composite score indicating the instructors overall teaching style. The possible high score was 220. Low scores on PALS are indicative of a teacher-centered teaching style while high scores reflect a learner-centered style. The mean PALS composite rating for the sample of instructors was 128.08 (SD = 20.26), with scores ranging from 64.5 to 187. Descriptive statistics for composite PALS scores in relationship to each demographic variable were also calculated and are displayed in Table 1.
Respondents reported they had received training in (a) the use and application of distance education technologies (78%); (b) the development of curricula for distance education courses (45%); (c) teaching methods for distance education courses (59%); (d) philosophy, history, and/or foundations of adult/continuing education (30%); (e) psychology of adult development and/or learning (42%); and (f) teaching methods for adults (41%). A resounding ninety-two percent had consulted with distance education support staff during their interactive television teaching experience. Eight-three percent of the instructors had consulted with other instructors who had taught courses via distance education.

Table 1

Mean Composite PALS Scores for each Demographic Variable

The means and standard deviations for composite PALS scores on each training and consultation variable are displayed in Table 2.

Table 2

Mean Composite PALS Scores for each Training and Consultation Variable

Reliability Analysis

Internal consistency reliability for the Principles of Adult Learning Scale was estimated by computing a single Cronbach-Alpha reliability analysis based on average inter-item correlation. All forty-four items were included. The test resulted in an acceptable alpha level of .84, which suggested the teacher-centered and learner-centered components of the PALS instrument were sufficiently distinct from each other.

Correlational Analysis

Correlational analysis was employed to answer the research question–which variables account for teaching styles of university interactive television instructors? Correlations were used to determine relationships between teaching style, as measured by composite PALS scores, and each proposed predictor variable. Examination of the correlations between each of these indicator variables and teaching style revealed numerous variables that relate to teaching style as measured by PALS (see Table 3).

Training. Data collected to ascertain whether interactive television instructors had received training in six educational topics revealed statistical correlations between all but one topic and teaching style. Each training variable was measured dichotomously with 1 equal to no and 2 equal to yes. Correlation analysis confirmed the importance of interactive television instructor training in adult education topics. Training in the philosophy, history, and/or foundations of adult/ continuing education (r = .44) alone explained almost one fifth (r² = .19) of the variance in teaching style. While training in psychology of adult development and/or learning (r = .42) as well as teaching methods for adults (r = .42), each alone explained eighteen percent (r² = .18). Training in several distance education topics were also related to teaching style, as measured by PALS. Results indicate that interactive television instructors who received training in the development of curricula for distance education (r = .19) and teaching methods for distance education (r = .16) were more likely to employ learner-centered teaching styles. Each of these variables alone explained four percent (r² = .04) and three percent (r² = .03) of the variation in teaching style, respectively. These findings are supported by Hoskins (1998) qualitative study, which found training in curriculum development and teaching methods for distance education fostered more student-centered teaching strategies.

Table 3

Correlations between Predictor Variables and Teaching Style
as measured by PALS

Of all the training variables proposed in this study only one, training in the use and application of distance education technologies, was not related to composite PALS score (r = .06). This result is interesting when considering the mound of literature that reported most faculty development programs focused primarily on training instructors in the use of technology (Dillon & Walsh, 1992; Moore & Thompson, 1997). These findings support the common held belief that training programs should not focus solely on technology literacy. Rather programs should focus on educational topics believed to enhance the effectiveness of distance teaching such as delivery methods, teaching/learning theory, principles of adult learning, instructional strategies, and curriculum design (Beaudoin, 1990; Gehlauf, et al., 1991; Wolcott, 1993).

Consultation. Data concerning instructor consultations was measured dichotomously; 1 = no and 2 = yes. A slight positive correlation was identified between composite PALS score and consultation with instructors who have taught via distance education (r = .19). This result supports Armstrong’s (1998) finding that consultation with other distance education instructors was of primary importance to instructors in making the transition to learner-centered distance education settings. This variable alone explained only four percent (r² = .04) of the variance in teaching style, however this variable is noteworthy when combined with several additional variables (see Regression Analysis section).

Interactive Classroom Type. Interactive classroom type was measured dichotomously with 1 equal to Two-Way Audio/One-Way Video and 2 equal to Two-Way Audio/Two-Way Video. A moderate positive correlation (r = .34) was evident between teaching style and interactive classroom type. Results suggest that instructors who taught the majority of their courses via a Two-Way Audio/Two-Way Video interactive television system were more likely to employ learner-centered teaching styles than those who taught via Two-Way Audio/One-Way Video. This variable alone explained twelve percent (r² = .12) of the variability in composite PALS teaching style scores. This finding supports the belief that instructor teaching style is affected by the teaching environment and the technology employed.

Regression Analysis

The correlational findings presented above measured the relationship between composite PALS score and individual variables. Each variable alone accounted for only a small percent of the variance in teaching style. Therefore, multiple regression was employed to determine which of these variables combined formed the best prediction of interactive television teaching style, as measured by PALS. Forward stepwise selection was used to identify a descriptive linear model of teaching style.

Model of Teaching Style. The results of the regression analysis procedure suggested that six variables accounted for 37% of the variability in teaching style (see Table 4). Training in philosophy, history, and/or foundations of adult/continuing education; was the first variable selected and on its own accounted for 19% of the variability in teaching style. The next five predictor variables entered the model in the following order: interactive classroom type; training in psychology of adult development/learning; training in teaching methods for adults; consultation with instructors who have taught courses via distance education; and training in the development of curricula for distance education courses. Adding additional predictor variables increased the explained variance by less than 1% each. Thus, the six variable model (R² = .37) was determined to be the best linear combination of variables that accounted for teaching style, as measured by PALS.

Table 4

Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Teaching Style

The regression equation for the model was: Y = (7.07)X_1a + (12.10)X_2a + (9.66)X_3a + (5.70)X_4a + (6.09)X_5a + (3.57)X_6a + 62.52, were Y is equal to the composite score on PALS and X_1a through X_6a are predictor variables (see Table 4). For each training/consultation predictor variable, 1 equals no and 2 equals yes. On the interactive classroom type variable, 1 equals Two-Way Audio/One-Way Video and 2 equals Two-Way Audio/Two-Way Video. Relationships between all the predictor variables and the composite score on PALS were examined (see Table 3). The associations ranged from .18 to .44. Although other variables were related to teaching style, they were unnecessary to the equation due to their collinearity.

Finding this combination of variables highly related to teaching style was anticipated in light of previous research. This predictor model indicates support for the importance of instructor training and consultation to facilitate planned change to more learner-centered interactive television classrooms. These findings also support the belief that in addition to personal traits that may be shaped by training and consultation, teaching style is also affected by the teaching environment and the technology employed.

Implications for Practice

Interactive classroom type was determined to be one of the best predictors of university interactive television teaching style. Recognizing that interactive television teaching style is related to interactive classroom type may help institutions as they consider choosing appropriate distance learning technology. Distance education administrators should consider these results in addition to other criterion when weighing costs versus benefits of using full video or one-way video technologies for delivering interactive distance education programs.

Consulting with instructors who have taught via distance education was found in this study to predict more learner-centered approaches to interactive television teaching. Based on this finding, universities are encouraged to institute faculty support structures such as mentoring programs, peer workshops, and electronic discussion groups that provide instructors with opportunities to consult with each other. These programs may provide avenues for instructors to share their experiences, ideas, concerns, and achievements regarding elements of the entire distance teaching process. Peer support programs may serve a vital role in improving the quality of distance education experiences for instructors and students alike.

Training topics that were found in this study to predict more learner-centered teaching approaches provide criterion upon which curriculum for distance education training programs may be developed. Professional faculty development programs that include training in adult and continuing education are recommended as a means for guiding universities and their instructors in planned change. Study results should be used to select training opportunities that are likely to help faculty become more learner-centered in their approach to distance teaching.

Implicit in the study results is the idea that teaching style is an individual preference. Although, research supports the assertion that utilizing more learner-centered instructional approaches enhances distance learning, literature also supports that teaching style is a combination of internal and external qualities an instructor exhibits that reflects their personal educational philosophy. Therefore, results of this study should not be used to force instructors into adopting any teaching strategy to which they are philosophically opposed. University administrators should assist instructors in choosing to make instructional changes or adaptations on their own by encouraging personal development plans. These plans should incorporate formal training, self-directed readings, peer interaction, critical self-reflection, and experimentation with a variety of teaching approaches.

Recommendations for Future Research

This study was able to account for 37% of the total variance in explaining or predicting variables related to teaching styles of the university interactive television instructors in the sample. Additional studies should be conducted to try to explain more of the variance. These studies should look at different variables that are believed to be related to teaching style.

Many variables were found in this study to be related to teaching style. Future studies should test the causal relationship between these variables and interactive television teaching style. An experimental design, which examines the effects of a professional development program based on the Model of Teaching Style, is recommended for exploring causal relationships between teaching style and the predictor variables.

Based on theoretical principles of distance learning, the learner-centered teaching style is assumed to be an appropriate method of instruction in distance education environments. However, with the emergence and popularity of asynchronous distance education the field is in need of empirical research to support this assumption in web-based courses. Future studies should test the link between learner-centered teaching styles and student learning/satisfaction in web-based courses.

As distance education becomes more integral to the mission of institutions of higher education, knowing variables that help explain or predict learner-centered teaching styles will help institutions refine their programs to better serve the needs of students. As supported by numerous research findings, providing students with instructors who are more learner-centered in their approach to distance teaching may lead to better distance education programs by increasing student learning and satisfaction. In the future, the knowledge base that will be called upon to improve distance learning and instructional practice, will come from continued research that seeks to understand variables that may facilitate or impede learner-centered distance education environments.
 

References

Armstrong, R. D. (1998). Faculty strategies for learning to teach at a distance. Dissertation Abstracts International, 59(05), 1426A. (University Microfilms No. AAT98-23250)

Beaudoin, M. (1990). The instructors changing role in distance education. The American Journal of Distance Education, 4(2), 21-29.

Belanger, F., & Jordan, D. H. (2000). Evaluation and implementation of distance learning: Technologies, tools, and techniques. Hershey, PA: Idea Group.

Butcher, M. M. (2002). McLuhan revisited: Adaptive instructional strategies for interactive television. Dissertation Abstracts International, 63(12), 4138A. (University Microfilms No. AAT 3074382)

Chin, S. S., & Hortin, J. A. (1994). Teachers= perceptions of instructional technology and staff development. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 22(2), 83-98.

Conti, G. J. (1983). Principles of adult learning scale: Follow-up and factor analysis. Proceedings of the 24^th Annual Adult Education Research Conference, 63-68. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 228 424)

Conti, G. J. (1990). Identifying your teaching style. In M. W. Galbraith (Ed.), Adult learning methods: A guide to effective instruction. Malabar, FL: Krieger.

Darkenwald, G. G., & Merriam, S. B. (1988). Adult education: Foundations of effective practice. New York: Harper & Row.

Dillon, C. L., & Gunawardena, C. N. (1995). A framework for the evaluation of telecommunications-based distance education. In D. Sewart (Ed.), One world, many voices: Quality in open and distance learning, 2. London: The Open University.

Dillon, C. L., & Walsh, S. M. (1992). Faculty: The neglected resource in distance education. The American Journal of Distance Education, 6(3), 5-21.

Duffy, T. M., & Kirkley, J. R. (2004). Learning theory and pedagogy applied in distance learning: The case of Cardean University. In T. M. Duffy & J. R. Kirkley (Eds.), Learner-centered theory and practice in distance education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Gehlauf, D. N., Shatz, M. A., & Frye, T. W. (1991). Faculty perceptions of interactive television instructional strategies: Implications for training. The American Journal of Distance Education, 5(3), 20-28.

Gibson, C. C. (2003). Learners and learning: The need for theory. In M. G. Moore & W. G. Anderson (Eds.), Handbook of distance education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Granger, D., & Bowman, M. (2003). Constructing knowledge at a distance: The learner context. In M. G. Moore & W. G. Anderson (Eds.), Handbook of distance education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Hackman, M. Z., & Walker, K. B. (1990). Instructional communication in the televised classroom: The effects of system design and teacher immediacy behavior on student learning and satisfaction. Communication Education, 39, 196-206.

Hoskins, B. J. (1998). The impact of a distance education environment on higher education teachers and teaching strategies. Dissertation Abstracts International, 59(05), 1536A. (University Microfilms No. AAT98-33724).

Jadun, M. (1998). Teaching strategies that foster interactivity in interactive video distance learning classrooms. Dissertation Abstracts International, 59(08), 2939A. (University Microfilms No. AAT99-02724).

Kearsley, G. (1998). Distance education goes mainstream. T.H.E. Journal, 25(10), 22-24.

Lewis, L., Snow, K., & Farris, E. (1999). Distance education at postsecondary education institutions: 1997-98 (NCES 2000-013). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.

McGlothlin, D. S. (2001). Interactive television in adult education. Mountain Plains Journal of Adult Education, 29(1), 26–37.

Moore, M. G., & Kearsley, G. (1996). Distance education: A systems view. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Moore, M. G., & Thompson, M. M. (1997). The effects of distance learning (Rev. ed.). ACSDE Research Monograph, 15. University Park, PA: The American Center for the Study of Distance Education.

Mottet, T. P. (1998). Interactive television instructors= perceptions of students= nonverbal responsiveness and effects on distance teaching. Dissertation Abstracts International, 59(02), 460A. (University Microfilms No. AAT98-24007)

Ostendorf, V. A. (1997). Teaching by television. In T. E. Cyrs (Ed.), Teaching and learning at a distance: What it takes to effectively design, deliver, and evaluation programs. New directions for teaching and learning, No. 71. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Parisot, A. H. (1997). Distance education as a catalyst for changing teaching in the community college: Implications for institutional policy. New Directions for Community Colleges, 99, 5-13.

Premont, S. B. (1989). The principles of adult learning scale: maximized coefficient alpha and confirmatory factor analysis using lisrel. Dissertation Abstracts International, 50(07), 1963A. (University Microfilms No. ADG89-25342)

Silvernail, D. L., & Johnson, J. (1992). The impact of interactive televised instruction on student evaluations of their instructors. Educational Technology, 32(6), 47-50.

Verduin, J. R., II, & Clark, T. A. (1991). Distance education: The foundations of effective practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Wilkes, C. W., & Burnham, B. R. (1991). Adult learner motivations and electronic distance education. The American Journal of Distance Education, 5(1), 43-50.

Wolcott, L. L. (1993). Faculty planning for distance teaching. The American Journal of Distance Education, 7(1), 26-36.

Wolcott, L. (1996, December). Distant, but not distanced: A learner-centered approach to distance education. TechTrends, 23-27.

Zhang, S., & Fulford, C. P. (1994). Are interaction time and psychological interactivity the same thing in the distance learning television classroom? Educational Technology, 34, 58-64.
 

About the Author
 

Pamela A. Dupin-Bryant Ph.D. is assistant professor of business information systems/extension, Utah State University, Tooele at 1021 West Vine, Tooele, UT 84074. Dr. Dupin-Bryant received her M.S. degree in business information systems (1994) at Utah State University, and her Ph.D. in adult learning and technology (2000) from University of Wyoming. Her research focuses on facilitating learner-centered distance education environments and student retention in distance education courses. She co-authored a textbook titled Web-Based Distance Education for Adults (Krieger, 2004) and is co-editor of Mountain Plains Adult Education Association Journal of Adult Education.

Contact her at (435) 797-3606 or pamd@ext.usu.edu.