International
Journal of
Educational
Technology

Perceived Differences Between Classroom and DistanceEducation:  Seeking Instructional Strategies for Learning Applications

- Doo H. Lim, University of Tennessee

Abstract

In an effort to compare the issues in learning, application, andinstructional design factors between different instructional delivery formatsin Internet, classroom, and satellite-based system, an HRD course of auniversity was studied. Data analysis was conducted to compare the learningand application difference and the reasons for high or low learning andapplication were identified and categorized. The effectiveness of severalinstructional design factors was identified. From the findings, issuesin learning and application and instructional design strategies to enhancelearning and application were discussed.

Introduction

In comparing learning difference between classroom instruction and distanceeducation method, several studies have revealed that there is no significantdifference between the two (Relan, A. & Gillani, 1997: Russell, 1999;Wentling & Johnson, 1999). Even though this research finding has been widelyaccepted and cited by other studies, some researchers argue this kind of mediacomparison studies are not valid because each study's attributes,characteristics, and learner needs are not reflected to measure the learningoutcomes (Lockee, Moore, & Burton, 2001). Claiming the validity of thestudies of the 'no significant learning difference' between the differentdelivery media might be arguable, many comparative studies have been consideredvaluable because they have identified instructional conditions and variablesenhancing technology mediated learning and instruction. While most of thesecomparative studies have focused on the learning aspect between the differentdelivery formats, seldom has been conducted to identify the difference inlearning application between classroom and distance instruction (Ravitz, 1997;Wentling & Johnson, 1999). Here, the term 'application of learning' refersto the degree to which learners use and apply learned knowledge and skills totheir current studies or to current and future jobs and tasks. One problematicsituation in higher education is that most classroom and distance instructionshave focused on learning of the subject content of a course but not on applyingand transferring the learned content to learner's personal career. Consideringthe nationwide initiative of "school-to-work transition" in education,the lack of learning application becomes a critical issue to overcome in highereducation.

Along with the learning application issue, promoting a high degree oflearning and learning application in a virtual learning environment hasbecome another important issue in higher education as more universitiesand colleges try to develop and deliver quality distance instruction. Whilewe can apply many of the learning application strategies for classroominstruction to designing an applicable distance instruction, it is stilla fact that distance instruction requires unique strategies and methodologiesto meet the learning and application needs of distance learners in thevirtual environment. Different delivery formats such as satellite-basedand web-based instruction within distance education may even need to applydifferent instructional approaches to satisfy the different learning needs.To address these issues of learning and application in classroom and distanceinstruction, the findings of this kind of study are expected to revealthe reasons why certain delivery formats (i.e. web-based, satellite-basedsystem) incur a high or low learning and learning application and seekfor appropriate instructional strategies to enhance students’ learningthat highly applicable to their jobs, tasks, and studies. The findingsare also expected to identify instructional conditions and design factorspromoting students’ learning and application of learning in online learningenvironment.

Theoretical Framework

Numerous instructional programs have owed much to behavioral learningtheories for decades. Diverse learning strategies were stranded from the realmof behaviorism such as learning by doing, engagement in trial and error, andgiving repetitive response (Cho, Golshani, & Park, 1999). Behaviorallearning design was also proved to be effective in multimedia learningenvironment where the programmed instruction of stimuli-response-reinforcementprocess is applied (Jonassen, 1991). In cognitive tradition, learning is viewedas a process of perceiving and thinking. Cognitive learning strategiesincorporate association and analogies for better learning (Cho et al., 1999). Asa relatively recent learning theory, the central tenet of constructivism isconstructing knowledge in complex learning environment by utilizing multiplemetaphor, collaboration, and reflection (Boyle, 1997). To study interactivity ininstructional events, many constructivists have tested the effect of diversecollaborative learning strategies in distance learning environment (Suthers& Jones, 1997; Collins, 1997).

One question arising from traditional learning theories is whether focusingonly on learning rather than actual performance outcomes is meaningfulfor the client of any instructional programs including schools, employers,and learners. Some researchers evenassert that learning without application is of no use since it lacks richunderstanding of the learned concepts through meaningful application (Dolence,1995; Laurillard, 1993). Imposing significant challenges on traditionallearning theories, the shift of instructional focus on learning applicationhas been a big thrust in higher education. Responding to this trend, several learning theories were evolved and studied by numerous researchers in distance as well as classroom learning environment. Reflective learning theory is one example adopting actionoriented approaches (Kemmis, 1985) and stretching learning experiencesinto new appreciations of novel situation (Baud, Keogh, & Walker, 1985)and working knowledge (Schön, 1987). Situated learning theories pressthe critical role of real-world practice during learning (Lave & Wenger,1991) by engaging learners in authentic, problem-solving situations (Lave,1988; Vygotsky, 1978). In problem-based learning, realistic problems arebelieved to provide motivation to apply learning to the real situation(Sfard, 1998). Similar to these perspectives, collaborative learning theoristsemphasize the co-construction process of student learning and idea sharingto solve real life problems (Crook, 1994). The collaborative learning processis characterized by diverse learning activities such as observation, interpretation,construction, contextualization, multiple manifestation, ownership of knowledge,and self-awareness of learning process (Black & McClintock, 1996; Honebein,1996).

In recent studies, it was identified that a high degree of learningdoes not always result in a high degree of application because there aremany factors inhibiting application of learning during and after an instruction(Foxon, 1997). To enhance learning application for an instruction, Baldwinand Ford (1988) recommend three instructional strategies: identical elementsbetween the instruction and application settings, stimulus variabilityin the instruction, and teaching of general principles and rules. Otherresearchers also identified several strategies that positively influenceapplication of learning. Those are overlearning (Hagman & Rose, 1983),goal setting (Wexley & Nemeroff, 1975), action plans (Foxon, 1997),and tutoring and coaching (Huczynski, 1989).

Methodology

Study Purpose

The purpose of this study is to compare the perceived degree of learningand application of learning made by different groups of students who havetaken a college course either in classroom, web-based, or satellite-baseddelivery format respectively and identify the reasons for high or low learningand application. The study also expects to find out what instructionalstrategies and design factors affect students’ higher learning and application.

Subjects

To explore learning and learning application made by the different groupsof students, an instructional systems design course at a mid-western universityhas been studied. The subjects for the study included nineteen HRD (HumanResource Development) major students who took the course in the three differentdelivery formats (web-based instruction, classroom, satellite-based instruction)respectively. All students were undergraduate students and sixteen studentsamong them had part- or full-time occupations during the instruction. Thesubjects were composed of ten male and nine female students. Eight studentshad taken the course through web-based instruction, six students throughsatellite-based instruction, and five students through classroom instructionrespectively. All students were given an option to select one of the threedelivery formats voluntarily during the course registration period.

The instructional systems design course was designed for the three deliveryformats and delivered by an instructor. Regarding the content developmentof the course, the instructor developed thirteen learning modules for web-basedinstruction and prepared classroom instruction based on the web-based instructionalcontent. The classroom instruction was delivered in a multimedia classroomequipped with satellite-based delivery capability where the classroom andthe satellite-based instructions were implemented simultaneously. The satellite-basedsystem utilized one-way video and two-way audio communication system forinstruction.

Data Collection

An online questionnaire was developed to obtain the students’ perceiveddegree of learning and application from the class. Students were askedto participate in the online survey conducted at the end of the semester.The questionnaire included question items composed of the thirty-four learningobjectives extracted from the instructor’s lesson plans that were usedduring the semester. The question items used a five point Likert-type scaleto measure the perceived degree of the learning and application. Regardingthe reliability of the question items, Cronbach’s alpha test showed bothquestion items (learning and application) are reliable (.98). The questionnaireasked reasons for high or low learning and learning application made bythe students during the class. Some question items used fill-in blank boxesto ask students' opinions and qualitative information about the instruction.The content and construct validity of the instrument was evaluated andconsidered valid by the review of a researcher who had extensive researchexperience in the university. A pilot test was conducted and minor changessuch as corrections of typographic errors had been made to the questionnaire.

Data Analysis

The data analysis of the study utilized both quantitative and qualitativeanalysis. The units of analysis were: (1) the students’ perceived degreeof learning, (2) their perceived degree of learning application, (3) thereasons why learning and application of their learning do or do not occur,and (4) the quality of instructional design factors promoting their learningand application. The differences in the degree of learning and applicationwere analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis Test for the three student groups ofdifferent delivery formats. The reasons for high or low learning and applicationwere identified and classified into categories. Students' course evaluationresults analyzed by the university’s evaluation center were compared withthe data analysis results of the study.

Limitations

Since the study results were analyzed from a data set acquired froma small population, the findings may not be generalized into a broad scope.The subjects also consist of those who have jobs during the instruction.Because of this, generalizing this study’s findings to traditional collegeundergraduate students may not be appropriate.

Findings

Learning Difference

In order to identify what was learned or not learned from the course,the students were asked to rate their perceived degree of learning foreach of the thirty-four learning objectives of the course. As a group, the nineteenstudents indicated a fairly high perceived degree of learning. The populationmean score for the perceived degree of learning was 4.04 on a 5 point scale(scale range was 1 to 5), which indicates “mostly understood” in the ratingscale of the questionnaire. Further analysis was conducted to examine thedifferences in the degree of perceived learning between the student groupsin terms of three different delivery formats. In calculating the perceiveddegree of learning difference, the mean difference was not found to bea significant one (p=.995).

Table 1 Learning Difference
 

	N	M	SD	pa
Web	8	4.07	0.60	.995
Classroom	5	4.01	0.91
Satellite	6	4.16	0.85

^a Exact significant value (1-tailed significance).

From the qualitative analysis, several reasons have been identifiedas the factors to promote high learning. Among them, instructional effectiveness,instructor effectiveness, and learner motivation were found as the majorcategories for the reasons to enhance students’ learning (accounted for70% of the reasons for high learning). Some example reasons of the instructionaleffectiveness are: instructional design, interactive interface, and learningactivities. According to the different delivery formats certain reasonswere more frequently replied from a certain group. For example, reasonsin instructional effectiveness were mostly replied from the web-base instructiongroup while reasons in instructor effectiveness were mostly replied fromthe satellite-based instruction group.

Table 2 Reasons for High Learning
 

Reasons	Web	Classroom	Satellite	Sum	%
Instructional effectiveness	12		2	14	28
Instructor effectiveness	1	1	9	11	22
Instructorpreparedness			2	2
Instructor'ssubject expertise			2	2
Clear presentation	1		4	5
Good facilitation			1	1
Enthusiasmand high involvement		1		1
Motivation to learn	5	1	4	10	20
Applicable to my jobs and tasks	6		1	7	14
Previous understanding of the topics	2	2	2	6	12
Association to other classes			2	2	4
Total response	26	4	20	50	100

As shown in Table 3, several reasons were found to inhibit the studentlearning. Some instructional design factors and personal reasons seemedto negatively influence the student learning.

Table 3 Reasons for Low Learning
 

Reasons	Web	Classroom	Satellite	Sum	%
Instructional design issues	6	1	3	10	56
Contentwas confusing or unclear	3		2	5
Non applicablecontent	3		1	4
Too muchinformation for a class		1		1
Personal reasons	3	3		6	33
Miss theclasses		2		2
Lack ofinterest	2			2
Short oftime to study		1		1
Short attentionspan	1			1
Lack of opportunity to use	1		1	2	11
Total response	10	4	4	18	100

Learning Application

In calculating the perceived degree of learning application, the meanscores of all students’ perceived degree of learning application was 3.89,which can be interpreted as "frequently applied". In comparing the perceiveddegree of learning and learning application made by the students, therewas a high relationship between the two. The Pearson’s correlation betweenthe mean scores of learning and learning application showed a high degreeof relationship (.896) at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). The perceived applicationdifference made by the three groups of different delivery formats was nota significant one (p=.828).

Table 4 Learning Application
 

	N	M	SD	pa
Web	8	3.97	0.58	.828
Classroom	5	4.06	0.92
Satellite	6	3.80	1.09

^a Exact significant value (1-tailed significance).

The reasons for high application of the learned content varied. First,the most frequently replied reason was that the learning content was constructedin such a way that it could be applied to students’ studies and currentjob tasks. Opportunity to use the learning on the jobs and during the instructionwas another major category of reasons for high application. High understandingand interest toward the learning content were also found as another categoryof reasons promoting high application of the learning.

Table 5 Reasons for High Application
 

Reasons	Web	Classroom	Satellite	Sum	%
Applicable content	2	2	3	7	23
Opportunity to use on the job or else where	3	2	1	6	19
Opportunity to use during the class	4	2		6	19
High understanding	4		2	6	19
High interest		1	4	5	16
Content was easy to apply	1			1	4
Total response	14	7	10	31	100

Several reasons were found to negatively affect the application of studentlearning. Those were low degree of learning, not applicable to the students’jobs and tasks, lack of opportunity to use, and lack of interest.

Table 6 Reasons for Low Application
 

Reasons	Web	Classroom	Satellite	Sum	%
Low learning	3	1	1	5	38
Not applicable to my job	5			5	38
Lack of opportunity to use	1		1	2	16
Lack of interest	1			1	8
Total response	10	1	2	13	100

Instructional Design Components

When the students were asked to describe their specific learning experiencefrom the instruction, diverse opinions and feelings could be collectedand categorized. Of the total fifty-six qualitative comments made by thestudents, twenty-eight responses were directly related to instructionaldesign issues. The other twenty-eight responses indicated students’ satisfactionwith the current status or no need to change. From the content analysisof the 28 comments in instructional design issues, the most expressed concernwas group related learning issue (7) followed by communication and interactionissue (6), learning content issue (3), and learning practice activities(2). In this section, the number of each parenthesis indicates the frequencyof students’ responses for each category. In group learning issue, variousopinions were expressed: need of more group works (4), solutions for scheduleconflicts between group members to complete group project (3), and moreopportunities for group communication (2). Need for more frequent interactionand learning activities (6) was another instructional issue perceived importantfor the students to actively engage in learning and application. One distinctdifference in the student learning experience between the distance andclassroom delivery format was that the students in distance delivery methods(web and satellite-based) had expressed more concerns on group work, communication,and interaction than the students who studied the course through classroomformat. Students in classroom group seemed satisfied with the current instructionalmethod which heavily depended on lecture format.

Regarding the instructional design components of web-based deliveryformat, all eight students seemed to be satisfied with the general web design.The text design of the web instructional modules was indicated to be clearand easy to understand the learning content. Except a few graphics thatwere not directly related to the learning content, most graphics used forthe learning modules were said to be attractive and represent main conceptsof the learning content. Use of multimedia in the learning module seemedmostly satisfactory (6), but a student wanted to have more frequent multimediainteractions for improved learning. Regarding the use of online form forinstructional interaction between the students and the instructor, sevenstudents replied the form interaction supported learning feedback to agreat degree. For the general degree of interaction among the studentsand between the instructor and the students, four students felt the levelof interaction was appropriate while three students did not. Group workwas considered as the most effective motivator for student interactionand communication. In asking the benefits of taking the online course,five students replied flexible study schedule, two students indicated thedistance feature of studying anywhere, and one student indicated the self-pacedmode of learning as their benefits respectively. Disadvantages expressedwere procrastination (2), lack of face-to-face interaction (2), inappropriateweekly module update (1), ineffective chat communication (1), and confusionof the online learning process (1).

Discussion

Several themes emerge from the data analysis of the study. These themesand their resultant implications are organized around two areas: learning/applicationand instructional design issues.

Learning and Application

From the data analysis, it was identified that there was not a significantdifference in the perceived degree of learning between the different deliverygroups. This finding supports Russell’s (1999) research study claimingthere is “no significant difference” in learning between the classroomand distance instruction in general. One meaningful finding from this studyis the fact that the “no significance” symptom occurs even in the applicationof learning between the comparison groups. From this finding, it can beargued that attaining certain level of learning and application of learningfrom a course may not be severely influenced by the different deliveryformats. Rather, it may be influenced more often by the instructional designfactors and strategies that decide the quality of the instruction.

Applicability of learning content seems to be an important issue toenhance student’s learning experience regardless the types of deliveryformat from the study. To make a learning experience meaningful for studentsin higher education, the learning content needs to be “applicable.” Designingan instruction with a focus on learning or learning application uses quitedifferent approaches from the needs assessment to designing learning activitiesand evaluation (Boyd, Boll, Brawner, & Villaumer, 1998). When focusingon learning only, instructional designers tend to use learning activitiesthat sustain the memory of facts, concepts, procedure, and skills basedon competency-based criteria, which is considered inappropriate for teachingtoday’s changing and growing body of new knowledge (Herrington, Herrington,& Oliver, 1999). When focusing on learning application, instructionaldesigners can provide generic and reflective skills that assist learnersto apply those skills in novel situations, which will result in far transfer(Clark & Taylor, 1992). To create meaningful learning experience throughapplicable moments of student learning, several strategies for instructionaldesign are advised. First, instructional content need to be constructedplain and simple enough to be applied to students’ studies and currenttasks involved. Second, as Baldwin and Ford (1988) recommend, the learningcontent needs to be identical or at least similar to the actual applicationsettings. Third, to promote near and far transfer of student learning,diverse learning activities are deemed effective. A step-by-step guidedpractice after a segment of instruction followed by an individual practiceis one effective way for near transfer of learning. Developing independentpractice through class assignments that have similar construct but differentapplication content is another strategy to promote application of the learnedcontent not only to similar but also to different context (far transfer).

Instructional Design Issues

Promoting higher interaction during learning has become a major instructionaldesign issue in distance education (Jones & Jo, 1998). The need formeaningful interaction in student learning was not an exception from thisstudy’s findings. Several communication problems seemed to negatively affectthe meaningful interaction in web-based delivery system.First, one conflicting issue of group communication of the study was thedifferent perceptions about the group communication methods between thestudents. Some students needed more communications for group works whileother students were dissatisfied with the group communications tools dueto the inefficiency in the communication process and the poor quality of the conversation. The expressed concernsin synchronous chat sessions were scheduling conflicts between group membersand lack of meaningful learning interaction between the students. The problemsidentified in asynchronous communication tools were lack of immediacy andprocrastination tendency experienced during threaded discussion sessions.To address these problems, different solutions can be applied to synchronousor asynchronous communication tools. For chat sessions, providingpredetermined schedules for group chat sessions at the beginning of a semesteris one way to solve the problem of schedule conflicts. Providing studentswith specific guidelines for participation and clear expected outcomesis another solution to assure the quality of synchronous chat session.For asynchronous discussion sessions, specifying the purpose, duedates, and grading policies for online discussion sessions is an effectiveway to encourage students’ participation in group communication. From theresearcher’s experience, no credit for group discussion activity tendsto lead to low student participation.

To sustain higher degree of learning and application during online instruction,various learning principles from cognitive, behaviorists’ and constructivists’theories can be adapted and applied. First, from constructivists’ viewpoints,embedding learning activities in actual problem situation can be achievedby using virtual case studies and scenario analysis. Using multiple modesof representation of information through text, graphics, audio, and videois also an effective strategy to provide rich understanding of the learningcontent. Completion of group and individual projects in learning relatedenvironment is another method applying situated learning principles forlearning application. Giving opportunities for reflection through reviewquestions that ask applicable situations and examples of learned contentis an effective technique adapting constructivists’ reflective strategies.Asking short questions checking the understanding of major learning contentat frequent intervals is an example learning activity borrowing from behavioralorientation. Sending immediate feedback on the students’ questions, learningactivities, and learning progresses is a good reward practice enhancingstudents’ motivation. One instructional design example representing cognitivelearning theory, used by the researcher, was asking students to take alearning review quiz at the beginning of each week’s learning module inan intention to promote longer memory of the learned content. Evaluationof peer students’ class assignments is another method utilizing meta-cognitivelearning strategy.

Conclusion

This study has identified several facts about college students’ learningand application experience occurred in an HRD course from a mid-westernuniversity. Even though the size of the population limits the generalizationof the study results, several issues in instructional design were stemmingfrom the study findings and possible solutions and recommendations werediscussed to address these issues. One major contribution of this studyto the related study fields is that the symptom of no significant differencebetween face to face and distance instruction is found not only for thelearning but also for the learning application. The generalization of thisfinding, however, may need another set of studies using a broader population.Another distinct benefit acquired from this study is that the findingsprovide basis to choose various instructional strategies to enhance applicationof learning in distance learning environment. As instructors or instructionaldesigners, our major concern is then to test and wisely apply these instructionalstrategies to design an effective instruction. The effectiveness of theinstruction, however, will be dominantly affected by the level of our experience,insight toward these instructional strategies, and concerns for more meaningfulapplication of these strategies in our instruction.

References

        Baldwin, T. T., & Ford,J. K. (1988). Transfer of training: A review and directions for futureresearch. Personnel Psychology, 4(1), 63-105.

        Baud, D., Keogh, R., &Walker, D. (1985). Promoting reflection in learning: A model. In D. Boud,R. Keogh, & Y. D. Walker (Eds.), Reflection: Turning Experienceinto Learning (pp. 18-40). London: Kogan Page.

        Black, J. B., & McClintock,R. O. (1996). An interpretation construction approach to constructivistdesign. In B. G. Wilson &

        D. N. Perkins (Eds.), ConstructivistLearning Environments: case studies in instructional design (pp.25-32). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

        Boyd, P., Boll, M., Brawner,L., & Villaumer, S.K. (1998). Becoming reflective professionals: Anexploration of preservice teachers’ struggles as they translate languageand literacy theory into practice. Action in Teacher Education, 19(4),61-75.

        Cho, S. H., Golshani, F.,&Park, Y. C. (1999). Multimedia technologies in education of mathematics:An experiment with Pythagorean numbers. In B. Collis & R. Oliver (Eds),ProceedingsEd-Media ’99 (pp. 540-545). Seattle, WA: Association for the Advancementof Computing in Education.

        Clark, R., & Taylor,D. (1992). Training problem solving skills using cognitive strategies:Novice versus expert problem solvers. Performance and Instruction, 31(3),32-37.

        Collis, B. (1997). Pedagogicalre-engineering: A new approach to course enrichment and re-design withthe WWW. Educational Technology Review, 8, 11-15.

        Crook, C. (1994). Computersand the Collaborative Experience of Learning. London: Routledge.

        Dolence, M. G. (1995). TransformingHigher Education: A Vision for Learning in the 21st Century. New York:Society for Colleges and Universities.

        Foxon, M. J. (1997). Theinfluence of motivation to transfer, action planning, and manager supporton the transfer process. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 10(2),42-63.

        Hagman, J. D., & Rose,A. M. (1983). Retention of military tasks: A review. Human Factors,25(2), 199-213.

        Herrington, T., Herrington,J., & Oliver, R. (1999). Providing reflective online support for preserviceteachers on professional practice in schools. In B. Collis & R. Oliver (Eds), Proceedings Ed-Media ’99 (pp. 166-171). Seattle, WA: Associationfor the Advancement of Computing in Education.

        Honebein, P. C. (1996). Sevengoals for the design of constructivist learning environments. In B. G.Wilson & D. N. Perkins (Eds.), Constructivist Learning Environments:case studies in instructional design (pp. 11-24). EnglewoodCliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

        Huczynski, A. A. (1989).Training designs for organizational change. Management Decision, 27(4),27-35.

        Jonassen, D. (1991). Objectivismversus constructivism: Do we need a new philosophical paradigm? EducationalTechnology Research and Development, 39(3), 5-14.

        Jones, V., & Jo. J. H.(1998). Interactive multimedia based on learning theories to enhance tertiaryeducation, Proceedings of ICCIMA ’98, Australia.

        Kemmis, S. (1985). Actionresearch and the politics of reflection. In D. Boud, R. Keogh, & D.Walker (Eds.), Reflection: Turning experience into learning (pp.139-163). London: Kogan Page.

        Lave, J. (1988). Cognitionin Practice: Mind, mathematics, and culture in everyday life. Cambridge,UK: Cambridge University Press.

        Lave, J., & Wenger, E.(1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

        Laurillard, D. (1993) Rethinkinguniversity teaching: A framework for the effective use of educational technology.London and New York: Routledge.

        Ravitz, J. (1997). Evaluatinglearning networks: A special challenge for web-based instruction. In B.H. Khan (Ed.), Web-based instruction (pp. 361-368). Englewood Cliffs,JN: Educational Technology Publications.

        Relan, A., & Gillani,B. (1997). Web-based instruction and the traditional classroom: Similaritiesand differences. In B. Khan (Ed.), Web-based instruction (pp. 41-47).Englewood Cliffs, JN: Educational Technology Publications.

        Russell, T. L. (1999, September15). No significant difference phenomenon [WWW document]. URL http://cuda.teleeducation.nb.ca/nosignificantdifference 

        Schön, D. A. (1987).Educatingthe reflective practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

        Sfard, A. (1998). On twometaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one. EducationalResearch, 27(2), 4-12.

        Suthers, D., & Jones,D. (1997). An architecture for intelligent collaborative educational systems,In D. Bovlay & Mizoguchi (Eds.), Proceedings of AI-ED '97 (pp.55-62).

        Tielemans, G., & Collis,B. (1999). Strategic requirements for a system to generate and supportWWW-based environments for a faculty. In B. Collis & R. Oliver (Eds.),Proceedingsof Ed-Media ’99 (pp. 346-351). Seattle, WA: Association for the Advancementof Computing in Education.

        Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mindin society: The development of higher psychological processes. (M.Cole,V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman, Editors and Translators).Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

        Wentling, T., & Johnson,S. (1999). The design and development of an evaluation system for onlineinstruction. In P. Kuchinke (Ed.), Proceedings of the 1999 Academy HumanResource Development Annual Conference (pp. 548-553). Washington, D.C.:Academy of HRD.

        Wexley, K. N., & Nemeroff,W. (1975). Effectiveness of positive reinforcement and goal setting asmethods of management development. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64,239-246.