An Evaluation of Teaching Direct Practice Courses in a Distance Education Program for Rural Settings
Coe, Jo Ann R., Elliott, Doreen, Journal of Social Work Education
This study presents the results of an evaluation of a graduate-level direct practice course taught through a distance education program that utilized face-to-face satellite television instruction. The study also compared the learning process and delivery system of a distance education direct practice course with that of an on-campus direct practice course. The evaluation indicates positive findings for the distance learners in terms of grade outcomes, interaction with instructor, classmates and perceptions of the instructor. The evaluation also indicated some barriers in the learning environment and access to support services. Recommendations are made for improving the barriers for social work practice courses taught by distance learning methods.
"DISTANCE EDUCATION" DESCRIBES those formal teacher-learner arrangements in which the teacher and learner are geographically separated most or all of the time, and the communication between them is through a technology medium such as a satellite, computer, compressed video, or fiber optics (Blakely, 1994; Conklin & Osterdorf, 1995; Kahl & Cropley, 1986; Verduin & Clark, 1991). Distance education is not a new concept. It has been offered for 13 years at the Open University of the Netherlands and over 25 years at the Open University in the United Kingdom, and through many programs in the United States (Perry, 1985). Distance learning is increasingly being used in schools of social work to bring undergraduate and graduate education to students located far from a university. Recent technology advances have created many more opportunities for social work programs to deliver education to persons who, for a variety of reasons, are not able to complete a full schedule of campus-based courses.
With the expanded interest and growth among schools of social work in distance education, the Council on Social Work Education (CSWE) Commission on Accreditation established a special committee in 1994 to determine how to respond to growing concerns about ensuring the quality of distance education programs (Raymond, 1996). In October 1995 CSWE conducted a survey to determine the usage of distance education technology among social work programs. Of a total of 126 programs responding, 22 (17.4%) indicated that they offer distance education courses and 42.9% indicated a moderate to high probability of offering distance education courses in the future (Lockhart & Wilson, 1997).
Schools of social work are slowly developing distance learning programs that utilize a variety of approaches. In a 1995-96 national survey of 429 accredited social work programs, Siegel, Jennings, Conklin and Napoletano-Flynn (1998) found that the systems most commonly used for distance learning delivery were satellite transmission, television and compressed video. In a subsample of 259 institutions, 41 (15.8%) indicated that they used distance learning in their program. This represented about a 5% growth from their previous survey in 1994.
As these programs have increased, evaluating the distance learning programs and the delivery system have become a great concern among social work educators (Bibus & Rooney, 1995; Blakely, 1994; Heitkamp, 1995). In 1991 Blakely proposed a model for evaluating distance education programs in social work education. The model is based on literature for part-time education in social work. This work largely began in 1981 with the CSWE symposium on part-time education at the annual program meeting in New York. During this time, social work educators expressed concerns about the quality of part-time social work programs compared to full-time programs. Papers presented at the meetings suggested that the evaluation measures for part-time programs should be as similar as possible to those of full-time programs. As part-time programs proved themselves similar to full-time programs in terms of admissions, curriculum, faculty, course grades, student evaluations, field education evaluations, professional socialization, library materials, computer services, and other support services, this led to part-time education in social work being viewed as increasingly acceptable within the profession and programs with substantial part-time elements becoming accredited. Blakely (1991) proposes that this same method can be applied in evaluating distance education programs in social work today.
Educators in various disciplines have conducted a number of studies on quality issues in distance education, such as effectiveness, learner outcomes, socialization and growth of students, access to advisement, faculty and library resources, retention rates and cost effectiveness. The reviews of these studies indicate there is ample evidence to support the effectiveness of distance education in these areas (Chacon-Duque, 1987; Chu & Schramm, 1975; Fulford & Zhang, 1993; Garrison, 1987; Holmberg, 1989; Verduin & Clark, 1991).
The social work literature has also begun to address issues of quality for distance education programs in social work in terms of technology-related issues, the role of personnel, learner outcomes, faculty and student's perceptions of attitudes, learning experience, and cost-effectiveness. Evaluative studies that examine the comparability of distance education programs with regular programs have played a key role in the development of distance education programs and contributed to their successful accreditation by CSWE. As a result, a number of evaluative studies have been completed by social work programs that compare distance learners with traditional on-campus learners (Berman & Wilson, 1995; Forster & Rehner, 1998; Freddolino, 1996a, 1996b, 1997a, 1997b; Haga & Heitkamp, 1995; Heitkamp, 1995; Kalke, Rooney, & Macy, 1998; Patchner, Wise, & Petracchi, 1998; Petracchi & Morgenbresser, 1995; Raymond, 1996; Thyer, Artelt, Markward, & Dozier, 1998; Thyer, Polk, & Gaudin, 1997; Weinbach, 1985; Weinbach, Gandy, & Tartaglia, 1984). It is difficult to generalize findings because programs are developed differently and utilize different formats (Heitkamp, 1995). Another related problem is that all of these studies operationalize the independent variable differently depending on the distance learning format utilized. Of the studies listed above, some utilize one-way television, while others utilize interactive television.
Most of the studies reviewed address the comparability and effectiveness of a social work distance education program relative to the standard program. To date, the evaluation literature does not specifically address what types of courses may or may not be appropriate for a distance education format. In a national survey of accredited social work programs Siegel and colleagues (1998) found that the most frequent courses offered via distance learning are HBSE, social welfare policy, and research courses. They found that the least attractive courses are methods or practice courses. Although they did not have any hard data to support it, the authors suggest that social work educators have a bias against offering practice or methods courses via distance learning technology. They suggest that there exists an opinion that the content of these courses can only be taught through face-to face learning "because they are considered interactional in nature and content" as opposed to HBSE, social welfare policy and research courses that are "noninteractional" courses (Siegel et al., 1998, p.75).
Of the evaluation studies to date, only two focus on practice courses specifically (Thyer et al., 1997; Thyer et al., 1998). The focuses of these studies were on students' attitudes towards live instruction versus televised instruction. Both studies found that students favored live instruction over televised instruction. The studies did not address other quality issues found in distance education evaluation studies such as effectiveness, learner outcomes, socialization and growth of students, and access to advisement, faculty and library resources. Thus, there exists a need for evaluative studies of practice courses that address these issues. Given the bias suggested by Siegel and colleagues (1998), this study focused on comparing these issues for a graduate-level practice course offered via a distance learning format and traditional face-to-face learning.
The Distance Education Program
With the increasing use of distance education in social work education, in the 1994-95 academic year the University of Texas at Arlington (UTA), developed two alternative programs that utilized a distance learning format including two-way interactive satellite television. In response to requests received from the Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory Services (DPRS), UTA developed the alternative programs to help address the need for master's-level social workers in the public child welfare sector in rural east and west Texas. These alternative programs involved a combination of face-to-face instruction with the instructor present at the remote sites in east and west Texas, distance learning via interactive two-way satellite video instruction broadcast from UTA, and one semester of full time residence at UTA.
The courses selected for this study were graduate-level direct practice courses taught by faculty from UTA. The courses were taught on alternate weekends in two three-hour sessions (three hours Friday evenings and three hours Saturday mornings) for seven weekends. There were a total of 14 class sessions consisting of 6 face-to-face instruction sessions involving the faculty traveling to the locations in east and west Texas, and 8 sessions by live interactive satellite television broadcasts from UTA.
In accordance with accreditation standards and requirements for alternative programs, the school of social work designed an evaluation that included a component addressing the comparability and effectiveness of the alternative programs relative to the established on-campus program. This study was a part of that evaluation and aimed to develop comparisons of the students enrolled in the alternative program with on-campus students in terms of the effectiveness of teaching practice courses via distance learning. An important goal in the evaluation was whether the alternative program would meet CSWE standards in providing students with professional knowledge as well as in offering students an opportunity to acculturate into the profession. Specific questions addressed in this study include:
* Do the demographic characteristics of students differ between on-campus and distance learners?
* How did the use of satellite instruction compare with in-person instruction on learning environment variables such as ability to see and hear, classroom interaction, classroom comfort levels, motivation and application of classroom materials?
* How do the experiences of off-campus learners compare with those of on-campus learners in terms of peer group socialization issues, advisement process, access to library services, consultation with instructor and educational institution identification issues?
* Do the grade outcomes of students differ between on-campus and distance learners?
Methods and Procedures
This evaluation utilized a post-test-only design with nonequivalent groups. On-campus learners were used as a comparison group. The comparison group members were selected as they were also enrolled in a UTA School of Social Work Direct Practice II course during the same time as the off-campus learners. The comparison groups would also receive similar instruction, exams, and assignments that would provide comparison data.
The study sample consisted of 77 students enrolled in the Direct Practice II course in spring 1995 and who completed and returned survey information. The sample was divided into two groups: on-campus learners (n=30, 39.0%) and distance learners (n=47, 61.0%). The on-campus learners received face-to-face instruction for the course with the instructor in person only. The distance learners attended class at either of two distance locations; they were tracked as Distance Learner Group A and Distance Learner Group B. Both A and B groups mainly consisted of students who worked full time for DPRS. They were both located in a rural area, and available data show that they were on the whole more experienced professionally and also older than the on-campus students. The two distance learner groups of students had different instructors and received a combination of interactive television broadcasts and in-person instruction for their course. This included six three-hour face-to-face instruction sessions, with the faculty member traveling to the distant locations, and eight three-hour sessions by live interactive satellite television broadcasts.
A survey was developed and distributed to all students and completed anonymously approximately three weeks before the end of the semester. The survey was designed to gather information about the following:
* Characteristics of sample members;
* Distance learners' rating of the learning environment with the instructor in-person and with the instructor by satellite;
* Distance and on-campus learners' rating of classroom interaction, instructor, access to support services, and identification with UTA School of Social Work;
* Students' preferences for learning media.
The questions were developed to address CSWE program evaluation standards for accreditation of the alternative program and to explore and identify important variables to consider for delivering practice courses in this type of program. For reasons of practicality, no reliability checks were conducted.
Since similar assignments were given in all four classes, outcome measures were based on the following: objective measures, such as midterm or final examinations; subjective measures, such as papers, projects, or presentations; and final grades for the course.
Table 1 presents the distribution of selected demographic characteristics of the 77 respondents to the survey by type learner. As the table reveals, there are no significant differences between the on-campus and distance learners in terms of gender, ethnicity, and educational background. There were, however, significant differences between the two groups in terms of age, length of social work practice experience, and distance traveled to class. The results indicate that 85.1% of the distance learners and 37.8% of the on-campus learners are age 30 and above. Chi-square analysis indicated that on-campus learners and distance learners differed significantly in regards to their age ([chi square]=19.6, df=5, p [is less than] .05), with distance learners being older than on-campus learners.
Table 1. Distribution on Select Demographic Characteristics On-Campus Distance Learners Learners (n=30) (n=47) Variable n (%) n (%) Significance Gender(1) Male 4 (13.8) 7 (14.9) nonsignificant Female 25 (86.2) 40 (85.1) Ethnicity(1) Anglo American 24 (85.7) 38 (80.9) nonsignificant African American 0 (0.0) 3 (6.4) Hispanic 3 (10.7) 5 (10.6) Other 1 (3.6) 1 (2.1) Age(1) 20 to 24 6 (20.7) 1 (2.1) [chi square]= 25 to 29 12 (41.4) 6 (12.8) 19.57, df=5 30 to 39 5 (17.2) 14 (29.8) p<.05 40 to 49 5 (17.2) 23 (48.9) 50 to 59 1 (3.4) 2 (4.3) 60 and over 0 (0.0) 1 (2.1) Social Work Practice Experience(1) None 7 (24.1) 4 (8.7) [chi square]= Less than 1 year 6 (20.7) 3 (6.5) 26.91, df=5 1 to 2 years 7 (24.1) 1 (2.2) p<.00 3 to 5 years 7 (24.1) 10 (21.7) 5 to 10 years 1 (3.4) 13 (28.3) Over 10 years 1 (3.4) 15 (32.6) Bachelor's Degree Field Social Sciences 19 (63.3) 30 (63.8) nonsignificant Liberal Arts 7 (23.3) 9 (19.1) Pure Science 1 (3.3) 1 (2.1) Applied Science 3 (10.0) 7 (14.9) Master's Degree(1) Yes 2 (6.9) 7 (14.9) nonsignificant No 27 (93.1) 40 (85.1) Graduate Degree Field(1) Social Sciences 2 (6.9) 5 (10.6) nonsignificant Liberal Arts 0 (0.0) 2 (4.3) Pure Science 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) Applied Science 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) Not Applicable 27 (93.1) 40 (85.1) Distance Traveled to Class(1) Less than 1/2 hour 16 (53.3) 19 (40.4) [chi square]= 1/2 hour to 1 hour 11 (36.7) 8 (17.0) 10.38, df=3 1 to 2 hours 3 (10.0) 16 (34.0) p<.05 Over 2 hours 0 (0.0) 4 (8.5)
(1) Data do not total subsample size due to missing cases.
The table also reveals that 60.9% of the distance learners and only 6.8% of the on-campus learners had five years or more of social work practice experience. Most of the on-campus learners (93.0%) had less than five years experience, and 24.1% reported no social work experience. Only 39.1% of the distance learners reported less than five years experience and 8.7% indicated no social work practice experience. Chi-square analysis indicated that the groups differed significantly ([chi square]=26.9, df=5, p [is less than] .00) in terms of length of social work practice experience, with distance learners indicating more social work experience than on-campus learners.
In terms of travel time to class, 42.5% of the distance learners reported travel times of one hour to more than one hour, compared to 10.0% of the on-campus learners. Chi-square analysis indicated that the two groups differed significantly in regards to their travel time to class ([chi square]=10.4, df=3, p [is less than] .05).
Ratings of the Learning Environment
Since the distance learners received instruction by satellite and in-person, they were asked to rate separately their perceptions regarding the learning environment for both types of instruction. Learning environment variables included students' perceptions of their ability to see and hear, classroom interaction, classroom comfort levels, motivation, and application of classroom materials. Each variable had a series of questions in which students rated different aspects of the learning environment using a 5-point Likert-type scale (1=not at all; 5=completely). The responses for each question were added together to correspond with the learning environment variable the question was listed under.
Tables 2 and 3 present the t test results of the distance learners' responses to the learning environment questions. Since there were two groups of distance learners with different instructors, the data are presented separately. The data reflect statistically significant differences in mean scores on four out of five variables when the instructor teaches via satellite versus in-person. For Group A, the variable related to application of course materials was nonsignificant, while for Group B it was classroom comfort level.
[TABULAR DATA 2-3 NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]
Ratings of Other Learning Experience Variables
All of the students in the sample were asked to rate their perceptions of other learning experience variables. Table 4 presents the survey questions associated with each of the variables. The variables included classroom socialization, perception of instructor, consultation with the instructor, advisement process, access to library and identification with the school of social work.
Table 4. Survey Questions for Other Learning Experience Variables
Learning Experience Variable Survey Questions Classroom Socialization How well did you get to know others in your class? How often did you eat with others before/after class? How often did you do joint assignments with people in your class? Perception of Instructor How well do you think the instructor acted as a role model for the profession? How well did you view the instructor's teaching ability? How well did you view the instructor's knowledge of the subject? Did the instructor maintain an atmosphere conducive to learning and professional development? Consultation with the How well did you get to know the Instructor class instructor? How easy was it to consult with the instructor out of class? How easy was it to consult with the instructor in class? Access to Library How easy was it to access library resources? How well do you view the quality and service of the library? School Identification How much did you feel a part of Issues the School of Social Work at UTA?
Table 5 presents the t test analysis of their scores on these responses by type of learner. As the table reveals, there were significant differences between the distance learners and on-campus learners on all learning experience variables except perception of instructor and consultation with instructor. Distance learners reported a higher mean score on classroom socialization than on-campus learners, but this difference may be due to the fact that many of them worked together at DPRS. Distance learners reported in open-ended questions that they collaborate on assignments more often, but this may also be due to the fact that they work together and were given the option to do joint or group assignments.
[TABULAR DATA 5 NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]
Distance learners were asked to rate their entire learning experience as a combination of both satellite and in-person instruction. In these ratings, distance learners had a lower mean score on ratings of the advisement process and access to the library than on-campus learners. Analysis of t tests indicate a statistically significant difference between the mean scores of the distance learners and on-campus learners in both of the areas. However, the distance learners did have more difficulty with access to the library resources, open-ended responses indicate. This is in part due to the materials and books for Group B being ordered late in the semester by the library.
The distance learners also reported less identification with the UTA School of Social Work than on-campus students. Most of the students identified primarily with the educational institution where they attended classes.
The distance learners were also asked to rate their preferences for location of courses. As Table 6 presents, 74% indicated that their first choice would be onsite instruction near their home. However, 66% of the distance learners indicated that their second and third choices would be a combination of satellite and in-person instruction, or all near home via satellite.
Table 6. Ranking of Preferences for Type Instruction by Distance Learner Respondents (N=47)
Most Common Distance Learner Responses Preference Choice n (%) First: Near home with University of 35 (74.4) Texas at Arlington on-site instructor Second: Combination of on-site and 17 (36.1) distance learning Third: All near home via satellite 14 (29.8) Fourth: Near home with local instructor 12 (25.5) Fifth: All at University of Texas at 29 (61.7) Arlington campus
The final part of the survey was for open-ended comments by the respondents. The distance learners consistently indicated tremendous satisfaction and appreciation for the part-time program.
Outcome measures were obtained by calculating the grades for all students enrolled in all sections of the course. This sample size was thus larger (n=91), and since the surveys were anonymous, the grade comparisons were on the entire sample. Three measures were compared: objective assignments, which included multiple-choice midterm and final exams; subjective measures, which included papers, projects, or presentations; and the final course grade. The four course sections utilized different assignments in each of these categories. Table 7 presents the results of the t test analysis for each outcome measure. The mean scores for each type of learning outcome were compared between on-campus and distance learners. On-campus learners had higher mean grades on objective assignments and final course grade than did distance learners. However, as the table reveals, none of the differences were statistically significant.
[TABULAR DATA 7 NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]
The findings from the survey indicate that the distance learners were older and had more social work experience than the on-campus learners. They also had longer travel times to classes than on-campus students. This correlates with other evaluative studies that have found similar findings (Berman & Wilson, 1995; Forster & Rehner, 1998; Freddolino, 1996b, 1997a; Haga & Heitkamp, 1995; Raymond, 1996; Weinbach, 1985; Weinbach et al., 1984). This would be expected as these types of programs meet the needs of students who for a variety of reasons (employment, work, family and distance), cannot attend a regular on-campus program. Our research findings might also be useful for rural areas such as those this program was designed for, where the need for trained professional social workers remains largely unmet (Granger & Nooe, 1982). Many individuals who already are employed in a social work capacity, as many of the distance learners in this study were, are more likely to enroll in a course offered through a distance education program such as this one (Blakely, 1994). Thus, the findings from this study indicate that the program is meeting a need for professional social workers in child welfare rural settings as well as the needs of the students, which was evidenced by the appreciation and satisfaction they expressed for the program.
The findings also have implications for curriculum design in practice and methods courses. Given the increased level of maturity and social work experience of the distance learners, the course content may need to be sensitive to account for these differences. However, the objectives and mission for this program should not vary from the objectives and mission of the face-to-face program, as recommended by Blakely (1991). The enhanced sensitivity would need to be addressed in the individual courses as designed by the instructor to account for maturity and increased levels of social work experience.
The data indicate some expected barriers to learning when the instructor appears via satellite compared with the instructor in person. However, most of the problems concerned the use of the technology (satellite transmission, room size, use of microphones). One group reported more problems, with comments that included that the room was too small, needed a larger TV and more microphones, and problems with the audio. Many of the technological problems have been addressed as a result of these comments, and modifications are being made for the second year of course delivery. It is clear that these technical problems are particularly important for the interaction required in a practice course.
Specific recommendations for solving the barriers to learning include:
* Provide enhanced training to the instructors on how to increase interaction via distance learning;
* Increase the use of visuals by utilizing such programs as PowerPoint, overheads, or the computer, rather than the blackboard, to enhance distance learners' ability to see;
* Use other media for communication with the instructor--such as Internet chatrooms, listservers, and bulletin boards; CD-ROM training modules; toll-free numbers; and video conferencing--to enhance interaction both in and out the classroom.
The implementation of these recommendations would reduce the barriers to learning for the distance learners. Interestingly, despite the problems reported, these barriers did not appear to influence performance measures as indicated by the grade outcomes. This correlates with the findings of Kahl and Cropley (1986) that differences do exist between distance education and face-to-face instruction in terms of delivery, but can be just as effective as on-campus instruction in terms of student learning.
Interaction with Instructor and Classmates
The distance learners reported more classroom socialization with classmates and instructor except outside the classroom. However, many of the distance learners work together and were able to do assignments together. It appears that the joint cooperation of this program with DPRS encourages interaction and socialization while attending school and working full-time. Recommendations to enhance the access of the instructor outside the classroom include:
* Install a toll-free number for students to use (currently students may call UTA professors collect);
* Have instructors utilize electronic or voice mail for students to be able to leave messages.
Perceptions of the Instructor
There were no differences between on-campus learners and distance learners perceptions of instructors. In some areas, the distance learner instructors ranked higher despite the occasional inability to hear, see, and interact with the instructor, though the results were not statistically significant.
Access to Support Services
Distance learners rate the quality of the library services and resources lower than on-campus students. This was particularly the case for the distance learners in Group B due to library resources being ordered late. The library and program director have worked closely to increase the availability of resources over the last year. This will increase access during the second year of the program. Other recommendations include:
* Train the students on how to access the library through the Internet;
* Have the library staff discuss how to use interlibrary loan.
The distance learners rated the advisement process better than the on-campus learners, which suggests that the present format for advising is very satisfactory to the distance learners. The advising format for the distance learners accommodates their work schedule. For example, a special registration session was arranged on Saturday for the distance learners. The special arrangements for an off-campus distance learning program necessitated more frequent and personalized consultations than the regular on-campus program, and the director of off-campus programs, who acted as advisor to the students in the distance learning program, was readily available by telephone and made at least two visits per semester to the distance sites specifically for advising.
Identification with the School of Social Work
Distance learners, as expected, did not currently identify with the UTA School of Social Work as much as on-campus learners. Most of the students identified with the institution they attended. At the time of this evaluation, the distance learners had not yet completed their required semester on-campus. When the distance learners attend their semester at Arlington, it is expected this finding will change. Recommendations in this area include:
* Have faculty members and administrative staff continue going to the distance site regularly;
* Invite the distance learners to UTA for a tour and other planned activities.
The grade outcomes for this evaluation demonstrated that the distance learners performed as well as on-campus learners in terms of grade performance. The format for teaching a practice course via distance learning appears to be just as effective as the on-campus program format in terms of student learning.
Limitations of Study
The findings of this study support the view that the delivery of a practice course via distance learning is a viable educational option. However, there are several limitations. First, this evaluation focuses only on one practice course and not the entire learning experience of social work practice methods. Although appropriate for an exploratory study, future evaluations would need to focus on a more comprehensive evaluation of the entire learning experience. This evaluation used grade performance as an outcome measure. Because of scheduling and workload issues, the instructors were different, and also the assignments were different. The reliability of grades as an outcome measure is therefore limited. Future studies should use the same instructors and the same assignments where possible.
Second, the findings of this study indicate that the distant learners were older and had significantly more practice experience than on-campus learners. Thus, the groups were nonequivalent groups. Since most evaluation studies indicate similar findings, future studies should compare distance learners with on-campus learners who are similar in age and have comparable practice experience levels.
Third, instrument reliability was not established due to this study focusing on CSWE program evaluation studies. Future evaluations would need to utilize more reliable instruments to measure learning environment variables such as the Adult Classroom Environment Scale (Freddolino, 1996a). Finally, the distance learners did not receive all their instruction via television, as the instructors provided some face-to-face instruction. Although the majority of instruction was via distance learning, future studies should compare practice courses delivered entirely via distance learning and those utilizing other distance learning media. However, it does appear that delivering practice courses with a combination of face-to-face teaching and distance learning via interactive television is a viable format.
The evaluation indicates positive findings for delivering practice courses in a distance learning format when utilizing the evaluation framework found in other distance education studies. Despite the difficulty in the classroom environment, the distance learners did as well as on-campus learners in terms of grade outcomes for this practice course. The comparison of distance learners with on-campus learners indicates several strengths regarding the learning process and system for delivering social work practice courses in this format. This evaluation provides important feedback from students regarding the program so that modifications can be made. The survey indicates the tremendous appreciation and satisfaction among the distance learners for the program. The alternative program is meeting a need for rural social workers as well as providing quality social work education. This study thus indicates that practice courses combining face-to-face and television instruction can be included in these types of alternative programs.
Berman, G. S., & Wilson, B. R. (1995, March). A case study: Social work education by distance delivery in a remote arctic region of northwest Alaska. Paper presented at the Annual Program Meeting of the Council on Social Work Education, San Diego, CA.
Bibus, A. A., & Rooney, R. H. (1995, March). Distance learning for child welfare work with involuntary clients: Process and evaluation. Paper presented at the Annual Program Meeting of the Council on Social Work Education, San Diego, CA.
Blakely, T. J. (1991). Distance education needs assessment. Unpublished manuscript, School of Social Work Off-campus Program, Western Michigan University at Grand Rapids.
Blakely, T. J. (1994). Strategies for distance learning. Journal of Continuing Social Work Education, 6(1), 4-6.
Chacon-Duque, F. J. (1987). A multivariate model for evaluating distance higher education. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.
Chu, G., & Schramm, W. (1975). Learning from television: What does the research say? Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
Conklin, J. J., & Osterdorf, M. (1995). Distance learning in continuing social work education: Promise of the year 2000. Journal of Continuing Social Work Education, 6(3), 13-17.
Forster, M. & Rehner, T. (1998). Information technologies: Teaching to use: Using to teach. Binghamton, NY: Haworth Press.
Freddolino, P. P. (1996a, February). Creating quality learning environments in distant interactive TV classrooms: Efforts and results. Paper presented at the Annual Program Meeting of the Council on Social Work Education, Washington, DC.
Freddolino, P. P. (1996b). Maintaining quality in graduate social work programs delivered to distant sites using electronic instruction technology. In E. T. Reck (Ed.), Modes of professional education II: The electronic social work curriculum in the twenty-first century. (Vol. 20). Tulane studies in social welfare. New Orleans, LA: School of Social Work, Tulane University.
Freddolino, P. P. (1997a, September). Building on experience: Lessons from a distance education MSW program. Paper presented at the Information Technologies for Social Work Education: Using to Teach-Teaching to Use, Charleston, SC.
Freddolino, P. P. (1997b). The importance of relationships for a quality learning environment in interactive TV classrooms. Journal for Education for Business, 71(4), 205-208.
Fulford, C. P., & Zhang, S. (1993). Perceptions of interaction: The critical predictor in distance education. American Journal of Distance Education, 7(3), 8-21.
Garrison, D. R. (1987). Researching dropout in distance education. Distance Education, 8(1), 95-101.
Granger, B. P., & Nooe, R. M. (1982). Rural responsiveness in social work education. In L. C. Morris (Ed.), Dignity, diversity, and opportunity in changing rural areas (pp. 385-397). Columbia: College of Social Work, University of South Carolina.
Haga, M., & Heitkamp, T. L. (1995, March). Evaluation results of an innovative social work distance education program. Paper presented at the Annual Program Meeting of the Council on Social Work Education, San Diego, CA.
Heitkamp, T. L. (1995, March). Social work education at a distance: An innovative approach. Paper presented at the Annual Program Meeting of the Council on Social Work Education, San Diego, CA.
Holmberg, B. (1989). Theory and practice of distance education. Boston: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Kahl, T. N., & Cropley, A. J. (1986). Face to face versus distance learning: Psychological consequences and practical implications. Distance Education, 7, 38-48.
Kalke, N. L., Rooney, R., & Macy, J. (1998, March). Providing effective education in distance education. Paper presented at the Annual Program Meeting of the Council on Social Work Education, Orlando, FL.
Lockhart, L., & Wilson, S. (1997). Distance education: A summary of survey results. Social Work Education Reporter, 45(2), 5.
Patchner, M. A., Wise, S., & Petracchi, H. (1998, March). Teaching research: An evaluation of ITV and face-to-face instruction. Paper presented at the Annual Program Meeting of the Council on Social Work Education, Orlando, FL.
Perry, W. (1984). The state of distance learning worldwide. Milton Keynes, England: Center for Distance Learning of the United Nations. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 254 201).
Petracchi, H. E., & Morgenbesser, M. (1995). The use of video and one-way broadcast technology to deliver continuing social work education: A comparative assessment of student learning. Journal of Continuing Social Work Education, 6(3), 18-22.
Raymond, F. B. (1996). Delivering the MSW curriculum to non-traditional students through interactive television. In E. T. Reck (Ed.), Modes of professional education II: The electronic social work curriculum in the twenty-first century. (Vol. 20). Tulane studies in social welfare. New Orleans, LA: School of Social Work, Tulane University.
Siegel, E., Jennings, J. G., Conklin, J., & Napoletano-Flynn, S. A. (1998). Distance learning in social work education: Results and implications of a national study. Journal of Social Work Education, 34, 71-80.
Thyer, B. A., Artelt, T., Markward, M. K., & Dozier, C. D. (1998). Evaluating distance learning in social work education: A replication study. Journal of Social Work Education, 34, 291-295.
Thyer, B. A., Polk, G., & Gaudin, J. G. (1997). Distance learning in social work education: A preliminary evaluation. Journal of Social Work Education, 33, 363-367.
Verduin, J. R., & Clark, T. A. (1991). Distance education: The foundations of effective practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Weinbach, R. W. (1985). Evaluation of the interactive closed circuit television (ICCT) method. Unpublished manuscript, University of South Carolina.
Weinbach, R. W., Gandy, J., & Tartaglia, L. (1984). Addressing the needs of the part-time student through interactive television: An evaluation. Arete, 9, 12-29.
Address correspondence to: Jo Ann R. Coe, University of South Carolina, College of Social Work, Columbia, SC 29208; e-mail: email@example.com.
JO ANN R. COE is instructor, College of Social Work, University of South Carolina. DOREEN ELLIOTT is professor, School of Social Work, University of Texas at Arlington.…
Questia, a part of Gale, Cengage Learning. www.questia.com
Publication information: Article title: An Evaluation of Teaching Direct Practice Courses in a Distance Education Program for Rural Settings. Contributors: Coe, Jo Ann R. - Author, Elliott, Doreen - Author. Journal title: Journal of Social Work Education. Volume: 35. Issue: 3 Publication date: Fall 1999. Page number: 353. © 1999 Council On Social Work Education. COPYRIGHT 1999 Gale Group.