"Distance education" is a current catch phrase for many formats and forms of education including correspondence courses, independent studies, multi-site closed circuit courses, televised courses, and computer based instruction. For Moore and Thompson (1997), distance learning involves a teacher and a learner who are geographically separated to the extent that some form of communication media is necessary. Keegan (1980) describes the characteristics of distance learning as also including the influence of an educational organization and the possibility of an occasional seminar. They believe courses may also include viewing prerecorded videotapes or lectures on a cable or satellite in distance settings. We will evaluate a multi-format distance education experiment.

Spooner, F.; Jordan, L.; Algozzine, R. & Spooner, M. (1999) reviewed the distance education research comparing cognitive factors such as amount of learning, academic performance, achievement and examination scores. They found that "in general, the outcomes of that body of research reflected no differences in cognitive factors between the distance and traditional classes. Other factors, i.e. student satisfaction with the course, convening communication with the instructor, interaction and collaboration between students, independence, and perceptions of effectiveness, illustrate more mixed results" (Spooner et al. pp. 133-34).

There are several factors that a variety of projects have found to be lacking in distance education, however. Opportunities for interaction between students and the instructor tends to be negatively affected (Pirrong & Lathen 1990). Another study in looking at education courses in traditional versus remote site settings where the course structure was the same and student-teacher interactions were available, found that both the distant groups' perceptions of their learning environment and their course satisfaction were lower than those in traditional settings.

Spooner et al. (l999) have demonstrated a good deal of similarity between distance technologies courses and traditional modes. Their own research compared student course evaluations of distance learning using a variety of electronic media to traditional on-campus graduate courses in special education. They found no difference in overall ratings of the courses; and technology-based courses, both on and off campus, were rated equivalent to traditional courses for graduate courses in special education.

Swigger, K.; Brazile, R.; Byron, S.; Livingston, A.; Lopez, V. & Reynes, J. (1999) tested software that assists in group collaboration in online courses using the internet. They found that in comparing several different courses and over 400 students "group performance is often impacted by a variety of individual personality, communication, and work style preferences." Some groups are less successful and perform at a slower rate than face to face groups or are intimidated by the system even after several hours of training and experience" (Swigger p. 67). They also learned that even when given on-line collaborative opportunities, many students lack both the organizational skills and the interaction capability to take advantage of the program and, thus, they elect to either work alone or they do not complete the tasks.

Undergraduates in social science and professional courses using a computer teaching lab were surveyed by Wright and Delay (1998). They found that social science students and women in all programs had little confidence in the use of computers for classes. Their lack of confidence was more extreme in classes that did not meet in a computerized teaching environment. This was particularly problematic for the social science students due to the lack of integration of computing within these courses.

Considering the limited literature evaluating student performance and perceptions in electronic courses, a few general indications are emerging. There is a mixed set of conclusions in terms of the relative success, using the various measures of success, of distance education generally and of electronic courses in particular. Depending upon the level and type of course, prior training in substantive subject matter, as well as personal characteristics such as gender or age, and electronic experience of the students, the results appear to differ. To more adequately determine the success of distance learning, it is likely that it will be necessary to amass a good deal of literature on particular modes of delivery for specific courses at various levels of education in types of higher education facilities. This paper is an analysis of one comparative project which will hopefully add to the slowly growing body of literature.

During Fall quarter, the Sociology Department at Eastern Washington University offers four sections of an Introduction to Sociology course with each section enrolling 45 students. Throughout the year, nine to eleven sections are taught independently by the department's faculty members. During Fall quarter 1999, each of the four classes were scheduled to meet daily for 50 minutes in one of the 9:00-12:00 time blocks. Two of the sections were taught back to back at 11:00 and 12:00 by a female associate professor; the 10:00 class was taught by a male assistant professor, and the 9:00 by a female full professor. The teaching styles of each generally involved some lecture with a good deal of class discussion and small group assignments.

Department members decided to experiment with an electronic class during that Fall 1999 quarter. It was decided the 9 a.m. section would be taught as an electronic course with the use of computerized materials, the support of the professor, and a teaching assistant. This section would be compared to the three others in terms of student evaluations, knowledge/information gained, and attitude change scale scores. Each of the three faculty members chose texts and taught their classes independently and without discussion about their methods or materials. The intent was to evaluate the electronic course with respect to the other classes just as they were usually offered.

On the first day of the quarter, students were told that the 9:00 class would require the use of computers and email. Those without computer accounts were escorted through the administrative process in order to have the necessary technology readily available. All students remained enrolled in the class. During the second day of class, the female professor and the male teaching assistant met the class. The professor carefully explained the experimental idea, and told the students that anyone with concerns was invited to join one of the other three more traditional sections. The two professors in the three control sections explained the experiment as well. Three students left the experimental class and joined a control section, and two students from those sections switched to the experimental class.

The electronic class gave students opportunities to select from several methods of acquiring information. A standard textbook was assigned that has been one of the publisher's best sellers for many years. This edition is accompanied by a CD ROM and a web site with internet based additional materials. Thus, the students had a hard copy text, the text on CD ROM, exercises and tests on the CD ROM with answers, a Web site with internet access which included interactive assignments and directions as well as additional tests. Students were given a standard syllabus with numbers of chapters and dates for completion, explanations of assignments, exam dates, and grading expectations. In class they were instructed on how to use the CD ROM and text material in conjunction with quiz and exam practices. Class members were invited to use the computer lab at the Sociology Department where the teaching assistant would be available between 8-10 each morning during their regularly scheduled class time, to help with assignments.

Two additional aids were offered. One was a video series of an interactive television Introductory class offered by one of the Department's best lecturers two years earlier. The videos were keyed to the text assignments. It was to be used by the students whenever they wished to hear a lecture on a subject. Part of the first lecture was shown in class, and they could watch the videos any day between 8-4 p.m. in the Department conference room.

The second outside enhancement was a study group. Each student was assigned to an email study group consisting of four students. They exchanged email addresses in class and were given an interactive study group assignment from the CD ROM. Their first interaction was to be copied and handed to the professor. About two-thirds of the class participated in the assignment. Others who encountered difficulties were asked to work with the teaching assistant. A few had email problems that were remedied.

The electronic course met three days during Week 1 and one day in Week 2 to get acquainted with the methods and for organizational purposes. Several students expressed frustration with electronic technologies. Class members were asked to return for three equal in-class exams that would use the CD ROM test bank. Also, they would write a critical essay answering four questions about an outside reading to be turned in during the 10th week of class. They would come to class for a final review of the class during Week 11 which was to include the last of the three exams. This was altered when, during the second exam, students complained that there was too much material in five chapters. Instead, the last exam was a take-home essay exam to be turned in at the Week 11 class. Also, students were invited to email or telephone the professor during regular office hours three days per week.

Four grades would be assigned including three tests and the critical essay. Students were assured that no one would be penalized for nonattendance, use or nonuse of materials, dependence on the teaching assistant, questions asked or problems discussed with the professor. Students were also advised that all of these resources were available in order for them to choose what would help to best achieve in this class, but ultimately the success would be their own. Throughout the term, email reminders and words of encouragement were sent to the students by the teaching assistant. When a few email problems were discovered, students received copies by "snail" mail to their home addresses.

During the academic years 1998 to 2000, there were 15 traditional Introductory courses taught by different instructors with approximately 40 students in each course. In the fall quarter of each year there were three traditional courses, and the electronic course was the fourth Introductory course taught in the fall of 1999.

Numerical evaluations of courses are created on a six-point scale by averaging the scores given by students to four questions during the final week of classes. The following is the numerical evaluation as shown on the form:

E = Exellent (1)

VG = Very Good (2)

G = Good (3)

F = Fair (4)

P = Poor (5)

VP = Very Poor (6)

1.The course as a whole was: E VG G F P VP

2. The course content was: E VG G F P VP

3. The instructor's contribution to the course was: E VG G F P VP

4. Instructor's effectiveness in teaching the subject matter was: E VG G F P VP

As the electronic course only peripherally involved in-class instruction, the following question was substituted for No. 4 regarding the instructor's effectiveness:

4. The format of the course was E VG G F P VP

Thus, there is a deviation in one of the four questions averaged in order to insure that the evaluation reflects the nontraditional style of the electronic course.

Looking at the two years of course evaluations, the mean scores of the Introductory Sociology courses suggest that the courses are considered "very good" ( = 2.38), and during the fall of 1999 the courses were also "very good" ( = 2.29 - see Table 1). The range of these course scores is from a high of "excellent" (= 1.4) to a low of "good" ( = 3.1) which can be attributed to specific instructors. Only two of the 15 classes were scored in the "good" (3) category (see Table 2).

The electronic course did not do as well as other Introductory courses. It scored a mean of 3.7 where "good" is scored 3, and "fair" is scored 4. Furthermore, the fourth question, which evaluated the format of the class, received the lowest score of any question asked in the two-year period, (4.2) in the "fair" range.

Beyond the University's required four questions, an extensive evaluation of the students' perception of the electronic course included a survey instrument completed by the 27 students (35 had registered) who were in class for the final meeting. Of the 27, only one had a prior electronic class experience. All but one of these students were in the traditional student age range of 18 to 21, and the majority were first year students.

In their evaluation, we asked them to compare the electronic class format to other formats, and 56% rated it as "low" (see Table 3). Though they generally (74%) found the CD ROM "user friendly," they did not believe that Sociology should offer more electronic courses (56%) and demonstrated by saying that their likelihood of taking other electronic courses was low (60%).

Using a variable list differing from the University's four questions, we again asked for their opinion about the specific course (see Table 4). About one-third found the course to be "good" as the highest ranking and another third believed it was "fair" with the rest not answering or feeling it was a poor course. These responses can better be understood in the context of other answers, however. The content was believed good by 63% of the students. But only 15% liked the electronic format. In fact, though the CD ROM was a requirement, when students had the option for additional materials and tests on the publisher's web site, 57% never opened the site. (see Table 5) Of those who used the site, the majority rated it as "good," whereas the text itself had completely mixed ratings. Even when they learned that all of the questions on exams were taken from the test banks on the CD ROM and publisher's web site, 19% admitted they did not use the CD ROM quizzes, and 63% never looked at those on the web site.

The videotape option, where students were offered lectures on each topic from a previous televised course, was only selected by two students, and those two chose only a few of the available lectures, rating them highly. The general procedure was rather to use the text (81%). Only 44% used the CD ROM as their principal information source even though it reproduced the text in total adding explanation and visuals.

Perhaps the most surprising response by students was to the study the groups. Each student was assigned to an email based group of four or five students. Though they all had operational email accounts, the system was tested, and they were given an assignment to get them connected and to demonstrate the study group potential, 43% never participated in the study groups, and an additional 31% only participated for the first assignment which was required. Half of those who did participate, rated the study groups as poor. Discussions with several of the students about the study groups yielded suggestions that some participants were using the groups as a "quick fix," for not spending time studying, or using them for mating and partying activities. One respondent suggested the email groups had become a forum for those wishing to reinforce positions in the student status hierarchy. Only 15% believed the study groups were a "good" learning tool.

In asking students about the course materials, 85% found the book and CD ROM combination interesting (see Table 6). Also, 85% believed they had learned a good deal from a secondary text assigned to them with questions to form a required essay. However, less than one-third (29%) of the participants found themselves motivated in any way by the course (see Table 6).

More than two-thirds of the students elected not to communicate with the professor or the teaching assistant by email, telephone, or in person. Yet, many students believed the material was too extensive and difficult. One wrote on their evaluation "Five chapters contain much too much information to cover in one exam----it's impossible to retain that much information at one time." Another student said "If you do this again, I would suggest one test per chapter in one week. There was too much material to absorb over three tests and, at least on my part, very little retention because of it."

When asked why the electronic course did not motivate, an interesting response pattern emerged from students as can be seen in these quotes: "I slacked off a lot not having to go to class;" "The course did not motivate me because we didn't meet very often;" "I didn't do the work until I had to;" "I had to motivate myself and really would rather have/needed a professor;" "It was too easy to procrastinate;" "I didn't go to class to get encouragement or get excited about the next chapter;" "The electronic format only works if you are a very self-motivated person."

Finally, students were asked to give advice to others who would be taking an electronic course. Almost all of the comments were from those who did not like the format. Here are some of their bits of advice:

"I wouldn't recommend it, but that's because I am an audiovisual learner, very difficult for me to learn out of a text book;" "I missed having group discussions, etc., personally I won't be taking another electronic course;" "I thought the whole thing was a waste of time, and I'm sorry to say that;" "I really would have liked to hear what the professor had to say about sociology." "It's very difficult to get the concepts of the text without lectures." "Don't take an electronic class; if you are not self-motivated or have never taken Sociology before, take a lecture class instead;" "It doesn't give a structured way of learning, and some people need a teacher for the learning process;" "The format was not good for me, I needed more group discussions, etc."

A few of the students who did like the electronic Introduction to Sociology course also gave their advice and opinions: "The class was a good way to work at my own pace and study whenever possible. But I would suggest that you take the time to use the CD ROM as much as possible and thoroughly read the texts twice;" "If you have good computer knowledge, the electronic format is better to use, especially reading the material on the CD ROM;" "I think students should manage their time well; read the chapters and study the summaries on the Internet. They should also take all of the quizzes on the CD ROM and Internet as I did."

When asked if they were likely to take other electronic courses, 60% responded that the likelihood was low. In fact, it is high for only 15%, and merely 7% are highly in favor of Sociology offering more electronic classes.

As part of our student learning assessment program, the Department of Sociology has developed a 20 question pre/post instrument that measures knowledge or information gained in Introductory Sociology. It is scored simply in terms of numbers of correct responses at the beginning vs. the end of the Introductory course. This test was administered to all four sections during the fall of 1999 with results which suggest that students already know about half of the information and can be expected to learn about 15% during the Introductory Sociology course (see Table 7). Those in the electronic course generally demonstrated a slightly higher level of prior knowledge, but instead of gaining correct information there is a 5% gain in incorrect information. In other words, on the average persons changed at least one correct answer to an incorrect response on the post test.

An additional category of evaluative information is available for the assessment of our electronic course. An attitudinal evaluation scale was developed in the department and has been employed sporadically for several years. The electronic section and two of the three traditional sections of Introductory Sociology completed the attitudinal pre/post course questionnaire. It was designed with well accepted indicators of liberal vs. conservative attitudes. Its purpose is to discover whether these attitudes change in either direction during Introductory Sociology classes. The questionnaire asks that the student consider 18 paired statements and "select the one statement that comes closest to (your) view." Table 8 indicates the mean number of statements selected out of 18 conservative vs. liberal for all students.

Looking at the scaled pairs of attitudes, there is a general trend in introductory Sociology students to change attitudes from somewhat conservative to somewhat liberal during the class. In fact, the two traditional sections recorded such a change. About half of the choices of students (51% vs. 46% conservative) tended to reflect liberal thinking at the start of the course. This was also the response in the electronic class (52% liberal vs. 44% conservative). A difference occurred in the post questionnaire, as expected since the tendency of the traditional students was to become more liberal in their thinking (T2 = 63% vs. 35% conservative) incurring a change of about 12% more liberal and 11% less conservative. The electronic class, though, demonstrated less change. In fact, the change was only 4% more liberal with just under 1% of the group becoming more conservative in their attitudinal responses.

Comparing the various pieces of our analysis to the existing literature, there is much similarity and a few differences. As Spooner's 1999 review has suggested, course satisfaction for this electronically based distance learning experience has been fairly low. The students point to the lack of interaction between themselves and other students, as well as the professor, as key problems. Yet, they do not take advantage of office hours, email opportunities, or sessions with the teaching assistant in the lab. Their explanation is lack of motivation because there were no regular face-to-face sessions.

Much as Swigger et al. (1999) found, it is likely that many of these students have work styles, communication patterns, and learning styles that require face-to-face direction and interaction to instruct and validate their learning. Both in the gaining of information and change in attitudes tests, those in the electronic course scored lower than the control samples as well as our cumulative introductory sociology class. Swigger explains this by demonstrating that many students, even when given on-line training and collaborative opportunities, lack the organizational skills and interaction capabilities to achieve.

The experimental course was constructed with care to provide students with a range of resources, including software, video-taped lectures, and a computing lab and teaching assistant/computing tutor. The findings in this study, however, raise at least three important issues concerning the effectiveness of distance learning generally and on-line courses in particular that may be difficult to resolve, even with the most carefully developed courses. First, the effectiveness of on-line courses may depend on not only the instructor's level of computing knowledge, but also on the students' pre-existing level of comfort with computer technology. Second, face-to-face interaction with an instructor may play a key role in motivating students to engage with the course material. Third, direct interaction with an instructor and other students in a shared physical space may play a crucial role in students' integration and retention of knowledge.

With regard to students' sense of competence and confidence with computing technology, only one student in the on-line course being assessed here had prior electronic class experience. As a whole, participants in this course expressed frustration with electronic technologies. Only 15% indicated that they liked the electronic format. Existing literature provides a number of reasons why college students may experience lack of competence and confidence in computing technologies, and thus with on-line courses. For instance, students may not take computer applications seriously, especially if they generally understand computerized activities as a form of entertainment. In addition, a variety of groups, including women, minority and working class students (Wright and Delay, 1998) experience displacement or being "selected out" of computing instruction and application, thus making competence and confidence in computing technology more problematic for particular colleges and particular disciplines. Such students often experience performance anxiety with computing that involves fear of social discomfort, anticipation of social disgrace, and loss of self-esteem (Bowers and Bowers, 1996; Robin and DiGiuseppe, 1993). Attitudes toward and experiences with computing technologies, then, would appear to play a substantial role in ultimate effectiveness of on-line courses, although this idea will need to be tested directly.

The findings in this study also highlight the issue of student motivation in on-line courses. Prior research has identified the need for more self-discipline on the part of the student in order to complete work. Less than a third of the students in this study, however, reported finding themselves motivated by the on-line course. This is consistent with the findings of Ryan, M.; Hodson, Carlton K.; & Ali, N. (1999), where students support "the importance of seeing, hearing, and having contact with the professor." These findings produce further questions about face-to-face interactions. Do face-to-face interactions with instructors motivate students in a way that would be difficult or impossible to reproduce through on-line courses? For instance, is it simply a matter of feeling connected to the faculty and other students by physically sharing the same space? Or, does face-to-face interaction with faculty reduce anonymity and increase the student's sense of commitment, responsibility?

Boden and Molotch (1994) have addressed the "compulsion of proximity" which is a term used to describe the need for face-to-face "co-presence" (Boden & Molotch, p. 260). They contend Simmel has demonstrated that co-present interaction is the fundamental mode of human intercourse and socialization. In co-present human exchange there are many forms of information that do not exist in non-present communication such as facial expressions, body language, voice intonation, and gestures. Learning emphasis and particular forms of utterance lend explanation to the information exchange. The significance of details is created by those individuals acting to focus attention. They say "It is the richness of information that makes us feel we need copresence to know what is really going on, including the degree to which others are providing us with reliable, reasonable accounts, at the same time copresence puts us 'on the spot' by making our own dissembling, deviance or other disfavored actions easier to detect" (Boden & Molotch, p. 259). In fact, much of the motivation students in this study report missing is thought to be due to the lack of "on-the-spot" accountability according to their comments.

As an information exchange aid, and to motivate students, email study groups were introduced. Though most students tend to use a variety of electronic devices in this postmodern society, cultural groups have evolved their usual purposes for the devices. Email, for example, "has evolved into an interactional form of some intensity; users routinely 'chat,' exchange gossip, send computer jokes, circulate tips, advertise sexual preferences, and sometimes even argue" (Boden & Molotch, p. 264). However, it is difficult to judge sincerity since expressions and gestures are unavailable, and one can easily disguise words. Choices are made not to use email for other communication needs where face-to-face interaction appears more reliable. This was the response of our study groups. Most students chose not to participate in the email groups since they were wary of the various uses others were making of the groups, both openly and covertly.

Finally, students in the on-line course complained about problems with remembering or retaining the material covered. This is interesting, considering that some research posits that computer classes can enhance retention of course material (Brent and Anderson, 1990; Gagne, 198l; Gallini, 1983), while other studies conclude that classroom interaction is more useful in enhancing students' understanding course content (Ryan, et al. 1994). Is it again a matter of feeling connected through face-to-face interaction? Or, does face-to-face interaction in the classroom provide students with important markers to their progress in learning material that are not readily available in on-line classes?

Weber and a good number of classical social scientists have taught us that modern (and of course post or post-postmodern) society is anti-ethical to personal human interaction. In this society we should be seeing a wide-scale acceptance of devices that facilitate the rationalization and routinization of social organization and the work of society. The socialization process within our culture should be reinforcing use of the diversified on-line technological applications. It is quite predictable that a bureaucratic institutional structure such as education encourages and, in some instances, mandates distance learning and computer based course development. This is in order to develop economies of scale; for a leveling of course instruction; to increase access; for accountability; and, of course, to promote fiscal responsibility which leads to economic growth and political power. Interestingly, this study demonstrates the importance of personal face-to-face interaction and the resistance to the rationalization and mechanization of society when it restricts valued human social interchange.

Boden, D. & Molotch, H. L. (1994). The compulsion of proximity. In NowHere Space, Time and Modernity (Ch. 8: 257-286). London: University of California Press, Ltd.

Bowers, D. A. Jr. & Bowers, V.M. (1996). Assessing and coping with computer anxiety in the social science classroom. Social Science Computer Review (14: 439-443).

Brent, E. E. Jr. and R. E. Anderson (1990). Computer Applications in the Social Sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Gagne, R. M. (1981). "Developments in Learning Psychology: Implications for Instructional Design and Effects of Computer Technology on Instructional Development and Design." Educational Technology (June): 11-15.

Gallini, J. K. (1983). "What Computer-assisted Instruction Can Offer Toward the Encouragment of Creative Thinking." Educational Technology: (April): 7-11.

Keegan, D. J. (1980). On defining distance education. Distance Education (Vol. nl:13-36).

Moore, M. G. & Thompson, M. M. (1997). The effects of distance learning: A summary of literature. Research Monograph Number 2.

Pirrong, G. D. & Lathen, W. C. (1990). The use of interactive television in business education. Educational Technology (Vol. 30 n5:49-54).

Ritchie, H. & Newby, T. J. (1989). Classroom lecture/discussion vs. live televised instruction: A comparison of effects on student performance, attitude and interaction. American Journal of Distance Education (Vol. 3 n3:36-45).

Robin, M. W. & R. DiGiuseppe. (1993). Rational-emotive therapy with an avoidant personality. In K. T. Kuehlwein & H. Rosen (eds.) Cognitive therapies in action: Evolving innovative practice (pp. 143-159). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Ryan, M.; Hodson C. K.; & Ali, N. S. (1999). Evaluation of traditional classroom teaching methods versus course delivery via the World Wide Web. Journal of Nursing Education: Thorofare (v 38 issue 6: 272).

Spooner, F.; Jordan, L.; Algozzine, R.; & Spooner, M. (1999). Student ratings of instruction in distance learning and on-campus classes Journal of Educational Research (v92 n3: 133-34).

Swigger, K. M.; Brazile, Robert; Byron, S.; Livingston, A.; Lopez, Lopez, V. & Reynes, J. (1999). Real-time collaboration over the Internet: What actually works? U.S., Texas: 1993-03-00.

Wright, S. M. & Delay, K. (1998). Undergraduate computing in the social sciences: Bridging the gaps. Presented at the Annual Meetings of the Pacific Sociological Association, San Francisco, California.