NOTE Reformatted from DOS RMc
+ Page 11 + ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- #######
######## ######## ########### ### ### ## ### ## # ### #
Interpersonal Computing and ### ### ## ### ##
###
Technology:
### ### ## ###
###
An Electronic Journal for ### ######## ###
###
the 21st Century ### ###
###
### ### ###
### ##
###
ISSN: 1064-4326 ### ###
### ##
###
October, 1994
####### ###
########
### Volume 2, Number 4, pp. 11-23
--------------------------------------------------------------------------Published by the Center for Teaching and Technology, Academic Computer
Center, Georgetown University, Washington, DC 20057
Additional support provided
by the Center for Academic Computing,
The Pennsylvania State University,
University Park, PA 16802 This article is archived as MCGREAL IPCTV2N4 on
LISTSERV@GUVM
---------------------------------------------------------------COMPARISON OF THE ATTITUDES OF LEARNERS TAKING AUDIOGRAPHIC
TELECONFERENCING COURSES IN SECONDARY SCHOOLS IN NORTHERN
ONTARIO
Rory McGreal, Executive Director, New Brunswick Distance Education Network
INTRODUCTION
Technologically enhanced distance education is being seriouslystudied as a possible
cost-effective complement or alternative totraditional classroom teaching. At the
secondary school level, thereare programs being developed in many states and provinces
(Barker1991; England 1991; Gee 1991; Haughey 1990; Hobbs & Osburn 1988;Kaelin
1990; Mugridge & Kaufman 1986; Quinn & Williams 1987; Steele,1993; U.S. Office of
Technology Assessment 1988, 1989; Williams et al.1988). This move toward distance
education is being fuelled by theneed to provide isolated locations with equity of service
at areasonable cost. Small remote schools have had great difficulty inrecruiting and
keeping competent teachers, particularly inmathematics, science, and other languages.
Modern society is faced not only with the problem of fosteringthe development of new
knowledge, but also of producing a workforcecapable of adjusting to the information age
(Hampton 1991, Kelly 1990,Kober 1990, Peterson 1990). Distance education through
moderntechnology can provide the means by which society can reach out toprovide
quality education to all members of society, wherever they maylive.
Results of some
recent studies suggest that involvement withcomputers and other new technologies can
promote positive attitudestowards learning and higher achievement among students
(Clark 1987;Wilson 199). In a review of recent research (Robyler, Castine, & King +
Page 12 + 1988), the authors suggest that the results are still unclear and needfurther
research. Beaudoin et al. (1991) suggest that the distanceeducation research data base
`remains embarrassingly thin in someareas where there is an especially strong need for
convincingevidence...'(p. 1). This evidence must include assurances thatstudents achieve
good results and develop positive attitudes towardsthe technology. (See also Vandehaar,
1986). Background Contact North/Contact Nord is a
bilingual(English/French)audiographic teleconferencing network that serves over130
sites in communities across Northern Ontario, Canada. Over 100 ofthese sites are
situated in secondary schools and young offender unitsof correctional facilities. Each site
is equipped with anaudioteleconferencing convener kit, an Optel Telewriter
audiographicsystem, an IBM compatible computer, a fax machine, an audio tapeplayer,a
printer, a VCR and a television set (Contact North 1989).
Northern Ontario comprises
9/10ths of the land mass of Canada'smost populous province (9,500,000 people; land
mass: 412,537 sq.miles) The North is home to about 1/10th of the population. It is alarge
wilderness area with many communities not served by any roadlinks. Fort Severn, on
Hudson Bay in the far north, is further fromToronto than the distance between Toronto
and Orlando, Florida.
There are many organizational difficulties in bringing
togethermore than forty-two (42) different school boards to cooperate indistance
education (McGreal & Simand 1992; Nelson & Minore 1992). In1992-1993 five
secondary level distance education courses were taughtin English over a hundred sites,
and three courses were taught inFrench to over ninety (90) students (Contact North
1992). Some ofthese courses rely on the use of audiographics, and others are
taughtsimply through audio teleconferencing. All the courses in this studyare taught to
students on site, simultaneously with students in theremote sites. In addition, some
courses make use of computer softwareand video tapes which are shown during off-line
sessions at thevarious sites.
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
With the introduction of distance education into the schoolsystem in Northern Ontario,
many critics demanded proof of itseffectiveness. There are many studies demonstrating
the worth oftechnologically enhanced education using computers, television andother
media in traditional and distance education (Clark 1983; Ritchieet al. 1989, Moore &
Thompson 1990,). However, the lack of datadirectly relevant to the situation that exists
in the North leaves thedistance education network open to skepticism and criticism
regardingits effectiveness. These doubts can best be addressed by producinghard data
based on the schools that are participating in distanceeducation via Contact North. + Page
13 + The purpose of this descriptive study was to investigate theeffect of proximity to,
or remoteness from, the teacher on theattitudes of students in Northern Ontario. The
attitudes of studentstowards the distance education course that they have been taught
wasexamined. This was a causal-comparative study as the independentvariables were not
manipulated.
An attitudinal study was chosen over an achievement test becauseof the
difficulties in developing adequate pre and post tests for over12 different subjects.
Attitudes towards the teacher, subject, andthe course are felt to have some relationship
with achievement, butconclusive evidence of the nature and strength of the relationship
isnot yet available. In fact, in the distance education courses studiedhere, learning did
take place at all locations to the satisfaction ofstudents, teachers and administrators.
There was no significantdifference in the scores of students at the remote locations and
thoseon site. However, in the absence of pre-tests, these results cannotbe relied on.
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
The literature on student attitudes towards
their coursessuggests that although the difference is generally positive, thecurrent
evidence is that the media used to deliver instruction doesnot influence attitudes. The
evidence is inconclusive, or it suggeststhat there are few significant differences in the
attitude measuresbetween groups of students (Campbell-Gibson 1991; Campbell-Gibson
&Graf 1992; Chu & Schramm 1967, 1975; Clark 1983; Russel 1992). Somestudies
suggest that the attitudes and grades of students usingtechnological media are positively
affected, but the overall impactseems to be limited (Florida Department of Education
1980). There are a number of studies of the effect of distance educationtechnologies
on student attitudes (Blanchard 1989; Effeh 1991; Egan etal. 1992; Hackman & Walker
1990; Johnston 1991; Masson 1988; Ritchie &Newby 1989). The results are not clear.
Furthermore, much of theevidence that exists for distance education is often anecdotal
orbased on weak research designs (see Moore & Thompson 1990).
The research on
the use of educational television hasconsistently shown that students using telecourses,
who are evaluatedin the same way as their peers in traditional classes, perform as wellas
or better and show positive attitudes (Ellis & Mathis 1985; Grimeset al. 1988; Grimmet
1975; Husband 1954; Mount & Walters 1980;Stromberg 1942; Whittington 1987). A
comparison study of three mediashowed similar results (Beare 1989). However, at least
two studiesshowed negative results when satellite broadcast was used to deliversecondary
school programming (Barker 1987), and community collegeprogramming (Agler & Linn,
1976). + Page 14 + Taking the evidence that exists, the students following
theaudiographic teleconferencing courses in class with the teacher wouldbe expected to
share similar attitudes with their peers in the remotelocations. Neither the use of the
technology nor the remoteness oflearners seems to suggest significant differences.
STATEMENT OF HYPOTHESIS
The literature strongly suggests that the media used to deliverinstruction is not a
significant variable in affecting studentattitudes. Therefore, it was deductively
hypothesized that therewould be no significant difference in the attitudes of students in
theremote sites when compared to the non-remote sites. Using a post-testonly design,
with a t test for independent samples, it was predictedthat the null hypothesis as outlined
above would be upheld. METHOD
Subjects for this study were all secondary level
distanceeducation students taking courses via the Contact North
audiographicteleconferencing network in Northern Ontario. In the study, sixty-two(62)
students were surveyed in six different audiographicteleconferencing courses in
secondary schools in Northern Ontario,Canada. The population of secondary level
students involved indistance education in Northern Ontario was limited (N = 94).
Thecourse enrollments are small, because the network is serving the smallschools in a
very isolated region of North America. As all coursesgiven by Contact North are
voluntary, distance education studentsself-selected their course delivery method.
Subjects from this study comprised the survey respondents fromthe secondary school
population of Northern Ontario involved indistance education delivered via the Contact
North network. Two groups were treated differently: 1. Students (primarily Native
Americans) taking courses through the Lakehead School Board in Thunder Bay.
These groups cannot be used for the remote - non-remote comparison courses are not
delivered simultaneously to students in remote locations and to students in the class
with the delivering teacher. The teacher was alone in a studio in Thunder Bay. They
were considered sufficiently unique to be excluded from the comparison with other
groups for the purposes outlined. 2. Student taking courses in the Correctional Centres.
These courses are of short and of overlapping durations. They are also nonsemestered and often rotating and individualized, making it very difficult to keep track
of the students. Therefore these groups were excluded from this study. + Page 15 +
The student population surveyed was divided into two distinctgroups: French speaking
(francophone) about 42% and English speaking(anglophone) about 58%. These figures
parallel the actual compositionof the population of Northern Ontario. The francophone
students arein eleven different schools under eight school boards. The
anglophonestudents are in sixteen schools in twelve school boards. Theanglophone
students are in every region of the North of the province,as are the francophones,
although they tend to be more concentrated inthe Northeastern and Midnorthern regions.
INSTRUMENT
The attitudes of students towards their courses in the two groupswere measured using a
test developed by J. Hand and called A Scale toStudy Attitudes Toward College Courses
(SSATCC). SSATCC is a forty-five item, one page, True or False test of attitudes. The
mostfrequently endorsed items are weighted as zero. Items are weightedfrom +10 to -10.
Plus weights indicate positive attitudes and minusweights indicate negative attitudes. All
items were selected to meetWang's criteria for attitude statements. This scale has been
designedfor College level students, however because all of the population tobe studied is
at the senior secondary school level, I believe thatthis test is still appropriate. Note that
most of the students are atthe Ontario Academic Credit level which is a year beyond
Grade 12.These students on the average are nineteen years old. Studentattitudes
measured include their opinions of the value of the course,their retention of information,
defects in the course, the need forthe course, the self-expression allowed etc. The scoring
is simplydone by adding up the weights on the True answers. There is no statedtime limit
for the administration of the survey.
The author reports split-half reliability estimated
at .92(n=100). Clark's validity index was used to show a median index of .86where 1.0 is
perfect discrimination. This is reasonably high. Thevalidity is also indicated by
1. a
positive relation between the attitude and
effort in a course;
2. close agreement
between scores and self rating;
3. demonstrated ability of scale to differentiate
between group
attitudes in the expected direction.
The reviewers feel that the test
is based on the assumption thatattitudes are distributed normally. This may not be true in
allcircumstances. They argue also that the most frequently endorseditems are not simply
irrelevant or ambiguous.
The other tests that I examined seemed to cover far
moreinformation than was needed for my study. Many of the questions werealso quite
inappropriate for a study of the distance education courses + Page 16 + in Northern
Ontario and would have needed considerable editing. Aprincipal advantage of the
SSATCC test is the appropriateness of thequestions which could be easily adapted
without changing theirvalidity. It is also very simple to procure, administer, and
score.An additional advantage of this test is that it is more closely aimedto the age and
grade level of the majority of the population to bestudied. The same test could also be
administered to college anduniversity level students. With this test, I could broaden the
studyto include all students using the Contact North distance educationnetwork in the
future. I estimate a very short administration time ofless than twenty minutes for this
test. This was also an importantconsideration also as some participating schools were not
easilyconvinced to allow students too much time for outside experiments.The SSATCC
test directly measures the attitudes of concern to distanceeducation teachers without
extraneous questions. All the questionsrelate directly to student attitudes towards a
particular course. Thequestions are relevant and all the statements are direct and
easilyunderstood. Experimental Design
The students in this study were not randomly
assigned to groupsbut self-selected their membership in the distance education
courses.Their degree of remoteness from their instructor was a matter ofgeographical
imperative and not the result of a choice made by studentor researcher. Procedure
A
letter was sent out to all teachers delivering courses. Theprincipals of schools
participating in the courses gave their writtenapproval. A form was given to students at
all sites asking them tovolunteer for the study. This form was signed by the students and
bythe parents for those students who were under eighteen years.
The students were
studying on the Contact North network through anatural selection process as described
previously. They chose to takethe course, but they had no control their personal situation
regardingremoteness or lack of remoteness.
The curricula that must be followed in all
courses wereestablished by the provincial government, therefore all students
wereexpected to achieve the prescribed learning objectives. All students,both remote and
on-site, in each course covered the same material,followed the same texts and
supplementary materials, received the samehandouts and took the same tests. The same
examinations were takenand the same type of project work was undertaken by all the
studentsin a class. The same attitudinal survey, tests, assignments andexaminations were
administered. + Page 17 + As the distance education classes were normally given
three timesa week for a period of fifty minutes, the students in school with theteacher
who spent up to seventy-three minutes for five days a weekwith the teacher had this
advantage. The physical location of theremote students varies considerably. The range
included normalclassrooms, school libraries, offices, cubbyholes and, in at least onecase,
a living room.
Distance education students were principally enrolled in
OntarioAcademic Credit (OAC) courses (Grade 13). (See Table 1)
Table 1
---------------------------------------------------------------------COURSE
GRADE
Writer's Craft
EnglishFrench Second Lang.
EnglishScience & Society
EnglishComptabilit*
FrenchHistoire du Canada
FrenchDessin industriel
FRENCH
TOTAL

OAC
OAC
OAC
OAC
OAC
11
REMOTE
11
7
10
0
3
5
36
IN CLASS
2
2
2
2
10
8
26
Note, that for the Comptabilit course, there were students on site with the teacher,
who dropped out just before the attitude test was distributed. The results of the
attitude test from a grade 11 Musicand Computers and a Grade 11 French Second
Language course are notavailable. (See Table 2)
Table 2
--------------------------------------------------------------Music & Computers
11
4
15
EnglishFrench Second Lang. 11
6
7
English---------------------------------------------------------------RESULTS
The attitude survey results for the two groups were comparedusing a t test for
independent samples (alpha = .05). The t test waschosen as a reasonable procedure to
determine whether or not the meansof the two populations are equal. It was found that
there was no reason to believe that a significant difference exists between the means
of the remote group as compared with the non-remote group(Observed significance
level = .255, p=.935). Therefore the original null hypothesis was upheld.
+ Page 18 +
Table 3 t-test groups remote (1,2) /variables attitude.
Number Variable
of Cases Mean
SD
SE of Mean
ATTITUDE
ATTITUDEOn Site Students
36
41.7139 33.622
5.604Remote Students
26 52.1808 37.673
7.388Mean Difference = -10.4669 Levene's Test for
Equality of Variances: F= .007 P= .935 t-test for Equality of Means
95%
Variances t-value df 2-Tail Sig SE of Diff
CI for DiffEqual -1.15 60
.255
9.102
(-28.678, 7.745)Unequal -1.13 50.17 .264
9.273
(29.097, 8.163)
DISCUSSION The results of this study support the original hypothesis thatthere
would be no significant difference in attitude toward theircourses between the
students taking courses on-site and those atdistance locations. Since this study took
place in the remoteenvironment of Northern Ontario with small numbers of students,
andincluded only a sample population of secondary school students takingdistance
education courses via Contact North, the results cannot begeneralized to other
situations.
However, the results do point in the direction of there reallybeing no
significant difference in students' attitudes towards theircourses between the on-site
and remote groups. This is important forteaching professionals to take into account
when determining whetheror not to promote distance education in their schools.
More studiesare needed in similar situations to determine whether or not this lackof a
significant difference between on-site and remote students'attitudes towards their
courses is transferable to other populations.
The results of the study are consistent
with the findings ofCampbell-Gibson (1991), Campbell-Gibson & Graf (1992), Chu
& Schramm(1967, 1975), and Clark (1983). These studies addressed the attitudesof
students towards their courses at various educational levels.However, since this report
is a descriptive study based on a samplefrom a specific population, the results should
be used with extremecaution. More studies are recommended to determine whether
or notthe present findings conform to studies of other populations. Special thanks to
Dr Steve Terrell and Dr Barry Centini of NovaSoutheastern U. for their help on this
paper.
REFERENCES
Beare, P.L. (1989). The comparative effectiveness of videotape,audiotape and
telelecture in delivering continuing teacher education.American Journal of Distance
Education, 3(2), 57-65.
Beaudoin, Michael F. (1992). Researching practice and practicingresearch: Critique
of distance education research and writing.Distance Education Symposium: Selected
Papers presented at the SecondAmerican Symposium on Research in Distance
Education: PennsylvaniaState University, May, 1991, (ACSDE Research Monograph
No. 4), 1-8.
+ Page 19 +
Campbell-Gibson, Chere (1991). Changing perceptions of learners andlearning at a
distance: A review of selected recent research. In Distance Education Symposium:
Selected Papers, Part 1. Papers presented at the Second American Symposium on
Research in DistanceEducation: The Pennsylvania State University, May 1991.
UniversityPark PA: The Pennsylvania State University.
Campbell-Gibson, C. & Graf, A. O. (1992). Impact of adults' preferredlearning styles
and perception of barriers on completion of externalbaccalaureate degree programs.
Journal of Distance Education, 7(1),39-51.
Chu, G. C., & Schramm, W. (1967). Learning from television: What the research
says. Washington D.C.: National Association of EducationalBroadcasters.
Clark, Richard E. (1983). Reconsidering research on learning frommedia. Review of
Educational Research, Winter 1983, 53(4), 445-459.
Clark, D. L. (1987). High school seniors react to their teachers andtheir schools. Phi
Delta Kappan, 68, 503-509. Contact North (1989). Annual Report. Contact North
(1992). Secondary School Course List. Unpublished manuscript.
Effeh, E. (1991). Dispositional factors and assimilative levels. Anopinion survey of
distance learners. Research in Distance Education,3(1), 9-11.
Egan, M.W., Welch, M., Page, B. & Sebastien, J. (1992). Learners'perceptions of
instructional delivery systems: Conventional andtelevision. American Journal of
Distance Education, 6(2), 47-55.
Ellis, L. & Mathis, D. (1985). College student learning fromtelevised versus
conventional classroom lectures: A controlledexperiment. Higher Education, 14(2),
165-173.
England, Richard D. (1991). A Survey of State-Level Involvement inDistance
Education at the Elementary and Secondary Levels. AmericanCenter for the Study of
Distance Education, The Pennsylvania StateUniversity.
Florida Department of Education. (1980). More Hands for Teachers:Report of the
Commissioner's Advisory Committee on InstructionalComputing. Tallahassee, FL:
Office of Educational Technology.
+ Page 20 +
Gee, Tom (1991). Program equity in Alberta's small rural schools.Distance
Education, 12(2), 175-190.
Grimes, P.W., Nielsen, J.E., & Niss, J. F. (1988). The performance ofnonresident
students in the "Economics U$A" telecourse. American Journal of Distance
Education, 2(2), 36-43.
Grimmet, G. (1975). Improving the skills of remote teachers. In MacKenzie, O.,
Postgate R., & Scupham J. (Eds.). Open Learning.(UNESCO), Paris.
Hackman, M.& Walker, K. (1990). The impact of system design andinstructional
style on student reactions to distance education.Research in Distance Education, 2(2),
7-8.
Hand, J. (1953). A method of weighing attitude scale items fromsubject responses.
Journal of Clinical Psychology, 9, 37-39.
Haughey, Margaret (1990). Distance education in schools. The
CanadianAdministrator, May, 1990, 29(8), 1-9.
Hobbs, V.M., & Osburn, D.D. (1988). Distance Learning EvaluationStudy Report II:
An Inter- and intra-state comparison. Denver, CO:Mid- Continent Regional
Education Laboratory.
Husband, R.W. (1954). Television versus classroom for learninggeneral psychology.
American Psychologist, 9, 181-183.
Johnstone, Sally, M. (1991). Research on telecommunicated learning:Past, present
and future. Electronic Links for Learning (Annals ofthe American Academy of
Political and Social Science), 514, 9-31.
Kelly, L. (1990). Technology and the transformation of Americaneducation.
Technology in Higher Education (T.H.E.) Journal, 18,60-63.
Kober, N. (1990). Think rural means isolated? Not when distancelearning reaches
into schools. The School Administrator, 47, 16-24.
Masson, Jean-Pierre (1988). Sur la satisfaction des etudiants dans uncontexte de
formation distance: La Teleuniversit. Journal of DistanceEducation, 3(2), 37-54.
McGreal, R. & Simand B. (1992). Problems in introducing distanceeducation into
Northern Ontario secondary schools. American Journalof Distance Education, 6(1),
51-61.
Moore, M. G., Thompson, M.M., Quigley, A., Clark, C. & Goff, G.(1990). The
Effects of Distance Learning: A Summary of theLiterature. Pennsylvania State
University, University Park PA.
+ Page 21 +
Mount, G. & Walters, S. (1980). Traditional versus televisedinstructional methods
for introductory psychology. Journal ofEducational Technology Systems, 9, 45-53.
Mugridge, I., & Kaufman, D. (Eds.) (1986). Distance Education inCanada. London:
Croom Helm.
Nelson, C.H. & Minore, J.B. (1988). Scanning the Dawn of High-TechEducation in
the North. A report prepared for the Northwestcontractors for Contact North/Contact
Nord. Lakehead University,Thunder Bay, ON.
Ritchie, Helen & Newby, Timothy J. (1989). Classroom lecture/discussion vs. live
televised instruction: A comparison ofeffects on student performance, attitude and
interaction. AmericanJournal of Distance Education, 3(3), 36-45.
Robyler, M.D., Castine, W.H., & King, F.J. (1988). Assessing theImpact of
Computer-Based Instruction: A Review of Recent Research.Haworth, New York.
Russel, Thomas L. (1992). Television's indelible impact on distanceeducation: What
we should have learned from comparative research.Research in Distance Education.
October 1992, 4(4), 2-4.
Seigel, A.E. & Davis, C. (1990). Delivering undergraduate engineeringcourses on
television: How do grades compare? In Proceedings of theSeventh Canadian
conference on Engineering Education. Toronto, 10-12.
Steele, R., (ed.). (1993). A Sampling of Distance Learning Across theFifty States. Ed
Journal, (7)3, March, J1 - J10.
Stromberg, E.L. (1942). College credit for television home study.American
Psychologist, 7, 507-509.
U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment (1988). Power On: NewTools for
Teaching & Learning. OTA-SET379. Washington, D.C.: U.S.Government Printing
Office.
U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment (1989). Linking forLearning: A
New Course for Education. SET-430. Washington, D. C.:U.S. Government Printing
Office.
Vandehaar, D. (1986). Learning between here and there: Quality teleconference
classrooms. In L. Parker & C. Olgren (Eds.)Teleconferencing and Electronic
Communications IV, 338-346. Madison,WI: U. Wisconsin-Extension, Center for
Interactive Programs.
Whittington, N. (1987). Is instructional television educationallyeffective? The
American Journal of Distance Education, 1(1), 47-57.
Williams, David D. et al. (1988) Distance education for elementary andsecondary
schools in the United States. Journal of DistanceEducation, 3(2) Fall, 71-96.
+ Page 22 +
ERIC Research Titles Agler, L.S., & Linn, T.B., (1976). Telecourses in Dallas: The
first three years. Dallas County Community College District. (ERIC
DocumentReproduction Service No. ED 126 929).
Barker, B.O. (1987). The effects of learning by satellite on ruralschools. Paper
presented at Learning by Satellite Conference, TulsaOK, April 12-14, 1987. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 284693).
Barker, B.O. (1991). K-12 Distance education in the United States:Technology
strengths, weaknesses, and issues. Paper presented at the1st Annual International
Conference on Distance Learning UnitedStates Distance Learning Association April
10-13. Washington D.C.(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 332 687).
Blanchard, William (1989). Telecourse Effectiveness: A Research-Review Update.
7p. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 323589).
Chu, G. C., & Schramm, W. (1975). Learning from television: What the research
says. Palo Alto: Stanford University. (ERIC DocumentReproduction Service No. ED
109 985).
Hampton, George (1991). Computers, related devices and distanceeducation: How
Cinderella becomes a Princess. Occasional Papers inDistance Education Number 10,
Charles Stuart University. (ERICDocument Reproduction Service No. ED 330 323).
Kaelin, Elmer (1990). Helping to put technology in classrooms forless than a penny
a day. Southern Regional Education Board, Atlanta,Georgia. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 330 325).
Peterson, George A. (1990). Schools and national telecommunicationspolicy.
National Geographic Society. (ERIC Document ReproductionService No. ED 328
224).
Quinn, D.W., & Williams D. D. (1987). Statewide evaluation report onproductivity
project studies related to improved use of technology toextend educational programs.
Sub-report Three: Survey of technology projects throughout the United States. Logan,
UT: Wasatch Institute for Research and Development. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No.ED 291 351).
Wilson, Brenda (1990). Students' assessment of distance learning.Paper presented at
the Annual Meeting of the Midsouth EducationalResearcher Association. New
Orleans, LA, November 1990. (ERICDocument Reproduction Service No. ED 326
558).
+ Page 23 +
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Rory McGreal, Executive Director/Directeur
general,TeleEducation NBBox 6000 470 York Street, Fredericton, New Brunswick E3B
5H1 CANADA Tel. (506) 444-4230 Fax: (506) 444-4232Email: rmcgreal@unb.ca
OR mcgrealr@nbnet.nb.ca Rory McGreal is presently the executive director of
TeleEducation NewBrunswick, a province-wide distance education and training
networkthat is being used by public and private educational and trainingorganizations to
deliver courses and programmes. Previously, he wasresponsible for the expansion of
Contact North (a distance educationnetwork in Northern Ontario) into the high schools of
the region.Rory has worked in Canada as a teacher and teacher representative andabroad
in the Seychelles, the Middle East and Europe in variouscapacities as a teacher, ESL
technological training coordinator,instructional designer, language and computer
laboratory coordinatorand educational advisor. He has served on the New Brunswick
Premier'sTask Force on the Information highway and is presently serving on theCanadian
national Working Group on Learning and Training on theInformation Highway. He is
working on a Ph.D. in Computer Technologyat a distance.
-Interpersonal Computing and Technology: An Electronic Journal for the
21st Century Copyright 1994 Georgetown University. Copyright of individual articles
inthis publication is retained by the individual authors. Copyright of thecompilation as a
whole is held by Georgetown University. It is asked thatany republication of this article
state that the article was first publishedin IPCT-J. Contributions to IPCT-J can be
submitted by electronic mail in APA style to:Gerald Phillips, Editor IPCT-J,
GMP3@PSUVM.PSU.EDU