Barriers to distance education: A factor‐analytic study

American Journal of Distance Education 01/2001; 15:7-22. DOI: 10.1080/08923640109527081

ABSTRACT This article reports on a large‐scale (n = 2,504), exploratory factor analysis that determined the underlying constructs that comprise barriers to distance education. The ten factors found were (1) administrative structure, (2) organizational change, (3) technical expertise, (4) social interaction and quality, (5) faculty compensation and time, (6) threat of technology, (7) legal issues, (8) evaluation/effectiveness, (9) access, and (10) student‐support services.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: What are the most significant factors that motivate and inhibit faculty with regard to teaching in online environments? And what are the specific kinds of experiences that underlie and explain the importance of these factors? One goal of this study was to add to understanding of these issues, but the primary purpose of this study is determining how well these questions can be answered using the method of structured focus groups. This paper describes the methods and results of a pilot study conducted using four focus group interviews of faculty experienced in teaching using "Asynchronous Learning Networks" (ALN) at one university, and a single focus group at a second university in order to explore generalizability. For the university at which four group interviews were conducted, the rank orders of leading motivators and demotivators were quite consistent. Leading motivators include the flexibility allowed by being able to teach "anytime/anywhere;" better/more personal interaction and community building supported by the medium; the technical and creativity challenges offered by this mode of teaching; being able to reach more (and more diverse) students; and better course management. Major sources of dissatisfaction are more work, medium limitations, lack of adequate support and policies for teaching online, and the fact that the medium is not a good fit for some students. Very similar results were found through the replication focus group conducted at a different institution.
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The key findings are presented from the second phase of a research project which was undertaken to ascertain the current status of the use of e-learning technologies by New Zealand Industry Training Organisations (ITOs). The data presented here was derived from a multi-part online survey of e-learning activity in New Zealand ITOs. The benefits and barriers of e-learning for New Zealand ITOs are analysed and major findings highlighted.
    ICT: Providing choices for learners and learning. Proceedings ascilite Singapore 2007, Edited by Roger Atkinson, Clare McBeath, Alan Soong, Christopher Cheers, 12/2007: pages 249-250; Centre for Educational Development, Nanyang Technological University., ISBN: 9789810595784
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Colleges and universities are increasingly migrating towards utilising the World Wide Web to convey at least part of, and in many cases, their entire curricular offering. Despite this trend there is little support for the professors responsible for translating courses refined over a career in the classroom for delivery via the Web. Teachers who are experts in their subject area and masters of their craft when in a classroom find themselves in the uncomfortable position of having to relearn how to teach in a new environment with little or no support. Development of an online course is, in many significant aspects, analogous to developing a computer product. The procedures and tools utilised in the software engineering field to manage computer software development, therefore, offer promise for developing online courses. This paper explores the potential of one process developed for the software engineering field—the System Development Lifecycle (SDL)—as a tool to effectively design and develop online college courses.
    British Journal of Educational Technology 11/2003; 34(5). · 1.54 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
May 29, 2014