Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T12:54:50.114Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Distance Instruction

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 November 2008

Patsy P. Layne  and
Suzanne Lepeintre
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Advances in media technology have made it technically possible to meet pressing worldwide demands for language and literacy training by means of distance instruction. Knowledge gained from a substantial body of experience in distance instruction is available to guide educators in combining technology with effective pedagogical programs. Each medium and each associated technology has unique capabilities and limitations and all media have been applied to distance instruction in varying combinations and with varying degrees of success. Most recently, computers and electronic networking, with their capabilities and their limitations, are making an impact on language instruction (Susser 1993, Warschauer, Turbee and Roberts 1994). Lessons learned from past experience in distance instruction are applicable to new technologies. A common reason for failure has been allowing a fascination with a new media technology to obscure the need for sound pedagogical design; a second reason has been a failure to consider socioeconomic factors (Schramm, Nelson, and Betham 1981).

Type
Technology in Language Instruction
Information
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics , Volume 16 , March 1996 , pp. 226 - 239
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

UNANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abrioux, D. 1991. Computer-assisted language learning at a distance: An international survey. American Journal of Distance Education. 5. 1. 3–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barker, B. O. 1986. Distance-learning technologies: Curriculum equalizers in rural and small schools. Journal of Rural and Small Schools. 1. 2. 4–7.Google Scholar
Barker, B. O. and Burnett, K.R. 1991. Distance learning in Hawaii: Establishment and evaluation of a rural teacher inservice training program. Paper presented at the annual conference of the NREA. Jackson, MS. 10 1991 [ED 338413]Google Scholar
Barson, J., Frommer, J. and Schwartz, M.. 1993. Foreign language learning using e-mail in a task-oriented perspective: Inter-university experiments in communication and collaboration. Journal of Science Education and Technology. 4. 2. 565–584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Batson, T. 1988. The ENFI project: A networked classroom approach to writing instruction. Academic Computing. 2. 5. 32–33.Google Scholar
Beauvois, M. H. 1992. Computer-assisted classroom discussion in the foreign language classroom: Conversation in slow motion. Foreign Language Annals 25. 5. 455–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butcher, P. G. and Greenberg, J. M.. 1992. Educational computing at the Open University: The second decade. Education and Computing. 8. 3. 201–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chun, D. 1994. Using computer networking to facilitate the acquistion of interactive competence. System. 22. 17–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daniel, J. S. et al. , (eds.) 1982. Learning at a distance: A world perspective. Paper presented at the World conference of the ICCE. Vancouver BC, 06 1982. [ED 222635]Google Scholar
DeLoughry, T. J. 1994. Pushing the envelope. Chronicle of Higher Education. 41. 8. A36–38.Google Scholar
Dodd, J. 1981. The credibility of distance education. Walton, Bletchley, England: Open University. [DERG Papers, No. 1.] [ED 222150]Google Scholar
Doucette, D. 1994. Transforming teaching and learning using information technology: A report from the field. Community College Journal. 65. 2. 18–24.Google Scholar
Epler Enterprises, Inc. 1993. Teleteaching distance education. Harrisburg, PA: Center for Rural PA. [Final report: Research report, test questionnaire, legal material.]Google Scholar
Feasley, C. E. 1983. Serving learners at a distance: A guide to program practices. [ASHE-ERIC HE research report No. 5.83.] [ED 238350]Google Scholar
Ford Language Institute. 1995. Speak English like a native. Hemisphere. 01 1995, page 90. [Advertisement.]Google Scholar
Gibbons, T. 1993. Turning access into success: Satellite television. Staff development for history-social science. Social Studies Review. 33. 1. 4–8.Google Scholar
Harcourt Brace. 1995. State-of-the-art affordable excellence in CD-ROM ESL/EFL. Orlando: Courseware Publishing International. [Catalogue and descriptions.]Google Scholar
Hastings, G. 1973. Achievement levels of Samoan transfer students in Hawaii. Honolulu: University of Hawaii. Research paper.Google Scholar
Hawisher, G. and Selfe, C.. 1991. The rhetoric of technology and the electronic writing class. College Composition and Communication. 42. 55–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, A. and Field, J.. 1989. Attitudes to open learning: A survey of unemployed adults. Vocational Aspects of Education. 41. 108. 21–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kansas State University. 1994. Distance learning technologies link adults to educational programming, opportunites. Rural Clearinghouse Digest. 1.2.Google Scholar
Keln, O. 1992. The use of synchronous computer networks in second language instruction: A preliminary report. Foreign Language Annals. 25. 441–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knapczyk, D. R. 1993. A distance-learning approach to in-service training. Educational Media International. 30.2.98–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lam, K. et al. , 1960. Objective: Quality teaching: What about educational television in Kentuckiana? Kentucky School Journal. [Louisville: Kentucky Education Association.]Google Scholar
Layton, T. 1995. Cyberschool. Eugene, OR: School District 4-J.Google Scholar
Leblanc, P. 1994. The politics of literacy and technology. In Selfe, C. and Hilligoss, S. (eds.) Literacy and Computers. New York: Modern Language Association. 22–36.Google Scholar
Lee, M. H. (ed.) 1991. Reching our potential: Rural education in the 90's. Conference proceedings. Rural Education Symposium. Nashville, TN, 03, 1991.Google Scholar
Limcaco, E. R. 1988. SEAMEO member conutires adapt distance learning. Studies in Educational Evaluation. 14. 2. 81–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
May, S. 1994. Woman's experience as distance learners: Access and technology. Journal of Distance Education. 9.1.81–98.Google Scholar
McClellan, I. 1986. Television for development: The African experience. Toronto: International Development and Research Centre.Google Scholar
McCrudy, J. 1994. Community colleges look to future: Center symposium debates reform. San Jose, CA: Commission on Innovation, Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges. [ED 366364]Google Scholar
Mkandawire, D. S. and Jere, D. R.. 1988. Democratization of education through distance learning and problem assessment with specific reference to Malawi. Studies in Educational Evaluation. 14.2.139–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, N. 1995. San Juan College task force on innovation, 1995 report. Farmington, NM: San Juan College. [ED 380172]Google Scholar
Murrow, E. R. 1955. Nine Magazine. KCTS, Seattle, WA. 12 1994. [Advertisement for Boogle and Gates.]Google Scholar
Naidoo, G. and Karaki, A. 1995. English in action: The radio learning project. Johannesburg: Open Learning Systems Education Trust.Google Scholar
Ong, W. J. 1982. Orality and literacy: The technologizing of the word. New York: Methuen.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reddy, G. 1995 Radical new strateies for educational redress in the RDP. English in Action. 1.2. [Johannesburg.]Google Scholar
Rumble, G. 1982. The cost analysis of learning at a distance: Venezuela's Universidad Nacional Abierta. Distance Education. 3. 1. 116–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schnepf, J. et al. , 1994. Closing the gap in distance learning: Computer-supported, participative, media-rich education. Edcuational Technology Review. 3. 19–25.Google Scholar
Schramm, W., Nelson, L. M. and Betham, M. T.. 1981. Bold experiment: The story of educational television in American Samoa. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Schramm, W., Nelson, L. M. and Betham, M. T. et al. . 1970. Impact of educational television system in American Samoa: Special report of educational task force. Honolulu: University of Hawaii.Google Scholar
Schrum, L. 1992a. Information age innovations: A case study of online professional development. Paper presented at the annual conference of the AERA. San Francisco, 04. [Ed 346849]Google Scholar
Schrum, L. 1992b. Innovation and the process of change: A case study in distance education. Paper presented at the annual conference of the AERA. San Francisco. 04 1992. [Conference paper-microfiche.]Google Scholar
Selfe, C. 1992. Re-defining literacy: The multi-layered grammars of computing. Education Digest. 57. 5. 18–23.Google Scholar
Shapiro, J. 1995. Show and tell: Multimedia computers. Hemispheres. [United Airlines Magazine, 01.] 109–114.Google Scholar
Stoll, P. F. 1986. Emergent policy issues related to the learning technologies and telecommunications. NYS Ed. Dept. Center for Learning Technologies. Paper presented at the international symposium on Government Policies in Educational Technology. Vancouver, BC, Canada, 05 1986. [ED 299959]Google Scholar
Stringer, M. et al. 1982. Language learning at a distance: International comparisons. Teaching at a Distance. 21.52–56.Google Scholar
Susser, R. 1993. Networks and project work: Alternative pedagogies for writing with computer. Computers and Composition. 10.3.63–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swalec, J. J. 1993. Engaging faculty in telecommunications-based instructional delivery systems. Springfield, IL: Waubonsee Telecommunications Instructional consortium (TIC). [ED 368418]Google Scholar
Texas Education Agency. 1993. Project SMART (Summer Migrants Access Resources through Technology). Natioal conference on migrant and season farmworkers: Denver, CO, 05 1993. [Conference papers-microfiche.]Google Scholar
Timpson, W. M. and Jones, C. S.. 1989. Increasing education choices for the gifted: Distance learning via technology. Gifted Child Today. 12. 5. 10–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
United States Department of Education. Office of Educational Research and Development. 1995. Application for a grant under the National Educational Research and Development Center Program. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. [cf. page 54.]Google Scholar
Van Hoose, R. and Lam, K.. 1961. Kentuckiana ETV Council Annual Report 1960–1961. Louisville, KY: Jefferson County Board of Education.Google Scholar
Vilmi, R. and Lewis, C.. 1995. Internet task for advanced speakers of English as a second language. Helsinki University of Technology and Mesa Community College, AZ, USA. [Unpublished ms.]Google Scholar
Warschauer, M. 1995. E-mail for English teaching: Bringing the Internet and computer learning networks into the language classroom. Alexandria, VA: TESOL Publications.Google Scholar
Warschauer, L.. Turbee, L. and Roberts, B.. 1994. Computer learning networks and student empowerment. Honolulu: Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center, University of Hawaii. [Research Note #10.]Google Scholar
Westinghouse Learning Corporation. 1971. Report on diagnostic survey of education in American Samoa. Honolulu: University of Hawaii.Google Scholar
Wilson, T. C. 1989. The Open University at the University of South Florida: An assessment of distance learning procedures. [Project description microfiche.]Google Scholar