Home

Learner Control in Asynchronous Learning Environments

by Sloan-C

ABSTRACT
This paper explores the centrality of learner control in asynchronous learning environments. Theorists and researchers have long suggested that learner control is a necessary element in the learning process. It is a fundamental tenet of learner-centered education. Yet, its role as an essential element of learning networks has not been fully investigated nor probably realized.

Learner control research has had an amorphous history and produced an array of anomalies. The lack of a common conceptual framework has garnered ongoing criticism and allegations of pseudoscience. It is within this context that the evolution of asynchronous learning networks (ALNs) has occurred. Learner control is inherent to ALNs. In hypermedia systems, learner control is a central feature. The proliferation of on-line curricula and the expanding application of hypermedia in technology-mediated learning environments have presented a propitious opportunity to build a systematic theory of learner controlled instruction.

Technology-mediated learning must be grounded in basic educational principles and a framework in which teaching and learning is a partnership. The instructor provides the leadership, designs the environment and manages the process; the learner engages the environment, collaborating with other learners, resources and experts to construct knowledge. In a world in which asynchronous learning—anytime, anyplace, for anyone—is merely a bridge to a ubiquitous, pervasive learning environment—everytime, everyplace, for everybody—adaptive, transformative pedagogy may be the true future of higher education. The learner will not only be paramount in mediating his or her own learning but learner control will emerge as the dominant characteristic of this new pedagogy.

I. INTRODUCTION

Theorists and researchers have long suggested that some degree of learner control is a necessary element in the learning process [1]. Conventional wisdom has told us that the more the learner controls the elements of instruction, the more rewarding the instructional experience will be. Kinzie, Sullivan, and Berdel find that through making instructional choices students are more likely to feel intrinsic motivation to learn; and they are more likely to derive satisfaction from their learning experience, which ultimately results in improved academic performance [2].

A number of scholars observed in the early years of this decade that an overarching, conceptual framework for network-based learning environments was largely lacking. James Levin and Michael Jacobson argued that a systematic conceptual framework was needed to guide the design of network-based learning environments as learners and teachers jointly construct personal and shared knowledge spaces [3]. The evolution of asynchronous learning networks (ALNs) and the expanding application of hypermedia in technology-mediated learning environments have accelerated the need to build a systematic theory of learner controlled instruction. The purpose of this article is to review the history of learner controlled instruction and to explore the context in which learner control theory may guide the future design and implementation of asynchronous learning networks.

A. Definition of Learner Control
The term "learner control" has had a somewhat fluid and eclectic history. In its broadest sense, learner control is the degree to which a learner can direct his/her own learning experience [4]. More specifically, learner control is the degree to which individuals control the path, pace, and/or contingencies of instruction [5]. Yet, the meaning of learner control has evolved over time to include the characteristics of new learning paradigms as well as new technologies. Interactive instructional systems, such as learning networks, make it possible to provide learners with control over depth of study, range of content, number and type of delivery media, and time spent on learning. With these options, learners can tailor the learning experience to meet their specific needs and interests. For this reason, learner control is not "a unitary construct, but rather a collection of strategies that function in different ways depending upon what is being controlled by whom" [6], p.29. Indeed, learner control may be a continuum of instructional strategies in which the learner is provided with the option for controlling one or more of the parameters of the learning environment [7].

II. HISTORY

One of the earliest studies that explored learner versus instructor control of instruction was published in 1957 [1]. Newman's study of student vs. instructor design of study method resulted in a substantial advantage for learner control, leading the author to conclude that the practice of allowing the student to decide on the techniques he or she will employ during the study of a task had lasting merit [8].

In 1961, the notion of "learner-controlled instruction" or LCI emerged as a serious topic of educational research, appearing as the title of a book authored by Mayer and McCann and the subject of an experimental study by Robert Mager [9],[7]. Mager's study also resulted in a substantial gain for the learner control group.

By the early 1970s, computer-assisted/computer-based instruction (CAI/CBI) had expanded the sphere of learner control research [7]. With the advent of CBI, advocates touted its ability to enhance learning through learner control [10]. One author observed that "one of the most powerful features of the computer is the virtually unlimited range of instructional control options available to designers of computer-assisted instruction (CAI)" [5], p.6. Computers were used as the medium of instructional delivery and options available to the learner ranged from control of a single aspect of instruction, to control over multiple aspects, to complete learner control.

Perhaps one of the most visionary works on learner control was authored by Frank Wydra in 1980. He defined learner controlled instruction as an instructional strategy that allows key learning decisions to be made by the learner, rather than by the instructor. Most importantly, he envisioned a learning environment in which the instructional effort is invested in design rather than application. The result is a computer-based environment in which key decisions are delegated to the learner, while the instructional design ensures that the desired learning outcomes can be achieved. His vision of LCI was framed by the following parameters: (1) instruction takes place in a controlled environment, (2) the instructional designer manages the environment and not the instruction, and (3) the learner has control over his or her movements within the environment, including the decision to stay or to leave.

...it is necessary to emphasize the point that LCI is not learner anarchy.
There is control. But it is on the environmental level. There is direction.
But it is a function of the design of the environment. There is learner
freedom. But it is within the consequences and resources that have been
built into the environment [11].

Wydra emphasized that the LCI model does not delegate decisions about learning objectives, measurements or standards. These are all specified by the designer or, in a technology-mediated asynchronous learning environment, the instructor.

Since 1980, research in learner control has been conducted almost exclusively using CAI [12]. Empirical studies have typically compared learner control and computer control--a research approach that has been wrought with incongruities and generally regarded as invalid [13]. Media comparisons shifted the research focus to the medium itself, resulting in a kind of technocentricity in which the medium, not the instructional design, was regarded as the agent that acted directly on learning and cognition [6].

The 1990s have seen the ubiquitous application of hypertext and hypermedia in technology-enabled learning environments. Nearly a decade and a half after Wydra claimed that the learner's authority to decide when a resource will be accessed is a basic assumption of LCI, hypertext systems extended the reach of learner control by giving users the means to access information segments in a sequence selected by themselves [14]. The core notions of hypertext—flexible, nonlinear and random linkages between nodes of information—facilitate the conceptual interconnectedness that is central to the notions of access and knowledge [15]. Leonard noted that the inherent hypermedia design characteristics of the World Wide Web emphasize the associative thinking patterns of an active learner and support the concept of discovery learning [16]. In essence, hypermedia systems empower individual learners by embedding control over the learning experience, enabling learners to make their own decisions and to discover and construct their own knowledge.

III. LEARNER CONTROL THEORY

Learner control of instruction is intuitively appealing [17]. "It is commonly assumed that some degree of individual control over the interactivity is necessary for instruction" [4], p.85. Cognitive researchers have claimed that learner control is an essential aspect of effective learning [18]. The student is paramount in mediating learning [14]. Some have reasoned that each learner will know what is best for his or her own learning and will act on that knowledge accordingly [19]. Yet others have hypothesized that when instruction incorporates learner-controlled features, students will be more autonomous, ask more questions, and participate in more conceptually based information exchanges than students in traditional classrooms [20]. Papert argued that increasing the control which learners have over their microworlds will enhance feelings of self-efficacy and thereby assist learners in taking independent responsibility for their own learning [4]. Lepper suggested that learner control may increase feelings of competence, self-determination and intrinsic interest [18]. Other researchers have theorized that the value of learner control is related to student meaningfulness, self-assessment, and motivation [20].

Yet, learner control theory has been frequently eclipsed by a priori assumptions [21]. As a consequence, some have acknowledged that the theoretical foundation of learner control research has been dubious [13], that prior research has lacked a theory base [22] and that research results have been inconclusive [20]. As one researcher observed, invalid postulates have produced needless research [23], resulting in a body of literature that "abounds with equivocal findings" [24], p.491.

IV. LEARNER CONTROL RESEARCH

While the concept of learner control has held intuitive appeal for both instructional designers and educational researchers, its apparent potential for improving learning has never been experimentally established [25]. Empirical investigations of learner control strategies have produced "a montage of inconsistencies, contradictions, and caveats" [7], p. 286).

Reeves complained that much of the learner control research was simply pseudoscience [13]. He concluded that learner control research has been encumbered by definitional problems, theoretical problems, methodological problems, and analytical problems. Not dissimilarly, Jacobson and colleagues concluded that the provisional nature of learner control research within a hypermedia environment has resulted from a displaced preoccupation with technology, methodological problems, and a lack of attention to relevant cognitive theory and research [26]. It is for this reason that instructional design emerges as a key element in the successful implementation of learner controlled instruction. Indeed, Kinzie, Sullivan & Berdel noted that differences in research results may well have been due to variations in the instructional design of the CAI across studies, specifically in the types of learner control offered [2].

V. LEARNING NETWORKS

"Network learning" is a term coined by Linda Harasim to refer to the use of computer networks for teaching and learning [27]. Harasim envisioned a computer-mediated environment in which place-independent, asynchronous interaction could occur among groups of people linked by an electronic network. Network learning enables anyone, anywhere, at anytime to be a learner or a teacher; it enhances the links between theory and practice, the classroom and the real world [27].

In 1995, Harasim, Hiltz, Teles and Turoff predicted that the emerging paradigm for education in the 21st century would be network learning.

Networking, the convergence and maturation of computing and telecommunications, has become a force for a new form of education, creating a paradigm shift: a change to a new model and set of expectations and rules for how to function successfully within a new learning environment [28], p.271.

They called this new model a "learning network," a community of learners who work together in an on-line environment. They described networked learners as geographically dispersed, pursuing and constructing knowledge in an asynchronous world.

Harasim and colleagues acknowledged that the use of networking technologies significantly alters the relationship of the learner to educational processes and resources. In essence, the learner has more options and, therefore, more control in a computer-mediated context. Both access and the nature of the interaction are expanded across time, place and subject. Indeed, the learning network is a truly learner-centered environment.

The learning model presented by Harasim, Hiltz, Teles and Turoff represented a new model of interaction between instructors and students as well as a new form of scholarly communication [28]. It is a model that emphasizes active and interactive learning, research and problem solving. Implicit to this model is the intent to foster learner control by facilitating the learner's ability to guide his or her own learning.

Equally implicit is the value of asynchronous learning. Learning networks, based on asynchronous communication, offer unique opportunities for active participation [28]. Unlike the traditional classroom, students in on-line courses have access to the air time they want or need, enabling every learner to have a voice. Asynchronicity provides each learner the time to reflect, formulate ideas and compose responses thoughtfully. It is for this reason that asynchronicity can elevate the quality of student interaction and participation.

VI. ASYNCHRONOUS LEARNING NETWORKS

The term "asynchronous learning network" or "ALN" had its genesis in 1993-94, jump-started by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation's program in Learning Outside the Classroom (LOC). The central theme of the LOC program is the use of current, affordable technology to achieve new outcomes through asynchronous or "on demand" access to remote learning opportunities and resources [29]. It was Frank Mayadas, program officer for the Sloan Foundation, who is credited with introducing the term as an explicit naming convention [30].

Frank Mayadas may have authored the seminal work on ALNs when he assigned the term "asynchronous learning network" to a telelearning infrastructure in which learners access resources and interact asynchronously [29]. He described the ALN model as one that facilitates connections between people, between learners and other learners and between learners and faculty. The key elements of ALN technology: computers, networks, telecommunications, groupware and the World Wide Web link people to other people, providing a framework for learning asynchronously. "The ALN model, in its essence, is a model that facilitates connections between people" [29], p.3.

The Alfred P. Sloan Foundation embraced this new learning paradigm, committed to move ALNs into a "production mode" as soon as possible [29]. To do this, the Sloan Foundation has provided millions of dollars in funding to more than thirty universities and community colleges to explore ALN and related outcomes [31]. Descriptions of the early projects are available here.

In 1995, Andriole reported on Drexel University's early experience with ALNs [32]. Student reactions were extremely positive:

• 90% felt they had more access to the instructor than in "conventional" course delivery.
• 85% would take another ALN course.
• 80% did NOT miss class lectures
• 75% felt they had more communication with fellow students than in conventional courses.
• 75% felt they learned MORE in the ALN-based course than they expected to learn in a conventional course.

Andriole concluded that an individual, self-paced learning model in an "open" environment is a powerful learning medium.

Rosenberg underscored the connection between learning networks and the re-engineering of education [33]. He challenged educators to change the balance between conventional pedagogies and technology, refocusing instructional strategies upon active learning, team problem-solving and authentic simulations in a technology-enhanced environment. He echoed the call for asynchronous learning networks.

This growing interest in and emphasis upon telelearning caught the eye of educational researchers. A research review of educational electronic networks by Levin and Thurston provided support for the belief espoused by Harasim [28] and Rosenberg [33] that tele-communicated learning has the potential to change the nature of teaching and learning [34]. ALNs invoke a "a new pedagogy, a new learning methodology based on participation" [35], p.2. The innovative kinds of pedagogy empowered by emerging technologies engender a transformation of conventional education into an alternative instructional paradigm [36]. The asynchronous nature of anytime, anywhere interactions among and between learners and instructor lead to new paradigms for teaching and learning [37]. ALNs provide a collaborative learning strategy in which students become teachers [38]. Odin recognized that the integration of ALN technologies involve a simultaneous re-visioning of the curriculum and instructional strategies [30].

By 1997, the term "asynchronous learning network" had, indeed, become part of the vernacular. Juge, Hartman, Sorg and Truman wrote that "web-based learning systems have become known as asynchronous learning networks, or ALNs" [31], p.3. The authors went on to observe that the World Wide Web had become the delivery platform of choice, due to its multimedia and hyperlinking capability and its ubiquity.

Mayadas revisited the concept of ALNs in 1997.

In an ALN, we can think of every person on the network as both a user and a resource. This concept is critical to the power of an ALN, making it not just an electronic network but a network of people--an interactive learning community that is not limited by the constraints of time or place [39], p.2.

Perhaps the most overt references to the connection between learner control and asynchronous learning environments have been made by Odin [40],[41]. He acknowledged learner control as one of the "advantages" of an ALN environment, together with collaborative learning and active learning. He subsequently commented that "with interactive technologies, it is easy to design learner-centered environments where the learner can take full control of their learning" [41], p.10.

In essence, ALNs have the potential to fulfill Wydra's vision for learner controlled instruction [11]. Wydra identified three requirements for the successful use of the LCI model: (1) a variety of content and information resources, (2) a clear statement of the learning objectives, and (3) adequate tools to measure the acquisition of knowledge or skill. "The learner needs to know where he or she is going, a means to get there, and a way to know when he or she has arrived" [11], p.16. However, what Wydra could not envision was the power of contemporary technologies to support collaborative learning strategies in an asynchronous environment. It is the technology-mediated "social space" through which information is shared, integrated and applied that constitutes the richness of an ALN experience.

VII. SUMMARY

Learner control theory and research have had a highly dynamic and frequently amorphous history. The definition of "learner control" has varied in degree and type of control measured. Its association with multiple theoretical perspectives has heightened the need for a singular theoretical framework. Its complexity as a research domain has produced more questions than answers. Its role as an essential element of effective learning networks has not yet been fully investigated, nor probably realized; and its future as a fundamental tenet of learner-centered education is still only implied.

Chung and Davies noted that learner controlled instruction has been one of the most important issues in the field of instructional technology [23]; yet, others have lamented the lack of a theoretical basis for LCI research and development [13],[15],[22]. A technology-enabled learning environment must be crafted within a framework of learning theory and informed instructional design. The successful practice of self-directed learning in flexible, interactive learning environments requires both a theoretical perspective and a design that fosters learner control.

A. The Future
Three factors appear to be especially important to the future design of asynchronous learning environments: (1) the means and resources by which learner control is guided and nurtured, (2) access to different interaction levels, and (3) availability and ease of use of different technology platforms [42].

Odin observed that learner control is one of the assets inherent to ALNs, together with active learning and collaborative learning [41]. When the WWW is the ALN platform, the hypermedia features of the Web emphasize the associative thinking patterns of an active learner and foster discovery learning [16]. In hypermedia systems, learner control is a central feature [14].

Interaction and collaboration are key elements in a networked learning environment. Schutte discovered that students who enrolled in a Web-based learning environment had significantly higher perceived peer contact, as well as time spent on task, a perception of more flexibility, and understanding of the material than did students in the traditional class [43]. The author concluded that, "I suspect as much of the performance differences can be attributed to student collaboration as to the technology itself. In fact, the highest performing students (in both classes) reported the most peer interaction [43], p.3.

Interaction and collaboration of knowledge workers and learners is the focus of continuing research activity. At MIT's Center for Coordination Science, multidisciplinary research is discovering new ways to organize human activity within the context of the new networked information technologies, including the WWW. Other universities and researchers are conducting research in corollary areas, including groupware and worldware [16]. "Ultimately, our ability to take advantage of the power of emerging technologies will depend on the creativity of designers, their ability to exploit the capabilities of the media, and our understanding of the relationship between these capabilities and learning" [44], p.206.

B. Further Research
Compelling questions remain. Will learners effectively regulate their own learning in flexible learning systems? Will they be sufficiently motivated to genuinely explore? Despite the enigmatic history of research in educational technologies, Ellis observed as early as 1976 that understanding the use of computers in education really begins with an understanding of education [45]. Reinking contended that when basic research is founded on accepted theoretical principles, researchers will be forced to "tease out" the significant attributes of the computer as a medium of instruction.

We would see fewer studies which make recommendations as to whether the computer is a viable medium for instruction and perhaps more that would give us insight into when, where, and with whom the computer might best be suited for particular categories of instructional content [45], p.6.

A theoretical framework proposed by Kozma presented an image of the learner actively collaborating with the medium to construct knowledge [44]. This image stands in vivid contrast with one in which learning occurs as the result of instruction being "delivered" by some (or any) medium. In Kozma's proposed framework, learning is viewed as an active, constructive process whereby the learner strategically manages the available cognitive resources to create new knowledge. The instructor defines the philosophical center of the course [16]. As facilitator, coach and mentor, the instructor provides the leadership, the educational goal of self-discovery and the Web-based structure and environment for the asynchronous experience to unfold. The student must be motivated to learn intrinsically rather than extrinsically, to participate in an interactive learning environment, to explore and experiment with the learning process.

Future research must focus on specific learning methods, not on the technology [46]. Indeed, researchers need to ask how the circumstances of delivery can enhance the teaching and learning process. The two questions pivotal to pedagogy are: (1) which instructional strategies are most effective for facilitating the desired learning outcomes? (2) which technologies are most effective for supporting those strategies?

But where does networked learning lead? Duderstadt suggests that

even an enterprise dominated by asynchronous learning--anytime, anyplace, for anyone--may be only a transitional stage to a more radical future for higher education. Perhaps a more appropriate future for higher education--indeed, all of education--is that of a ubiquitous, pervasive learning environment--everytime, everyplace, for everybody. Indeed, in a world driven by an ever-expanding knowledge base, continuous learning like continuous improvement has become a necessity of life. ([47], p.10)Y">

Good teaching and real learning may have never been more important nor more apparent than in an age of knowledge. Adaptive, transformative pedagogy may be the greatest challenge and true future of higher education, and the learner will be at the core. The student will be paramount in mediating his or her own learning [14]. Learner control will emerge as the dominant characteristic of "everytime, everyplace, for everybody" learning.

VIII. REFERENCES

1. Niemiec, R. P., Sikorski, C., & Walberg, H.J., Learner-control effects: A review of reviews and a meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 15 (2), 157-174, 1996
2. Kinzie, M.B., Sullivan, H.J., & Berdel, R.L. , Learner control and achievement in science computer-assisted instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80 (3), 299-303, 1988
3. Levin, J. A. & Jacobson, M.J. , Towards a distributed network learning framework: Theory and technology to support educational electronic learning environments. Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp.927-932). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1992.
4. Shyu, H.Y., & Brown, S. W. , Learner control versus program control in interactive videodisc instruction: What are the effects in procedural learning? International Journal of Instructional Media, 19 (2), 85-95, 1992.
5. Hannafin, M.J. , Guidelines for using locus of instructional control in the design of computer-assisted instruction. Journal of Instructional Development, 7 (3), 6-10, 1984.
6. Ross, S.M. & Morrison, G.R., In search of a happy medium in instructional technology research: Issues concerning external validity, media replications and learner control. Educational Technology Research and Development, 37 (1), 19-33, 1989.
7. Parsons, J. A., A meta-analysis of learner control in computer-based learning environments. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Nova University, Ft. Lauderdale, 1991.
8. Newman, S. E., Student vs. instructor design of study method. Journal of Educational Psychology, 48, 328-333, 1957.
9. Mager, R.F., On the sequencing of instructional content. Psychological Reports, 9, 405-413, 1961.
10. Young, J. D., The effect of self-regulated learning strategies on performance in learner controlled computer-based instruction. Educational Technology Research and Development, 44 (2), 17-27, 1996.
11. Wydra, F. T., Learner controlled instruction. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications, 1980.
12. Hicken, S., Sullivan, H., & Klein, J., Learner control modes and incentive variations in computer-delivered instruction. Educational Communication and Technology, 40 (4), 15-26, 1992.
13. Reeves, T.C., Pseudoscience in computer-based instruction: The case of learner control research. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 20 (2), 39-46, Spring 1993.
14. Large, A., Hypertext instructional programs and learner control: a research review. Education for Information, 14, 95-106, 1996.
15. Jacobson, M.J., & Levin, J.A., Network learning environments and hypertext: Constructing personal and shared knowledge spaces. November, 1993. Available: <http://www. ed.uiuc.edu/TTA/Papers/J&L-Tel-Ed93.htm>
16. Leonard, D. C., Using the web for graduate courses in technical communication with distant learners. Technical Communication, 388-401, 1996.
17. Steinberg, E. R., Cognition and learner control: A literature review, 1977-1988. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 16 (4), 117-121, Autumn 1989.
18. Lawless, K.A., & Brown, S.W., Multimedia learning environments: Issues of learner control and navigation. Instructional Science, 25, 117-131, March 1997.
19. Kinzie, M.B., Requirements and benefits of effective interactive instruction: Learner control, self-regulation and continuing motivation. Educational Technology Research and Development, 38 (1), 5-21, 1990.
20. Kinzie, M.B., & Sullivan, H.J., Continuing motivation, learner control and CAI. Educational Technology Research and Development, 37 (2), 5-14, 1989.
21. Steinberg, E. R., Review of student control in computer-assisted instruction. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 3 (3), 84-90, February 1977.
22. Milheim, W. D., & Martin, B.L., Theoretical bases for the use of learner control: Three different perspectives. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 18 (3), 99-105, Summer 1991.
23. Chung, J., & Davies, I. K., An instructional theory for learner control: Revised. In Proceedings of the 1995 Annual National Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT) (pp. 72-86), 1995. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 383 291)
24. Lee, S. S., & Lee, Y.H.K., Effects of learner-control versus program-control strategies on computer-aided learning of chemistry problems: For acquisition or review? Journal of Educational Psychology, 83 (4), 491-498, December 1991.
25. Goforth, D., Learner control = decision making + information: A model and meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 11 (1), 1-16, 1994.
26. Jacobson, M.J., Maouri, C., Mishra, P., & Kolar, C., Learning with hypertext learning environments: Theory, design and research. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 5 (3/4), 239-281, 1996.
27. Kearsley, G., Speaking personally with Linda Harasim. The American Journal of Distance Education, 7 (3), 70-73, 1993.
28. Harasim, L., Hiltz, S.R., Teles, L., & Turoff, M., Learning networks: A field guide to teaching and learning online. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1995.
29. Mayadas, F., Asynchronous learning networks: Alfred P. Sloan foundation's program in learning outside the classroom. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 1 (1), 1-14, September 1, 1994. Available: <http://www.sloan.org/education/ALN.new.htm>
30. Odin, J.K. , ALN: Pedagogical assumptions, instructional strategies, and software solutions, 1997. Available: <http://www2.hawaii.edu/aln/aln_tex.htm>
31. Juge, F., Hartman, J., Sorg, S., & Truman, B., Asynchronous learning networks for distributed learning. In Proceedings for the International Conference RUFIS'97: Role of Universities in the Future Information Society, 29-41, 1997. Available: <http://www. cvut.cz/cp1250/cc/icsc/NII/keynote/khartman.htm>
32. Andriole, S. J. (1995, October 9). Asynchronous education and training networks: Lessons learned well and in progress, October 9, 1995. Available: <http://www.sloan.org/education/ aln95.htm>
33. Rosenberg, M.J. (1995, October 9). Reengineering education and training: The strategic role of technology . October 9, 1995. Available: <http://www.sloan.org/education/ aln95.htm>
34. Levin, J. A., & Thurston, C., Research summary: Educational electronic networks. Educational Leadership, 54 (3), 46-50, November 1996. Available: <http://homer.prod. oclc.org: 3058/FETCH:rec...:next+html/fs_fulltext.htm%22:/fstxt9.htm>
35. Burger, K. (1996, November). The networked classroom. Insurance & Technology, 21 (11), 68-69, November 1996. Available: <http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?Did=000000 ...7&Fmt=3&Deli=1&Mtd=1&Idx=14&Sid=1&RQT=309>
36. Dede, C. , Distance learning-distributed learning: Making the transformation. Learning and Leading With Technology: The ISTE Journal of Educational Technology Practice and Policy, 23 (7), 25-30, April 1996.
37. Keynes, M., Hiltz, S. R., & Benbunan-Fich, R., Supporting collaborative learning in asynchronous learning networks, April 28, 1997. Available: <http://eies.njit.edu/ home/hiltz/CRProject/unesco.htm>
38. Hiltz, S.R., & Wellman, B., Asynchronous learning networks as a virtual classroom. Communications of the ACM, 40 (9), 44-49, September, 1997. Available: <http://homer.prod.oclc.org:3058/FETCH:rec...:next+html/fs_fulltext.htm%22:/fstxt6.htm>
39. Mayadas, F., Asynchronous learning networks: A Sloan foundation perspective. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 1 (1), 1-14, March 1997. Available: <http://www.sloan-c.org.org/ alnweb/journal/issue1/mayadas. htm>
40. Odin, J.K., Asynchronous learning networks, 1997. Available: <http://www2.hawaii.edu/aln/ slide.htm>
41. Odin, J.K. (1997b). ALN technologies and higher education, 1997. Available: <http://www2.hawaii.edu/aln/alnessay.htm>
42. Jones, T., & Schieman, E., Learner involvement: A review of the elements of more effective distance education. Canadian Journal of Educational Communication, 24 (2), 97-104, 1995.
43. Schutte, J.G., Virtual teaching in higher education: The new intellectual superhighway or just another traffic jam, 1997. Available: <http://www.csun.edu/sociology/virexp.htm>
44. Kozma, R.B., Learning with media. Review of Educational Research, 61 (2), 179-211, Summer 1991.
45. Reinking, D., On conceptualizing research methodologies for computer-based instruction. Paper presented at the international conference of the Association for the Development of Computer-Based Instructional Systems (26th), Philadelphia, PA, March 1985. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 258 562)
46. Ehrmann, S.C., Change, 27 (2), 20-27, March/April, 1995.
47. Duderstadt, J.J., The future of the university in an age of knowledge, 1997. Available: <http://www.aln.org/alnweb/journal/issue2/duderstadt.htm>