A r c h i v e d  I n f o r m a t i o n

Summary of the Workshop

Beth A. Bechky
Center for Work, Technology, and Organization
School of Engineering

Although developments in network technology have recently stimulated considerable discussion of the promise of distance-based learning, actual research on the topic is limited. To address this dearth of information, the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Educational Research and Improvement and the World Bank held a workshop, on September 19, 1997 entitled, "Competence Without Credentials: The Promise and Potential Problems of Computer-Based Distance Education." The workshop's objective was to assess what is currently known about new technological developments in distance education, to generate discussion of policy issues relevant to distance education, and to frame potential questions for future research.

Drawing on the papers commissioned for the workshop as well as the discussions that occurred during the workshop, this paper summarizes what participants believe is the current state of knowledge about computer-based distance learning. The analysis turns first to the question of how many schools and firms are currently involved in distance education and then to what they are doing with the technology. Having surveyed current use, the discussion moves to the technical, social, and practical barriers that hamper the diffusion of technology. Particular attention is paid to the importance of context in distance education and to the difficulties of assessing competencies acquired outside traditional classroom settings. The paper concludes by charting potential directions for future research.

Prevalence of New Technologies in Distance Education

Over the last several years, a number of universities and firms have launched highly visible experiments in distance education using the Internet for delivery. What is unclear is whether these efforts are the vanguard of a larger trend toward computer-based distance education or whether they are simply intriguing but isolated experiments that are unlikely to revolutionize mainstream education. To answer this question requires determining the extent to which firms and schools are implementing or plan to implement technologies and programs to support distance education and training.

Laurie Bassis' analyses of the labor market implications of computer-based training shed some light on the prevalence of distance education in industry. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (1996) reports that 16 percent of the civilian workforce said they had received some kind of employer-provided training in 1995. However, according to the ASTD survey that Bassi cites, only 10 percent of employer-provided training is computer-based, and only one-third of that makes use of the Internet. Calculations based on these statistics suggest that last year a mere 1.6 percent of all Americans received any kind of computer-based training, and only 0.5 percent acquired that training via the Internet.

Thus, the best data currently available suggest that new forms of distance education are not widespread in industry. In fact, their use in training is rare. Moreover, the ASTD survey indicates that most employers plan no significant increases in computer-based training by the year 2000 (Bassi). Although Bassi's data only reflect training mounted by human resource departments, there is no reason to believe that training provided within the functional departments of a firm is more technologically advanced.

The situation in 4-year colleges and universities is comparable. In fact, according to Kenneth Green, most universities have not progressed much beyond the overhead projector. The 1996 Campus Computing Report, a national survey of technology in higher education, shows that less than 10 percent of college classes currently use computer-based technologies as a teaching tool (Green 1996). However, Green suggests that community colleges may make more use of these technologies, since they report having more computers in classrooms and public areas than do most colleges and universities. Furthermore, community colleges are geared toward "turnkey courses:" they repeat classes often and, therefore, are in a better position to make use of technologies that enable economies of scale.

The data presented at the workshop indicate that neither universities nor firms are rapidly adopting computer-based technologies as tools for distance education. However, it may be that these modern forms of education are most frequently used in less traditional educational settings. The popular press suggests that technological advances such as the World Wide Web can revolutionize the way we think and learn. In advertising images, people of all shapes and sizes sit in front of computers in their homes or in cafes, as well as in classrooms. These images imply that people without more traditional means of access to information could potentially exploit the opportunities that the Web offers for learning. This could mean that computer-based distance learning is primarily taking place in individuals' homes or in cybercafes.

Charles Darrah's investigation of training opportunities on the Internet, however, shows that this is also not the case. Darrah discovered that it is quite difficult for people who are searching for training to locate educational courses and other resources on the Web outside of universities and firms. Technical professionals will find a wealth of coursework teaching technical skills such as programming. However, individuals trying to employ the Web for other than computer-related training will be disappointed by the lack of educational programs available.

Characteristics of Computer-Based Distance Education

Computer-based distance education is primarily experimental and not widely used. However, the interest that experiments in distance education have generated recommends an analysis of the courses that do exist and the ways in which firms and universities are using new technologies. Rhetoric, such as that cited by Green, suggests that computer-based education will transform traditional learning in many ways: by breaking down the walls between the classroom and the real world, by transforming students from passive to active learners, by replacing text with multiple representations, by supplanting isolation with interconnection, and by changing the focus of education from the products of academic work to the process of scholarship (Green, citing Kozma and Johnston 1992). To discover if this characterization rings true requires examining the content and context of distance education programs as well as what providers of these courses know about their effectiveness.

What can be said about the content of computer-based courses taken by individuals on their own, in firms, and in universities? In his search of the Web from the perspective of an individual seeking to learn job skills, Darrah found that anyone other than information technology professionals would have difficulty obtaining training over the Internet. Most sites are targeted at people who are already knowledgeable about computers. Many of them are designed to train people in how to use the Internet effectively. Freely available courses that focus on knowledge other than computer skills are rare.

The publicly available education on the Internet, at least at present, does not appear to meet the training needs of most people. In contrast, firms and universities have a clearer understanding of the audience for their educational programs. Therefore, within firms and schools the content of computer-based distance education courses is more likely to address the needs and interests of their constituencies. The experiments detailed by the workshop participants exemplify the ways in which firms and universities are using computer technologies to deliver training to their members.

Thomas Edgerton's paper described Sun Microsytems's "electronic store," a Web site, where employees can choose and register for both instructor-led and computer-based courses. Edgerton provided several case studies of the electronic store's computer-based coursework. One training program was a short tutorial for a salary tool designed for human resources professionals. This salary tool, a spreadsheet application, was used by human resources personnel to conduct annual salary reviews. The tutorial program, which could be viewed by individuals from within the salary tool application itself, lasted for 2 minutes and was multimedia based. It was used by 43 percent of the professionals who used the salary tool.

In contrast to this short tutorial, the electronic store also offered a long-term technical training site for engineers that included both practical information and theoretical content. This site contained various features: a journal that described current engineering and technical information, and contained hyper-links to the authors of articles, a tools training section with lessons for implementation and use, as well as practice sessions, a hypertext user's manual, and a "hacks" section with work-arounds discovered by other engineers. The site had about 200 users per day.

A widely visited site in the electronic store was the company-wide ergonomics training course. Sun's training staff considered this site an enormous improvement over the previous ergonomics training. Previously, classes were conducted by an English-speaking instructor who traveled around the world providing instruction on location. The instructor-led classes were identical at all sites. In contrast, the computer-based instruction was available in many languages and altered to reflect the local cultural interpretations of the students.

Hewlett-Packard (HP) has also been experimenting with new forms of distance education. During the workshop, Bill Schott and Gary Orsalini demonstrated PlaceWare's Auditorium application and described several ways in which HP has implemented and expanded it. The Auditorium, a hierarchical presentation tool, is an online classroom in which one engineering lecturer trains other engineers. In addition to providing "real-time" electronic lectures, HP is using the program to support a distributed collaborative work group. They have developed a "Meeting Room" where engineers can "hangout" online, communicate via a message board, and share information in a collective notebook used by all members of the group.

Private training companies are also offering distance education online. For instance, Edgerton described some of the programs provided by DigitalThink. For a charge, DigitalThink offers training for both corporations and individuals in areas such as computer science, multimedia, finance, and wines. The training is online but includes instructor-led chatrooms and discussion groups.

A number of provocative experiments can also be found in universities. For example, at Stanford University's Engineering School, students can sign up for courses using the Web, and many classes at Stanford have Web pages that serve as a repository for class notes and assignments. Oregon State has an object-oriented programming course in which there are no lectures; students submit e-mail answers to study questions and take online exams (Edgerton). Online education has expanded even further at Monterrey Institute of Technology and Higher Education in Mexico, where the Virtual University offers 11 post-graduate programs (Edgerton).

These examples illustrate that certain universities and companies have found an audience for computer-based education. They are working to address the content needs of their students, and they are trying to develop innovative ways to attract new students and keep them interested. However, much of the computer-based training in schools and firms described by participants parallels Darrah's experiences on the Web. Even here, technical skills training predominates. The narrow technical focus of these experiments may be one reason why computer-based distance education is not more widespread. Firms' and schools' failure to adopt computer-based education is probably also rooted in the characteristics and limitations of the medium itself.

Strengths and Limitations of Computer-Based Distance Education as a Medium

There has been little research to determine which forms of distance education technology are the most effective for learning or how distance learning compares with traditional education. However, several of the papers written for the workshop offer insight into the technical, social, and practical strengths and limitations of different forms of technology.

From a technical standpoint, the Internet parlays the strengths of previous computer-based educational technologies as well as adds new advantages (Darrah). The "real-time" feature of the Internet offers convenience: educational providers can rapidly update information, and students can pace themselves, learning from home at any time. The broad reach of the Internet allows providers to teach a large, geographically dispersed audience. However, technical constraints also have the potential to hobble learning. Some students may be uncomfortable with the technology and simply avoid using it. Others may be interested in the technology, but not have access to the bandwidth necessary to receive training properly, as originally formatted. This could become increasingly problematic because the literature also suggests that despite the Internet's potential for interactivity, most educational providers are not taking advantage of the features and are using Internet-based training merely to deliver basic textual information (Darrah, citing Crenshaw). If providers begin to use Internet technology to its fullest potential, they could find their student base shrinking because of technical constraints, as students have increasing difficulties with graphics and formats.

Practically speaking, the Internet can be expensive. It requires massive infrastructure, and while some firms, universities, and individuals can afford the costs, many cannot. Other practical considerations for providers include the organization of the training programs and the marketing of distance training to the proper audience. Most Internet-based training is organized in a modular fashion, and the designers creating the training programs may leave out information that does not fit well into a particular module. While the designers know how this information fits into the training and intend for it to be delivered by live instruction, the live instructors may be unaware of the information and not have full knowledge of the curriculum. The students then would not receive all the information they need to be fully trained (Darrah).

Internet-based training also faces marketing issues, as firms must appeal to potential students to have an audience for the training. Edgerton found that the programs available in the electronic store at Sun needed to be "sold" to their audiences through such internal marketing devices as giveaways and site treasure hunts. The developers of the Sun training programs also discovered that they needed to extensively research their audience, or risk including detailed information that was only useful to a small group of people, such as senior vice presidents, that never even visited the site. To keep the students interested, educational providers must create a program that appeals to the proper audience.

In the social arena, Internet-based training and education suffers from several limitations. As Darrah explained, computer-based training is inadequate for certain types of skills such as soft interpersonal skills and high-level analytic skills. Moreover, use of the computer for training in firms introduces an "interruption" problem: when engaged in a learning module students appear to be merely sitting at their desks as usual, and therefore others assume they are available and interrupt their training. Participants in the workshop reported that in their firms, students would gather in groups of four or five in one office to participate in the computer-based training, and hang a "do not disturb" sign on the door.

If students do train alone, as opposed to joining others in an office, they experience social isolation. Since social interaction generally helps people to learn, Internet-based training that isolates students may be less effective. More specifically, job skills have social and tacit components that are often learned through membership in a community of practice. Education through the Internet eliminates this important social context of the work from the training. The Internet cannot replace a community of practice, but instead should be part of a broader program of development and training that gives workers opportunities to learn to work with other members of their communities (Darrah).

These social limitations could be ameliorated by integrating Internet-based distance education into a larger system of training that includes live instruction and group interaction. While this system is not a substitute for a work-based community of practice, students would have some opportunity to experience the interaction that provides a context for tacit knowledge and interpersonal skills. Schott and Orsalini point out that PlaceWare provides chat rooms to improve the level of social interaction among students, and that awareness video might add some social context to Internet-based learning.

Participants in the workshop testified to the continued importance of interaction in the learning process when using computer-based training. For instance, Sun used the Internet to replace training sessions in which 500 people had traveled to one site for a series of lectures each quarter. The individuals still travel to the site each quarter, but now the time is spent in more informal, interactive training, giving geographically dispersed employees the opportunity to learn from each other. Green provided an example of a Web-based college class in which the distance students performed better than the instructor-led class. The professor of the course concluded that their improved performance was due to the study groups that the Web-based class formed to compensate for their lack of face-to-face contact. Collaboration also helps employees who take classes in the PlaceWare Auditorium learn more effectively. According to Schott, most of the learning happens after the lecture, in interactions among members of the "virtual community" of peers.

Practical and Cultural Barriers to Computer-Based Distance Learning

In addition to the social limitations inherent in distance education tools, schools and firms must counter practical problems such as the costs of implementing and continuing distance education programs. At the same time, there are formidable cultural barriers to widespread learning through computer-based distance education, such as teacher skepticism and stratified access for students.

Barriers faced by schools. In universities, the cost of implementing distance education systems has slowed their adoption. As mentioned earlier, distance education is not as cheap and profitable as some assume, particularly because the hidden costs of the infrastructure are enormous. Universities also do not have the tax accounting experience to properly evaluate amortization costs, and tend to underestimate the costs of training people to use the technology (Green). Schools rarely offer extra pay for faculty to mount computer-based courses, and they pay undergraduate and graduate students meager amounts to write the code and support these courses. Faculty and students are not inclined to carry the extra burden of creating and teaching a distance education class if their pay is not commensurate with their effort.

Computer-based distance education faces cultural barriers in academia as well. The reward system in research universities is not geared toward innovation in teaching. Faculty receive no recognition for creating nontraditional coursework; indeed, there are implicit penalties for doing so. Faculty who devote extra time to preparing and teaching distance education courses have less time for research and publishing, which are the bases of the reward system in research universities.

Most faculty have also been trained through a "self-help model." As Green points out, in graduate school students are expected to debug their own SPSS programs through trial and error. Accustomed to figuring it out on their own, faculty are not inclined to seek training from others. Therefore, very few faculty are likely to seek training in how to use the resources available for distance education.

Some faculty feel threatened by the idea of distance education. They see it as part of a "management" effort to try to reduce costs without respect for the context of learning and the importance of interaction in the education process. When distance education results in students being less involved with both the instructor and their peers, educators fear that students are not learning as much or receiving the full benefit of the course. They also worry that universities may create new work rules changing the way teaching loads are determined and enrollment is counted. If these rules change, their work loads could increase.

Finally, academics are very concerned about issues of credentialing. Certification is a pivotal issue in discussions of distance education, as this paper will describe in more detail later. Assessment in postsecondary education requires more than just a multiple choice exam embedded in an online module of a program. Many university exams include extended essays or problems in which students are required to demonstrate appropriate and creative application of knowledge. It is not uncommon for faculty to assess students' learning through group projects and presentations as well. Faculty expect to use varied and flexible means to assess students' learning, and thus far the new forms of distance education have not provided them. The culture of universities creates barriers that would make computer-based distance education difficult to provide effectively even in schools that could afford the infrastructure.

Barriers faced by firms. Because many firms can afford the costs of distance education and have a cultural context that is not biased against distance education, barriers to computer-based distance learning in industry are of a different nature. Instead, these barriers form around issues of stratified access. As Bassi notes, large firms are more likely to use computer-based training. This relates to the cost of the technology but probably also reflects firms unequal investments in general forms of training. In general, large firms provide more training to their employees, and therefore on a proportional basis would be expected to provide more computer-based training. Additionally, firms that have more innovative human resource practices are more likely to adopt distance education programs. Therefore, workers in large and innovative firms have more access to distance education than others.

At the same time, individuals' access to training is stratified demographically (Bassi). Male workers and whites are more likely to receive any type of employer-provided training than are women and minorities. Also, workers with higher levels of education receive more training. Since these workers have greater access to all types of training, Bassi infers that they probably have better access to computer-based training within firms as well.

The examination of the limitations of and barriers to computer-based distance education illustrates that these programs have not completely revolutionized learning, as popular rhetoric suggests. Indeed, computer-based distance learning seems to reproduce some of the same structures encountered by students in more traditional forms of education. However, it would also be useful to know more about how distance learning differs from traditional forms of education. An important distinction between distance learning and traditional academic learning lies in the different contexts within which they take place. These contextual differences influence students' learning both inside and outside of university settings.

How the Context of Distance Education Differs

In academic settings, the overall context for distance education differs from traditional education because of the expanded role of market forces. Green offers a description of the impact of these forces, summarized in (see table 1). In distance education, the mission of the program, curriculum, and credibility of the program are all driven by market interests, unlike the context of traditional academia, which is controlled by institutional forces. In traditional educational settings, the mission is managed by the institutional authorities, and the curriculum is developed by the faculty in alignment with their interests. The credibility of traditional education is based on the reputation of the institution itself. In contrast, in distance education the power of the market influences the mission of the program and the content of the course curriculum. The credibility of distance education relies on the market performance of the students who have finished the program and are looking for jobs in which to apply the skills they have learned.

Table 1. — The context of traditional and distance education

As Darrah described, the context of distance education plays a role in learning outside of academia as well. Darrah found great differences in the learning environment of employer-provided and individually sought Internet-based training experiences, as shown in table 2. In the context of employer-provided training, the goal of distance education is to incrementally update employees' skills and knowledge. These individuals are secure in their jobs, and find Internet-based training convenient. With employer-provided training, employees have the opportunity to assess and implement what they have learned within the community of practice in which they are working. They are certain that the organization values the skills they have learned, because their employer has defined and provided the training for them. In contrast, when individuals seek Internet-based training outside of a firm, the experience is much more of a gamble. Individuals may be seeking to transform their work lives. This often results in stressful personal conditions, as they feel a sense of urgency because they do not have a job or they want a new type of job. Because these individuals are not already working in the field in which they are obtaining training, they do not have the opportunity to implement or assess their new knowledge and skills within a community of practitioners, and must take the risk that what they have learned will not be valued by potential employers.

Table 2.— Context of distance learning: Employer vs. individual perspective

Unresolved Questions Concerning Distance Education

Workshop participants suggested various reasons for the value of credentials in the marketplace. Credentials can serve as a signal of an individual's skill, as a reflection of status, and as a foundation for an individual's sense of identity. First, credentials are indicators that an individual has completed a program of education, and as such, they reflect a certain level of skills, knowledge, experience, and ability to learn. Receiving a credential signals to an employer that a potential employee has achieved this level. The credential often serves as a baseline of assessment for employers, a starting point at which they can assume the skills of potential employees.

An educational credential is not always necessary to signal learning. As Bassi illustrated using data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, an additional year of education, regardless of an additional credential, is linked to increased wages. This indicates that the labor market is willing to reward people for education without a credential, probably because employers perceive that they have acquired additional skills and knowledge. However, a credential is the most obvious signal that an individual has acquired these skills.

Credentials are also an indicator of status, and are differentially valued in the marketplace. A credential from Harvard is worth more to some employers than one from the University of Chattanooga, and is evaluated differently than a credential from SunU at Sun Microsystems, as one workshop participant pointed out. This is both because of the differential mastery that they represent and the symbolic value of the credential. A Harvard degree is valued not only due to the standard of training at Harvard, but also due to Harvard's status and name recognition.

Credentials are important to individuals because they represent attainment of educational goals; however, as participants indicated, credentials also matter because they are linked with people's identities. People value their degree both because it helps them to get a job and because it depicts who they are and gives them feelings of self-worth. Whether a credential is a Ph.D. in economics, a degree in cosmetology, or Novell certification, it reflects an individual's interests and expertise and suggests what is important to them.

Issues of Credentialing in Computer-Based Distance Education

One workshop participant entitled credentials the "coins of the realm." Since credentials are the currency of the labor market, it is important to determine how credentialing differs in the age of computer-based distance education. Participants pinpointed problems with credentialing such as the spotty availability of certification, institutions' lack of accreditation and status, and the questionable transferability of distance education credentials.

Credentials are not uniformly granted by providers of computer-based education in either schools or industry. Many schools and employers that offer distance education courses do not certify their completion in any official way. There are no accreditation boards to ensure the standards of distance education programs, as there are for traditional universities and professional schools. Also, many of the institutions with computer-based distance education programs are perceived to have lower educational quality and less prestige.

This lack of uniformity raises technical and legal questions about credentialing for distance education programs. Participants agreed that we do not know how the content of distance education courses compares to that of traditional coursework. For instance, when a chemistry professor designs a course for the Web, she may include content that crosses the boundaries of a traditional chemistry course sequence. Also, the student enrollment is not restricted to those who have taken the prerequisites, as in a traditional university setting. This leads to several unanswered questions: Does the content of Web coursework differ from that of traditional coursework? Also, in cases where the coursework seems to be similar, do students in the two courses learn the same things? Finally, whose role is it to assess these new distance education courses: universities, industry, boards of standards? Research is needed to determine the answers to these questions.

Another problem with credentialing emerges from the different perspectives of the constituencies involved in distance education. Since many firms now provide distance education to their employees, the transferability of credentials has become an issue. For instance, a credential from SunU, indicating that an individual has learned to use a certain type of software, may have great value to some other firms in the marketplace. However, it is not ubiquitously transferable. While students are interested in furthering this portability, firms view it as less of a priority. These different understandings of the importance of credentials shape our understanding of what needs to happen institutionally for distance education to gain a strong foothold in our educational system. More research is needed to discover what the constituencies' priorities are, and how each group thinks about credentialing for distance education.

Distance-Based Learning and the Assessment of Informal Knowledge

Another issue participants raised in the course of discussion addressed the types of knowledge that could be effectively learned at a distance. Credentials have garnered increased attention because assessments of work have become more complicated. Work has become more technical and service-oriented; many of today's jobs have cognitive and social aspects, which makes ascertaining people's competence difficult. Employers do not find it problematic to assess formal, codifiable knowledge such as arithmetic: they simply administer a written test. Even less codifiable skills such as computer programming are easily assessed though less formal means. For instance, Gary Orsalini often interviews applicants for Hewlett-Packard and needs to determine if a prospective employee is skilled at Java. His solution to this assessment problem is to simply visit the applicant's home page on the Web to see what they can do.

Employers feel comfortable with their assessments of formal knowledge. However, they are realizing that the more informal skills of problem solving, communication and teamwork are more important for the success of their organizations, and are clamoring for ways to assess these skills. What makes assessment difficult is that the content of informal knowledge is variable and sometimes tacit, and the process of learning is undefined. Skills such as problem-solving, a "feel" for materials, and critical thinking are learned informally, through practice and interaction with others, rather than by sitting in a classroom and studying a body of codified knowledge. One alternative for employers is to assess these skills during real-life problem solving situations. This type of assessment is not easy, however, and can be costly. Schools and employers have yet to determine a simple way to certify the competence of individuals at problem solving and critical thinking.

It is clear that with the changing nature of work, an increasing number of jobs will require interpersonal skills and informal knowledge. Because certifying competence in these skills is difficult, employers are turning to distance-based learning as a way to try to teach and assess them. However, workshop participants concluded that distance-based education may be unable to provide either the training or the credentials to help the market properly evaluate those skills.

Currently, as Bill Schott indicated, most firms are primarily interested in using technology to teach formal knowledge that is easily certifiable. According to Schott, this reflects the concept of education with which corporate America feels most comfortable. The market did not respond to Schott's initial attempts to provide PlaceWare technology to aid in developing informal knowledge. As Darrah found out when looking at the Web, most Web-based training is also used to teach formal and easily assessed skills.

The flexibility of distance learning technologies allows them to be shaped to fit particular types of knowledge, depending on the goals and intentions of the organization and the demands of the market. This flexibility and convenience may appeal to employers looking for a quick solution to their assessment problems. However, as described earlier, distance education is seriously limited in its ability to teach and assess interpersonal and high-level skills. If employers adopt distance education as a way to teach and credential students, the context in which distance learning occurs assumes more importance. Particularly in cases of informal skills learned in a community of practice, if a distance learning program has not been incorporated into a larger curriculum of interactive learning, a credential from that program may be an inflated indicator of the learning of those skills. Clearly, the discussion of participants did not definitively answer questions about whether distance learning could teach these types of skills effectively. What is needed is further empirical investigation of the types of skills that can be effectively taught through distance education and how to improve and integrate coursework.

Comparative Implications of New Forms of Distance Education

This also suggests that an investigation of traditional education is needed in order to benchmark the findings of studies of distance education. What types of training are used most and what educational practices are most effective? Charting the progress and documenting the consequences of traditional educational practices can provide a baseline for analyzing the impact of the new types of distance education. For instance, the processes of teaching and learning can vary dramatically in their degree of formality. A classroom lecture might teach the basics of chemistry, for instance, but informal interaction in the laboratory is often just as important. While participants broached the question of informal learning processes, there were no conclusions about how they might be implemented through computer-based education. Further research comparing traditional practices and investigating informal learning processes is necessary to gain insight into how these processes could be taught via distance education.

Firms and universities are searching for new ways to teach skills and impart knowledge, and new technologies could help fill this need. To determine how they might do so, we need to look systematically at the impact of changing technologies in education on both teaching and learning practices. How are the Web and other computer technologies integrated into various learning settings? How do they enhance traditional aspects of education? Green suggested that universities are not making large enough investments into these new technologies, but without empirical data on their importance in education, we cannot be sure that this investment is wise.

Participants agreed that it is vital to understand the social implications of these new forms. While the popular press suggests that distance learning has the potential to make learning much more egalitarian, both Bassi and Darrah point out that this may not truly be the case. More definitive studies of the social implications of distance learning could create a better understanding of the equality of the learning experience.

The prospects for technology in distance education programs are still undetermined. Further study of the practical, social, and cultural implications of the use of technology in education will illustrate the relative effectiveness of these new forms. This research would provide insight into the context and process of learning and could help shape distance education programs in the future.

-###-

[Employers as Course Developers]

[Conclusion]