Development of the Distance Education Learning Environments Survey (DELES) for Higher Education
Background
Distance Education Terms and Usage
The term 'distance education' is used to define instructional delivery that does not restrict students to being physically present in the same location as an instructor (Steiner, 1995). For clarification it should be noted that multiple modes of delivering distance education are available. These modes can be categorised as those that are synchronous, requiring students and their instructor to gather at some place, or places, at a given time, and those that are asynchronous, whereby students and their instructor are not confined to time and place. Asynchronous distance education as it is considered here includes delivery of instruction using the postal system to mail audio or video cassettes, CD-ROMs, or DVDs, computer-based or -moderated conferencing, web-based bulletin boards, or e-mail (Leach & Walker, 2000). Meanwhile, synchronous forms of distance education include that which is delivered by web-based chats, Internet relay chats, multiple-user domains (MUDs), satellite television broadcasts, radio broadcasts, audio-conferences, and two-way videoconferences, which are occasionally referred to as interactive television (Steiner, 1995). This study focuses on education delivered exclusively by any means of asynchronous communication, despite the arrangement or equipment used.
Given the above terms, much of the distance education literature available does not distinguish between the delivery modes used in distance education; rather, authors interchange terms such as 'distance learning,' 'distance education,' 'open learning,' and 'distributed learning.' Therefore, the intentions of the authors and related statistics are difficult to discern. For the purpose of this research, distance education is used in the most general sense.
Learning Environments Research
The term learning environment carries with it a variety of meanings. It has been used to indicate a type of learning task (Tynjälä, 1999), to refer to the classroom psychosocial environment (Henderson, Fisher, & Fraser, 2000), and to denote virtual spaces found in computer applications and on the Internet (Gibbs, 1999). In this study, learning environments refers exclusively to psychosocial classroom environments.
Learning environments research, just over three decades old, is firmly established (Tobin & Fraser, 1998) among a variety of education research and evaluation methods dominated by the assessment of students' academic achievement (Fraser, 1998b). While quantitative measures of classroom effectiveness are often based on "narrow testable, standardized, superficial, and easily forgotten outcomes," other areas of schooling are less emphasized (Kyle, 1997, p. 851) and a complete image of the process of education is not formed within the research. In the early 1960s, Bloom pointed to measurements of educational environments as a decisive component for prediction and successful learning manipulation (Anderson & Walberg, 1974). Since then, numerous studies have demonstrated that students' perceptions of their educational environments can be measured with survey instruments and the results serve as valid predictors of learning (Anderson & Walberg, 1974; Fraser, 1997, 1998a, 1998b), turning evaluation away from individual student achievement and toward the effectiveness of the environment of the learning organization (Walberg, 1974). Moreover, variables within learning environments themselves can be manipulated to achieve different learning outcomes (Anderson & Walberg, 1974).
In addition to approaching learning environments research to enhance teaching and learning in the individual classroom, there are increasingly strong indicators of the need to accommodate tertiary education students in a globalised economy in order to create, distribute, and exploit knowledge for international competitive advantages (Commonwealth, 2000; Hinde, 2000; OECD, 2000; Salmi, 2000; Wagner, 1998). Given that many universities are marketing globally (Hinde, 2000; Salmi, 2000), assurances of quality in education move to the forefront and must be addressed (Olsen, 2000). Learning environment research can provide some of these assurances in the form of addressing what factors shape effective learning environments.
Evaluation of Learning Environments
Learning environments research can be traced to Lewin's classic human behaviour definition (Fraser, 1998b) represented by B=f(P,E), whereby B represents behaviour, f is function, P is person, and E is person's environment (Lewin, 1936). Lewin noted that "every scientific psychology must take into account whole situations, i.e., the state of both person and environment" (1936, p. 12). Thus, determinants of B are describable by composite measures of P and E (Stern, 1974). Lewin's purpose for this definition was to conceptualise human behaviour with new strategies in psychological research where functional relationships and states of interaction are emphasized over those of correlation of disjointed responses derived from isolated stimuli-the prevailing psychological trend of the time (Stern, 1974).
Through the study of educational environments, students and teachers define their environment based upon their perceptions. Students, with their distinctive frame of reference generated from spending numerous hours as learners, have a large interest in what is going on around them in their educational environments "and their reactions to and perceptions of school experiences are significant" (Fraser, 1998b, p. 527) given that environments, like people, take on distinctive personalities (Insel & Moos, 1974; Kiritz & Moos, 1974). Likewise, there is an association between students' "psychosocial characteristics of their classrooms" (Fraser, 1998a, p. 17) and their learning achievements and viewpoints. Instructors, on the other hand, can utilize learning environments research to discover differences between their perceptions and those of their students and then attempt to make improvements in the actual classroom environment based upon the preferences of students.
Learning Environments Research Instruments
Learning environments research has successfully merged (Fraser, 1998a) what is often a topic of contention among schools of research-qualitative versus quantitative methods (Fetterman, 1987; Fleischer, 1995; Glesne & Peshkin, 1992; Spindler & Spindler, 1987). Qualitative observation, inquiry, ethnography, self-reflection, semiotics, and case study, among other qualitative and subjective forms of assessment and evaluation, can be supported by quantitative research based on validated, efficient, and broadly relevant questionnaires that students and teachers complete for the researcher's gathering of perceptions of learning environments (Fraser, 1998a).
Early instruments used in the education social environment include the Learning Environment Inventory (LEI), the My Class Inventory (MCI), and the Class Activities Questionnaire (CAQ) (Anderson & Walberg, 1974). The LEI, patterned after Hemphill's Group Dimensions Description Questionnaire, was established in the 1960s (Anderson & Walberg, 1974; Fraser, 1998a). It assumes the students, as well as the teacher, are learning environment determinants (Anderson & Walberg, 1974). The MCI was a simplified version of the LEI, adapted for use with younger children, ages 6-12 years old. The CAQ was constructed to measure Bloom's six-level taxonomy (Anderson & Walberg, 1974) consisting of: knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. Meanwhile, the College and University Classroom Environment Inventory (CUCEI) broke the mould and focused exclusively upon perspectives at the post-secondary level (Fraser, Treagust, & Dennis, 1986).
Instruments that are more contemporary include the Science Laboratory Environment Inventory (SLEI) geared toward upper secondary and post-secondary students (Fraser, Giddings, & McRobbie, 1992); the Constructivist Learning Environment Survey (CLES) aimed at secondary students (Taylor, Fraser, & Fisher, 1997); and the Computer Laboratory Environment Instrument (CLEI), which has foundations in the SLEI (Newby & Fisher, 1997). The What Is Happening In This Classroom (WIHIC) instrument focuses on secondary classrooms and is designed to bring economy to the field by combining the most relevant scales from existing questionnaires (Aldridge, Fraser, & Huang, 1999).
Distance Education Learning Environments
Although distance education evolved in the early 1700s in the form of postal-delivered correspondence (Jayroe, 1998), recent advances in and proliferation of technology and telecommunications have created possibilities that stretch the boundaries of post-secondary distance education (Harnar, Brown, & Mayall, 2000). Developments in distance education have changed how we communicate and learn (Leh, 1999) and will continue to do so as growing numbers of students become distance learners and a growing number of instructors become distance educators.
Distance Education Research
Currently, research on distance education is relatively narrow. According to Merisotis and Olsen (2000), while a plethora of literature on the distance education phenomenon is available, original research on distance education is still somewhat limited. Distance education evaluation is concentrated primarily on (1) student outcomes (achievement, grades, test scores); (2) attitudes of students and instructors; and (3) satisfaction of students and instructors (Diaz & Cartnal, 1999; Harnar, Brown, & Mayall, 2000; IHEP, 1999; Lane, n.d.; Olsen, 2000). Postulated in the context of distance education system evaluation, Harnish and Reeves (2000) discovered the emergence of distance education evaluation primarily in terms of:
- Training (programming skills, barriers, availability, identification of needs, costs);
- Implementation (administration, costs, fees course credits, institutional ownership, priority for use, integration, coordination);
- System Usage (information collection, electronic data collection, accuracy);
- Communication (information sharing around internal, local, and regional issues of concern regarding distance education); and
- Support (fiscal, staff, faculty, instructional, administrative resource allocation).
What is conspicuously missing from evaluations and research related to the broader body of distance education evaluation are issues related to learning environments.
Learning Environments Research and Distance Education
Learning environment research and associated survey instruments have been developed related to computer use in classrooms or laboratories, telecomputing, and computer-mediated communication. Examples of such instruments include: the Constructivist Multimedia Learning Environment Survey (Maor, 1999), the Computer Classroom Environment Inventory, the Geography Classroom Environment Inventory, and the Computer Laboratory Environment Inventory (Newby & Fisher, 1997). Related research includes studies of perspectives of computer-mediated learning environments specific to teacher education (Admiraal, Lockhorst, Wubbels, Korthagen, & Veen 1998; Goh & Tobin, 1999), computer-facilitated learning environments in higher education (Bain, McNaught, Mills, & Lueckenhausen, 1998), collaborative distance learning environment design (Spector, Wasson, & Davidson, 1999), and the function and useability of virtual learning environment software (Britain & Liber, 1999). However, only one published study and related instrument, the Distance and Open Learning Environment Scale (DOLES), developed in 1995, focuses exclusively on distance education among university students (Fraser, 1998a; Jegede, Fraser, & Fisher, 1998), yet it spotlights science education and may not be generally applicable.