Year 2005, Volume 6 , Issue 1, Pages 76 - 83 2005-03-01

The Death of Distance: Documenting the Effects of Distance Education In South Dakota

Steve WHEELER [1] , Shannon AMIOTTE [2]

South Dakota has arguably the most technologically advanced educational system in the United States. The state boasts a population of approximately 750,000 residents, distributed across an area measuring approximately 250 by 400 miles. South Dakota is experiencing a shortage of specialist teachers and university faculty, and the vast geographical distances prohibit the physical sharing of educational resources. To begin to address these issues, every school, college and university in the state has recently been connected with wide band communications cable, and equipped with specialized telecommunications suites. The use of public television broadcasting, videoconferencing, Internet based resources and distance learning methods has been introduced in a rationalized attempt to overcome the vast distances between schools and communities across a predominantly rural state. There is also a high percentage of Native Americans living in the state, located in tribal reservation areas as well as integrated within the general community. Because of social, economic or technological effects of any significant changes often have a detrimental effect on indigenous populations. The effectiveness of distance education and technology supported learning then, is a hotly contended issue. A major evaluation project was set up between 2002-2003 to measure the success rate of the new technology based learning approaches, and the extent to which the 'tyranny of distance' could be overcome. Surveys and interviews with key instructors and administrators across the state were conducted, which yielded a rich vein of data. In this paper, the authors document the broader effects that the introduction of the technical infrastructure has had on the general population of South Dakota.
Evaluation, Evaluation Project, Distance Education, Certificate Program
  • Allen, M., Bourhis, J., Burrell, N. and Mabry, E. 2002. Comparing Student Satisfaction with Distance Education to Traditional Classrooms in Higher Education: A Meta-Analysis. The American Journal of Distance Education. 16 (2): 83-97.
  • Belawati, T. 1998. Increasing student persistence in Indonesian post- secondary distance education. Distance Education. 19 (1): 81-108.
  • Carnwell, R. 2000. Approaches to Study and the Impact on the Need for Support and Guidance in Distance Learning. Open Learning. 15 (2): 123-140.
  • Daniel, J. S. and Marquis, C. 1979. Interaction and independence: getting the mixture right. Teaching at a Distance. 14, 29-44.
  • Daniel, J. S. 1996. Mega-Universities and Knowledge Media: Technology Strategies for Higher Education. Kogan Page. London.
  • Dicken, P. 1986. Global Shift: Industrial Change in a Turbulent World. New York: Harper and Row.
  • Giddens, A. 1991. Sociology. Cambridge: Polity Press.
  • Harasim, L., Hiltz, S. R., Teles, L. and Turoff, M. 1995. Learning Networks - A Field Guide to Teaching and Learning Online. Boston, MA: MIT Press.
  • Holmberg, B. 1989. Theory and Practice of Distance Education. London: Routledge.
  • Holmberg, B. 1994. Open universities-Their rationale, characteristics and prospects. ERIC Document, (ED 371 190).
  • Jordahl, G. 1991. Breaking Down Classroom Walls: Distance Learning Comes of Age. Technology and Learning, 72, 78.
  • Merisotas, J. P. and Phipps, R. A. 1999. What's the difference? Outcomes of distance v. traditional classroom-based learning. Change. 31 (3): 13- 17.
  • Minsky, M. 1987. The Society of Mind. Boston: MIT Press.
  • Moller, L. 1998. Designing communities of learners for asynchronous distance learning. Education Technology Research and Development. 46(4): 115-122.
  • Moore, M. G. and Kearsley, G. 1996. Distance Education: A Systems View. Belmont: Wadsworth.
  • Negroponte, N. 1995. Being Digital. London: Hodder & Stoughton.
  • Peters, O. 1979. Some comments on the function of printed material in multi-media systems. Epistolodidaktika. 1, 10-21.
  • Ryan-Nicholls, K. 2001. Why Choose Interactive Instructional Television? Quarterly Review of Distance Education. 2 (4): 367-375.
  • Simonson, M. 1995. Distance Education Revisited. Tech Trends. 40 (5): 2.
  • Simonson, M 2000. Equivalency Theory and Distance Education, Tech Trends. 43 (5): 5-8.
  • Smith, K. C. 1979. External Studies at New England. Armidale, NSW: The University of New England.
  • Song, S. H. 2000. Research Issues of Motivation in Web-Based Instruction. Quarterly Review of Distance Education. 1 (3): 225-229.
  • Toffler, A. 1971. Future Shock. London: Pan Books.
  • Touraine, A. 1986. The Crisis of 'Progress' In M. Bauer (Ed.) Resistance to New Technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Wedermeyer, C. 1981. Learning at the back door: Reflections on non- traditional learning in the lifespan. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin.
  • Wheeler, S. 2000. Instructional design in distance education through telematics. Quarterly Review of Distance Education 1 (1): 31-44.
  • Wheeler, S. 2002. Student Perceptions of Support in Distance Education. Quarterly Review of Distance Education 3 (4): 419-430.
Primary Language en
Journal Section Articles

Author: Steve WHEELER

Author: Shannon AMIOTTE


Application Date : February 27, 2015
Acceptance Date : June 19, 2021
Publication Date : March 1, 2005

APA Wheeler, S , Amıotte, S . (2005). The Death of Distance: Documenting the Effects of Distance Education In South Dakota . Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education , 6 (1) , 76-83 . Retrieved from