Research on distance education: In defense of field experiments

Distance Education

Volumn 27, Issue 1, 2006, Pages 5-26

  Abrami, Philip C ^a   Bernard, Robert M ^a,b  

^a Gina Cody School of Engineering and Computer Science   (Canada)

^b Systematic Reviews Project Manager Centre for the Study of Learning and Performance   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33744915517     PISSN: 01587919     EISSN: 14750198     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/01587910600653116     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Abrami, P. C., Cohen, P., & d'Apollonia, S. (1988). Implementation problems in meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 58(2), 151-179.
2. Bernard, R. M., Abrami, P. C., Lou, Y., & Borokhovski, E. (2004a). A methodological morass? How we can improve the quality of quantitative research in distance education. Distance Education, 2.5(2), 175-198.
3. Bernard, R. M., Abrami, P. C., Lou, Y., Borokhovski, E., Wade, A., Wozney, L., et al. (2004b). How does distance education compare to classroom instruction? A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Review of Educational Research, 74(3), 379-439.
4. Bernard, R. M., & Naidu, S. (1990). Integrating research into practice: The use and abuse of meta-analysis. Canadian Journal of Educational Communication, 29(3), 171-195.
5. Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1966). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Chicago: Rand McNally.
6. Coates, D., Humphreys, B. R., Kane, J., Vachris, M., Agarwal, R., & Day, E. (2001, January). "No significant difference" between face-to-face and online instruction: Evidence from Principles of Economics. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Allied Social Science Association, New Orleans, I.A.
7. Cook, T. D. (2004). Randomized experiments in education: Why are they so rare? (Institute for Policy Research Working Paper WP-02-19). Evanston, IL: Northwestern University.
8. Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design and analysis issues for field settings. New York: Houghton Mifflin.
9. Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
10. Davies, P. (2004, February). Evidence-based governance: Is it possible? The Jerry Lee Lecture at the Campbell Collaboration's 4th Annual Colloquium, Washington, DC.
11. Glass, G. V., McGaw, B., & Smith, M. L. (1981). Meta-analysis in social research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
12. Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
13. Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
14. Nave, B., Miech, E. J., & Mosteller, F. (1999). A rare design: The role of field trials in evaluating school practices. Paper presented at the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, Harvard University.
15. Newman, M., Elbourne, D., & Leask, M. (2005, February). The reporting of empirical primary research studies in education. Paper presented at the Fifth Annual Campbell Collaboration Colloquium, Lisbon, Portugal.
16. Nutley, S. (2003, April). Facing the future: Engaging stakeholders and citizens in developing public policy. Keynote address presented at the National Institute of Governance Conference, Canberra, Australia.
17. Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.
18. Slavin, B. (2004). Educational research can and must address "what works" questions. Educational Researcher, 31(1), 24-26.