Comparison of Levels of Satisfaction with

Distance Education and On-campus

Programs
Dae Shik Kim, Helen Lee, and Annette Skellenger

Structured Abstract: Introduction: The study compared the level of satisfaction of 101 graduates with
a distance education versus an on-campus program. Methods: A self-administered anonymous survey
was used to gather information about satisfaction from the recent graduates of a university personnel
preparation program in visual impairments (response rate 57.7%). The survey measured graduates’
satisfaction with their programs in six subareas: (1) faculty-student interaction, (2) student-student
inter- action, (3) fairness of evaluations, (4) organization of courses, (5) adequacy of the difficulty of
courses, and (6) practicum or internship experience. Results: The program modality was not a
significant predictor of overall satisfaction with a program once we controlled for the confounding
variables, including age, program area, and presence of visual impairments ( .277 – .226, 95% CI).
However, it was a significant independent predictor of faculty-student interaction ( .616 – .012, 95%
CI) and student-student interaction ( .875 – .073, 95% CI). Discussion: There was no significant
difference in the two groups of graduates’ overall satisfaction with the program, but although the
findings are preliminary in nature, the graduates from the on-campus program indicated a higher level
of faculty-student and student-student interactions. Implications for prac- titioners: Given the findings
of this study, prospective students who are interested in university personnel preparation programs in
visual impairments may consider distance education programs an option that may satisfy them.
Similarly, these programs may consider continuing their distance education programs as a satisfactory
option for many students. However, the lower level of faculty-student and student-student interactions
perceived by the distance education graduates may suggest a need to ensure a mechanism that
facilitates such interactions more effectively.

Distance education with a variety of in- structional designsFor more information, visit: http://jvib.org/CEUs .
broadcasting courses via radio or television, and so forth) has been
(correspondence courses,
used for many de- cades by students in rural areas and those who
cannot afford to leave their jobs, homes, or families (Howard,
Ault, Knowl- ton, & Swall, 1992; Ludlow & Lom- bardi, 1992).
EARN CEUS ONLINE by answering questions on this article.
With the advent of the Internet in the 1990s and a series of
CEU Article
 ©2012 AFB, All Rights Reserved Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, May 2012 275
CEU Article
technological innovations such as on- line discussion
tion courses
boards,since
audio
the late 1990s (DeMa- rio & Heinze, 2001). The
and video conferencing, and streaming videos, surveys
an increasing
of thesebody personnel preparation programs reported that
of literature in higher education has discussed
morethe thanneed
100 to programs
use offered some form of distance education
distance education for personnel prepa- rationinin2008
a wide
andvariety
used several
of different models of dis- tance education
curricular areas (Bullock, Gable, & Mohr,as2008; well as
Gallagher
a variety & of online tools (Ambrose-Zaken & Boze- man,
McCormick, 1999; McDonnell et al., 2011). 2010; Silberman, Ambrose-Zaken, Corn, & Trief, 2004). For
The academic performance of tradi-example,
tional and al- distance
though most of the distance education programs
continued
education students has been examined in a number of studies. to require on-campus sessions during the summer
semester,
Comparisons of the two instructional models have somemixed
produced programs used online learning plat- forms simply
to supplement
results. Some studies have indicated that the stu- the instruc- tion that was provided mainly on
dents in distance
campus.than
education programs per- formed better academically In addition,
did thosethese programs used a wide array of distance
education
in traditional face-to-face programs (Iver- son, Colky, &tools, includ- ing WebCT, streaming video, EDNET,
Cyboran,
personal webcams,
2005; Navarro & Shoemaker, 2000; Williams, 2006), while others and e-mail.
have reported no significant differ- ence in the academic A few studies have attempted to docu- ment the
performance of the two groups of studentseffectiveness
(Haynes & Dillon,
of distance educa- tion in personnel preparation
1992; McDonnell et al., 2011; Woo & Kimmick, programs2000).
in visual
Withimpairments. Koenig and Robin- son (2001)
respect to satisfac- tion, the majority of the reported
studies reported
that an that
online braille course allowed for high-quality
there was no significant difference in satisfaction
instruc-
between
tion in
students
braille code skills when the stu- dents had adequate
in tradi- tional and distance education programs
technology
(Abdousand & Yen,
inde- pendent learning skills. Ajuwon and Craig
2010; Skylar et al., 2005; Thurmond, Wambach, (2007) stated
& Connors,
that the self-assessed competencies of eight
2002). participants who took the courses online (except for the “blindfold
The shortage of professionals who are course,”
trainedwhich
to meetwasthetaken face to face) showed significant gains in
needs of individuals with visual impairments key(Kirchner
competencies
& Dia-for teaching children with visual impairments
and orientation
ment, 1999), coupled with the capability of distance educationandto mobility (O&M). In addition, McLinden,
McCall, et
reach students in broader geographic areas (Howard Hinton, and Weston (2010) re- ported that even though
al., 1992;
Ludlow & Lombardi, 1992), has spurred university personnel had prior experience using WebCT or a
few of the participants
preparation programs in visual impairmentssimilarto offeronline learning
online and plat- form, most of them found WebCT’s
other types of distance educa- dis- cussion board adequate for completing

276 Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, May 2012 ©2012 AFB, All Rights Reserved
CEU Article
case scenario activities that require spe- cific role-playing.
campus and those who took the same courses on O&M and visual
We found only one published study that directly impairments
compared via video teleconferencing. Within the sample of 24
the perceptions (quality of course experiences) between students, 67% of the students who took the courses via video
distance
education and traditional class- room students who were teleconferencing
enrolled re- ported technical difficulties as an interfer- ing
in per- sonnel preparation programs in visual impairments. factor Trief,
in their learning, while none of the on-site students did.
Decker, and Ryan (2004) examined differences in the level ofa sim- ilar percentage of students (83% for the on-site
However,
satisfaction between the on-site stu- dents at a maincourses and 75% for teleconfer- encing) reported that they had the
university
 oppor- tunity to participate in discussions as much
OF THE asPROGRAMS
they wanted. As part of a program assessment effort by
Although Trief et al.’s (2004) studyWestern
allowedMichigan
us to getUniversity’s
a (WMU) Department of Blindness
glimpse of how satis- fied distance education and Low Vision were
students Studies, questionnaires (called the Grad- uate
compared to traditional on-campus stu- dents, Survey) withapostage-paid
it was purely return en- velopes were mailed to the
individuals
descriptive study with no inference to the corresponding who graduated from one of the programs offered by
population. Furthermore, in the absence of the department
controls between the fall of 2004 and the summer of 2009.
for possible
confounding vari- ables, such as students’Allcharacteristics,
the surveys were themailed in print format initially, but they were
findings of Trief et al. (2004) should be also provided
considered in an alternative format on request. The survey
tentative.
Given such a paucity of research on students’participants included individuals who graduated from the on-
level of satisfaction
with distance education pro- grams compared to their levelasofwell as those who graduated from the distance
campus program,
satis- faction with traditional on-campus pro- education
gramsprogram.
in visual The on- campus students took all the courses
face to face,
impairments, the study presented here investigated whetherwhile the distance education stu- dents took the
there
is a difference in the level of satisfaction majority of the courses online (approximately 70% of the re-
between the graduates of a distance edu- cation program quired credit hours) but took hands-on courses (such as blindfold
and those
courses
of a traditional on-campus program. Additional efforts were made and the low vision lab) face to face during one or two
to control for some of the possible confounding variablesintensive six-week
to on-campus sum- mer sessions.
identify independent predictors of satisfaction with the programs. Blackboard Vista was the online learn- ing
platform used in all the online courses. Recorded lectures were
Method PARTICIPANTS AND DESCRIPTION embed- ded in Blackboard Vista as streaming vid- eos or provided
to the students as DVDs. Although there was a small synchronous

©2012 AFB, All Rights Reserved Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, May 2012 277
CEU Article
component (such as a chat room), the plat- form was designed
Review Board.
for
the predominantly asynchronous delivery of information. The
majority of the online courses included at least two M EASURES The survey included questions on the general program,
conference
the core program,
calls with the students during the semester, but the frequency of and the course of study, along with some de-
such calls varied widely from course to course.mographic Althoughquestions. Only the responses to the relevant questions
Blackboard Vista was available in some courses, its useonbythe
thegeneral
on- program were examined in this study. The
campus students was minimal. The same instructors who taught items were developed and pilot-tested on the basis of
questionnaire
the on-campus courses also taught the correspondingthe existing
dis- tance standardized instruments on higher edu- cation
education courses, albeit with occa- sional exceptions. instructional and program evalua- tions (Cashin, 1992; Centra,
Of the 241 surveys that were mailed, 139 were 1993).
returned;
101 of these surveys were complete and were used for analysesDemographic
(a information, including age, gender, and the
presence by
response rate of 57.7%, according to the standard definitions of a disability
(none, visual,
American Associa- tion for Public Opinion Research, other
2009). Thedisability), was col- lected. The questionnaire
also asked
response rate for the distance education graduates was(1)60.7%,
whether the participant was enrolled in an on-
campus or distance
while that for the on-campus graduates was 53.5%. In addi- tion, education program, (2) whether the participant
recent graduates (2007–09) responded at a was employed
higher after graduation in a position that provided service
rate (62.4%)
in theThe
than did those who graduated earlier (52.3%). program area for which he or she was most recently
study was
approved by the university’s Human Sub- prepared (yes or no), and (3) the name of the program that the
jects Institutional
participant most recently completed at WMU (O&M for wasChildren,
assessed in six main areas: (1) faculty-student interaction, (2)
Teaching Chil- dren with Visual Impairments, a student- dual con-
student interaction, (3) organization of the courses, (4)
centration in O&M and Teaching Children with students’
Visual
performance evalua- tion, (5) difficulty of the courses,
Impairments, O&M for Adults and Vision Rehabilitation andTherapy,
(6) practicum or internship experience. A Lik- ert scale of 1 to
a dual concentration in Vision Rehabilitation Thera- 5 waspyused
andfor the assess- ment, from 1 strongly disagree to 5
Rehabilitation Counseling, and other). These programstrongly
areas were
agree.
grouped into the following three categories for analyses on the The participants’ perception of faculty- student
basis of the similarities and differences in their courses: (1) O&Mwas measured by the responses to the following two
interaction
for Children or Teaching Children with Visual Impairments or “There was sufficient interaction between faculty and
state- ments:
both, (2) Rehabilitation Counseling or Vision Re- students”
habilitation
and “I was able to ask questions and receive answers
Therapy and Rehabilitation Counseling, and (3) O&M for Adults.
from faculty members.” In addition, re- sponses to the following
The participants’ satisfaction with thetwo
program
statements

278 Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, May 2012 ©2012 AFB, All Rights Reserved
CEU Article
were used to assess the participants’ per- ception performed
of student-explor- atory analyses to examine the scores in the six
student interaction: “There was sufficient interaction subareas.
between We reported uncorrected p
students” and “There were effective mechanismsvalues fortothe
facilitate
results of the exploratory analyses in deference to
interaction with other students.” their widespread use in such analyses in the social sciences.
Answers to the following three state-Therefore,
ments weretheused results
to of our exploratory analyses should be
assess how well the courses were organized and delivered: nary and are not appropriate for inferential
interpreted as prelimi-
“Faculty members were well organized in interpretation
the delivery of (Schochet,
their 2008).
courses,” “Faculty members were well prepared for their courses,” Following conventional practice in the social
and “The faculty exhibited excel- lent scholarly and professional
sciences, we treated composite Lik- ert scale scores as interval
standards.” Data on the fairness of evaluations were al-
scale data, collected
though the scores were actually measured on the
through the responses to the fol- lowing twoordinal
questionnaire items:
scale (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). Our sample size,
“I was evaluated fairly” and “The evaluation tools were
coupled fair.”
with the central limit theorem, allowed us to ana- lyze the
Responses to the following two state-data using
ments parametric
were used to procedures (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007).
assess the difficulty of the courses: “The program was intellec- Independent-measures t tests were con- ducted
tually stimulating” and “The programfor was adequately
preliminary comparisons of satisfaction between the distance
challenging.” Finally, the per- ceived qualityeduca-
of thetion
practicum
and theor on-campus graduates. Subse- quently, multiple
intern- ship experience was measured by the an- swers to the
linear regression analy- ses were performed to identify indepen-
following three statements: “The internship provided new learning
dent predictors of satisfaction with the programs. The model was
experiences,” “The variety of assign- ments builtand activities
with the forcedon entry method. All the variables that were
internship was instrumental in helping with preparation
significantly for
associated with program satisfaction from the
practice,” and “Local supervision on the internship was helpful.”
bivariate analysis (p .10) were first included, and then the
nonsignificant variables were re- moved in backwards fashion,
STATISTICAL ANALYSES Frequencies were run albeiton the with
participants’
exceptions based on their potential signif- icance in
overall level of satisfaction as well as the questionnaire’s
assessing the six programs. The a priori statistical power of the
subareas. Once we con- ducted confirmatory analyses to t test the
was .67 when a medium effect size (d .5) was
study’s primary hypotheses on the overall level assumed (Cohen, we
of satisfaction, 1988; Erd- felder, Faul, & Buchner, 1996). The a
priori statistical power of the primary multiple inregression
the final model were assumed (Green, 1991). All the statistical
procedure was .80 when a medium effect size and six analyses,
pre- dictors
except for the power analyses (G * Power

©2012 AFB, All Rights Reserved Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, May 2012 279
CEU Article

Table 1 Program satisfaction measured by composite area scores for graduates of the distance education and on-campus programs

(N 101).

Effect size
On- campus program (n

Distance education program (n 64) Areas of satisfaction

Effect size
280 Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, May 2012 ©2012 AFB, All Rights Reserved
Faculty-student interaction 4.72 .47 4.24 .62 .84 .001 a Student-student interaction 4.53 .54 3.91 .86 .82 .001 a Fairness of evaluation

4.50 .60 4.33 .56 .30 .150a Organization of courses 4.28 .64 4.28 .67 .00 .981a Adequacy of the difficulty of the courses 4.44 .78

4.45 .58 .02 .779a Practicum or internship experience 4.64 .49 4.26 .77 .56 .003a Overall satisfaction with the
program 4.51 .48 4.25 .49 .53 .012

Note. Independent t tests were conducted to compare the means for the two groups. a Exploratory analyses were performed to compare

six subarea scores (uncorrected p values were re- ported). Therefore, the results of the exploratory analyses should be interpreted as

preliminary and are not appropriate for inferential interpretation.

version 3.0.10), were conducted with SPSS version

Visual16.0.
Impairments (14%), O&M for Adults (18%), Vision
Rehabilitation The- rapy (27%), a dual degree in Vision Re-
Results DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS habilitation Therapy and Rehabilitation Counseling (4%), and
other (1%).
OF THE PARTICIPANTS The sample consisted of 101 graduates, 88
of whom were female. The partici- pants ranged in age from 23 to
had visualOF PROGRAM MODALITIES As is shown in Table 1, the
62 (me- dian 33.0). Of the 101 participants, 12%OMPARISON
impairments, 5% had other disabilities, and theoverall satis-
rest had no faction
dis- score was significantly higher for the
participants
abilities. In addition, 63% obtained their degrees who graduated from the on-campus program (M 4.51,
via distance
education, while the rest completed their degrees .48) than forAll
on campus. those who graduated from the distance education
program (M
but 9 participants were employed in a position that provided 4.25, SD .49), t(99) 2.551, p .012. The subsequent
exploratory
service in the pro- gram area for which they were most re-analyses
cently showed that the on-campus graduates rated
prepared. The most recently com- pleted degreestheirofprograms
the significantly higher than did the distance education
participants were as follows: O&M for Children graduates
(18%), in the following three subareas: (1) faculty-student
Teaching
interaction:
Children with Visual Impair- ments (14%), a dual degree on-campus
in O&M group, M 4.72, SD .47; distance education
for Children and Teaching Children With M 4.24, SD .62, t(99) 4.052, p .001; (2) student- student
interaction: on-campus group,
CEU Article

Table 2 Multivariable analysis of factors associated with overall satisfaction with the programs (N 101).

CI (95%)

Variables B SE B ß Lower Upper

Constant 4.423 .357 3.714 5.132 Age .011 .005 .240 .020 .001 Presence of a visual impairment a .074 .156 .049 .384 .236 Distance
education modalityb .025 .127 .024 .277 .226 Employed in program area c .313 .168 .178 .020 .645 VRT/RC program d
.210 .142 .195 .493 .072 OMC/TCVI programd .351 .136 .349 .621 .082

Note: R2 .187 (adjusted R2 .136), F (6, 94) 3.613 (p .003), Durban Watson 2.189. VRT and RC Vision Rehabilitation Therapy and

Rehabilitation Counseling. OMC and TCVI O&M for Children and Teaching Children with Visual Impairments. All the variables shown in the

table are included in the final model. a The reference group is the graduates with typical vision. b The reference group is those who graduated

from the on campus program. c The reference group is those who were not employed in the program area. d The reference group is those who

graduated from the O&M for Adults program.

M 4.53, SD .54; distance education group, M 3.91,
unacceptable
SD .86, level of multicolinearity were observed in any of the
4.445, p .001; and (3) practicum or internship linear
experience:
multipleon-regres- sion models that we constructed.
campus group, M 4.64, SD .49; distance education Asgroup,
is shown in Table 2, the program modality did not turn out to
SD .77, t(99) 3.052, p .003. However, there was beno significant
a signifi- cant predictor of overall satisfaction with the program
difference between the two groups with respect to the fairness
once we controlledof for the confounding variables, including age,
evaluations (p .150), organization of the courses (p .981), and area, and the presence of visual impairments ( .277
program
adequacy of the difficulty of the courses (p .779).
– .226, 95% CI). Age was a significant independent predic- tor of
overall satisfaction. That is, the rating of the program was lowered
REGRESSION ANALYSES To control for possible confounding vari-
by .01 for each year of a graduate’s age ( .020 – .001, 95% CI). A
ables, we conducted linear multiple re- gression analyses. For each
graduate’s program area was also a significant independent
analysis, out- liers were first identified (standardized residual
predictor of the outcome. Specifically, the O&M for Children–
values greater than 2); then the Cook’s statistic and standardized
Teaching Children with Visual Impairments group rated the
DFBeta values were checked to determine whether there programwere
.35 lower than did the O&M for Adults group ( .621
unduly influential cases. In addi- tion, VIF values for all the
– .082, 95% CI). We subsequently conducted explor- atory
predictors were checked to determine whether theregression
level of analyses for each subarea of overall satisfaction with
multicolinearity between the predictors was acceptable. No unduly
the program. The program modality turned out to be a significant
influential cases or independent predictor for

©2012 AFB, All Rights Reserved Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, May 2012 281
CEU Article

Table 3 Multivariable analysis of factors associated with perceived faculty student interactions (N 101).

CI (95%)

Variables B SE B ß Lower Upper

Constant 5.029 .429 4.177 5.881 Age .007 .006 .126 .018 .005 Presence of a visual impairment a .091 .188 .050 .282 .463 Distance
education modalityb .314 .152 .250 .616 .012 Employed in program area c .193 .201 .091 .207 .593 VRT/RC program d
.313 .171 .240 .652 .027 OMC/TCVI programd .288 .163 .237 .611 .036

Note: R2 .195 (adjusted R2 .143), F (6, 94) 3.787 (p .002), Durban-Watson 2.239. Explor- atory analyses were conducted for each subarea

of overall satisfaction with the program, including fac- ulty student interaction (uncorrected confidence intervals were reported). Therefore, the

results of these exploratory analyses should be interpreted as preliminary and are not appropriate for inferential interpre- tation. VRT and

RC Vision Rehabilitation Therapy and Rehabilitation Counseling. OMC and TCVI O&M for Children and Teaching Children with Visual

Impairments. All the variables shown in the table are included in the final model. a The reference group is the graduates with typical vision. b

The reference group is those who graduated from the on-campus program. c The reference group is those who were not employed in the

program. d The reference group is those who graduated from the O&M for Adults program.

faculty-student interaction (p .042) and student-student

fairness of interaction
evaluations (p .880), orga- nization of the courses (p
(p .021) (see Tables 3 and 4). However, it was.192),not
ade-
a significant
quacy of the difficulty of courses (p .092), and the
independent predictor for the remainingpracticum composite
or internship
areas, ex- perience (p .833).
including the
Table 4 Multivariable analysis of factors associated with perceived student student interactions (N 101).

CI (95%)

Variables B SE B ß Lower Upper

Constant 4.995 .570 3.864 6.126 Age .015 .008 .210 .030 .001 Presence of visual impairment a .365 .249 .151 .859 .130 Distance
education modalityb .474 .202 .282 .875 .073 Employed in program area c .286 .267 .100 .245 .817 VRT/RC program d
.038 .227 .022 .488 .413 OMC/TCVI programd .027 .216 .017 .457 .403

Note. R2 .209 (adjusted R2 .158), F (6, 94) 4.130 (p .001), Durban Watson 2.137. Explor- atory analyses were conducted for each subarea

of overall program satisfaction, including student stu- dent interaction (uncorrected confidence intervals were reported). Therefore, the results

of these explor- atory analyses should be interpreted as preliminary and are not appropriate for inferential interpretation. VRT/RC Vision

Rehabilitation Therapy and Rehabilitation Counseling. OMC/TCVI O&M for Children and Teaching Children with Visual Impairments. All the

variables shown in the table are included in the final model. a The reference group is the graduates with typical vision. b The reference group is

those who graduated from the on campus program. c The reference group is those who were not employed in the program. d The reference

group is those who graduated from the O&M for Adults program.

282 Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, May 2012 ©2012 AFB, All Rights Reserved
CEU Article
Discussion We found no significant difference in thebeoverall
as helpful as face-to-face interac- tions. We obtained this result
level of satisfaction between the on- campus and distance even though all the distance education students at- tended one or
education graduates once we controlled for some of thetwo con-six-week summer ses- sions held on campus, which provided
founding variables—age, program area, and presence ofana opportunity
visual for them to interact with the faculty and other
impairment. However, although the results are preliminary students
in na-in person. One possible hypothesis for this result is that
ongoing in-person contact throughout a
ture, even after we controlled for these con- founding variables,
student’s
the individuals who graduated from the on-campus program programrated is valued more than the limited time that
distance education stu- dents spend face to face during their six-
the levels of interaction (faculty- student and student-student)
significantly higher than did those who graduatedweekfrom
campus
the experience.
distance education program. Contrary to anecdotal evidence, the pres- ence of
a visual impairment was a signifi- cant independent predictor of
INTERPRETATION OF THE FINDINGS Our findingneither of no significant
the overall level of satisfaction nor any of its composite
difference in the overall level of satisfaction between the graduates
area ratings. Although this study was not designed to determine
from the on-campus pro- gram and those fromwhy the distance educa- difference was obtained in this re- gard, it is
no sig- nificant
tion program is consistent with the find- ings of similar that
possible previousthe faculty and staff were familiar with the
studies across different disciplines (Abdous &accommodations
Yen, 2010; Skylar needed by students who are visually im- paired
et al., 2005; Thurmond et al., 2002). Yet, our secondary finding
and made adequate of efforts to accom- modate their needs. It was
a higher level of perceived interaction by the on-campus graduates
also interesting to note the significantly lower satisfaction ratings
than the dis- tance education graduates may bebya theresult of less
older students than by the younger students even after we
frequent face-to-face interactions experiencedcontrolled
by the distance
for the confounding variables. This finding is not
education students. In other words, e-mail commu-consistent with and
nications the results of some of the previous surveys on this
online discussions via Blackboard may not have been perceived
topic (British Columbia to Outcomes Working Group, 2003;
McDowell Group, Inc., 2009; Strayhorn, 2011). One whichof often
the result in less time available for study- ing and
possible explanations may be the lifestyle of youngerconsequent
students,cramming-induced stress.
who tend to incorporate computer and Internet-related
who were IMPLICATIONS Given the findings of this study,
technologies extensively into their everyday lives and RACTICAL
prospec-
more comfortable with the technologies used for online tive students who are interested in univer- sity personnel
learning
than their older counterparts. It is also pos- sible preparation
that older programs in vi- sual impairments may consider
students tend to have more responsibilities (jobs anddistance education programs as an option that may
families),

©2012 AFB, All Rights Reserved Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, May 2012 283
CEU Article
satisfy them, particularly if they are already of working
the findings
in a related
may be limited because the sample consisted of the
field. Simi- larly, these programs may consider graduates
con- tinuing
of a single
their university. In particular, the find- ings may
distance education programs as a satisfactory not option
generalize
for manyto other programs that use different distance
students. However, the lower level of faculty-education
student and mod-student-
els and technologies. Last, although this study’s
student interactions perceived by the distance overalleducation
responsegrad- rate of 57.7% is generally considered to be
uates may suggest the need to ensure a mechanism acceptablethat for
facilitates
mail surveys in the social sciences (Bab- bie, 1995),
such interac- tions more effectively. Although a possible
purely anecdotal,
bias because of the less-than-desired response rate
the well-planned incorporation of rapidly advanced
might have synchronous
affected the results.
commu- nication technologies, such as web confer- encing tools
(like Adobe Connect and El- luminate) may promote easier andThe inclusion of additional variables re- lated
ECOMMENDATIONS
more effective faculty-student and student-stu- to dent
satisfaction with in
interactions the programs may allow us to identify
many online courses. independent pre- dictors of such satisfaction with more
confidence. In addition, an examination of the scores on the
STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS To our knowledge, this studyexamination
certification was and pass rates may provide an objective
the first attempt to compare the level of satisfac-
measure
tion ofofon-
the effectiveness of the pro- grams. Furthermore,
campus and distance education modalities in university
identifyingpersonnel
specific courses that are particularly unsatisfactory
prepa- ration programs in visual impairments may with help
an effort
university
to personnel preparation programs address the
control for some of the possible confounding variables.
underlyingOne issues
of the
in those courses. Last, to determine whether
limitations of the study is related to the use ofuniversity
the surveypersonnel preparation programs have succeeded in their
instrument that had not been systematically validated.
goal of producing
Al- thoughqualified teachers and rehabilitation profes-
the survey items were developed on the basis sionals
of the existing
in the field of visual impairments, it is necessary to
standardized instruments, the survey instrument investigate
used in thishowstudy
the gradu- ates’ employers rate the graduates with
had not been validated against a gold standard.re-Another
spect tolimita-
their job preparedness.
tion of the study was the failure to include some of the additional
predictor variables that may be closely relatedReferences
to graduates’ levelAbdous, M., & Yen, C. (2010). A predictive study of
of satisfaction with their programs, including the level of
learner satisfaction and outcomes in face-to-face, satellite broadcast, and
proficiency in com- puter technology, previous live video-streaming
work experi- ence, learning environments. Internet and Higher
Education,
and previous experience with online courses. In addition, the 13, 248– 257. Ajuwon, P. M., & Craig, C. J. (2007). Dis-
generalizability tance education in the preparation of teach-

284 Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, May 2012 ©2012 AFB, All Rights Reserved
 CEU Article
ers of the visually impaired and orientation and mobility
Journalspecialists:
of Special Education Technology, 14, 32–47. Green, S. B.
Profile of a new training paradigm. RE:view, 39, 3–14.
(1991).Ambrose-Zaken,
How many subjects does it take to do a regression analysis?
G., & Bozeman, L. (2010). Profile of personnel preparation
Multi- variateprograms
Behavioural
in Research, 26, 499– 510. Haynes, K. J., &
visual impairment and their faculty. Journal of Visual
Dillon,
Impairment
C. (1992).&Dis- tance education: Learning outcomes, interaction,
Blindness, 104, 148–169. American Association for andPublic
attitudes.
Opinion
Journal
Re- of Ed- ucation for Library and Information
search. (2009). Standard definitions: Final dispositions
Studies,of 33,
case32–42.
codes Howard, S. W., Ault, M. M., Knowlton, H. E., &
and outcome rates for surveys. Retrieved from Babbie,
Swall,E.R.R.A.(1995).
(1992). Teacher education and special education. Journal of
practice of social re- search (7th ed.). Belmont, CA:
the Wads-
Teacher worth.
Education Division of the Council for Exceptional Children,
British Columbia Outcomes Working Group. (2003, ,Autumn).275–283. Iverson, K. M., Colky, D. L., & Cyboran, V. L. (2005). E-
Understanding student sat- isfaction. BC College learning
& Institute takes
Student
the lead: An empirical investigation of learner differ-
Outcomes. Retrieved from http://admin. ences in online and classroom delivery. Performance Improvement
selkirk.bc.ca/research/documents/issue_ satisfaction%5B1%5D.pdf
Quarterly, 18, 5–18. Kirchner, C., & Diament, S. (1999). Esti- mates of
Bullock, L. M., Gable, R. A., & Mohr, J. D. (2008). theTechnology-
number of visually impaired students, their teachers, and orientation
mediated instruction in distance education and teacher
and mobility
prepara- specialists:
tion in Part 1. Journal of Vi- sual Impairment &
special education. Teacher Educa- tion and Special Blindness,
Education, 93,31600– 606. Koenig, A. J., & Robinson, M. C. (2001).
242. Cashin, W. E. (1992). Student ratings: The needOnline
for comparative
instruction in braille code skills for preservice teachers. Journal
data. Instructional Evaluation and Faculty Development,
of Visual 12,Im-
1–6.pairment & Blindness, 95, 543–557. Ludlow, B. L., &
Centra, J. A. (1993). Reflective faculty eval- uation:
Lombardi,
Enhancing T. P.
teaching
(1992). Special education in the year 2000: Current
and determin- ing faculty effectiveness. San Francisco:
trendsJossey-Bass.
and future developments. Education and Treatment of Children,
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral
147–162.sciences
McDonnell, J., Jameson, J. M., Riesen, T., Polychronis, S.,
(2nd ed.). Mah- wah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Crocket,DeMario,
M. A., &N. Brown, B. E. (2011). Comparison of on-campus and
C., & Heinze, T. (2001). The status of distance education
distanceinteacher
personnel
education programs in severe disabilities. Teacher
preparation programs in visual impairment. Journal Education
of Visualand Special Education, 34, 106–118. McDowell Group, Inc.
Impairment & Blindness, 95, 525–532. Erdfelder, E., Faul,University
F., & of Alaska Southeast Student Retention Study.
Buchner, A. (1996). Gpower: A general power analysisRetrieved
pro- from
gram.http://www.uas.
Behavior Research Methods, Instru- ments, & Computers,
alaska.edu/student_services/docs/retention-
28(1), 1–11. study-mcDowell09.pdf
Gallagher, P. A., & McCormick, K. (1999). Student McLinden,
satisfaction M.,with
McCall, S., Hinton, D., & Weston, A. (2010).
two-way interac- tive distance learning for deliveryDeveloping
of early childhood
authentic online problem-based learning case scenar-
special education coursework.

©2012 AFB, All Rights Reserved Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, May 2012 285
CEU Article
ios for teachers of students with visual im- pairments in the United
(2005). Distance education: An exploration of alternative methods and
Kingdom. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 104, 30–42.types of instructional media in teacher education. Journal of Special
Navarro, P., & Shoemaker, J. (2000). Perfor- mance and perceptions
Education of Technology, 20, 25–33. Strayhorn, T. L. (2011). Traits,
distance learners in cyberspace. American Journal of Dis- tance
commitments, and college satisfaction among black American
Education, 14, 15–35. Schochet, P. Z. (2008). Technical methods
community
report:college students. Community College Journal of Research
Guidelines for multiple testing in impact evaluations (NCEEand 2008-4018).
Practice, 35, 437–453. Tabachnick, B., & Fidell, L. (2007). Using
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Ed- ucation. Silberman, multivariate
R. K., statistics (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Thurmond, V.
Ambrose-Zaken, G., Corn, A. L., & Trief, E. (2004). Profile A.,of per-
Wambach, K., & Connors,
sonnel preparation programs in visual im- pairmentsH. and
R. (2002).
their faculty:
Evaluation
A of student satis- faction: Determining the
status report. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness,
impact 98,
of a741–756.
web- based environment by controlling for stu- dent
Skylar, A. A., Higgins, K., Boone, R., Jones, P., Pierce,
characteristics.
T., & Gelfer,
American
J. Journal of Distance Education, 16, 169–189.
Trief, E., Decker, L. M., & Ryan, D. J. (2004). Student satisfaction:
Dae ShikAKim, Ph.D., assistant professor, De- partment of Blindness and Low
distance learning model for training teachers of stu- dents with visual
impairments in New York State. Journal of Visual Impairment & Studies, Western Michigan University, 1903 West Mich- igan Avenue,
Vision
Blindness, 98, 367–372. Williams, S. L. (2006). The effectiveness of
Kalamazoo, MI 49008-5218; e- mail: dae.kim@wmich.edu . Helen Lee, Ed.D.,
distance education in allied health science programs: A meta-analysis of
outcomes. American Journal of Distance Education, 20, 127–141.assistantWoo,
professor, Department of Blind- ness and Low Vision Studies, Western
M. A., & Kimmick, J. (2000), Compar- ison of Internet versus lecture
Michigan University; e-mail: helen.lee@wmich.edu . Annette Skellenger, Ed.D.,
instructional methods for teaching nursing research. Journal of
Professional Nursing, 16, 132– 139. itinerant teacher of students with visual impairments and O&M spe- cialist, Arizona

School for the Deaf and Blind, P.O. Box 85000, Tucson, AZ 85754; e-mail:

annette.skellenger@gmail.com .

286 Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, May 2012 ©2012 AFB, All Rights Reserved