This article was downloaded by: ["Queen's University Libraries, Kingston"]On: 07 October 2014, At: 23:24Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T3JH, UK

American Journal of DistanceEducationPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hajd20

Inter‐institutionalcollaboration and teamteachingBee Gatliff a & Frederick C. Wendel ba Program Specialist in the Department ofAcademic Telecommunications , University ofNebraska‐Lincoln , 334 Nebraska Center forContinuing Education, Lincoln, NE, 68588–9805 E-mail:b Professor in the Department of EducationalAdministration , University of Nebraska‐Lincoln ,1215 Seaton Hall, Lincoln, NE, 68588–0638 E-mail:Published online: 24 Sep 2009.

To cite this article: Bee Gatliff & Frederick C. Wendel (1998) Inter‐institutionalcollaboration and team teaching, American Journal of Distance Education, 12:1,26-37, DOI: 10.1080/08923649809526981

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08923649809526981

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of allthe information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on ourplatform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensorsmake no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy,completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views ofthe authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis.The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be

independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor andFrancis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings,demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, inrelation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private studypurposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any formto anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use canbe found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

"Que

en's

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

, Kin

gsto

n"]

at 2

3:24

07

Oct

ober

201

4

THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF DISTANCE EDUCATIONVol. 12 No. 1 1998

Inter-institutional Collaborationand Team Teaching

Bee Gatliff and Frederick C. Wendel

Abstract

Inter-institutional collaboration and team teaching can enhance dis-tance education. Limited human and financial resources and thequality of teaching, learning, research, and course offerings can allbe maximized by the collaborative sharing of resources. Collabora-tive relationships can be difficult to start and keep on track;however, the potential benefits to institutions of higher education,students, and faculty warrant thorough investigation. The triad ofinter-institutional collaboration, team teaching, and distance educa-tion presents a multiplicity of issues that must be considered andplanned for before initiating programs. Within each element exists aset of inhibitors that could undermine a valuable program if not rec-ognized and dealt with in advance. Of particular interest to thosewho are new to distance education or collaborative relationships,this paper discusses several issues that should be considered in theplanning process to avoid potential roadblocks and to maximizereturns.

Introduction

Advances in telecommunications are rapidly making possible, in waysthat were unavailable just a few years ago, an expansion of educationalofferings beyond the traditional campus. As decision-makers at institu-tions weigh the advantages, disadvantages, costs, and benefits ofdistance education, they may want to think inter-institutionally as well asintra-institutionally. Through a review of the literature, this paper exam-ines the benefits and complexities of inter-institutional collaboration andteam teaching as they relate to distance education. Specific attention ispaid to essential considerations and planning necessary prior to the com-mencement of a distance education project, including inter-institutionalcollaboration and faculty teaming across institutional lines. Resourcesavailable on the World Wide Web are listed at the end of this article,especially for the benefit of those new to distance education or thosewho may be considering inter-institutional collaboration.

26

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

"Que

en's

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

, Kin

gsto

n"]

at 2

3:24

07

Oct

ober

201

4

GATLIFF AND WENDEL

Inter-institutional Collaboration

Institutional Benefits. Collaboration between institutions of highereducation can have positive effects on teaching and learning (McIntoshand Shipman 1996; Miller 1995). Institutional sharing can maximizelimited resources, course offerings, teaching, learning, and research.Institutional administration and regulatory boards have espoused thebenefits of inter-institutional collaboration in response to the concerns ofreducing duplication, maximizing the use of limited human and financialresources, and increasing enrollments in under-enrolled courses. Olcott(1992) also cited positive benefits for institutions which include learneraccess, program articulation, and integration of alternative instructionaldelivery systems through inter-institutional sharing.

Essential Considerations. Prior to the initiation of a collaborative pro-ject, two essential issues should be considered at the institutional level.First, institutions should have a solid distance education foundationestablished, which includes a supportive infrastructure for faculty andstudents. Support and leadership at the institutional level are critical ifdistance education is to be integrated into the mainstream academic cul-ture. Gellman-Buzin (1987) stated that telecommunications will notsucceed in any organization without top level support. Administrators atthis level must have a vision for distance education. The breadth anddepth of their vision will guide decision making for programs.

A supportive infrastructure for faculty should include a review pro-cess to reward participation in distance education, financial resources foron-going technological program development, and administrative sup-port (Sherry 1994). Olcott and Wright (1995, 15) further discussed theneed for faculty support, focusing on the issue of faculty compensation:

The integration of distance education into mainstream higher educa-tion compels postsecondary institutions to reduce existing barriers tofaculty participation by compensating, rewarding, and training facultyat levels commensurate with those of traditional instructional activi-ties and to provide instructional and administrative support servicesdesigned to ensure student access to high-quality instructional pro-grams.

Institutions must be committed to the collaborative ideal and providefinancial support that includes stipends or load credit for faculty mem-bers. Administrators must realize that to persuade faculty members to

27

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

"Que

en's

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

, Kin

gsto

n"]

at 2

3:24

07

Oct

ober

201

4

THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF DISTANCE EDUCATION

offer distance education courses and programs, more resources must beallocated for distance education than for a typical on-campus course(Hillman and Colker 1987). Transmission facilities require real dollarsand time, course materials, technology assistance, hardware, software,travel, and attendant coordination activities that may not show up on aledger sheet, yet nevertheless, consume institutional resources.

A support framework for faculty training, compensation, and facultyteaching rewards must be established to the degree that it is on a par withthat in traditional programs (Olcott and Wright 1995). Service units,such as continuing studies, in cooperation with academic units, oftenprovide support for administrative and student support services whichinclude registration, advising, receive-site coordination, distribution ofcourse materials, and library and computer access (Olcott and Wright1995). Resources must be available to provide for faculty in-servicetraining in a variety of dimensions, including: adult learning theory(Knowles 1984); instructional design; software packages; multimediaprograms; copyright and fair use of materials; using the institution'stechnological platform; engaging students in discourse in varied settings;planning for "fall back" lessons if technological problems appear duringan interactive TV class; meeting students' learning styles in unfamiliarsettings; and evaluating teaching and learning in distance education(Alabama 1996).

Olcott (1992) pointed out that prior to engaging in a distance educa-tion collaborative program, appropriate steps must be taken on eachcampus to ensure curricular approval and accreditation review. Addition-ally, member institutions should review campus policy and regulationsas they relate to such basic issues as full-time equivalent (FTE) require-ments, semester and class schedules, budget, and tuition (Hillman andColker 1987). The ability to "massage" these elements is crucial whendifferent institutions attempt to work together.

Planning for Inter-institutional Collaboration. The National Networkfor Collaboration (1995, 2) stated that, "Technically, collaboration is aprocess of participation through which people, groups, and organizationswork together to achieve desired results." However, cooperative rela-tionships can be difficult to launch and challenging to keep on track(McGill and Johnstone 1994). When a collaborative journey is initiated,not only must institutions have clearly defined outcomes, but all mem-bers must share that vision (National Network for Collaboration 1995).Institutions must learn to function as a system rather than as a group ofautonomous entities, setting aside institutional pride for the good of the

28

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

"Que

en's

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

, Kin

gsto

n"]

at 2

3:24

07

Oct

ober

201

4

GATLIFF AND WENDEL

whole (Olcott 1992). The member institutions must lay the groundworkat the beginning of a collaborative project, which will set the stage forthe effective collaboration of teaching teams. This foundation shouldinclude:

• Identifying the stakeholders, and including them in the planningprocess;

• Identifying the political dynamics;• Establishing good communication; and• Establishing leadership (National Network for Collaboration

1995).

Technology at the Institutional Level. An understanding of how tech-nology fits into the mission of the institution and into distance educationmust be nurtured (Farmer 1995). Prior to entering into a collaborativeagreement, each institution should be committed to technological pro-gramming that reflects quality and effectiveness. Technology is anintegral part of distance education; however, the focus must be on theinstructional needs of the students rather than on the technology itself.Availability and compatibility of delivery systems between institutionsmust be examined thoroughly at the outset. Further, faculty experienceand technical support are critical components to be considered. The tech-nology chosen must be readily available to and understandable bylearners, and also facilitate interaction among students and instructors(The Institute for Academic Technology 1996).

Inter-institutional Team Teaching

Benefits. Inter-institutional teaming offers many advantages. Teachersshare plans, creative ideas, experiences, materials, methods, and insightin the planning, delivery, and evaluation of their courses (Sybouts 1967;Gay and Ross 1994; Hawkes 1996). By combining efforts, faculty fromdifferent institutions can expand course offerings and provide thosecourses to a greater number of students, thus becoming less dependentupon the limitations of on-campus registration. Team members benefitfrom the experience of working with peers, as instruction is improvedthrough capitalizing on the respective strengths of each member and bydeveloping new knowledge and skills. Students also enjoy benefits, asseen in expanded course offerings, stimulation from technologies used indistance education, the expertise of team teachers, and the opportunity to

29

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

"Que

en's

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

, Kin

gsto

n"]

at 2

3:24

07

Oct

ober

201

4

THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF DISTANCE EDUCATION

receive instruction that may only be available through distance educa-tion.

Essential Considerations. While team teaching provides benefits toinstitutions, faculty, and students, junior and senior faculty membersmay view participation differently. The extent to which faculty are sup-ported will determine their willingness to be involved. The personalteaching load of faculty members preparing distance education coursesexceeds the typical teaching load of those preparing on-campus courses.If team teaching is added, the amount of time spent working with one ormore instructors adds significantly to preparation time. Learning to workwith technology and selecting an appropriate delivery system to producea seamless interface increases the time commitment. Austin and Baldwin(1992, 2) noted that,

At present, many informal traditions and explicit policies (criteria fortenure and promotion, policies for merit pay, standards for facultyevaluation, for example) inhibit collaboration by faculty. If the highereducation community wishes to encourage more faculty teamwork,some significant reforms will be needed. . . . By implementing sup-portive policies and creating organizational structures to facilitatecollaboration across disciplinary and institutional boundaries, highereducation could better reap the range of benefits that faculty collabo-ration promises.

Currently, involvement in distance teaching and instructional technol-ogy does hold a degree of risk for junior-level faculty. On the other hiind,early adopter senior faculty find that involvement in distance educationand instructional technology provides new vistas, and they are more ableto enjoy the intrinsic rewards it holds (Dillon and Walsh 1992). Is it real-istic to think, however, that intrinsic reward will sustain involvement insuch activities? A great deal has been written regarding the issues of fac-ulty participation in distance education (Austin and Baldwin 1992;Dillon and Walsh 1992; Olcott and Wright 1995). Olcott and Wright(1995) identified several positive steps that can be taken to increase fac-ulty participation:

• Define the scope of distance education in meeting the extendedmission of the institution;

• Establish a policy task force to define the applicability of distanceteaching towards promotion and tenure;

30

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

"Que

en's

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

, Kin

gsto

n"]

at 2

3:24

07

Oct

ober

201

4

GATLIFF AND WENDEL

• Establish training, released-time, faculty assignment, and compen-sation models with departmental chairpersons and with deans; and

• Develop a discipline-based research agenda for faculty teachingvia educational telecommunications technology (p. 12).

Planning for Inter-institutional Teaming. One of the most appealingfactors of inter-institutional teaming is the opportunity for faculty fromdiverse backgrounds and environments to come together and be creative.Make no mistake, collaboration is not for the faint of heart. Team teach-ing is a dynamic process that involves the art of negotiation, buildingfinely tuned communication networks, identifying and building commu-nity, and establishing leadership (National Network for Collaboration1995)—all of which enhance professional growth. Planning is an inte-gral part of distance education, and it is critical when contemplatingcollaboration. For team teaching to be effective, members of teachingteams must understand and commit to important factors that lead to suc-cess (McIntosh and Johnson 1994; Xu and Zidon 1995). In the beginningstages, success is highly dependent on commitment to planning andcommunication. This is especially true when team members cross insti-tutional lines, are geographically separated, and the factors ofcommunity and connectedness are not immediately present. Team mem-bers then need time not only for academic planning, but also to establishgood lines of communication and collegiality. Moran (1990) listed thefollowing conditions as necessary for effective collaboration:

• Mutual trust and esteem among partners,• Effective communication systems, and• Commitment and control over the project by relevant individuals

and groups.

An agreement must be reached regarding content, individual responsi-bility, preparation of materials, expectations of student work, studentfeedback, and technical issues. A few questions that should be consid-ered include:

• What is to be taught?• Who is to teach?• Who is prepared to teach with existing technologies?• Which technologies should be used?• How can students' needs best be accommodated?

31

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

"Que

en's

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

, Kin

gsto

n"]

at 2

3:24

07

Oct

ober

201

4

THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF DISTANCE EDUCATION

• Which institution will coordinate technology and delivery?• What instructional resources are available to aid in course devel-

opment and faculty use of technology?

Dodge (1993, 1) added that,

The most successful projects have been those in which both partiesplanned and prepared themselves well before starting the partnership,adequate resources were allocated to develop and maintain the activi-ties, and mutual respect between the partners was consciously andsystematically nurtured.

Goals and objectives must be jointly conceived and accepted(Knapczyk 1991; Allum 1991). Faculty must develop an appreciation forthe contribution of others (Wiske 1989), and unilateral decisions by leammembers should be avoided. The combined efforts of teachers in teamscan add new dimensions to the preparation and delivery of lessons,enhancing learning through the joint instructional skills of team mem-bers. Balajthy (1991) suggested that leadership should rotate amongpartners as appropriate to their skills. The excitement of team teachinglies in bringing together the creativity and rich resources of diverse fac-ulty.

Geographic separation adds yet another dimension to the planningprocess. A limited amount of time, individual work priorities, home cam-pus schedules, and distance are just a few of the factors that must beconsidered in the planning stages of collaborative effort. With these fac-tors in mind, the development of a timeline will keep team membersfocused and on track, helping to ensure seamless course developmentand delivery. The good news is that if we "walk the technology talk"geographical distances can be diminished, costs cut, and time saved byutilizing such conveniences as e-mail, facsimiles, and video conferenc-ing. In each instance, faculty members must have access to and skill inthe use of the respective technology (Kimmel and Deek 1995). With theexception of videoconferencing, however, these are fairly basicresources available to most faculty.

Support Services for Inter-institutional Teaming. Experts in instruc-tional and technical resources must be available to help faculty preparecourse materials and manipulate and interact with technology. Theyshould understand, up front, the outcomes that the technology is intend-ed to support. Veteran instructors may need to acquire new skills for

32

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

"Que

en's

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

, Kin

gsto

n"]

at 2

3:24

07

Oct

ober

201

4

GATLIFF AND WENDEL

distance education and additional ones for team teaching (Mitra 1994).Asking even the most experienced instructors to teach courses in a dif-ferent medium and within a new instructional format—teamteaching—far exceeds normal expectations (McMahon, Gantz, andGreenberg 1995). Faculty must be able to help students understand thebasics of the technology introduced in their courses and resolve techno-logical problems that students at a distance may face (Krendl 1994).Distance education may require the transformation of teaching materi-als—old and new—into different formats. Furthermore, the teachingteam must have access to appropriate resources for planning the curricu-lum, including: preparing unit and lesson plans; locating and assemblingresources for course materials; preparing handouts, instructional pack-ages, and tests; arranging for technical services; and designing specialmaterials, for example, home pages for the World Wide Web. As thecapabilities of faculty expand, they will need guidance on the effectiveuse of multimedia, as well as on-going technical assistance. Faculty needto be able to use new delivery formats and multimedia platforms withoutspending an inordinate amount of time learning to manipulate new soft-ware and develop graphics. It is crucial that faculty not become "boggeddown" with technology and that their primary energy remains focusedon teaching.

Administrative and technical support services should also be availablefor students. In the planning stages, along with pedagogical considera-tions, attention should be given to student technological support needs.What knowledge and skills must students have as pre-requisites, andhow much support must be built into the course or otherwise plannedfor? For example, in a course with heavy computer involvement, doesthe institution provide help after 5:00 p.m. when most adult students willbe in need? Or, in a course utilizing e-mail, in addition to academic mat-ters, students may need to:

• Access the Internet;• Engage in online discussions, course conferences, forums, and

live-chat sessions;• Access resources from the World Wide Web from their respective

campus, other college campuses, home, office, or dorm;• Store and maintain files on disk, online, or on hard copy of course

materials generated during the term;• Submit assignments online, using a word-processing program or

via e-mail;

33

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

"Que

en's

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

, Kin

gsto

n"]

at 2

3:24

07

Oct

ober

201

4

THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF DISTANCE EDUCATION

• Upload and download files; and• Work effectively and collaboratively on tasks and exercises with

peers in small, online groups.

Students who have few or undeveloped technological skills may befaced with learning these in addition to academic content and interper-sonal skills in new forms of group dynamics. The learning curve fortechnology-limited students is much steeper than for those who areskilled in computer technology, placing the former students at a disad-vantage. Furthermore, students may be unwilling to admit their need forassistance. Consequently, numerous ways and means must be used toencourage students to voice their concerns and seek out assistance. Teammembers must be alert to signs of potential trouble, for example, a lackof responses within specified time periods.

As the Information Age has contributed to the explosion of knowl-edge, students have been transformed from consumers of information toprocessors of knowledge. Students' needs can be met through mediatedinstruction, but their learning must also be linked with concrete, tangi-ble, hands-on resources and experiences. The most important shift thatinstructors, including team teachers, must make is toward integrated, stu-dent-centered instruction.

Conclusions

The triad of inter-institutional collaboration, team teaching, and dis-tance education presents a multiplicity of issues that must be consideredand planned for prior to the initiation of a collaborative project. Institu-tions must carefully investigate policies, accreditation standards, and thecapability to support faculty involvement in inter-institutional teaming.In any collaborative effort, a considerable number of potential inhibitorsmust be addressed. The issues will not be resolved quickly, for many ofthem are deeply ingrained in the traditional academic culture. How aver,as Olcott and Wright (1995, 14) have pointed out, " . . . there is no substi-tute for patience. Distance education is still in its infancy in many ways."Each institution must weigh the inhibitors and advantages as they con-sider involvement in inter-institutional collaboration.

Inter-institutional collaboration and faculty teaming hold positive con-sequences for both teaching and learning. When institutions and facultycome together in the spirit of collegiality, by respecting diversity ofopinions and capitalizing on faculty strengths and diverse cultural and

34

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

"Que

en's

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

, Kin

gsto

n"]

at 2

3:24

07

Oct

ober

201

4

GATLIFF AND WENDEL

geographic backgrounds, the quality of teaching is enhanced and learn-ing is stimulated. The benefits of collaboration across disciplinary andinstitutional boundaries are numerous: communication increasesbetween faculty and students, and among student groups; shared view-points between and among students from diverse geographical locationsand cultures lead to increased appreciation and valuing of diversity; fac-ulty creativity and the quality of education are enhanced; and technicalskills for both faculty and students increase.

References

Alabama. 1996. <http://www.slis.ua.edu/projects/SHEEO>.Allum, K. F. 1991. Partners in innovation: School-college collabora-

tions. EDUCOM Review 26 (34): 29-33.Austin, A. E., and R. G. Baldwin. 1992. Faculty collaboration: Enhanc-

ing the quality of scholarship and teaching. ERIC DocumentReproduction Service, ED 347 958.

Balajthy, E. 1991. A school college consultation model for integration oftechnology and whole language in elementary science instruction.ERIC Document Reproduction Service, ED 332 155.

Dillon, C. L., and S. M. Walsh. 1992. Faculty: The neglected resource indistance education. The American Journal of Distance Education 6(3): 15-19.

Dodge, B. J. 1993. School-university partnerships and educational tech-nology. ERIC Document Reproduction Service, ED 358 840.

Farmer, L. S. J. 1995. Multimedia: Multi-learning tool. Technology Con-nection 2 (3): 30-31.

Gay, D. A., and J. R. Ross. 1994. Supportive relationships. The Journalof Physical Education, Recreation and Dance 65 (7): 27-30.

Gellman-Buzin, B. 1987. Telecommunications as an element of competi-tive strategy. In Competitive strategies for continuing education, ed.C. Baden, 71-83. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Hawkes, M. L. 1996. Evaluating school-based distance education pro-grams: Some thoughts about methods. NASSP Bulletin 80 (582):26-33.

Hillman, S. J., and A. K. Colker. 1987. The collaborative design inadvancing the school/college interface. ERIC Document Reproduc-tion Service, ED 284 496.

The Institute for Academic Technology. 1996. <http://www.iat.unc.edu/>.

35

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

"Que

en's

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

, Kin

gsto

n"]

at 2

3:24

07

Oct

ober

201

4

THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF DISTANCE EDUCATION

Kimmel, H., and F. P. Deek. 1995. Instructional technology: A tool or apanacea? Journal of Science Education and Technology 4:327-332.

Knapczyk, K. D. 1991. Improving staff development in rural communi-ties. ERIC Document Reproduction Service, ED 345 890.

Knowles, M. S. 1984. The adult learner: A neglected species. 3d. ed.Houston: Gulf Publishing.

Krendl, K. 1994. The impact of computers on learning: Research on in-school and out-of-school settings. Journal of Computing in HigherEducation 5:85-112.

McGill, M. A., and S. M. Johnstone. 1994. Distance education: Anopportunity for cooperation and resource sharing. In Distance educa-tion strategies and tools, ed. B. Willis, 265-275. Englewood Cliffs,NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

McIntosh, B., and H. Shipman. 1996. The power of collaboration: Peercollaboration—a powerful mechanism for effecting change in scienceteaching. Journal of College Science Teaching 25 (5): 364-365.

McIntosh, M. E., and D. L. Johnson. 1994. An instrument to facilitatecommunication between prospective team teachers. The ClearingHouse 67 (3): 152-154.

McMahon, T., W. Gantz, and B. S. Greenberg. 1995. Interactive technol-ogy and inter-university team teaching. Journalism and MassCommunication Educator 50 (4): 62-71.

Miller, J. 1995. Battle hymn of American studies. English Journal 84(1): 88-92.

Mitra, A. 1994. Instructor effect in determining effectiveness and atti-tude towards technology-assisted teaching. Journal of InstructionDelivery Systems 8 (3): 15-21.

Moran, L. 1990. Inter-institutional collaboration: The case of an Aus-tralian inter-university women's studies major. Journal of DistanceEducation 5 (2): 32-48.

National Network for Collaboration. 1995. Collaboration framework:Addressing community capacity, <http://www.cyfernet.mes.unm.edu/framework.html>.

Olcott, D., Jr. 1992. Policy issues in statewide delivery of university pro-grams by telecommunications. The American Journal of DistanceEducation 6 (1): 14-26.

Olcott, D., Jr., and S. Wright. 1995. An institutional support frameworkfor increasing faculty participation in postsecondary distance educa-tion. The American Journal of Distance Education 9 (3): 5-17.

36

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

"Que

en's

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

, Kin

gsto

n"]

at 2

3:24

07

Oct

ober

201

4

GATLIFF AND WENDEL

Sherry, L. 1994. Issues in distance education. International Journal ofDistance Education 1:337-365.

Sybouts, W. 1967. Supervision and team teaching. Educational Leader-ship 25 (2): 158-159, 163, 165.

Wiske, M. S. 1989. A cultural perspective on school-university collabo-rative research. ERIC Document Reproduction Service, ED 342 051.

Xu, D., and M. Zidon. 1995. Two heads are better than one: Students'evaluation of team teaching in a teacher education classroom. Teach-ing and Learning 9 (2): 11-23.

Resources

1. Learning on the Web:http://cnetAinb.ca/lotw/

2. Teaching and Learning on the World Wide Web:http://www.mcli.dist.maricopa.edu/tl/

3. The Comprehensive Distance Education List of Resources:http://www.dacc.cc.il.us/~ramage/disted.html

4. Resources for Distance Education:http://webster.commnet.edu/HP/pages/darling/distance.htm

5. Journals for Distance Education:http://webster.commnet.edu/HP/pages/darling/journals.htm

6. Association for Educational Communications and Technology:http://www.aect.org/ or gopher://sunbird.usd.edu:721/l

7. Distance Education Links:http://www.algonquinc.on.ca/pilot/index.html

8. New Media Centers:http://www.csulb.edu/gc/nmc/index.html

9. Virtual Classroom:http://www.enmu.edu/compserv/virtual.htm

10. College and University Home Pages:http://www.mit.edu:8001/people/cdemello/univ.html

11. Distance Education Clearinghouse:http://www.uwex.edu/disted.home.html

12. AskERIC:http://ericir.syr.edu

13. World Wide Web Course Tools:http://homebrewl.cs.ubc.ca/webct

14. Distance Education at a Glance:http://www.uidaho.edu/evo/distglan.html

37

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

"Que

en's

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

, Kin

gsto

n"]

at 2

3:24

07

Oct

ober

201

4