ABSTRACT: While distance education has been available since at least 1850 when British colonial servants studied via correspondence courses, Internet-based distance education is now growing at an astounding rate. According to educational consultant and author Vicky Phillips of Geteducated.com, the number of distance education students has increased from 100,000 in 1990 to one million online students today. Students who, for various reasons, cannot enroll in residential programs benefit greatly from the increase in online offerings. Yet many professors and students lament the loss of face-to-face interaction available in the classroom, assuming that this is the best method of learning and teaching and that by extension, online education is a distant second. In spite of arguments to the contrary, social scientists and lay persons have long believed face-to-face communication to be the ideal, being characterized by continuous feedback, multiple channels, spontaneity, and egalitarian norms (Schudson, 1978). Also, face-to-face education is what most of us know: it is our habit and tradition. This primacy is important, because it provides the context and rules for our knowledge about how to communicate in educational situations and influences how those patterns of communication will change once other forms are introduced. For these reasons, the face-to-face educational context is also presumed better: distance students cannot possibly receive the kind of guidance or feedback from teachers and fellow students available in a residential program.

If face-to-face educational situations are indeed better, then, we would expect them to realize better educational results. However, the "no significant difference" literature (Russell, 1999) suggests there is just that: no difference in learning outcomes. This literature, however, generally compares educational systems as though they are systems for the delivery of information (Neal, 1998), information that is pre-packaged in textbooks and manuals, available for consumption by an isolated, independent student. Today, however, many distance courses take a different form. Many of these courses are conducted as if students were resident, lasting one term, with instructors enforcing strict deadlines. Instructors and students interact in threaded discussion lists or chat rooms to "talk" about the course material, debate each others' claims, critique each other's work, collaborate on assignments, and even disclose personal information.

The authors of this study were fortunate to have the opportunity to make a direct comparison between a face-to-face writing course and its online counterpart taught by the same instructor, with the same assignments, the same deadlines in the same time period, and the same requirements for group collaboration. To provide greater understanding of the issues and communicative practices across the two media, we sought data to answer the following questions:

What is the difference, if any, in academic outcomes between the face-to-face and online class?

What is the learning environment (teaching method, teacher-student and student-student interactive styles, sense of community or expectations of mutual support among students, etc.) in each medium? Which activities lead to student learning?

What is the relationship between the learning environment and student academic outcomes and attitudes?

Several types of data were gathered from both classes: 1) an entry survey assessing attitudes toward computer use and writing as well as demographic information; 2) daily audio- taped observation of the face-to-face classroom throughout the term; 3) recording of the threaded discussion list and all other components of the online "classroom"; 4) collection of private email between the instructor and students, both face-to-face and online; 5) interviews with the instructor and with face-to-face and online students; 6) an exit survey repeating some attitude measures of the entry survey and seeking information on student outcomes; and 7) student writing assignments from four different times in the term, independently graded by two writing instructors with a common rubric.

Improvement in student writing on assignments as well as how students may or may not have incorporated feedback in whole-class and small-group critique episodes provide information about degree of student learning and effect of the teaching method. What seemed to lead to improvement of writing is examined using exploration of the learning situation (learning climate, relational environment/community, assignments, method of instruction [in particular, group critique episodes], attitude toward teacher and course, teacher interaction style, and student collaboration in both settings. Methods of analysis include both interpretive and quantitative methods (discourse analysis, categorization, ANCOVA).