This paper critically examines the evolving theories of scholarship in distance education, tracing their development from Noffsinger's 1926 correspondence course studies through transactional distance theory and contemporary scaffolding-based approaches. The analysis highlights a chronological progression in the literature, from external, didactic models of instruction toward internalized frameworks that emphasize student autonomy and individualized learning. The paper also identifies a notable omission in the reviewed article — the work of Badrul Khan (2003) and his eight dimensions of distance learning — arguing that this gap leaves the scholarship incomplete, particularly regarding technology-enabled, collaborative, and participative approaches to distance instruction.
Progressing from home study and correspondence courses to theories of both one-to-one and one-to-many-based models of distance instruction, an analysis of the Theory of Scholarship of Distance Education illustrates how theories of distance education scholarship have significantly changed over the last eighty-two years. The first studies of distance education, conducted by Noffsinger (1926), were based purely on correspondence courses that universities at the time piloted to determine what long-term learning could be achieved. From an initial reliance on traditional mail delivery services — progressing through more interactive technologies including teleconferences and eventually the Internet — theories of scholarship relating to distance education have continually changed, reflecting the growing immediacy of instructor and student communication.
The chronological approach the authors have taken in presenting empirical and theoretical research pertaining to scholarship and self-efficacy of students in distance education programs eventually leads to the current state-of-the-art programs of distance learning theory and scaffolding (Najjar, 2008). In addition, a critical analysis of transaction theory as it relates to the autonomy of students — and that attribute's correlation to greater levels of success in distance education programs — is assessed. Most interesting in the analysis presented in this article is the didactic conversation approach versus using scaffolding and individualized instruction strategies that educators have empirically found to be effective in teaching students across broad distances (Najjar, 2008).
The catalyst of significant change in the accumulated research on the theory of scholarship of distance education also illustrates how cause-and-effect-based models originally published in the American Journal of Distance Education, published by the American Center for the Study of Distance Education (Scalise, Bernbaum, Timms, Harrell, Burmester, Kennedy, & Wilson, 2007), have given way to more transaction-based theories. Transactional distance is seen in these theories as a continuous, not discrete, variable — thereby making the analysis of learning effectiveness more dependent on understanding the motivations and values of the students involved.
This article takes a journey from explaining the theories of scholarship of distance education from an external perspective — with regard to student and teacher interaction — to a more internalized one specific to students. The progression of the research toward concentrating on the triad of distance education, instructor approach and strategies, and the extent of student autonomy all factor into how effective distance learning is. This triad of factors only emerged within the last fifty years of research, which is one of the critical aspects highlighting how much additional empirical research is required to continue defining how individualized instruction in the form of scaffolding (Najjar, 2008) contributes to or detracts from distance learning achievement.
"Shift from didactic teaching to individualized scaffolding"
"Khan's omitted framework and its significance"
"Critical gaps and calls for further research"
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.