


































39-Manuscript-567-1-11-20200713


Lindner et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
  Volume 1, Issue 2, 2020 
  agdevresearch.org 

1. James R. Lindner, Alumni Professor of Agriscience Education, Auburn University, 5058 Haley Center, Auburn University, AL 
36849, jrl0039@auburn.edu; https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1448-3846 

2. Christopher A. Clemons, Assistant Professor of Agriscience Education, , Auburn University, 5070 Haley Center, Auburn 
University, AL 36849, cac0132@auburn.edu; https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9879-0888 

3. Andrew Thoron, Associate Professor in the Department of Agricultural Education, Abraham Baldwin Agricultural College,  
ABAC 8, 2802 Moore HWY Tifton, GA 31793, andrew.thoron@abac.edu; https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9905-3692 

4. Nicholas J. Lindner, graduate student in the School of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Texas A&M University, 
416 Pronghorn Loop, College Station, TX 77845, lindnenj@email.tamu.edu; https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7140-6820  

53 

 

Remote instruction and distance education: A response to 
Covid-19 

J. Lindner1, C. Clemons2, A. Thoron3
, N. Lindner4 

 
 

  

Abstract 

The purpose of the qualitative study was to explore how middle and secondary school agriscience 
teachers define remote instruction and distance education. This research was conducted as a 
response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Data for the study were collected during the time schools were 
closed and/or offering remote instruction. A purposive sample of seventeen agriscience education 
teachers in the States of Alabama and Georgia were selected for this qualitative study. Data were 
collected using a structured interview questionnaire and analyzed using constant comparisons. The 
conceptual framework of this study was developed using transactional distance theory and bound by 
strategic analysis. Findings showed that secondary agriscience education teachers did not collectively 
define remote instruction and distance education in the same manner. Some defined them similarly, 
and some noted specific differences in how the terms are defined and used. These teachers 
identified strengths and opportunities that should be exploited and weaknesses and threats that 
should be mitigated. Recommendations for training in appropriate use of distance education delivery 
strategies are provided. Recommendations for additional research into the impact on student 
learning are provided.  
 

Keywords 

Teaching remotely, strategic analysis, delivery methods, delivery strategies, distance education  

  



Lindner et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v1i2.39  54 
 

Introduction and Problem Statement 
 
During January of 2020, the coronavirus (COVID-19) emerged in the United States (Centers for 
Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, n.d.). By March of 2020, the World Health Organization 
(WHO) declared COVID-19 a pandemic (WHO, 2020). During this time, middle and secondary 
schools either shut down or moved to remote instruction until the end of the semester. The 
words or term remote instruction was being used ubiquitously by Alabama and Georgia schools 
in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Remote instruction can be defined two ways. Let us 
consider the following example announcement of a fictitious school. Rydell High School is 
moving immediately to remote instruction for the remainder of the semester. In this example 
remote is an adjective and instruction is a noun. Instruction, therefore, would be provided 
remotely. Remote is defined (Merriam-Webster, 2020a) as “acting, acted on, or controlled 
indirectly from a distance” (para. 1). Using this example, we could consider remote instruction a 
term (Merriam-Webster, 2020b) defined as “a word or expression that has an exact meaning in 
some uses or is limited to a subject or field” (para.1). As a term, remote instruction, is not well-
defined in the literature. 
 
In the context of this study we are operationally defining remote instruction as the physical 
separation of instructors and students during the teaching and learning process. The central 
attribute of remote instruction is the separation by space during instruction. Distance 
education is generally regarded as a pedagogical concept (Moore, 1997) that is not necessarily 
bound by space constraints. Moore (1997) noted distance education “is a concept describing 
the universe of teacher-learner relationships that exist when learners and instructors are 
separated by space and/or by time” (p. 22). Dooley et al. (2005) wrote, “distance education is 
the application of delivery strategies using a variety of delivery methods with learning who are 
constrained by time/space/lifestyle” (p. 80). These authors noted, “… that delivery methods do 
not matter, delivery strategies do” (p. 80). Because the terms defined remote instruction and 
distance education are defined differently a problem may exist when the terms are used 
synonymously. The synonymous use of the terms may create confusion by academicians 
transitioning to remote instruction and researchers studying the phenomena.   
 

Theoretical and Conceptual Framework 
 
The conceptual framework of this study was developed using an expanded model of Moore’s 
(1989) transactional distance theory. This study was also bound by the strategic planning 
process of identifying strengths, weakness, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) (Cojocariu et al., 
2013; Dooley & Murphrey, 2001; Goodstein et al., 1993) of remote instruction and distance 
education to better understand the internal and external environments in which decisions are 
made. Engaging students in the educational environment is critical for student learning. Smith 
and Rayfield (2016) noted project-based learning through supervised agricultural experiences 
was a critical component of agriscience programs. Merrow (2003) wrote that engagement was 
the key to student learning while Moore (1989) noted that interaction between students, 
instructors, and content is vital for engagement. Hillman et al. (1994) expanded the model to 



Lindner et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v1i2.39  55 
 

include interactions with technology. Dooley et al. (2005) postulated that maximized learning, 
quality instruction, and learning satisfaction occurs at the intersection of these interactions.  
 
According to Moore (1989) and Hillman et al. (1994), transactional distance, as a threat to 
student learning, could be overcome by maximizing interactions: learner to content, learner to 
instructor, learner to learner, and learner to technology. Dooley et al. (2005) postulated that 
the easiest of interactions to mitigate is learner to content follow by learner to technology. It is 
the social interaction between and among learners and instructors that presents the greatest 
challenge. An individual’s personal competence and motivation to learn at a distance are also 
critical but often overlooked aspect of distance education.  
 
In the case of COVID-19, K-12 students were forced into remoted instruction with no regard for 
their competence or motivation to be taught or learn remotely. Fletcher et al. (2007) 
highlighted that advanced distribution learning systems can facilitate learning for students 
studying remotely and physically separated from the instructor. Wei and Chou (2020) found 
that a learners’ perceptions of self-efficacy in online learning environments effected their 
learning readiness. Learners with a high level of self-efficacy toward online learning performed 
better than those with low levels of self-efficacy. Schoor and Bannert (2011) noted that online 
learners might not be as motivated to complete a learning activity as face-to-face learners.  
 
The use of the term remote instruction is not well-documented in the literature. According to 
research and instruction librarian T. Shipman (personal communication March 25, 2020) “the 
term [remote instruction] has been close to impossible to find in the current context.” One 
example (Maly, et al., 1998) refered to remote instruction as a tool for delivering instruction to 
learners enrolled in courses located in different places. Geyer and Effelsberg (1998) describe 
remote instruction as requiring synchronous interactions. The notion of distance education as a 
delivery strategy was not addressed in either of these articles. Hodges et al. (2020) articulated 
that understanding the difference between remote teaching and distance education was 
necessary to appropriate plan and delivery online learning experiences.  
 
SWOT analysis related to remote instruction and distance education may help decision makers 
plan better beyond the immediate impact of remote instruction during COVID-19. Identifying 
and exploring internal strengths and weakness and external opportunities and threats of 
remote instruction and/or distance education may be key to addressing critical issues such 
administrative support, training, and incentives (Dooley & Murphrey, 2001).  
 
The educational reality of COVID-19 was middle and secondary school agriscience teachers 
went from preparing instructional lessons, supervising agricultural experiences, and preparing 
for spring events in a strictly face-to-face setting, to coping with mandates of school closings 
and calls for remote instruction with no face-to-face interaction allowed. Regardless of teacher 
competence or means to provide remote instruction or understanding of remote instruction, 
the shift was sudden and required.  
Emerging research suggests that Cooperative Extension was capable of responding to the need 
to transform rapidly to online education (Narine & Meier, 2020). Understanding how 



Lindner et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v1i2.39  56 
 

agriscience education teachers respond to immediate transition to remote instruction may 
better prepare schools for future disruptions to face-to-face learning. 
 

Purpose 
 
The purpose of this qualitative study was to explore how middle and secondary school 
agriscience teachers define remote instruction and distance education. The study sought 
further to explore SWOT of remote instruction and distance education in the context of the 
COVID-19 pandemic. The researchers were particularly interested to find if teachers 
differentiated between the term remote instruction and distance education. Two research 
questions guided this study: (a) how did middle and secondary school agriscience teachers 
operationalize the term remote instruction and distance education, and (b)what were middle 
and secondary school agriscience teachers’ perceptions of remote instruction and distance 
education’s SWOT? 
 

Methods 

This research was conducted as a rapid response to COVID-19 and offers a glimpse into the 
reality teachers were making during the pandemic. Data collection began on March 26, 2020 
and ended on April 21, 2020. Data for this research study were collected using an open-ended 
structured interview questionnaire described below (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). Strategies 
proposed by LaDonna, et al. (2018) to enhance rigor when using open-ended questionnaires for 
data collection were followed: (a) the sole focus was the open-ended questions; (b) questions 
were sharply focused on the phenomena of study; (c) data analysis focused on rigorous insights 
of participant responses.  

Participants were asked to provide narrative responses via Qualtrics to questions and were 
provided unlimited space to do so. This facilitated timeliness of data collection and reduced 
subjectivity bias of researchers. Researcher subjectivity (Peshkin, 1988) was a concern in this 
study as the researchers were faculty members teaching courses using distance education and 
remote instruction and a graduate student participating in remoted instruction. Participants 
were able to review their responses to ensure accuracy and completeness. Data were analyzed 
using constant comparisons to identify themes and subthemes that emerged from the data 
(Corbin & Strauss, 2015; Dooley, 2007). Data were reviewed by and reflected on by two of the 
researchers to develop themes and subthemes that emerged from the study. This reflective 
analysis process was iterative in nature to ensure congruence of themes and subthemes and 
contributes to the trustworthiness criteria.  

The questionnaire consisting of conditional questions based on whether participants defined 
remote instruction and distance education differently. For those that did not discern a 
difference they were asked to define remote instruction/distance education as a single inclusive 
term. They were then asked to describe the strengths, weakness, opportunities, and threats 
associated with teaching middle and/or secondary agricultural education using remote 



Lindner et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v1i2.39  57 
 

instruction/distance education. For those that defined the terms differently, participants were 
asked to define each term. They were then asked to describe the strengths, weakness, 
opportunities, and threats associated with teaching secondary agricultural education using 
remote instruction and distance education. Both groups of participants were then asked several 
personal characteristic questions described above.  

During this time, most schools were closed and/or offering remote instruction. A purposive 
sample of seventeen agriscience teachers was selected for this qualitative study. Teachers were 
purposively selected based on their divergent personal characteristics. Participants were 
selected based on geographic location, years of teaching experience, level of instruction 
(middle or secondary), and number of students in program. Participants were from Alabama 
and Georgia and were located geographically from the northern regions, central regions, and 
southern regions. Participants years of experience were characterized as those with less than 
one year of experience; 1-5 years of experience; 6-10 years of experience; 11-15 years of 
experience; and 16-20 years of experience. Participants taught at the middle school level, the 
secondary level, or both middle and secondary levels. Participants indicated that the number of 
students in their program were characterized as: 0-100; 101-200; 201-300; or 301-400. No 
attempts were made to characterize findings based on the divergent characteristics or to 
generalize findings beyond study participants.  
 

Findings 
 
Three teachers (T14, T02, T03) were not currently teaching middle or secondary school 
agriscience curricula using remote instruction or distance education. These teachers also did 
not discern the difference between remote instruction and distance education. Nine teachers 
(T10, T04, T06, T16, T11, T12, T09, T17, and T18) were currently teaching middle or secondary 
school agriscience curricula using remote instruction or distance education. These teachers also 
did not discern the difference between remote instruction and distance education. An 
additional five teachers (T05, T07, T08, T13, and T15) were currently teaching middle or 
secondary school agriscience curricula using remote instruction or distance education. These 
teachers discerned the difference between remote instruction and distance education. Several 
themes emerged from the data: perceptions of remote instruction and distance education; 
internal factors; and external factors. 
 
Perceptions of Remote Instruction and Distance Education 
Teachers, overall, did not agree on whether remote instruction and distance education were 
synonymous. Teachers who did not discern a difference between the two were more likely to 
associate remote instruction and distance education using the term online. In an attempt to 
provide clarity of findings, themes that emerged from teachers who  defined remote instruction 
and distance education the same  are referred to as remote instruction/distance education 
respondents (RIDE); whereas themes that emerged from teachers who discerned a difference 
between the two modes of instruction are referred to as  remote instruction respondent (RI) or 
distance education respondent (DE), respectively.  



Lindner et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v1i2.39  58 
 

 
Examples of how these teachers defined remote instruction and distance education included: 
“continuing to educate from an alternative location than usual, and primarily online” [T04]; 
“online learning opportunities, assignments, and assessments” [T16]; “using online resources to 
instruct students” [T09]; and “continuing educating students as normal as possible, without 
face-to-face instruction, using online resources and tools” [T18]. 
 
Teachers who discerned a difference between the two noted that remote instruction tended to 
be defined primarily as the physical separation of instructor and student. Examples of how 
these teachers defined remote instruction included: “when your [sic] trying to conduct an in 
person class remotely” [T13]; “remote instruction would be live Zoom lectures” [T05]; and 
“distance education is learning for a student who may not always be present in the classroom 
setting” [T07]. Teachers defined distance education to include both physical separation of 
teacher and students as well as separation in time. Examples of how teachers defined distance 
education included: “when a lecturer has provided prerecorded lectures and materials for the 
individual to teach themselves” [T05]; and “virtual learning” [T07]. 
 
Internal Factors  
Strengths and weaknesses were internal factors that schools and teachers had direct control 
over to exploit or minimize. Some trends emerged with respect to teachers’ perceptions of 
internal strengths and weaknesses with respect to how they defined remote instruction and 
distance education. Teachers who did not discern a difference between the two tended to focus 
simply on continuation of instruction.  
 
RIDE Strength  
Strengths included students’ ability to practice and guide their own instruction. “Many students 
already have an SAE [supervised agricultural experience] project to work on at home, and they 
can practice the skills they have already learned in the [AGED] program” [T16]. “Students have 
the ability to work at their own pace or own clock” [T06]. Teachers generally reported that 
remote instruction or distance education was better than nothing. Some teachers; however, 
indicated that there were no strengths associated with this type of education. “None that I can 
see at this point” [T09]. 
 
RIDE Weakness 
Critical internal weaknesses that emerged included technological limitations, and a lack of 
hands-on learning activities. Internet access was partially restrictive, as lack of internet access 
was a genuine concern. “Many of my students do not have internet, and neither did I at first. 
This style of teaching has also taken away from the face-to-face explanations and stories that 
paper just can't portray” [T04]. “Students will miss out on the hands-on learning opportunities 
in the shop/lab setting…These are very hard to replicate remotely” [T16]. “No hands-on 
learning…Lack of internet access or slow speed” [T09]. 
 
 
 



Lindner et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v1i2.39  59 
 

RI Strength 
Teachers provided different views of internal strengths and weakness when they defined 
remote instruction and distance education differently. These teachers noted that strengths of 
remote instruction centered on live instruction and provided teachers greater opportunities to 
use online resources to support instruction. “Remote [instruction] is done in place of regular 
instruction” [T15]. Strengths of remote instruction included: “access to more visual resources” 
[T07]; “the use of a video to demonstrate the inside workings of a piece of equipment” [T08]; 
and “provid[ing] students the opportunity to learn…different topics of agriculture” [T05].  
  
RI Weakness 
Weaknesses focused on lack of face-to-face interaction between teachers and students. “This 
transition is very stressful on everyone and I do not feel that taking their time to have them sit 
through lecture will be beneficial. The students are missing the opportunity to learn hands on 
skills” [T05]. “Lack of immediacy as compared to a face-to-face classroom environment” [T07] 
was a weakness. “Trying to ensure the students truly comprehend the material when you 
cannot give a traditional grade” [T13] was another weakness.  
 
DE Strength 
Strengths of distance education were concentrated around the ability of students to self-pace 
instruction and tailor learning to their educational needs. “[D]istance education provides 
students with the ability to work at their own pace when it is convenient for them. Pre-
provided materials allowed students that may not have internet at home to go to a hot spot, 
download what they needed and returned home to complete their work” [T05]. “[Distance 
education allows] for virtual learning through video classrooms where more immediacy is 
prevalent than remote education through virtual interactions” [T07].  
 
DE Weakness 
Weakness of distance education tended to focus on students’ ability to manage their time 
wisely and work independently. “Distance education requires that the students work on their 
own and submit work in a timely manner” [T05]. Weaknesses of distance education included: 
“time constraints, scheduling, [and] technology access” [T07]; and “face to face interaction is 
lacking” [T13]. 
 
External Factors 
Opportunities and threats pressure schools and teachers to respond to a given situation. Some 
trends emerged with respect to teachers’ perceptions of opportunities and threats with respect 
to how they defined remote instruction and distance education. Teachers who did not discern a 
difference between the two tended to focus on opportunities for engagement with content 
meaningful to the individual student. They also focused on the threat of being able to 
authenticate learning. 
 
RIDE Opportunities 
Participants reported that opportunities that could be exploited included engaging students in 
meaningful learning opportunities. “I think we have had the opportunity to give our students 



Lindner et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v1i2.39  60 
 

assignments we normally would not have time for; “Things [sic] that let them explore and 
create their own projects, tests their skills and limits” [T04]. “This possibly offers the 
opportunities for students to feel more comfortable as they are able to learn in their home 
setting” [T06]. “[S]tudents still have the opportunity to do to learn [sic] or practice the skills 
they have learned in the program” [T16]. According to some teachers [T18 & T17], however, 
opportunities for meaningful learning were minimal without direct face-to-face interactions 
with students. 
 
RIDE Threats 
Participants reported that threats that should be mitigated included student safety and 
security, teacher relationships, and authentication of learning. “A main concern about a 'threat' 
for my students, and all students really, is lack of a positive environment at home” [T04]. 
“Student safety must be considered” [T16]. “Cheating is a huge threat and most high school 
level test questions and answers can be located by a simple google search this greatly threatens 
the likelihood that students will be learning any material at all” [T06]. “The relationships 
between the students and teachers along with parent and industry support” [T09]. 
 
RI Opportunities 
Participants reported that opportunities to support time management skills of students should 
be exploited. “Students are given the opportunity to learn how to be independent and manage 
their time own their own” [T05]. “[RI provides a] chance to expand on material through more 
open discussions” [T07]. 
  
RI Threats 
Participants reported that threats focused on reaching student-to-instructor engagement and 
student-to-technology engagement. A major concern was students with IEPs or are ELLs that 
need additional help. “Also, many students face poverty and do not have internet access at 
home” [T05]. “I feel there isn’t enough monitoring done or available for testing” [T08]. 
Authentication was also a concern here as described in previous sections.  
 
DE Opportunities 
Participants reported that opportunities to support individual progress/self-direction should be 
exploited. Distance education may be a great opportunity for those students that feel other 
classmates cause the class to fall behind. “Distance education provides those students that 
want to excel the ability to do so in a timely manner” [T05]. “[DE provides for ability to] work at 
one’s own pace” [T07]. 
 
DE Threats 
Threats focused primarily on the lack of skill development through experimental learning 
opportunities. Distance education does not provide opportunities for follow-through by 
students. 
 
 



Lindner et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v1i2.39  61 
 

Conclusions, Discussion, and Recommendations 
 
The findings presented a nuanced snapshot of how teachers operationalize the terms remote 
instruction and distance education. It was interesting to note Alabama and Georgia schools 
ubiquitous use of the term remote instruction (a term rarely used in the literature before 
COVID-19 [T. Shipmam, personal communication, March 25, 2020]) instead of the term distance 
education (a term well established in the literature [Moore, 1997]). This implies that those 
calling for remote instruction discerned the distinction between remote instruction as simply 
the separation of teachers and students by space for the purpose of continued instruction 
without regard to appropriate use of delivery strategies. 
 
Findings showed that some teachers differentiated in their definitions of distance education 
and remoted instruction and some teachers did not (RIDE). RIDE teachers who did not define 
the terms differently tended to support the notion that remote instruction and distance 
education was merely a delivery method. Teachers who did define the terms differently tended 
to support the notion that distance education was a delivery strategy and that remote 
instruction was primarily the physical separation of instructor and student. This implies that 
while teachers can provide instruction remotely, lack of teacher competence in distance 
education as a delivery strategy may negatively impact student learning, quality of instruction, 
and learner satisfaction. This was consistent with what Dooley et al. (2005) postulated.  
 
The mechanics (or at least the optics) of providing instruction remotely are much easier and 
visible than ensuring teachers are properly trained to provide quality distance education. For 
example, recording a lecture for remote synchronous or asynchronous viewing and delivering 
the lecture via an internet-connected video conferencing service like Zoom, Skype, Canvas, etc., 
may constitute remote instruction, but it does not necessarily address relationships (as 
described by Moore, 1989) and delivery strategies associated with distance education. While 
the use of video instruction can certainly be a part of distance education, methods for insuring 
interaction and engagement among students, instructors, content, and technology are what 
ensures distance education maximizes learning, quality, and satisfaction.  
 
Recommendation for practice includes expanded training of teachers in appropriate delivery 
strategies for remote instruction. Recommendations for research include studying: how 
teachers attempted to use appropriate distance education delivery strategies during the 
COVID-19 pandemic; and student learning, quality of instruction, and learner satisfaction during 
the COVID-19 pandemic.  
 
Agriscience teachers’ perceptions of SWOTs associated with remote instruction and distance 
education differed based on how they defined those terms. Teachers noted that, given the 
hands-on nature of agriscience education, neither remote instruction nor distance education 
was ideal. Teachers’ positive perceptions of strengths of distance education and/or remote 
instruction should be exploited to ensure continued instruction during COVID-19. These 
strengths included: guided instruction; individualized instruction; self-pace learning; skill 



Lindner et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v1i2.39  62 
 

practice; and availability online resources. Teachers’ negative perceptions of the weaknesses of 
distance education and/or remote instruction should be mitigated. These weaknesses included: 
lack of internet access; lack of hands-on activities; lack of face-to-face interactions; time 
management; and lack of tools to insure comprehension.  
 
Teachers were optimistic that that distance education and/or remote instruction could engage 
students in meaningful learning opportunities. These opportunities may allow students the 
time and space to explore agriscience education content that might not normally be presented 
in a traditional face-to-face course. Opportunities also focused on allowing accelerated learning 
for advanced students. Teachers were concerned how to mitigate threats associated with: 
cheating; skill development; student safety and securing; and lack of student-to-instructor and -
technology engagement.  
 
The challenges wrought by the events of the spring 2020 semester were unprecedented and 
generally teachers were ill-prepared to transition to online education. It appears that few were 
prepared to use distance education delivery strategies for providing instruction remotely. The 
initial hurdle teachers had to address was a physical separation between themselves and 
students. The next hurdle of training teachers to use appropriate delivery strategies lie ahead. 
Our findings are inconsistent with Hodges et al. (2020) whom articulated a difference between 
remote instruction and distance education. More participants did not indicate a difference 
between remote instruction and distance education than indicated a difference.  
 
Additional research and evaluation are needed to understand better the impacts of remote 
instruction on student learning. An understanding of SWOTs associated with remote 
instruction, coupled with additional training, has potential to help agriscience education 
teachers better plan and delivery instruction while meeting student learning needs if future 
events arise that require remote instruction.  
 

References 
 
Cojocariu, V. M., Lazar, I., Nedeff, V., & Lazar, G. (2014). SWOT analysis of e-learning 

educational services from the perspective of their beneficiaries. Procedia-Social and 
Behavioral Sciences, 116(0), 1999-2003. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.510 

 
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (n.d.). https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-

nCoV/index.html  
 
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2014). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for 

developing grounded theory. Sage Publications.  
 
Dooley, K. E. (2007). Viewing agricultural education research through a qualitative lens. Journal 

of Agricultural Educations, 48(4), 32-42. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2007.04032   
 



Lindner et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v1i2.39  63 
 

Dooley, K. E., Lindner, J. R., & Dooley, L. M. (2005). Advanced methods in distance education: 
Applications and practices for educators, administrators and learners. IGI Global. 

 
Dooley, K. E., & Murphrey, T. P. (2001, April 4-7). Administrator, faculty, and support staff 

perceptions of distance education technologies. In Association for International 
Agricultural and Extension Education (AIAEE), 2001 Proceedings of the 17th Annual 
Conference. https://www.aiaee.org/attachments/article/1391/pa14.pdf  

 
Fletcher, J. D., Tobias, S., & Wisher, R. A. (2007). Learning anytime, anywhere: Advanced 

distributed learning and the changing face of education. Educational Researcher, 36(2), 
96–102. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X07300034 

  
Geyer, W., & Effelsberg, W. (1998). The digital lecture board: A teaching and learning tool for 

remote instruction in higher education. In T. Ottmann & I. Tomek (Eds.), Proceedings of 
ED-MEDIA 1998: World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia & 
Telecommunications. 63-69. Association for the Advancement of Computing in 
Education (AACE). https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/24273 

 
Goodstein, L., T. Nolan, and J. W. Pfeiffer. (1993). Applied strategic planning: How to develop a 

plan that really works. McGraw-Hill. 
 
Hillman, D. C., Willis, D. J., & Gunawardena, C. N. (1994). Learner-interface interaction in 

distance education: An extension of contemporary models and strategies for 
practitioners. American Journal of Distance Education, 8(2), 30-42. 

 
Hodges, C., Moore, S., Lockee, B., Trust, T., & Bond, A. (2020, March 27). The difference 

between emergency remote teaching and online learning. EDUCAUSE Review. 
https://er.educause.edu/articles/2020/3/the-difference-between-emergency-remote-
teaching-and-online-learning   

 
LaDonna, K. A., Taylor, T., & Lingard, L.  (2018). Why open-ended survey questions are unlikely 

to support rigorous qualitative insights. Academic Medicine, 93(3), 347-349.  
https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000002088  

 
Maly, K., Overstreet, C. M., González, A., Denbar, M. L., Cutaran, R., & Karunaratne, N. (1998). 

Automated content synthesis for interactive remote instruction. 
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED428695.pdf  

 
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2015). Qualitative research: A guide to design and 

implementation. John Wiley & Sons. 
 
Merriam-Webster. (n.d.-a). Merriam-Webster.com dictionary. Retrieved March 25, 2020, from 

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/remote  
 



Lindner et al.  Advancements in Agricultural Development 
 

https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v1i2.39  64 
 

Merriam-Webster. (n.d.-b). Merriam-Webster.com dictionary. Retrieved March 25, 2020, from 
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/term  

 
Merrow, J. (2003, February 5). Easy grading makes “deep learning” more important. USA Today, 

12A.  
 
Moore, M.G. (1997). Theory of transactional distance. In D. Keegan (Ed.), Theoretical principles 

of distance education. 22-38. Routledge. 
 
Moore, M. G. (1989). Three types of interaction. Taylor & Francis. 
 
Narine, L., & Meier, C. (2020). Responding in a time of crisis: Assessing extension efforts during 

COVID-19. Advancements in Agricultural Development, 1(2), 12-23. 
https://doi.org/10.37433/aad.v1i2.35  

 
Peshkin, A. (1988). In search of subjectivity—One’s own. Educational Researcher, 17(7), 17–21. 

https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X017007017 
 
Schoor, C., & Bannert, M. (2011). Motivation in a computer-supported collaborative learning 

scenario and its impact on learning activities and knowledge acquisition. Learning and 
Instruction, 21(4), 560-573. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2010.11.002  

 
Smith, K. L., & Rayfield, J. (2016). An early historical examination of the educational intent of 

supervised agricultural experiences (saes) and project-based learning in agricultural 
education. Journal of Agricultural Education, 57(2), 146-160. 
https://doi:10.5032/jae.2016.02146    

 
Wei, H-C. & Chou, C. (2020). Online learning performance and satisfaction: do perceptions and 

readiness matter? Distance Education, 41, 1, 48-69. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2020.1724768   

 
 
© 2020 by authors. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of 
the Creative Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). 
 


