Online or Face to Face?

: Instructional Strategies
for Improving Learning Outcomes in e-Learning
Anahit Ter-Stepanian, Southern Connecticut State University, CT, USA

Abstract: The author argues that the online environment lends opportunities for development
of critical thinking and creation of a collaborative learning environment not available in the
face-to-face classroom. The author compares student participation, test results, the quality of
writing assignments in art history survey courses she taught online and face to face at the same
university. Not only can critical thinking be encouraged and facilitated by introducing challenging
and intriguing topics in group discussions and blogs, but the specific nature of online commu-
nication provides a unique and positive atmosphere for discussion: anonymity fosters particip-
ation among students who are less fond of public speaking, schedule flexibility means students
can do research before posting to discussion boards, a lack of time constraints means discussions
do not have to end when class is over, visibility of discussion postings to the entire class
means that students can and do learn from their peers, and the variety of available tools means
students can incorporate images, audio/video clips and graphics into their analytical reflections.
This paper summarizes the most effective approaches taken to establishing group discussions
in asynchronous online courses, discusses learner engagement strategies in the e-learning envir-
onment, describes best practices for the optimal use of discussion boards, analyzes learning
outcomes of discussion board assignments compared to in-class essays and writing assignments.

Keywords: Online Instructional Design, Discussion Forums, Art History

INTRODUCTION

W
hile the number of online courses offered by universities grows each year, the
skepticism about the quality of online instruction still remains strong. Many faculty
members voice their concerns about the quality of online teaching (Adams, 2009).
Schwartzman (2006) raises the issue of facultys attitude as to which disciplines
can be taught in the online environment. While some consider the experience very
rewarding (Greco, 2009), there are instructors who feel dissatisfied and prefer not to be involved
in distance teaching (Clift, 2009). Faculty members mention that due to immense pressure
placed on them by the need to develop, design, and deliver online courses, they prefer not to
be involved in teaching online courses (Kirtman, 2009), or at the least are skeptical about dis-
tance learning being an alternative to face-to-face traditional courses (Shin & Lee, 2009).
Kirtman (2009) evaluates the learning outcomes of online courses, compares them with in-
class courses, and concludes that student outcomes are the same across online and traditional
courses. In a study of student perceptions, learning behaviors, and success in online and face-
to-face versions of the same course, Horspool and Lange (2012) indicate that in both learning
environments students felt they had high-quality interaction with the instructor. However, online
students felt that their peer-to-peer communication was limited. The kind of peer interaction
they experienced in the online environment did not compensate for the time traditional students
spend in class. Some study results are more in favor of online teaching, finding that an online

The International Journal of Technology, Knowledge, and Society

Volume 8, Issue 2, 2012, http://techandsoc.com/, ISSN 1832-3669
Common Ground, Anahit Ter-Stepanian, All Rights Reserved, Permissions:
cg-support@commongroundpublishing.com
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY, KNOWLEDGE, AND SOCIETY

course is not only as effective as the face-to-face course, but also fosters students ability for
critical thinking and promotes problem solving skills (Kee, Matthews & Perumalla, 2009).
In this article I am going to argue that online environment lends opportunities not available
in the face-to-face environment, and that students taking a well-designed online course are
more likely to have a better interaction with their peers and learn from their peers. They are
more likely to feel engaged and motivated than their face-to-face peers due to the very nature
of distance education.
Since 2003, I have been involved in online course design, have developed over twenty art
and architectural history online courses, and have taught them successfully at several universities.
Courses range from foundation-level surveys to higher level writing-intensive courses. I would
like to share my experience with online teaching and the strategies I use when designing online
course assignments for improved learning outcomes, peer-to-peer interaction, and knowledge
construction. My inspiration comes from my online students enthusiasm for the subject and
their amazing work.

Course Work
History of Art I and II survey courses at Southern Connecticut State University are part of
foundational requirements for students majoring in art. They are required for students majoring
in studio art and art education. For all other majors, the course can be used as liberal arts
elective. A typical face-to-face classroom is capped at 40 and usually is full. The cap on online
classes was also 40 when first offered in Summer 2009 at Southern Connecticut State University
as the first online art history course. It was also offered in Summer 2010. In 2011, a decision
was made to have smaller online classes and the summer classes were capped at 20. Both online
and face-to-face courses use the same textbook and cover the same material. For both courses
I provide PowerPoint files for each chapter with detailed annotations about each period, artist,
painting, sculpture, architectural building. The only required reading in both courses is the
textbook. In both classes the tests are administered online and are timed. Students may use the
textbook during the tests. Online students have five weekly tests, face to face students have to
take the same tests, but they are scheduled roughly every three weeks. The time allocated for
each test is the same for both formats, 60 minutes for 30 questions. The questions are random-
ized, present a mix of multiple choice, fill in the blank, true/false, short answer types. Generally
students spend around 40 minutes taking the tests. Each test must be taken in one sitting. I
make it very clear that students should read the assigned material and take notes, if necessary,
before opening each test, since the time is not enough to read the chapter while taking the tests.
At the end of each semester I ask all online students to provide anonymous feedback in a special
discussion forum. Students are very honest; they know their feedback will not affect their grade
since it is anonymous. They do not complain about the time limitation, and mention in their
feedback that allocated time is more than enough.
I do not require a term paper in foundational-level survey art history courses. In face-to-face
courses, students have to write one essay during the semester. They also have to make one
presentation on the topic of choice. In online courses, students have to post to the discussion
board every week. Table 1 describes assignments and students workload in art history survey
face-to-face and online courses.
In the face-to-face classes, I use PowerPoint files that contain images of works of art as well
as very detailed textual information about artists, period styles, painting techniques, etc. I post
these files to the course site in the beginning of the semester and encourage students to print
handouts and use them for note taking. This is very convenient since every slide has the basic
information, artists name, the title of the painting or sculpture, year it was made, so the students
do not have to write down this basic information and can concentrate on the analysis and
comparisons. I make these same files available also for my online students, so they have an

42
 TER-STEPANIAN: ONLINE OR FACE TO FACE?

understanding about what discussions I lead when teaching the same course in the face-to-face
environment. I emphasize in the syllabus and the Course Information section that reading the
entire assigned material is crucial for success, and I assume all online students do. Answers to
many of the test questions are not in PowerPoint files, so I can tell if the student read the chapter
or only studied PowerPoint files.

Class Discussions
The main replacement for traditional class discussions in the online environment is the discussion
forum (message board). This is where class interaction takes place and where we see definite
advantages of online discussion forums over the traditional classroom experience. Table 1
contains a list of main activities in face-to-face and online classrooms and a detailed comparison
of class discussions in a face-to-face classroom and the online environment.
A meaningful and in-depth analysis of the topic rather than information sharing is the main
goal of instructional design of discussion board assignments in art history online courses. When
teaching face-to-face courses I dedicate a considerable part of the class time to discussions of
works of art. My goal is to create an environment where students are free to ask questions and
express their ideas. I encourage my students to share their thoughts, opinions, judgments, and
find connections with political, social, and religious conditions of the time. We talk, we argue,
we engage in debates and detailed discussions, we vote, and while doing this we frequently
refer to displayed slides. At first sight it might seem impossible to create the same engaging at-
mosphere of idea-sharing and knowledge construction in an asynchronous online classroom.
However, after many years of experimentation and fine tuning of my art history course assign-
ments I believe I am able to create the same, if not more effective, learning experience.
After designing twenty online art history courses, I came to believe that discussion board
topics may be successfully reworded and turned into engaging and intellectually stimulating
assignments, which allow students to exercise their imagination, sense of humor, show their
creative talent, and, most importantly, trigger their interest in the material and the coursework.
The theory of instructional design supports this observation. According to Kellers model of
motivational design, among the methods for grabbing the learners attention are games and
role playing, humor, and inquiry. Inquiry arousal stimulates curiosity, which can be reached
by posing challenging questions (Keller, 1987). Some of the elements of Kellers model proved
to be effective in art history online courses. Discussion board assignments stimulating active
learning by causing curiosity and intensive inquiry motivate students. Several techniques prove
to be effective, including role playing and modeling of real situations. Slightly modifying the
wording of the assignment and placing students in situations with imaginative scenarios results
in improved learning outcomes. If the topic allows the students to use their imagination and
sense of humor, they are increasingly motivated to write detailed and thorough discussions and
to display their knowledge of the art related aspects of the society and the cultural environment.
Examples of topics included in this article demonstrate some of the approaches I have taken in
designing discussion board assignments.

43
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY, KNOWLEDGE, AND SOCIETY

Table 1: Alignment of Face-to-Face Activities with Online Equivalents

Face to Face Activities Online Activities
Class lecture Students read the textbook, study PowerPoint
lecture files, read the annotations
In the face to face classroom students are When studying at home students spend time
passive listeners. Later they study at home and reading the textbook and other assigned mater-
read the textbook and other assigned materials ials
Timed tests Timed tests
Essay Discussions may be considered an equivalent
of the essay
Students dont have an opportunity to learn Students learn from each other, each students
from their peers research research benefits the entire class
Class Discussions Discussion board assignments
Not every student participates Each student is required to participate by
posting an initial discussion
Discussions dont have to end when class ends,
they start in the beginning of the week and end
Discussions end when class ends when the week is over
Students can return to the same topic and par-
ticipate during the entire week
Students have time to conduct research, post
Students can use only words visual materials to clarify their ideas
In the best case each student participates once. Since the online classroom provides more an-
There are some vocal students who dominate onymity it is easier for every student to express
the classroom and some shy students who thoughts
rarely participate Very strong student-student interaction
Weak student-student interaction Students communicate with each other any
Students informally communicate before and time using the Tea Room
after class Students share their problems and are open
Instructor has very little knowledge of his stu- about their personal situation
dents problems and personal situation
Students are not comfortable talking Students are more comfortable texting than
talking

Knowledge Construction Online and Face-to-Face

The knowledge building role of discussion board postings has been acknowledged in research
on distance learning. Garrison, Anderson, and Archer (2009) describe this category as cognitive
presence. The importance of building online community in a virtual classroom has been em-
phasized in research on online teaching (Paloff & Pratt, 2007). Instructors apply different
methods to build communities in the virtual classroom. Some instructors suggest holding syn-
chronous chat sessions stating that real time dialogue tends to increase the sense of community
(Bailey & Card, 2009), while others prefer asynchronous communication, as it allows time to
evaluate best responses before engaging in classroom discussion (Lyons, 2004).
Distance education is strongly associated with sharing of information and construction of
knowledge through interaction with peers. The theory of Computer Supported Collaborative
Learning (CSCL) examines the problems of co-construction of knowledge. Stahl (2004) suggested
collaboration theory and introduced the term building collaborative knowing to describe
the kind of learning that takes place when a group of learners construct a new degree of under-

44
 TER-STEPANIAN: ONLINE OR FACE TO FACE?

standing about a topic and when this newly gained knowledge cannot be attributed to any one
contributor and is instead a result of participants collaboration and combined effort. In threaded
discussion forums analyzed in this article, however, the contribution of each member of the
learning community is clear and well defined.
Teaching Gothic art can be very challenging. The focus in that period style is on architecture,
the topic involves a lot of new terms, many of which are hard to memorize and tell apart. Stu-
dents need to understand the main structural innovations of the period. In my face-to-face
traditional lectures I show sketches demonstrating the terms, explain what is the function of
each structural element, what is lateral thrust, how to counter effect it, etc. Students get easily
bored and it is hard to excite them with terms and elements of a Gothic cathedral. The more
lively discussions we have in class usually are on the comparison of regional variations of
Gothic architecture, such as French and English cathedrals and their proportions, or Tuscan
interpretations of Gothic forms.
At first sight, the task might seem even more challenging in the online environment. How
can the instructor ensure that the students study the terms, learn how ribbed groin vaulting is
different from regular groin vaulting, or understand benefits of pointed arches compared to
semicircular ones? In the classroom I can repeat the same explanation several times until I know
that everyone is comfortable with these concepts, but in the virtual classroom I have no control
over the learning process itself. And how can the instructor excite online learners? Also, from
many comments of my face-to-face students I know that many students consider architecture
the most boring part of art history survey. There are no stories, no myths, no narrative content!
However, to my great surprise, in student feedback on online courses I often read that the
assignment on Gothic architecture is the favorite one, because it allows students to use their
imagination, be creative, and is fun to work on! Many students mention that they read all
postings by their peers; it is a lot of fun to see what their classmates think about the topic.
The reason for this enthusiasm is in the wording of the discussion board assignment. My
goal in this assignment is to make them learn architectural terms and main elements of the
Gothic cathedral, know the differences between regional styles, mainly between French and
English Gothic structures. To make the students want to research these three variations, as well
as understand the terms, I assign them to choose one cathedral in Europe and plan a dream
wedding in that cathedral. They have to show their knowledge of terms, explain why they chose
that particular cathedral, and compare and contrast it with other cathedrals they considered
when looking for the ideal place to have a wedding. Students are required to use architectural
terminology and provide a brief description of the structures main features and elements in
their posting. They have to compare French and English cathedrals and explain the main innov-
ation of Gothic architecture compared to the Romanesque period. They can choose any format
for the discussion, from a letter to a friend to diary entry or a wedding invitation.
Peer feedback is especially impressive in the forum on Gothic art. Learning management
systems (BlackBoard, Web/CT Vista) used for online courses provide a counter of the number
of views for each posting. Almost every posting is viewed by the entire class, students also post
their comments on their classmates discussions, share ideas, give advices, express their approval
or disapproval of the chosen venue. The entire atmosphere is filled with enthusiasm for Gothic
architecture and for the most romantic European cities to have a wedding. In their anonymous
end-of the-semester feedback on discussion board assignments, students often indicate that this
assignment is their favorite in the entire course. Here is one example of student feedback: I
enjoyed all the postings in this course, they encouraged me to really think about the subject
matter, I also enjoyed being imaginative and making up my own story. My favorite posting
was the wedding post (Summer 2010, History of Art I, Southern Connecticut State University).
It is hard to imagine this kind of enthusiasm for Gothic architecture in a face-to-face classroom.
And, amazingly, many online students mention their fondness of architecture. Here are two
excerpts from two different postings: I enjoyed the architecture a little more than the other

45
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY, KNOWLEDGE, AND SOCIETY

forms of art, but I wouldnt change a thing with our discussions and I really enjoyed all the
posts about the architecture and describing the features. This is a subject I am very interested
in. Im excited to be taking the history of architecture with you in the fall (both Summer 2010,
Southern Connecticut State University, Art History I). It is hard to imagine this kind of peer-
to-peer interaction and such a display of enthusiasm for architecture in a face-to-face classroom.
Reenactment of competitions is another type of discussion board assignments that I use in
my survey courses. One competition that we reenact in the online course, from the section on
Early Renaissance art, is the 1401 competition of the wool merchants guild, Arte di Calimala,
for the bronze doors of the San Giovanni Baptistery in Florence between Filippo Brunelleschi
and Lorenzo Ghiberti. The two artists presented bronze panels depicting the biblical story of
sacrifice of Isaac.
In my face-to-face courses, when covering this material, I have both panels on display and
ask the students to weigh in with their opinions on the two panels. I even take a vote, and
compare the result of the classs vote with the actual jurys historic decision. Almost in every
group I hold this discussion for approximately twenty minutes, during which time we are able
to focus on major characteristic features of the panels. Usually, several students participate
with great enthusiasm, some express their thoughts, while the rest of the class passively listens.
I do not remember teaching this class when all students participated in the discussion.
However, the same analysis of the design features of the two panels is much more effective
in the online environment. I add role playing to this assignment and ask students to act as jurors
of this historic 1401 competition and judge the entries by Filippo Brunelleschi and Lorenzo
Ghiberti. This assignment, which places the students in a historic setting, allows them to engage
in a constructive argument and lively a conversation with their opponents, consider differing
opinions, and convince other jurors to agree with their opinion. When students are assigned
roles, they often engage with extreme originality and interact with their peers in very creative
ways. It is amazing how hard they try! Supporting their views with factual material, they analyze
the two panels and compare their emotional impact, formal qualities, and techniques used by
the two artists. Students seek information in Ghibertis and Antonio Manettis writings, refer
to the Old Testament story, discuss Abrahams feelings, analyze how each of the panels conveys
the story. They also learn to face the opponent, whose opinion might differ from their own.
Students write passionate speeches, often the same students post several times, returning to the
discussion thread and engaging again and again in a debate with their peers.
Role playing may be used in a variety of situations, small group assignments, or be left open
to the entire class to get involved. It is an excellent tool for encouraging student-to-student in-
teraction and creation of a collaborative learning environment in the virtual classroom. In the
online environment role playing can be turned into a very intriguing learning experience. This
type of knowledge construction is almost impossible in a traditional classroom. Once the class
ends all discussions end, whereas in the online classroom discussions do not have to end and
can go on for the entire week.

Informal Peer-to-Peer Interaction

It might seem strange, but the instructor has a better chance of knowing the students in an
online environment than in a traditional classroom. In a more anonymous online environment
students are willing to communicate, whereas in a face-to-face classroom students are more
likely to maintain their privacy. In the beginning of each course my students post an introduction.
I open a forum where I introduce myself by posting a brief biography, and ask everyone to talk
about their interests and expectations from the course. In this forum for introductions students
get to meet each other, share their stories, hobbies, and talk about their families and their career
goals. Distance learning may sometimes cause fear among novice online learners. Students feel
more comfortable if they have a chance to break the ice by having somewhat informal

46
 TER-STEPANIAN: ONLINE OR FACE TO FACE?

communication with classmates and the instructor. I greet each student individually, encourage
student-to-student conversations, focus on students success, try to create a friendly atmosphere.
To decrease student anxiety I emphasize collaboration rather than competition. I also use smileys
and exclamation marks to show that I am also human and have emotions. I am very interested
in students interests, so I ask questions about where they live, what they like to do in their
spare time, if they have pets, what hobbies they have, what is the weather like. I often have
students who live in other countries and continents. This initial introduction also helps me
learn about my students familiarity with art history and understand my audience. Some of the
students may have taken Advanced Placement art history courses in high school or have learned
about the subject as the result of extensive travel. Many students admit that they have enrolled
to gain some knowledge because of their love of art.
I spend more than an hour reading and replying to these introductory postings in each class.
Students too greet each other, try to find topics of mutual interest, from the very beginning I
try to establish positive atmosphere in the classroom. In my face-to-face courses I also ask each
student to introduce himself or herself, but I cannot allocate more than twenty minutes for in-
troductions, and students usually limit the information they provide to their major and the
reason for taking the course. Students do not share personal information in front of the class,
dont communicate with each other, and often do not even know their classmates names.
Peer-to-peer interaction contributes to creation of an engaged learning environment. In every
online class I open a separate discussion forum without any course-related name so that students
feel connected with their peers. I usually call this forum Tea Room. In most classes, students
actively use this forum. In one of my graduate-level classes, a student opened a thread about
his favorite kind of tea, and this topic caused a huge interest. The conversation took place almost
throughout the entire semester. Students were talking about tea! I have minimum presence in
this forum, mainly monitor student postings to make sure they are appropriate. Message ex-
change is between students. This forum replaces the talk that takes place in every classroom
before the class starts and the instructor enters the room, but in contrast with the face-to-face
chat this forum doesnt have to end when class starts. It also has advantages over online chat
rooms because of its asynchronous nature. It doesnt require simultaneous virtual presence of
students to communicate. Students discuss a wide range of issues here, from the prices of used
textbooks on the Internet and availability of textbooks in the campus bookstore to e-mail
problems and problems with opening the lecture notes. Because the conversations are monitored,
many questions requiring my input may be cleared here. If the students find interesting material
on the subject matter they are welcomed to post links, video clips, and other types of information
pertaining to course materials. In art history courses, students get an opportunity to share their
findings related to covered material and often dig up amazing information about art histor-
ical artifacts and discuss their opinions. The scope of information students share in the Tea
room forum is broad from new archaeological findings to auctions of paintings. Students
feel that they are part of the course construction process and take great pride in that. Most
importantly, they come to realize that art history is not limited to the material in the textbook;
it is a developing, living discipline.
Moral support is important in an online classroom. Almost all the students are very supportive
when it comes to posting replies to their peers discussions. In almost ten years of online
teaching I have not seen any cases of insults or distrust among online students. On the contrary,
I have witnessed many cases when students with similar personal problems provide extra-cur-
ricular moral support; this is especially true in classes with predominantly adult learners. As a
result, the sense of community and collaborative environment is created. This type of student-
to-student interaction is not possible in a face-to-face classroom.

47
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY, KNOWLEDGE, AND SOCIETY

Conclusion
Carefully tailored and personalized discussion board topics help to create an engaging learning
environment in the online classroom where students enjoy working on the assignment. Not
only can critical thinking be encouraged and facilitated by introducing challenging and intriguing
topics in group discussions and blogs, but the specific nature of online communication provides
a unique and positive atmosphere for discussion: anonymity fosters participation among students
who are less fond of public speaking; schedule flexibility means students can do research before
posting to discussion boards; lack of time constraints means discussions do not have to end
when class is over; visibility of discussion postings to the entire class means that students can
and do learn from their peers; and the variety of available tools means students can incorporate
images, audio/video clips, and graphics into their analytical reflections.
Maybe the existing skepticism should be about specific instructional strategies, not the online
environment in general.

48
 TER-STEPANIAN: ONLINE OR FACE TO FACE?

REFERENCES
Adams, N., DeVaney, T., & Sawyer, S. (2009). Measuring conditions conducive to knowledge
development in virtual learning environments: Initial development of a model-based
survey. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 8(1), 124.
Bailey, C., & Card, K. (2009). Effective pedagogical practices for online teaching: Perception
of experienced instructors. Internet and Higher Education, 12, 152155.
Brindley, J., Walti, C., & Blaschke, L. (2009). Creating effective collaborative learning groups
in an online environment. International Review of Research in Open and Distance
Learning, 10(3).
Clift, E. (2009). Ill never do it again. Chronicle of Higher Education, 55(38), A33.
Cox, B., & Cox, B. (2008). Developing interpersonal and group dynamics through asynchronous
threaded discussions: The use of discussion board in collaborative learning. Education,
128(4), 553565.
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environ-
ment: Computer-conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education,
2(23), 119.
Greco, G. (2009). Teaching online: 2 perspectives. Chronicle of Higher Education, 55(38)
Horspool, A., & Lange, C. (2012). Applying the scholarship of teaching and learning: student
perceptions, behaviours and success online and face-to-face. Assessment & Evaluation
In Higher Education, 37(1), 7388.
Kee, N., Matthews, S., & Perumalla, C. (2009). Lessons learned from an online human
physiology course. Proceedings of the International Conference on e-Learning,
247254.
Keller, J. M. (1987). Development and use of the ARCS model of instructional design. Journal
of Instructional Development 10(3), 210.
Kirtman, L. (2009). Online versus In-Class Courses: An examination of differences in learning
outcomes. Issues in Teacher Education 18(2), 103116.
Lyons, J. (2004). Teaching U.S. history online: Problems and prospects. History Teacher, 37(4),
447456.
Paloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (2007). Building online learning communities: Effective strategies
for the virtual classroom. 2nd ed. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Schwartzman, Roy. (2006). Virtual group problem solving in the basic communication course:
Lessons for online learning. Journal of Instructional Psychology 33(1), 314.
Shin, M., & Lee, Y. (2009). Changing the landscape of teacher education via online teaching
and learning. Techniques: Connecting Education and Careers 84(1), 3233.
Stahl, G. (2004). Building collaborative knowing: Elements of a social theory of CSCL. In J.-
W. Strijbos, P. Kirschner & R. Martens (Eds.), What we know about CSCL: And
implementing it in higher education (pp. 5386). Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic
Publishers.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Dr. Anahit Ter-Stepanian: Anahit Ter-Stepanian holds a Masters degree in architecture from
Yerevan Polytechnic Institute (Armenia) and a Ph.D. in history and theory of architecture from
Moscow Architectural Institute (Russia). Since 2003, she has been heavily involved in instruc-
tional design of online art and architectural history courses and has designed over twenty online
art history courses for Sacred Heart University (Fairfield, CT), Southern Connecticut State
University (New Haven, CT), Massachusetts College of Art (Boston, MA), Boston Architectural
College (Boston, MA), Albertus Magnus College (New Haven, CT). Dr. Ter-Stepanian contrib-

49
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY, KNOWLEDGE, AND SOCIETY

utes to conferences and has publications on problems of distance education and eLearning. She
specializes in Russian modernism and Armenian architecture.

50
Copyright of International Journal of Technology, Knowledge & Society is the property of
Common Ground Publishing and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or
posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users
may print, download, or email articles for individual use.