Talkabout: Making Distance Matter With Small Groups In .
Talkabout: Making Distance Matterwith Small Groups in Massive ClassesChinmay Kulkarni1, Julia Cambre1,2, Yasmine Kotturi3,Michael S. Bernstein1, Scott Klemmer31Stanford University, 2Coursera Inc., 3UC San Diego{chinmay,jcambre}@cs.stanford.edu, ykotturi@ucsd.edu, msb@cs.stanford.edu, srk@ucsd.eduABSTRACTMassive online classes are global and diverse. How can weharness this diversity to improve engagement and learning?Currently, though enrollments are high, students’ interactions with each other are minimal: most are alone together.This isolation is particularly disappointing given that aglobal community is a major draw of online classes. Thispaper illustrates the potential of leveraging geographicdiversity in massive online classes. We connect studentsfrom around the world through small-group video discussions. Our peer discussion system, Talkabout, has connected over 5,000 students in fourteen online classes. Threestudies with 2,670 students from two classes found thatglobally diverse discussions boost student performance andengagement: the more geographically diverse the discussiongroup, the better the students performed on later quizzes.Through this work, we challenge the view that onlineclasses are useful only when in-person classes are unavailable. Instead, we demonstrate how diverse online classroomscan create benefits that are largely unavailable in a traditional classroom.AUTHOR KEYWORDSOnline education; peer learning; culture; reflectionACM CLASSIFICATION KEYWORDSH.5.3 [Group and Organization Interfaces]: Computersupported cooperative workINTRODUCTIONover 100 countries, bringing together peers with manynationalities and experiences [44]. Instructors often advertise how many countries are represented in the class [5, 30,44]. However, while student diversity has become a callingcard of online education, this potential is currently untapped. Most online students currently see only a glimpse oftheir peers’ global diversity, primarily in text discussionforums. This slow-motion communication is a poor fit forthe open-ended dialogue characteristic of dorm hallwayconversation [28], and can reinforce a one-size-fits-all,broadcast educational approach [34].This paper illustrates the potential of leveraging diversity inonline classes, and introduces the Talkabout environmentand curricula for small, geographically-diverse groups inmassive classes. Talkabout connects students to their globalpeers via guided, synchronous video discussion. Talkaboutfocuses on harnessing geographic diversity, where studentsconnect with peers from other parts of the world. Geographic diversity enables students to access peers with differentcultures [17], levels of income [16], and beliefs aboutlearning [48].Geographically diverse classrooms can improve educationalexperiences, making them deeper and more realistic. Multinational discussions create the opportunity for what onestudent called a ‘mini United Nations’, where studentsexperience first-hand the differing concerns and beliefs ofpeople from different countries.At their best, culturally diverse classrooms leverage students’ different backgrounds to improve learning and fostercultural understanding. When students engage with peersfrom different cultures, they become aware of their ownassumptions and how others have different perspectives[39]. This shifts students from ‘automatic’ thinking to more‘active, effortful, conscious’ thinking, which aids learningand growth [19]. But, while physical classrooms oftenstrive to be diverse, they remain limited by physical geography [31].Massive online courses recruit thousands of students fromPermission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for personal orclassroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed forprofit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation onthe first page. Copyrights for third-party components of this work must be honored. Forall other uses, contact the owner/author(s). Copyright is held by the author/owner(s).CSCW 2015, March 14–18, 2015, Vancouver, BC, Canada.ACM 2675133.2675166Figure 1: Talkabout provides a structured discussion agendaand enables students from around the world to discuss witheach other.
Course TitleRepresentative Discussion topicsCritical Perspectiveson ManagementHow do you define innovation and invention? How do manage them? Are shippingcontainers and labor unions innovations or inventions?Irrational BehaviorHow do you treat money as a relative rather than absolute good? Do you think that it ismore painful to pay with cash than credit? How might issues of fairness vary by culture?Describe your experience in organizations where decisions by organized anarchy occurred. Did they solve anything? How common were they?In your country, which forms of prejudice are the most socially acceptable, and whichones are the least acceptable? Why are some forms more acceptable than others?Organizational AnalysisSocial PsychologyThink AgainSince inductive arguments are defeasible, how can it ever be reasonable to trust them?Are arguments from analogy really different from inferences to the best explanation?Table 1: Excerpts from discussion agendas from one week in different classes. Each question below included moredetailed guidance in the actual discussionTalkabout forms groups of two to nine students from different parts of the world for a video discussion. Discussionprompts ask peers to relate course content to their local andpersonal experiences, encouraging students to reflect onpreviously unexamined assumptions about their own environments, and deepening their learning [33]. To date, morethan 5,000 students from 134 countries have used Talkabout in fourteen online classes via Coursera andOpenEdX. This paper reports results from the first sevencourses and 3,200 students. These classes included SocialPsychology, Organizational Analysis, Behavioral Economics, and Logic and Design. Table 1 shows a sampling oftopics discussed. The median discussion had six studentsfrom five countries.Talkabout’s discussion sessions improved student engagement: students randomly assigned to a Talkabout groupwere significantly more likely to participate in class quizzesthan those placed on a wait-list for future participation(Wald z* 1.96, p 0.03).Geographically diverse discussions yield higher grades andengagement. A controlled experiment in two massive onlineclasses varied the number of countries present in Talkaboutdiscussions. Students in more geographically diverse discussions performed significantly better on subsequentquizzes and exams (t(129) 1.78 and t(110) 2.03, p 0.05).Some argue that online education is only desirable whenface-to-face education is unavailable [15]. This paperillustrates the benefits of inverting this proposition: globaldiversity enables online classrooms to create powerful,previously unavailable educational experiences and newforms of peer education at scale that go “beyond beingthere” [25].RELATED WORKA tremendous benefit of diverse classrooms is that studentsof differing gender, ethnicity, and ability have opportunitiesto interact. When people interact with similar peers, theirshared background leads to automatic thinking. In contrast,interacting with diverse peers often creates a discontinuity[19] that unearths hidden assumptions—yielding moreactive, effortful and conscious thought [9]. This active andeffortful thinking improves academic performance andmakes students more inclusive and democratic [19].Travel, and interacting with geographically diverse people,similarly induces active thinking and reflection [33]. Forinstance, study-abroad programs result in deeper knowledgeand understanding—especially about culture and international affairs—and greater self confidence [4].The benefits of interacting with geographically diversepeers arise from differences in experiences and thinking.Examples of these differing experiences include starkdifferences in population density, income and educationalsystems [56]. People from different parts of the world havedifferent cultural values, reasoning, and preferred learningmethods. For instance, cultures differ in their emphasis ofindividuality versus interdependence [22, 36] and holisticversus analytical thinking [57]. These differences impactcognition. For example, when cultures encourage people toconsider objects in relation with their context, they moreoften apply analogical thinking. By contrast, when peopleconsider objects in isolation, they more often apply categorical rules [57].To maximize the benefits of diversity, prior work emphasizes two factors: the numeric representation of diversegroups (structural diversity); and the number of settingsthat students interact in (experiential diversity) [27]. Ideally, students must meet frequently, and with equal status, insituations where collaboration is necessary and stereotypesare disconfirmed [47], and where differing views are welcomed [23].Informed by this research, Talkabout forms geographicallydiverse discussion groups, and encourages fluid roles andconsensus-based decisions that emphasize equality. Furthermore, Talkabout contributes a curriculum where students can question stereotypes and compare their views totheir peers.
Figure 2: Talkabout discussion timeline: (a) Instructors enter a discussion agenda, and times for the discussion. (b) Studentspick their preferred time. (c) When they log on to Talkabout at their selected time, Talkabout assigns them to a group, andcreates a private hangout. (c) Students show up at their selected time, and enter the discussion.In most current online classes, students’ opportunities fordiscussions with diverse peers are limited to text-basedforums. Such asynchronous text channels inhibit trustformation [49] and open-ended discussion [52]. Synchronous channels, such as video, improve participants’ sense ofbelonging and willingness to collaborate [50]. Channelssuch as video which support multimodal communicationand nonverbal cues are also better suited to ambiguousdiscussions [11] and complex sense-making [13]. For thesereasons, Talkabout leverages synchronous, small-groupvideo discussions to encourage meaningful, open-endeddialogue.Massive scale presents both a formidable challenge and apowerful opportunity for online education. Prior workencouraging unstructured discussion failed to find an improvement in students’ sense of community or academicachievement [8]. More systematically structured approacheshave enjoyed greater success. One example is the use ofrater redundancy and short exercises that create microexpertise in peer review: with this structure, peers canprovide expert-quality assessment and feedback [32], andact as mentors [45]. Talkabout introduces a structuredinteraction and curriculum that leverages diversity.COORDINATING GLOBAL SMALL-GROUP DISCUSSIONThe Talkabout interface guides instructors through settingup their course discussions, and creating a structured dis-cussion agenda for students (Figure 2a). This agenda isdisplayed throughout the discussion (Figure 1).Students choose a discussion time from the published set(Figure 2b), up to a week in advance. As students log in attheir selected time, Talkabout assigns them to groups (instructor can choose group size between 2 and 9). Talkabouthas several policies for group assignment; by default itassigns arriving students to a group until it reaches its sizelimit; then it starts a new group. Other policies, discussedlater, explicitly factor geographic location into group assignment. Discussions occur through the Google Hangoutsplatform for multi-person video and audio chat. For eachgroup, Talkabout creates a discussion session exclusivelyfor the assigned participants. Discussion groups exist onlyfor the duration of the discussion session. If students participate in multiple discussion sessions—even in the samecourse and on the same topic—they are likely to havedifferent partners, because grouping depends on students’arrival order. Consequently, students hear different ideasand experiences each time.During discussions, the Talkabout Hangout applicationshows the instructor’s discussion agenda on the left and thevideo chat on the right. An agenda typically includes suggested discussion topics or activities (Figure 1, Figure 4).ASSIGNMENT BY ARRIVAL YIELDS DIVERSE GROUPSTo quantify the geographic diversity in discussions, weaggregate countries into eight geographical regions, andFigure 3: Across classes (a) Students from many countries participate in each six-person discussion (b) These students aren't justfrom neighboring countries, they are globally distributed.
count the number of regions in each discussion. Five regions are from the World Bank’s classification [18]: Eastern Europe and Central Asia (primarily the former Sovietbloc), East Asia and Pacific (mainly China, Japan, Korea,and South-east Asia), South Asia (mainly the Indian subcontinent), Latin America and the Caribbean (Americasexcept the US and Canada), Middle East and North Africa,and Sub-Saharan Africa. The World Bank only classifiesmiddle- and low-income countries, so we added three otherregions: North America (US and Canada), Western Europe,and South Pacific (primarily Australia and Polynesia).Across seven classes and the first 3,200 participants, allocating six-person groups by arrival order yielded discussions with a median of four global regions (Figure 3b), anda median of five countries (Figure 3a). The median pairwise distance between discussants was approx. 6,600km(4,100 mi): more than the distance between New York andLondon.STRUCTURING TALKABOUT DISCUSSIONSOur early experiences with Talkabout, as well as priorwork, suggest that it is critical to co-design curricularstrategies with educational interaction design. In particular,scripts for discussion have a major impact on student engagement and learning [42]. Talkabout succeeds best whendiscussions create opportunities to highlight students’diverse experiences. Based on prior work, we developedthree strategies to create discussion scripts or agendas, andrefined them through deployments in seven massive classes.Figure 4 shows these strategies embodied in an excerptfrom an Irrational Behavior agenda (the complete agenda isin Supplementary Materials). We discuss each strategy inturn.Create opportunities for self-referenceto a Jew [referring to himself]”, showing her a differentviewpoint. He added, “I told her about the prejudice fromChristians I experienced growing up in [US state] in the40's and the effect of segregation on blacks,” reflecting onhis own experience.Students may see different self-referential frames withdifferent groups. For instance, even though Social Psychology had only one Talkabout discussion (with multipleslots), 454 out of 2,553 participants in the Social Psychology class voluntarily attended multiple timeslots.Highlight viewpoint differences using boundary objectsTalkabout prompts aim to make the differences betweenstudents’ perspectives salient. This encourages additionalself-reference and re-evaluation of previously held theories,which in turn leads to deeper understanding [20].To highlight differences, Talkabout discussion agendas callout boundary objects across geographical contexts. Boundary objects are objects or concepts that maintain their integrity across communities, and yet can be interpreted differently in different communities [53]. Everyday concepts, suchas governments, companies/organizations or current eventscan serve as boundary objects. For instance, one studentnoted how discussing a ‘recent event’ yielded new perspective: “we were joined by [a] Syrian. She provided insight of the situation in Syria and how the media isexaggerating it and how the society was quite liberal onIslamic practices (such as wearing the hijab).”Leverage students as elaborators and mediatorsWhen a prompt says less, students sometimes say more.Rather than reviewing every relevant concept, Talkaboutdiscussion agendas reference concepts from class withoutany reminders of what they mean. These underspecifiedreferences lead students who have learned these concepts toelaborate, and to act as mediators with students who wouldSelf-reference, when students actively relate class content totheir own experiences and perspectives, increases conceptelaboration, memory organization,Are you irrational?and knowledge retention [54]. Talkabout agendas that employ selfAre your parents? Friends? Enemies? Frenemies? Whatreference ask students to share percases can you think of where the people around yousonal examples that embody classexhibit some of the irrational tendencies that Danconcepts. Self-reference is especiallydescribes in his lectures?effective when students feel safe inDecision Illusions.discussing personal experiences.Talkabout groups are small by designWhat “decision illusions” do you see in the real world?to encourage self-disclosure [40]. AsDo any current events come to mind where decisioneach person shares with the group, itmakers have been influenced by their environments?encourages peers to likewise discloseSubtle Influences.[29].The globally distributed nature ofdiscussions amplifies the benefits ofsharing self-referential frames. Aftera discussion on prejudice in SocialPsychology, one student wrote, “Ithink this may have been the first timethe lady from Saudi Arabia had spokenWhat subtle influences in the consumer environmentmight have an effect on your purchases? What couldyou do to counteract these influences, or push yourbehavior in the desired direction? Create opportunities for selfreferenceRefer to classconcepts,butdon’t elaborate.Students act asmediators.Use boundaryobjects to facilitate comparisonFigure 4: Excerpt from discussion agenda in an Irrational Behavior discussion, showing examples of discussion-structuring strategies (highlighted)
have otherwise not understood them. This is similar tohighly effective offline strategies like jigsaw classrooms,which also rely on peer-mediated learning and contact withdissimilar peers [2].Creating opportunities for mediation also encourages students to ask about other class concepts they haven’t understood. For instance, the Organizational Analysis class used“white flight” (a large-scale migration of white Americansto suburbs in the 1950s) as an example of an organizationalproblem faced by cities. In one Talkabout discussion session, we observed an American student translate the keyideas in this example to a European classmate by making ananalogy to intra-European migration.THE ANATOMY OF A TALKABOUT DISCUSSIONWhat is the nature of a Talkabout discussion session? Weobserved and recorded twelve Talkabout discussion sessions in Organizational Analysis. An abridged transcriptfrom an Organizational Analysis class is in SupplementaryMaterials. Talkabout discussion sessions followed a patternwith clear roles and norms.Discussions follow a distinct conversational patternTalkabout discussion sessions usually began with introductions. Since none of the participants knew each other,introductions were fairly formal and detailed. Participantstypically shared their first name, their country of residence,and a brief description of their job. Because some participants arrived late to their session, this introduction phasewas often repeated.During these introductions, an informal moderator usuallyemerged. Moderators often had experience with videoconferencing and a high-bandwidth connection. Theyexhibited leadership behaviors such as asking participantsto introduce themselves, or even explicitly asking to moderate the conversation (e.g. “Shall I lead the conversation?”)After introductions, the informal moderator drew thegroup’s attention to the instructor-provided discussionagenda. Even though agendas sometimes suggested a particular discussion order, participants did not follow it exactly. Instead, they would interpret the agenda for the majortheme it embodied, and negotiate what they discussed first.Once students finished discussing a particular prompt, theyreturned to the agenda to decide the next topic.While Talkabout discussion sessions were designed to last30 minutes, the median length of the discussion was 58minutes (Figure 5). With these longer discussions, studentsdiscussed topics that were marked optional, or chose todiscuss two topics when the agenda asked only one etc.Many groups also spoke about the class in general after theassigned topics. Conversations typically ended soon afterthe informal moderator (or a talkative speaker) left thediscussion, or when no one in the group suggested a topic todiscuss next. As they left, participants often shared howthey enjoyed talking to the group, or taking the class. Moderators sometimes encouraged the group to stay in touchafter the discussion (e.g. “With the other hangouts, we alladded each other on LinkedIn I’ve already added [name].If you’d like, feel free to add me.”)Speakers and SpectatorsStudents seemed to decide early on whether they primarilywanted to speak during the discussion (“speakers”), orlisten to the discussion (“spectators”). Spectators oftensignaled their intent by muting their microphones (thisshowed a “mic muted” icon to others in the discussion).Speakers tended to be native English speakers or havefaster Internet connections. Their discussion was conversational, with overlapping turns similar to face-to-face conversation. Spectators spoke less frequently with longer nonoverlapping turns, but were not passive participants. Whenspectators had trouble finding the right words (e.g., if theywere non-native speakers), speakers often suggested words,or encouraged them to continue.Participants with low-bandwidth connections generallyassumed the spectator role and often used the text chatfeature in the Google Hangout to “speak” in the discussion.Speakers (usually the moderator) would notice the text, andspeak it aloud to the other participants. Both speakers andspectators used text-chat to demonstrate active listeningwithout interrupting the speaker via audio (for example, astudent wrote, “Working in [company] must be really cool.Thanks for sharing :)”).A shared video channel forces a single conversation. Still,students sometimes used text-chat as a way for nondiscussion related talk, such as exchanging contact information or LinkedIn profiles.Figure 5: Across classes, students participated in discussions much longer than instructions indicated. The solidred line is the recommended duration for discussion (30min), the dashed line is the median discussion time (58min).STUDY 1: DO DISCUSSIONS HELP PERFORMANCE?It is not obvious that the benefits of peer discussions [6, 46]would transfer to an online environment. In these environments, peers have vastly different backgrounds and no priorinteraction with each other. Therefore, our first study
measures the benefits of participation in online discussions.Later experiments measure how these benefits vary withgeographic diversity in discussion groups.With many educational practices, it is difficult to draw acausal link between participation and student learning. Forinstance, students may self-select to participate. To combatthis bias, we use a control condition in which interestedstudents are actively prevented from discussing. Furthermore, we use an intention-to-treat analysis that recognizesthat some students will not participate, even when given theopportunity. Therefore, this analysis asks: after controllingfor students that don’t discuss given an opportunity, arediscussions effective? Such analysis is common in clinicaltrials, where patients that are randomly assigned to a treatment group are included in the analysis even if they do nottake their medication. Because intention-to-treat analysestake non-compliance into account, they result in conservative estimates of a drug’s effectiveness.Method: wait-list controlIn a between-subjects experiment, we randomly assignedstudents in the Organizational Analysis class on Coursera toeither a Discussion condition, or to a Wait-list condition.This assignment occurred when they signed up for a discussion time on Talkabout, after consenting to participate inthe study.Students in the Discussion condition were allowed to participate in discussions starting in Week 1, while those on thewait-list were not allowed to participate in discussions untilWeek 5. This setup results in two discussion opportunities(Week 1 and Week 3) where a subset of students was prevented from participating. Even though some participants inthe Discussion condition did not attend discussion, theywere included in the intention-to-treat analysis.Hypotheses and MeasuresWe hypothesized that participating in a Talkabout discussion session would motivate students to engage with othercourse components. Prior work similarly finds that discussions motivate students to engage with in-person classes[6]. To measure engagement, we check whether the studentparticipated in the course quiz due the day after discussion.Recall that participation in MOOCs is entirely voluntary,and several classes have battled with attrition [24]. Quizzesare a high-effort activity that most MOOC learners don’tparticipate in: only 22.8% of students who watched a lecture video also participated in a quiz. This makes quizzessuitable as a high-effort engagement measure [8, 55].We further hypothesized that students in the Discussioncondition would do better on the quiz, aided by the selfreference, reflection and revision of class concepts.benefited from discussions. Of those in the discussioncondition, 397 attended a discussion.Results: Discussion increasesmarginally improves gradesclassparticipation,Students in the Discussion condition were more likely totake the quiz. A logistic regression indicated that odds oftaking the quiz were 1.46 times higher for the Discussioncondition (Wald z* 1.97, p 0.05). Students in the Discussion condition also did marginally better on the quiz(t(1122) 1.89, p 0.06)1. The average improvement was16.7%.Thus, even accounting for students who do not followthrough, discussions help students stay engaged in thecourse and perform better on related assessments.While Talkabout participation improves engagement, thiseffect seems short-lived. Students who participate in aTalkabout one week are not more likely to participate in thequiz the following week: Wald z* 1.61, p 0.10. We alsofound no significant improvement in quiz scores for thequiz due the following week.Would participating in multiple Talkabout discussionsessions improve these short-term benefits? As is typicalwith online classes, many students shopped the first weeks,and only 113 students in the discussion condition attendedthe second discussion (397 attended the first week). Therefore, our intention-to-treat analysis lacks the statisticalpower to capture any benefits of participating in multiplediscussions. Also, while the wait-list design can control forintent to participate, students who actually participate indiscussions may still differ from those who don’t (e.g. theycould be more motivated). An intention-to-treat analysisestimates effects by assuming participants’ distribution(e.g., for motivation) are similar in the wait-list and treatment groups due to randomized assignment, but this experiment does not verify this assumption.The results of this study suggest that performance on classquizzes may improve even with limited participation, andthat discussions improve student engagement. Do theseeffects depend on the participants in the discussion? Givenour hypothesis that geographic diversity should help learning, our next study investigates the effect of discussants’geographic diversity on course performance.STUDY 2: DOES DIVERSITY HELP PERFORMANCE?Study 1 established that participating in Talkabout discussions improves class engagement. Is geographic diversitycausing this effect? In a second, between-subjects experiment, Talkabout’s group-assignment algorithm randomlyassigned students either to a single-region group or a multiregion group. Participants regions were determined by theParticipantsOverall, 1,002 students were assigned to the Discussioncondition, and 122 to the Wait-list condition. We used anunbalanced design to maximize the number of students who1While only marginally significant (p 0.10), we include thisresult because it is suggests opportunities for future work.
five World Bank regions, as well as three regions to captureNorth America, Western Europe and the South Pacific. TheSame-region condition grouped students with others fromtheir region. The Multi-region condition grouped studentsfrom anywhere in the world. We discarded data from theSouth Pacific region because it had few participants.ualistic culture [17], organizational attitudes such as interpersonal dependence and criteria for fulfillment [51], economic development [16] and life expectancy [37]. Whileeach country is diverse, within-country differences aresmaller than between-country differences [17], making thisby-country analysis feasible.Participants and setupWe compared countries of participating students on threedimensions: cultural values, income, and pupil-teacherratios in primary school. As a measure of cultural values,we used the mean overall secular values for each countryfrom the World Values Survey [59]. Countries with lowerscores have societies that emphasize religion, traditionalfamily values, and collectivistic thinking. The average pairwise difference between participants’ countries on theoverall secular values scale was lower in the same-regioncondition than in the multi-region condition, WilcoxonW 407.5, p 0.05 (same-region mean: 0.022, equivalent tothe difference between the US and Romania, multi-regionmean: 0.031, equivalent difference: US and Thailand).55 students in the Organizational Analysis class participated. When students
count the number of regions in each discussion. Five re-gions are from the World Bank’s classification [18]: East- ern Europe and Central Asia (primarily the former Soviet bloc), East Asia and Pacific (mainly China, Japan, Korea, and South-east Asia), South Asia (mainly the Indian sub-
2:1 Matter and Energy MATTER: anything that has mass and takes up space Three States (phases) of Matter 1. SOLID: matter with definite volume and shape 2. LIQUID: matter with definite volume but no definite shape 3. GAS: matter with no definite volume nor shape How does Matter Change? PHYSICAL CHANGE: c
Sight Distance 4.1 INTRODUCTION Sight distance is the length of roadway visible to a driver. The three types of sight distance common in roadway design are intersection sight distance, stopping sight distance, and passing sight distance.
1-6 Midpoint and Distance in the Coordinate Plane Check It Out! Example 4a Use the Distance Formula and the Pythagorean Theorem to find the distance, to the nearest tenth, from R to S. R(3, 2) and S(-3, -1) Method 1 Use the Distance Formula. Substitute the values for the coordinates of R and S into the Distance Formula.
5.3 Properties of Matter Our goals for learning: What is the structure of matter? What are the phases of matter? How is energy stored in atoms? What is the structure of matter? What do they consist of? What is the structure of matter? Cut matter (e.g., tofu, but any
‘distance’ paradox in so-called distance learning environments. The Distance Education Paradox and the Internet A definition for distance education The main defining feature of distance education is the separation of teacher and learner, usually in both time and space (Holmberg, 19
actual distance drawing distance drawing actual EXAMPLE 1 Finding an Actual Distance What is the actual distance d between Cadillac and Detroit? Step 1: Use a centimeter ruler to fi nd the distance on the map between Cadillac and Detroit. The map distance is about 3.5 centimeters. Step 2: Use the scale to write and solve a proportion. 1 cm .
Working Distance and Field of View . The two main variables involved when discussing a camera's lens choice are the . Working Distance. and the . Field of View. size. The Working Distance, or WD, is the distance from the camera to the target object. In the case of this collection of lens charts, the Working Distance is measured from the front .
Auditing and Assurance Services, 15e, Global Edition (Arens) Chapter 2 The Audit Standards’ Setting Process Learning Objective 2-1 1) The legal right to perform audits is granted to a CPA firm by regulation of: A) each state. B) the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB). C) the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA). D) the Audit Standards Board. Answer: A Terms .
