While higher education has attempted to react to economic demands for skilled workers by delivering courses in formats convenient for students (i.e., distance education), it is questionable if institutions of higher learning have addressed the impact these demands have had on the internal core of the university—the faculty. Many facets of faculty’s roles have changed as a result of technology and distance education (Baldwin, 1998; Gunawardena, 1992; Strain, 1987; ), but it is questionable if higher education’s infrastructure has provided any impetus for faculty to more fully integrate technology into their courses or participate in distance education (DeSieno, 1995).
The development of distance education technologies has created conditions that require faculty to adapt to a new way of teaching and communicating with their students. In some distance education settings, instructors and students do not have the usual face-to-face contact that exists in traditional classroom settings. Thus, special means must be devised for assigning, guiding, and evaluating students’ work. In order to communicate with students, instructors frequently utilize sophisticated and expensive technological devices which are not under instructors’ exclusive control and often require special technical knowledge that instructors may not fully possess.
Distance education requires not only that faculty learn how to use new technologies, it also requires a paradigm shift in how educators orchestrate the act of learning (Dillon & Walsh, 1992; Hassenplug & Harnish, 1998). As Beaudoin (1990) noted,
The emergence of increasingly student-centered learning activities in the 1970s facilitated by new instructional technology introduced in the 1980s contributing to a dramatic evolution in faculty roles raises fundamental questions within the professorate about how it will contribute to the teaching-learning process in the 1990s and beyond.
In addition to creating new learning strategies that are more student-centered and learning how to use new technologies, faculty teaching distance courses also must develop their course content and determine how it will be deliviered—months prior to the course start date. Planning and preparation must be seen as a front-end activity rather than a formative one that continues throughout the course (Cyrs, 1989; Wolcott, 1993).
Faculty must decide by what means they will deliver courses, define the content, and decide how they will address the content of the course in the time they are allowed.
Thus, given the time and effort that faculty must devote to learning to identify appropriate means of using new technologies and adopting new ways of facilitating learning, the question remains, as faculty roles change, should institutional rewards also change?
The literature reveals that very few institutional rewards exist for the purpose of motivating faculty to teach via distance education. Wolcott (1999); Betts (1998); Clark (1993); Olcott and Wright (1995); Dillon and Walsh (1992); Wagner et al. (1999); Smith, Eddy, Richards and Dixon (2000) all noted the absence of institutional rewards for faculty participation in technology and/or distance education training programs. Survey results from Wolcott (1999) and Betts (1998), both of whom conducted their research at Carnegie I classified institutions provided a means by which faculty could receive credit toward research or scholarship through their participation in distance education. Most faculty surveyed by Betts and Wolcott did not receive additional monetary compensation for developing or teaching distance education courses At best, the most external recognition faculty could hope to have achieved was recognition from a department chair for “carrying their academic load” for the department via distance education.
Betts’ study, conducted at the George Washington University, also measured what factors motivated faculty to participate in distance education. Betts surveyed 8 deans and 993 faculty and received responses from 532 faculty and 7 deans. More than half of the faculty surveyed replied that they did not believe that they should be rewarded any differently for their involvement in distance education (Betts, 1998).
Wolcott (1999) pilot tested a survey of faculty at 45 Carnegie Category I (research) private and public institutions to examine three factors: (1) locus of motivation; (2) institutional values and commitment; and (3) return on investment. The 33 of 46 faculty members who responded included tenure track, research, and clinical faculty who had taught or were teaching a distance education course at the university.
In response to Wolcott’s (1999) questions which attempted to ascertain how faculty measured the return on their investment of deciding to teach distance education courses, faculty tended to be neutral in many of their responses, leaning toward the disagree response scale. The only exception to these neutral to negative responses was one question which addressed the equity of their rewards for teaching via distance education as compared to the rewards (if any) received by their colleagues. Forty-six percent of faculty surveyed said that they agreed that the rewards they received for teaching distance education courses were comparable to compensation other faculty received for the same type of work. Fifteen respondents strongly disagreed with the statement that their distance education teaching had earned them strong recognition from their department chairs, college, or university.
The majority of faculty who responded to Wolcott’s (1999) survey strongly disagreed with the following statements: (1) their participation in distance education earns them credit toward improving their record of research and scholarship (69.7%); (2) compensation for teaching a distance education course is equitable (66.6%); (3) faculty receive equal credit for producing distance education materials (54.6%); (4) the rewards they receive in return for teaching distance education are proportionate to the amount of time and effort they put forth (54.6%); (5) their efforts in distance education earn them informal merit (54%) and (6) their participation in distance education allows them to have a positive impact on their ability to receive tenure or promotion in professorship rank (51.1%). The results from Wolcott’s survey reinforce evidence of a lack of rewards in distance education (Gilcher & Johnstone, 1989).
Wolcott’s (1999) findings also revealed a correlation between type of response and faculty’s academic rank. Assistant professors strongly disagreed that the rewards they received for involvement in distance education were equal to those their colleagues received for classroom education. Assistant professors also disagreed more frequently than their fellow respondents that the rewards for distance education were equal to those rewards given for classroom teaching (67.6%) and equal with respect to the amount of time and energy invested (83.4%).
Associate professors, more often than assistant professors or full professors surveyed, disagreed more strongly that their efforts in distance education had a positive effect on their gaining tenure or advancement in rank. They strongly disagreed that their involvement in distance education earned them formal rewards or recognition (66.7%) or that it had a positive impact on them earning merit increases (55.6%). These two areas of distance education (lack of formal rewards and lack of merit increases), coupled with the lack of distance education’s impact on tenure and promotion, generated more strongly held negative responses by assistant and associate professors. These two groups of faculty also strongly disagreed that their participation in distance education earned them more credit in improving their record of services and earning informal recognition.
When examining the land grant institutions that were included in Wolcott’s (1999) survey, they provided evidence of engaging in alternative delivery methods and reaching students beyond the physical bounds of their campuses. All the universities surveyed included distance education in their mission statements, but their commitment to distance education was not reinforced in their fiscal allocation for distance education programs. When evaluating faculty performance, all institutions that participated in the survey rewarded faculty more highly for their research than for their distance or classroom teaching. However, given the small sample size of Wolcott’s survey, these findings may not be representative of the literature which perceives a lack of equitable rewards for faculty who engage in distance education
The differing levels of support and recognition of distance education faculty between the university and department levels led one faculty member included in Wolcott’s survey to mention that the provost should recognize the value of distance education and reward faculty accordingly. Department chairs cannot run the risk of rewarding their faculty if the provost fails to see the value in this type of education. Thus, the attitude of the administration has a direct bearing on faculty teaching in distance education and this support allows departments to reward their faculty.
Most distance learning programs utilize both full-time and part-time faculty in the delivery of their programs, as few distance learning programs have enough full-time faculty who can devote their entire teaching loads to distance education courses. Some institutions hire practitioners to serve as distance learning mentors who are academically credentialed, but have very little distance learning experience. Although having practitioners serve as course mentors or assistants is accepted, the credibility of the distance learning course still rests on full-time faculty, even if there are small numbers of these faculty who choose to participate in distance education programs (Beau-doin, 1990). Thus, universities find ways in which to reward these faculty, as rewards will enable universities to not only recruit faculty to teach in distance education, but to retain them as well. If faculty are not rewarded or recognized for their contributions to distance education, they may choose to engage in other activities that are more highly valued by the institution, as faculty are cognizant of the risk they may run by participating in distance education.
Background of the Study
This study analyzed faculty responses to the questions “Should community college faculty be rewarded differently for their involvement in distance education?,” “How should faculty be compensated for participating in distance education training?,” and “How should faculty be compensated for developing distance courses?” The population of this study included division chairs and faculty at five campuses of one community college in the Southeastern part of the United States whose teaching loads consisted of (1) distance education courses and classroom courses; (2) solely distance courses; and (3) solely classroom courses. At the time this survey was conducted in the fall of 2001, the total student headcount consisted of 39,138. All division chairs (15) and faculty (572) were surveyed, and 13 division chairs and 167 faculty replied.
The community college where this study was conducted offered courses via distance education using four methods: (1) written correspondence courses through the use of the U.S. Postal Service; (2) Blackboard via the Internet; (3) tele-courses; and (4) audiovisual courses. Telecourses are delivered through the seven cable television systems currently available in the state where the community college operates. The audiovisual courses are provided through an asynchronous learning network. Blackboard version 5 is a comprehensive and flexible e-learning software platform that delivers a course management system, and, with a Level Two or Level Three license, a customizable institution-wide portal and online communities. In addition, a Level Three license includes advanced integration tools and application programming interfaces to seamlessly integrate Blackboard 5 with existing institution systems (http://www.blackboard.com/).
Faculty Characteristics
The divisions in which the 116 “classroom faculty” who responded to the survey taught included a range of seven disciplines from liberal arts to the sciences and social sciences, the 51 multiple delivery faculty who responded to the survey taught across five disciplines, and the “distance-only faculty” who responded reflected three disciplines. The 13 division chairs who responded to the survey represented six disciplines (see Table 1).
Faculty Appointment Status
The vast majority of faculty were hired on a contract basis (85% of “classroom faculty,” 84% of “combination-delivery faculty,” and 100% of “distance-only faculty”). Only a small percentage had received tenure (11% of “combination-delivery faculty” and 5% of “classroom faculty.”
Divisions in which Classroom Faculty Respondents Teach
| Liberal Arts Division | Math, Science, and Engineering | Business and Technologies | Social Sciences | Health Technologies | Visual and Performing Arts | Nursing | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Classroom Faculty Respondents | 32% | 24% | 16.5% | 11.2% | 8% | 6% | 2% |
| Multiple Delivery Faculty | 35% | 18% | 39% | 0% | 6% | 0% | 0% |
| Distance-only Faculty | 43% | 14% | 43% | ||||
| Division Chairs | 15% | 31% | 23% | 15.5% | 8% | 7% |
Faculty Courseloads
“Combination-delivery faculty” who taught both distance and classroom courses appear to have had a heavier teaching load than did their colleagues who only taught classroom courses or those who taught only distance courses. However, any faculty member who teaches via distance education at this community college has to contend with “rolling admission” (a policy which allows students to be admitted to their classes at any point during a semester). Division chairs were required to teach one course each academic year that could be taught either in a traditional classroom setting or via distance. The reader should note a limitation of this study; courseload was calculated by the number of different courses faculty taught, not by the number of sections (see Table 2).
Years of Experience in Distance Education
“Combination-delivery faculty” and “distance-only faculty” had, on average, the same number of years experience in distance education (see Table 3).
Faculty Training in Distance Education
As expected, higher percentages of faculty who taught distance courses had received distance training than did faculty who only taught classroom courses (see Table 4).
Years of Faculty Participation in Distance Education
| Faculty Group | Mean Number of Years Teaching Via Distance Education | Over 10 Years of Experience Teaching Via Distance Education | 6 to 9 Years of Experience Teaching Via Distance Education | 2 to 5 Years of Experience Teaching Via Distance Education |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Combination delivery Faculty | 5 years | 28% | 17% | 33% |
| Distance-only Faculty | 5 years | 44% | 28% | 28% |
Design and Methodology
Survey methodology was deemed the most appropriate means of data collection for this study, as it is meant to serve as a foundation for future data collection at other community colleges. During the fall of 2001, 572 faculty and 15 division chairs at this community college received cover letters that provided an overview of the study and a copy of the survey. Of the 167 faculty who responded, 116 faculty taught only classroom courses; 7 taught distance courses, and 44 taught classroom and distance courses. Eight of the 13 division chairs who responded to this survey had taught a distance course.
The survey was based on Betts’ (1998) instrument. The first section of both surveys addressed demographic questions. Additional questions focused on faculty support, rewards, and the changing role of the faculty member in distance education and how faculty and division chairs perceived distance education as relating to the community college mission. Data analysis included both qualitative (short answer questions), and quantitative (means, standard deviations, frequency distributions and percentages).
Faculty were divided into three categories by the means they used to deliver their classes: (1) “distance-only faculty” refers to faculty who taught courses via distance education (i.e., via the Internet, correspondence, CD-ROM, or a combination of all three delivery systems); (2) “combination-delivery faculty” refers to those faculty who taught traditional classroom courses and distance courses; and (3) “classroom faculty” who taught only traditional face-to-face classroom courses. All classroom faculty, distance faculty, and division chairs were asked to respond to the questions “Should community college faculty be rewarded differently for their involvement in distance education?” “How should faculty be compensated for participating in distance education training?” and “How should faculty be compensated for developing distance courses?”
Results from the question, “Should community college faculty be rewarded differently for their involvement in distance education?” were measured in the means of responses from faculty and division chairs. Means averaging between 1.0 and 2.0 were cited as strongly disagreeing, means averaging between 2.0 and 3.0 were noted as disagreeing, means averaging between 3.0 and 4.0 were neutral, means averaging between 4.0 and 5.0 were noted as agreeing, and means greater than 5.0 were noted as strongly agreeing. Responses to the follow-up question of “If yes, why should they be rewarded, and if no, why shouldn’t they be rewarded?” were coded as qualitative data and are presented in a summary format with actual quotes to illustrate faculty’s actual viewpoints.
In order to respond to the questions “How should faculty be compensated for participating in distance education training?” and “How should faculty be compensated for developing distance courses?” faculty were asked to choose one or all of the following responses: release time, stipend, neither stipend or release time. Answers to these questions were analyzed in terms of percentages by faculty group.
Data Analysis
Table 5 displays the results when all survey respondents were asked if distance faculty should or should not be rewarded differently for their participation in distance education.
Table 6 displays the results when all survey respondents were asked if distance faculty should be rewarded by release time or stipend or not rewarded at all for participating in distance education training.
Table 7 displays the results when all survey respondents were asked if distance faculty should be rewarded by release time or stipend or not rewarded at all for developing distance courses.
Analysis of Faculty Responses to Open-Ended Questions
Classroom faculty who believed that distance faculty should be rewarded differently for participating in distance education based their decision on the extra work involved in distance education (i.e., the time they take to respond to students’ e-mails, training, course design and development, and updating of materials). “Yes, distance faculty should be rewarded differently, based upon how many students they support.” “Based upon the amount of students equals increased work should equal increased pay.” “Distance faculty should be rewarded differently if the in-put for distance courses is more.” “Distance education is more time intensive in many ways— training development, managing the technology and troubleshooting.” Only one faculty member voiced concern over intellectual property rights: “If course development includes development of media (like textbook) faculty should reap some long-term benefit. Especially if sold!”
A large percentage of classroom faculty voiced a concern that all faculty should receive the same rewards regardless of how their courses are delivered. “Course development is course development. It all takes time for new and novel approaches or new courses.” “A course is a course and all have different demands.” “I don’t believe that community college faculty should be rewarded differently as they are both teaching—one isn’t necessarily better or more complicated than the other. Distance faculty should receive comp time.” “Both modes of delivery are difficult to do, so they shouldn’t be rewarded differently.” “People should be rewarded regardless of their approach. Rewards should be based upon results not methods or approach.” “Distance faculty shouldn’t be rewarded differently.
Distance Faculty, Classroom Faculty, and Division Chairs’ Responses to the Question “Should Faculty be Rewarded Differently for their Participation in Distance Education?”
| Different Rewards for Distance Education | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Faculty Type | Yes | No | Not Sure |
| All Distance Faculty | 51% | 37% | 12% |
| Distance Faculty Who Teach | 43% | 43% | 14% |
| Only Distance Courses | |||
| Classroom Faculty | 33% | 45% | 6% |
| Division Chairs | 46% | 39% | |
Distance Faculty, Classroom Faculty, and Division Chairs’ Responses to the Question “How Faculty Should be Rewarded for their Participation in Distance Education Training?”
| Faculty Type | Release Time | Stipend | Neither Stipend nor Release Time | Either Stipend or Release Time | Both Stipend and Release Time |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| All Distance Faculty | 29% | 12% | 18% | 4% | 22% |
| Distance Faculty Who Only Teach Distance Courses | 29% | 0% | 0% | 29% | 14% |
| Classroom Faculty | 27% | 8% | 22% | 1% | 15% |
| Division Chairs | 8% | 8% | 39% | 15% | 15% |
Distance Faculty, Classroom Faculty and Division Chairs’ Responses to the Question “How Faculty Should be Rewarded for Developing Distance Education Courses?”
| Faculty Type | Release Time for Course Development | Stipend for Course Development | Neither Stipend nor Release Time for Course Development | Either Stipend or Release Time for Course Development | Both Stipend and Release Time for Course Development |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| All Distance Faculty | 37% | 12% | 4% | 4% | 39% |
| Distance Faculty Who Only Teach Distance Courses | 14% | 0% | 0% | 14% | 57% |
| Classroom Faculty | 35% | 8% | 10% | 1% | 24% |
| Division Chairs | 39% | 8% | 8% | 15.5% | 31% |
Teaching is a person to person thing, not a person to machine thing.” “Distance faculty shouldn’t be rewarded differently. Just because someone teaches in this environment doesn’t mean they are working harder, doing more, being more effective, etc. than someone teaching in traditional ways and using technology, i.e., power point presentations.”
Other classroom faculty thought that delivery method should not automatically dictate a reward. “Teaching is teaching—different techniques aren’t what we should reward. You should reward for a job well done—not the technical alone.” Some faculty perceived that faculty rewards should continue to be based on how many full-time enrollees (FTE) they produce, regardless of how much time and effort they devote to distance courses. “Much more work is involved and the continued time in interaction is not reflective of FTEs.” Others believed that rewards should be based on the quality of the instruction. “This is a case by case decision—need to know what distance education means, showing videos or detailed interaction with the individual.” One faculty member believed that compensation for distance education should be less than the amount classroom faculty receive. “I think they should be paid less. It’s not nearly as difficult. I don’t get anything for learning new material and developing new courses.”
Classroom faculty who had previously taught via distance cited many of the same reasons as did their colleagues for not participating, mainly the heavy workload involved in delivering distance courses, the lack of rewards, and the absence of intellectual property rights. “I never felt that I was fairly compensated for all the additional work that distance education requires.” “The preparation and workload are extremely demanding. The teacher is responsible for all aspects of the course plus technical and support areas.” “Designing classes is very labor intensive and not properly remunerated at the community college where I presently teach. I receive no compensation for the time spent developing the distance course, yet I do not own the copyright to it.” Classroom faculty also criticized the way in which faculty load is calculated, and a few said that if they taught distance courses, they would generate more teaching credits than they need and therefore would not be paid for them.
Other classroom faculty cited the heavy workload of distance education as the reason why they have not become involved in this delivery method. “Any faculty member involved in distance education must spend endless hours being available to students, some of whom are night owls and expect you to be so too. No extra consideration, appreciation or remediation accords to distance faculty. Their time is abused.”
Distance faculty’s preference for asynchronous or a mix of synchronous and synchronous communication had a direct bearing on their support of release time for training and course development. They justified their need for release time by the increased workload they encounter as a result of teaching via distance. “Distance faculty should be granted release time as distance education is more time consuming to design and deliver.” “Faculty who participate in distance education should be rewarded differently for the time to develop course materials necessary to learn the software and there should be a decrease in class size since distance learning requires more individual attention and contact with each student.” “There are just different forms of education. The time demanded for preparation has to be considered for distance education.” “Faculty should be rewarded for course design and development because of the long learning curve for web design and the time spent developing it.”
Other distance faculty expressed concern about the number of courses and students in each class that constitutes an equitable workload for distance faculty.
“Student cap at twenty and thereafter an overload ratio.” “The intensive nature of one to one intervention with students must be considered in calculating reasonable workloads.” “Classes should be smaller. Distance education is a labor intensive way of teaching -amounts to one to one with many students.” “Yes, distance faculty should receive rewards at certain levels of enrollment.” “The College needs to take into account the number of students in an on-line course and reward accordingly.”
A small percentage of distance faculty agreed with their colleagues who teach classroom courses that faculty who teach classroom courses and those who teach distance courses should receive the same rewards. “Distance faculty should not be rewarded differently as we all have the same teaching load.” “Distance education should be regarded as another method, not better or worse.” “If they keep the teaching load the same for traditional classes, I don’t think faculty should have any special rewards.” “No, distance faculty should not receive different rewards. It’s similar to classroom teaching.”
The majority of faculty who only taught distance courses thought that distance faculty should be rewarded or receive greater compensation. Their rationale was based on their experience of distance education requiring a “longer learning curve at the beginning” and a greater time commitment overall than classroom teaching. Of the seven faculty at the community college whose teaching loads were comprised solely of distance courses, only two did not perceive distance faculty as deserving greater rewards. Distance faculty who expressed a desire for greater rewards defined them as including higher pay, release time, technical support, and greater flexibility in campus office hours. Although when asked what effect greater rewards would have on their participation in distance education, they all agreed that it would have little impact, as they all enjoy teaching in this delivery mode. They all agreed that their community college was committed to providing quality distance education, but some believe this commitment was hindered by lack of state funding.
The majority of division chairs replied that distance faculty should receive some type of reward for their participation in distance education, but should not be rewarded for participating in distance education training. Two division chairs believed that distance faculty should be given a choice of release time or stipend. One chair reasoned that “stipend or release time are incentives for them to learn a new method of instruction.” One chair thought that faculty should be rewarded differently, but only to design distance courses. Another division chair though that faculty should be rewarded differently due to the increased workload and added that a reduced teaching load and release time for development should also be given. Two division chairs explicitly stated that their distance faculty should not receive different rewards. One chair reasoned that both classroom and distance faculty have equal teaching loads while the other claimed that we should not be rewarding faculty but should spend our time trying to recruit faculty who want to teach via distance.”
Distance faculty also believed that quality distance courses should be directly related to compensation. “I believe that the more important issue regarding compensation deals with the quality and student enrollment.” Some distance faculty perceived their loads and roles as educators to be the same as their colleagues who teach in traditional classrooms, and therefore their rewards should be the same as well.
Summary
Faculty who responded to this survey represented a broad range of academic disciplines. However, the researcher cautions the reader to limit generalizations of findings to community colleges that are located in large metropolitan settings and have a small percentage of the faculty who teach distance courses.
Faculty and chairs’ generated differing views in response to the question, “Should their college reward distance faculty differently for their involvement in distance education than for their teaching traditional classroom courses.” Of those faculty and chairs who responded, division chairs narrowly approved of different rewards for distance faculty (46% approved while 39% did not favor different rewards). Classroom faculty were more ardent in their disapproval of different rewards for distance education faculty (45% did not favor different rewards and only 33% supported a different reward system), as they reasoned that distance faculty have the same responsibilities as classroom faculty.
The only classroom faculty who supported different rewards for distance education teaching were those who had previously taught in this type of environment. They supported a different rewards system based on the workload and greater number of students that distance faculty must accommodate. Faculty who exclusively taught distance courses and those who taught a combination of classroom and distance courses were divided over the issue of different rewards. “Distance-only faculty” were evenly divided (43% favored different rewards and 43% did not favor any rewards), while 51% of “combination faculty” favored different rewards and 19% did not. A portion of “distance-only faculty” perceived themselves as having the same responsibilities as their colleagues who taught traditional classroom courses, and did not deem their choice to teach in a different environment as a rationale for different rewards. However, other “distance-only faculty” thought that different rewards were justified by their workload and larger classes.
Division chairs were once again narrowly divided on the issue of faculty rewards for distance education training (39% did not support any type of reward while 46% favored some type of compensation). Of the classroom faculty who responded to this question, 49% were against faculty receiving rewards for distance training and only 33% favored some type of compensation. Both groups of distance faculty overwhelmingly supported some type of compensation for training (66% of combination delivery faculty and 98% of distance-only faculty supported rewards for training).
When the question of compensation for distance course development was posed, all four groups overwhelming supported either release time, stipends, or both (68% classroom, 100% of combination-delivery faculty, 92% of distance-only faculty and 92% of division chairs).
Conclusion
The skills and knowledge that distance faculty must develop in order to deliver distance education courses are quite different from those they learned for classroom instruction. Thus, as faculty’s roles and responsibilities change and as the expectations of faculty change, so too should the reward system respond to that change (Garrett & Weiner, 1999; Harrison & Bergen, 2000). Traditionally, higher education has rewarded professional development with promotion and tenure. Merely expecting faculty to embrace distance education without any rewards linked to promotion and tenure can only discourage faculty participation (Olcott, 1991). The related issues of release time, monetary compensation, teaching load, and available training all shape faculty’s perceptions of distance education and thereby their willingness to engage in it. Thus, institutions must provide the proper support for faculty and enable them to see, through an allocation of resources, that distance education is a priority at their institution (Olcott & Wright, 1995).
Institutions should also institute measures that will ensure high academic standards for distance courses. Faculty who have taught only in traditional classroom settings still have reservations about distance learning, especially in regard to the their perceptions of its required workload and the quality of learning (Freberg, Floyd, & Marr, 1995). Classroom faculty question, from a pedagogical context, the quality of student and faculty interaction, peer relationships that are formed, the role distance education serves within the mission of the college, and how it contributes or detracts from the school’s relationship to the surrounding community (Clark, 1993; Newson, 1999). The role distance education plays in serving the community is especially relevant to the community college.
In addition to the impact distance education has on relationships involving the faculty, the college and the student, classroom faculty also seek evidence of how technology has improved teaching and learning, as many view it as substituting their role as educators (Beaudoin, 1990; Ehrmann, 1999).
Classroom faculty also project that they would miss students’ verbal cues so easily seen and interpreted in a classroom setting (Gunawardena, 1990).
However, while distance education courses are being examined for their content and academic rigor, classroom courses need to be held accountable to these same standards. A dean of distance learning who was interviewed for this study stressed that the professor, course content, and teaching methodologies used for every distance course continue to be assessed. However, he questioned, “So when they say, ‘It’s not as good as’—on what criteria? You’ve got good and bad on campus, you’ve got good and bad distance education. The difference is we know.” Thus, as enrollments of distance education students continue to increase, colleges should establish standards of teaching and learning for distance and classroom courses and hold all accountable to the same criteria.
“WHILE HIGHER EDUCATION HAS ATTEMPTED TO REACT TO ECONOMIC DEMANDS FOR SKILLED WORKERS BY DELIVERING COURSES IN FORMATS CONVENIENT FOR STUDENTS, IT IS QUESTIONABLE IF INSTITUIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION HAVE ADDRESSED THE IMPACT THESE DEMANDS HAVE HAD ON THE INTERNAL CORE OF THE UNIVERSITY—THE FACULTY.”
“THUS, AS ENROLLMENTS OF DISTANCE EDUCATION STUDENTS CONTINUE TO INCREASE, COLLEGES SHOULD ESTABLISH STANDARDS OF TEACHING AND LEARNING FOR DISTANCE AND CLASSROOM COURSES AND HOLD ALL ACCOUNTABLE TO THE SAME CRITERIA.”
—LISA O’QUINN AND MICHAEL CORRY
About the authors
