While higher education has largely been successful in America with relatively little change and innovation, the new millennium has brought with it a renewed sense of urgency regarding the need for higher education to remake itself. Accrediting bodies, the US Department of Education, and corporate America are all reflecting the public’s demands that higher education become more innovative and accountable. The greatest challenges to innovation are to be found inside our own institutions. (Palmer-Noone, 2002)
INTRODUCTION
New technologies are shaping and reshaping a unique and different educational environment in today’s academic institutions for distance education. The decision to embrace or reject these new and emerging technologies will affect market opportunities for all types of institutions. “Distance education is now often defined as institution-based, formal education where the learning group is separated geographically, and where interactive telecommunications systems are used to connect learners, resources and instructors” (Simonson, Smaldino, Albright, & Zvacek, 2003, p. 7). In higher education, distance education is moving from optional to requisite status for institutions to remain competitive and for the students to be able to complete their courses and degree programs.
As demand increases for this type of educational alternative a variety of challenges for faculty, administration and staff have emerged. Faculty, in particular, have tended to feel the impact and at many institutions they are voicing their concerns. The more effectively an institution understands the factors that are motivating this resistance, the better able they will be to implement strategies to overcome this resistance, to change the way faculty view their role in distance education. An underlying commitment to providing the students with the best possible learning environment is the goal of any distance education program.
The best way to move ahead is to recognize and address the legitimate concerns that faculty are raising. This article presents six potential objections and ways in which administrators and decision makers may help alleviate their concerns before assuming that distance education will transition smoothly from the traditional classroom.
CONCERN 1: IS DISTANCE EDUCATION LIKELY TO DECREASE THE SIZE OF THE FACULTY AND THREATEN JOB SECURITY?
A primary fear of the faculty is that distance education will decrease an institutions need for them. The faculty are one of the primary stakeholders in distance education. According to Rogers’ (1995), “diffusion is the process by which an innovation is communicated through certain channels over time among the members of a social system.” Rogers (1995) defines a social system as “a set of interrelated units that are engaged in joint problem solving to accomplish a goal.” In order for a distance education program to be fully incorporated and effective, the institution must identify the early adopters. The impetus for innovation often comes from individual users of the technology. They grow in number as they communicate to each other the benefits of usage and a body of support begins to emerge. It can, in some instances, be a grass roots effort. When this happens, the chances of selling an innovation to the majority goes up. Once early adopters are identified, they must be included in the planning process and at every stage thereafter. Information must flow freely and willingly throughout the institution. As part of this process, the benefits to faculty, students, and the institution of distance education must be communicated in both verbal and written manner.
The research literature documents many advantages and disadvantages of distance education. Some of the points offered by Berge (1998) are that:
Distance education provides an exciting infrastructure that can be used for course delivery.
The technology being used for distance education is cross-platform. Today’s distance education technology is accessible to nearly any user with a computer and an Internet connection.
Access to the Internet and the university servers is widely available with standard interfaces.
Online education can be flexible, accessible, and convenient for students.
There can often be institutional cost savings and time savings over traditional place-based education.
There are often advantages to the instructor such as ease in updating and revising courses.
Does distance education lead to fewer faculty members or threats to job security? Berge (1998) suggests that existing instructors should be expected to teach the converted courses. He also encourages creation of a position to ease others through the distance education changes as a combination of project manager, salesperson, instructor, and developer. The only people who need to worry about job security are people who remain totally opposed to using technology either in their classrooms or in distance education formats.
CONCERN 2: QUALITY OF DISTANCE EDUCATION
The issue of quality distance education classes is one of critical importance to faculty. Fortunately, many research studies have investigated the quality of distance education compared to traditional face-to-face education.
According to 248 studies that were compiled by Russell (2000), there is no significant difference between distance learning and traditional classroom learning. In other words, distance learning can be considered as effective as face-to-face learning, and our results support this conclusion. (Dean, Stah, Swlwester, & Pear, 2001, p. 252)
Simonson et al. (2003) summarized the results of the research done about distance education.
Distance education is just as effective as traditional education in regard to learner outcomes.
Distance education learners generally have a more favorable attitude toward distance education than do traditional learners, and distance learners feel they learn as well as if they were in a regular classroom.
In another study conducted at East Carolina University, Tucker (2001) concluded that, “distance education is not worse than traditional education. It can be an acceptable alternative because it is just as good as traditional education.”.
To ensure quality, an institution can do one or more of the following: (1) hire and train faculty so that they understand the role of technology in the teaching/learning environment and are able to incorporate it appropriately into their own classrooms, (2) demonstrate an institutional commitment to distance education, and (3) putting into place appropriate assessment measures for goals and outcomes of distance programs.
In Assuring Quality in Distance Education, a report prepared for the Council for Higher Education Accreditation by the Institute for Higher Education Policy (1998) the authors offer the following specific recommendations for assuring quality in distance education:
Establish reliable and valid performance measurements for distance learning;
Require evidence of effective instructional techniques;
Promote systematic efforts for selecting and training faculty;
Require providers to substantiate evidence of contact between faculty and students;
Assure the availability of learning resources;
Promote ongoing monitoring and enhancement of the technology infrastructure of institutions;
Focus attention on the development of courseware and the availability of information; and
Testing should be only done in a proctored situation. This may take place at a campus location or a location approved by the faculty.
To help alleviate faculty concerns about quality, an institution should have the faculty develop procedures for an ongoing review and updating of their courses to ensure consistency with curriculum standards. Have faculty periodically review their classes for currency of content and to ensure that their distance education classes meet the same objectives and include similar content as their tradition face-to-face courses.
CONCERN 3: PROVIDING INTERACTIVITY IN DISTANCE EDUCATION
An additional concern of many faculty members is how to ensure interactivity with students. One of the beneficial parts of face-to-face contact is when there is evidence of interaction between teacher and student, and among the students. By making educational experiences more interactive and meaningful in an online environment, a learning community is created. “Learning communities fosters a greater sense of community among learners, promotes greater retention and achievement for students, and revitalizes the teaching experience for faculty members” (Rasmussen & Skinner, 2001). Faculty must alter both the course design and their teaching strategies to take advantage of distance learning technologies and assure maximum interaction.
Three types of interactions take place in a distance learning class. There is student to instructor interaction, intended to reinforce student learning of course content and to provide feedback to the student. Student to student interaction takes place between two or more students. This level of interaction builds a sense of community among students. Research has demonstrated that this sense of community leads to student satisfaction and retention. The third type of interaction is between the student and the course content. This type of interaction occurs when the student participates in course activities and masters the course content. All of these forms of interaction engage the student in the learning process, which in turn leads to higher levels of learning.
According to Holmberg (1995) one of the key concerns in facilitating distance education is the development of learning communities. Simonson, Smaldino, Albright, and Zvacek (2000) observe: “Personal relations, study pleasure, and empathy between students and those supporting them are central to learning in distance education. Feelings of empathy and belonging promote students’ motivation to learn and influence the learning favorably.” For distance education to succeed, the benefits of the face-to-face learning experience must be synthesized by the creation of a learning community in the online environment.
CONCERN 4: IN DISTANCE EDUCATION, WHO IS COMPLETING THE ASSIGNMENTS?
An additional issue for faculty is who actually completes the work in a distance format. Some guidelines have been offered to help the distance educator:
Use different assignments with each course or section, to avoid “sharing” of prior work completed.
Use plagiarism detection software.
Design the course so that students have frequent discussions and respond to their classmates’ postings. This will help to eliminate the possibility for someone else to pose as another student.
Require students to give clear explanations as they talk about their project assignments.
If faculty members do not know their students, there is always the chance that someone will be sitting in a student’s place, even in the traditional classroom. The key is to know the students, to ask them to interact frequently, and to build from one concept or project to another. It may be easy for someone to “sub” once or twice, but not many people will do the entire course and all its assignments for someone else. To address this issue, the distance education teacher could do the following:
Ask questions or assign projects that build on each other; incorporate real-life experiences and examples from work settings.
Consider telephone contact; use voice-based communication software such as Elluminate. While using voice or video options, ask questions about papers or projects during discussion/presentations that have been submitted previously.
During chats, ask about the process(es) involved in completing assignments. This technique is effective in face-to-face classes as well, especially large ones–if the respondent did not actually do the work, it will be obvious in the reaction to this question.
Assign group projects and at the end ask for a detailed peer evaluation related to aspects such as communication, cooperative learning, and contribution to the project.
In both situations, the key is for the teachers to know the students—whether in the traditional classroom setting or in distance education classes.
CONCERN 5: ASSESSMENT AND TEST-TAKING SECURITY
The unique characteristics of distance education pose challenges to the process of student assessment. Many of the conventional approaches used in face-to-face classes are of limited use in distance education because of security issues. Effective faculty members use a variety of techniques to determine how well and how much their students are learning. Thus, the use of alternative assessment approaches has emerged in distance education. Alternative assessments may include:
Portfolio assessment or performance assessments;
Group projects, discussion boards, and other types of learning activities;
Vary the type of assessment tools utilized;
There are several ways that the testing can be done. One is to mail each student a separate exam. In addition, design tests to incorporate readings, discussions, videos, synchronous chats, and group projects. Some colleges allow students living in that state to come to the campus for exams. In the case of distance education, arrangement can be made for the student to be tested at one of the National College Centers or Educational testing centers that administer the GRE, SAT, or TOFEL to students all around the globe. Students bring two pieces of information as evidence for identification; and
Other formats utilized are to randomize questions, provide time limits for completion of the assessment and offer multiple versions of an exam.
Online courses need to be designed to discourage dishonesty. The course must be designed to clearly define for students what the behavioral expectations are, what the time commitment is that the faculty expect. Clearly spell out for the student what academically inappropriate behavior is and the institutional policy regarding this behavior. Reinforce for the student the relevance of the course material, what is the value to them of learning the material.
CONCERN 6: CREDITS, CLOCK HOURS, AND STUDENT CONTACT REQUIREMENTS
Another common faculty issue is how much time a student spends in the distance class as compared to an equivalent face-to-face class. The amount of time a student spends on course work is primarily dependent upon course design. Distance education classes are not imitations of face-to-face classes but should draw upon the advantages of the technology they utilize to create an intuitive, inviting learning environment. The design of the course should demand that online students spend time in the discussion area. Many online participants in distance education classes report they spend more hours reading, researching, and writing than they would in a face-to-face class. More quality time is spent learning. It is a time to direct your own learning at your own pace, at a convenient time when you feel relaxed and in the solace of your home.
Another important distinction is that traditional classes involve attendance, participation, and use of time, but how much is lecture? How much is interactive? How much is “administrative: with little connection to the course itself? In distance education, lectures are presented and reviewed multiple times by the students. The course also is designed for interaction for every student to participate, not worrying about the “end of class.” You cannot hide; online interaction among students uncovers non-participants, whereas, in face-to-face courses, some students are “observers.” In addition, the total time commitment by students is likely to be much higher in distance education classes than in traditional formats. The quality of time spent in distance learning is likely to be comparable or greater than time spent in campus classrooms.
CONCLUSION
By building co-ownership with the distance education program, faculty will come to understand that good instructional practices are similar whether done in a traditional format or a distance format. This approach to innovative technology will involve the faculty in implementing distance education and invite showcasing of identified best practices among colleagues. Not only will the fears of the faculty be minimized, but acceptance will become more widespread. Eventually, critical mass will be reached and faculty will accept distance education classes as an ongoing and important component of their teaching repertoire.
Regardless of whether an institution is at the height of innovation or a stubborn laggard, technology integration cannot be performed unconsciously, but must be planned, designed, constructed, tested, and evaluated with full awareness of goals and means. Faculty need to believe that they are respected, knowledgeable professionals with expertise and values they express in their professional roles (Thompson, 2003). The ability to manage the transition and embrace this approach determines the success of technology integration for both the individual and the institution.
By incorporating distance education as a significant component in course offerings, institutions will be able to serve the students who live too far away to commute to a college campus, the students who have only been able to dream of college educations in the past. Universities will not have to build more classrooms to accommodate new students. The virtual campus will offer new options for students who have completed part of their degree programs but were interrupted, and will offer flexibility and accessibility to the older students and their various life situations. Distance education may well facilitate a higher percentage of students being able to graduate within a reasonable period of time. Satisfied graduates are more likely to become successful in their chosen career fields and remain connected as alumni and potential donors.
ADVERTISEMENT
About the authors
