The purpose of this study was to gain an understanding of administrator attitudes and perceptions relative to distance education and how this effects the administrator's support of distance education. Five major conclusions emerged: (1) Attitudes varied significantly among levels of administrators; (2) Peers and personal experiences influence attitudes; (3) Attitudinal differences not explained by any single variable; (4) Administrators, regardless of attitude, believe distance education training for faculty is both necessary and insufficient; and (5) A positive relationship exists between attitude toward and willingness to support distance education in the future.
Introduction
There is increasing pressure from higher education constituencies to develop more innovative and flexible learning environments to meet the needs of a rapidly expanding and diverse student population (Fried, 1997). Higher education administrators are faced with a multitude of issues that dramatically affect the landscape of higher education. In this era of intense accountability, tight fiscal resources, and fierce competition, college administrators are searching for appropriate and effective methods of delivering educational programs (Fried, 1997; Sherritt, 1996; Speck, 1996; Talley, 1997).
Advances in information technology have created new possibilities for innovative and flexible learning across the boundaries of time and place. These advances in technology are creating new forms of electronic, interactive education that allow people to learn almost anything from anywhere at anytime, thus creating opportunities for lifelong learning (Heinich, Molenda, Russell, & Smaldino, 1999).
Purpose
Currently, changes are occurring rapidly with little time to develop or analyze the trends in higher education. Because of expanding technology, decreased resources, and increased demands, changing “the teaching-learning functions of colleges and universities are difficult” (Lindquist, 1978, p. 16).
Literature Review
Historically, distance education has been defined as a process whereby place and/or time separate the student and instructor; thus the student learns independent of contact with the instructor and, often, other students. For example, learners have been able to participate in guided independent study through correspondence courses via the mail system for close to a century. With this process learners received printed materials, completed written assignments, and received feedback from the remote instructor (Hirschbuhl & Bishop, 1996).
Today, distance learning has become the popular term used to describe learning using telecommunications. Instruction relies on two-way communication of an organized education program through printed materials and electronically transmitted programming (Holmberg, 1986; Keegan, 1983; Sewert, 1982; Wagner, 1988). The term telecommunications refers to a wide variety of media configurations, including radio, telephone, television (broadcast, wired, and satellite), and computers. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education defines distance education as institutionally-based, formal education, where the learning group is separated and where interactive technologies are used to unite the learning group.
Moore and Kearsley (1996) defined distance learning and education as “planned learning that normally occurs in a different place from teaching” (p. 2). These authors believe that distance learning requires special: (a) techniques of course design; (b) instructional techniques; (c) methods of communication by electronic and other technology; and (d) organizational and administrative arrangements (Moore & Kearsley, 1996). One of the greatest advantages offered by modern information technologies is the ability to teach without the presence of an instructor. This technology allows for “time-shifting” instruc-tion--experiencing instruction at some other time after the live lesson—and “place-shift-ing” instruction—experiencing instruction at some place away from the teacher (Heinich, et al., 1999, p. 284).
With the proliferation of newer technologies, it is possible to experience place-shifted instruction with a wide variety of auditory and visual stimuli, more rapidly, with a deeper range of interaction. This interaction is not only with the instructor, but also with other learners at other sites. Hirschbuhl and Bishop (1996) stress the importance of the two kinds of interaction with regard to learning. Within a technology-driven distance learning environment, a student interacts with the content as well as with others about the content. “Both types of interaction are important for efficient, effective, and affective learning” (Hirschbuhl & Bishop, 1996, p. 202).
Although the utilization of distance education has increased in higher education institutions in the past two decades (Dillon, 1988; Dillon & Harwell, 1991; Self, 1983), the rate of increase has been slow (Carl, 1986; Gunawardena, 1990; Heinich, 1984, 1985; McNeil, 1990; Rogers & Kincaid, 1981; Widner, 1986). Available research offers little explanation for the slow rate of increase, and the low overall use of distance education in higher education.
In distance learning literature, researchers have given considerable attention to investigations focusing on the students or learners involved in the distance education process. For example, numerous studies have evaluated tele-education in terms of student performance (Delbeq & Scates, 1989; DeLoughry, 1988; Moore & Kearsley, 1996; Reid, 1995; Souder, 1993; Stone, 1987, 1988). In most of these studies, the achievement of students taking tele-courses at remote sites is compared to the achievement of similar groups of students taking the same courses in a traditional face-to-face classroom. As a whole, this body of research shows that students taking televised courses at remote sites perform as well as, and in some cases better than their traditionally taught counterparts (Cohen, Ebeling, & Kulik, 1981; Reid, 1995).
There have been several studies citing the importance of faculty attitude in distance learning literature (Dillon, 1989; Moore & Thompson, 1990; Walsh, 1993). The success or failure of distance learning efforts at an institution depends, at least in part, on the attitudes and perceptions of those who will be using the distance systems (Gunawardena, 1990; McNeil, 1990).
Research on student and teacher perceptions of distance education indicates a general acceptance of programs in which they have participated (Lyons, MacBrayne, & Johnson, 1993-1994). Faculty surveyed during this study indicated a positive attitude toward increased access for students, the opportunity to develop courses utilizing the technology, and the availability of videotapes for review by students. The faculty did voice concern on the need to improve interactions with the students as well as dealing with various logistics problems with the technology (Lyons, MacBrayne, & Johnson, 1993-1994).
Miller and Clouse (1993-1994) looked at distance education programs offered by five corporations and five universities to examine linkages between teachers, students, technology, and administration. The managers/administrators in both higher education and business felt that distance education is cost-effective in the areas of access, productivity, and quality. Another interesting aspect was from an organizational level. Higher education tends to centralize administratively, but decentralizes operationally, while programs in businesses were centralized (Miller & Clouse, 1993-1994).
Little information about administrator attitudes and perceptions can be found in the distance education literature, though researchers have recognized the need to understand and explore their importance (Dillon & Walsh, 1992; Gunawardena, 1990; McNeil, 1990). Limited information about administrators who support distance education programs/courses at their institution contributes to a low understanding of educational diffusion. As Pellegrin (1975) states, “educators are seriously handicapped by the lack of managerial technologies that might provide assistance in the innovation process” (p. 29). Literature in educational innovation provides little practical help for those who plan and implement change in education.
Distance education has been proven to be as effective as traditional instruction though the rate of increase has been incremental at best (Carl, 1986; Heinich, et al., 1999; McNeil, 1990; Rogers & Kincaid, 1981; Widner, 1986). This slow rate of increase usage has frequently been attributed to faculty resistance to instructional technology (Gunawardena, 1990; McNeil, 1990). Other reasons that have been cited include additional workload, lack of time, reduced student interaction, and technical and administrative problems (Clark, Soliman, & Sungaila, 1985; McNeil, 1990; Sherritt, 1996).
The purpose of this research study was to address the following question: Is there a relationship between the attitudes and perceptions of lower-, mid- and upper-level higher education academic administrators in the Southeast region of the United States and their support of distance learning? More specifically, the article will explore three questions: What are the prevalent administrator attitudes and perceptions toward distance learning? What is the relationship between the degree of exposure to distance education and attitudes and perceptions toward distance education? And does the relationship between administrator attitudes and perceptions toward distance education affect the willingness to support distance education courses and programs?
Methodology
Population and Sample
The population for this study was lower-, middle- and upper-level higher education academic administrators in the Southeast region of the United States. Levels of administrators were defined as: lower level, (heads and chairs of departments or schools); middle level (deans and chairs of divisions or colleges); and upper level (chief academic officers, provosts and associate or assistant provosts). Specifically, the population was drawn from lower-, middle- and upper-level administrators from nine universities which offered a diverse mix of institutional size and characteristics.
The researcher surveyed the complete population of identified mid- and upper-level academic administrators (n = 168) at the southeastern universities. To contain costs, the researcher drew a 1-in-3 systematic sample from the lower-level academic administrators (n = 512) at the institutions. Systematic samples are designed to utilize a random numbers table for initiating the selection process from a list of lower-level administrators (Scheaffer, Mendenhall & Ott, 1996). This systematic sample yielded a lower-level administrator sample of 170.
A sample of 338 administrators (n = 28 upper level; n = 140 mid-level; and n = 170 lower-level administrators) was selected and received the survey instrument. Of the 117 returned surveys, 115 were usable (n = 115). The response rate for the different levels of administrators was upper level = 46%; mid-level = 30%; and lower-level = 36.3% for a total return rate of 34%.
Procedures
Participants were mailed a cover letter accompanied by the survey instrument with the description and purpose of the study outlined. Materials stressed participation was voluntary and respondent confidentiality would be strictly followed. Each questionnaire was precoded with a school number to determine the number of responses from each university with only the researcher having access to the temporary master list of school codes. The master list was destroyed once data analysis was completed. Data was reported as group tendencies and summary statistics with all identifying information removed. There is no way of connecting respondents, personally, to the findings.
Survey Instrument
An attitudinal survey instrument was used in this study to measure administrator attitudes and perceptions toward technology-based distance education. The instrument, “Survey of Administrator Perceptions and Attitudes Toward Technology-Based Distance Education,” was adapted from the Survey of Faculty Perceptions and Attitudes Toward Technology-Based Distance Education (Walsh, 1993). Walsh developed this instrument to measure faculty attitudes and perceptions toward technology-based distance education.
The survey contains five sections. Section one contains the definitions of key terms used in the survey. Section two consists of twenty postulates, reflecting either a negative or positive attitude regarding distance education using a 5-point Likert-type scale from strongly disagree to strongly agree. In section three, questions address the respondent's past exposure to distance education and the level of preparation received. The fourth section has questions specifically related to the applicability of distance education to administrative domain, which includes inquiries into the administrator's willingness to support distance education courses or programs, as well as questions regarding administrators’ perceptions of major deterrents and incentives needed to support distance education. The last section of the survey instrument collects demographic data.
Walsh (1993) reported a calculated Chronbach Alpha of 0.91 on the Survey of Faculty Perceptions and Attitudes Toward Technology-Based Distance Education. The Chronbach Alpha is suitable for determining internal consistency (Gay, 1992).
Treatment of Data
Combinations of several different types of statistical analyses were utilized to address the research questions. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the demographic data as well as various research questions. In addition, analysis of variance (ANOVA) for nonequivalent groups with pairwise comparisons were used to test for significance of differences among the means of the three levels of administrators (Ott, 1993). Pairwise comparisons are used when comparing groups where at least one of the population means differ from the rest. Pairwise comparisons are useful to determine if the differences are significant (Ott, 1993). The research questions correlate with the following survey instrument items and were analyzed as described.
Findings and Discussions
Of the administrators who responded (n = 115), 69.3% were over the age of 50, compared to 30.7% who were younger. Also, 79% were males and 21% females. More specifically, 69% of the high level administrators were male, while 31% were female, and 72% of the mid-level administrators were male and twenty eight% were female. The gender ratio of lower-level administrators was 86% male and 14% female. Other important information gathered regarding background information revealed that the administrative experiences are of those responding were very similar with 52% of the participant having ten years or less compared to 48% who had more than ten years of experiences as an administrator.
Results
Unless otherwise noted, all findings to the research questions are based on survey responses of the entire sample (n = 115). The first research question asks what are the prevalent academic administrator attitudes and perceptions regarding distance education? Table 1 items reflect reverse scoring procedures employed for data analysis by mean and variance. The overall mean attitude score to the survey was 69.28 (standard deviation 10.85). The range of scores for all 115 respondents was 27 to 87. The range of item responses was from 1 to 5.
Results of the ANOVA indicated there was a statistically significant difference at the p < .05 level between the attitudes and perceptions of lower-level administrators (n = 59) toward technology-based distance education and the attitudes and perceptions of upper- and mid-level administrators (n = 56) (see Table 2). The mean for the lower-level administrators was 65.80, with a standard deviation of 11.34 on items 1 through 20 on the survey instrument. The mean of the high level administrators was 73.08 (standard deviation of 6.86) and the mean for the mid-level was 72.65 (standard deviation 9.75). This comparison of means indicates that lower-level administrators in this study tend to have a significantly lower attitude and perception toward technology-based distance education than upper- and mid-level administrators (see Table 3).
The second research question asks what is the relationship between exposure to distance education and attitudes and perceptions toward distance education? Two questions were used specifically to obtain participants responses. “Have you ever been a student (participant) in a distance education program or offering?” and “Have you ever taught a course utilizing distance education methods?” From these two questions two categories were developed. Group A included respondents having some experience with distance education and group B included respondents having no experience with distance education. A linear contrast was utilized to compare the two means for differences. There was a statistically significant difference at the .05 alpha level with a calculated t-score of 2.68 (critical t = 1.98). This data reveals a trend that with some exposure to distance education there tends to be an increase in attitude and perceptions toward technology-based distance education (see Table 4).
Means for Survey Items 1 Through 20
| Survey Item | Mean 1 = Strongly Disagree 5 = Strongly Agree | R | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1). | Distance education has the potential to effect society in a positive manner. | 3.98 | .946 |
| 2). | Distance education methods should be used only in situations where traditional education is impossible. | 3.40 | 1.19 |
| 3). | The quality of most Distance Education programs is questionable at best. | 3.17 | .985 |
| 4.) | Face to face student instructor interaction is imperative for effective instruction. | 3.15 | 1.22 |
| 5.) | The technology used in distance education is inhibiting for the instruction. | 3.16 | 1.09 |
| 6.) | Distance education methods can be as effective as traditional education methods. | 3.29 | 1.02 |
| 7.) | Prior to participation, students in distance education programs are not usually as well prepared as students who engage in traditional education programs. | 3.36 | .808 |
| 8.) | There is very little reliable information available concerning the effectiveness of distance education. | 2.86 | .954 |
| 9.) | Distance education has the capability to serve effectively, otherwise unreachable students. | 4.12 | .774 |
| 10). | Distance Education poses a threat to more traditional methods of teaching. | 3.57 | 1.01 |
| 11). | Distance education is an interesting concept, and justifies further research | 4.04 | .766 |
| 12.) | Opportunity for instructor training in distance education is extremely important. | 4.22 | .792 |
| 13). | Any course that has a significant history of being taught and revised can be a candidate for distance education. | 3.03 | 1.09 |
| 14). | End-of-course tests should be conducted in all distance education courses in order to ensure their effectiveness. | 3.69 | 1.05 |
| 15). | Distance education limits the capability of the instructor to express such teacher characteristics as humor and enthusiasm. | 3.24 | 1.07 |
| 16). | Highly technical material is well suited to distance education. | 3.17 | .871 |
| 17). | Regardless of technological improvements, distance education will never be as effective as traditional instruction. | 3.17 | 1.11 |
| 18). | Distance education offers opportunities and experiences for learning that traditional education can not. | 3.53 | .985 |
| 19). | The concept of combining distance education technology with traditional instruction is worthwhile. | 4.22 | .685 |
| 20). | Distance education can be a more stimulating method of learning than traditional instruction. | 2.92 | 1.00 |
| Survey Item | Mean | R | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1). | Distance education has the potential to effect society in a positive manner. | 3.98 | .946 |
| 2). | Distance education methods should be used only in situations where traditional education is impossible. | 3.40 | 1.19 |
| 3). | The quality of most Distance Education programs is questionable at best. | 3.17 | .985 |
| 4.) | Face to face student instructor interaction is imperative for effective instruction. | 3.15 | 1.22 |
| 5.) | The technology used in distance education is inhibiting for the instruction. | 3.16 | 1.09 |
| 6.) | Distance education methods can be as effective as traditional education methods. | 3.29 | 1.02 |
| 7.) | Prior to participation, students in distance education programs are not usually as well prepared as students who engage in traditional education programs. | 3.36 | .808 |
| 8.) | There is very little reliable information available concerning the effectiveness of distance education. | 2.86 | .954 |
| 9.) | Distance education has the capability to serve effectively, otherwise unreachable students. | 4.12 | .774 |
| 10). | Distance Education poses a threat to more traditional methods of teaching. | 3.57 | 1.01 |
| 11). | Distance education is an interesting concept, and justifies further research | 4.04 | .766 |
| 12.) | Opportunity for instructor training in distance education is extremely important. | 4.22 | .792 |
| 13). | Any course that has a significant history of being taught and revised can be a candidate for distance education. | 3.03 | 1.09 |
| 14). | End-of-course tests should be conducted in all distance education courses in order to ensure their effectiveness. | 3.69 | 1.05 |
| 15). | Distance education limits the capability of the instructor to express such teacher characteristics as humor and enthusiasm. | 3.24 | 1.07 |
| 16). | Highly technical material is well suited to distance education. | 3.17 | .871 |
| 17). | Regardless of technological improvements, distance education will never be as effective as traditional instruction. | 3.17 | 1.11 |
| 18). | Distance education offers opportunities and experiences for learning that traditional education can not. | 3.53 | .985 |
| 19). | The concept of combining distance education technology with traditional instruction is worthwhile. | 4.22 | .685 |
| 20). | Distance education can be a more stimulating method of learning than traditional instruction. | 2.92 | 1.00 |
Analysis of Variance on Attitudes for the Three Levels of Administrators
| Administrator | (N=115) | Mean | Standard Deviation | Standard Mean Error | Variance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Upper | 13 | 73.08a | 6.86 | 2.87 | 47.08 |
| Middle | 43 | 72.65ab | 9.75 | 1.58 | 95.09 |
| Lower | 59 | 65.80b | 11.34 | 0.05 | 128.51 |
| Administrator | (N=115) | Mean | Standard Deviation | Standard Mean Error | Variance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Upper | 13 | 73.08a | 6.86 | 2.87 | 47.08 |
| Middle | 43 | 72.65ab | 9.75 | 1.58 | 95.09 |
| Lower | 59 | 65.80b | 11.34 | 0.05 | 128.51 |
Note: ‘b’ denotes significant difference (p < .05) level with pairwise comparison.
Summary Statistics on Attitudes for the Three Levels of Administrators
| Group | (N = 115) | Mean | Standard Mean Error |
|---|---|---|---|
| Experience | 49 | 72.35a | 1.52 |
| No Experience | 66 | 67.00b | 1.31 |
| Group | (N = 115) | Mean | Standard Mean Error |
|---|---|---|---|
| Experience | 49 | 72.35a | 1.52 |
| No Experience | 66 | 67.00b | 1.31 |
Note: ‘b’ denotes significant difference (p<.05) when using linear contrast.
Several studies have linked exposure to technology-based distance education with more positive attitudes toward the innovation (Annenberg CPB, 1986; Giltcher & Johnstone, 1989; Kirby & Garrison, 1989; Walsh, 1991). The findings from this research study support these past studies. There appears to be a trend where an administrator's exposure to distance education translates to a more positive attitude on distance education.
The third research question asks what is the relationship between administrator attitudes and perceptions toward distance education and their willingness to support distance education courses/programs? There was a statistically significant difference at the p < .05 level between the attitudes and perceptions of administrators who were willing to support distance education in the future (n = 98) and those administrators who were not willing to support distance education in the future (n = 17). The mean attitude of administrators who are willing to support distance education was 71.20. The mean attitude of administrators who are not willing to support distance education was 56.94. This indicates a strong probability that attitude affects willingness to support distance education.
The survey responses revealed that 13 out of 13 (100%) of the upper-level academic administrators reported a willingness to support distance education, while 40 out of 43 (93%) of mid-level administrators, and only 44 out of 59 (75%) of lower-level administrators reported being supportive. The data in Table 5 summarizes the results as reported by the participants.
There tends to be a strong, positive relationship between attitude toward distance education and willingness to support distance education in the future. The findings revealed a tendency for lower-level administrators to be less willing to support distance education. When administrators were asked what would make them unwilling to support distance education, most of the responses were centered on the need for adequate resources and support and ability to continue offering quality courses/programs.
Summary Statistics for the Relationship Between Administrator Attitudes and Perceptions Towards Distance Education and Willingness to Support Distance Education by Levels.
| Group | (N=115) | Mean | Standard Mean Error | Variance |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Support | n = 98 | |||
| Upper Level | ||||
| Middle Level | 40 | 71.20 | .99a | 83.73 |
| Lower Level | 44 | |||
| No Support | n = 17 | |||
| Upper Level | 0 | |||
| Middle Level | 3 | 56.94 | 2.37b | 165.18 |
| Lower Level | 14 |
| Group | (N=115) | Mean | Standard Mean Error | Variance |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Support | n = 98 | |||
| Upper Level | ||||
| Middle Level | 40 | 71.20 | .99a | 83.73 |
| Lower Level | 44 | |||
| No Support | n = 17 | |||
| Upper Level | 0 | |||
| Middle Level | 3 | 56.94 | 2.37b | 165.18 |
| Lower Level | 14 |
Note: ‘b’ denotes a significant difference (p<.05) when using pairwise comparison.
Attitudes toward distance education vary among the three levels of administrators. Lower-level administrators in this study tended to have a significantly lower attitude and perception toward technology-based distance education than upper- and mid-level administrators.
It appears that a complex relationship exists between exposure to distance education, attitude toward distance education and willingness to support distance education. Exposure to distance education, either as an instructor or as a student/participant, does tend to lead to a positive attitude toward distance education, as reported in the literature. Through these analyses, a participant's perception of the experience, and resultant attitude, affects the administrator's willingness to support distance education.
Implications
The findings of this study have implications for academic administrators in higher education. As the findings support, it is important to have an understanding that lower-level administrators tend to have lower attitudes and perceptions toward technology-based distance education. If distance education efforts are to be promoted, it is important to address the possible factors affecting the attitude of lower-level, as well as other administrators. The factors could include providing opportunities to engage in positive distance education experiences. Administrators need to be cognizant of the need to provide these opportunities for administrators both above and/or below their level of administration. Experiences for these administrators could be accomplished in a couple of ways. One way would be to encourage hands-on experiences for administrators through utilizing distance education modalities in conducting conferences, meetings, and courses. An additional approach would be to provide administrator/faculty/staff development opportunities in distance education by promoting participation in workshops and conferences that address issues in distance education.
Another factor that affects administrator attitude toward distance education is the actual and perceived levels of support for innovative educational methods. Many of the administrators interviewed expressed concern for having adequate resources to deliver quality courses through distance education. There were also, numerous comments regarding providing rewards, extra pay and time for faculty as incentives to participate in distance education.
Higher education is in an era of intense accountability, tight fiscal resources, and fierce competition. Moreover, college administrators are searching for appropriate and effective methods of delivering educational programs (Fried, 1997; Sherritt, 1996; Speck, 1996; and Talley, 1997). Therefore, academic administrators must find creative approaches to appropriate the levels of support and resources needed in the delivery of quality distance education courses. These creative approaches could include developing partnerships between institutions of higher education and business and industry, creating consortiums among institutions of higher education, and encouraging intrainstitutional cooperation. By applying these approaches, the intensive resources needed to create quality learning environments through distance education could be shared.
Distance education has been a part of the learning environment for some time. Today, with the array of emerging technologies available, academic administrators in higher education are faced with a multitude of decisions regarding support for distance education. This study reinforces the need to continue to explore factors that may influence the implementation and support of innovative educational practices like distance education. Furthermore, understanding the role of higher education academic administrators in the support and delivery of distance education is important.
