European Medi@Culture-Online http://www.european-mediaculture.org
Author: Tella, Seppo / De Vries, Jusri.
Title: The Role of Distance Education Instructor: Attitudes, Skills, and Strategies.
Source: http://www.edu.helsinki.fi/media/mep8/DeVries_Tella.pdf [16.12.2003]. Helsinki 2001. P. 1-11.
Published with kind permission of Seppo Tella.
Seppo Tella/Jusri De Vries
The Role of Distance Education Instructor: Attitudes, Skills, and Strategies
The role of the faculty member in a distance education setting is an area which has been largely ignored in the past. This must be examined and clarified if the creation of a successful learning environment is the goal. Distance education (DE)—as well as distance teaching (DT) and distance learning (DL)—requires new skills and attitudes different from those required in a “traditional” classroom. Since many educators are unfamiliar with this innovative educational setting, training on both the technical aspects of the system and the strategies for teaching students at a distance would benefit both teachers and students.
Although distance education has sometimes been called the poor relation of the education system (Tella 1998), we argue that distance education at its best is an applied field, borrowing from a variety of theoretical frameworks. Although no single, universally accepted definition of distance education exists, most agree that distance education is distinguished from other forms of education by its dependence on some form of mechanical or digital means of communication (Dillon & Walsh 1992; Nummi, Rönkä & Sariola 1998). This difference implies changes not only in our traditional patterns of communication but also in the way in which we organize the function of education.
Beaudoin (1990) observes that
“...the emergence of increasingly student-centered learning activities in the 1970’s facilitated by new instructional technology introduced in the 1980’s is contributing to a dramatic evolution in teaching staff roles, and raises fundamental questions within the professoriate about how it will contribute to the teaching-learning process in the 1990’s and beyond.”
Despite the fact that much of the literature on distance education suggests the importance of teachers, this group has been largely neglected by the research (Beaudoin 1990; cf. Sariola 1998). The dominant theme of distance education research has been the learner and the organization; research has focused primarily upon learner outcomes, learner characteristics, and learner attitudes, and, on the other hand, upon the salient features that depict the organization that is in charge of the DE courses (cf. e.g., Tella & Kynäslahti 1998).
From a teacher development perspective, Lindquist (1978) stresses the role of ownership and values and suggests that, for an innovation to be successful, the innovation must fit the local scene and be perceived as belonging to those whom it affects. For this reason, it is imperative that teaching staff be involved, in an active way, with the implementation and administration of a distance education program (Schuttloffel 1994). For many, this will require that they rethink their attitudes about the topic or gain new and needed skills (Cummings 1995).
Many researchers have examined and analyzed teaching faculty attitudes toward distance teaching. These analyses include comparisons of attitudes toward distance and traditional teaching, motivations for teaching at a distance, barriers to distance teaching, and the status of those associated with distance teaching (Dillon & Walsh 1992). In general, these studies report that teaching faculty who teach at a distance are positive toward distance teaching (Dillon 1989; Johnson & Silvernail 1990; Mani 1988; Parer 1988; Purdy & Icenogle 1976; Taylor & White 1991). The report also provides evidence that teachers’ attitudes improve as experience with distance education increases, and as instructors become more familiar with the technology and logistics of distance teaching (Gilcher & Johnstone 1989; Kirby & Garrison 1989). Additionally, teaching faculty believe distance students perform as well as or better than traditional students, although the faculty agree that distance teaching is not appropriate for all content areas (Dillon 1989; Johnson & Silvernail 1990; Parer 1988).
Findings by Clark, Soliman, and Sungaila (1985) show higher-level teachers, i.e. senior faculty and professors, find distance teaching both more enjoyable and more demanding than faculty in the lower ranks. When citing the benefits of distance teaching, teaching faculty describe intrinsic rewards such as prestige and self esteem rather than extrinsic or monetary rewards (Dillon & Walsh 1992; Taylor & White 1991).
According to the instructors, the primary benefits of distance teaching include the ability to reach new populations of learners, the opportunity to work with better prepared and more motivated students, flexibility in work schedule, and pedagogical advantages such as the necessity for more efficient organization and the ability to use a broader range of media-based resources (Clark, Soliman & Sungaila 1985; Dillon, Hengst & Zoller 1991; Johnson & Silvernail 1990; Taylor & White 1991).
Although Taylor & White (1991) found educators to be positive toward distance teaching, their study also indicates teaching faculty prefer traditional face-to-face instruction, citing the quality of interaction and satisfaction gained from the act of teaching in traditional settings. Scriven (1986) found that the majority of instructors believe that distance teaching is as important as traditional teaching, but 25 % of the faculty would avoid teaching distance students if they could. Additionally, teaching faculty perceive distance teaching as less rewarding, offering fewer career advantages, and as less scholarly than other teaching activities (Dillon 1989; Parer 1988; Siaciwena 1989; Stinehart 1988). A recent study by Wolcott (1997), based on interviews with faculty members, De program administrators and the chief academic officers at four US research universities, conclude that 1) distance education occupies a marginal status; 2) distance teaching is neither highly valued nor well-rewarded as scholarly activity; 3) distance teaching is not highly related to promotion and tenure decision, and 4) rewards for distance teaching are dependent on the academic unit’s commitment to distance education (Wolcott 1997).
As with anything new or different, many have greeted distance education with skepticism and, in some instances, with outright disdain. Some faculty have viewed distance education is a bothersome task that must be dealt with on top of everything else, while others have viewed it as merely a new fad, that would quickly fade into the background as had other instructional technology fads (Schuttloffel 1998). Still others resisted distance education as clearly inferior to face-to-face instruction, due to a lack of knowledge about how to deal with the fact that students are not in physical proximity with the instructor (Cummings 1995). Though things have changed, some of these attitudes still prevail (Willis 1993).
Of course, distance education has its disadvantages. One of these is that initially additional time is required for a faculty member to adopt this teaching method. Since most teachers have not been taught via this method, it is not something with which they have experience. As a result, most instructors need a fair amount of training in order to be able to effectively teach via this method. Lombardi (1994) feels that university education, whether the generic undergraduate curriculum or the most specialized advanced training in scientific analysis, requires little technical sophistication to deliver. He makes a case for universities to use the much touted “information highway” to deal with some of the problems faced by “traditional” education, like lack of classroom space or equipment, the increasing cost of tuition, lack of parking space and the regimented schedule of when education can take place.
Another possible disadvantage concerns the quality of the visual images when using a televised format. A study cited by Weaver (1982) has shown that students expect at least basic production values in courses delivered via televised signals. This means that the visuals must be legible on television, the audio must be audible and the instructor must be interesting. In many cases this also means that the faculty member cannot teach the exactly same way he or she does in classroom and expect to maintain the interest level of the students. Some instructors adapt easily to the television medium but many others simply cannot make the transition effectively without a great deal of preparation and assistance. Towards the end of the 1990s, DE faculty have become more cognizant of the fact that teaching via videoconferencing is an extremely demanding area; it calls for much advance preparation and various ways of activating the students.
In the eyes of many faculty, the extra time commitment may seem to outweigh any rewards gained from teaching distant students. One possible strategy for overcoming negative views and accommodating the additional time requirements of the teaching faculty is to offer incentives such as release time. Willis (1994) notes that as a general guideline, it takes about twice the time to develop a distance delivered course as it does to develop and organize a course for traditional delivery. A possible solution to this dilemma is release time. Willis indicates that “institutions with a commitment to maintaining the quality of distance delivered courses typically provide two to five credit hour releases, or equivalent monetary ‘overloads’ to instructors charged with distant course adaptation.” Even if most authorities admit that extra time is needed in preparing good distance education, few are willing to pay more. In fact, there are cases of teachers’ fees being lowered because of DE commitments.
A number of other “rewards” are often noted in discussions of teacher incentives, but probably none is so vital as the issues of promotion and tenure (as in the American system). Here, a difficulty arises. The problem lies in the issue of administrators properly valuing the distance educator. In most academic evaluation exercises an administrator evaluates a faculty member’s performance in doing academic activities that are familiar to the administrator. Typical examples are publishing, teaching and research. However, a large percentage of today’s university administrators have never taught distance education courses and therefore are ill-equipped to properly assign merit and worth to the efforts of a faculty member who may have redesigned a course to be delivered via the Internet and videoconferencing technology. Willis (1994) notes that as part of the effort to improve teachers and course evaluations of distant courses, some new evaluation methods must be employed. Specifically, he suggests that “rather than rely[ing] solely on paper and pencil evaluation measures, ... teaching faculty review committees should consider using qualitative indicators, such as interviews with distant students and observations of the distant teacher at work.” On the whole, the issue of evaluation needs to be reconsidered. On the European level, the ECTS (European Credit Transfer System) is relatively common and widely used within the EU countries. However, there is an urgent need for a VCTS (virtual credit transfer system), as there will be more and more virtual distance education courses accessible. In this respect, cooperation between Canada, the US and Europe would be most natural.
The importance of proper rewards for distance education teaching faculty in the promotion system cannot be overemphasized. For most faculty, tenure and promotion are the goals of their academic efforts. Any activities which are not seen as directly contributing to the attainment of these goals will certainly merit less attention and effort than the more traditionally valued academic endeavors, such as research and publishing. For distance education to succeed in today’s university, it is imperative that it be seen by instructors and administrators as an important and valued effort in the tenure and promotion activity. If this can be achieved, distance education will more easily be seen as valuable and worthwhile for educators. For undertaking such a challenging and time-consuming task, Gilcher & Johnstone (1988) suggest further that faculty members ought to be formally recognized and compensated by their institutions for the first time they develop courses for the telecommunications system.
Successful teaching and learning in a distance education setting is dependent upon proficient use of the medium, as well as the ‘can-do’ attitude of the instructor. It is apparent that distance education requires additional instructional skills not required of most face-to-face instructors. The distance education experience presents both student and instructor with an environment to which neither may be accustomed. Teacher training on both the technical aspects of the system and the strategies for teaching students at a distance would benefit both teachers and students (Gilcher & Johnstone 1988).
A number of studies provide information on the characteristics of instructors who participate in distance education. In a national survey of faculty members who used telecourses, LaRose (1986) found that the majority were full-time and had previously taught one or more television courses. Another survey revealed that the majority of the instructors who were teaching their first telecourses had been at their institutions for six or more years, over two thirds held a master’s degree and nearly one third held a doctorate (Dillon 1989). In a 1991 study by Dillon, Hengst & Zoller, 44 percent of the respondent group were from the humanities, social sciences, and natural sciences and 54 percent were from the professional fields of business, education, and engineering (Moore & Kearsley 1996).
In general, data indicate that faculty members who deliver education at a distance are well educated, full-time veteran instructors representing all sectors of higher education from all ranks and from a wide variety of disciplines (Dillon & Walsh 1992). Additionally, in order to enhance the overall teaching/ learning transaction, distance education instructors in any medium and at any level of instruction should develop a repertoire of behaviors and skills unique to the distance teaching experience (Moore & Thompson 1990) as a complement to traditional classroom techniques. Bronstein, Gill & Koneman (1982) and Boone (1984) propose the following guidelines, among others, for enhancing the instructional delivery:
Maintain a natural style of delivery; enunciate clearly and speak slowly.
Spontaneity; avoid reading from a script.
Use visuals effectively and frequently.
Use frequent changes of pace or stimuli to maintain interest.
Draw participants into discussions as frequently as possible.
Most instructors in general, would recognize these guidelines as those that are very beneficial to creating an effective face-to-face classroom environment. However, in a distance learning setting, these guidelines become requirements if the distance education experience is to be effective. It is worth mentioning that several studies indicated that distance teaching resulted in improved teaching in the traditional classroom. Faculty members cited improved organization and the opportunity to try new teaching methods as positively influencing their classes (Clark, Soliman & Sungaila 1985; Gilcher & Johnstone 1989; Johnson & Silvernail 1990; Parer 1988).
Several studies suggest that the success or failure of technologically mediated educational experiences depends to a large extent on the skill and commitment of the teachers and facilitators who are directing those experiences (Moore & Thompson 1990). In a survey of schools of education and teacher training programs (undergraduate and graduate) Riccobono (1986) examined the extent to which future teachers and administrators are trained in distance education technologies. Results indicated that only 52 % of the institutions offered training in the management of small groups of students using computers, while only 37 % offered instruction in the use of live interactive television for instruction, and a mere 26 % offered courses in the use of audio technologies in instruction.
Research reveals a strong desire among faculty members to receive early, appropriate training for these unfamiliar teaching experiences. (DeVries, Helford, and Rugg 1998).
Gilcher & Johnstone (1988) note that the most frequently received suggestion was to provide more training on how to effectively use technology to teach distant students. The literature includes many examples of general and specific guidelines for training teleconference facilitators or teachers. Gilcher & Johnstone (1988) note that the “ideal” teaching/learning environment would provide instructors with strategies for teaching students at a distance and discussion on the planning and management of organizational details involved in distance delivery as well as the technical aspects of the system.
Additionally, teaching staff must have assistance in developing instructional materials. Students are video and audio consumers, contends Weaver (1982), and have been constantly exposed to high quality production. As such they would expect the same production values in a college credit course and could lose interest quickly if the basic production values are not present. One of the initial problems with teaching via videoconferencing still is the poor quality of the picture, even in the best of ISDN systems. Students as well as faculty first need to get used to the “jerky” pictures inferior to the TV picture before they can start coping with the real educational aspects of the situation. Desktop video conference systems are even worse in this respect (DeVries, Helford, and Rugg 1998).
The distance education environment presents instructors with the challenge of managing multiple learning sites. This demands that the distance learning instructor be not only an extremely effective teacher but that he or she also acquire the skills to effectively utilize and manage “facilitators.” Willis (1993) notes that facilitators have a role specifically related to the distance education sites, to “set up and troubleshoot equipment, distribute course materials, collect assignments, and proctor tests.” The facilitator performs many of the same duties commonly known as teaching assistants, however he or she also “picks up student cues regarding interest, motivation, and performance that are unavailable to the distant teacher” (Willis 1993).
Several key issues require consideration in the area of instructors participation when planning implementation of a distance education program. These include attitude, incentives or rewards, evaluation procedures, needed skills, and adequate training. Just how important a role does faculty member development play in the success of distance education? The answer can be summed up by stating that the key to success in distance learning is the teacher. If the teacher is good, the technology can become almost transparent. No technology can overcome poor teaching.
Beaudoin, M. F. 1990. The instructor’s changing role in distance education. The American Journal of Distance Education, 4 (2), 21-29.
Boone, M. E. 1984. “Examining excellence: An analysis of facilitator behaviors in actual audio teleconferences.” In L. Parker & C. Olgren (eds.) Teleconferencing and Electronic Communications III. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin-Extension, Center for Interactive Programs, 218-222.
Bronstein, R., Gill, J., & Koneman, E. 1982. Teleconferencing: A Practical Guide to Teaching by Telephone. Chicago: American Society of Clinical Pathologists Press.
Clark, R. G., Soliman, M. B., & Sungaila, H. 1985. Staff perceptions of external versus internal teaching and staff development. Distance Education, 5 (1), 84-92.
Cummings, L. E. 1995. Educational Technology: A faculty resistance view. Educational Technology Review, (4), 13-18.
DeVries, J., Helford, P., & Rugg, W. 1998. Distance Education: from National to International three case studies. 10th World Conference on Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia & World conference on Educational Telecommunications. Freiburg, Germany 20-25, 1998.
Dillon, C. 1989. Faculty rewards and instructional telecommunications. The American Journal of Distance Education 3 (2), 35-43.
Dillon, C., Hengst, H., & Zoller, D. 1991. Instructional strategies and student involvement in distance education: A study of the Oklahoma Televised Instruction System. Journal of Distance Education 6 (1), 28-41.
Dillon, C. L., & Walsh, S. M. 1992. Faculty: The neglected resource in distance education. The American Journal of Distance Education 6 (3).
Gilcher, K., & Johnstone, S. 1989. A Critical Review of the Use of Audiographic Conferencing Systems by Selected Educational Institutions. College Park, MD: International Universities Consortium, University of Maryland.
Johnson, J. L., & Silvernail, D. L. 1990. Report of faculty perceptions of Community College of Maine Instructional Television System (Fall 1989). University of Southern Maine.
Kirby, D. M., & Garrison, D. R. 1989. “Graduate distance education: A study of the aims and delivery systems.” Proceedings From the Eighth Annual Conference of the Canadian Association for the Study of Adult Education. Cornwall, Ontario: Stain Lawrence College of Saint-Laurent, 179-184.
LaRose, R. 1986. Adoption of Telecourses: The Adoption and Utilization of Annenberg/CPB Project Telecourses. Washington, DC: Annenberg/CPB Project.
Lindquist, J. 1978. Strategies for Change. Berkeley, CA: Pacific Soundings Press.
Lombardi, J. V. 1994, March 2. “Campuses need not wait for snazzy new technology to enter Cyberspace.” The Chronicle of Higher Education, A48.
Mani, G. 1988. “Attitudes of external faculty towards distance education.” In D. Sewart & J. S. Daniel (eds.), Developing Distance Education. Oslo: International Council for Distance Education, 297-300.
Moore, M. G., & G. Kearsley. 1996. Distance Education: A Systems View. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Moore, M. G., & Thompson, M. M. 1990. Effects of Distance Learning: A Summary of Literature. University Park, PA: The American Center for the Study of Distance Education.
Nummi, T., Rönkä, A. & Sariola, J. in collaboration with Kynäslahti, H., Ristola, R., Tella, S. & Vähäpassi, A. 1998. Virtuality and Digital Nomadism: Introduction to the LIVE Project (1997-2000). University of Helsinki. Department of Teacher Education. Media Education Centre. Media Education Publications 6.
[http://www.helsinki.fi/~tella/mep6.html]
Parer, M. S. 1988. Institutional Support and Rewards for Academic Staff Involved in Distance Education. Victoria, Australia: Centre for Distance Learning, Gippsland Institute.
Purdy, L. & Icenogle, D. 1976. Classic theatre: The humanities in drama. Final research report, Fountain Valley, CA: Coastline Community College.
Riccobono, J. A. 1986. Instructional Technology in Higher Education: A National Study of the Educational Uses of Telecommunications Technology in American Colleges and Universities. Washington, DC: Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
Sariola, J. 1998. The Planning of an Open Learning Environment and Didactic Media Choice in Teacher Education. In Nummi, T., Rönkä, A. & Sariola, J. in collaboration with Kynäslahti, H., Ristola, R., Tella, S. & Vähäpassi, A. Virtuality and Digital Nomadism: Introduction to the LIVE Project (1997-2000). University of Helsinki. Department of Teacher Education. Media Education Centre. Media Education Publications 6, 23-49.
[http://www.helsinki.fi/~tella/mep6.html]
Schuttloffel, M. J., 1998. Reflections on the Dilemma of Distance Learning. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications 4 (1), 45-58.
Schuttloffel, M. J., 1994. The technology integrated classroom and implications for teacher education. Technology and Teacher Education Annual 1994. Charlottesville, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education, 226-229.
Scriven, B. 1986. Staff attitudes to external studies. Media in Education and Development 19 (4),176-83. Siaciwena, R. M. C. 1989. Staff attitudes towards distance education at the University of Zambia. Journal of Distance Education 4 (2), 47-62.
Stinehart, K. 1988. “Increasing faculty involvement in distance teaching.” In D. Sewart & J. S. Daniel (eds.) Developing Distance Education. Oslo: International Council for Distance Education, 412-415.
Taylor, J. C., & White, V. J. 1991. Faculty attitudes towards teaching in the distance education mode: An exploratory investigation. Research in Distance Education 3 (3), 7-11.
Tella, S. & Kynäslahti, H. 1998. The Emergence of Electronic School Networks. 1998 EDEN Annual Conference. Universities in a Digital Era: Transformation, Innovation and Tradition. University of Bologna, Italy. 24-26 June 1998.
Tella, S. 1998. The Poor Relation of the Education System? Aspects of Distance Education and Open and Distance Learning. In Nummi, T., Rönkä, A. & Sariola, J. in collaboration with Kynäslahti, H., Ristola, R., Tella, S. & Vähäpassi, A. Virtuality and Digital Nomadism: Introduction to the LIVE Project (1997-2000). University of Helsinki. Department of Teacher Education. Media Education Centre. Media Education Publications 6, 1-22.
[http://www.helsinki.fi/~tella/mep6.html]
Weaver, G. 1982. “The development of a workshop to train faculty to effectively use telcommunications.” In L. Parker & C. Olgren (eds.), Teleconferencing and Electronic Communications. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin-Extension, Center for Interactive Programs, 293-298.
Willis, B. 1993. Distance Education: A Practical Guide. New York: Educational Technology Publications.
Wolcott, L. L. 1997. Tenure, Promotion, and Distance Education: Examining the Culture og Faculty Rewards. The American Journal of Distance Education 11 (2), 3-18.
This work, and any part of it, is copyright. Putting any part of this work to any unauthorised use is a punishable offence and liable to prosecution. This applies in particular to reproduction, translation, copying, micro-filming, electronic storage or any other electronic re-working.