Fifty-six faculty/staff were interviewed to answer the research questions: What do faculties need to know and have to prepare courses for distance education? What have faculty done to adjust to the new challenges so far? What do faculties still need to know and have to continue improving teaching methods? Is there a faculty development model? The researcher used a funnel-based interview approach to do this qualitative research. Data reduction was done on the content analysis of the interviews. That qualitative analysis was used to prepare this case study.
This is the initial analysis of the data which seem to suggest that faculty go through stages of development. The innovators worked alone and at their own expense. The early adapters are involved with the Continuing Education’s Course Transformation Academy and the Center for Teaching and Learning that helps them rethink their approaches. Transformation from traditional classrooms to teaching on television requires a period of adjustment when multiple dimensions are changing. Faculty members tend not to rethink pedagogy much, but they do learn that new strategies work. As faculties transform courses to Internet, they must organize and front load many factors, go through a sharp learning curve about the use of technology, and rethink pedagogy. After their initial adjustment, they focus on specific elements and so the transformation process goes on and on. They have many policy concerns that they want addressed. Time is their most critical need. They also need professional development, technical support, and the tools to do their jobs. They do formative and summative evaluations, and generally find that distance education students do well. They use the evaluation feedback to continue the transformation process.
Faculty members expressed a variety of reasons for their motivation to do distance education. Some had studied by distance education themselves or had a relative who was benefited by distance education. Several were familiar with other institutions that were using distance education with desirable outcomes like doubling their enrollment, teaching labs and teaching at remote locations. Some noted that business and industries are doing distance education with success. One faculty member specified that students want "flexible, accessible, affordable" and "effective" education. Another stressed the importance of "availability, practicality, and convenience" of education. Faculty members want to reach new markets, mainly nontraditional students in more distant locations in Indiana and around the world. They want to reverse declining enrollments and increase stable enrollments.
The University expressed interest in DegreeLink. Continuing Education offered a Course Transformation Academy. A flyer was circulated that "started perking ideas." Some faculty went to faculty development with a colleague. Some department chairpersons went out of a sense of duty and/or to role model. Some chairpersons encouraged faculty to attend. Some faculties, departments, programs, and schools made a commitment to distance education.
The Commission for Higher Education, local citizen leaders, and university administrators stressed the need for distance education. Some faculty said they were "required to teach", "assigned to teach", or "asked to teach". One faculty member said she "did not want to do it, did it, survived, and now feels stronger because of it." Another said, "I will do it because I think it is the thing to do." Some faculty are seeking opportunities to do distance education, some resent being asked or required to do it, and many faculty are not yet involved with distance education.
Innovators initially tended to be self taught and worked alone. The early adapters are getting considerable help from the Continuing Education’s Course Transformation Academy and the Center for Teaching and Learning. Faculty members then start rethinking their approaches.
Correspondence courses have been available through the University for a few decades. About 60 to 65 courses are available on an ongoing basis by 40 to 45 faculty members. Over 1200 students were served in 1997. Until 1998, faculty talked to the Director of Independent Study to learn how to do correspondence courses. Now they will be asked to attend the Course Transformation Academy and to work with instructional designers when they develop a new correspondence course.
Teaching by television has been done by the university faculty for about a decade. There was a workshop for interested faculty in the late 1980s. Doctoral education students were in attendance and evaluated the process. Faculty members were content providers and served as talking heads. They said it took longer to prepare, there were technical problems, and it was cumbersome. Students appreciated the opportunity to receive education off campus.
Some of the first faculty to teach on television said they had to teach themselves how to do it. They had to "learn on own," were "self taught." did "self study," and "learned by mistakes." One taped live, watched the tape, and then self corrected. They went to the studio and asked about the buttons. Several said they felt resistance from colleagues and administrators. No one else in the department was knowledgeable about what they were doing. Faculty contacted faculty in other departments. Some faculty learned by reading books and professional journals, attending professional conferences, and by talking to colleagues from other locations. Some faculty on campus became faculty mentors. Faculty watched other faculty teach on television and watched other faculty videos. They called and E-mailed mentors and swapped ideas with colleagues. Faculty indicated that networking is important, and that it is good the hear stories of what other faculty have done.
Faculty indicates that there is now "lots of help on campus." The Center for Teaching and Learning was opened in April 1995, and one teacher says, it is "one of the best things campus has done." Because there was no formal preparation to help people teach on television, a new manager for planning and program development and the manager of televised class production, continuing education/instructional services prepared and offered half day distance education orientation workshops for August 1996 and January 1997. The Course Transformation Academy (CTA), a twelve-week course for faculty, was started spring 1997 and has also been offered fall 1997, and spring 1998. Most of the faculty interviewed identified the CTA as important to their learning. It whets the appetite, teaches what is available and how to do things, and it is "what pushes you over the edge to want to do something." With funding through DegreeLink Spring 1998, media technology and resources were expanded with such help as a couple of instructional designers, graphics designer, computer animation specialist, video producer/director, video technicians, coordinator and editor, and others. Help is available for computer/graphics design, film/video library, instructional development/faculty technology resources, photographic/digital imaging services, audio recording, video production, and televised classroom services. Academic Computing and Networking Services is providing many computer workshops and documentation.
Faculty members are using more PowerPoint presentations, using some videos and adding Internet to their television courses. They are starting to use Web pages, E-mail, listservs, chat rooms, etc. They are using telephone calls, telephone bridges, conference calls, voice mail, fax, smail, audiotapes, audio conferencing, video conferencing, virtual instrumentation, interactive video, and multimedia. A few Internet courses have been offered during 1996-1998 and more are being developed.
Transformation from traditional to television classes requires a period of adjustment. Faculty adjusted their presentations, testing strategies, and student presentations. Faculty members do not do much rethinking of their pedagogy, but they do learn that new strategies work.
Many faculty identify the lack of eye contact with students, feeling confined by needing to stay in front of the camera and by a microphone, and the need to be extra organized as major changes from traditional to television classes. Presentations became more formal, more structured, carefully timed, and backed up requiring more preparation time. The instructions had to be carefully written. Faculty had to get used to talking to students they couldn’t see. No chalkboard was available so faculty has used an overhead camera to show written material and are using more PowerPoint presentations. They have had to experiment with what visuals would look like on television, which could be quite different than what the same visuals would look like in the traditional classroom. They have had to adjust to different time scheduling—from three fifty-minute classes to a two-hour time slot. Content needed to be divided into small pieces with a careful allocation of time. A lot of activities are needed to fill two or more hours. Time needs to be broken into segments with a variety of topics and activities. Some faculty outlines the lecture and give the outline to students. Faculty members found that it was important to call students by name and to forewarn them that they would be expected to answer certain questions in class.
Faculty members changed their testing strategies. They did not want to use television time for students to take tests. Some decreased the number of tests, increased take home tests, tested by E-mail, had proctors at distant sites, or had students come to campus one to three times a semester to take tests under close supervision. Some used other assessment methods, did Internet assignments, used team simulations, had students E-mail articles and comments, and did more with open book tests. Some faculties are starting to consider computer tests.
Student presentations were another challenge. Some students did their presentations on television. Some sent videotapes and materials for the overhead camera. Faculty sometimes showed a picture of the student as the student presented and showed other materials as directed by the student.
Some faculty members were concerned about teaching laboratory content, mentoring, and helping students socialize. Some demonstrations were videotaped. Simulations were located. Small groups could do group work and presentations during class and could record their work on video- or audiotapes. Video conferencing and virtual instrumentations were used. Students are often asked to come to campus one to three times a term to do laboratory work, socialize together, bond, do group work, and be mentored.
Transformation to Internet courses is more dramatic. It requires a sharp learning curve about the use of technology. The course needs to be very well organized and front loaded. Pedagogy needs to be adjusted.
One faculty member tape recorded lectures, transcribed them, and then put them onto the Internet. Faculty members indicated they have to be "well organized", "articulate", "be able to anticipate where students will boggle down", "use powerful clear statements", "use short bursts of information", and "put the main idea on each page". One suggested using the principle that the "simpler the better". Suggestions included: "raid ideas from what people are teaching all over the country", "post articles on a Web site", "post questions on the Internet", and "have students submit assignments by E-mail". It is recommended that assignments be "practical". Work is front-loaded. The whole course needs to be well planned before it begins. One experienced faculty member recommended: "Treat everything on the Web as copyrighted"; "Use links to graphics" to avoid copyright problems and save disk space; "Create a local file structure that mirrors your Web structure"; "Create separate images directories"; "Create a ‘boilerplate’ page that contains headers, footers, and background information"; "Keep individual pages short"; "Try to find long-lasting links to other sites and graphics"; "Keep it simple"; "Put a title on each Web page"; Maintain a consistent look throughout"; "Put Go-To links at top and bottom of each page"; "Be sure to include Home, Table of Contents, and an E-mail link in your Go-To section"; "Include a way for students to get to the next page at the end of the page"; "Avoid blinking text"; and maintain the pages. Experienced faculty found that they can "get closer to the student through the machine." They form different relationships with students, have fewer problems with students, and form better relationships with students. They give more individualized attention to the students. Once the course is set up, "the machine can do much of the teaching freeing the teacher to give students individual attention, to do scholarship, and to provide service".
Faculty members had a variety of ideas about how they want to change their television and Internet courses. Some are transforming from traditional to television to video to Internet courses. A couple of people are moving from Internet courses to television courses. Most want to use more multimedia and want to add more materials, visuals, graphics, cartoons, video, PowerPoint, and web site links. Some want to add reflection and small group activities. Faculty expects to review and revise course syllabus each time the course is taught. They want to identify the bottle necks, open them up, slow down, give support, add examples and carefully script the hard spots. One faculty member found that giving all assignments up front took away some fear and gave students more self confidence. Others found it was important to give students questions in advance of calling on them. Another recommends that each student in a course gets a complete set of videotapes. One found the value of copying a Web page to a disk to use in class. A couple identified the need to develop materials for mentors and to design a system for monitoring mentors in the field. One plans to call students more often, encourage students more, and simplify while keeping the critical elements. Many plan to use more multimedia, want to transform more courses, and some want to go worldwide. After the initial adjustment, faculty members focus on specific elements and so the transformation goes on and on.
Faculty members have many issues they want addressed. All expressed concern about the amount of time it takes to transform courses. They need time to think about how to teach differently. They need time for the sharp learning curve required to use new technologies and strategies. It takes a lot of time to front load an Internet course. Most think it is easier to teach what they have been teaching on television rather than to convert the course to the Internet. One faculty member thinks it is easier to develop an Internet course from scratch rather than to convert a course they have already been teaching.
Faculty had concerns with television courses. One had difficulty scheduling television time. However, some time is still available and another studio is being added. Students must travel to reception sites for television courses. That may involve travel and parking expense, eating out, babysitting costs, and time away from work expenses. Reception is influenced by the weather. Sites may be in different time zones. Campuses have different vacations periods. Proctors may not show up. Technical support may not be readily available. Faculty are not sure of what the students are doing.
Faculty members express a number of concerns about Internet courses too. The nontraditional distance education students we are trying to reach are likely to be the ones who don’t have computers at home or work, are not computer literate, and do not have technical support. Student and faculty equipment may not be compatible. It takes class time to teach students computer skills, and it may be weeks into a course before technical problems are resolved. Technology is rapidly changing. One faculty member thinks faculty becomes servants of what is on the World Wide Web.
Faculty members express concerns about laboratory courses, monitoring dangerous and expensive equipment, making arrangements to use other institution’s laboratories, purchase of expensive simulation equipment, group work, knowing who is doing what work, plagiarism, and the difficulty of correcting papers on the computer. In one Internet course, ten percent of the students did not get the work completed. Faculty is concerned that networking and mentoring are missing.
Some faculty members feel overwhelmed by developing new programs, revising curricula, preparing for accreditation, searching for new deans, chairpersons, and faculty, and some moved to new facilities. Some feel left out of the decision loop and feel resentful even if they philosophically support distance education. Others complained about unfunded mandates and expressed concern about increasing department costs. Costs are shifting from heat, lights, and cleaning personnel to computers, phones, fax, videotapes, CD-ROMS, mail, digital cameras, scanners, printers, and laptops. Some believe that budgets will be adjusted to cover related expenses.
Faculty are concerned about policies keeping up with rapid changes. They want student services that accommodate registration on line, advising, financial aid, scholarships, the academic calendar, and information about graduate studies and career counseling. They raised the issue of instate tuition for all internet courses and a 24 hour chat room at the library to answer student questions any time of the day. Issues raised include faculty workloads, ownership of materials, copyright issues, faculty compensation, and utilization of revenue derived from the creation and production of software, telecourses, and other media products. Various committees are addressing the issues.
Some expressed fear that videotaping records mistakes. Videotapes could be abused particularly regarding controversial content. A few fear videotapes will replace some faculty. Others raised issues about copyright laws around using video or clips from movies, confidentiality of interviews, not being able to interview children, and needing to loan tapes to students and have them returned rather than sell the tapes. Needing separate site licenses gets expensive especially when there may be very few students at a site. A couple expressed apprehension about being videotaped.
A couple of faculty expressed concern about the quality of distance education, considered it lesser, and one said, "I wouldn’t accept a degree acquired by distance education." Neither of those faculty has developed or taught a distance education course yet. Some think that freshmen in particular need close supervision. We are currently forcing some traditional students to use nontraditional delivery systems. A section had to be added to one business course because the television studio wasn’t large enough to accommodate the large class. Only one of the students was really a distance education student.
Faculty members want reassigned time usually equivalent to three credit hours to prepare a distance education course. Faculty makes comments like, "I start early and stay up late." Most work evenings, weekends and summers to transform courses, but they feel that takes time away from their research, service, or family life. A few have been fortunate to be able to use a sabbatical. Many believe that the extra effort is "coming out of our hide". They unanimously want time versus money for the development of courses. Then they are interested in being paid to deliver the distance education courses as part of a regular workload. They need the equipment to do their jobs. Many want laptops loaded with nonstandard software and PowerPoint that they can take into their classes and to meetings. More need computers at home to communicate with students during evenings and weekends. Many would appreciate a graduate student to load Web pages, and most expressed appreciation for the instructional designers and other services available on campus. They want allocations to purchase materials, ability to make phone calls, and to visit other universities and conferences. They appreciate the continuing education available on campus. They suggest one day per semester, one day during spring break, two days the week before classes begin in January, and a week during the summer as best times for workshops. They appreciate Winterfest but many have had difficulty attending because it was early in the semester. Several suggested that Winterfest is an opportune time to bring colleagues from other campuses together to discuss issues. Work teams across disciplines, collegial models for sharing, and having faculty present after they return from continuing educational activities were recommended.
Faculty members indicate that nontraditional students are "a new breed". They are more "competitive", "sharper buyers", "want to know the degree plan up front", and ask, "What are you going to do that is relevant?" They want faculty to "give real nuggets."
They are doing considerable formative and well as summative evaluations. Some ask students to critique each assignment and ask for feedback about font size, colors, and how to modify for each class. They evaluate the teaching, readings, and assignments. Some have compared the quality of on and off campus student work. Some faculty has deliberately keep assignments the same so they could compare results. One faculty member said the first time he taught distance education, the students didn’t take the situation seriously, their grades suffered, and the students developed bad attitudes. Another faculty said that grades went down when tapes were used alone. Others noted that students did as well and in some cases better through distance education. Faculty members report that students did well. They want to continue doing evaluations to guide the continuous evolution and assisted adjustment.
One faculty member said he was surprised at how easy it is to teach on television. He has been surprised about what hasn’t been an issue for students when there were technical difficulties because students were so appreciative of having distance education available to them. Independent students love distance education. Students can use Internet at their convenience for time and place. Some faculty find they can give more individualized attention to students, and once Internet courses are up and running, they find more time for research and service.
The innovators, the first faculty to put courses on IHETS and the Internet, were mainly self taught, financially supported their own work, and felt resistance from colleagues and administrators. With the University’s commitment to distance education and the increased funding, most faculty are feeling well supported now. Faculty members are interested in reversing declining enrollments and expanding stable enrollments into new markets. Faculty members have done formative and summative evaluations as they have transformed their courses for distance education. Many faculty members are moving from traditional to IHETS to videotapes to Internet. Most faculties interviewed are adding computer technology to their traditional as well as distance education courses. Some are adding more reflection and group activities.
All faculties expressed concern about the amount of time it takes to transform a course. They need time to think about how to teach differently, time for the sharp learning curve required to use new technologies and strategies, and lots of time to front load courses. They would like reassigned time to develop courses and then pay to teach them as a regular teaching load. They need computer technologies, supplies, and faculty development. Most are pleased with the support available to them. Many are concerned about policies keeping up with practices.
I recommend that: