With
the rise of the Internet and explosion of technological software, many colleges
and universities are offering increasing numbers of Distance Education courses
and programs (DeNeui & Dodge, 2006; Guri-Rosenblit, 2005;Taylor &
McQuigglan, 2008). In fact, more than 6.1 million undergraduate students were
taking at least one online course by the Fall of 2010; this is an increase of
560,000 students in a one year period (Allen & Seaman, 2011). Although technology
enables post-secondary institutions to reach more students locally and
globally, some academics and researchers question the legitimacy and efficacy
of Distance Education (see e.g., Allen & Seaman, 2011; DeNeui & Dodge,
2006; Falvo & Johnson, 2007; Pankowski, 2004). While researchers have suggested that the key
factor in quality Distance Education is professional development for faculty in
online course design and pedagogical skills, there are no standard, systematic professional
development requirements governing Distance Education and practices vary widely
among educational institutions (Allen & Seaman, 2011; Bernard, 2003; Kosak,
2004;McQuiggan, 2007; Taylor & McQuiggan, 2008).
Distance education is defined as “a course taken
for credit that was delivered using live, interactive audio or videoconferencing, pre-recorded
instructional videos, webcasts, CD ROM or DVD, or computer based systems over
the Internet” (Allen & Seaman, 2011). There are three basic types of Distance
Education courses: complete online, hybrid, and face-to-face with integrated
web-based support materials (DeNeui & Dodge, 2006; Falvo & Johnson,
2007). With the rise of Course Management Systems (CMS) and Learning Management
Systems (LMS) in the 1990’s, there are many CMS and LMS available to universities
for developing online courses (Falvo & Johnson, 2007). Some of these
systems include BlackBoard, Angel, WebCT, eCompanion, eCollege, Ed2Go, Datatel, AceLink,
Outlook, and Web Board (Falvo & Johnson, 2007). Each system enables the
faculty member to organize courses using a design interface or framework and offers
a unique range of administrate and collaborative tools, such as discussion
boards, email and chat functions, multimedia resources, and grading features, for facilitation purposes
(Desai, 2008; Samarawickrema, 2007).
Online
courses can be utilized as an add-on to provide supplementary resources and
activities for a traditional classroom-based course. On the other hand, online
courses can be implemented to reduce or completely eliminate time in class. As
a result of a 43% increase in enrollments and decreasing classroom space, the
University of California’s ten-campus system has moved toward Distance
Education (Guri-Rosenblit, 2005). Facing
similar constraints on classroom space, Georgia Perimeter College has
implemented a hybrid model of Distance Education that reduces “seat time” in
classrooms by 50% (Moon, Michelich & McKinnon, 2005). Furthermore,
Guri-Rosenblit (2005) reports that 1,000 faculty members at Tel Aviv University
in Israel indicate using some form of Distance Learning. Even in Nigeria,
government initiatives are providing educational leaders with hardware and
software to deliver distance education to millions of illiterate people
(Aderinoye, 2008). While the movement from traditional to virtual classrooms is
a global phenomenon, Guri-Rosenblit (2005) suggests that “only a handful of
developing countries will be able to move into [Distance Learning] because of a
lack of resources and skilled workforce” (p.488).
Despite the demand for and popularity of
Distance Education, researchers have little evidence demonstrating the quality
of online courses and their positive impact on student achievement (DeNeui
& Dodge, 2006; Falvo & Johnson, 2007; Pankowski, 2004). Allen & Seaman (2011) report an increase from
27.6% in 2002 to 32% in 2011 in the number of educational leaders who believe
the quality of Distance Education is comparable with traditional,
brick-and-mortar programs. Moreover, Allen & Seaman (2011) report 11.4% of
faculty do not perceive Distance Education as legitimate and comparable to
traditional classes and 56.5% of faculty are neutral about the quality of
Distance Education compared with traditional programs. In a 2003 meta-analysis of 232 studies
comparing traditional, face-to-face courses with Distance Education courses,
Bernard reported the following results: one third of Distance Education courses
yielded higher achievement than traditional classes; one third of the Distance
Education courses had no differences in student achievement than face-to-face
courses; and one third of the Distance Education courses yielded lower student
achievement than traditional classes. Hinson
& LaPrairie (2005) found that “the effects of [Distance Education] on
student achievement were correlated significantly with how courses were
designed, and whether the designers employed interactive media and sound online
pedagogical and instructional design strategies” (p.485).
Developing and facilitating Distance
Learning courses requires new technical skills and pedagogical strategies
specific to the online environment (Notar, 2005; Desai, 2008; Dempsey, 2008; Samarawickrema,
2007). Faculty can not simply transfer materials from their face-to-face
courses into an online platform, because they must first learn the interface
design of the Learning Management System as well its instructional tools
(Christie & Jurado, 2009; Kosak, 2004). Although the content can be the
same for traditional and virtual classes, it is delivered through different
media and negotiated through asynchronous or synchronous mediums with students
(McQuiggan, 2007). The Sloan National Commission on Online Learning surveyed over 2,500
universities across the United States and reported that one-third of all
post-secondary faculty have taught at least one online course (Allen & Seaman,
2011), yet researchers suggest that little is known about the best methods to
prepare faculty to design, facilitate, and evaluate Distance Education courses
and professional development ranges from voluntary tutorials to
mandatory workshops and certifications (Taylor & McQuiggan, 2008; Allen
& Seaman, 2011; Pankowski, 2004). Allen
& Seaman (2011) report that most universities provide faculty with both
formal, internal training courses (72%) and informal mentoring (58%)
opportunities.
Researchers
suggest that faculty training should be multi-faceted and on-going as well as provide
formal and informal formats (McQuiggan, 2008; Taylor & McQuiggan, 2007;
Christie & Jurado, 2009; Pankowski, 2004). Shank (2004) organizes online
teaching skills into the following broad categories: administrative functions,
interface design, facilitation between instructor and students as well as among
students, assessment, and technical aspects. These suggestions are corroborated
by a 2007 survey of 68 World Campus faculty at Penn State University that
indicated professional development in Instructional Design and resources,
technical components and issues, and on-going mentoring are the best
preparation for teaching online (Taylor & McQuiggan, 2008). In a study of 64 Math
faculty at universities throughout the United States, however, Pankowski (2004)
reports that 75% of participants report receiving technical training on the
university’s Learning Management System (LMS) but only one-third receive
training in online pedagogical skills. Furthermore, faculty at the University of West
Georgia receive between one and five hours of professional training before
teaching their first online course while faculty in the University of North
Carolina system receive on-going training in online pedagogy (58%) as well as
technological components (72%) (Kosak, 2004).
Assessment is also an integral aspect of
the teaching and learning process, and it must be built into Distance Education
to ensure student achievement and quality programs (Gaytan & McEwen,
2007). Since online education alters the
interaction patterns of student to teacher and student to student, it requires
equally innovative assessment methods, which may include projects, portfolios,
rubric-based discussion board postings, self-assessments, and timed tests or
quizzes (Gaytan & McEwen, 2007). Notar (2005) argues that elements of good
teaching have not changed; however, content, teaching strategies, and
assessments must be tailored to the new online environment to encourage student
learning and maintain quality Distance Learning experiences.
Taylor
& McQuigglan (2007) identify a range of current professional development
opportunities, which include mandatory training programs that span six weeks
(Montgomery College) to six months (Dallas Baptist University), voluntary self-guided
modules (University of Birmingham, United Kingdom), a 10-week E-learning program
in Higher Education, immersive one week summer workshops (North Carolina State
University), and interactive websites, CD ROMS or streaming video (University
of Florida). Other researchers propose specific professional development
models, such as a diffusion-based model that “provides multiple spaces-- self-paced
tutorials and guided practice, faculty submitted work samples and discussion
boards-- offering different points of entry based on an individual learner’s
needs” (Garofoli & Woodell, 2003).
Hinson
& LaPrairie (2005) propose the Professional Development Model for Online
Course Development, which includes planning, instruction, implementation,
refinement, and evaluation phases. This training model tailors instruction to
an individual’s needs and personal objectives as well as focuses on interface
design, best practices, collaboration, and on-going support through monthly
meetings and biweekly online discussions (McQuiggan, 2008). Georgia Perimeter
College has developed a hybrid fellowship professional development model that
focuses on technical, pedagogical, and legal knowledge related to teaching
online (Moon, Michelich & McKinnon, 2005). This one-year program enables
faculty to develop virtual classrooms, create syllabi, build modules, organize
sections, and design assignments before the online course begins (Moon,
Michelich & McKinnon, 2005).
Christie
& Jurado (2009) report on a study at the University College of Boras,
Sweden, probing faculty’ use of Learning Management System in Distance
Education courses. They found that faculty used 60% of the basic functions of
the LMS; faculty indicated that “they did not have the time or motivation to
become experts in using the LMS” (Christie & Jurado, 2009, p.276). Numerous other researchers
have documented that online teaching not only requires an additional technical
and pedagogical skill set but also a significant investment of time to
administer, moderate, and evaluate (Christie & Jurado, 2009; Dempsey, 2008;
Desai, 2008;Guri-Rosenblit, 2005; Kosak, 2004; McQuiggan, 2008; Notar, 2005. Since Distance Education requires faculty to
have all aspects of a course prepared in advance, it is essentially doubling
the workload for faculty (McGinnis, 2010). Samarawickrema
& Stacey (2007) have reported similar time constraints related to
professional development in their case study of e-learning adoption at an
Australian university. “While all study participants considered all forms of
web-enhanced teaching as requiring more preparation time, two participants
cited the lack of technical help, which made tasks harder and engendered a
feeling of being overloaded” (Samarawickrema & Stacey, 2007). Furthermore, professors have revealed a
tension between the need to conduct new research for the university and the
obligation to fulfill administrative duties of teaching online courses (Samarawickrema
& Stacey, 2007). While a causal relationship can not be made, future
research might probe a correlation between ineffective Distance Education and
faculty time constraints.
Despite
all of these professional development models and training opportunities,
a 2011 survey of more than 10,000 faculty at 69 colleges and universities
across the United States found that “faculty are generally dissatisfied with
the level of support they receive in developing and teaching online courses and
programs”(Allen & Seaman). Although some institutions are trying to support
online faculty by offering stipends, release time, or equipment to compensate
for the additional workload inherent in online course development and
implementation, it may not be enough to offset the challenges (McQuiggan,
2008). Future research might investigate faculties’ attitude toward online
teaching to find any correlating relationships among the lack of professional
development support and top-down instead of bottom-up directives for Distance
Learning programs.
As the demand for online courses and programs continues
to escalate, post-secondary institutions are implementing various models of
professional development to help faculty transition from the traditional to the
virtual classroom (McQuiggan, 2008). Developing and facilitating Distance
Learning courses requires new technical skills and teaching strategies;
however, universities are offering too little support too late.
Aderinoye,
R. (2008). Literacy and Communication Technologies: Distance Education
Strategies for Literacy Delivery. International
Review of Education, 54, 605-626.
Allen,
I. E., & Seaman, J. (2011). Going the Distance: Online Education in the
United States, Needham, MA: Sloan Consortium. Retreived from http://www.onlinelearningsurvey.com/reports/goingthedistance.pdf
Aud, S.,
Hussar, W., Kena, G., Bianco, K., Frohlich, L., Kemp, J., Tahan, K. (2011). The
Condition of Education 2011 (NCES 2011-033). U.S. Department of Education,
National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government
Printing Office.
Bernard, R., Abrami, P.,Lou, Y., Borokhovski, E.,et al.(2004). How does Distance Education Compare with Classroom
Instruction? A Meta-Analysis of the Empirical Literature. Review of
Christie, M.M., & Jurado, R. (2009). Barriers to
innovation in online pedagogy. European
Journal of Engineering Education, 34 (3), 273-279.
Dempsey, J., Fisher, S., Wright, D., & Anderson,
E. (2008). Training and Support:
Obstacles, and Library Impacts on E-learning Activities. College Student Journal, 42(2),
630-636.
DeNeui, D. L., & Dodge, T. L. (2006).
Asynchronous learning networks and student outcomes: The utility of online
learning components in hybrid courses. Journal of Instructional Psychology,
33(4), 256-259.
Desai, M.C. (2008). E-LEARNING: PARADIGM SHIFT IN
EDUCATION. Education, 129 (2),
327-334.
Falvo, D. & Johnson, B. (2007). The Use of
Learning Management Systems in the United States. Tech Trend, 51(2), 40-45.
Garofoli, E. & Woodell, J. (2003). Faculty
Development and the Diffusion of Innovations. Retrieved from www.campustechnology.com.
Guri-Rosenblit, S. (2005). ‘Distance education’ and
‘e-learning’: Not the same thing. Higher
Education, 49(4), 467-493.
Gaytan, J., & McEwen, B.C. (2007). Effective
Online Instructional and Assessment Strategies. American Journal of Distance Education, 21 (3), 117-132.
McQuiggan, C. (2007). The Role of Faculty
Development in Online Teaching’s Potential to Question Teaching Beliefs and
Assumptions. Online Journal of Distance
Learning, 3(10).
Moon, D., Michelich, V., & McKinnon, S. (2005).
Blow away the competition: Explosive Best Practices for Cost-Effective
Excellence in Distance Learning. Community
College Journal of Research & Practice, 29 (8), 621-622.
Notar, C.K. (2005). A DISTANCE LEARNING MODEL FOR
TEACHING HIGHER ORDER THINKING. College
Student Journal, (39), 17-25.
Pankowski, P. (2004). Faculty Training for Online
Teaching. The Journal. Retrieved
from http://thejournal.com/articles/2004/09/01/faculty-training-for-online-teaching.aspx?sc_lang=en
Samarawickrema, G., & Stacey, E. (2007).
Adopting Web-Based Learning and Teaching: a case
study in higher
education. Distance Education, 28(3),
313-333.
Shank, P. (2004). “Competencies for Online
Instructors.” Retrieved from http://www.mnsu.edu/cetl/teachingwithtechnology/tech_resources_pdf/Competencies%20for%20Online%20Instructors.pdf
Taylor, A. & McQuiggan, C. (2008).
Faculty Development Programming: If We Build it,
No comments:
Post a Comment