by Christopher Eller
The debate over the effectiveness of distance education compared with face-to-face classes is long standing. Decades of research have proven there is no significant difference between instruction delivered face-to-face and instruction delivered via some form of distance education(Neuhauser, 2002). Still, as demonstrated by a recent survey conducted by the National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges of university faculty members and administrators, 70 percent believe that distance learning outcomes were inferior when compared with face-to-face classes (Shieh, 2009). Adding to the brewing debate are those sounding the alarm that brick and mortar institutions need to change or face an uncertain future. As Mason (2003) observes, “One of the greatest threats to the traditional university is the rise of other educational providers: corporate universities, private for-profit universities, virtual universities, and a wide range of education brokers” (p. 745).
INTRODUCTION
The debate over the effectiveness of distance education compared with face-to-face classes is long standing. Decades of research have proven there is no significant difference between instruction delivered face-to-face and instruction delivered via some form of distance education(Neuhauser, 2002). Still, as demonstrated by a recent survey conducted by the National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges of university faculty members and administrators, 70 percent believe that distance learning outcomes were inferior when compared with face-to-face classes (Shieh, 2009). Adding to the brewing debate are those sounding the alarm that brick and mortar institutions need to change or face an uncertain future. As Mason (2003) observes, “One of the greatest threats to the traditional university is the rise of other educational providers: corporate universities, private for-profit universities, virtual universities, and a wide range of education brokers” (p. 745).
Few educators have missed Peter Drucker’s prediction/warning that “Thirty years from now big university campuses will be relics. Universities won’t survive. It’s as large a change as when we first got the printed book” (Lenzner & Johnson, 1997, ¶ 67). In many ways, university and college faculty members find themselves in the middle of a closing vice grip with the demands from increasing global competition on one side and a strong motivation to provide quality research and effective instruction on the other. Adding to the sense of frustration on behalf of many faculty members is a lack of administrative support and recognition for the increased responsibilities distance education can bring with it.
The purpose of this review is to survey recent studies on the attitudes and perceived obstacles to distance education held by university and college faculty members. Why is there a difference between the research that shows no significant difference and the prevailing opinion of faculty members that distance education is inferior? Is the effectiveness of online instruction as a teaching tool the real concern? What is at the root of faculty opinion?
METHODOLOGY
Literature published since 2000 was surveyed for this review. Online databases were accessed through the University of Northern Iowa’s Rod Library. Examples include Academic OneFile, College Source Online, Education Full Text, ERIC (EBSCO), ERIC (USDE), PsycArticles, and PsycInfo. In addition, two meta-search engines, Dogpile.com and Google Scholar, were used.
The search terms employed for this paper included the following words and phrases: distance education, distance learning, paradigm shift, no significant difference, virtual university, private for-profit university, distance learning effectiveness, faculty concerns with distance education, online pedagogy, and face-to-face verses online.
Many of the sources identified through this research were in the form of monographs or journal articles. The sources were selected based on their relevance to the topic, the credibility of the publication or author, and the source’s currency.
ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION
No significant difference is, in many ways, a worn out debate. As Shearer (2002) states rather directly, “to keep returning to the discussion of no significant difference every time a new technology hits the market is likely a waste of research time that could be better spent pursuing other key questions about what the technology can add or even what it subtracts from the learning environment” (¶ 5).
Obvious Obstacles to the Adoption of Distance Education
At first glance, it appears that effectiveness is at the root of faculty resistance to online instruction. Consider the headline from a February 2009 article in The Chronicle of Higher Education (Shieh, 2009) which states, “Professors Regard Online Instruction as Less Effective Than Classroom Learning.” The third paragraph of the article then reports,
The survey of faculty members found that while a majority of faculty members acknowledge that distance instruction offers students increased accessibility and flexibility, developing and teaching online courses can be burdensome.
“What faculty tell us is, ‘It takes me more time; it takes me more effort,’” said Jeff Seaman, chief information officer for the Sloan Consortium (¶ 3, 4).
This contrast is not a stand-alone incident. Maguire (2005) notes that “Concerns of faculty regarding participation in teaching online include a lack of standards for an online course, the threat of fewer jobs, and a decline in usage of full-time faculty which faculty believe results in a decline in quality of faculty” (IHEP, 2000; NEA, 2000 cited in Maguire, 2005, ¶ 12).
Schrum & Ohler (2005) note similar obstacles to successfully implementing a distance education strategy. Following a survey of faculty at the University of Alaska South (UAS), they included the need for strategic planning and a shared vision for distance education, initial technical training and technical support, student mentoring, increased time commitment, support for faculty from administrators, and difficulty in recruity faculty as barriers to distance education (p. 28).
Based on the examples cited above, the effectivenss of distance education is rarely cited as one of the top concerns for faculty members, yet effectivenss is often presented, as demonstrated in The Chronical of Higher Education article as a chief concern.
Challenges for Faculty in Higher Education
Many of the above barriers can be summarized as a perceived threat by many faculty members. McLean (2005) citing Talb & Newhouse notes that“It is the preception of threat that is often cited as one of the reasons faculty resist participation in technology initiatives (Talb & Newhouse, 1993, cited in McLean, 2005, ¶ 8).
Dunn (2000) goes as far as forseeing a faculty revolt against technology delivered courses. He predicts a unionization and strikes as faculty attempt to slow the inevitable.
Based on several studies, faculty members may have reason to fear. Howell, Williams and Lindsay (2003) noted that faculty tenure status is a target for change. Citing the results of a 2000 survey, the authors noted that “governors rated maintaining traditional faculty roles and tenure was the least desirable characteristic of a twenty-first century university” (de Alva, 2000 cited in Howell, Williams and Lindsay, 2003, ¶ 19). The authors draw the conclusion that “contributions to distance education rarely move faculty members toward tenure; therefore, dissolving tenure might make them more likely to participate in distance education efforts (Howell, Williams and Lindsay, 2003, ¶ 19).
In private communications with this author, Lois Lindell, a doctoral student at the University of Northern Iowa, describes the pressures confronting today’s university faculty member:
One of the underlying issues that is hinted at, but not directly addressed is what universities in higher education here in the US, but also around the globe value through their organizational practices — research is what matters, teaching is important, but what ultimately counts is the research production. It is necessary for tenure, promotion and merit pay and increasingly departments are evaluated in part on how successful their faculty are in bringing in grant dollars to support programs (L. A. Lindell, personal communication, March 27, 2009).
Globalism, Distance Education, and Increasing Competition
The logic of this seems obvious: What moves a faculty member toward tenure? Research.What does an administrator value? Grant dollars associated with research. Does participating in a distance learning experiment bring an increase in workload? Yes. Does partcipating in a distance learning experiment contribute to a faculty member’s tenure status, promotion, or merit pay? Not likely. Still, from a strategic persepctive, from where is future competition coming for brick and mortar colleges and universities? Distance education and globalism are a key components.
Mason (2003) states,
“One of the greatest threats to the traditional university is the rise of other educational providers: corporate universities, private for-profit universities, virtual universities, and a wide range of education brokers. Most of these new providers are businesses and the focus of a business is profit, while the focus of a university is knowledge (Mason, 2003, p. 745).
As technology continues to improve and spread throughout the developed and undeveloped world, natural barriers to higher education will be removed. For institutions with well developed distance education programs, this will be a positive as students begin to shop for educational opportunties outside of their regional geographic location. For institutions lacking in distance learning opporuntities, this will likely equate into increased competition for both new students for the retention of existing students (Duhaney, 2005).
John Field highlights the relationship between globalism and distance education and the challenges facing higher education:
Distance open learning appears to be uniquely suited to the emerging world order. As borders open up across the globe to traffic of almost every kind, so distance open learning flows increasingly across national frontiers. Once an essential element in nation-building, education is increasingly a commodity, most readily exportable in the form of distance open learning (Field, 1995, cited in Mason, 2003, p. 746).
Mason summarizes by stating,
In short, the globalization of education is exacerbating problems in higher education, which have roots much deeper than recent trends of consumerization and Internet technologies. However, the fear is that the focus of change in higher education is too much focused on short-term gain and maximizing revenue at the expense of the longer-term purposes of higher education (Mason, 2003, p. 746).
The Evolving Role of Faculty Members
Balancing expectations from both administrators and students, faculty members find themselves entering uncharted territory. For many, the new expectations bring many new challenges. Quoting Massy (1998), Wolcott observes that “in their new professorial role, faculty will likely ‘spend less time ‘professing’ and more time on educational process matters” (Wolcott, 2003, p. 550).
Wolcott (2003) makes the connection between the changing role of faculty and an institutions desire to implement distance education initiatives.
The new and added dimensions of faculty work bring us back to the debates about tenure and the nature of scholarship. Accommodating faculty time and effort associated with distance teaching, the creation of online instructional materials, and digital scholarship challenges the existing system for acknowledging and rewarding faculty for their teaching, research, and service (p. 550).
Of the institutional motivators presented to faculty that would encourage them to teach in an online setting, administrative support, recognition, and encouragement are most cited (Maguire, 2005). This includes both technical support and instructional design support. As Jay Halfond, dean of Boston University’s Metropolitan College and Extended Education, notes, “The professor is a subject-matter expert, not an educational media specialist” (Heubeck, 2008, p. 31).
Maguire (2005) notes that “the majority of factors that are barriers to teaching online are found in the areas of administrative and technical support” (¶ 27).
Wolcott (2003) provides an extensive review of how intrinsic and extrinsic motivators and intrinsic and extrinsic incentives play a part in the adoption of distance education initiatives by faculty members. In concluding her review, she notes that in most instances distance education is an add-on to traditional faculty responsibilities. As such, much of the research is focused on the balancing of responsibilities in an environment limited in time and funding. Many of the issues, Wolcott notes, may become moot as distance education merges into the mainstream of higher education and faculty roles are redefined to adapt to the new paradigm (p. 563).
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The scope of this paper prohibits even touching on the multitude of issues that could be addressed. The author has attempted to highlight some of the faculty concerns that may exist yet are hidden under the umbrella of distance education effectiveness.
The word “effectiveness” has many times become a cover word for a broad assortment of issues that must be addressed at the strategic level, department level, and individual level within institutions of higher learning.
Clearly, faculty members are one of an institution’s greatest assets. Addressing the needs and concerns of the faculty is critical to seeing an institution transition from a 20th Century paradigm to a 21st Century paradigm (McLean, 2005). Until an institution determines to change long-held policies and practices concerning faculty recognition, advancement, and tenure, change will be slow to come (Wolcott, 2003).
As Shearer (2002) notes, the focus of debate and research needs to shift when it comes to the topic of effectivenss and distance education. The question to ask is not if distance education is as effective as face-to-face instruction, but how can we make distance education more effective.
The active role of an institution’s administrative leadership is a crucial component in helping faculty endorse and participate in distance education projects (Maguire, 2005; McLean, 2005; Wolcott, 2003; Schrum & Ohler, 2005). At the center of the storm vis-à-vis the faculty and distance education debate is the issue of tenure and faculty recognition. The paradigm for the 20th Century institution has focused on research as the impetus for reward, recognition, advancement and tenure. This works well in a paradigm that values the pursuit of knowledge as the preeminant objective (Mason, 2003).
The challenge for many institutions in the 21st Century is competition from for-profit businesses that offer high quality educational opportunitites via distance education on a global scale. No longer will adult learners be limited to regional institutions within close proximity geographically in order to receive a high quality education (Mason, 2003).
As institutions grapple with this paradigm shift, it will require them to reconsider how they pursue faculty, how they reward and advance faculty, and ultimately, how they retain faculty. After all, if highly qualified, capable faculty members can achieve personal recognition and professional advancement at virtual institutions, faculty retention at institutions that do not recognize their achivements in the new paradigm will become difficult.
Mason (2003) speaks of “dual mode” institutions—institutions that have both traditional brick and mortar classrooms and programs and virtual classrooms and programs. Perhaps as institutions make this transition it may be necessary to consider “dual tracks” for faculty that balance the demands of the two competing paradigms. Some faculty may be on a research-oriented track in which recognition, advancement, reward, and tenure are the result of their research work and the funding that results, while other faculty may be on a distance education-oriented track in which recognition, advancement, reward, and tenure are the result of their contributions to the virtual institution and the tuition dollars, funding, grants, etc. that result from it.
Clearly, an important factor in helping an institution make this transition is the design team approach employed by most virtual institutions and being adopted by many traditional universities seeking to implement a distance education component (Power, 2007). In this design model, the professor serves as the subject matter expert while issues of instructional design, media production, technical support, and student support are assigned to professionals in each of these areas on the design team. As Wolcott (2003) observes, most professors are not distance education experts. Moreover, faculty tend to view distance education as another, often foreign, area of expertise, one in which they have little experience or limited time to pursue with excellence. The design team model allows the professor to focus on his/her strength and expertise while allowing the insitution to offer increased educational opportunitites through distance education (Heubeck, 2008).
Funding will certainly be an issue to consider. Given the tithening budget constraints most colleges and universities operate under within today’s economic environment, there may be little extra for building the technical infrastructure and support necessary to provide for quality instruction at a distance.
Still, from a strategic planning perspective, administrators must weigh the opportunities and threats before them and judge whether or not their institution will face stiff competition from virtual colleges and universities. As with many issues of this size and magnitude, there is time, but institutions that wait too long to begin moving towards a solution may discover it is too late.
It is worth repeating Peter Drucker’s 1997 warning: “Thirty years from now big university campuses will be relics. Universities won’t survive”(Lenzner & Johnson, 1997, ¶ 67).
Hopefully, for the sake of many of today’s fine university campuses, Drucker was thinking of the competitive threat facing universities when he made his prediction. This can be addressed and overcome. The alternative is that he was thinking of a university’s inability to accept and adapt to change.
REFERENCES
Compaine, B. M. (2001). The Digital Divide: Facing a Crisis or Creating a Myth? Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Duhaney, D. C. (2005). Technology and Higher Education: Challenges in the Halls of Academe. International Journal of Instructional Media , 32(1), 7-15.
Dunn, S. L. (2000, March/April). The Virtualizing of Education. The Futurist , pp. 34-38.
Frey, B. A., & Donehue, R. (2003). Making the Transition from Traditional to Cyberspace Classrooms. PAACE Journal of Lifelong Learning , 69-84.
Heubeck, E. (2008, October 16). Higher Ed Professionals’ Perspectives on Online Education. Diverse , pp. 30-31.
Howell, S. L., Williams, P. B., & Lindsay, N. K. (2003). Thirty-two Trends Affecting Distance Education: An Informed Foundation for Strategic Planning. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration , VI (III), accessed online at http://www.wetga.edu/~distance/ojdla/fall63/howell63.html, 3/22/2009.
Lenzner, R., & Johnson, S. S. (1997, March 10). Retrieved March 17, 2009, from Forbes: http://find.galegroup.com/itx/infomark.do?&contentSet=IAC-Documents&type=retrieve&tabID=T003&prodId=AONE&docId=A19148548&source=gale&srcprod=AONE&userGroupName=uni_rodit&version=1.0
Maguire, L. L. (2005, March 15). Literature Review – Faculty Participation in Online Distance Education: Barriers and Motivators. Retrieved March 27, 2009, from Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration: http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/spring81/maguire81.htm
Mason, R. (2003). Global Education: Out of the Ivory Tower. In M. G. Moore, & W. G. Anderson, Handbook of Distance Education (pp. 743-752). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbuam Associates.
McLean, J. (2005, December 21). Addressing Faculty Concerns About Distance Learning. Retrieved March 23, 2009, from Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration: http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/winter84/mclean84.html
Neuhauser, C. (2002). Learning Style and Effectiveness of Online and Face-to-Face Instruction. The American Journal of Distance Education , 99-113.
Norris, P. (2001). Digital Divide: Civic Engagement, Information Poverty, and the Internet Worldwide. Cambridge University Press.
Oblinger, D. G., & Hawkins, B. L. (2006, November/December). The Myth about No Significant Difference. Educause Review , pp. 14-15.
Power, M. (2007). From Distance Education to E-Learning: a multiple case study on instructional design problems. E-Learning , 64-78.
Schrum, L., & Ohler, J. (2005). Distance Education at UAS: A Case Study. Journal of Distance Education , 20 (1), 60-83.
Shearer, R. (2002, September 15). No Significant Difference And Distance Education. Retrieved March 17, 2009, from Distance-Educator.com: http://www.distance-educator.com/dnews/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=7507
Shieh, D. (2009, February 10). Professors Regard Online Instruction as Less Effective Than Classroom Learning. Retrieved February 11, 2009, from The Chronicle of Higher Education: http://chronicle.com/free/2009/02/11232n.htm
Warschauer, M. (2004). Technology and Social Inclusion: Rethinking the Digital Divide. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Wolcott, L. L. (2003). Dynamics of Faculty Participation in Distance Education: Motivations, Incentives, and Rewards. In M. Moore, & W. Anderson, Handbook of Distance Education (pp. 549-565). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbuam Associates.
ChrisEller.org | Connect the dots. 