Differential Skills and Competencies Required of Faculty Teaching Distance Education Courses

Differential Skills and Competencies Required of Faculty Teaching Distance Education Courses

Regina Schoenfeld-Tacher, Ph.D., Colorado State University,

Kay A. Persichitte, Ph.D., University of Northern Colorado,

Introduction

This paper explores the differential skills required of faculty teaching distance delivered courses within distance learning programs. The first section is devoted to a review of the current literature, including a definition of the system under consideration, and an analysis of the differential demands placed on faculty in distance teaching settings. Different skills required for teaching with specific media are also examined in this section. A summary of perceptions gathered from surveys of faculty who have recently taught distance delivered courses via the World Wide Web within traditional academic distance learning programs is included. Finally, conclusions are drawn and issues for further research are discussed.

Literature Review

Definition of the System

Moore and Kearsley (1996) propose a four-level typology based upon the work of Michael Mark (1990) to identify and classify the various levels of distance education (DE) determined by the scope and administrative complexity of each. The first level is what they termed the Distance Learning Program. At this level, the program consists of

activities carried out in a conventional college, university, school system or training department whose primary responsibilities include traditional classroom instruction. In recent years many faculty have chosen to teach their courses off-campus by means of audio- or videoconferencing, simply adding the distant learners to their conventional class. This is sometimes referred to as the “craft” approach to distance education, since it usually consists of a single teacher working alone, as contrasted to working with a team in a systems approach. A distance learning program does not usually have its own faculty or administrative services. (p. 3)

This paper examines the differential demands placed upon four faculty members having sole responsibility for the design, development, and delivery of their Web courses and two who received primary support in the delivery of their Web courses. These faculty were chosen as the subjects of this study because they fulfill a greater number of roles (instructional designer, technical support, site supervisor, etc.) than their colleagues who teach in larger distance education systems where specialized support teams are available. While some authors propose that the development of online courses should be team-based (de Verneil & Berge, 2000; Keegan, 1996; Lockwood, 1995), this paper focuses on what seems to be the more typical experience of higher education faculty today.

Two of the six faculty (Professors D and F) utilized a ‘quasi-craft’ approach for the development and delivery of their courses. They were mildly supported by staff from a private vendor of online courses, but were still required to: (a) make all decisions about the structure, sequencing, and linking of content, (b) develop alternative learner assessments, (c) become familiar with and make decisions about using the technological tools within the structure, and (d) use HTML.

The other four faculty (Professors A, B, C, and E) used the ‘craft’ approach as defined by Moore and Kearsley (1996) receiving no support from internal University sources or external vendor sources. These faculty were fully responsible for the design, development, delivery, and technical maintenance and support of their online courses. In all six cases, the lack of access to specialized expertise in a variety of areas forced these faculty to hone their instructional and pedagogical craft in a non-traditional media.

Areas of Competence

In “Linking for Learning: A New Course for Education” (1989), the U. S. Congress Office of Technology Assessment proposes the creation of in-service programs targeted at providing assistance for faculty to modify conventional teaching behaviors and to acquire the skills needed to become effective distance educators.

The topic areas for these training sessions include: 1) the amount of time needed to prepare and teach distance delivered courses; 2) methods to establish and maintain effective communication with distant students; 3) experiences of other faculty members; strategies for adding visual components to audio courses; 4) strategies for increasing interaction both among students and between students and faculty; 5) planning and management of organizational details involved in distance delivery; and 6) strategies to encourage group cohesion and student motivation. (pp. 95-96)

Cyrs (1997) conducted a meta-analysis of the literature and identified four areas of faculty competence related to distance education that were mentioned in all of the studies analyzed. These areas are course planning and organization, verbal and nonverbal presentation skills, collaborative teamwork, and questioning strategies. Each of these areas is discussed in greater detail to provide a foundation for contextualizing this exploration of faculty teaching with DE technologies.

Two other areas pertaining to distance education in general were identified by only one study in Cyrs’ meta-analysis (1997): basic learning theory and knowledge of the distance learning field. All instructors need an understanding of how human learning occurs in order to design effective lessons. When teaching at a distance, this becomes even more important because this knowledge will enable the instructor to adapt to varying learner needs and contextual situations (Chute, Balthazan, & Poston, 1988).

Much has been written (e.g., Cyrs, 1997; de Verneil, & Berge, 2000; Paulsen, 1995) about the importance of course planning and organization for distance delivery. These discussions encompass a variety of issues pertaining to professors’ understanding of how distance teaching differs from traditional, f2f teaching. Logistical issues, such as the effect of the delivery system on interaction and technical knowledge required to successfully teach with technology are included in this area (Chute et al., 1988; Moursund, 1999). The results of this study indicate that faculty must also have a firm understanding of basic instructional design strategies and learning theory in order to be able to design effective, interactive lessons.

The ability to construct an organized presentation and appropriately pace a lecture is required of all teachers. In addition to these skills, faculty teaching distance education courses also need to be able to coordinate their presentations with the study guides or handouts being used by distant learners. Distance instructors must accomplish this while operating under a severe reduction in the set of verbal and visual feedback cues received from their students as well as the inherent time delay with asynchronous systems.

Despite the common assumption that DE faculty will be familiar with a variety of delivery systems, one of the studies reviewed in Cyrs’ meta-analysis (1997) revealed that this is not always the case. Thach (1994) determined that an instructor’s lack of knowledge about the variety of delivery systems available and the capabilities of each (e.g., supporting synchronous vs. asynchronous communication) will limit the breadth of instructional options available to that person. Instruction is likely to be enriched to the extent that the faculty has in-depth knowledge of a variety of delivery technologies and respective capabilities and limitations for instructional purposes.

Distance instructors often need to rely upon other experts for technical support, which can be a very disconcerting experience for these content experts. In addition, DE faculty must be able to draw on multiple strategies for fostering successful interactions among members of student teams and within whole class communications.

Types of Interaction in Distance Education

Moore and Kearsley (1996) identify three types of interaction within distance education environments and describe how such interactions affect the distance learning process. A balance among these interactions is necessary for successful DE courses.

Learner-content interaction refers to the communication that takes place between the learner and the subject matter under study. Interactions with the content allow each learner to construct their own knowledge by integrating new information into their pre-existing mental structures. DE instructors facilitate the learning process by sequencing and presenting the appropriate content using the most effective delivery media.

Due to the nature of the media, online courses provide an ideal setting to take advantage of hypermedia and multimedia to support independent exploration of content in a truly individualized manner. Holmberg (1995) believes that effective learner-content interaction is dependent on the instructor’s ability to support study motivation and facilitate learning through guided didactic conversation. Online environments offer the opportunity to develop personal meaning, engage in reflection and deep processing. These higher levels of learner engagement, while critical to learning and retention (Vygotsky, 1978), are typically inhibited in traditional, f2f settings.

Once the content has been presented, instructors need to assist students with their learner-content interactions. This requires learner-instructor interaction. Initially, student interest in the content and motivation to engage in it must be aroused. Then, the instructor needs to provide opportunities for students to practice what they have learned and provide feedback on student progress. Finally, the faculty member must conduct assessments to be certain that instructional objectives have been met. Throughout this process, instructors are also responsible for counseling their students and providing support and encouragement as warranted by the individual learner.

Holmberg (1995) argues for the use of guided didactic conversation in distance education environments to encourage elaboration of the content and depth of interaction with the instructor. He provides seven postulates upon which to build interactive distance environments that focus on elements such as establishing affective connections, inter-personal communication, trusting atmosphere, and facilitating organized study. Boaz and colleagues (1999) highlight the importance of learner-instructor interaction by urging instructors to “[G]et beyond the technology and humanize the distance by focusing on the students rather than on the delivery methods” (p. 42).

The value of interactions among learners is frequently overlooked in even the most traditional educational settings. In addition to the practical and financial reasons frequently cited for grouping learners, this type of organization also allows students to interact with each other. Learner-learner interactions are desirable for pedagogical reasons (Slavin, 1996), as they provide more opportunities for students to discuss the content with others, resulting in quantitatively and qualitatively improved cognitive processing. During these interactions, students are able to negotiate the meaning of particular concepts with their peers. Such interactions aid in the construction of new knowledge, and are central to the theory of social constructivism (e.g., Harasim, 1989; Holmberg, 1995; Kearsley, 2000). Online environments can capitalize on a finding that students bond with each other in DE more than in traditional settings (Souder, 1993). Instructors can use that propensity for electronic bonding to foster friendships and communication among the learners. Integrating a variety of communication activities and media within online courses can help decrease feelings of alienation from the group. As online courses become more prevalent, faculty must become skilled in the creation of constructivist learning environments and the development of virtual learner communities.

Medium Specific Issues

Although it is the technology that removes barriers and expands opportunities for learning, it is the teacher who teaches. In distance learning, teachers find that they are required to change their method of teaching and give more attention to advanced preparation, student interaction, visual materials, activities for independent study, and follow-up activities. (U. S. Congress, 1989, p. 11)

Each type of delivery medium (print-based, audio-conferencing, video-conferencing, Web-based, etc.) requires specific instructional skills for its effective use. For example, instructors using Web-based technologies must adapt to the absence of nonverbal cues from their students and the interpretation of online communication.

Gunawardena (1992) and others (e.g., Bates, 1995; Paulsen, 1995; Simonson et al., 2000) identify three areas in which teaching through telecommunications places different demands upon the instructor than teaching in a traditional situation. These are: 1) the need to understand the technical and communications problems faced by students and to assist in solving these problems; 2) the need to create back-up plans for coping with technical failures; and 3) the need to prepare course materials and activities far in advance of the time they are to be used.

Gunawardena also notes that traditional instructional design models do not provide much guidance for the development of two-way interactive DE courses. All six professors involved with this study agreed there was a need for training, but they found little or no such support. Lack of preparation in new pedagogies for distance delivery is a topic of recent concern in the literature (e.g., Green, 1999; Rao & Rao, 1999; Rogers, 2000). Though experienced in instructional design, Gunawardena was left to develop new paradigms to deal with the interrelationships among content objectives, media attributes, and learners’ cognitive processes. Professor A echoed this sentiment. The greatest change faculty members need to make when teaching via DE relates to their role as instructors. Gunawardena states:

I had to change my role from that of teacher at the front of the classroom and the center of the process to that of facilitator who is one with the participants and whose primary role is to guide and support the learning process. The result was a course designed as a learner-centered system based on dialogue and cooperation among students. (p. 61)

Boston (1992) mentions the need for faculty training because “faculty have the same learning curve as do students in learning to send and receive files and messages using the host system and its software. However, they have the added responsibility for designing the asynchronous learning experience and preparing the materials” (p. 46). Boston also notes that there are more interactions between students and instructors involved in modem courses than in f2f courses. This increased quantity of interaction encourages fast and frequent feedback to students in the course (Grabe & Grabe, 2000; Simonson et al., 2000), and correspondingly requires faculty to spend considerable amounts of time responding to students’ messages. Such additional time commitment was mentioned as a concern by Professors B, D, and E in this study.

When preparing courses for distance delivery, faculty members are forced to reorganize their lecture materials and compress their thoughts into document files for distribution to the students; also a time intensive requirement. Boston (1992) reports that this ‘forced discipline’ has led to an increased clarity of thought on his behalf and a more concise expression of ideas in his f2f lectures, a sentiment echoed by Professor A.

Faculty Perceptions

Individual perceptions and experiences among faculty participating in Internet delivery of instruction vary greatly. Six faculty members teaching distance education courses at a Doctoral I institution in Colorado were surveyed about their recent experiences teaching in this manner and how the online teaching experience differed from f2f teaching. All six of the participants responded to an open-ended follow-up survey investigating instructor satisfaction after completion of teaching at least one DE course. The open-ended survey was followed by brief individual conversations to confirm or clarify the survey data. Analysis of these data reveal that the extra amount of time required to prepare high quality DE courses is a major source of concern regardless of prior experience with DE environments. A secondary finding is that the impact of faculty preparation and/or background with basic instructional design principles also influences their summative satisfaction with teaching online.

Two participants (Professors A and B) had sole responsibility for designing and developing their course Websites. Professor C participated in a grant-funded initiative that provided support for faculty to integrate technology into their classrooms. An external vendor was responsible for providing basic support for the courses taught by Professors D and F. Two doctoral students in Educational Technology supported Professor E’s course development and delivery.

The participants in this survey represented a variety of subject areas and course levels. Professors B and F taught freshman level Science courses (Fundamentals of Chemistry I, Oceans and Humankind, respectively). Professors A, D, and E taught graduate level courses in the College of Education; two in Special Education (Transition Planning and Service Delivery, Technology for the Blind and Visually Impaired) and one in Educational Technology (Distance Education Theories and Principles). Finally, Professor C was responsible for a graduate course in Visual Arts (Women Artists and Artists of Color).

Although all participants surveyed possessed above average technical skills and computer experience before teaching their Web-based courses, their knowledge of distance education theories and principles varied widely. The extremes were represented by a professor of Educational Technology (Professor A) who was teaching a graduate level course in distance education, and a Chemistry professor (Professor B) who had no formal preparation in the areas of distance education or instructional design. Two of the participants (Professors D and F) had some previous experience with distance education – either as a program coordinator or having previously taught another online class. The remaining two participants (Professors C and E) had no previous experience teaching at a distance, but had spent several months reading about distance education and consulting with peers in preparation for teaching their Web-based course.

Despite these initial differences, most instructors reported facing similar challenges, such as a lack of support from their colleges. They were forced to find alternative sources of technical support, either from other academic units or technologically proficient students enrolled in their courses. Teaching in this medium required the faculty to spend substantial time reviewing their content and reorganizing it in advance of course delivery. As a result, they reported developing an increased depth and breadth of understanding of the content.

All courses were developed on a pre-specified syllabus, including specific reading assignments and learning activities scheduled on particular dates. Professor C identified the need to post all the details she would normally communicate orally to students in her classroom in written form on the Website as the main difference involved in online teaching. The least experienced faculty member (Professor B) felt constrained by the initial parameters she set for her course and reported being unable to make changes in the distance course “to accommodate a class that needs more help in one area and less in another.” In contrast, Professor A clearly stated for the learners that the syllabus was subject to change and did in fact modify several due dates and activities as the course progressed in response to student needs and technological mishaps.