VOL. 17, No. 1, 36-46
The case for the necessity of distance education faculty training and development is well established, but research that addresses what such programs should look like—as well as what are the key opportunities and constraints—is limited. Given the above, a survey of training and development specialists representing 14 landgrant institutions was conducted in order to explore how universities with active agricultural distance education programs are conducting distance education training and development programs for their faculty. Results indicated that training programs in most institutions were voluntary, consisting of a combination of formal, informal, and self-paced programs and short classes or programs offered at various times over many weeks. Respondents also indicated that although their universities have a distance education coordinator and/or training center, the coordinator and center do not coordinate training across the campus. Individual units and colleges conduct their own training programs. Respondents in this study called on their universities to develop a “strategic plan for distance education” by increasing production staff, improving training facilities, and providing faculty with more assistance and incentives. They also believed that training should be better coordinated to provide faculty with more exposure to distance education teaching methods.
La question de la nécessité d’un département de l’Enseignement à distance formation et développement est bien établie, mais la recherche qui aborde la question de ce à quoi devrait ressembler un tel programme – ainsi que sur les opportunités clés et les contraintes – est limitée. Ceci dit, une enquête auprès de spécialistes en formation et développement représentant 14 institutions land-grant a été menée afin d’explorer comment les universités ayant des programmes à distance actifs en agriculture opèrent les programmes de formation et de développement pour leur département. Les résultats ont indiqué que dans la plupart des institutions, les programmes de formation étaient volontaires, consistant en une combinaison de programmes formels, informels ou au rythme de l’apprenant et de petites classes, ou des programmes offerts à des temps variables sur plusieurs semaines. Les répondants ont aussi signalé que même si leurs universités ont un coordonnateur pour l’éducation à distance et/ou un centre de formation, le coordonateur et le centre ne coordonnent pas la formation pour tout le campus. Les unités individuelles et les collèges dirigent leurs propres programmes de formation. Les répondants de cette étude ont réclamé auprès de leurs universités la nécessité de développer � un plan stratégique pour l’éducation à distance � qui augmenterait le personnel de production, améliorerait les installations/équipements de formation, et donnerait plus de soutien et de motivations au département. Ils croient également que la formation devrait être mieux coordonnée pour que le département soit davantage exposé aux méthodes d’enseignement de formation à distance.
In our experience facilitating a staff development program introducing the use of new technologies in supporting teaching, learning and assessment, academics struggle with a number of conceptual barriers.� One reason for this is that most educators have themselves been participants in a traditional teaching and learning environment. (Littlejohn & Sclater, 1999, p. 209)
Offering support for technology-based faculty training and development efforts is a key issue facing many institutions of higher learning. In general, according to the 1999 United States Campus Computing Survey (Green, 1999), “assisting faculty efforts to ‘integrate information technology into instruction’ remains the single most important information technology (IT) issue confronting American colleges and universities” (p. 1) whereas “providing adequate user support” ranked second. As one of the tenets of their mission to provide lifelong learning, land-grant universities and other agricultural institutions have been at the forefront in developing extensive infrastructures to facilitate distance education delivery of courses to a diverse community of learners both traditional and nontraditional (Miller & Pilcher, 1999). Most of these programs involve technological delivery of distance education coursework in a variety of majors at both the graduate and undergraduate levels using teleconferencing, videotape, and the Internet. In fact, a study by the US National Center for Education Statistics (1998) lists agriculture in the top 10 disciplines in terms of development of distance education at the postsecondary institutional level.
Over time many of these institutions have developed some form of faculty training for distance education, but their programs may vary considerably in terms of potential factors such as structure and focus, size, centralization in the wider institution, and degree of flexibility and customizability of programmatic offerings. The research in this area, however, is still limited, perhaps due to the inherent challenges associated with developing an assessment framework that can accommodate faculty training and development programs that differ widely as to resource allocations, institutional support, philosophical direction, and disciplinary content. For this reason agricultural land-grant institutions, which are not only active in distance education training, but also somewhat homo-geneous in terms of philosophical direction and disciplinary content, may represent an opportunity to understand better the structure, format, and issues of current programs, thereby enhancing the level of knowledge in this respect.
The case for the necessity of distance education training is certainly well established. Many universities are doing distance education training in a variety of ways and through various methods: videoconferencing, face to face, and online. But many other institutions do not yet have distance education programs or are just starting them. What should these programs emphasize? What is being done in distance education training programs, and what should such a program entail? What topics are being covered, and how is training to be conducted? Given the above, the purposes of this study were (a) to explore how universities with agricultural distance education programs are conducting distance education training and development programs for their faculty, and (b) to identify the current organizational structure of these institutions’ distance education training programs, as well as any potential foreseeable issues associated with developing effective faculty training.
For many years, “build it and they will come,” the catchphrase originally used in the movie . Field of Dreams, could have been used to describe the efforts of colleges of agriculture at universities across the US, as it pertained to their attempts to devise a systematic distance education development plan: build the technological infrastructure and instructors will flock to design and implement courses. However, as might be expected, more than a technological infrastructure was necessary to encourage and train faculty members effectively to teach at a distance. Other components primarily focused on providing institutional support to assist a faculty member’s development such as teaching incentives, instructional design support, and technology training have been shown to be necessary in creating successful distance education training and development programs (Berge, 2001).
On the other hand, acknowledged barriers to the effectiveness of faculty training and development programs include lack of access to adequate hardware and software, lack of active support from administration, time constraints, limited recognition of the potential of technology in education, and faculty who are uninterested or unwilling to take the risk and commit their time (Roberts & Ferris, 1994; Staman, 1990; Wetzel, 1995).
According to Garrison (1990), the use of telecommunication technologies in distance education marks a new generation in designing the educational transaction. Researchers have said this next generation calls for new knowledge and skills for instructors to teach effectively by dis-tance education (Beaudoin, 1990; Brigham, 1992; Dillon, Hengst & Zoller, 1991; Shaeffer & Farr, 1993; Willis, 1993; Wolcott, 1993). But skills alone are not enough; according to researchers who have examined distance education and teacher training, instructors should not become mere technology experts; rather, faculty members should be able to understand the basics of the technology and how communication is being mediated (Thach, 1993). As Thach pointed out, in many instances instructors must change their teaching style as they learn how to operate or at least understand the operations of complicated equipment such as computer conferencing networks, videoconferencing machinery, and television broadcast equipment. Such skills, it has been hypothesized, will provide instructors with more comfort when they interact with the technology and lead to their greater acceptance of the technology (Catchpole, 1993; Dillon et al., 1991).
Early researchers such as Levinson-Rose and Menges (1981) believed that faculty training in the development of the concepts of teaching and learning was as important, if not more so, than skill-based training. In addition to recommended teacher training, Beaudoin (1990) wrote that distance education theory and practice should be mandatory as a condition of employment for new and continuing faculty. King (1999) wrote that distance education training helps provide faculty with a “reservoir of ideas” (p. 170) to teach and encourage critical thinking skills in students. With respect to faculty motivation to learn the necessary theory and practice, Moskal, Martin, and Foshee (1997) indicated that faculty at central Florida colleges and universities have an interest in learning to use a new educational technology given sufficient time and resources to do so. Few of the faculty members involved in their study, however, had any formal training in instructional design, indicating they might benefit from more training in this area, specifically as it relates to distance education. The authors stated, “University faculty receive little or no formal training in the art of teaching; such training may improve teaching in both distance education and traditional courses” (p. 20). Spotts (1999) indicated that if instructors are expected to use instructional technologies—including distance education technologies—they need technical support and training support.
Dunkin and Barnes (1986) saw no indication in the research of a “best practices” model to improve teaching in higher education. In fact, in terms of faculty development in the use of technology, institutions often employ different strategies. The University of Nebraska at Omaha, for example, developed a model for faculty development for technology integration that included three key elements: availability of equipment, faculty training, and expectations of use of technology in academic activities (Topp, Mortenson, & Grandgenett, 1995). Team-teaching, mentoring, and one-onone tutoring have also been used in more or less formal settings as com-Bponents in a programmatic faculty development approach (Roberts & Ferris, 1994: Robinson & Milligan, 1997; Gonzales et al., 1997). At the institutional level, the University of Central Florida’s distributed learning model uses a collaborative teaming model facilitated from a large, centralized faculty development center. This model focuses on systematic development of faculty on standardized technical tools and a commonly shared instructional design strategy (Truman-Davis, 1999). Other institutions, however, may favor a more decentralized approach based on philosophy, uneven resources allocation, and/or demand.
The design for this study was a descriptive survey of professionals involved in faculty development and training for agricultural distance education programs at land-grant institutions. In spring 2001 a 37-item survey was sent electronically to 14 faculty training and development specialists drawn from the listserv of the Agricultural Communicators in Education’s Distance Education and Instructional Design Special Interest Group (SIG) and chosen to represent 14 land-grant universities. The survey consisted of a series of dichotomous multiple-choice and fill-in-the blank items specifically developed to assess structural detail and components of the training and development programs at the institutions where respondents were employed. In addition, the survey included four open-ended questions that focused on assessing respondents’ perceptions of benefits, potential issues and/or problems, and suggestions about developing effective faculty training and development programs for distance education. The survey was reviewed by a panel of faculty experienced in the development of distance education and faculty training programs in order to establish face and content validity prior to distribution.
Quantitative responses were collated electronically; qualitative responses from the open-ended questions were examined for common themes using the constant comparative technique (Glaser, 1978).
All 14 respondents responded to the listserv questionnaire. Nine respondents were male; four were female. (One did not respond to this question). One had a bachelor’s degree, six had master’s degrees, and six had doctorates.
(One did not respond to this question). Thirteen respondents indicated that they were involved with their universities’ agricultural programs’ distance education training and development; subsequent findings are based on responses from these respondents. Respondents’ titles indicated that they were either faculty members who specialized in distance or managers or specialists in their distance education
Most respondents indicated that the primary form of training in their institutions was a formal, regularly scheduled prescribed course or set of training materials (46.2%), but that training also took the form of informal, brown-bag-style meetings (15.4%) and a combination of formal, informal, and self-paced (CD-ROM-, Web-, or video-based) programs (38.4 %). According to respondents, none of their training programs for faculty was entirely self-paced.
In response to a series of items asking respondents to select all types of program content and technology training in effect at their universities, respondents indicated that program content across all universities surveyed consisted of instructional design methods, training in the use of specific delivery technologies such as videoconferencing, and training in the use of specific software. Technology training emphasized computer multimedia, digital photography, and videoconferencing. Software training focused on presentation software (PowerPoint) and Internet-related functions including: Web page development and editing (FrontPage and Netscape Composer), Web course tools (WebCT), and interactive online elements (chat rooms and electronic bulletin boards). Seven of the respondents noted that in their estimation, the most important technology or software for faculty to master was Web course tools.
In regard to training, all respondents noted that if their faculty members choose to teach a distance education course, they are not required to take distance education training before teaching the course; training is completely voluntary. Training is offered at most institutions at basic, intermediate, and advanced levels (53.8%), or at least at the basic and intermediate levels (30.8%). Faculty members also have wide latitude in selecting the topics in a training program. At eight institutions faculty members choose distance education training topics and are not confined to a prescribed topic.
At survey respondents’ universities, staff instructional designers—with no faculty appointment—conducted most of the distance education training (8 responses, or 61.5%); faculty members and “other” (2 responses each, 15.4% each) accounted for the balance of those conducting training. An ancillary finding showed that most respondents (9, or 64.3%) had had no prior training or knowledge of instructional design methods used in distance education before working at their universities. Almost 86% (12 respondents) said they had learned distance education instructional design methods while on the job.
Of the 13 respondents who had distance education training programs at their universities, seven said their university had a distance education coordinator for the entire university, five did not, and one did not respond. Eleven noted that their universities had a facility on campus where faculty could get one-on-one help with distance education training.
Of these 11, nine said the facility did not charge for its assistance. In most of institutions surveyed, responsibility for faculty distance education training is shared across the institution (9 responses, 69.2%); in few instances is training done solely in one unit or college. Interestingly, although most universities represented in the survey have a distance education coordinator or center, distance education training is not usually coordinated by any one person or center. Only two respondents said that raining was coordinated by one center; 10 said that multiple training programs were offered by different colleges across the university without coordination from a central location.
Respondents also indicated that the length of faculty training programs was quite varied. No programs were full days or self-directed. Most consisted of either two- to four-hour workshops; short, multiple sessions held once a week over many weeks; or personal sessions at the faculty member’s discretion.
Most respondents indicated that their institutions do provide incentives for faculty who teach distance education courses. These range from computer hardware and software to release time or graduate student support. Only four respondents said their universities did not provide some type of incentive. Financial incentives for faculty to complete training ranged from $400 to $5,000 according to four respondents. Respondents did note, however, that faculty members holding the rank of associate professor were the most likely to seek distance education training.
Respondents also indicated that in their perception, training has resulted in improved teaching methods and better interaction with students being taught at a distance. In the survey, respondents were asked what primary benefit their institutions had received as a result of the distance education training programs. Responses included “higherquality teaching has resulted,” “better-trained faculty,” “value added to courses,” motivated faculty “to learn new teaching techniques,” and “competitiveness with other institutions.”
When asked what issue was most critical to distance education training, respondents provided varied answers, but when grouped by common themes, these could be categorized as follows: instructional methods, planning, and faculty motivation. Under instructional methods, respondents said, “Helping faculty make the transition away from lecturing is important. When they understand that there are alternatives and different ways to approach teaching, a new ‘distance’ world opens up to them,” and, “Teaching proper instructional design techniques is necessary to help faculty create pedagogically sound courses online.” Under planning, respondents mentioned that they believed their institutions needed to develop a strategic plan for distance education training, provide resources to faculty to free them to plan their courses, fund adequate training staff, and identify faculty members’ training needs.
Respondents’ comments also focused on motivational needs for faculty, including making the technology more user-friendly, getting faculty to “buy in to distance education’s importance,” providing financial incentives for faculty and their departments for producing distance education courses, and recognizing faculty’s efforts in tenure and promotion. One respondent stated, “Faculty understand the benefits and importance of learning new strategies and techniques to teach at a distance, but they’re not motivated to take training because they have competing priorities and believe their efforts are not rewarded and not recognized.”
Respondents indicated that their institutions must focus on the following areas to improve distance education training in the future: better coordinate training efforts on-campus, increase training staff, update and improve training facilities, develop marketing plans for distance education, provide incentives for faculty to take training, and make distance education improvement an administrative priority. In addition, most respondents said the primary distance education issue on which they envisage their institutions focusing their efforts in the next three years is online education: including Web course tools use, pedagogy and teaching strategies for the Web, and instructional design for online environments, followed by teaching faculty instructional design methods for the distance education environment.
One of the goals of this research is to explore factors relevant to developing effective faculty distance education training and development programs. As such, it is hoped that this study’s findings will provide distance education practitioners with an overall idea of what university distance education training programs look like, as well as suggest directions toward developing a framework with which to develop or improve their own training programs.
One of the most interesting findings of the study was the idea of having a combination of formal, informal, and self-paced programs and short classes or programs offered at various times over many weeks, something that runs counter to the traditional approach of having a daily, week-long distance education training program for faculty. In this daily format, training was designed so that faculty could learn content and skill areas in a week or two weeks, many times working on developing the initial parts of their distance education course. The benefit of this style, of course, is immersion in the content and skill areas while designing the course. However, respondents seem to indicate in the current study that because faculty members do not have the time to devote such a large amount of time in a one- or two-week period to training, they would prefer that training be done in small installments over several weeks and at their own pace.
Respondents also indicated that although their universities have a distance education coordinator and/or training center, the coordinator and center do not coordinate training across the campus. Individual units and colleges conduct their own training programs. The benefit of this approach is that instructional designers in individual colleges can tailor programs specifically to their faculty members’ needs. The drawbacks are that training program content is probably duplicated among those doing training in the different colleges and that resources may be squandered because of the lack of coordination. Based on these results, it is recommended that universities investigate how to provide either more coordination centrally at the university level or coordinate training efforts between individual colleges.
In addition to faculty training, this study also suggests the need for instructional designers to complete training in technological and educational areas. In a previous study of video production specialists who support their universities’ distance education production effort, Telg (1995) found that the specialists had learned distance education instructional methods while on the job. Because much learning—on the part of production personnel—still is being done on the job according to this study, it is important for the instructional designers and technology specialists to know about not only the latest technology, but also the educational methods to use that technology.
Respondents in this study called on their universities to develop a “strategic plan for distance education” by increasing production staff, improving training facilities, and providing faculty with more assistance and incentives. They also believed training should be better coordinated to provide faculty with more exposure to distance education teaching methods. If distance education is to succeed at universities, in the words of one respondent, “Distance education training must become a priority of top university administrators and be integrated into the institution’s infrastructure and operating procedures more fully.”
Beaudoin, M. (1990). The instructor’s changing role in distance education. American Journal of Distance Education, 4(2), 21-30.
Berge, Z.L. (2001). A framework for sustaining distance training. In Z. Berge (Ed.), Sustaining distance training: Integrating learning technologies into the fabric of the enterprise (pp. 13-30). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Brigham, D. (1992). Factors affecting the development of distance education courses. Distance Education, 13(2), 169-189.
Catchpole, J.J. (1992). Classroom, open and teaching. American Journal of Distance Education, 6(3), 34-44.
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, 7(1), 28-41.
Dunkin, M.J., & Barnes, J., (1986). Research on teaching in higher education. In M.C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 754-777). New York: Macmillan.
Garrison, D. (1990). Communications technology. In D. Garrison & D. Shale (Eds.), Education at a distance: From issues to practice (pp. 41-52). Malabar, FL: Krieger.
Green, K. (1999). The continuing challenge of instructional integration and user support. [Online]. The 1999 National Survey of Information Technology in Education. Available: http://www.campuscomputing.net
Glaser, B. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
Gonzales, C.L., Hill, M., Leon, S., Orrantia, J.F., Saztin, M., & Sujo de Montes, L. (1997). Faculty from Mars, technology from Venus: Mentoring is the link. In J. Willis, J.D. Price,
S. McNeil, B. Robin, & D.A. Willis (Eds.), Technology and teacher education annual 1997 (pp. 327-330). Charlottesville, VA: Society for Information Technology in Teacher Education (SITE).
King, K.P. (1999). Unleashing technology in the classroom: What adult basic education teachers and organizations need to know. Adult Basic Education, 9(3), 162-175.
Levinson-Rose, J. & Menges, R.J., (1981). Improving college teaching: A critical review of research. Review of Educational Research, 51, 403-434.
Littlejohn, A., & Sclater, N. (1999). The virtual university as a conceptual model for faculty change and innovation. Journal of Interactive Learning Environments, 7(2 & 3), 209-227.
Miller, G., & Pilcher, C. (1999). Desired and assessed cognitive levels of instruction: Are college of agriculture courses taught on campus and at a distance comparable? Proceedings of the 26th National Agricultural Education Research Conference (pp. 343-351). Gainesville, FL: American Association for Agricultural Education.
Moskal, P., Martin, B., & Foshee, N. (1997). Educational technology and distance education in Central Florida: An assessment of capabilities. American Journal of Distance Education, 11(1), 6-22.
National Center for Education Statistics. (1998). Distance education in higher education institutions: Incidence, audiences, and plans to expand. [On-line]. Available: http://nces.ed.gov/pubs98/98132.html
Roberts, N., & Ferris, A. (1994). Integrating technology into a teacher education program. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 2(3), 215-225.
Robinson, R., & Milligan, K. (1997). Technology in the mathematics classroom. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 14(1), 11-16.
Staman, M. (1990). An action plan for infusing technology into the teaching/learning process. Cause Effect, 13(2), 34-40.
Shaeffer, J., & Farr, C. (1993). Evaluation: A key piece in the distance education puzzle. T.H.E. Journal, 20(9), 79-82.
Spotts, T.H. (1999). Discriminating factors in faculty use of instructional technology in higher education. [Online]. Educational Technology and Society, 2(4). Available: http://ifets.gmd.de/periodical/vol_4_99/spotts.html
Telg, R.W. (1995). Adapting prior television production experience for distance education instructional design. Journal of Applied Communications, 79(4), 1-16.
Thach, L. (1993). Exploring the role of the deliverer in distance education. International Journal of Instructional Media, 20(4), 289-307.
Topp, N., Mortenson, R., & Grandgenett, N. (1995). Building a technology-using faculty to facilitate technology-using teachers. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 11(3), 11-14.
Truman-Davis, B. (1999). Learning on-line@UCF: Collaborative faculty development and institutional support. Paper presented at the WebCT Conference, Vancouver.
Wetzel, K. (1995). Models for achieving computer competencies in pre-service education. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 9(4), 4-6.
Willis, B. (1993). Strategies for teaching at a distance. (Report No. ED 351008). Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EDO IR 92 8)
Wolcott, L. (1993). Faculty planning for distance education. American Journal of Distance Education, 7(4), 26-35.
Tracy Irani is an assistant professor of agricultural communication in the University of Florida’s Department of Agricultural Education and Communication. Irani has extensive professional experience in video production, marketing, and public relations.
Ricky Telg, an associate professor in the University of Florida’s Department of Agricultural Education and Communication, teaches courses on Web design, computer-based video-editing, and newswriting. Before coming to UF, he worked as a newspaper reporter and editor and as a television reporter and producer.
Distance education is a major research interest for both Irani and Telg. They have singly authored and collaborated on several peer-reviewed publications, as well as making presentations at professional conferences on student and faculty perceptions and attitudes toward their distance education experiences.