Study purpose and objectives overview

Distance learning, sometimes called "distance education" is, according to Kerka (1996), a method of education in which the learner is physically separated from the professor and the institution sponsoring the instruction. Distance education may be used on its own, or in conjunction with other forms of education, including face-to-face instruction.

The advent of television and, indeed, the whole complex of newer communications media (from video to satellites) has given American citizens unparalleled opportunities to advance in their ability to record, disseminate, and communicate ideas. These new communication resources must now be harnessed to serve education. (Educational Media Study panel, 1962, p.15)

The purpose of this paper is to take an in-depth look at policies and written procedures that pertain to instruction of baccalaureate level courses taught through the use of the interactive television at Colleges of Engineering which are accredited by Accredited Board of Engineering and Technology (ABET), as a means of distance learning. This paper emphasizes those factors that need to be most considered in policy development and formulation for the use of this technology as it relates to distance education and distance learning.

Colleges and universities, in an attempt to reach students who cannot come to regular classrooms on campus are utilizing satellite, open circuit, microwave, computer, telephone, and other related media. (Portway, 1991)

Pioneers in the media introduced Interactive Television seven years before the world's fair in New York in 1932 as an experiment in Ames, Iowa. The station W9XK used this as an experiment developed by the electrical engineering department of the State University of Iowa.

Once a new technology rolls over you, if you are not part of the steamroller, you are part of the road (Steward Brand).

During a presentation in 1999 on the subject, Dr. Linda Harasim said, "A Great Debate is raging, but fuelled by heat rather than light. Online Education is hot but media as well as both promoters and detractors have taken the stage. Faculty and educators concerned with educational effectiveness have been sidelined." (Harasim)

DeSpain, Johnson (2000), Interactive Television, has strong evidence that distance education is becoming an increasingly visible feature of post-secondary education in this country (U.S. Dept. Of Education, Lewis, Snow, Farris, Lewin, & Green, 2000). The 1995 U.S. Dept. Of Education Statistical Analysis Report stated "79% of U.S. higher education institutions planned to start or increase the number of computer-based technology distance education courses in next 3 years." Murphy (2000, p.1) quoted a study by Market Data Retrieval, a subsidiary of Shelton, Connecticut-based Dunn & Bradstreet Corp., which found that "seventy-five percent (75%) of the 4,400 post-secondary schools in the United States are offering distance learning classes."

Much of distance education is focused on the definition of distance education, the degree of learner satisfaction correlated with such variables as cognitive learning styles (Ehrman,1990) and instructor styles (Coleway, 1987), the effectiveness of distance education as measured by quantity and quality of learning (Garrison, 1990;Stubbs & Burnham,1990; and the characteristics of distance learners (Afman,1987,1988).

Kerka (1996) notes that in any distance education process there must be a professor, one or more students, and a course or curriculum that the professor is capable of teaching and the student is trying to learn. The contract between professors and learner, whether in a traditional classroom or distance education, requires that the student be taught, assessed, given guidance, and, where appropriate, prepared for examinations that may or may not be conducted by the institution. Some form of two-way communication must accomplish these requirements.

This is a critical element of distance learning, and sets apart Distant Learning from a passive watching of television. Students or learners must communicate with the facilitator or professor. A simple broadcast from the professor, teacher, or facilitator to the student is not enough. The medium used must allow for this important and critical two-way communication. It is from this process that the instructor interprets that the student is progressing with the course material. From watching body language, facial expressions, and actual classroom work, the professor or facilitator determines that the learner is on track or lost, and needs assistance. Experienced trainers and professors master teaching skills, and learn how to question students properly to determine the progression of learning. This interaction, available only with two-way communication, is vital.

Kerka (1996) notes that in this the two-way communication that is part of all education, instruction can be accomplished by diverse methods of instruction delivery. Some examples of these alternative methods are:

Home-based study

Telecommunications using the phone or fax

Videotape

CD-ROM

Online instruction.

However, one alternative method of delivering instruction, a method that is being used increasingly frequent, is interactive television. According to Ostendorf (1994), interactive television typically involves an instructor who meets with students via the television while in a classroom at the originating site. The students communicate from designated remote sites using the interactive television technology. Through the television cameras, the instructor can hear and see the students at remote sites. The students can see, hear, communicate, and interact with the instructor.

ISSUES RELATED TO POLICY DEVELOPMENT

FOR INTERACTIVE TELEVISION AND DISTANCE LEARNING

All states are unique in distance learning policy development. However, policy must be part of an initial development" (Hazel, Feb. 4, 1991)

Instructional Television (see Distance education at a Glance, Guide #5 Engineering Outreach, University of Idaho) Interactive Television, is an effective distance education delivery system that can be integrated in the curriculum at all levels, single lesson, selected unit, or full course programs of specific topics or concept. Interactive Television may be either passive or interactive. Passive Interactive Television typically involves pre-produced programs, which are distributed by videocassette or by video-based technologies such as broadcast, cable, or satellite. In contrast, Interactive Television provides opportunities for viewer interaction, either with a live instructor or a participating student site. For example, two-way television with two-way audio allows all students to view and interact with the teacher (see Lochte, 1993).

DeSpain, Heeney, and Livingston (l999) have noted that while many schools and colleges utilize various alternative methods of instruction delivery for distance learning, they often fail to set up a clear method of formal policy and procedures relating to the use of this particular mode of instruction delivery. Consequently, the delivery of instruction using the method is seldom optimized. According to the authors, optimal use requires an examination of various procedures and processes (e.g., training, instructional support, extra compensation, adjusted teaching loads, and so forth) as well as the formulation of policy regarding these procedures and processes that is based on said examination. These factors, therefore, need to be examined in any comprehensive exploration of the use of interactive television in distance learning. Each of these factors is discussed below.

The American Association of University Professors (AAUP) issued a Statement on Faculty Workload 1970. This statement from the AAUP was developed prior to the significant development of Distant Learning in the United States.

As a result, the standards articulated within the AAUP policy statement articulate to the traditionally defined classroom. Even so, the AAUP statement remains the basis of the Association's standards for maximum faculty workload. The AAUP now takes the position that the workload should be:

For undergraduate instruction, a teaching load of twelve hours per week, with no more than six separate course preparations during the academic year.

For instruction partly or entirely at the graduate level, a teaching load of nine hours per week.

The AAUP statement recognizes that the standard method of workload measurement "hours per week of formal class meetings" is inadequate and that other factors, such as preparation and class size, also need to be addressed in the formulation of a faculty workload policy. (AAUP)

The widespread development of distance learning in the American Academy since 1969 requires the American Association of University Professors to reexamine workload and compensation formulations. The AAUP states "Class size, preparation, and student evaluation are specific issues that must be addressed, as well as overall commitment of time on the part of faculty."

Brigham Young University successfully tested the Distant Education methodology. "Maintaining ABET-accredited engineering programs requires hands-on laboratory experiences in addition to course instruction and theory. Web courses that satisfy both required elements have not been available in the past. During the past year, (1999) educators and academicians have openly debated the educational benefits of online instruction. Some have argued the foundational principles underwriting the "virtual university" while others have questioned whether or not such innovative developments can meet the high standards of traditional college and university curricula." (BYU)

The effectiveness of the Distant Education at an ABET (Accredited Board of Engineering and Technology) institution was documented in 1999. During the fall and winter semesters, 1998-99, a Brigham Young University classroom was linked via the Internet to a classroom at Brigham Young University-Idaho in Rexburg, Idaho, allowing lectures to be interactively shared by 260 students in the BYU lecture hall in Utah, and 54 students at the Idaho campus. (BYU)

The course offered was Brigham Young University's ME 172. This course has long been identified as one rich in theory while complex and demanding in its hands-on laboratory component. Both the lecture sessions and the course laboratory require substantial individual study, concentration, and practice to demonstrate mastery of related concepts. Likewise, ME 172 has enduring linkages to industrial practices.

The Distant Education component offered a fifty-minute connection made three times a week for fifteen weeks during each semester. Collaborating students from both University locations were required to complete nineteen laboratory exercises (ten tutored lessons, and nine production drawings -- including final assembly drawings), using the Pro/E software to model and define each mechanical component or assembly. The Pro/E software was resident only at Brigham Young University's CAD Laboratory. Before the professors assigned each lab project, a live lab session was conducted, similar to the lecture periods. The only difference being that instead of PowerPoint slides being displayed to the students, Pro/E was interactively shared over the Internet between the two school locations. (BYU)

According to the Brigham Young University, the primary objectives of the ME 172 experiment was to develop a philosophy that would help to Quantify the effectiveness of using the Internet for course instruction and delivery.

Satisfy student interaction requirements for hands-on laboratory practice, using third-generation CAD systems.

C. Greg Jensen, Associate Professor, and E. Max Raisor, Professor, both in the Mechanical Engineering Department, developed and delivered the digital course extension that accomplished both tasks.

The knowledge gained from the ME 172 experiment has been expanded and tested in two additional ways:

Students at Brigham Young University collaborated on a design, analysis and manufacturing epicyclic air engine project via the internet with California State University at Los Angeles and Institute of Higher Learning at Monterrey, Mexico.

The Brigham Young University Center for Instructional Design is in the process of converting Raisor's approximately 4000 PowerPoint slides, dozens of AVI/MPEG movies, and numerous Jpegs (used in the traditional class, and currently available on the Class Website) to a commercial quality rigorous interactive asynchronous engineering graphics course. (BYU)

The results collected from the two-semester Distant Education ME 172 course experiment are compelling. From the Brigham Young University report, the following data is offered:

90% of the students at Brigham Young University-Idaho related the overall experience as very favorable.

63% of participating Brigham Young University-Idaho students rated the class interaction (two-way multimedia) as very favorable.

The Brigham Young University -Idaho students were evenly divided in their opinions regarding the importance of viewing the live video of the instructor during lectures and labs.

In spite of the scheduling difficulties, a majority of the students (65%) at BYU-Idaho rated the collaboration experience (working with a team of students at BYU) as very favorable.

A favorable (70%) rating was given to the in-class PowerPoint instruction methods.

When considering the usefulness of the asynchronous PowerPoint resource materials, 78% of the BYU-Idaho students rated them very useful to hard to do without.

Usefulness of the comprehensive class Website, 70% of the students at the remote site rated it very useful to hard to do without.

Other data suggested that Brigham Young University-Idaho students learned CAD skills on a par with students at the main campus Brigham Young University. Brigham Young University students scored an average of 6.5 (out of 10) on a Pro/E skills rating test, while the students at Brigham Young University -Idaho scored an average of 5.3. In all other tested areas, however, the Brigham Young University-Idaho students either matched or exceeded the Brigham Young University scores. (BYU)

An interesting conclusion was also developed as a result of this Distant Education experiment. The data developed also indicated that the regular coaching by Brigham Young University students offered to other students was not as effective as was initially surmised. (BYU)

The New Mexico State University (NMSU) has developed a written policy regarding the professional development of their Faculty:

The NMSU policy states, "Faculty professional development activities include: attending seminars and lectures, participation in training workshops, attending professional conferences, professional writing activities, review activities, and conducting new and original research. In particular, five of the faculty in the department have participated in "Instructional Technologies and Learning" workshops where they have learned the skills to use computer technology and the web site in their classrooms. The ME Department has the largest percentage of the faculty in the College of Engineering who practice technology-assisted instruction.

Several of the faculty have been teaching distance education courses to our graduate students at the Boeing Company. The distance education students are located in Seattle at various Boeing locations in the Puget Sound area. The courses are taught via live satellite broadcast or are video taped live and mailed to the students at Boeing. Course material is provided over the web.

The Mechanical Engineering student full-time faculty ratio is approximately 11:1, which is the same as the average in the College of Engineering. Consequently, we are able to provide sufficient one-on-one interaction with students.

Our class sizes are small, with an average of 24 in each lecture section and 12 in each lab section. Average class size for other courses (non-ME courses) taken by ME students is 49. The largest classes in the Department may have as many as 75 students in them.

For these reasons, our students have more access to faculty than do those at most other institutions. When taking courses outside the College of Engineering, our students sometimes encounter larger classes, especially in CHEM 111 (up to 200 students). However, even these courses are taught by regular or adjunct faculty members, not student assistants. Only one course in the Mechanical Engineering (ME 260) is currently taught by a Teaching Assistant who is a Ph.D. Candidate." (NMSU)

The Central Missouri State University (CMSU) reported the progress their Distant Education program was making in 1999. In a report, the CMSU reported the following about their Distance Education program:

Distance Learning at Central Missouri State University encompasses all formats of electronically-based educational delivery systems which includes interactive television, instruction involving satellite uplinks and downlinks, and online courses. The Office of Extended Campus manages, schedules, coordinates and assists in marketing all distance education courses and degree programs. Faculty training, instructional design support and an incentive program are offered to instructors participating in distance education and appropriate student services are provided to meet the additional needs of the learner at a distant site. In the last year, major emphasis and energy has been placed on the development, delivery and administrative issues inherent with online courses. Numbers of students learning in a Central distance education environment as well as the number of course offerings have increased each semester (i.e. Spring to Spring, Fall to Fall comparisons) by approximately 50% each semester. Central is a charter member of the Western Missouri Educational Technology Consortium, the largest educational consortium in the state of Missouri. This network, along with newly-installed technology which provides dial-up access, provides Central the necessary connectivity to successfully conduct two-way, continuous presence, interactive television courses within, and outside of, Central's traditional regional and state boundaries." (CMSU)

TRAINING

In considering training required of professors delivering Distant Education courses, the first consideration is the methods used to teach a student. While there are numerous media available using today's technology, the available methods of delivering the course can be placed in four categories:

Print - The printed word is the fundamental element of distance education programs. All other education delivery systems have evolved from the printed word. There are a variety of print formats available for use by the Distance Education educator, including traditional textbooks, printed study guides, workbooks, course syllabi, handouts, journals, periodicals, and case studies.

Voice - The instructional audio tools available include the interactive technologies of telephone, audio conferencing, and short-wave radio. Passive or one-way only from-the-instructor-to-the-student audio communication tools include audio tapes and radio.

Video - The Instructional video tools include still images such as overhead transparencies, slides, pre-produced moving images on film or videotape, and real-time moving images combined with audio conferencing. (This media can be either a one-way or a two-way video with one-way or a two-way audio system in use at the same time).

Data - Via a network, computers send and receive data and information electronically. The networks can be Local Area Networks (LANs), Wide Area Networks (WANs), or the Internet. Data is used to describe this broad category of growing instructional tools. Computer applications for distance education are varied and include:

Computer-assisted instruction (CAI) - uses the computer as a self-contained teaching machine to present individual lessons.

Computer-managed instruction (CMI) - uses the computer to organize instruction and track student records and progress. The instruction itself need not be delivered via a computer, however CAI is often combined in use with CMI.

Computer-mediated education (CME) - describes computer applications that facilitate the delivery of instructional course work. Some examples include:

Electronic mail

Real-time computer conferencing

World-Wide Web applications

From reviewing these various Medias, it is obvious that one set training standard required just to deliver Distance Education is impossible to create. For example, the first consideration is what type of delivery method is being used. If one-way, audio tape presentations are being deployed, the amount of training needed by the professor would simply consist of turning on and off a tape recorder. But if the professor will be using CME video conferencing, then the professor must be trained on how to operate the necessary equipment. If the professor used other similar equipment, the training required would be significantly less than a first-time professor using the equipment. It seems logical that the most common approach taken is often informal, one-on-one training for the professors to learn to use the necessary equipment and technology being deployed. There seems at this time to be no preset or predetermined training methodology or requirements for a professor that will be delivering a Distant Education training course.

The American Association of University Professors (AAUP) addressed the issue of training required by a professor prior to the start of an educational course. The Preparation Required by the professor is significant. The AAUP noted, in a report with recommendations, that "The various forms of distance learning increase the preparation requirements of the instructor and therefore have a direct impact on workload formulations and compensation.

Distance learning requires faculty to develop expertise and preparation in technical areas apart from traditional academic education. The instructor in distance learning must have specific knowledge of particular computer software programs used in distance learning courses as well as knowledge of television studio procedures if the course is televised. Some colleges, under the banner of "faculty development," are now requiring faculty to undergo special technical and performance training before teaching in distance learning programs. Such requirements are not easily applied to traditional formulations of workload and compensation.

Distance learning courses usually require greater preparation for each class session than is typical for the standard lecture class. Most distance learning television studios, for example, are not equipped with chalkboards, and instructors must prepare written materials suitable for the camera and electronic transmission rather than writing spontaneously on the chalkboard.

Distance learning courses affect timelines. Faculty who are accustomed to distributing materials in class, for example, must prepare and mail materials to distance learning students enrolled in interactive televised courses in anticipation of the class activity for a particular day. In televised courses, faculty must also spend additional preparation time working with technical and support staff in order to ensure that the class occurs in a smooth and uninterrupted manner. While in some ways the delivery of material is technically easier in online or recorded courses, the fact remains that material preparation is significantly different for distance learning courses.

Whatever the context or specific situation, the instructor must often prepare for multiple student audiences simultaneously, one in the traditional classroom and the other (or others) by distance learning.

Distance learning courses often alter the manner in which faculty assess or evaluate student performance. Faculty are required to postpone immediate assessment of student performance within a traditional classroom in favor of a telephone conversation or an e-mail letter at a later time or date. Student assessment in distance learning courses also becomes problematic in courses in which direct observation of the student by the instructor is the optimum situation. Also, formal examinations must be restructured in distance learning courses in order to accommodate students who are enrolled at off-campus sites or who are viewing the course on television or over the Internet. Chapter quizzes, for example, which are often given in traditional lecture courses in order to encourage students to keep up with reading assignments, are not feasible in distance learning courses. In each case cited above, faculty must spend additional preparation time resolving problems pertaining to student assessment or evaluation." (AAUP)

In their discussion of training using interactive television in distance learning, Johnson and DeSpain (2002), note that any institution of learning wishing to use interactive television for purposes of distance learning must consider the cost of not only the technology but also the training required for all of those using the system, most especially the teachers. It also needs to be realized that this type of instruction sometimes requires professors and teachers to undergo a radical shift in their instructional paradigms.

Any training given to instructors needs to take this shift in paradigm into account. This, according to Johnson and DeSpain (2002), means that instructors are quite likely to require extensive training, and even re-training following the implementation of the system. The authors also recommend that ongoing research into training needs be undertaken to ensure that there is coverage of all components necessary to optimal use of interactive television for instructional purposes.

Regarding training instructors in interactive television, Kune (2002) has made the point that instructors need a great deal of practice with the system as part of the training process. This is because they must learn the technology to such a degree that its operation does not interfere with their focus on the content of the course which they are instructing. Thus, an overview and orientation to the interactive television system is insufficient, as is some minimal time practicing with the system. Kune points out that adequate training should not only be extensive but it should include the use of the system in the actual environment where instructors are expected to teach in order to engender a strong degree of confidence in system use.

In terms of the overall tone and nature of training given to instructors using interactive television for purposes of distance learning, Beaudoin (1990) stated that effective training programs have certain stable features. Specifically, it is noted that such programs, must offer convincing, no-nonsense and on-going training that deals with how to teach at a distance, not merely how to manipulate new instructional technology...(Further)... top administration must provide leadership to overcome resource limitations, remove structural constraints, and combat attitudinal barriers (Beaudoin, 1990, p. 27).

In other words, training cannot simply be focused on how to use the technology, but rather upon how to use the technology for instructional purposes that facilitate learning.

According to recommendation four, made after researching distance education training, Arkansas State University of Jonesboro, by the committee on distance education listed these conditions for training, which are used at other institutions around the nation also, one in particular is San Diego State University.

Basic Preparation: the semester prior to teaching Interactive Television, the faculty will receive instruction in the following areas:

Definition of Interactive Television

Interactive Television site

Room Layout

Equipment

Operation

Technical Training:ELMO, whiteboard, showing a video, softboard

Observation of Interactive Television classes

Distance site services (mail, fax, test proctoring)

Presentation by the faculty member receiving Interactive Television training

Turning on the codec and monitors

Dialing the distant sites(s) to establish a link

Shutting down the Equipment

Along with minimum technical requirements, Interactive Television training is an effective instructional tool for the distance educator. According to the University of Idaho, Engineering Outreach program Guide #10, as with other technologies, its usefulness is directly related to the instructors understanding of its benefits, limitations, and utilization strategies.

INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPORT

Johnson and DeSpain (2002) have noted that the effectiveness of distance learning cannot be achieved without providing instructional support for teachers in terms of utilizing the technology to attain all specified learning objectives. Instructors need help and knowledge regarding such matters as the integration of additional hardware, equality and quality of the hardware, accessibility to students, maintenance, and so forth. Johnson and DeSpain (2002) also note that if colleges and schools are to maximize their use of interactive television they must offer faculty strong instructional support. The type of support needed provides both leadership and assistance to instructors as to the most effective and efficient means of accomplishing both institutional objectives and the shorter-term classroom objectives set for the course through the specific medium of interactive television.

Instructors are also said to need an organized, readily accessible collection of materials and equipment that will assist them in meeting the goals and objectives set for the use of the interactive television system. In this regard, the overall goal of any school or institution should be to provide a staff that is well qualified, concerned, and involved in the use of the interactive television system for instruction delivery. What is required is a faculty who not only thoroughly understands the interactive television system and its use but also understands various elements and components of the system and how to use each of these to meet student needs.

In terms of instructional support, Cuffman and MacRae (2001) state that what is needed is a strong faculty development program for those instructors involved in the use of interactive television for distance learning. Support includes the environment. In this regard, the authors note that faculty needs a proper facility as well as state-of -- the art equipment and software related to instructional materials. They need to have access to relevant labs and to understand all possible equipment and technology that supports the use of interactive television in the classroom. They also need to understand what components of this equipment their school/college has and does not have.

The American Federation of Teachers (AFT) offers a strong position about the support professors must be given when conducting Distance Learning classes. "Faculty must be provided adequate training and technical support -- in terms of hardware, software, and troubleshooting. The importance of adequate technical support was emphasized repeatedly by faculty in the field. Support should include special assistance in instructional design. Upon request, the institution must enable faculty members to work with knowledgeable instructional and technical design specialists in designing courses as long as the faculty member has the final say about presentation." (AFT)

EXTRA COMPENSATION

In their discussion of faculty development as it relates to the use of interactive television in distance education, Cuffman and MacRae (2001) note that most institutions expect their instructors that are involved in these programs to develop a set of important skills. These include skills related to: effective course planning, using computer and multimedia technologies, and evaluating student performance and knowledge of appropriate instructional methods; the importance of interaction between faculty and students; students' learning styles, behavior, and motivation; and the roles of distance education staff. Because of the need for these skills as well as the need for the optimal employment of the skills in the use of an interactive television system for distance learning, Cuffman and MacRae (2001) state that instructors need some form of additional compensation.

This additional compensation can be either an overall salary increase, extra money specifically for teaching the given interactive television courses, or extra compensation in the form of promotion and tenure processes. Cuffman and MacRae (2001) state this extra compensation is not simply remuneration for instructors time; rather, extra compensation is said to act as a real incentive for others to decide to teach these courses. Moreover, it is stated that the extra compensation helps to instill in instructors a strong commitment to the educational institution.

Various sources of authority constantly indicate the need for compensation for professors that provide Distant Education training.

The American Federation of Teachers offers a position that additional compensation must be provided to the professors because of the additional workload.

Additional compensation should be provided to faculty to meet the extensive time commitments of distance education" (AFT).

Distance Education requires more work on the part of the professor. Some of the additional workload is not immediately apparent until a learning program is commenced. For example, E-mail is often used as a primary method of communication between the professor and the learners. E-mail inquiries, questions, and requests need monitored, reviewed, and answered. The nature of e-mail is that responses should be nearly immediate. Another complication to using e-mail is its availability of use 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Student expectations are often that e-mail should be answered in the evenings or weekends, when traditional communications would not be answered. Professors responding to these off-hour communications need compensated for this extra, yet often overlooked demand that will be placed on them.

Despite the clear demand for extra preparation time and the increased time commitment of e-mail, only half of respondents reported that they had received any form of compensation for the additional time required." (AFT)

The American Federation of Teachers stated "compensation can be provided in the form of credit toward load assignment, which means that much greater than for a classroom-based course, particularly the first time the course is offered by the faculty member."

The AFT noted, "Similarly, once the course is under way, faculty must be prepared to be available to students on an extended basis electronically. Again and again, practitioners report that it takes considerably more time to communicate with students electronically. In addition, faculty members must keep up with the odd hours many distance education students have to devote to their coursework and the more tenuous connection many of them have to the institution. For example, to reduce potential attrition, a number of practitioners reported that faculty must answer questions right away, grade papers very quickly, and follow up with students within a week or two if they are not participating in class."

The Idaho State University also discussed this issue. In a report, the University said, "With regards to current levels of faculty compensation and incentives for participation in distance learning, over half of the faculty (59%) ranked current financial compensation for involvement in distance learning as insufficient. The majority of faculty (77%) felt that current compensation for time to develop and to teach a distance learning course is insufficient as well."

The report continued, "When asked to rank incentives for participating in distance learning, financial compensation and release time for developing new distance learning courses were most important. These incentives were followed in importance by release time for teaching a distance learning course and additional support staff for development or administration of distance learning courses. Thus time and money appear to be the most important incentives to encourage Idaho State University faculty to develop and teach distance learning courses." (ISU)

American Association of University Professors (AAUP) also presents a position that additional compensation should be provided to the instructor that provides Distance Education instruction. The AAUP states, "Faculty who teach in distance learning programs should be additionally compensated for the extra time required to prepare for distance learning courses, particularly those transmitted by interactive television. This compensation should be financial or, preferably, in order to promote quality, in the form of credit toward load assignment."

Dr. Linda Harasim discussed the issue of adding to a faculty workload without compensation. Harasim stated "Almost all faculty who have taught online say that it takes "more" or "much more" work than traditional course delivery. They are on"7-24" duty without extra compensation." Harasum raises the rhetorical question, "Once the novelty wears off, will most faculty want to work this hard?" (Harasim)

Dr. Harasim suggests that the additional workload is an interesting phenomenon, and one that requires additional study. Some of the additional workload involves the learning curve as faculty "learn" to teach online.

Just as a new professor spends more time preparing for his/her courses, Dr. Harasim states, "so does a faculty new to online require more preparation time. Another factor is setting expectations, both in terms of students set 'office hours' and a policy of reasonable workload.

Another issue associated with faculty compensation is intellectual property. It seems that many universities want to claim the material produced for an online or distance course delivered via new technologies as "theirs" because of the investment in the preparation and production costs. Intellectual property is a thorny issue and is likely to become a battlefield of the not too distant future. Most faculty are not even aware of university intellectual property policy. Most policies differ drastically from university to university. Faculty must also educate themselves on the issues and then insist on a fair policy.

ADJUSTED TEACHING LOADS repeated theme among the literature available advises that Distance Education takes more time than initially expected. Accordingly, the teaching load of the faculty must be adjusted to accommodate this additional workload.

According to the American Federation of Teachers, "faculty teaching distance education should be prepared to spend a good deal more time preparing for distance courses than traditional ones. Almost uniformly, practitioners responding to our survey emphasized that the preparation time for distance learning courses is much greater than for a classroom-based course, particularly the first time the course is offered by the faculty member. Faculty members teaching Web-based courses, for example, must prepare, in advance, highly structured written materials and graphics covering every detail of the course. Some estimates range anywhere from 66% to 500% longer."

Dr. Linda Harasim offered a comparison of the teaching methods. When comparing the workload of Face-to-Face vs. Online vs. Distance Education instruction and the impact it has on the instructor, the findings demonstrate and suggest an adjustment period. Dr. Harasim said that the first course offering, the professors reported an initial higher workload. The second time the course was offered, the workload was "very close to lecture mode." The third offering, the professors reported "similar workload" experience. (Harasim).

Muilenburg and Berge (2001) acknowledged time as one of the important barriers to distance education. The huge time commitment associated with flourishing Distant Education programs often may seem overwhelming to some course professors that are not yet totally prepared to acknowledge the challenge. With this amplified time obligation, faculty compensation often becomes a factor. Human nature tells us that more work for the same pay never satisfies the worker. Most would do the work in the same time, without spending significant extra time that might be required, unless they were being compensated for that additional time. The Distance Education instructor needs additional preparation and training in order to become more comfortable with the technology used in distance learning (Siegel, Jennings, Conklin, Flynn, 1998). Distance learning instructors and professors must become technically proficient to conduct properly a distance learning class. In addition, the professor may need to take extra class time to teach Distant Education learners some of the technical capabilities of the system being used during the course of the class (Shedletsky, Aitken, 2001). These additional issues can certainly encumber the available time to present course objectives and lecture sessions.

Cuffman and MacRae (2001) have pointed out that in terms of the use of interactive television in distance education, Administrators should also understand that teaching on television requires additional time for preparation and for visiting off-campus sites; they should make adjustments in faculty workloads to compensate. (Cuffman & MacRae, 2001, p. 1)

In short, the teaching loads of instructors must be adjusted to accommodate any additional responsibilities required of instructors as a function of their position as distance educators utilizing interactive television.

Johnson and DeSpain (2002) recommend that administrators consider the adoption of formal policies for determining faculty teaching loads for distance education with interactive television (or any other mode of distance education instruction delivery) in the same manner as they develop teaching load policy for traditional classroom-based courses. For example, administrators might include combinations of day, evening, and weekend classes as the needs of the institution require. The number of credits and the number of contact hours during the semester should also be taken into account. Other considerations might include such factors as the use of instructional assistance, whether team teaching is being used, the particular technologies that are employed, special assignments and the degree of curriculum development required.

The actual size of the student population becomes an issue with Distant Learning. Commonly referred to as a class size, with Distant Learning there is no class size. In traditional education, physical constraints of building size or room dimensions naturally limit the class size. Equipment available for student use can also control the actual size or population of the student body. Enrollment in a course that is offered in a distance learning mode is not limited by room size or other physical facility usage. (AAUP) The American Association of University Professors state "It is likely that class size or weekly student contact hours in distance learning will increase beyond acceptable standards and upset traditional formulations that determine workload and compensation policy.

Increased weekly student contact hours or class size will directly affect the ability of the instructor to evaluate examinations and written assignments. At the present time there is no established standard regarding the appropriate size of classes taught in the distance learning mode.

Increased weekly student contact hours or class size also affect courses that are designated as "interactive" on the part of instructor and student. Such courses require instructors to commit significant amounts of additional time to telephone conferences or e-mail exchanges. Such an investment of time must be evaluated in the formulation of workload and compensation policy.

Increased weekly student contact hours or class size is not adequately addressed by the current practice of many institutions of assigning part-time, non-tenure-track faculty, or graduate assistants to assist the instructor in teaching a distance learning course. Not only is supervising the assistants an added workload burden, but the additional use of multiple instructors raises issues of quality. Finally, the use of part-time faculty raises concerns regarding fundamental questions of academic freedom, workload, and compensation." (AAUP)

Dr. Katrina A. Meyer, an Assistant Professor of Educational Leadership of the Higher Education Program at the University of North Dakota recently published a study on the impact of various policies (e.g., faculty compensation, workload, intellectual property, geographic service areas) on distance education enrollment growth. Her study was published in the Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration Winter 2002 - Volume V, Number 4. The title of her article is Does Policy Make a Difference? An Exploration into Policies for Distance Education.

Dr. Meyer's article presented findings from five learning institutions about the effects of policies on their Distance Learning programs. Based on the input of the five institutions that provided information, Dr. Meyer published five institutional profiles, labeled case A through E (Table 1). In order to gather this data, seven policy questions were asked. Those questions, as published in her article, were:

Service areas) Does your state have a policy on geographic service areas that govern where your institution's distance education programs can be offered? Yes or no

Faculty compensation) Does your institution have a policy that pays faculty to develop a distance education course? Yes or no.

Faculty workload) Does your institution have a policy on teaching distance education courses a) as a part of the faculty person's teaching load, b) as an overload, c) some combination?

Intellectual property) Does your institution have an intellectual property policy that allocates ownership of distance education courses to a) the institution, b) the faculty, c) some combination of both faculty and institution.

State Plan) Does the state have a plan for distance education? Yes or no

Mission Statement) Is distance education mentioned in the institution's mission statement? Yes or no

State Funding) Was distance education funded by the state, and in which years? Yes or no, by year

The information was collected in the Fall 2001. According to Dr. Meyer, the five institutions are located in the West, the Midwest, and the South. They include one community college, two regional four-year institutions, and two research institutions, and thus institutional enrollments are varied, but range from over 2,000 to 20,500 total headcount students in the most recent year. Distance education enrollments ranged from over 1,000 to over 7,000 students in the most recent year. Dr. Meyer said, "Because not all institutions are experiencing the same conditions (be they economic state-level politics), it is difficult to compare experiences or overly generalize from these cases, but only to comment on the unique experiences of the five institutions."

From Dr. Meyer's published article, the following case information and Table were extracted:

Case A received state funding in its early years of offering distance education courses and programs, but its largest enrollment increases were in later years, when there was no state funding. Faculty policies (compensation, workload, intellectual property) were supportive of faculty, including compensation for developing courses, distance education taught in or out of load as the faculty person chose, and an intellectual property policy that shared with faculty the rights to and benefits from of a distance education course. In terms of state policies, service areas had been eliminated, and a state plan for distance education was in place. Distance education was not specifically mentioned in the institution's mission statement.

Case B. had not received state funding for its distance education program in its first year, but in each year thereafter. Growth in enrollments was higher in the first and last years. Faculty policies were supportive of faculty, including compensation for developing and delivering online courses and distance education courses taught in load. Despite its long history with distance education, the institution had just begun to develop an intellectual property policy for online courses. State policies were also supportive, including the elimination of service areas, a state plan for distance education, but no mention of distance education in the institution's mission statement.

Case C. had never received directed state funding for its distance education effort, although it saw high enrollment growth tied to high growth in the number of new courses added to its offerings. Faculty policies were supportive of faculty, including compensation for developing and delivering online courses, distance education courses taught in load, and an intellectual property policy that shared with faculty the rights to and benefits from of a distance education course. Other policies were not so supportive, including the existence of service areas, no state plan for distance education, and no mention of distance education in the institution's mission statement.

Case D. had received state funding every year of its distance education program, but had not added new courses in year 3 and had increased its new courses by 80% in year 4. Largest increases in enrollment were in the first and fourth years of distance education offerings. Faculty policies were supportive of faculty, including compensation for developing online courses, distance education courses taught in load, and an intellectual property policy that shared with faculty the rights to and benefits from of a distance education course. State policies were also supportive, including the elimination of service areas, a distance education plan, and a specific mention of distance education in the institution's mission statement.

Case E. had received state funding in only its last year of operation. Faculty policies were supportive of faculty, including compensation for developing online courses, distance education courses taught in load, and an intellectual property policy that gave faculty the right to own and benefit from their distance education courses. State policies were mixed; service areas had been eliminated but no state plan for distance education had been developed. Distance education was not mentioned in the institution's mission statement.

Table 1. Profile of 5 Institutions

Institutions

CASE A CASE B

CASE C

CASE D

CASE E

Growth Rates (a):

Year 1-2(g)

Year 2-3

Year 3-4

Year 4-5

Year 5-6

Year 6-7

8.22% (b, c)

107.20%(b, f)

25.49% (b, e)

Faculty Compensation

Faculty Workload

Intellectual Policy

Shared

Service Areas

State Plan

In Mission

NOTES:

All enrollments duplicated headcount.

Received state funding for distance education in these years.

No new courses offered.

Increased number of courses offered 35-59%.

Increased number of courses offered 60-75%.

Increased number of courses offered 76%-100%.

Beginning year is not the same for the five cases.

From reviewing this data, it appears some obvious conclusions can be made. Dr. Meyer stated in her article that funding is an important factor in building a Distant Education program. However it is interesting to note that Case A experienced substantial growth without state funding. Both Case D & E. experienced growth before additional funding was provided.

It appears that one important conclusion on the overall success of these five Distant Learning programs is the consistent support of the faculty. All five support their faculty by providing fair, reasonable, and sufficient compensation, workload, and intellectual property policy.

Dr. Meyer concludes that the market may be one of the most driving forces of the demand for Distant Learning, and that seems a fair conclusion. Growth of enrollment proves marketplace demand. Statement of policy does not seem to have a significant effect on Distant Learning. Practice of adequate policy with faculty seems to be a key issue effecting the quality of Distant Learning.

CONCLUSIONS

This examination of the use of interactive television for distance learning demonstrated the need for those involved in planning and implementing such programs to consider several factors. Faculty need to be trained not only in the use of the technologies but also in how to adapt their teaching knowledge and style to the technologies. They need supportive help as well, help that supports the formal process of initial organized training.

Regarding training, this must help instructors undergo any resistance they might have to using the interactive system as a result of changes occurring in their instructional paradigm. It is also likely that some re-training may be needed following implementation of the system. Further, training needs to encompass lengthy and extensive practice in order to make sure that when instructors are actually using the system they can focus on course content and not the hardware.

As to instructional support, the reviewed literature indicated that support systems should help instructors to use the interactive television system in a manner that facilitates the attainment of all learning objectives. To this end, instructors need help with a variety of matters including the integration of additional hardware, equality and quality of the hardware, accessibility to students, maintenance. They need leadership and assistance, as well as an organized and readily accessible collection of materials and equipment. Finally, they need to be allowed to instruct in an environment that is adequate to the technological task required of them, an environment with a proper facility and state-of-the-art equipment.

Instructors also need to be compensated for the time and skills required to effectively utilize the interactive television system. Compensation can be delivered in a variety of ways. However, institutions should not fail to offer extra compensation, this is because the literature indicated that it operates as an incentive and also builds an increased sense of commitment to the institution or school.

Another important element regarding the use of interactive television for distance learning is that instructors often require additional time to prepare, plan and even teach the course. This means that adjustments have to be made in their workloads. Schools need to consider the formulation of formal policies regarding this adjustment, as well as all of the factors that were reviewed in this report.

The foregoing point is especially important. In their examination and conducted research on policy development as it related to the use of interactive television in educational institutions, Johnson and DeSpain (2002) noted that despite the fact that distance education and learning were becoming more and more an integral part of educational offerings, many institutions failed to formulate official policy regarding its use. As a result, instructors do not always get all of the training required to properly utilize the equipment, there is a lack of equity from institution to institution regarding compensation and adjustments for workloads, and often there is very little monitoring as to whether either instructors or students are actually using the system properly.

The active support of the administration toward the faculty appears to be a key and necessary element in the overall success of any Distant Education program. Administrators must recognize the additional workload and the challenges of developing and delivering Distant Learning courses. Administrators must do more than provide verbal support. Actual adjustments to workload, providing sufficient preparation time, recognition of additional work requirements are all part of what Administrators must do to make a Distant Learning program successful.

Chapter 2 Bibliography

Central Missouri State University (CMSU), Annual Report for 1998-99 A copy is available at http://www.cmsu.edu/provost/images/ar9899.pdf

New Mexico State University (NMSU), Self-Evaluation Report A copy is available at http://www.me.nmsu.edu/ABET%20Self%20Assessment/Output/ABET_SABTOC.html

Linda Harasim Ph.D., The Great Debate - State-of-the-Art in Post-secondary Education, TeleLearning Network of Centres of Excellence 1999. A copy of the complete copy of the presentation is available at http://www.telelearn.ca/conference99/presentations/harasim_SOTA_PS.pdf

Brigham Young University (BYU), Integrating Engineering Theory and Practicum Within Interactive Asynchronous Courses, 2000. From the ASME Curriculum Innovation Award information. The complete report is available at http://www.asme.org/education/enged/awards/cia00/raisor.pdf

Dr. Katrina A. Meyer Does Policy Make a Difference? An Exploration into Policies for Distance Education Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration Winter 2002 - Volume V, Number 4 A copy is available at http://www.westga.edu/%7Edistance/ojdla/winter54/Meyer_policy_54.htm

Chute, Alan G., Hancock, Burton W., and Balthazar, Lee B. 1991. "Distance Education

Futures: Information Needs and Technology Options." Performance & Instruction.

November/December).

IDE 1996. Models of Distance Education. University of Maryland Institute for Distance

Education. World Wide Web: http://www.umuc.edu/ide/modlmenu.html#overview

CHAPTER III

METHODOLGY OF STUDY

To complete a study about Distant Learning and its use and effectiveness on courses accredited through the Accredited Board of Engineering and Technology (ABET), there are many factors to consider. These factors include many basics, such as faculty training, delivery methods, student results, effectiveness of the educational process, and other items.

One of the first considerations is the ABET accreditation itself. A review of the ABET Accreditation Policy and Procedure Manual, Effective for Evaluations During the 2002-2003 Accreditation Cycle, shows many variables in the accreditation process. Each institution is allowed a certain variable or leeway in conducting its educational programs. Those variables are then weighed against the policies of ABET, and the institution is then deemed to have complied and receives the ABET accreditation.

Of specific interest is that distant education or distance learning is not even addressed in the most recent ABET Accreditation Policy and Procedure Manual. Somewhat surprisingly, ABET does not specifically address the many issues encompassing Distant Learning.

The ABET manual does address specific evaluations to take place during an on-site visit to the institution being examined for accreditation. While Distant Learning programs are not specifically evaluated under special criteria, course work offered via a Distant Learning delivery program must meet regular ABET specific criteria. From the ABET manual, those specifics are listed below:

II.E.3.c.(10) Representative samples of student work that reveal the spectrum of educational outcome. In order to make a qualitative evaluation of a program, it is necessary that the institution exhibit teaching materials such as course outlines and textbooks for all courses required for graduation. Sufficient examples of student work in technical, mathematics, and science courses must be available to the visiting team for the entire campus visit. The examples should show a range of grades for assignments, including homework, quizzes, examinations, drawings, laboratory reports, projects, and samples of computer usage in technical courses. Examples must also be presented to demonstrate compliance with the requirement for student competence in written and oral communications.

II.E.3.c.(11) Records of employment of graduates and, as appropriate, passage rates on nationally normed examinations to evaluate placement and performance in terms of the goals stated for each program.

II.E.3.c.(12) Student support services appropriate to the educational and career needs of the students. These include registration; tutoring; career and academic advisement; library, computing, and laboratory resources; and additional services appropriate to the institution's and program's mission and educational objectives. Student services must be sufficient to support the program, and there must be evidence of their use.

II.E.3.c.(13) Clearly stated expectations for learning and student achievement appropriate to the mission and educational objectives of the institution and program. Academic policies relating to student, such as admissions, probation, dismissal, grievances, and graduation requirements must be fair, equitable, and published. If academic policies for the program are different from or in addition to the institution's, those differences must be clearly stated. The criteria used by faculty to evaluate student work must be equitable, consistently applied, and clearly articulated to students, faculty, and staff.

It is clear that each Distant Learning program must meet this aforementioned ABET criteria in order to maintain its accreditation. So any effective study or survey must keep this criteria in play as the methodology is developed, and executed.

Distant Learning continues to evolve. The plan of reproducing or automating the classroom feeds directly into a preference for video. Video, delivered via television or data streams with computer connections, seems to offer the closest equivalent to the actual classroom experience. Administrators of higher institutions may acquire expensive video-based tools, and wrongly believe that faculty members can simply pick them up and start using them. To do so is naive and foolish. In the business world, training employees to use new equipment often costs more than buying the hardware and software itself. Faculty should not be expected to adapt to new technology and delivery methods by simply throwing the technology at them and expecting consistant results. The study must consider the effects of the technology, the amount of training faculty received and continues to receive, and the quality of that training or educational experience. Because of the variety of delivery methods available, one set standard of faculty training cannot be expected or evaluated. The adequacy of the training of the faculty must be measured by the faculties' ability to deliver Distant Learning courses effectively to the student.

There are significant problems still associated with the concept of distance learning. This past decade has witnessed the widespread development of distance learning courses. The marketplace seems to be driving the demand for the continued development and offerings of these courses. These courses, whether offered via television or online, affect the work in the classroom. Faculty will find this particularly true with regard to class size and course preparation.

Enrollment in a course that is delivered in a Distance Learning offering is not limited by room size or other physical facility usage. Increased weekly student contact hours or class size directly affects the ability of the faculty to evaluate examinations and written assignments. Although on the surface, increased student contact seems like a fortunate thing to the education process. But the increased contact can play havoc on the faculty. Currently there is no established standard regarding the appropriate size of classes taught in the distance-learning mode.

The study should consider the quality of the educational experience based on the class size, and the faculty's ability to respond to student needs. The study should develop data that would determine maximum student population per faculty for Distant Learning courses. Just as classroom sizes are currently limited because of physical facility usage, the same must be done for Distant Learning course offerings, which is not effected by the physical size of any facility. Somewhere, there is an obvious breaking point. The study must determine how to measure where that breaking point is, and make specific recommendations as to the maximum class size. By not doing so, it is possible to not follow ABET accreditation standards.

Class size or increased weekly student contact hours can also affect those courses that are designated as interactive on the part of instructor and student. Such courses require instructors to commit significant amounts of additional time to telephone conferences or e-mail exchanges. The various structures of Distance Learning add to the preparation requirements of the course faculty. Distance Learning requires faculty to develop and maintain significant expertise and preparation in technical areas apart from traditional academic education. The Distance Learning faculty must have specific knowledge and training of particular computer software programs used in Distance Learning courses as well as knowledge of television studio procedures if the course is televised by the university. It appears that some colleges, under the banner of faculty development, now are requiring faculty to undergo special technical and performance training before teaching in Distance Learning programs. This new trend makes sense. It should help an institution to maintain ABET accreditation. The survey and study should determine if faculty members are receiving this type of training from their currently accredited university.

Distance Learning courses often require greater preparation on the part of the faculty for each class session than is typical for the standard or typical lecture class. Equipment and tools available to faculty during the actual course time should also be determined and evaluated. For example, it is assumed that every classroom where a typical lecture class is presented has been equipped with a chalkboard or wipe board, which allows the instructor to enhance a lecture or presentation at any point necessary. This allows clearer responses to student questions or inquiries, and often allows for faster comprehension among visual learners when new material is presented. Most distance learning television studios are not equipped with traditional chalkboards, and faculty members must prepare written materials suitable for the camera and electronic transmission rather than writing spontaneously on the chalkboard. They may also have to master a new piece of equipment, such as an electronic chalkboard that would allow the student to see an electronic version of the same thing that would have been written on a traditional chalkboard. Not only would the faculty need to learn to use this new piece of equipment, but would also need to know how to broadcast the image effectively during the lecture.

Another important area to address in the study is the manner faculty is using to evaluate student performance. Distance Learning courses often necessitate the alteration of the manner the faculty uses to assess the student's performance. Faculty is required to postpone their immediate, real-time assessment of student performance within a traditional classroom, in favor of a later telephone conversation or an e-mail letter. Often this communication from the student is received at a later time or date. Student assessment in Distance Learning courses also becomes problematic because the instructor cannot observe the student in the classroom. This is particularly important in those courses in which a direct observation of the student by the instructor is the optimum situation.

The study or survey must include consideration for this issue. In order to maintain ABET accreditation, student involvement must be constantly measured. (See ABET manual Section II.E.3.c.(10)).

Formal examinations must be restructured in Distance Learning courses. In order to accommodate students that are enrolled at off-campus sites or who are viewing the course on television or over the Internet, considerations must be given as to how the formal examination is given to the student. If the examination is a traditional paper exam, its simple delivery to distant students could be problematic. If it is to be delivered via a Web environment, it would require faculty preparation in a different format. The regular chapter quizzes, for example, which are often used in traditional lecture courses by the instructor to encourage students to maintain their reading assignments, are not often practical in distance learning courses. As easily apparent, it is clear that the faculty must spend additional preparation time resolving problems pertaining to student test assessment and progress evaluation. This is critical to maintain the current ABET accreditation.

Distance Learning courses also affect faculty timelines. Many times, faculty are accustomed to distributing materials in class. But the faculty assigned to teach a Distant Learning course must prepare materials in advance. Those materials must be mailed to the Distance Learning students enrolled in interactive televised courses in anticipation of the class activity for a particular day. Failing to do so could result in jeopardizing the ABET accreditation. (See ABET Manual Section II.E.3.c.(10)). In the televised courses, faculty must also spend additional preparation time working with technical and support staff in order to ensure that the class occurs in a smooth and uninterrupted manner. The study should determine if faculty has been given the necessary time, and if so, if the faculty is effectively using that time to deliver the Distant Learning course. It should be understood and accepted that while, in some ways, the delivery of material is technically easier in online or recorded courses, the outstanding fact remains that material preparation is significantly different for Distance Learning courses. Faculty must be evaluated on their ability to adapt to the new delivery method requirements, and their ability to deliver the necessary supporting documents required. It should be noted that it is common practice for faculty to be asked to deliver the same course in both a traditional lecture format, as well as a Distant Learning format. Whatever the context or specific situation, the faculty must often prepare for multiple student audiences simultaneously. It is common for the instructor to be preparing for a class in the traditional classroom and the other by Distance Learning. Evaluation in the study should be done of both sets of materials. It should be studied if the Faculty is simply making Distant Learning materials "fit" rather than redevelop to the media.