Editor’s Note: This is a substantive paper that clearly delineates between teacher and student, doctor and patient, novelist and reader. Perhaps the validity of learning is not in distance or immediacy but in the construct of instructional design and teaching appropriate to the technology.

University Faculty Expressions of Computer Self-Efficacy and Personal Attitudes Regarding the Viability of Distance Learning

Larry S. Tinnerman

USA

Abstract

Studies have shown that there is a direct link between a teacher’s attitude towards self-efficacy and effectiveness. Further studies have refined this idea of how expressions of computer self-efficacy impacts upon attitudes regarding the use of technology in the classroom and by inference, the effectiveness of such technology. The purpose of this mixed method design study was to examine the impact that such attitudes can have upon faculty teaching at institutions of higher education as they relate to distance learning programs. This study examined 98 education faculty volunteer participants at five Pennsylvania State Systems of Higher Education Universities. Based upon responses to a survey, participants were assigned to one of three groups: low self-efficacy, high self-efficacy and high proficiency. The pool of participants was divided into two groups: have taught distance learning classes or have not taught distance learning classes. Quantitative analysis in the form of t-test analysis of the have taught and have not taught groups was performed and found significant differences between the groups at p<.05 regarding self-expressed attitudes of computer and technological self-efficacy. A one-way ANOVA analysis of variance was performed using the low efficacy, high efficacy and high proficiency groups and found significant differences between the groups at p<.05 regarding acceptance attitudes of distance learning programs and attitudes towards the hiring of faculty who have matriculated from graduate level distance education programs. Follow-up interview were conducted with 12 survey respondents who volunteered to participate. The interviews revealed varying levels of confidence and mistrust of distance learning programs. The vast majority of the interview respondents indicated a reluctance to consider distance learning graduates for faculty positions.

The Problem

Research has shown that the individual attitudes of faculty members in regards to technological self-efficacy and competence can have an effect upon their view regarding the effectiveness of distance learning programs (Gist et al., 1992). The main concern of my study is an analysis of how these attitudes impact upon faculty and administrative decisions regarding the hiring of distance education graduates as faculty in departments of higher education. With so many public and private universities offering graduate degrees via distance learning, an issue needing further examination is the acceptance of these degrees by the higher education job market. At the same time, many in higher education are more accepting of distance education as a means of course delivery (Codeway, 1986, Brown, 2000, Gist et al., 1992), are these more tolerant attitudes being carried over into making pragmatic hiring decisions regarding faculty applicants? Research studies such as this can begin to examine the possibility that a dual nature exists in higher educators’ attitudes towards distance learning. Attitudes vary greatly from opinions of course deliver effectiveness to the more pragmatic recognition of the hiring of graduates of such programs in one’s own department.

Importance and Relevance of this Study

As education enters into the 21st century, the need for university accessibility for potential students continues to increase. The demographics of the average college students are also changing with many delaying university goals until later in life. The traditional campus environment may not be easily accessible to these students due to job, family and personal commitments. At the same time the cost of maintaining educational resources is also on the rise. The competitive need for highly trained individuals, particularly in the area of education, is expanding at an alarming rate. Many universities are turning to distance learning as a means to meet this need. This is, in part, due to the emphasis that a new global community places on highly trained individuals.

Education and training via the World Wide Web continue to grow rapidly due to, among other things, the reduced cost of world-wide accessibility, and improved technological capabilities which make electronic instructional delivery a viable alternative to classroom instruction.

While attempts have been made to measure the relative effectiveness of such programs, the problem is often like comparing apples and oranges. It is confusing to make cross comparisons between these two educational approaches. “There are many ways we can examine differences between distance education and face to face instruction, but using the idea of no significant difference is probably a misdirected approach” (Shearer, 2002, p.1).

The problems and questions that are presented in this new format for education can be broken down into three basic categories. First, are the two formats (the traditional classroom approach and the distance learning approach to teaching) equitable? Numerous studies such as “No Significant Difference” (Shearer, 2002, p.1) indicate that the two approaches are equivalent, with a few studies indicating that distance learning may actually be superior to traditional classroom instruction. However, when comparing outcomes, the researches in these studies have historically concentrated on standardized test performance rather than the assessment of higher level thinking abilities and actual job skills (Shearer, 2002). Another issue that is often overlooked concerns the fact that individuals enrolling in distance education programs are often self motivated individuals who may do well in any educational setting (Brown, 2000).

A second area that has been studied involves the attitudes of both students and instructors in regards to the distance learning model. In the beginning, many faculty members were found to be resistant to distance learning, often viewing it at nothing more than an upscale version of a correspondence course (Shearer, 2002). As more universities adopted the distance educational model, studies found that more university faculty expressed a more positive attitude to distance learning (Coldeway, 1986).

According to Social Learning Theory, as illustrated by Albert Bandura (1977, 1986, 1997), teachers and educators tend to utilize techniques, pedagogy and tools with which they possess a comfortable level of self-efficacy. In terms of the expanding role of technology, it is only logical to assume that some current faculty members feel overwhelmed. University faculty must be not only experts in the content area for which they are hired, but also possess an ever expanding degree of technical expertise as well.  

Feelings of inefficacy may translate into resistance to change and actually may impact upon the development and deployment of distance learning programs. It is hoped that this study will add light to the causes of resistant attitudes so that universities may develop plans of action that include increased professional development opportunities and the possible development of technological standards for those faculty asked to teach in this technologically rich environment.

The General Problem under Investigation

Is there a significant difference between education faculty expressing high vs. low levels of technological self-efficacy and/or competence in regards to personal attitudes as to both the efficacy and the viability of graduate level distance learning programs in preparing future education faculty at America’s institutions of higher learning? If institutions are granting a greater number of graduate degrees at a distance and yet, at the same time, the faculty in these programs are unwilling to consider these graduates for faculty positions in their departments, there appears to be a “disconnect” between practice and policy. This disconnection can lead to significant ethical questions.

Research Questions

1. Are faculty members who possess higher levels of technological levels of self-efficacy and proficiency more likely to embrace distance education than those faculty members who possess lower levels of technological levels of self-efficacy and proficiency? The null hypothesis for this question would contend that faculty members who possess higher levels of technological levels of self-efficacy and proficiency would not significantly embrace distance education more than faculty members who possess lower levels of technological levels of self-efficacy and proficiency.

2. Do faculty members who have taught courses on-line express a greater sense of self-efficacy in regard to the use of technology than do their traditional colleagues who teach only using traditional classroom based instruction? The null hypothesis for this question would contend that faculty members who have taught courses on-line would not express a significantly greater sense of self-efficacy in regard to the use of technology than do their traditional colleagues who teach only using traditional classroom based instruction.

3. Do members of the education faculty who possess higher levels of technological self-efficacy and proficiency significantly differ in their attitudes towards the hiring of on-line degree graduates for tenured track positions than do their colleagues? The null hypothesis for this question would contend that members of the education faculty who possess higher levels of technological self-efficacy and proficiency would not significantly differ in their attitudes towards the hiring of on-line degree graduates for tenured track positions than do their colleagues

Assumptions

1. Faculty members participating in the survey answered questions honestly and openly under the condition of anonymity.

2. Faculty member choosing to participate in the study were representative of the faculty at whole for the various sites utilized.

3. The faculty participants in this study had no vested interest in the outcome of the study.

Limitations

1. The willingness of participants to take part, to respond honestly and accurately, and to complete the survey in a timely manner that allows all completed surveys to be considered in the study.

2. Personal follow-up interviews will be conducted with 10% - 15% of the survey respondents. A limitation of the study involves the willingness of the faculty to participate and to respond honestly.

3. A final limitation of this study is tied to the fact that it is conducted utilizing only 5 member schools of the Pennsylvania's State System of Higher Education with a target sample size of 100 faculty members which may or may not be adequate for generalization.

The Design

Characteristics of the Defined Population

The participants for this study will consist of education faculty at one of five Pennsylvania State Systems of Higher Education Universities (Edinboro University of PA, Clarion University of PA, Shippensburg University of PA, Slippery Rock University of PA, and California University of PA.) Each of these public universities has a strong education program and each university also offers graduate degrees in education on-line.

The setting and sample are appropriate for this study because the respondents represent a cross section of faculty found at public universities in Pennsylvania. Each of the universities selected conduct classes and degree programs in education in both the traditional and distance learning model. Education faculty teaching arts programs such as music and art, plus physical education faculty were not included in this study due to the fact that distance education would not lend itself as an effective tool in such programs of study.

Participants Selection Process

Education faculty teaching at the university sites were each sent an email requesting their voluntary participation in an online survey administered by Student Voice Inc., a contracted service agency which oversees data collection for various educational institutions. Those choosing to participate did so by self-selection by completing the survey instrument. In addition, 50 faculty members who had not responded to the initial email were randomly selected to receive an invitation to complete a paper and pencil survey so as to include participation from those faculty members who may not be as comfortable with computer access.

Participant Target Number

Member university faculty – 20 education faculty for each of the 5 target universities

Total anticipated population – 100 education faculty members – Actual sample achieved 98

Research Methodology

(Quantitative) Survey

Online survey collection will be administered by StudentVoice Inc. The survey will be comprised of 22 Likert scale questions plus 10 demographic questions. The questions will be divided in the following groupings:

• Faculty self-reported level of expertise in using distance educational technologies (G1). (5 questions)

• Faculty expressions of self-efficacy in regards to educational technology. (G2). (5 Questions)

• Faculty personal attitudes in regards to the evolution of educational technology (G3). (3 questions)

• Faculty attitudes of equity of the distance learning model (G4). (4 Questions)

• Faculty attitudes towards the hiring of distance education graduates as members of education faculty at public universities (G5). (5 questions)

Data Instruments

Survey data was adapted from Elizabeth Gilmore’s (1998) dissertation Impact of Training on the Information Technology Attitudes of University Faculty. The survey instrument, Faculty Attitudes Toward Information Technology (FAIT), assessed university and college faculty attitudes toward new information technologies.  Three separate pilot surveys were administered to assess the impact of the adaptations upon internal consistency. Each section of the survey using the final pilot data obtained a Cronbach's alpha of between .85 and .96 and is therefore considered to be internally consistent.

Potential Threats to Internal Validity

1. Mortality - As all faculty members’ participation if voluntary, there was no way to guarantee that all participants would complete the survey and volunteer for the subsequent follow-up interviews.

2. Testing – The survey instrument used is administered both on-line and by paper and pencil. There is no formal measure as to inconsistencies in validity based upon administration protocol.

3. Experimenter Effect –

   1. Observer bias – as the research is conducting the qualitative interview process, and has had experience in distance learning environments, it can not be ruled out that the interpretation of the narrative data may be subject to some observer bias; however, each interview will be quantified using prescribed qualitative measures to keep such bias at a minimum.

   2. Hawthorne Effect – As the interview will be part of a total dissertation project, faculty members, hoping to be helpful may try to be “helpful” in the process in terms of their responses; however, this will be minimized by avoiding the discussion of the specific details of the project with the perspective interview participants prior to the study.

Generalizability of this study to other Sites/Subjects

While this study is specifically restricted to five public universities in Pennsylvania, it is believed that certain aspects of this study will generalize to other sites and similar subjects. To be sure, individual institutional attitudes towards distance learning instructional methods will have a wide impact on the staff perceptions of the efficacy of the distance learning educational mode of delivery. However, certain pervasive points should emerge, especially in the areas of perceived effectiveness and potential higher educational employability.

Basic advantages, obstacles and/or barriers to the distance educational idiom can be kept in mind by instructors when designing future criteria to either maximize or minimize their impact through creative use of instructional methodologies. This study can be used as a tool in conjunction with other like investigations through other instructional venues in order to provide a cross comparison of similarities and differences.  In particular, this research should help in the planning and construction of future on-line programs offered by universities at the graduate level while at the same time, keeping in mind the limitations that may exist in regards to personal attitudes toward the hiring of program graduates.

Findings

The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of education faculty attitudes regarding self-reported computer/technology self-efficacy and/or competence that influence their attitudes regarding viability of graduate level distance learning programs. Secondly, the researcher examined the impact of these personal attitudes upon recommendations regarding hiring of new education faculty members who received advanced degrees from distance learning programs.

Overview of Procedures

The methods of analysis included independent t-test analyses of the questionnaire data comparing the attitudes of those faculty who have taught distance education classes as compared to those who have not. Analyses were performed at the p=.05 level of significance. Two one-way ANOVA tests were conducted which calculated the differences in faculty attitudes towards distance education and the hiring of distance education graduates broken down into three self-efficacy categories: high proficiency, high efficacy and low efficacy. It must be noted that the high proficiency group is a subgroup of the high efficacy group and is differentiated by the expressed skill level of responded in regards to utilizing more advanced computer applications other than basic email, word processing and PowerPoint.

Dates of Survey Data Collection – February 27, 2007 – March 12, 2007

Sample size: N=98 education faculty from 5 Pennsylvania PSSHE universities (See Table 3 for distributions). The total sample included faculty teaching in departments of education. Performance based, art education and physical education faculty were not included since their particular programs are not well suited for distance learning. StudentVoice® Inc., a university contracted private data collection agency oversaw the on-line survey instrument.

Email invitations were sent to 323 faculty members at the participating institutions. Responses were tracked by StudentVoice® Inc. and two follow-up invitations were also sent at two week intervals. Additionally, invitations and paper surveys were sent to 50 faculty members who failed to respond to the email request. The response consisted of 70 on-line respondents and 28 paper respondents. Each participating faculty member was given a chance to volunteer to participate in a follow-up interview with the anticipation of selecting between 10 and 15 based upon their efficacy rating. Of the 35 participants who volunteered, 15 were with 7 falling within the low efficacy group and 8 within the high efficacy group.

When examining the quantitative data from the survey it is important to note that the concept of technological self-efficacy is measured in two domains. The first domain refers to a level of self reported proficiency for tasks that go beyond just creating a PowerPoint or sending an email. These proficiencies referred to the actual ability as rated by the four point Likert scale of 1 = I cannot do this, 2 = I can do this with help, 3 = I can do this independently and 4 = I can teach others to do this in tasks that would typically be expected of faculty members teaching an on-line course For this study, the group was divided in half with those achieving an average score of 2.5 and above in the High proficiency group and those scoring less than 2.5 in the low proficiency group. The same process was utilized in establishing a rating of technological self-efficacy with each participant rating technology attitudes on a Likert scale of 1 = I Strongly Disagree, 2 = I Disagree, 3 = I Agree and 4 = I Strongly Agree. Again, for this study, the group was divided in half with those achieving an average score of 2.5 and above in the high self-efficacy group and those scoring less than 2.5 in the low Self-efficacy group. With these groups established, each group of 5 questions was divided into three categories:

1. Attitudes towards technology in education

2. Attitudes towards the efficacy of distance learning program technology

3. Attitudes towards the hiring of distance learning graduates for faculty positions in Higher Education.

Descriptive Statistics

Table 4 presents the descriptive and demographic makeup of all the participants. The categories consist of site, educational background, age, gender, years of university teaching, levels of distance learning classes taught, instructional status, tenure status and academic department within the School/College of Education. In regards to the high proficiency group, 30 out of 42 have taught some level of distance learning class as compared with 14 out of 56 in the low proficiency group. In regards to the high self-efficacy group, 42 out of 65 have taught some level of distance learning class as compared to 2 out of 33 in the low proficiency group. Of the demographic data presented, the only category that demonstrated a significant difference at p≤ .05 between the High and Low grouping of both proficiency and self-efficacy was found between those individuals who have had experience in teaching distance education classes.

Table 4

N=98

Tables 5 through 9 present the proficiency questions and the distribution of responses with Table 10 presenting participant grouping with 42 respondents in the high proficiency grouping and 56 respondents in the low proficiency grouping. Tables 11 though 13 present the self-efficacy questions and the distribution of participant responses. Table 14 presents a breakdown of participant grouping with 65 of the respondents falling into the high self-efficacy group and 33 respondents in the low self-efficacy grouping.

Table 5

Descriptive Statistics- Technological Proficiency –
Design a Webpage with Embedded Links

Table 6

Descriptive Statistics- Technological Proficiency –
Save PowerPoint Presentations as WebPages

Table 7

Descriptive Statistics- Technological Proficiency – Create On-line Course Components for On-line Shells Such as WebCT®, BlackBoard®, e-College®, etc.

Table 8

Descriptive Statistics- Technological Proficiency – Create an email distribution list

Table 9

Descriptive Statistics- Technological Proficiency – Create an Adobe PDF file

Table 10

Descriptive Statistics- Proficiency Groupings

Table 11

Descriptive Statistics- Technological Self-efficacy –
I use computer technology regularly in my classroom instruction

Table 12

Descriptive Statistics- Technological Self-efficacy –
Computers in the classroom have helped me improve my teaching

Table 13

Descriptive Statistics- Technological Self-efficacy –
I feel prepared to instruct my students on how to successfully implement
meaningful technology usage into their instructional pedagogy

Table 14

Descriptive Statistics- Self Efficacy Groupings

Analysis

The t-test presentations are presented in two separate categories: Have taught distance education versus have only taught in a traditional classroom setting. The two one-way ANOVA tests were calculated by using three groups; high proficiency/high efficacy, low proficiency/high efficacy, and low efficacy. The questions in the ANOVA tests deal with faculty attitudes regarding (1) distance education as a viable method of course delivery and (2) the hiring of distance education program graduates (from recognized and accredited universities) for faculty positions in higher education.

Independent t-test Analysis

This section, an analysis of data for the research question two: Do faculty members who have taught courses on-line express a greater sense of self-efficacy in regard to the use of technology than do their traditional colleagues who teach only using traditional classroom based instruction, was conducted. An Independent Samples t-test was employed to test the null hypothesis for questions Q7, Q8, Q9, Q11, Q12, and Q13 which dealt with self reported faculty attitudes towards technology in general.

Note: ^a Q9 and Q11 have been inversely coded due to the fact that the questions were phrased in a negative manner. A higher mean score indicates a more favorable attitude towards the use of technology.*p<.05. **p<.01. ***p<.001.

When examining Q7: “I like to using computers”, an independent samples t-test analysis was conducted. The mean difference between faculty who have had experience in teaching web-based distance learning classes (taught) and those who have not (not taught) was found to be significant (t₍₉₆₎= 4.42, p<0.001). Those respondents who had taught expressed a greater level of agreement with the statement (M=3.64, SD=.65) than those who had not taught. Therefore, for Q7, the null hypothesis that there is no difference between the two groups of faculty is rejected.

When examining Q8: “Computers in the classroom have helped me improve my teaching”, an independent samples t-test analysis was conducted. The mean difference between faculty who have had experience in teaching web-based distance learning classes (taught) and those who have not (not taught) was found to be significant (t₍₉₂₎= 7.30, p<0.001). Those respondents who had taught expressed a greater level of agreement with the statement (M=3.64, SD=.65) than those who had not taught. Therefore, for Q8, the null hypothesis that there is no difference between the two groups of faculty is rejected.

When examining Q9: “I sometimes feel professionally threatened by the rapid changes occurring in technology”, an independent samples t-test analysis was conducted. The mean difference between faculty who have had experience in teaching web-based distance learning classes (taught) and those who have not (not taught) was found to be significant (t₍₉₆₎= 2.01, p<0.05). Those respondents who had taught expressed a greater level of comfort with the changes occurring in technology (M=2.77, SD= 1.05) than those who had not taught. Therefore, for Q9, the null hypothesis that there is no difference between the two groups of faculty is rejected.

When examining Q11: “Technology is forced upon educators as a gimmick without regard to the impact that such technology has upon the quality of education being offered to the students”, an independent samples t-test analysis was conducted. The mean difference between faculty who have had experience in teaching web-based distance learning classes (taught) and those who have not (not taught) was found to be not significant (t₍₉₆₎= 1.54, p<0.05). Those respondents who had taught expressed a greater level of comfort that technology is not a gimmick (M=2.80, SD=.77) than those who had not taught, however, not significantly so. Therefore, for Q11, Therefore, for Q8, the null hypothesis that there is no difference between the two groups of faculty is accepted.

When examining Q12: “With the advancement of both communication and educational technologies I feel that students today receive a richer educational experience than that of their parents”, an independent samples t-test analysis was conducted. The mean difference between faculty who have had experience in teaching web-based distance learning classes (taught) and those who have not (not taught) was found to be not significant t₍₉₆₎= 3.27, p=0.001. Those respondents who had taught expressed a greater level of agreement with the statement (M=3.14, SD=.70) than those who had not taught. Therefore Q12, the null hypothesis that there is no difference between the two groups of faculty is not rejected.

When examining Q13: “Since the advent of the Internet, I am comfortable with assigning more intense research papers for my classes”, an independent samples t-test analysis was conducted. The mean difference between faculty who have had experience in teaching web-based distance learning classes (taught) and those who have not (not taught) was found to be significant (t₍₇₀₎= 2.29, p<0.05). Those respondents who had taught expressed a greater level of agreement (M=2.93, SD=.90) with then statement than those who had not taught. Therefore, for Q13, the null hypothesis that there is no difference between the two groups of faculty is rejected.

 When examining the comparison of the composite mean of all the questions in this section, an independent samples t-test analysis was conducted. The mean difference between faculty who have had experience in teaching web-based distance learning classes (taught) and those who have not (not taught) was found to be significant (t₍₉₆₎= 4.40, p<0.001). Those respondents who had taught expressed a greater level of agreement (M=3.05, SD=.49) with the statement than those who had not taught. Therefore, for a composite comparison of all the questions in this section, the null hypothesis that there is no difference between the two groups of faculty is rejected.

One-way ANOVA Analysis

This section describes the results of an analysis of variance in regards to the research question one: Are faculty members who possess higher levels of technological self-efficacy (HE) and proficiency (HP) more likely to embrace distance education than those faculty members who possess lower level (LE) of technological self-efficacy and proficiency? A one-way ANOVA was employed to test the null hypothesis for questions Q14, Q15, Q16, Q17, and Q18, which dealt with self reported faculty attitudes towards the use of distance education in higher education.

Table 16

Faculty attitudes towards distance education in higher education
 based upon levels of efficacy and proficiency

Note: HP=High Proficiency/High Efficacy; HE=Low Proficiency/High Efficacy; LE= Low Efficacy. ^a Q14, Q15, Q17 Reverse coded due to negative voice of question. A higher mean score indicates a more favorable attitude towards distance education.

The respondents were divided into subgroups: high proficiency (HP) for those individuals who achieved a mean score > 2.5 on the self reported proficiency questions, high self-efficacy (HE) which were those individuals who achieved a mean score > 2.5 on the self reported efficacy questions, but did not meet the standard for high proficiency and the low efficacy group (LE) who achieved a mean score < 2.5 on the self reported efficacy questions. The cutoff point of 2.5 was selected for these groupings because 2.5 fell into the upper 50 percentile of both efficiency and proficiency responses. For the proficiency category, this meant that respondents indicated that they could do a task independently the majority of the time. For the self-efficacy category, it meant that a respondent had a greater than neutral attitude towards the usage of technology.

A one-way ANOVA was conducted to examine differences in faculty expressed attitudes towards distance education in higher education (Table 17). Based upon their responses to targeted survey questions, respondents were placed into one of three groups: high proficiency/high self efficacy level (HP), the low proficiency/high self-efficacy level (HE) and the low self-efficacy level (LE).

When examining Q14: “An Education class via distance learning, for the student, is less rigorous than the traditional classroom”, the groups were found to be significantly different (F_(2,95)= 23.40, p<0.001). Therefore for Q14, the null hypothesis contending that there is no significant difference among the three groups is rejected. Post Hoc analysis identified significant differences at p<.001 between (LE) (M=1.81, SD=.64) and (HE) (M=2.83, SD=1.05) as well as (LE) (M=1.81, SD=.64) and (HP) (M=3.10, SD=.79). Differences between the (HP) (M=3.10, SD=.79) and (HE) (M=2.83, SD=1.05) subgroups were not found to be significant.

When examining Q15: “I have serious concerns about public universities awarding post graduate degrees in education at a distance”, the groups were found to be significantly different (F_(2,95)= 4.24, p<0.001). Therefore for Q15, the null hypothesis contending that there is no significant difference among the three groups is rejected. Post Hoc analysis identified significant differences at p<.001 between (LE) (M=1.76, SD=.99) and (HP) (M=2.36, SD=.96). Differences between the (HP) (M=2.36, SD=.96) and (HE) (M=2.25, SD=.99) subgroups were not found to be significant. Differences between the (LE) (M=1.76, SD=.99) and (HE) (M=2.25, SD=.99) subgroups were not found to be significant.

When examining Q16: “Educational pedagogy is equally effective in distance learning as it is in face to face instruction”, the groups were found to be significantly different (F_(2,95)= 6.60, p=0.002). Therefore for Q16, the null hypothesis contending that there is no significant difference among the three groups is rejected. Post Hoc analysis identified significant differences at p<.001 between (LE) (M=1.78, SD=.61) and (HP) (M=2.45, SD=.92). Differences between the (HP) (M=2.45, SD=.92) and (HE) (M=2.08, SD=.78) subgroups were not found to be significant. Differences between the (LE) (M=1.78, SD=.61) and (HE) (M=2.08, SD=.78) subgroups were not found to be significant.

When examining Q17: “Verifiable assessment is a serious problem for distance education programs”, the groups were found to be significantly different (F_(2,95)= 16.57, p<0.001). Therefore for Q17, the null hypothesis contending that there is no significant difference among the three groups is rejected. Post Hoc analysis identified significant differences at p<.001 between (LE) (M=1.50, SD=.57) and (HE) (M=2.33, SD=.96) as well as (LE) (M=1.50, SD=.57) and (HP) (M=2.62, SD=.94). Differences between the (HP) (M=2.62, SD=.94) and (HE) (M=2.33, SD=.96) subgroups were not found to be significant.

When examining Q18: “Distance education is a viable means for individuals to receive post graduate degrees in education”, the groups were found to be significantly different (F_(2,95)= 6.01, p=0.002). Therefore for Q17, the null hypothesis contending that there is no significant difference among the three groups is rejected. Post Hoc analysis identified significant differences at p<.001 between (LE) (M=2.16, SD=.77) and (HP) (M=2.81, SD=.86). Differences between the (HP) (M=2.81, SD=.86) and (HE) (M=2.67, SD=.82) subgroups were not found to be significant. Differences between the (LE) (M=2.16, SD=.77) and (HE) (M=2.67, SD=.82) subgroups were not found to be significant.

When examining the composite mean variances of the composite responses towards the efficacy of Distance Education, the groups were found to be significantly different (F_(2,95)= 6.01, p=0.002). Therefore for the overall composite means of all questions in this section, the null hypothesis contending that there is no significant difference among the three groups is rejected. Post Hoc analysis using the Scheffe’ post hoc criterion (see table 18) for significance indicate that (LE) (M=1.81, SD=.40) was significantly less accepting of distance education overall than either of the remaining groups, (HE) (M=2.43, SD=.73) and (HP) (M=2.27, SD=.66) which, in the final analysis were not significantly different from each other. Of interest was the fact that high efficacy respondents were more accepting of distance education than high proficiency respondents, although not significantly so.

*p<.05. **p<.01. ***p<.001.

Table 18

Post Hoc Analysis – Multiple Comparisons groups (HP, HE, LE)
regarding faculty attitudes towards distance education in higher education

Note: HP=High Proficiency/High Efficacy; HE=Low Proficiency/High Efficacy; LE= Low Efficacy. *p<.05. **p<.01. ***p<.001.

Table 19

Descriptive Statistics - faculty attitudes towards the hiring of DL graduates
as education faculty based upon levels of efficacy and proficiency

Note: HP=High Proficiency/High Efficacy; HE=Low Proficiency/High Efficacy; LE= Low Efficacy.
^a Q22, Q23, reverse coded due to negative voice of question . A higher mean score indicates a more favorable attitude towards distance education.

This section describes the results of a one way ANOVA considering research question three: Do members of the education faculty who possess higher levels of technological self-efficacy and proficiency significantly differ in their attitudes towards the hiring of on-line degree graduates for tenured track positions than do their colleagues? (Table 20). Based upon their responses to targeted survey questions, respondents were placed into one of three groups: high proficiency/high self efficacy level (HP), the low proficiency/high self-efficacy level (HE) and the low self-efficacy level (LE).

When examining Q19: “Two applicants have applied for tenured track faculty positions in your department. Both have graduated from the same prestigious university where one received his/her terminal degree via distance learning and the other from the more traditional classroom”, the groups were found to be significantly different (F_(2,95)= 12.54, p<0.001). Therefore for Q19, the null hypothesis contending that there is no significant difference among the three groups is rejected. Post Hoc analysis identified significant differences at p=.005 between (HP) (M=2.69, SD=.87) and (HE) (M=2.46, SD=.83). Significant differences between (HE) (M=2.46, SD=.83) and (LE) (M=1.75, SD=.72) were found at p<.001. Differences between the (LE) (M=1.75, SD=.72) and (HE) (M=2.46, SD=.83) subgroups were not found to be significant.

When examining Q20: “Two applicants have applied for tenured track faculty positions in your department. Both graduated from the same prestigious university where one received his/her terminal degree via distance learning and the other from the more traditional classroom”, groups were found to be significantly different (F_(2,95)= 12.89, p<0.001). Therefore for Q20, the null hypothesis contending that there is no significant difference among the three groups is rejected. Post Hoc analysis identified significant differences at p<.001 between (HP) (M=3.05, SD=.80) and (LE) (M=2.13, SD=.68). Differences between the (LE) (M=2.13, SD=.68) and (HE) (M=2.58, SD=.78) subgroups were found to be significant at p<.05. Significant differences between (HP) (M=3.05, SD=.80) and (HE) (M=2.58, SD=.78) were not found to be significant.

When examining Q21: “In the field of higher education, I feel that applicants graduating from a distance learning graduate program at a public university will be given the same consideration for employment as the traditional student”, groups were found to be significantly different (F_(2,95)= 6.12, p=0.003). Therefore for Q21, the null hypothesis contending that there is no significant difference among the three groups is rejected. Post Hoc analysis identified significant differences at p<.05 between (HP) (M=2.33, SD=.87) and (HE) (M=2.25, SD=.74). Differences between the (LE) (M=1.73, SD=.52) and (HP) (M=2.33, SD=.87) subgroups were found to be significant at p<.005. Significant differences between (HE) (M=2.25, SD=.74) and (LE) (M=1.73, SD=.524) were not found to be significant.

When examining Q22: “Tenured faculty members in public universities should have received their advanced degrees from traditional institutions”, the groups were found to be not significantly different (F_(2,95)= 2.14, p>0.05). Therefore for Q22, the null hypothesis contending that there is no significant difference among the three groups is not rejected. Post Hoc analysis identified no significant difference between subgroups. All respondents appeared neutral to the statement (HP) (M=2.57, SD=.83), (HE) (M=2.21, SD=.78), (LE) (M=2.30, SD=.60).

When examining Q23: “Faculty applicants who received their doctorates from distance learning universities often lack the people skills necessary to be effective instructors”, the groups were found to be significantly different (F_(2,95)= 9.94, p<0.001). Therefore for Q23, the null hypothesis contending that there is no significant difference among the three groups is rejected. Post Hoc analysis identified significant differences at p<.001 between (HP) (M=2.88, SD=.67) and (LE) (M=2.13, SD=.76). Differences between the (HE) (M=2.58, SD=.72) and (HP) (M=2.88, SD=.67) subgroups were not found to be significant. Significant differences between (HE) (M=2.58, SD=.72) and (LE) (M=2.13, SD=.76) were not found to be significant.

When examining the composite mean variances of the responses related to the hiring of Distance Education graduates in higher education, the groups were found to be significantly different (F_(2,95)= 16.20, p<0.001). Therefore for the overall composite means of all questions in this section, the null hypothesis contending there is no significant difference among the three groups is rejected. Post Hoc analysis using the Scheffe’ post hoc criterion (see table 21) for significance indicate (LE) (M=1.92, SD=.47) was significantly less accepting of distance education overall than either of the remaining groups, (HE) (M=2.42, SD=.59) and (HP) (M=2.71, SD=.67) which were not significantly different from each other. (HP) respondents were more accepting of distance education (HE) respondents, although not significantly so.

*p<.05. **p<.01. ***p<.001

Table 21

Post Hoc Analysis – Multiple Comparisons of groups (HP, HE, LE)
 regarding faculty attitudes towards hiring of DL graduates

Note: HP=High Proficiency/High Efficacy; HE=Low Proficiency/High Efficacy; LE=Low Efficacy. *p<.05. **p<.01. ***p<.001.

Qualitative Data Analysis

Interviews were held with survey respondents from each participating school. Teachers were selected for a pool of volunteers so that representations of the efficacy/proficiency sub-groups were present. The final representative numbers were achieved: HP – 4 respondents, HE – 5 respondents, LE – 3 respondents. The distribution of respondents per university were 3 respondents – Slippery Rock University, 2 respondents – Clarion University, 3 respondents – Edinboro University, 2 respondents - California University, 2 respondents – Shippensburg University.

Each interview began with introductions and basic interview guidelines. Participants were told that they would be asked a series of questions relating to computer technology and distance education. The interviewer remained silent while the participant responded to each question. If an answer was found to unique or ambiguous, an attempt to clarify the response was made by asking a follow-up or probing question. Respondents were asked to exclude for-profit programs such as the University of Phoenix on-line and think only of established universities with respected traditional components when answering. The interviews provided qualitative data which expanded upon the questions illustrated by the survey instrument.

While seven separate questions were asked, the primary focus of the interviews was to investigate the views of the respondents in regards to the current state of technology in education, including the technological state of those currently teaching technology courses. It was hoped to arrive at some indication as to perceived strengths and potential weaknesses that are evident in the system. The responses were examined in context of the respondents survey score as to self-efficacy and proficiency.

The second focus included respondent attitudes towards distance learning as a viable alternative to the traditional classroom approach for education students studying primarily at the post graduate level. Not only were the general attitudes examined, but there was an attempt to understand the reasoning behind those attitudes in both the areas of strengths and weaknesses that are perceived to be inherent in the distance education system.

The final focus of the questioning surrounded respondents’ attitudes towards the hiring of faculty in higher education. An attempt was made to examine whether or not inconsistencies existed when it came time to make the pragmatic decision to recommend the hiring of distance learning graduates.

As programs of education are preparing future teachers to teach not only in today’s classrooms, but classrooms of the future over the next 20 to 25 years, respondents commented upon how well professors of education are keeping up with the rapidly evolving technological requirements of the professions. F8 (HE) made the following comment:

… I believe that professors are doing a fairly good job, I believe that it depends on the personality of the person. I do not see how a professor can maintain their status if they do not come to understand the technology (F8, 4-12).

F8 (HE) further commented:

 … no, as far as preparing teachers for the future. We are stuck on the present… who knows what is going to be there 25 years from now… it’s hard for professors to keep up, they try, but trying to prepare our future teachers… for 25 years down the road... that is very difficult (F8, 4-12).

The comments noted above represent the ambiguity regarding the preparation of teachers of the future to operate in a technologically rich environment. F1 (LE) made a comment that was rather revealing and very pragmatic:

It is interesting because some of the things that we teach our pre-service teachers are not even available in the schools… so there are some areas where we are ahead of the curve mostly because of the rural area where our students do their student teaching…I find that our student teachers are disappointed that they cannot do the things that they have been taught to do here because the technology is not available in the schools (F1, 4-4).

When asked about possible suggestions to overcome obstacles and begin to improve technological competence at universities, several explanations were offered. The first explanation was to address the lack of resources available, both in terms of equipment and in terms of time. A comment from F10 (LE) respondent illustrates this point.

 … A lot of it has to do with the hardware… The availability of hardware. I know that a lot more classrooms are getting the (pause), we call ours the Prometheus system, a high technology system, and that you also need professional development… but …professors, there are just so many demands on them it becomes a matter of just what you choose to do considering other obligations that are necessary, focusing on student achievement, their classrooms, service to the community and university… when do you have time to keep up with all the changes in technology? It is a real problem… (F10, 4-12).

F3 (HE) further commented:

… (pause)… we can learn if we want to… so those of us who want to learn and keep up are keeping up, and we find ways of support. So, how do you motivate someone to do it who isn’t self motivated is the issue… … there are just not any rewards. There are not enough rewards for doing it, not enough encouragement and if a professor can get by doing what they have been doing and feel successful at it then there is no motivation or reward to change, because it’s a lot of work (F3, 4-5).

A general feeling of ambivalence in regards to graduate degrees being offered via distance education began to emerge. There seemed to be a politically correct response that suggested that the faculty respondents were accepting of distance learning programs, but after some more inn depth probing there began to emerge some of the underlying, unspoken concerns. The following comments can begin to illustrate this. The first comment comes from F1 (LE):

… we consider ourselves to be a residency school… (pause)… it is something we take pride in… I certainly have gotten that impression. Obviously, not having the one on one contact with the student would be a detriment to learning… I talk to some students as well as faculty and they want to see their professors, they want to have interactions, they want to see their face and, you know the eyes, they get an idea… they glaze over when they don’t get the idea. …Certainly, the advantage would be the convenience… we’re trying to… get all kinds of diverse students to receive the education that we would want them to get and it is hard to earn a career and keep your family and go to school. So if you require your students to come to [campus] you are most certainly eliminating a certain percentage of the population you could make a selection from (F1, 4-4).

F7 (HE) demonstrated the apprehension that many faculty members may have regarding distance learning programs:

Graduate school on-line? Yes… we are putting several of our courses on-line and considering putting one or two programs on on-line and we are all having second thoughts and third thoughts… do we know what we are doing? Are we sure this is going to work? And you don’t know if it’s going to work until you try it… but there are certain components of graduate school that we are having difficulty seeing how we would replace with using technology (F7, 4-10).

This respondent continued to illustrate concern regarding various aspects of graduate classroom that may not be suitable for the on-line environment. These concerns were mirrored by various respondents.

The richness of a small group in a seminar… Can you really replicate that in an on-line discussion board setting? I’ve seen it both ways, I’ve seen some on-line conversations that are very rich and people who would actually offer their opinions more quickly on-line because they are less confident in face to face than they are on-line… so there is an advantage (F7, 4-10).

F12 (HE) added:

… I guess it depends on what level the program is, M.Ed. for a working teacher… that seems more practical than a doctoral candidate who also has to learn about university life, and you can’t do that unless you are there (F12, 4-13).

Given the diverse levels of technological comfort among university faculty one of the themes centered upon a discussion of individual comfort (self-efficacy) levels in using, and in some cases, acknowledging the usefulness of this technology. Some interviewers suggested that universities need to take a passive role and permit attrition to take care of the problem. This idea is illustrated F9 (HP):

… (very long pause)… I am clearly thinking that those individuals who are not comfortable with technology will eventually retire, while those who are coming in are more comfortable with technology because it has been part of our everyday lives. And therefore, within time, (pause), there is going to be less and less of a feeling of uncomfortable-ness with technology, so again, through time, I believe that both the self-efficacy of professors is going to increase and of course they are going to feel that technology is an important perspective in education (F9, 4-12).

An observation presented F6 (LE) made the following point:

It seems likes that the only people who can keep up with the technology are the people who are creating the technology (F6, 4-10).

Still another respondent F10 (LE) represents a view put forth by several other respondents that suggest the problem as possibly being related to globalization.

… maybe in other countries like Japan where people seem to be a little more technologically accepting… students have these cell phones we are just starting to get into our society. So we might be in trouble globally with preparing our teachers to go to out into the schools, again, it is a financial issue… I don’t think that there are too many schools that are keeping up with technology, so when teachers do go out there, if they are even a few years behind, they are still going to be relatively advanced in that particular school (F10, 4-12).

On three occasions a probing question was asked… What keeps faculty members who are pressed into teaching distance education classes from learning just the minimum to get by? F2 (HE) sums up a shared attitude with the following comment:

We have to make sure that we get good feedback from the students about the quality of the experience and have discussions, almost like if someone were not pulling their weight in the classroom, there would be a system in place to hopefully identify that person and take corrective action (F2, 4-4).

There was an overall expressed sense of wariness when it came to programs granting distance graduate degrees. Much of this may be related to attitudes held regarding the perceived reputations of for-profit programs such as the University of Phoenix which continuously spam mailboxes and are sometimes viewed as diploma factories. It sometimes became a matter of guilt by association where on-line programs are often viewed as being all the same. F7 (HE) presented the candid view of the majority of the respondents on this issue but at the same time was open-minded enough to consider on-line degrees from established institutions.

 … I believe that we are wary of the lesser-known universities; I think that if a reputable university has an on-line degree… a reputation of producing quality instruction. …Although, I asked another professor in the education department and she said that it is a fallacy that these on-line degrees are looked at in the same way that traditional degrees are, so I know that some faculty do not take the on-line degrees as seriously as traditional degrees (F7, 4-10).

A theme that was mentioned by individuals from all three groups was the idea that graduate study was a ‘rite of passage’, in particular doctoral programs. As a part of traditional graduate programs, there was the perception that residency was an important component particularly at the doctorate level. The following comment by F11 (HP) illustrates this attitude:

…I would think that there is going to be a lot of negative views. I think it is the traditional thinking that you need to… it’s the reasoning that you need a kind of residency… why is that residency rule there? Until you do it, you do not realize why they have residency rules. So, how do you replace the working relationship between you and your advisor if you are not on campus? (pause) in that research group (F11, 4-13).

F11 (HP) continues:

… you know the residency is a difficult thing and it’s stressful and a lot of people don’t make it because of it, especially returning adults. I wasn’t young when I got my graduate degree so it’s often difficult, but there is a reason for it… there are advantages for the student… (F11, 4-13).

In regards to the residency issue F8 (LE) respondent illustrated some of the benefits to the university community as a justification of having on campus residency requirements:

… they (the universities) get a lot of teaching assistants and cheap labor. But educationally, I think there are reasons… (F6, 4-10).

F4 (HP) further pointed out that it actually may be a disadvantage for the graduate student to obtain a degree on-line:

… I’ve watched colleagues struggle to finish a degree because they are not there with their advisor, with their committee, working all the time (F4, 4-5).

The undercurrent of negative feelings toward graduates of distance education graduate programs is summed up by F8 (HE):

…. I think that there is kind of quiet bias against people who get their degrees on-line… You said not to consider University of Phoenix sort of place…so if we push them aside… there is no way one would necessarily know, if the job candidate said they did it entirely on-line, they would run the risk of maybe not taken quite as seriously, but I don’t think anyone would come right out in the open and say that, but I think that is might be an undercurrent for a while
(F8, 4-12).

F9 (HP) took a more clinical attitude towards distance education with the following statement:

I’m fine with it, the issue that I have, if you are going to do it, you shouldn’t do it lightly. The concern, I mean, design your program, invest in the program, I think that these distance education programs run the risk of being used as cash cows, in saying… Ohhh, we got to get a piece of that market share and I really think that the administration invents a way to look at it as a way to get money coming in and they can, if anything, be reluctant to really kind of design and… it’s kind of like, let’s get the thing up and running first and then we’ll … if it works we’ll give you…well that’s not the way it works in a face to face program. You have to make it substantial and an initial commitment to it and then in time it bears fruit. I think unfortunately that urgency becomes a matter of money (F9, 4-12).

This cash-cow concern was voiced by several respondents and there appeared to be a kind of resistance from having distance education components forced on them from administration. Academic control emerges as an undercurrent.

One unexpected viewpoint came from two (HP) respondents who coincidentally both taught classes on-line and also were educational technology specialists at their respective universities. F11 (HP) took the following position:

…absolutely not! It is insane to think that entire programs are offered at the graduate level entirely at a distance. There are still limitations… err… things that need to be examined. Don’t get me wrong, distance education is a great tool, but it is just not ready, nor are those teaching it, to assure that the quality and rigor are the same. There are many questions that need to be answered first. I have no problem at teaching a class or so on-line, but at some point, there needs to be some kind of human interaction between student and professor (F11, 4-13).

F4 (HP) tended to mirror F11 but made the following additional observations:

… To some, all students and professors are created equal. Administration just assumes that if you can teach a class face to face, you can teach it on-line. I see professors every day taking their notes and just pasting them on-line with a few PowerPoint’s and that is a class. I don’t think so! There is pedagogy at teaching on-line that we are barely addressing. We have just started to explore how to perform self-assessment of our instruction at a distance (F4, 4-5).

One primary focus of this research study was to assess the perceptions of faculty members in making decisions regarding the hiring of departmental faculty, particularly those who have matriculated from distance learning graduate programs. What was found was a general reluctance to give an distance education applicant the same consideration for employment as a graduate from a more traditional program One explanation that was offered was the newness of distance education. Education tends to be very conservative and resistant to change.

An (HE) respondent noted, as did several other respondents, that there is a general suspicion when it comes to accepting anything that falls outside the traditional range of what is thought to be graduate education. Nearly 10% of the respondents agreed that this attitude appears to be one of the key factors influencing decisions on hiring distance learning candidates in higher education. F8 (HE) noted that the profession needs time to adjust to new ideas:

Obviously the biggest issue is time… any change takes a while for people to accept. (Pause)…. I am sure the doctoral program that is done as a weekend cohort is probably looked down upon by some faculty who did not work while they did their doctorate work… so there is a change that has to take place and time is certainly a factor. I believe also that an on-line program needs to have a mix of on-line courses and on-site course… I think that would benefit and maybe help the transition (F8, 4-12).

F5 (HP) further commented:

…It’s going to take time and experience with the animal. How many years ago was it that we wouldn’t consider using calculators in the classroom? We didn’t see the value of using computers for learning. So we have to get used to the technology first. Not all on-line instruction is created equal. I myself have taken a few on-line courses and some of there were sadly constructed, and I didn’t see the value… they weren’t valuable experiences. Others were extremely well constructed by somebody that knew what they were doing instead of someone who tries to just type their lectures and give quizzes on-line. Not effective (F5, 4-10).

Summary of Findings

When examining both the qualitative and quantitative data in relation to the research questions, the following common themes emerge.

Are faculty members who possess higher levels of technological levels of self-efficacy and proficiency more likely to embrace distance education than those faculty members who possess lower levels of technological levels of self-efficacy and proficiency?

The quantitative data derived from ANOVA analysis demonstrated at p<.05 a significant difference between the various efficacy/proficiency groups. The significant difference existed between Low Efficacy (M=1.81) respondents and both High Efficacy (M=2.43) respondents and High Proficiency (M=2.67) respondents in regards to the acceptance of distance education as a viable method of course and program delivery. Although High Proficiency respondents were more accepting the High Efficacy respondents, the difference between the two subgroups was not significant. High Proficiency and High Efficacy respondents were significantly more accepting of distance education than were their Low Proficiency colleagues.

Qualitative analysis reflected that members of all subgroups expressed concerns regarding distance learning, but the nature of those concerns differed. High Proficiency respondents tended to focus on more internal factors related to instructor competence and motivation to acquire requisite skills than did Low Proficiency respondents who looked for external considerations such as the lack of equipment or time, administrative shortcomings, of a lack of sufficient support.

Do faculty members who have taught courses on-line express a greater sense of self-efficacy in regard to the use of technology than do their traditional colleagues who teach only using traditional classroom based instruction?

The quantitative data derived from t-test analysis demonstrated at p<.05 a significant difference between the two groups. Those who have taught at a distance expressed a significantly greater sense of technological self-efficacy and confidence (M=3.06) than those who have not taught distance education classes (M=2.63).

Qualitative analysis demonstrated that members of both subgroups expressed concerns regarding distance learning, but the nature of those concerns differed. In fact, the two respondents who taught distance learning classes were the most critical of granting of degrees at a distance than any of the other respondents. Assessment, faculty preparation at teaching at a distance, specialized pedagogy requirements and rigor were some of the concerns voiced by the distance learning respondents.

Do members of the education faculty who possess higher levels of technological self-efficacy and proficiency significantly differ in their attitudes towards the hiring of on-line degree graduates for tenured track positions than do their colleagues?

The quantitative data derived from ANOVA analysis, demonstrated at p<.05 a significant difference between the various efficacy/proficiency groups. The significant difference existed between Low Efficacy (M=1.92) respondents and both High Efficacy (M=2.42) respondents and High Proficiency (M=2.71) respondents in regards to attitudes toward the hiring of on-line degree graduates for tenured track positions. Although High Proficiency respondents were more accepting than the High Efficacy respondents, the difference between the two subgroups was not significant. High Proficiency and High Efficacy respondents were significantly more accepting of hiring distance education graduates than were their Low Proficiency colleagues, however, no group reached the threshold of (M= 3.00) that would indicate a willingness to hire such individuals. The best that can be said of the results is that the High Proficiency group was just slightly more than neutral (M=2.50). Such results lack a strong endorsement of the hiring of distance education distance education graduates as faculty in higher education.

Qualitative analyses indicated several factors that may account for this attitude. One of the primary factors illustrated was that distance learning programs tend to fly in the face of tradition. There is a perception that distance learning is somehow a shortcut. Another factor that was mentioned was the prevalence of for profit on-line programs that are looked upon as being “diploma mills”. This perception may be generalized to all distance learning programs. A final factor is the perception that graduate programs need to be built around residency components so as to develop interpersonal skills at both the departmental and university level. The perception is that, without these skills, a candidate would be missing out on one of the critical ingredients found in quality graduate programs. Other factors included unanswered questions in regards to pedagogy, instructor readiness and technical competence, assessment and face-to face communication.

Implications and Concluding Comments

“The marketing strategy in the on-line community must become… “Focus attention on what kinds of education people need, want, and for which they are willing to pay.” The pitfall is the notion of technology for technology’s sake and forgetting the learners.” (Wilson, 2003, p.3)

When examining the results of this study, one thing becomes abundantly clear. There is a significant difference between how education faculty view distance learning programs based upon their particular level of self-efficacy in regards to the use of technology. While there is a significantly greater tendency to embrace distance learning as a vehicle for distance learning among high self-efficacy faculty members, there is still a reluctance with the majority of respondents when it comes to recognizing those degrees as truly equivalent when it comes down to hiring those individuals for positions among higher education faculty. This apparent inconsistency presents a potential for an ethical dilemma in that many universities are marketing and delivering these distance degree programs with the understanding that there is no significant difference when compared to granting a traditional classroom based degree. While this study utilized a small sample of faculty within a rather homogeneous representation of state universities in Pennsylvania, it does closely correspond to findings made in other more broadly based previous studies. The information presented thus far in this study has been gleaned from a totally quantitative approach and is therefore somewhat limited in depth. The study is currently continuing with follow-up interviews of the survey respondents with a hope of clarifying and expanding upon the information gathered via the survey instrument. With over 50% of the faculty studied expressing a level of educational technology self-efficacy and proficiency in the low category, a greater need for technical training is evident. With a greater understanding and comfort level with the emerging technology, higher education faculty will become more aware of both the possibilities and limitations for the use of such technologies in the future.

Suggestions for future study include:

1. Regional and national studies being conducted with a more diversified university population so as to become more generalizable.

2. Follow-up longitudinal studies to follow the career paths of graduates of online programs to see what obstacles they may encounter in their various career paths.
   

References

Bandura, A., (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191-215.

Bandura, A., (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman and Company.

Coldeway, D. O. (1986). Recent research in distance learning. In J. S. Daniel, M. A. Stroud, & J. R. Thompson, Learning at a distance: A world perspective (pp. 29–37). Edmonton: Athabasca University.

Faseyitan, S., Libii J. N, & Hirschbuhl, J. (1996). An in-service model for enhancing faculty computer self-efficacy. British Journal of Educational Technology, 27, 214-216.

Gilmore, E. L. (1998). Impact of training on the information technology attitudes of university faculty. University of North Texas Denton, TX.

Marcinkiewicz, H. R. (1994). Computers and teachers: Factors influencing computer use in the classroom. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 26 (2), 220-237.

 Oliver, T.A. & Shapiro, F. (1993). Self-efficacy and computers. Journal of Computer-Based Interactions, 10, 18-85

Shearer, R. (2002). No significant difference and distance education. Retrieved on July 1, 2006 from http://www.distance-educator.com/elearning/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=7507&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0

Wilson, J.M. (2003). Is there a future for on-line ed? University Business. 6(3), 7

About the Author

go top

April_08 Index

Home Page