Editor’s Note: This is a study of faculty preferences in five campuses of one Community College. It includes faculty and division chairpersons. Faculty data is differentiated by discipline as full time and part time, distance only, classroom only, dual assignments. It provides a snapshot in time of one academic institution.

Faculty Preferences for Course Delivery:
Distance and Traditional Settings

Lisa O’Quinn and Michael Corry

“Learning is bursting its previous bounds, with more people gaining access to a wider range of people and things. And once again, the duration and pace of interaction – students with students, students with experts, students with academic resources are changing” (Ehrmann, 1999). Teaching via distance education requires not only that faculty learn how to use new technologies, it also requires a paradigm shift in how educators orchestrate the act of learning (Dillon and Walsh, 1992; Hassenplug and Harnish, 1998).

Keywords: Faculty preferences, Course delivery methods, Distance Learning, E-learning, Face-to-face instruction, Traditional instruction, Distance vs. Face-to-Face Instruction.

Introduction

Moore (1996) argues that instructors teaching in a distance learning mode need to engage their students in active learning through learner-content interaction, learner-instructor interaction and learner-learner interaction. Through these three modes of learning students become more self-directed and responsible for their own learning. Students create their own framework of knowledge or interpretation of information, and engage in questioning, discussion and exchange of interpretations with instructors and other learners.

The former model of the teacher-classroom experience will still continue, but it will not be the dominant medium of education. Technology can free faculty from the bounds of time and space, but only if they learn to measure their productivity in new ways, mainly by what students learn, instead of how they learn, where they learn, and for how long faculty teach them (Plater, 1999).

Grossman (1989) credits the secondary status that distance education receives at most institutions to higher education’s failure of recognizing that the culture of distance education is at odds with the traditional academic culture. Grossman (1989) perceives the systems approach to course design and delivery as forcing faculty to relinquish their “intellectual proprietorship,” which is highly valued within the culture of higher education and rewarded by the academy.  This “systems approach” represents a new paradigm in teaching, as it requires a team of experts who can ensure that the components of distance education courses are fully integrated and complement each other.

However, this division of labor does not mean that faculty can completely rely upon instructional technologists to deliver their courses. On the contrary, faculty should be able to identify and recognize technologies’ strengths and weaknesses and select the most appropriate delivery mechanism for a particular lesson (Gunawardena, 1992). More important, than just learning how to use the technology appropriately, faculty need to learn how to personalize their instruction, regardless of the technology they use, and incorporate student involvement activities into their instruction. Faculty who integrate collaborative learning in their distance education courses also use it in their classroom discussions and find it enables them to improve their classroom teaching as well (Dillon and Walsh, 1992; Wolcott, 1993).

When Carr (2001) interviewed a faculty member at Columbia University about his decision to transform his courses to a distance education medium he cited the different techniques he had to master. He spoke about how he missed the face-to-face contact with his students and the control he had over the flow of material which he presented to his students. As he began to teach his course on line he learned that many students don’t learn in a linear fashion. He had to design his course in a manner that allowed them to gain access to content in a way that made sense to them.

As faculty continue to develop their teaching styles, they are like many other professionals, who are faced with the challenge of having to meet their ongoing responsibilities while simultaneously learning new technological skills and attempting to integrate them into their professional roles. When viewed from this perspective, faculty can be regarded as adult learners and faculty development can be considered as an “adult learning undertaking.” (Gillespie, 1998).  Many of the adult student characteristics noted by Knowles (1984) and Brookfield (1984) may also be applied to faculty. Knowles (ibid) and Brookfield (ibid) hold that the majority of adult learners can learn from each other through the sharing of their rich experiences.  Adults also develop attitudes and values based upon their previous knowledge, values and experience. Steinhart (1988) found that faculty based their decision of participation in distance education upon the knowledge and experience they or their colleagues had gained in this delivery mode and their philosophy toward teaching. 

In this regard, training programs instructional development programs and support services for faculty are vital, but they vary greatly across institutions (Gilcher & Johnson, 1989; Dillon, 1989; Kirby and Garrison, 1989; Scriven, 1986). McNeil (1990) found that even faculty who are most personally motivated to teach distance education will refrain from participating if they do not receive adequate support and instructional development.

Professional development programs for faculty should provide them with opportunities that will enable them to examine and discuss their attitudes toward distance education, adopt new pedagogies, and master the use of a variety of course delivery systems that they can utilize both in the classroom and in distance education settings.

Background of Study

This study analyzed faculty responses to the questions “What reasons do faculty cite for preferring to deliver courses via distance education and/or in traditional classroom settings?” The sample of this study included division chairs and faculty at five campuses of one community college located in the Southeastern part of the United States whose teaching loads consisted of  (1) distance education courses and classroom courses; (2) solely distance courses; (3) solely classroom courses. At the time this survey was conducted in the fall of 2001, the total student headcount consisted of 39,138. The 15 division chairs and 572 full-time faculty were surveyed and 13 division chairs and 167 faculty replied.

The community college where this study was conducted offered courses via distance education using four methods: (1) written correspondence courses through the use of the United States Postal Service; (2) Blackboard via the internet; (3) tele-courses; (4) audio visual courses. Tele-courses are delivered through the seven cable television systems currently available in the state where the community college operates. The audio-visual courses are provided through an asynchronous learning network. Blackboard version 5 is a comprehensive and flexible e-Learning software platform that delivers a course management system, and, with a Level Two or Level Three license, a customizable institution-wide portal and online communities. In addition, a Level Three license includes advanced integration tools and APIs to seamlessly integrate Blackboard 5 with existing institution systems (http://www.blackboard.com/).

Faculty Characteristics

The divisions in which the 116 “classroom faculty”, who responded to the survey, taught included a range of seven disciplines from liberal arts to the sciences and social sciences; the 51 multiple delivery faculty, who responded to the survey taught across five disciplines and the “distance-only faculty” who responded reflected three disciplines. The thirteen division chairs who responded to the survey represented six disciplines.
(see Table 1)

Table 1

Divisions in which Faculty and Division Chairs Teach

Years Taught at the Community College

Distance and classroom faculty had taught at the community college for almost the same mean number of years with classroom faculty having taught an average of 16.5 years and distance faculty having taught an average of 17.5 years. Division chairs had taught at the community college for a slightly longer period of time, as their average number of years teaching was 20, while the mean number of years they had been chair was 16.

Faculty Appointment Status

The vast majority of faculty were hired on a contract basis (85% percent of “classroom faculty”, 84% of “combination-delivery faculty” and 100% of “distance-only faculty”). Only a small percentage had received tenure (11% of “combination- delivery faculty” and 5% of “classroom faculty.”

Faculty Course Loads

“Combination-delivery faculty” who taught both distance and classroom courses appear to have a heavier teaching load than did their colleagues who only taught classroom courses or those who taught only distance courses. However, any faculty member who teaches via distance education at this community college has to contend with “rolling admission” (a policy which allows students to be admitted to their classes at any point during a semester). Division chairs were required to teach one course each academic year which can be taught either in a traditional classroom setting or via distance education. The reader should note a limitation of this study, i.e., course-load was calculated by the number of different courses faculty taught, not by the number of sections (see table 2).

Table 2

Course Loads by Faculty Type

Years of Experience in Distance Education

“Combination-delivery faculty” and “Distance-only faculty” had on average the same number of years experience in distance education (see table 3)

Table 3

Years of Faculty Participation in Distance Education

Faculty Training in Distance Education

As expected higher percentages of faculty who taught distance courses had received distance training than faculty who only taught classroom courses (see table 4)

Table 4

Percentage of Faculty Who Have Received Distance Education Training
and their Interest in Further Training

Design and Methodology

Survey methodology was deemed the most appropriate means of data collection for this study as it is meant to serve as a foundation for future data collection at other community colleges. During the fall of 2001 five hundred and seventy-two faculty and fifteen division chairs at this community college received cover letters that provided an overview of the study and a copy of the survey. Of the one hundred and sixty-seven faculty who responded, one hundred and sixteen faculty taught only classroom courses; seven taught distance courses and forty-four faculty taught classroom and distance courses.  Eight of the thirteen division chairs who responded to this survey had taught a distance course.

The survey was based upon Betts’ (1998) instrument. The first section of both surveys addressed demographic questions.  Additional questions focused upon faculty support, rewards, and the changing role of the faculty member in distance education and how faculty and division chairs perceived distance education as relating to the community college mission.  Data analysis included both qualitative (short answer questions), and quantitative (means, standard deviations, frequency distributions and percentages).

Faculty were divided into three categories by the means which they used to deliver their classes: (1) “distance-only faculty” refers to faculty who taught courses via distance education (i.e., via the internet, correspondence, CD Rom or a combination of all three delivery systems); (2) “combination-delivery faculty” refers to those faculty who taught traditional classroom courses and distance courses and (3) “classroom faculty” who taught only traditional face-to-face classroom courses. All classroom faculty, distance faculty and division chairs were asked to respond to the questions “Should community college faculty be rewarded differently for their involvement in distance education? How should faculty be compensated for participating in distance education training? How should faculty be compensated for developing distance courses?”

Results from the question, “Should community college faculty be rewarded differently for their involvement in distance education?” were measured in the means of responses from faculty and division chairs. Means averaging between 1.0 and 2.0 were cited as strongly disagreeing; means averaging between 2.0 and 3.0 were noted as disagreeing; means averaging between 3.0 and 4.0 were neutral; means averaging between 4.0 and 5.0 were noted as agreeing and means greater than 5.0 were noted as strongly agreeing. Responses to the follow-up question of “If yes, why should they be rewarded, and if no why shouldn’t they be rewarded?” were coded as qualitative data and are presented in a summary format with actual quotes to illustrate faculty’s actual viewpoints.

In order to respond to the question “How should faculty be compensated for participating in distance education training? How should faculty be compensated for developing distance courses?” Faculty were asked to choose one or all of the following responses: release time, stipend, neither stipend or release time. Answers to these questions were analyzed in terms of percentages by faculty group.
 

Data Analysis

Table 5 displays the results when all survey respondents were asked which delivery systems they were trained to use.

Table 5

Delivery Systems Faculty were Trained to Use

Preferred Delivery Mode – Synchronous or Asynchronous

Distance faculty and division chairs both preferred to deliver courses in an asynchronous mode. Classroom faculty preferred to deliver their courses in a synchronous manner.
(See table 6)

Table 6

Distance faculty, Classroom Faculty and Division Chairs’
Preferred Mode of Course Delivery

Table 7 displays the technologies distance faculty currently use to deliver or support their distance courses:

Table 7

Distance Education Delivery Systems Currently Used by Distance Faculty

The Relationship between Distance Education and
Mission of the Community College

The vast majority of responses to this questions revealed that faculty and division chairs perceive distance education as contributing to the teaching portion of the community college mission. The responses are outlined in Table 8 below in greater detail.

Table 8

Distance Faculty, Classroom Faculty and Division Chairs’ Responses to the Question, “How Does Distance Education best fit the Categories of Teaching, Research or Service?”

Responses to Open-Ended Questions

Many survey questions asked for faculty to elaborate upon their answers. The following responses are answers to open ended questions.

The vast majority of classroom faculty preferred synchronous delivery as they perceived that it would be most identical to a traditional classroom environment. Consequently it would provide them with all the benefits of classroom learning that include immediate feedback from their students, face-to-face interaction with their students (which some claimed as being vital to the learning experience), the ability to immediately detect learning difficulties and that energy that they claimed only classroom teaching could provide.

Comments from classroom faculty who preferred a synchronous environment included: “So I can read my students’ expressions.” “I want synchronous interaction or I will feel lost in the classroom.” “Synchronous environments ….. generate energy close to what the face-to-face environment generates.”  “Synchronous direct and active interaction is the best learning environment.”  “Synchronous environments provide the spark that is necessary for teachers and students.”  “Synchronous learning is more appropriate for didactic and group interaction. One cannot improve human communication as much as possible without face-to-face contact, reading non-verbal behavior and immediate feedback.”  “I enjoy the face-to-face interaction with students mostly because I am a visual learner, so I rely upon facial expressions to enhance my communication.”  “I prefer synchronous environments so I have a feel for how the student is doing.”  “In synchronous environments students can exchange their ideas, argue, fight and finally agree on a solution. You cannot do this from a distance with time delay.”  “I think I would prefer synchronous. I depend upon immediate feedback from my students to know whether they get what I am saying and tailor a class to the type of response I get. I often get students with a dramatic variety of English skills and experience in health care settings so no one plan works for me.”  “I would prefer synchronous as I still need a physical class to create a sense of camaraderie.”

Some classroom faculty perceived only difficulties that could arise as a result of a non-synchronous environment. “I don’t like the idea of a timed delay as with non-synchronous because I feel the lesson is not flowing well. Most definitely information could be lost or misinterpreted.” “Personally I believe that in general, a lag time from student learning to asking questions to getting responses to a question can be a detriment to the learning curve.”

There were classroom faculty who perceived some value to non-synchronous delivery, mainly that it gave both the student and professor time to reflect upon their work and prepare responses to others’ comments. “I prefer non-synchronous, as I like to think and gather my thoughts in order to plan ahead.” “Non-synchronous adds the benefit of time convenience for both instructions and students. I think work would be more thoughtful or well written.”  “I would prefer the non-synchronous environment to facilitate a necessary hesitation to afford the student the best possible answer.”

The vast majority of distance faculty preferred to deliver their courses in a non-synchronous mode mainly because (1) it allows for learning to occur at times that are convenient for faculty and students, (2) the time delay allows students more time to reflect upon their work; (3) it enables students who otherwise couldn’t enroll in college courses to complete them through distance learning. “Easier for students to access the course when it’s convenient for them.”  “Students are employed and can respond during non-working hours.” “I think the accuracy of the subject matter and higher quality of students’ work lends credibility to distance education. When you have time to think and prepare a response.” “I support the idea of ‘any time any place learning’. It increases the flexibility of participation. “Attempts to use both synchronous and non-synchronous for the same course have resulted in poor attendance.”  “I prefer non-synchronous for the time to prepare and adjust.” Only one faculty member had a negative comment about non-synchronous delivery, “Non-synchronous allows faculty and students more flexibility in time management, but may encourage procrastination and W grades given. Also less time for updating materials, especially if they are video-taped or canned.”

Division chairs were almost evenly divided over their preference for synchronous (25% or three division chairs), non-synchronous (25% or three division chairs), a combination of synchronous and non-synchronous (25% or three division chairs) and 25% of chairs who didn’t have experience in either type of delivery and therefore were undecided as to which one they preferred.

Chairs that preferred synchronous environments cited the following reasons: “Students would benefit from other students’ comments, and questions could be answered that benefited the entire class.” “It’s a more robust learning environment.” “I prefer synchronous, as the on-line format is very time consuming.”  “Synchronous would be more efficient, although the technique is more susceptible to technological interference.”

Chairs who replied that they would rather engage in non-synchronous courses provided the following rationale for their response: “I prefer non-synchronous as it is not as demanding on my time.” “I can control when I respond to students’ questions.” “Non-synchronous allows students who are busy to complete the course at their own pace.”  “I am more interested in developing a non-synchronous class so that students could access it from any site.”

Impact that the Role of Facilitator had upon Choice of Course Delivery

One survey question provided this definition of a facilitator “One who enables students to interact with course content, learn from classmates and become active participants in their own learning” (Moore and Kearsley, 1996).  Respondents were asked to indicate if the paradigm shift from being a teacher who gives expert knowledge to being a facilitator has impacted their decision to deliver their courses via distance education.

Some classroom faculty responded that they could be a more effective facilitator in a traditional classroom environment. “I think the teacher is a facilitator in the classroom (unless they are boring dull lecturers)!  I totally disagree with the whole concept of the above definition of a facilitator and I am by far not certain that distance learning makes the one who delivers it a facilitator! The theory assumes quite a lot.”

Three classroom faculty questioned whether the community college was an appropriate environment to conduct classes as a facilitator rather than as a teacher. “You have to have students who are responsible adult learners!” “Students are learning to be more active in their learning process and I see this as a plus for those who can handle it.” “Most of the students we teach here are helped by a teacher and not by a facilitator.”

A number of classroom faculty also questioned if distance education provided an environment where facilitation could take place. “In a synchronous classroom I felt less able to facilitate as I could not use the group discussion as well.” “This is what I do. What I’ve always done. It’s also what suffers with distance education.”  “I view myself as a facilitator and firmly believe that the classroom offers the best environment for that style.” “A lot depends on the course the instructor is teaching. Some courses are better with facilitators, others with a teacher.”

Over half of the distance faculty who responded to this question replied that the shift from teacher to facilitator did not have any effect upon their decision to participate in distance education. Like their colleagues who teach classroom courses, distance faculty view themselves as facilitators in both delivery systems of classroom and distance courses.   “Knowledge needs to be a shared experience.”  “In both the classroom and in distance courses there is a constant interplay between these two roles of teacher and facilitator.” 

The majority of distance faculty replied that they preferred being facilitators as the students who enrolled in distance courses more frequently became engaged in their own learning. “In a traditional classroom the students don’t have to do research and work out the concepts they don’t understand because the teacher is there ready to answer the questions.  In distance learning the students have to spend more time figuring out the concepts on their own and when they do, I believe true learning has occurred.”  “Students are better prepared when they own their education.”  “It improves learning!”

Summary

The researchers caution that this study is generalizable only to community colleges in a metropolitan setting that offer a broad range of academic programs and have a small percentage of distance faculty.

Distance faculty received more training (56%) than their colleagues who solely taught classroom courses (16%). Most likely the higher degree of training that distance faculty received resulted in them having a higher usage rate of Blackboard (24%) compared to that of their classroom colleagues (4%). All faculty and division chairs cited the internet as the type of technology they most frequently used in their courses.

Classroom and distance faculty differed greatly in their preference toward asynchronous and synchronous course delivery. Forty-two percent of distance faculty preferred asynchronous and 28% preferred a mix of synchronous and asynchronous delivery. Forty-three percent of classroom faculty preferred synchronous delivery of courses, as the majority cited that this type of delivery was most comparable to a traditional classroom environment. Only 10% favored asynchronous delivery and 9% favored a combination of synchronous and asynchronous. Division chairs were equally divided amongst their preference of the three types of delivery (synchronous, asynchronous and the use of both).

Reasons classroom faculty cited for preferring synchronous delivery of courses included its close similarity to a traditional classroom setting; the flexibility it gave them in changing their course structure to respond to students’ learning needs; the opportunities it provided for them to physically observe any difficulties students experienced and the ability for them to immediately respond. Classroom faculty cited distance learning as presenting challenges to the learning environment and consequently influenced their decision to teach only in a classroom environment. These challenges included: distance learning was not conducive to their discipline (i.e., English as a second language; speech communications); delay in delivery interrupted the continuous flow of discussion that could occur in a classroom; the inability to see students’ faces in an on-line course interfered with faculty’s ability to perceive any difficulty students may be encountering.  A number of classroom faculty expressed a concern that traditional aged community college students were not developmentally ready to engage in a facilitated distance learning environment as they lacked the self discipline, time management and independent learning skills necessary for success in distance learning courses.

The only benefit to distance learning which was noted by a minority of classroom faculty was that the time delay in course delivery could provide students with greater opportunity to reflect upon the text and class discussions.

Distance faculty preferred asynchronous delivery of courses for three reasons: a) distance courses provided greater access to learning to a larger population; b) the time delay between presentation and discussion of material provided students with greater opportunities for reflection and thus encouraged more independent learning; 3) distance learning provided opportunities for students to enroll in college courses who otherwise would be unable to attend college.  Distance faculty preferred to be teachers in a distance education environment as students in these types of courses are more active and responsible learners.

Sixty-five percent of distance faculty, forty-four percent of classroom faculty and sixty-two percent of division chairs agreed that distance education best compliments the portion of the community college’s mission that relates to teaching. Twenty percent of distance faculty, fourteen percent of classroom faculty and thirty-one percent of the division chairs placed distance education as contributing toward the service and teaching parts of the community college mission.

Conclusion

“With the advent of distance learning, community colleges now serve a global community” (Crosby and Schnitzer, 2003). Thus, they must formulate a strategic plan that will enable them to serve students in their local geographic area and their larger audience who enroll from across the country or the world. A community college’s strategic plan should assess their resource allocation; their long and short range goals for distance learning programs and identify their primary motivating factor for engaging in distance education. These motivations (potential for increasing enrollment and thereby increasing revenue; reducing costs of maintaining physical facilities; need to remain competitive with area colleges, etc.) will drive the level of institutional commitment toward distance learning, and in turn will have a direct impact on the extent to which resources are allocated to distance education programs versus campus based enrollments (Beaudoin, 2003; Distance Education Handbook, 1999; Howell et. al , 2003). Most importantly, if a distance education program is to succeed, it should directly relate to the mission of the college (Distance Education Handbook, 1999).

Once a strategic plan has been formulated, and the number of faculty needed to teach distance courses has been identified, deans can then begin to examine ways in which departments can best attract and encourage faculty to teach via distance education. Providing opportunities for classroom faculty to learn first hand about the experience of teaching via distance from distance faculty is the best way for them to decide if this is a type of teaching they would like to explore. Exchanges between distance and classroom faculty are also a means for them to build collegial relationships and perhaps become mentors to each other in regards to teaching methodologies. (Abromotis, 2001). Community colleges should not rely upon collegial relationships as a motivator for faculty to engage in distance education. They also examine their faculty position descriptions and integrate distance education and use of technology into the college’s criteria for tenure and promotion (Howell et. al, 2003; North Carolina State University Compact Plan for 2003-2005). Faculty’s engagement in training and their integration of technology into their courses should constitute part of their performance evaluation (Abromotis, 2001).

In addition to technology training, faculty may also need financial support and moral support from department chairs as they expand their distance education teaching load. Pachnowski; Jurczyk, (2003) found that as faculty continued to develop and teach distance courses their need for prep-time and training decreased, but while their need for financial and collegial support remained constant, it decreased over time.  In light of these findings Pachnowski; Jurczyk (2003); Parker (2003) stressed that financial support in the form of a stipend; reduced teaching load; training were particularly important to faculty in their first semester of distance teaching, if they were to continue teaching via distance.

While providing financial compensation; technology training and support and collegial support from colleagues to faculty on an individual basis may persuade faculty to teach via distance, colleges also have to develop a long term plan of how they will attract new distance faculty and nurture continuous development of current distance faculty.  One means of integrating technology training and instructional design would be through the creation of an instructional design center where faculty can develop or enhance their classroom and distance teaching methodologies. (North Carolina State University Compact Plan for 2003-2005). Centers such as these may provide the environment conducive to collegial mentoring.

In a time of winnowing resources colleges should also seek to form partnerships with other institutions so that resources can be pooled and costs can be reduced. North Carolina Community College (NCCC) has created such a partnership with East Carolina University (ECU) and North Carolina A & T State University (NCSU). NCCC targeted a need for instructional development, particularly in the areas that will enable faculty to integrate technology into their courses and developing new ways of reaching adult non-traditional students. NCCC also anticipated a high rate of retirement and has instituted a new requirement that division deans must have earned a doctorate. Given these conditions, NCCC has partnered with ECU and NCSU in forming a Leadership Development Academy. This academy will be charged with (a) creating an instructional design support system for faculty; (b) funding a new faculty position targeted to the delivery courses and student services with the use of technology and distance learning; (c) evaluating the community college curriculum; (d) identifying cooperative relationships that could be created amongst NCCC, ECU and NCSU (North Carolina State University Compact Plan for 2003-2005). 

Colleges should seek to provide faculty with the support on several levels if they need to engage in distance learning. This support would be reflective through a strong institutional mission and strategic plan; proper allocation of resources; linking the integration of technology and teaching methodologies; listening to faculty’s feedback on their distance education experience.
 

References

Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges (1999). Distance Education Handbook  (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.  ED 440 675). Santa Rosa, CA.

Brookfield, S. (1986). Understanding and facilitating adult learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Carr, S. (2001, April 6^th). A Columbia University professor praises the interactivity of teaching on-line. The Chronicle of Higher Education.

Crosby, L.; Schnitzer, M. (2003). Recruitment and Development of Online Adjunct Instructors. On-Line Journal of Distance Education Administration. (on-line) IV, 3.  http://www.westga.edu/~distance/jmain11.html.

Dillon, C. (1989). Faculty rewards and instructional telecommunications: a view from the telecourse faculty. The American Journal of Distance Education , 3,2,35-43.

Dillon, C. and Walsh, S. (1992). Faculty, a neglected resource in distance education. The American Journal of Distance Education , 6,3, 5-21.

Ehrmann, S. (1999). Technology’s grand challenges. Academe, September/December, 42-46.

Gilcher, K. & Johnstone, (1989). A critical review of the use of audio-graphic conferencing systems by selected educational institutions. College Park: International Universities Consortium, University of Maryland.

Gillespie, K. (Ed.)(1998). The impact of technology on faculty development, life and work: Vol. 76, Winter, New directions of teaching and learning. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.1-5.

Grossman, D. (1989). Distance education: consolidating gains. In Proceedings from the Fifth Annual Conference on Teaching at a Distance. Madison, WI, p. 28-39.

Gunawardena, C. (1990). Integrating telecommunications systems to reach distance learners. The American Journal of Distance Education , 4,3,38-46.

Hassenplug, C. & Harnish, D. (1998). The nature and importance of interaction in distance education credit classes at a technical institute. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 22, 591-605.

Howell, S.; Williams, P.; Lindsay, N. (2003). Thirty-Two Trends Affecting Distance Education: An Informed Foundation for Strategic Planning. On-Line Journal of Distance Education Administration. (on-line) VI, 3. http://www.westga.edu/~distance/jmain11.html.

Kirby, D. and Garrison, D. (1989). Graduate distance education: a study of the aims and delivery systems. In proceedings from the Eight Annual Conference of the Canadian Association for the Study of Adult Continuing Education. , 179-84. Cornwall, Ontario: St. Lawrence College of St. Laurent.

Knowles, M. (1984). Andragogy in action: applying modern principles of adult learning. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

McNeil, D. (1990). Wiring the ivory tower: a round table on technology in higher education. Washington, D.C.: Academy for Education Development.

Moore, M. & Kearsley, G. (1996). Distance education: a systems view. 4-8, 11-12. Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing Company.

North Carolina State University, Deparment of Adult and Community  College Education. (2003). Revised Compact Plan for 2003-2005. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.  ED 440 675). Raleigh, NC.

Pachnowski, L.; Jurczyk, J.  (2003). Perceptions of Faculty on the Effect of Distance Learning Technology on Faculty Preparation Time. On-Line Journal of Distance Education Administration. (on-line) VI, 3. http://www.westga.edu/~distance/jmain11.html.

Parker, A. (2003). Motivation and Incentives for Distance Education. On-Line Journal of Distance Education Administration. (On-line) IV, 3. http://www.westga.edu/~distance/jmain11.html.

Plater, W. (1995). Future work: faculty time in the 21^st century. Change, May/June, 23-33).

Scriven, B. (1986). Staff attitudes to external studies.  Media in Education and Development. 19, 4, 176-183.

Stinehart, K. (1988). Increasing faculty involvement in distance teaching. In Developing distance education, eds. Stewart, D., (1987).   Daniel, J. and Strain, J. (1987). The role of the faculty member in distance education. The American Journal of Distance Education, 1,2,61-65.

Wolcott, L. (1993). Faculty planning for distance teaching. The American Journal of Distance Education, 7, 1, 26-36.

About the Authors

go top

Aug 2004 Index

Home Page