Incentives and Obstacles
Influencing Higher Education Faculty and Administrators to Teach
Via Distance
S. Kay Rockwell
Professor, Agricultural Leadership, Education & Communication
300 Ag Hall
University of Nebraska
Lincoln, NE 68583-0709
krockwell1@unl.edu
Jolene Schauer
Graduate Assistant, Agricultural Leadership, Education &
Communication
Jschauer@unlserve.unl.edu
Susan M. Fritz
Associate Professor, Agricultural Leadership, Education &
Communication
Sfritz1@unl.edu
David B. Marx
Professor, Biometry
Dmarx1@unl.edu
This manuscript has been assigned Journal Series No. 12589, Agricultural
Research Division, University of Nebraska.
Abstract
This study examined incentives that encourage faculty to develop
educational opportunities via distance and obstacles that discourage
them from doing so. The primary incentives centered on intrinsic
or personal rewards. These rewards included opportunities to
provide innovative instruction and apply new teaching techniques
as well as self-gratification, fulfilling a personal desire to
teach, recognition of their work, and peer recognition. Other
incentives included extending educational opportunities beyond
the traditional institutional walls so place-bound students have
access and release time for faculty preparation. The major perceived
obstacles related to time requirements, developing effective
technology skills, and assistance and support needs. Monetary
awards for faculty and the cost to the student were seen as neither
incentives nor obstacles. Faculty were divided on how they saw
distance teaching affecting their yearly evaluation process and
their promotion/tenure needs; about 40% saw it as an incentive,
while about 30% saw it as an obstacle.
Introduction
Advancements in telecommunications technologies have created
opportunities whereby educators in higher education institutions
can expand the educational process beyond the traditional classroom
and deliver instruction and training to geographically diverse
audiences locally, nationally, and even internationally. Consequently,
distance education programs have rapidly expanded. These advancements
in telecommunications and rapid growth in distance education
programs have led to a formal definition of distance education
as being "the acquisition of knowledge and skills through
mediated information and instruction, encompassing all technologies
and other forms of learning at a distance" (United States
Distance Learning Association 1998). This integration of telecommunications
technologies into a distance teaching and learning process reflects
a shift in the classroom-based paradigm that educators have used
for many years.
While the educational model for delivering instruction broadens,
technologies continue to advance, educational delivery methods
continue to expand and audiences become more diversified. In
this changing environment, faculty remain a key element in the
teaching and learning process. Olcott and Wright (1995) indicate
that the responsibility for instructional quality and control,
the improvement of learning and the aggregate effectiveness of
distance education still rests with the faculty. Ultimately,
it is the faculty who need to be aware of diverse technologies
and delivery methods available for distance education so they
can incorporate them into their teaching and learning strategies.
To use distance learning strategies, faculty may need to alter
teaching styles used within the "traditional classroom,"
and develop new skills to effectively reach the distant learner.
Dillon and Walsh (1992) and Clark (1993) both observe that faculty
using distance education technology face a variety of challenges
when adapting their teaching styles to a framework compatible
with the distance learning environment. In 1992 the Corporation
for Public Broadcasting reported to Congress that faculty need
to understand the relationship between learning, interactivity
and technology, as well as how to operate the technology.
If higher education institutions include distance delivery
in their strategic plans, faculty concerns about teaching via
distance need to be considered as distance delivered educational
programs are developed and implemented. Carl (1991) noted that
some educators resist distance teaching because they are concerned
that distance courses will significantly increase an already
heavy workload. Distance teaching may require more time for advanced
planning. In addition, class enrollments can increase significantly.
Other reasons faculty may resist participating in distance teaching
relate to a perceived lack of institutional support and training;
inadequate compensation and incentive structures; loss of autonomy
and control of the curriculum; lack of technical training and
support; and lack of release time for planning (Clark 1993; Olcott
and Wright 1995).
For faculty to accept distance education as a viable means
of instruction, higher education institutions must listen to
faculty concerns so the institution can understand and confront
the factors that contribute to faculty hesitation in developing
distance learning material. Dede (1990) states that once the
prohibiting forces are confronted, distance education strategies
can then empower both the students and faculty where there is
active student-constructed learning and adventurous, risk-taking
teaching.
Therefore, this study identified what faculty and administrators
perceive as being incentives that encourage them to develop educational
opportunities via distance, and obstacles that discourage them
from doing so. In addition, it identified whether there are
differences in the way the incentives and obstacles are viewed
by faculty holding different ranks, as well as those teaching
or expecting to teach via distance. It also identified if there
were differences in faculty according to teaching experience,
tenure status, and level of courses taught.
Methodology
To study incentives that encourage faculty to teach via distance
and obstacles that prevent them from doing so, two colleges in
one mid-west land-grant university were selected. Over the past
decade, these two colleges have emphasized developing distance
education opportunities, and their strategic plans now call for
expanding the effort. First, personal interviews with the colleges’
administrators identified what they felt were faculty concerns
about delivering education via distance. The administrator responses
were then used to develop an instrument to survey teaching faculty
and administrators about the potential incentives and obstacles
to distance teaching.
Step One – Administrator Interviews
One hour personal interviews were conducted with 16 administrators.
They were asked what they perceived as the concerns and issues
faculty face when teaching distance courses. Responses were tape
recorded to verify accuracy in the note-taking process. Responses
where then subjectively grouped according to common themes by
the primary researcher. Groupings were independently verified
by a second researcher. These groupings showed that administrators
felt faculty concerns about teaching via distance related to:
Step Two – Faculty Survey
Instrument development. Using the administrators’
comments about faculty concerns along with concerns identified
in a literature review, a mail survey instrument was developed.
Nineteen items were listed that could be ranked as incentives
or obstacles for teaching via distance. A modified Likert scale
was used to rank each item as a primary or secondary incentive,
primary or secondary obstacle, or neither an incentive nor obstacle.
The instrument was evaluated by five faculty members to assess
its appropriateness for rating incentives and obstacles to teaching
via distance. The instrument was revised and then pre-tested
with 20 faculty members engaged in distance education delivery
in other colleges at the university. This group completed the
instrument and critiqued it for readability, structure, and form.
Based on their responses, the instrument was again revised.
Subjects. The target population was 207 faculty
teaching academic courses including those who serve in administrative
positions, and 30 administrators in the College of Agricultural
Sciences and Natural Resources and in two colleges in a mid-west
University. The two colleges selected were those that included
faculty with Cooperative Extension appointments. The entire group
was surveyed.
Data collection. The instrument was distributed
through campus mail in spring of 1997. The first mailing included
a cover letter describing the purpose of the study, the importance
of participating in the study, length of time required for completing
the instrument and a brief statement concerning the confidentiality
of the participants. A self-addressed return envelope was also
provided. Ten days after the initial mailing, a follow-up post
card was sent to thank those participants who had completed the
instrument, and to remind the others to return the instrument.
Twenty days following the initial mailing, another instrument,
cover letter, and self-addressed envelope were mailed to those
who failed to return the first survey. A code number was placed
on the instruments for tracking non-responders. It was removed
from the completed instrument after it was received. The instrument
was returned by 67% of the faculty and 77% of the administrators.
Data analysis and interpretation. Data were entered
into a file for analysis using the Statistical Analysis System
(SAS). Percentages were calculated for all variables. Percentages
were used to translate whether faculty and administrators considered
the 19 items to be incentives, obstacles, or neither. Under each
variable, the percentages for primary and secondary incentives
were collapsed into one category, and the percentages for primary
or secondary obstacles were collapsed into one category. The
following scale was used for interpreting the participants’
responses:
- Variables identified as an incentive, an obstacle, or neither
an incentive nor an obstacle by 55% or more of the respondents
were classified as incentives, obstacles, or neither incentives
nor obstacles respectively.
- Variables identified as an incentive, an obstacle, or neither
an incentive nor an obstacle by 45-54% of the respondents were
classified as leaning toward being incentives, obstacles or neither
incentives nor obstacles respectively.
- Variables identified as an incentive, an obstacle, or neither
an incentive nor an obstacle by 44% or less of the respondents
were classified as not discernible for being incentives, obstacles,
or neither incentives nor obstacles respectively.
The scale used to determine whether the variables were incentives,
neither incentives nor obstacles, or obstacles formed an ordinal
sequence. Therefore, the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Chi-square test
(SAS User’s Guide: Statistics, 1985) was used to determine
if there was a difference in the linear trend (a) between faculty
and administrators, (b) among the faculty teaching or having
taught via distance, faculty expecting to teach via distance,
and faculty never intending to teach via distance, (c) faculty
who have taught for less than 10 years, 10 to 20 years, and more
than 20 years, (d) tenured and non-tenured faculty, and (e) faculty
exclusively teaching undergraduate classes and those exclusively
teaching graduate classes. For the comparisons, the significance
level was set at p < .05. However, results with p
> .05 and < .10 were considered as approaching significance
and identified as possible emerging trends.
Findings
When organized by appointment, senior faculty (full professors
and administrators) represented 53% of the respondents. Associate
and assistant professors represented 42%; instructors represented
5%. Slightly over one-fourth (26%) of the responding faculty
had taught via distance. Another two-fifths (40%) expect to teach
via distance in the future; one-third (34%) never expect to teach
via distance. Almost half (46%) of the administrators expect
to teach via distance in the future (see Table 1).
| Table 1. Interest
in Teaching Via Distance |
| Distance teaching experience |
Faculty
(n = 127)
|
Administrators
(n=22)
|
| Have taught |
26 % |
36 % |
| Expect to teach |
40 % |
46 % |
| Never expect to teach |
34 % |
18 % |
Out of 61 faculty and administrators expecting to teach via
distance, 34% expect to do so in two years, 46% within three
to five years. The remaining 19% expect to teach via distance
sometime after the next five years.
Items were classified as Incentive, Obstacle or Neither, based
on the following scale:
55% or more = definitely fell into the incentive or obstacle
category;
45-54% = leaned toward the incentive or obstacle category;
Less than 45% = unable to classify as an incentive or obstacle
Table 2 shows that administrators and teaching faculty ranked
nine items as incentives, five as obstacles, and two as neither
an incentive nor an obstacle.
| Table 2. Incentives
and Obstacles for Teaching Via Distance |
| Incentives |
% |
Neither
Incentive nor Obstacle |
% |
Obstacles |
% |
| Providing
innovative instruction |
83 |
Student
Costs |
53 |
Time
requirement |
69 |
| Applying
new teaching techniques |
83 |
Monetary
awards |
48 |
Assistance
or support needs |
65 |
| Self-gratification |
77 |
|
|
Time
taken from research |
61 |
| Fulfilling
personal desire to teach |
75 |
|
|
Training
requirements |
56 |
| Recognition
of work |
71 |
|
|
Developing
effective technology skills |
55 |
| Access
to place-bound students |
67 |
|
|
|
|
| Reduction
of student travel time |
58 |
|
|
|
|
| Release
time |
57 |
|
|
|
|
| Peer
recognition |
46 |
|
|
|
|
Table 3 shows how two items failed to clearly emerge in any
of the three categories.
| Table 3. Items failing to emerge
in any category |
| Yearly evaluation process |
% |
Promotion/Tenure |
% |
| Incentive |
44 |
Incentive |
40 |
| Neither |
30 |
Neither |
28 |
| Obstacle |
26 |
Obstacle |
32 |
Incentives For Teaching Via Distance
Six of the nine items identified as incentives were relate
to intrinsic or personal rewards for the instructor. They
include:
- ‘Providing innovative instruction’
- ‘Applying new teaching techniques’
- ‘Self-gratification’
- ‘Fulfilling a personal desire to teach’
- ‘Recognition of work’
- ‘Peer recognition’
Two of the nine incentives were related to extending the
educational opportunity beyond the traditional walls of the
institution. They were:
- ‘Access to place-bound students’
- ‘Reduction of student travel time’
‘Release time’ was seen as an incentive by faculty
because they saw the ‘time requirement’ as an obstacle.
Obstacles To Teaching Via Distance
Four out of the five obstacles suggested that faculty tend
to see distance education as a time demanding activity that
requires new skill development. These four obstacles were:
- ‘Time requirement’
- ‘Time taken from research’
- ‘Training requirements’
- ‘Developing effective technology skills’
Faculty also viewed ‘assistance or support needs’
as an obstacle; this finding suggests that faculty need help
with instructional design and technological delivery.
Neither Incentives Nor Obstacles to Teaching via Distance
Items Failing to Emerge Into a Category
Two items, ‘yearly evaluation process’ and ‘promotion/tenure,’
failed to emerge in any of the three categories. Because the
responses for these two items were bimodal, it appears that some
faculty and administrators see teaching via distance as being
supportive in the yearly evaluation or for promotion and tenure,
while others see distance teaching as being unsupportive.
Challenges
Institutions that have incorporated developing more distance
education as part of their strategic plans need to capitalize
on the incentives that encourage faculty to teach via distance
and minimize the obstacles that discourage or impede faculty.
This creates a number of challenges when a large percentage of
teaching faculty expect to take on the challenge of teaching
via distance in the next few years. Implications for these challenges
include:
Summary
In summary, the primary incentives that encourage faculty
to adapt their teaching strategies to deliver education via distance
center on intrinsic or personal rewards. These include the opportunity
to provide innovative instruction and apply new teaching techniques
as well as self-gratification, fulfilling a personal desire to
teach, recognition of their work, and peer recognition. Extending
educational opportunities beyond the traditional walls of the
institution so place-bound students have access and students
can reduce travels time is also an incentive. Release time for
preparation also is a motivator for faculty to teach via distance.
The major perceived obstacles relate to time requirements,
developing effective technology skills, and assistance and support
needs. Monetary awards for faculty and the cost to the student
were seen as neither an incentive nor an obstacle. Faculty are
divided on how they see distance teaching affecting their yearly
evaluation process and their promotion/tenure needs; about 40%
see it as an incentive while about 30% see it as an obstacle.
For administration and faculty to effectively work together in
the future to build curriculums that are offered through distance
delivery, the incentives that encourage faculty to teach via
distance can to be spotlighted and the obstacles that discourage
faculty need to be diminished.
References
Carl, D. L. 1991. Electronic distance learning: Positives
outweigh negatives. T.H.E. Journal, 18:67-70.
Clark, T. 1993. Attitudes of higher education faculty toward
distance education: A national survey. The American Journal
of Distance Education, 7 (2): 19-33.
Corporation for Public Broadcasting. 1992. Lifelines of learning:
Distance education and America’s rural schools. A Report
to the 103rd Congress and the American People Pursuant
to Pub. L. 102-356. ERIC, ED 357 919.
Dede, C. 1990. The evolution of distance learning: technology-mediated
interactive learning. Journal of Research on Computing in
Education 22 (3): 247-264.
Dillon, C. L. and Walsh, S. M. 1992. Faculty: The neglected
resource in distance education. The American Journal of Distance
Education 6 (3): 5-21.
Olcott, D. Jr. and Wright, S. J. 1995. An institutional support
framework for increasing faculty participation in postsecondary
distance education. The American Journal of Distance Education
9 (3): 5-17.
SAS User’s Guide: Statistics. 1985. Version 5 Edition.
Cary, North Carolina: SAS Institute.
United States Distance Learning Association. 1998. Distance
Learning Definition [online]., 13 July. Available at www.usdla.org/Pages/define.html
Online Journal of Distance Learning
Administration, Volume II, Number IIII, Winter1999
State University of West Georgia, Distance
Education Center
Back
to Journal of Distance Learning Administration Contents