| Higher Education Course Migration from F2F to Online Instruction: Problems for Instructors |
|||||
|
Issues and Problems, continued |
|||||
Admin. support, continued: The factor of incentives is perhaps given more attention in the literature than any other single issue (Dooley and Murphrey, 2000; Lan, 2001; McKenzie et al, 2000; Pachbowski and Jurczyk, 2003; Parker, 2003, i; Rockwell, 1999; and Schifter, 2000), with less conclusive findings. The problem here is that what the literature offers are, for the most part, loosely structured small sample surveys and case studies that do not generalize well. It does appear that neither DE instructors nor administrators either expect or desire direct salary compensation for undertaking the added burdens of online instruction. Release time to develop courses, mini-grants to cover costs, stipends to encourage product development, are more acceptable incentives, but there are no clearly discernable trends in any particular direction. What is clear is the need for direction within institutions regarding policy for DE. A common complaint among DE instructors (and a common observation among traditional course instructors) is the lack of strong, clearly articulated policy in support for DE. "Regarding the incentive, integration of technology first requires a clear vision and identifiable goals. The vision and goals must be communicated to the faculty and shared (adopted) by the faculty" (Lan, 2001). More often, it seems, Distance Education is perceived by all faculty -- those who participate and those who do not -- as an institutional step-child (Lan, 2001; Berge, 1998). In the Berge study, these institutional cultural issues topped the lists of concerns among DE faculty. Again, to quote Lan (2001) "We must acknowledge the powerful effect of institutional culture...because it 'approves' or 'disapproves' certain behaviors. A culture that is perceived by faculty as nurturing technology innovation will encourage faculty use of technology."(Lan, 2001, p. 8). These issues are clearly within the perview of administration, and leadership that provides direction and a clear vision is paramount to the success of any DE program. It is really up to administration to be cognizant of the impact of the institution's culture on DE programs and faculty, and to make positive adjustments when necessary (Husmann, 2001). Quality of Instruction Particularly for institutions that are strongly committed to distance education as a part of their mission and long term strategic goals, it is the administration's first task to persuade faculty of the efficacy and value of DE. Research findings confirm that many traditional faculty harbor serious doubts about quality of online instruction (Bower, 2001). Faculty that are already persuaded of the value of online instruction, even if they do not currently participate, have no philosophical objections to DE, and indicate a greater willingness to become involved in DE in the future (Jones, et al., 2002). Here, then, is collaborative opportunity for DE faculty and administrators to address objections and allay fears about quality of instruction, but DE faculty cannot do it alone. Administrative support is critical. There is an interesting irony here. The literature suggests a strong dichatomy in faculty views regarding the virtues of DE. Not surprisingly, younger faculty have fewer problems accepting DE on both the philosophical and practical level. It is often senior faculty that raise objections (Jones et al, 2002; Giannoni and Tesone, 2003). Ironically, it is the senior faculty, from a career standpoint, who are often best positioned to take on the tasks of developing and implementing online courses, whereas junior faculty must content with career-impacting disadvantages. For younger faculty who have to think about earning tenure, which generally requires time-consuming research and publication endeavors, taking on the added burdens of DE development and delivery poses significant risks (Bower, 2001; Jones, et al, 2002; Wolcott, Betts, 1999). The risks are particularly keen when DE is regarded in the institutional culture as adjunct or step-child. Echoing our discussion above regarding time requirements, younger, non-tenured faculty, unlike their tenured peers, express needs for release time or work-reduction to undertake DE development (Rockwell, 2000). Again, it up to administrators to draft policy that facilitates goal achievement, gives credit where credit is due, and rewards when expectations are met and succeeded. Ownership: Finally,
we must consider the issue of ownership. There are significant differences
between online and traditional courses that complicate the ownership issue.
In traditional F2F classes, the instructor works relatively autonomously
to develop and deliver instruction, and course materials belong to the
instructor. In DE the institution often asserts an ownership interest
via the use of infrastructure and hardware, and by virtue of the relatively
broad diffusion of course materials over the Web that may significantly
impact the institution's image and reputation. Moreover, given the potential
for online instruction to be moved from one instructor to another within
the institution's curricular umbrella, institutional ownership insures
additional flexibility, (Care and Scanlan, 2001). Institutions take different
approaches to this issue: Penn State's World Campus is quite clear up
front that ownership devolves to the institution (Luck, 2001); the UT
Telecampus, on the other hand, assures prospective instructors that ownership
of materials belongs to the instructor. (http://www.telecampus.utsystem.edu/facultyservices/course_develop.html) |
|||||