Professional Development Methods: Distance Education Technologies Essay (Critical Writing)

Introduction

University faculties are dependent on information and instructional technologies. Access to student records, enrollment statistics, research databases, e-mail, and list servers, and multimedia classrooms is an everyday activity for faculty members across the country. In addition to the countless information systems and sophisticated software applications, numerous universities and faculties are offering distance education technologies as an alternative to address student needs, such as convenience and geographical disparities (Brownson & Harriman, 2000). While distance education has been in use for over a century (Brownson & Harriman, 2000), most recently, the introduction and swift acceptance of the World Wide Web has offered new possibilities for teaching and learning. The National Center for Education Statistics (2003) reported that 56% of all 2- and 4-year institutions offered distance education courses. More expressively, 90% of these institutions used asynchronous Internet-based instruction, and 43% used synchronous Internet-based instruction.

Some faculty have been early adopters of distance education, while other faculty have been unwilling or discouraged to incorporate this modernization into their instruction (Carr, 2001). No matter what pace faculty members have decided on to accept these technologies, many universities have already allocated funds and resources for distance education. Carr (2001) has described the significant university resources that have been allocated to support distance education. These resources not only support the courses but are also designed to aid faculty professional development. Professional development at universities has included methods to assist faculty in improving course design and educational methods, as well as in becoming familiar with and applying educational technologies (Koehler et al., 2004), such as distance education tools.

Faculty development centers

One of the primary methods, technological professional development for university faculty, has been implemented through faculty development centers (Shapiro, 1998). Faculty development centers are housed on-site at institutions and are supported by a single institution. These centers regularly offer instructional support for university faculty to develop and improve instruction. Some supports and resources can take the form of specialists, such as instructional designers, graphic designers, teaching assistants, library media specialists, and audio/video producers (Lee, 2001).

Instructional technology support from faculty development centers is often implemented through workshops. These workshops target improving specific skills such as using databases, building a web page syllabus, or scanning photos. For distance education, instructional support may also include course redesign, training in the use and application of distance education technologies, as well as media and technical support (Lee, 2001). As it implies, these centers have provided a centralized location for professional development.

Professional development

To support technology integration and to change faculty pedagogy, Cole et al (2002) suggest that professional development include:

• active learning, including hands-on instruction
• alignment with specific curricular content and focus on pedagogy
• collaborations, including common planning, team teaching, mentors, discussions and brainstorming, and faculty networks
• on-site support and just-in-time learning
• remunerations, such as recognition and compensation and
• sustained training efforts over time

These factors have the potential to influence considerable change in the ways teachers teach and students learn. It is significant to note, as Scribner (1999) does, that external factors do not guarantee engagement with professional development activities and may not encourage active learning. Therefore, faculty may only participate at a surface level, and the learning activities may or may not be successful. While professional development research in elementary, secondary, and tertiary settings has elucidated factors and influences for faculty, little is known concerning the motivations of higher education faculty to seek out professional development for technology integration.

Summary

It is significant to distinguish faculty perspectives on professional development about distance education and faculty’s viewpoints on factors influencing distance education at their institutions that are connected. To this last part, it may be helpful to conduct further research that explores and examines distance education from this holistic perspective. Lan (2001) has suggested a four-component framework that is appropriate for focusing on this continuing research agenda: (a) environment, (b) incentives and disincentives, (c) motivations, and (d) skills/knowledge.

Environment

The environment included the infrastructures essential to support distance education and professional development (Lan, 2001), as well as the local departmental and institutional culture of the institution. Studies may consider focusing on:

• technical and administrative support
• institutional vision for technology integration
• attitudes and perceptions from colleagues
• local and institutional cultures
• technology infrastructure
• longitudinal research to observe the growth of faculty from the individual through systemic departmental or institutional efforts
• form, type, and effectiveness of faculty development

Incentives and disincentives

These are the extrinsic factors, similar to Scribner’s (1999) classification, that compose the reward and punishment system for faculty (Lan, 2001, p. 387). Future research may consider as suggested by Barker (2003):

• lack of incentives about tenure and promotion
• financial rewards and stipends
• course release time
• formalized university programs, honors, and recognition

Motivations

Motivations are the intrinsic factors that represent an individual’s beliefs, value system, and confidence (Lan, 2001, p. 387). Studies may explore:

• concerns for maintaining course quality
• relevance, as well as apathy toward, and value for, distance education
• self-esteem and self-efficacy
• flexibility in scheduling
• workload and time requirements
• pedagogical beliefs

Skills/knowledge

Skills and knowledge are the competencies necessary to successfully integrate distance education into a faculty member’s pedagogy. While the current study focused on teacher education faculty who may possess expertise in pedagogy, other disciplines across university campuses may not. Future studies may wish to consider the following as recommended by Koehler et al (2004):

• changes in faculty roles and responsibilities
• effective pedagogically sound methods for distance education
• technology competence
• course design.

This study explored distance education technologies independent of a particular content area; further research should evaluate, compare, and process influences and motivations for professional development within content areas, such as business, sciences, and engineering. It may also be helpful to explore motivations and influences with faculty at different stages in their careers.

As important faculty resources continue to be allocated to professional development and specifically distance education, faculty development centers must rethink and reevaluate delivery methods and accessibility (Koehler et al., 2004). This study suggests that decentralized professional development for distance education technologies is more beneficial to university faculty. In addition, the teacher education faculty in this study felt pressure to implement distance education. Departmental and university administrations need to examine strategic goals and assess whether these perceived demands are accurate and congruent with future academic directions.

References

1. Barker, A. (2003). Faculty development for teaching online: Educational and technological issues. The Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing, 34(6), 273–278.
2. Brownson, K., & Harriman, R. L. (2000). Distance education in the twenty-first century. Hospital Materials Management Quarterly, 22(2), 64–72.
3. Carr, S. (2001). Is anyone making money on distance education. The Chronicle of Higher Education.
4. Cole, K., Simkins, M., & Penuel, W. R. (2002). Learning to teach with technology: Strategies for inservice professional development. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 10(3), 431–455.
5. Koehler, M. J., Mishra, P., Hershey, K., & Peruski, L. (2004). With a little help from your students: A new model for faculty development and online course design. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 12(1), 25–55.
6. Lan, J. (2001). Web-based instruction for education faculty: A needs assessment. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 33(4), 385–399.
7. Lee, J. (2001). Instructional support for distance education and faculty motivation, commitment, satisfaction. British Journal of Educational Technology, 32(2), 153–160.
8. National Center for Educational Statistics (2003). Distance education at degree-granting postsecondary institutions: 2000– 2001 (NCES 2003-017). Washington, DC7 U.S. Department of Education.
9. Scribner, J. P. (1999). Professional development: Untangling the influence of work context on teacher learning. Educational Administration Quarterly, 35(2), 238–266.
10. Shapiro, W. L. (1998). New ways to link technology and faculty development. Change, 30(5), 50–53.