DistanceEducation

Guidelines for Good Practice

© MAY, 2000THIS REPORT WAS PREPARED BY THE HIGHER EDUCATION PROGRAM AND POLICY COUNCIL OF THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF TEACHERS

SANDRA FELDMAN, President

EDWARD J. MCELROY, Secretary-Treasurer

NAT LACOUR, Executive Vice President

HIGHER EDUCATIONProgram and Policy CouncilAUGUST 1998–AUGUST 2000

IRWIN POLISHOOK, Chair, AFT Vice President, Professional Staff Congress, City University of New York

NORMAN SWENSON, Vice-Chair, AFT Vice President, Cook County College Teachers Union

WILLIAM SCHEUERMAN, AFT Vice President, United University Professions, State University of New York

CLYDE BARROW, University of Massachusetts Faculty Federation

ROWENA BLACKMAN-STROUD, United University Professions, Health Science Center at Brooklyn/SUNY

JASON BLANK, Rhode Island College Chapter/AFT

ARTHUR HOCHNER, Temple Association of University Professionals

DONNA HURTADO, Albuquerque Technical Vocational Institute Faculty Federation

NORA DAVENPORT LAWSON, Alabama State University Faculty Staff Alliance

SUSAN LEVY, Washington Federation of Teachers

JOHN MCDONALD, Henry Ford Community College Federation of Teachers

KAREN SCHERMERHORN, Faculty Federation of the Community College of Philadelphia

RAYMOND SPOTO, The Association of University of Wisconsin Professionals

LOUIS STOLLAR, United College Employees of the Fashion Institute of Technology

TOM TYNER, California Federation of Teachers Community College Council

MITCH VOGEL, University Professionals of Illinois

NICHOLAS YOVNELLO, Council of New Jersey State College Locals

Staff

LAWRENCE GOLD, AFT Higher Education Director

PERRY ROBINSON, AFT Higher Education Deputy Director

COVER ILLUSTRATION © 2000 BY MICHAEL GIBBS

AMERICANFEDERATION OFTEACHERS

A F L � C I O

THE TERM DISTANCE EDUCATION IS

commonly used to describe courses inwhich nearly all the interactionbetween the teacher and student takes

place electronically. Electronic communicationmay take the form of audio, video, e-mail, chat,teleconferencing, and, increasingly, the Internet.Distance education courses range from short-term training workshops to undergraduate andgraduate programs for college credit.

Distance education courses for academic credithave been expanding dramatically at collegesand universities. To cite just one example, injust three years-from 1995 to 1998-the use ofInternet-based courses grew from 22 percent ofinstitutions to 60 percent. A National Centerfor Education Statistics (NCES) survey estimat-ed that more than 1.6 million students wereenrolled in distance education courses in 1997-98. Proponents of distance education point outthat the practice may allow learning to reachthousands or even millions more people on an“anytime anywhere” basis. This applies especial-ly to potential students who are homebound orphysically remote from a college campus, as wellas students who find it extremely difficult to fittheir family and work responsibilities into a tra-ditional academic schedule.

Observers point to numerous case studies indi-cating comparable student performance in dis-tance education courses. Proponents maintainthat distance education is better able to fosterindependent study-that it is preferable to movethe faculty member, as they often say, from a“sage on the stage” to a “guide on the side.”

Still, a good number of educators remain skepti-cal. Believing that teaching and learning are

inherently social processes, these educators con-sider “same-time same-place” interaction centralto a successful educational experience. Pointingto shortcomings in the research on distance edu-cation (see the 1999 AFT/NEA sponsoredreport, What’s the Difference? [Institute forHigher Education Policy]), skeptics cite a varietyof concerns, among them:� Whether deep understanding of difficultmaterial-beyond amassing facts-can occur in theabsence of same-time same-place interaction; � Whether distance education may be ineffec-tive for certain types of subjects and students,leading to higher dropout rates;� Whether needed equipment, training andtechnical support is reaching distance educationstudents and faculty; and� Whether limitations on the availability oflibrary and learning materials impair distanceeducation courses.

AFT has long been active in distance education.In 1996, the union released its first report onthe subject, Teaming up with Technology, whichurged higher education unions to becomeinvolved in a host of distance education issueson their campuses, from cost and workload tointellectual property and educational quality.Follow-up reports have appeared since then.AFT has also been a leading figure in policydebates about distance education, arguing thateducational quality, not financial gain, shouldguide where, when and how distance educationis employed.

This report constitutes the next step in theAFT’s involvement. In the fall 1999 academicterm, the union surveyed 200 members of AFThigher education locals who are themselves prac-titioners of distance education. These practi-

5G U I D E L I N E S

Introduction

tioners taught distance education courses inevery major academic area and delivery mode(the largest type being Web based.) The vastmajority had taught equivalent on-campus class-es. A summary of the survey results, along withselected individual responses, appears at the endof this report.

Drawing in large part on these responses, as wellas scholarship on distance education and theadvice of AFT’s higher education program andpolicy council in the 1999-2000 academic year,this report presents a set of guidelines for goodpractice in distance education. These guidelines—drawn from what we know today amid a con-stantly changing landscape—are not in any waydesigned to be the “last word” on the subject. Wehave attempted to make our standards high with-out being unattainable, specific without beingrigid. We have also tried to go “deeper” than anumber of other guidelines we have reviewed.

For example, many existing standards of goodpractice state that there should be a high level ofinterchange between the professor and the stu-dent. That is true, but the really importantquestion is: What specific things do we need todo, what do we need to put into place to havewhat we’re willing to call a “high level of inter-change”? And what are we willing to do about acourse if we do not have the appropriate level ofinterchange? Frankly, we are concerned aboutgood practice guidelines being applauded attheir inception and then ignored whenever itbecomes inconvenient to stick by them. If theseguidelines have validity, administrators and fac-ulty members must be willing to say “no” topractices that violate good practice.

We hope that the following guidelines will assistfaculty members teaching, or preparing to teach,distance education courses, as well as highereducation locals negotiating distance educationissues with management. We also hope theguidelines will be useful to college administra-tors and public officials who want to put qualityat the center of their technology programs, aswell as other organizations around the country

who are attempting, as are we, to shape newmedia of instruction in constructive ways.

In that vein, we want to note at the outset thatthe practitioners responding to our surveyoverwhelmingly indicated that we shouldmove forward with distance education: 169(of the 200 respondents) said they would teachby distance education again, while only 31 saidthey would not. These respondents reportedthat students who successfully completed theirdistance education courses performed the same(109) or better (55) than students in comparablecourses that they taught in the traditional class-room did. Reviewing the responses, it is alsoclear that faculty members teaching distanceeducation courses are serious, gifted instructorsutilizing every means they can to serve their stu-dents. Most practitioners believe they are suc-cessful in their distance education classes whenthey are given the proper time, tools and train-ing, and when they have mature, highly moti-vated students with appropriate equipment andtraining. At the same time, the responses point-ed to circumstances under which distance educa-tion seemed problematic. Our standardsembody both these themes.

Also, please note that many of the pointsembodied in the upcoming pages may haveapplicability to all types of distance education—from job and skill training to undergraduate andgraduate credit programs—because they are sim-ply about good teaching. Our primary focus-encompassing the special expertise of our highereducation membership-is on distance educationin college credit-bearing degree programs: two-year, four-year, and graduate.

Finally, these standards apply equally to public,private, non-profit, and for-profit educationalproviders. In our view, for-profit providers war-rant a higher level of scrutiny because the com-mercial marketplace creates special incentives tocater to the consumer’s desire for ease and con-venience rather than academic rigor. For-profitenterprises that meet the guidelines of good prac-tice, however, deserve their place at the table.

6D I S T A N C E E D U C A T I O N

� To receive college credit, distance learningcourses offered by the institution should bereviewed and approved in advance by the fac-ulty. Review is necessary even when changing acourse from a classroom mode to a distancelearning mode. Faculty do not always make per-fect decisions, but their choices are much likelierto be based primarily on educational concernsaimed at student learning rather than marketincentives that elevate convenience, attractive-ness and digestibility above all else.

� Decisions about particular courses shouldbe made at the departmental or interdepart-mental level, including the decision to awardcredit for distance courses generated by transferfrom another institution or provider.

� Distance education courses for creditshould be taught by faculty appointed andevaluated through traditional processesinvolving the faculty and the department.

� Teaching and research faculty, not just“curriculum specialists,” must be involved indeveloping the curriculum. A number of stud-ies (see, among others, Classroom Research, K.Patricia Cross and Mimi Harris Steadman,1996) have demonstrated the importance to stu-dent learning of establishing a feedback loopbetween classroom teaching, curriculum devel-

opment and scholarly research. That loopbecomes inoperative when teaching faculty oper-ate from workbooks based on a prefabricatedcurriculum that the faculty member had littlerole in developing, a curriculum that was notshaped directly by the practitioner’s experiencein teaching these classes or conducting researchon these subjects. Students deserve teacherswho know all the nuances of what they areteaching and who can exercise professionaljudgement and academic freedom in doing so.

BACKGROUND

Faculty teaching distance education coursesmust become proficient in the communicationstechnology employed in their distance educationcourses. They must be prepared—either ontheir own or working in teams with other spe-cialists—to design courses that take full advan-tage of the potential of the medium in whichthey are operating. Faculty teaching Web basedcourses must possess strategies and skills to com-municate with their students electronically inthe absence of visual and oral cues.

As a result, faculty teaching distance educationshould be prepared to spend a good deal moretime preparing for distance courses than tradi-tional ones. Almost uniformly, practitionersresponding to our survey emphasized that the

7G U I D E L I N E S

The Standards

1. Faculty Must Retain Academic Control

2. Faculty Must BePrepared To Meet theSpecial Requirements ofTeaching at a Distance

preparation time for distance learning courses ismuch greater than for a classroom-based course,particularly the first time the course is offered bythe faculty member. Faculty members teachingWeb based courses, for example, must prepare,in advance, highly structured written materialsand graphics covering every detail of the course.Some estimates range anywhere from 66 percentto 500 percent longer.

Similarly, once the course is under way, facultymust be prepared to be available to students onan extended basis electronically. Again andagain, practitioners report that it takes consider-ably more time to communicate with studentselectronically. In addition, faculty membersmust keep up with the odd hours many distanceeducation students have to devote to theircoursework and the more tenuous connectionmany of them have to the institution. Forexample, to reduce potential attrition, a numberof practitioners reported that faculty mustanswer questions right away, grade papers veryquickly, and follow up with students within aweek or two if they are not participating in class.

REQUIRED SUPPORTS

To handle these responsibilities effectively:

� Faculty must be provided adequate trainingand technical support—in terms of hardware,software and troubleshooting. The importanceof adequate technical support was emphasizedrepeatedly by faculty in the field. Supportshould include special assistance in instructionaldesign. Upon request, the institution mustenable faculty members to work with knowl-edgeable instructional and technical design spe-cialists in designing courses as long as the facultymember has the final say about presentation.

� Additional compensation should be provid-ed to faculty to meet the extensive time com-mitments of distance education. Despite theclear demand for extra preparation time and theincreased time commitment of e-mail, only halfof respondents reported that they had receivedany form of compensation for the additionaltime required.

Compensation can be provided in the form ofcredit toward load assignment, which means that

the additional time counts toward the facultymember’s required workload for the term. Theneed for extra time is most pressing the first year,but that may not be the end of it. The report ofthe 1999 University of Illinois DistanceEducation Seminar indicates that the seconditeration of an on-line course may require asmuch time and effort in making improvementsas the first required in changing format. “It isnot until the third iteration that the preparationeffort begins to diminish,” according to theSeminar report.

� Institutional reward systems for faculty—including policies regarding promotion, tenureand special funding for faculty projects—shouldaccord positive recognition for the creativework of formulating distance programs.

� Because distance education calls on a special-ized set of skills, teaching distance educationcourses should be a matter of faculty choice.

BACKGROUND

As we all know, live theatre is a special experi-ence that delivers a unique brand of emotionalimpact. In most cases, however, live theatrelooks claustrophobic and strangely inert when itis filmed “straight on,” without the camera mov-ing among different locations, doing close-upsand engaging in its own special tricks. This tellsus that you can’t “do” film the same way you doa live performance. Each medium has its ownstrengths and weaknesses and can deliver differ-ent kinds of dramatic experiences.

The literature on distance education suggests asimilar relationship between same-time same-place instruction and distance education. It maynot always be effective to simply transfer a livelecture and accompanying course materials intoan electronic course on the same subject.

8D I S T A N C E E D U C A T I O N

3. Course Design ShouldBe Shaped to thePotentials of the Medium

Similarly, faculty members who try to literally“match” traditional classroom interaction withthe kind of interaction available in a distanceeducation course may well be frustrated and dis-appointed.

Same-time same-place instruction and distanceeducation each have their own pluses andminuses, and each have their own potential todeliver certain kinds of learning. As noted byProfessor Andrew Feenberg of San Diego StateUniversity, “Writing is not a poor substitute forphysical presence and speech, but another funda-mental medium of expression with its own prop-erties and powers. The on-line environment isessentially a space for written interaction. Thisis its limitation and potential. Electronic net-works should be appropriated with this in mindand not turned into poor copies of the face-to-face classroom that they can never reproduceadequately.” In short:

STANDARDS

� Faculty members developing distance edu-cation courses should approach coursedesign—curriculum planning, class projects,visual aids, library materials and studentinteraction—not in terms of replicating thetraditional classroom, but in terms of maxi-mizing the potential of the medium that willbe employed. This harkens back to the impor-tance of substantial technical support.

BACKGROUND

Over all, the survey respondents rated the per-formance of distance education students aboutthe same (54 percent) or better (27 percent)than their classroom-based students. At thesame time, a substantial proportion (over 42 per-cent) reported higher dropout rates in their dis-tance education courses.

Over 85 percent of the respondents reportedthat particular kinds of students perform betterin distance education than others. Many notedthat successful distance education students needto be highly motivated, and found the practicemore problematic for younger, less-motivatedstudents. Some emphasized that distance educa-tion students must have strong written commu-nication skills; that cyberspace coursework maybe more difficult for students whose personallearning styles depend heavily on visual and ver-bal cues. Finally, many respondents stressed theimportance of students receiving good advanceinformation; too many students, they believe,begin distance education courses under a falseimpression that they are easier and less time con-suming than traditional courses.

STANDARDS

In light of these findings, every institution, as amatter of good practice, should have proceduresin place to ensure, to the extent possible, thatnew distance education students have the where-withal to perform successfully.

� All first-time distance education studentsshould be given a clear statement of courserequirements in advance. This should include:(1) all course requirements; (2) the weekly timecommitment and specific computer skillsrequired by the course; and (3) a presentation ofthe practical difficulties of working at a distanceand what is needed to manage those challengessuccessfully. This information must be providedeither in written form or through a same-timesame-place video or Internet-based orientationprogram.

� In response, before the course begins, stu-dents should be required to submit a writtenstatement to the institution delivered elec-tronically. As little as a paragraph or twoexplaining the student’s aims, the statementwould be designed to demonstrate: (1) that thestudent possesses the proper equipment andknows how to make it work; (2) that the studenthas the skills needed to perform effectively in awriting-based medium; and (3) that the studenthas motivation and realistic expectations.

� If potential problems surface in the stu-dent’s response, training in advance of the

9G U I D E L I N E S

4. Students Must FullyUnderstand CourseRequirements and BePrepared To Succeed

course must be provided to those who have theappropriate equipment but do not know how touse it properly, and advice should be offered tostudents who appear to have problems with writ-ten communication skills or motivation.

� Students require reliable, extended-timetechnical support throughout the course. Inall course materials, institutions should specifythe nature and extent of technical support to beprovided. A telephone contact number for tech-nical support is essential, with as many hours ofavailability as is feasible.

� Since distance education will not suit everystudent, states and localities are obligated toensure that no one is offered distance educa-tion as his or her only option for obtaining acollege education. There could be no worseresult than a two-tier system directing less afflu-ent students to distance education while thesocializing and networking benefits of on-cam-pus education remain largely the preserve of theaffluent. Anyone who meets institutional admis-sions standards should not be barred fromobtaining access to a campus.

BACKGROUND

Almost everyone agrees that the most importantchallenge facing distance education is the needto develop a rich level of personal interchangebetween professor and student and among stu-dents themselves. Respondents to the AFT sur-vey went to great lengths to maintain communi-cation with their distance education students,utilizing, among other things, e-mail, electronicdiscussion groups, telephone, mail, fax andaudio/video conferencing. In about a third ofthe cases, students were required to come to thecampus or the faculty member met with stu-

dents off campus at least once during the course.

Practitioners using interactive TV frequentlycited problems in maintaining interaction withstudents, often based on the limitations of thetechnology that was available to them. On theother hand, Web based courses received generallyhigher marks from those who taught them.Many practitioners maintain that in-depth inter-action with students over the Web is actuallystronger than in traditional classrooms. Others,however, felt that the loss of immediate visualand verbal interaction undermined the advan-tages of Web based coursework.

Specific positives cited by respondents: Webbased communication provokes more thoughtfulanswers on the part of students. Some studentsfeel more immediacy of feedback. Some facultymembers believed that less aggressive studentsdid better in a Web based setting; others dis-agreed. Often-cited negatives: There is a highlearning curve for both teachers and students ingetting cues right when there is no eye contact.It is harder to tell if students understand whenyou can’t see “the light bulb go on.” Distanceeducation is too dependent on equipment func-tioning properly. It is harder to catch cheating.It may not be as effective for students with writ-ten communication deficits.

STANDARDS

� To maximize communication electronically,distance learning courses should, to the great-est extent possible, incorporate both:

—real-time electronic interchange throughdevices such as chat rooms and discussiongroups; and: —asynchronous forms of communicationsuch as e-mail and computer bulletin boards.

� Wherever it is feasible, opportunities forsame-time same-place interchange betweenthe teacher and student, or among students,should be built into credit courses taught at adistance. Many distance education students arenot too far from the college campus to visit fromtime to time, and it is not uncommon for theirinstructors to arrange group meetings once ortwice a term. Teachers also arrange meetings ofsome students at remote sites such as anothercampus, library or community center. Evening

10D I S T A N C E E D U C A T I O N

5. Close PersonalInteraction Must BeMaintained

and weekend time can be employed. Of course,exceptions are in order for homebound or trulyisolated students or in cases where literally nostudents or professors are near enough to travelto one another.

Why do we emphasize the necessity of same-time same-place interaction? First, because webelieve there is something unique and importantabout the simultaneous visual and verbal interac-tion of individuals in the same place workingtogether toward a common educational goal.Second, we place a high value on same-timesame-place interaction because it permits stu-dents to connect directly to the resources of thecampus-from classrooms, laboratories andlibraries to social and performance spaces.Access anytime/anywhere is a great advantage,but a campus visit helps each student to under-stand that he or she is part of a learning enter-prise greater than this one course. On-campusstudents are surrounded with those reminderseach day, motivators that enrich them as theymake their way through an academic program.

BACKGROUND

We have seen how strongly practitioners feelabout the need for very extensive preparationtime in distance education courses. We havealso seen that most distance education coursesrequire more time for personal interaction. Thequestion of class size for distance educationcourses must be seen in that light.

About a third of our survey respondents taughtclasses of fewer than 20; over half taught classesof 20 to 50 students. Less than a tenth taughtclasses of more than 50, and only a few taughtclasses of more than 100. The 1999 report ofthe University of Illinois Faculty Seminar on

Distance Education recommended smaller facul-ty-student ratios in distance education becausethere is so much information to be monitored.Most of the practitioners we consulted, however,did not endorse such a hard-and-fast rule.

STANDARDS

� Class size should be established throughnormal faculty channels to insure that educa-tional rather than bureaucratic or financial con-siderations drive the process.

� Class size should encourage a high degreeof interactivity. Given the time commitmentinvolved in teaching through distance education,smaller class size should be considered, particu-larly at the inception of a new course.

BACKGROUND

Based on the earlier findings, it is not surprisingthat some respondents to our survey reporteddifficulty in covering as much material, includ-ing laboratories and practica, in the sameamount of time through distance educationcompared with traditional classroom. Factorssuch as the slowness of interactive TV transmis-sion and the need to rely on written communi-cation in Web based courses all contribute tothis.

STANDARDS

� The amount of material covered in a dis-tance education course, and the depth withwhich it is covered, should equal that of aclassroom-based course.

11G U I D E L I N E S

6. Class Size Should BeSet through NormalFaculty Channels

7. Courses Should CoverAll Material

BACKGROUND

Some faculty members have more difficultyteaching certain subjects at a distance than oth-ers do. For example, one survey respondentcited Spanish as a problem; another cited theo-retical philosophy. Some, but not all, facultymembers have been unable to incorporate labo-ratories and practica into a distance mode. Thatsaid, however, there is not sufficient evidence tobelieve that distance education can be ruled out,a priori, for any particular kind of credit course.If a faculty member is having a problem with aparticular course, another professor in anotherlocation may be fixing that problem right now;there is no reason to declare most problemsunsolvable under the right conditions. Similarly,the weight of the evidence is that higher-orderthinking skills, as opposed to rote training, canbe acquired in distance education.

STANDARDS

� Thus, experimentation in offering a varietyof subjects through distance education shouldbe encouraged. Some faculty members reportsuccess in supervising real or virtual laboratoryactivities, and even practica, at a distance.However, “hands-on” activities of this natureshould be reviewed very carefully by the depart-ment faculty prior to approval.

� Institutions should not continue to offercourses that have been unsuccessful. If attri-tion rates are high or test scores are low, or if theteacher reports disappointing results, the facultyshould declare a “time out” during which a care-ful evaluation is conducted, along with an explo-ration of successful learning techniquesemployed elsewhere. If the faculty determinesthat problems have been overcome, the coursecan be re-instituted.

BACKGROUND

To a varying extent, all college degree pro-grams—whether two-year, four-year, or gradu-ate—must provide numerous and varied oppor-tunities for students to conduct independentresearch. Students need to have access to abroad spectrum of research materials in all for-mats and to learn how to evaluate such materialcritically. This requires a partnership betweenfaculty and librarians, working together, todevelop in students “information literacy”—competencies that allow individuals to recognizewhen information is needed and to locate anduse effectively the needed information. As hasoften been reported, the ability to critically eval-uate material is especially important in light ofthe mass of seemingly authoritative, but some-times bogus, material seen on the Internet.

In general, the distance education practitionersresponding to our survey felt that their studentshad adequate access to informational materials.Many of them worked hard to prepare packagesof materials for all students, and some offeredstudents extensive information about onlinematerials.

STANDARDS

� Opportunities for distance education stu-dents to conduct independent course-relatedresearch must be substantially the same as theopportunities provided to other students.

� Distance education students should be givenaccess to all possible electronic research materi-al. Students must be shown how to connect withonline articles, books and catalogues at the collegelibrary or cooperating libraries. Students shouldbe given the names, e-mail addresses and phonenumbers of librarians trained to handle electronicrequests for materials.

12D I S T A N C E E D U C A T I O N

8. Experimentation with aBroad Variety of SubjectsShould Be Encouraged

9. Equivalent ResearchOpportunities Must BeProvided

� For any course requiring independentresearch, as long as it is feasible, distance educa-tion students should be expected to visit acampus or public library at least once to con-fer with professional librarians and employ thevariety of informational materials and profes-sional resources available there.

� If there is no accessible location where a stu-dent can obtain needed hard copy research, andthere is no online source, the college shouldarrange, as some have, to get books and mate-rials to students through overnight mail,either for sale or loan. This is known as docu-ment delivery, although in many locations aquick turnover time cannot be expected.

BACKGROUND

Two-thirds of the respondents indicated thatthey use the same criteria for grading their dis-tance education courses as for their traditionalcourses. Some indicated they placed less relianceon tests in their distance education courses.Respondents were split about whether thereshould be greater concern in a distance educa-tion environment about security related topapers, tests, etc.

STANDARDS

� The level of achievement expected of stu-dents, and tested for in a distance educationenvironment, should be as challenging as thatin a classroom-based course. Again, differ-ences in electronic and classroom educationaltechniques may dictate different forms of assess-ment or different emphases in assessment. Butthe overall standard of student achievementshould be equivalent.

� As a matter of prudence, steps should betaken to limit the possibility of fraud and

abuse in a distance education environment.—Whenever possible, it is preferable to bringstudents to one or more public places and uti-lize a proctor in administering exams. Eighty-four respondents indicated that tests wereproctored; 64 said they were not. —Colleges should follow the development ofnew electronic security technologies aimed atcurbing fraud and utilize those that are effec-tive and cost efficient.

� Care must be taken to offer distance educa-tion students pursuing college degrees repeat-ed opportunities for individualized advise-ment by academic professionals. Same-timesame-place advisement should be made available,particularly at key junctures in the student’s aca-demic career, but telephone contact is an accept-able alternative when that it not practicable.

BACKGROUND

Until now, faculty members have developedcourses and course materials largely on theirown. Since the faculty member taught any fur-ther iteration of the course, he or she effectivelymaintained control over subsequent changes incourse materials and the overall quality of thepresentation.

Courses developed for distance education maydiffer from this model in a variety of ways: � The faculty member may have worked in col-

13G U I D E L I N E S

10. Student AssessmentShould Be Comparable

11. Equivalent AdvisementOpportunities Must BeOffered

12. Faculty Should RetainCreative Control over Useand Re-Use of Materials

laboration with other institutional employees,such as design and technical support personnel,in assembling the course; � The institution’s technical facilities may havebeen used to mount the course for video or theWeb; � The courses and course materials may be inan easily reproducible form.

As a result of these differences, the institutionmay claim ownership of the course and all mate-rials related to it. If it assumes ownership, theinstitution may seek to reproduce the course yearafter year, utilizing different faculty to teach thesame material or make changes in the courseover time without involving the faculty memberwho created it.

STANDARDS

There is not enough space here, nor is this theright venue, to explore the range of legal andnegotiation issues surrounding the ownership ofintellectual property in distance education. Theuse and re-use of course materials, however, rais-es an issue of quality and educational good prac-tice.

� The faculty member(s) developing a courseshould maintain creative control over the useand re-use of the course in subsequent years.In the absence of such control, students have noguarantee that the course they take is of thesame quality as in previous years and has beenupdated to reflect changes in the subject area.

BACKGROUND

The fact that distance education may be a goodoption for teaching a particular course, or set ofcourses, does not automatically mean that it isacceptable to offer an entire undergraduatedegree program, two-year or four-year, withoutproviding students in-class experience. Four

years ago, AFT’s higher education divisionwrote, “Our experience as educators tells us thatteaching and learning in the shared humanspaces of a campus are essential to the under-graduate experience and cannot be compromisedtoo greatly without rendering the educationunacceptable.”

This view was reaffirmed in the report of the1999 University of Illinois Seminar on DistanceEducation, as well as AFT’s survey of distanceeducation instructors. When asked what percent-age of an undergraduate course of study oughtto be taught by distance education, about 35percent of the AFT respondents answering thisquestion said a quarter or less and another 35percent said between a quarter and a half.Altogether, over 70 percent of the AFT respon-dents answering the question came out in favorof half or less of an undergraduate degree offeredby distance education. These responses areimportant because they came from distance edu-cation practitioners who were generally favorableto the practice, considered it successful and indi-cated that they would teach a distance courseagain if asked.

STANDARDS

� The faculty at each institution shouldassume responsibility for carefully consider-ing how much coursework is appropriate tobe obtained through distance education.Deliberation should take place at the campus,department and inter-department levels, allow-ing for differences among disciplines and anappropriate amount of experimentation. Basedon the survey findings, we believe faculty, as ageneral rule, should consider permitting up to50 percent of a full undergraduate course ofstudy to be offered at a distance.

� Procedures should be established to ensure,on a case-by-case basis, that a full undergrad-uate distance education program is availableto those students truly unable to participatein classroom education at any time after con-sidering all other options.

� A full program taught at a distance maybe acceptable at the graduate level and forsome certificate programs, as determined bythe faculty.

14D I S T A N C E E D U C A T I O N

13. Full UndergraduateDegree Programs ShouldInclude Same-Time Same-Place Coursework

Even as we encourage experimentation in dis-tance education, we must conduct much morerigorous evaluation of distance education pro-grams and disseminate the results broadly. At aminimum, this should take place at three levels.

� All institutions offering distance educationcoursework should become laboratories ofprogram evaluation. Areas for evaluationshould include the characteristics of successfuland unsuccessful distance education students; variations among academic disciplines; faculty-

student interaction; student performance; andthe efficacy of offering large parts or all of anacademic program by distance learning.

� Evaluation of distance education shouldbecome a priority concern of the federal gov-ernment. The federal government should taketwo steps immediately:

—Create a national information clearing-house to share data about successful andunsuccessful practices; and —Initiate a priority program of targetedresearch in distance education in the areasoutlined above.

� Regional and specialized accreditationagencies should establish high standards fordistance education programs and ensure thatdistance education programs are alwaysincluded in the evaluation of the institutionsthat offer them.

15G U I D E L I N E S

14. Evaluation of DistanceCoursework Should BeUndertaken at all Levels

CLEARLY, EVERY FACULTY UNION SHOULD

become deeply involved in technologydecision-making. Faculty shouldnegotiate with management on a vari-

ety of technology-related subjects, such as work-load (including e-mail and prep time), compen-sation, training, jurisdiction, staffing levels, classsize, acceptance of credits from other institu-tions, travel to other sites and grading responsi-bilities. Unions must also attempt to negotiateprotection of intellectual property rights incyberspace for their members. Materials andtechnical assistance for local unions attemptingto fulfill these responsibilities are available fromthe American Federation of Teachers.

The potential benefits of distance education,coupled with its successful application in manyforums, clearly warrant a continuing effort todevelop quality programs. Plenty of roomshould be left for experimentation, and weshould not be defeatist when we encounter prob-lems. But as we move forward, we must insiston the high standards outlined here—standards

that, we believe, are not impossible to meet andare worth sticking to, point by point. Whenproblems arise, we must make every effort tosurmount obstacles, but we must also be pre-pared to say about distance education, “not us,not now” when the required level of quality can-not be achieved.

Some believe that distance education erects toomany impediments to faculty-student interac-tion and therefore should be abandoned orseverely restricted. Others say that the “mar-ket” will demand convenience and a flashypresentation style above all other values andthat higher education had better adapt or loseout to competitors. It is indisputable that col-leges and universities should develop coursesthat are as attractive as possible and no moreonerous than necessary. But credit-bearingcoursework must produce education that lasts,and to achieve that, we must develop and stickto high standards of good practice. We hopethis report makes a positive contribution toreaching that goal.

16D I S T A N C E E D U C A T I O N

Conclusion

Appendix: Practitioner Questionnaire

18D I S T A N C E E D U C A T I O N

1. Indicate the mode(s) of distance educationyou have employed:* One-way audio/visual (example, telecourses)[31]* Two-way audio/visual (real-time, InteractiveTelevision (ITV) [83]* Two-way audio, one-way video [7]* On-Line/web-based/Internet, asynchronous orreal time [129]* Desktop video conferencing, real time or asyn-chronous [5]* Asynchronous desktop conferencing combinedwith CD-ROM [3]* Other. (Please specify) [26]

2A. Describe the course(s) that you teach orhave taught at a distance:* Humanities [34]* Math & Science [35]* Social Sciences [24]* Technology [24]* Career [35]* Child development/education [11]* Writing [20]* Other [12]

2B. # of credits:* 2 [14]* 3 [124]* 4 [19]* 5 [14]* Other [27]

2C. Level(s):* Freshmen [107]* Sophomore [88]* Junior [37]* Senior [31]* Graduate Level [34]* Other [26]

3. Have you taught equivalent courses for on-campus classes?Yes [186]No [13]

4A. Did you find any difference between thepreparation time required for your distance edu-cation v. traditional classes?Yes [203]No [14]If yes, please describe:* More time needed, especially up front [154]* Less time [6]* Never Measured [1]* Other [13]

Illustrative comments:

* More time — set up pages/maintainpages/communicate via e-mail attachments takesmore time than hard copy. There is much more1 to 1 communication than regular class.* Getting materials a real pain. “It’s in the mail!”Materials need to be duplicated and mailed atleast 3 weeks in advance. Overheads redone,phone calls to students, LMC personnel, etc.When a student missed, a real pain if class wasn’ttaped.* Preparing for distance education classes took asignificant amount of time, more than tradition-al. Lecture materials had to be very detailed forthe student.* The presentation materials needed revision andmore work and time given to make sure the sitesinteracted between them and with the instructor.* I spent many more hours to prepare course on-line 1st time. I logged in over 150 hours tolearn and set up course. 2nd course—half thattime; rethinking how to present content wastime consuming.

Distance EducationPractitioner Questionnaire

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF TEACHERS HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENTMarch 2000—Survey results: 200 returns, 200 survey results completed

* Massive prep time for the Internet course. Notsignificantly different between videotape andregular.* Much more time required for one-on-one con-tact time with students via phone/e-mail.* All lecture materials had to be created in htmlformat. Detailed instructions had to be writtenfor laboratory exercises (which would normallybe conveyed orally).* The 1st time teaching the distance learningcourse was a larger commitment than the 1sttime teaching the traditional course. The 2ndtime there was no difference.* EVERYTHING must be mapped out, andplanned to the minute. Must be prepared forhardware problems.* Course must be more tightly planned in dis-tance learning. Handouts must be mailed, test-ing coordinated. Lectures must be “choreo-graphed” more and the blackboard is used lesssince students look at you on it. Thus, you needmore handouts.* I had to be very prepared with lectures thatwould fit exactly in a 50-minute time frame. Ihad to be sure my slides were good ones. I hadto be aware of my very varied audience. Art dis-cussions are frequently controversial. I had toanticipate questions. My appearance also wasimportant.

4B. Were you compensated, given release time orotherwise rewarded if the distance educationpreparation time exceeded traditional prepara-tion time?Yes [100]No [100]

Please describe:

* Stipend* Less than $250 [2]* $250-$1000 [13]* Over $1000 [5]* Yes, but no amount specified [34]* Course Credit/ Release Time [32]* Other [11]

5A. How many students were in your largestclass (all sites combined) taught at a distance? (#)* Less than 20 [63]* 20-50 [112]* 51-100 [15]

* More than 100 [6]* N/A [1]

5B. In conducting your distance educationcourse, please tell us what methods you used tomaintain personal interaction between (a) your-self and the students and (b) the students witheach other?

* Email [132]* Discussion Groups online/web postings [69]* Audio/Video Conferencing [19]* Campus Visits [30]* Onsite Visits [17]* Telephone [65]* Mail [10]* Fax [9]* Other [14]* Welcome letter to course on-line, explainingwhat to do; participation encouraged in classdiscussions for all to “see” and respond to; per-sonal e-mail; drop in to visit me; 1 class held oncampus to meet each other.* Audio conference, 2 hrs/week, required; e-mail, optional written assignments and about 50one-one telephone calls/week that deal w/dis-tance students. Students are given other stu-dents phone numbers and email. Students atsites where there are other students are requiredto work together on lan modules.* Small group activities, presentations by stu-dents, reports, projects and essays. One-on-onediscussion on-line after class session, writtencomments, open discussion during class.* A) one-on-one email, phone conversation, andsome would drop by my office; (b) they had topost interactive activities and respond to eachother. I also set up a “Help Me, Please!!” folderin which they responded to each other (and inwhich I participated as well).* (a) telephone, e-mail, appointments in person.(b) the seminars for self-study students. BulletinBoard discussions and assignment posting, andChat room assignments for online class.* (1) I held my “office hour” in the distancelearning classroom with the camera and mike onfor 30 minutes before each class and up toanother 30 minutes after each class. I also droveto the remote site three times and transmittedback to the normal sending site. (b) No differ-ence from any other class.* Students communicated through computer

19 Q U E S T I O N N A I R E

conferencing with both instructor and peers. Afriendly writing tone was established to promoteinteraction.* E-mail was frequently exchanged. I knewmore about my on-line students than most ofmy in class students.* (1) Every student had a copy of a seating planfor both sites so they could recognize each other;(2) Frequent student presentations to increaseparticipation and improve attention; (3) Visitsbetween sites including a pot-luck final examand dinner.* Students worked in groups in the sites and inmy classroom. Group work was shared, and stu-dents were asked to participate in class discus-sion. Students always shared names andexchanged e-mails.* I gave my office phone number with officehours. I was available for two hours before theclass met at night and I gave them my e-mailaddress. In the latter years, that was used exten-sively. As for the students, I passed around asheet where they could indicate when they couldget together to study. That was purely voluntary.However, it was my experience that many of thestudents took the class with someone else,spouse, significant other, etc.

5C. Did you require students to come to thecampus (or elsewhere) at least once during thecourse to meet with you as a group?Yes [68]No [121]

Some Comments

* Require no; encourage yes.* Twice we met at a museum and we met for apublic art walk.

5D. In terms of interaction, what strengths andshortcomings did you find compared to the tra-ditional classroom?* It is identical. You have talkers and silent stu-dents in both.* Web discussions can work very well.* Strengths: Reached people who would not beable to take courses on campus, older, workingstudents. Shortcomings: no face to face discus-sion.* I work with adult students in distant learning.They are self-motivated, accomplished individu-

als who gain flexibility by working at a distance.The majority are excellent students.* Asynchronous—(negative) takes longer tounderstand a particular point; difficulty inter-preting questions/answers; not following “rulesof discussion”; positive: problem-solvingenhanced with asynchronous.* Strength: Course was available to non-tradi-tional students. My own schedule is flexible.Weaknesses: lot of work (i.e. more) to monitorand evaluate.* Very difficult and time consuming to explaintechnical concepts and answering students ques-tions through e-mail and discussion rooms. A“real time” chat environment is an importantfeature to make communicating work betweenstudents and instructors.* Strengths: Accommodates more students,offering classes closer to home; introduces stu-dents to another learning environment.Shortcomings: Participation isn’t as high as in atraditional class, as students may fear speakinginto mic.; students sometimes can’t hear whatothers say from other campuses.* Like the face-to-face class, it depends on thegroup dynamics and the interest of the students.I have had excellent interaction in both and dis-appointing interaction in both. I have hadexcellent discussion depth in both and disap-pointing depth in both. The mode is not themajor factor nor are the numbers. The mostimportant factor seems to be student attitude.* I much prefer on-line to telecourse because ofthe more frequent interaction with and betweenstudents. Compared to traditional, they bothallow physical anonymity, which lets shyer stu-dents be more active. Distance Education cutsout the visual aspect of a classroom, and reliesmore on verbal communication (important inmy field).* Some students drifted away in the absence ofregular face-to-face meetings in spite of vigorousefforts to keep in contact via e-mail and tele-phone.* The limitations of the technology require agreater emphasis on pedagogy, student activelearning and outreach to students and a buildingof a learning community. Without this extraeffort the medium detracts from learning. Butthe medium can also engage students because ofthe novelty and because of the diversity it bringsto the course.

20D I S T A N C E E D U C A T I O N

6A. Did your distance education students haveregular access to an adequate physical library?Yes [122]No [36]

6B. If not, how did you handle the issue of get-ting instructional and research materials to yourstudents? Describe in what ways, if any, youwere limited.* Library on campus [4]* Web based/internet [48]* Library Web sites [6]* Sent books [25]* Local Library [8]* Textbook [9]* Fax [10]* N/A [7]* None [5]* Other [5]

7A. Were there any differences in the persist-ence/dropout rates of students in distance vs.traditional courses?Yes [80]No [107]* More self initiative needed by students in anasynchronous environment.* Distance ed. Students dropped out at a muchhigher frequency than traditional classes.* Fewer drops with my off-site students!

7B. If there is a problem with persistence, doyou have any thoughts on what causes it or howto combat it?* Students seem to stay with the courses if theinstructor is very flexible about deadlines. Strictdeadlines will force distance learners out ofcourses. I cannot figure out how to do it but“self-paced” courses seem to be needed.* Some students don’t handle independence well.Need to create mechanism to promote regularwork and interaction.* Students drop before class starts when theyreceive my orientation letter with the syllabus2–3 weeks prior to class start. Expectations aremade clear and a commitment letter and selfassessment form for readiness and ability arerequired of them.* I had a slightly higher dropout rate than in mytraditional courses. Some students were notready technically, others thought online wouldbe “easy” and dropped when they realized it was

a “real” class.* Students must be self-motivated. I think thismode of delivery is only for those students whoare self-motivated. It’s not for everyone.* A problem with persistence is sometimes dueto having immature, unmotivated students whothought on-line courses would be easier. I had apolicy of student removal for three missed dead-lines. I think my optional weekend workshopshelped retain students who needed extra helpwith the technology and course content.Community building through use of the WebBoard helps retain students. Students use guid-ed “Peer/Self Review Sheets” to interact witheach other. Additionally, they discuss poems,stories, and plays through threaded discussions.* Television, by its very nature, encourages pas-sivity. Students are used to television as anentertainment medium rather than an instruc-tional medium. Many of the students did nottake notes from the materials and did poorly onthat part of the objective exams. A second con-sideration is that many students come in withthe attitude that this is going to be an easycourse. When they find out that they’re expect-ed to work at the same academic level as in aregular class but without the presence of aninstructor, they drop out. They lack the self-dis-cipline to succeed.

8A. What criteria did you employ to grade stu-dents in your distance education course (papers,multiple choice testing, essays, etc.)? * MULTIPLE CHOICE [39]

8B. Does this differ from the criteria you mighthave used in a traditional classroom course?Yes [59]No [134]

If yes, please describe.

* I can put an emphasis on discussion because Ihave a written record to justify scores.* Distance ed was heavily weighted toward mul-tiple choice testing of performance whereas intraditional courses performance was evaluatedmore on critical thinking and essay/writingskills.* I place less point value on the test because itcannot be secure. The live skills demonstrationthat traditionally is done in an interview is taped

21Q U E S T I O N N A I R E

and sent to me.* I seem to be more “test” dependent in theclassroom and less creative, whereas now I’vebecome more creative and I feel more valid is myevaluation methods by limiting “memory” test-ing.9A. If tests were given at the end of the course,were students in a proctored environment?Yes [84]No [63]

9B. Do you have any concerns/recommenda-tions about security related to papers, tests, etc.,in a distance learning environment?Yes [79]No [97]

Please describe.

* Without video classes, F2F sessions to takewriting samples are necessary to establish identi-ty. Recommend personalized assignments basedon course-supplied materials to limit opportuni-ty for plagiarism.* Students present drafts of their work and editaccording to participation in discussion areabefore submit final paper; assignments driven byclass discussions and input from professors andstudents; if someone else does the work it wouldbe an obvious change; no different than doingtake home exam in class. Why pay for an edu-cation to have another do the work?* Some—if a paper is lost in the mail, and a stu-dent did it, do they redo or get the grade? Onsome projects it is hard to tell if they actually didit. I guess this needs to be addressed in some ofmy courses; it hasn’t happened yet.* In some labs, it’s hard to see what they’redoing. I tend to grade heavily on presentationsthey have to do in order to cut the effect ofcheating on grades.* No more concern than I have in on-campusclasses. There is so much writing in an on-lineclass that I quickly come to recognize the stu-dent’s voice and style. I don’t worry about some-one else doing the work either because there isso much work involved that I doubt that a stu-dent could find someone willing to do the workfor them.* For many teachers online plagiarism is a bigconcern. I am currently developing a facultyworkshop on teaching students about plagia-

rism—and developing assignments structured toavoid it.* I have discussed this in Internet classes and thebasic consensus is that if a student wants tocheat they will find a way despite the mode oftransmission.* We use college aides to supervise remote sites.* The video conference medium offers an inno-vative approach to both delivery and evaluationof course content. Since it is unconventionalmany of the conventional security problems canbe avoided by asking the students to demon-strate their comprehension in a presentation.

10. Have any questions about ownership ofintellectual property arisen concerning yourwork in distance education?Yes [71]No [119]

If yes, please explain.

* Who owns the syllabus, etc.? The admin. fel-las say that if it is electronic they own it. Thatbeing the case I do not do certain things that Iknow will be creative because they are too easilystolen.* College policy is unclear, so I do not use thecollege server to host Internet courses.* The instructor should have ownership.* Not yet, however, this could change.* I spend many hours developingmaterials/learning objects. I feel cheated whenpeople that have access to the ITV take thesematerials without permission.* Courses belong to faculty unless they sell themto their institution—or others—or unless facultycontracts specifically state that course develop-ment is “work for hire” and courses belong tothe university. Either arrangement is o.k.* Yes, after I developed the course, other facultywished to teach it. I told them I had ownershipand that the real compensation for spending 80hrs developing the course was to teach it.* Yes, very concerned about this issue. Distancerequires preparation of a very organized prepack-aged course, almost like writing a text. Yet I amnot sure what I have any say whatsoever inwhether my work at some point may be handedover to someone else to teach (an adjunct wouldbe cheaper than me and I work on a contractand am not tenured).

22D I S T A N C E E D U C A T I O N

* I work hard at developing creative learningactivities for the classroom and have wonderedto whom do these ultimately “belong”.* We rely on the laws that exist. Any gray areaswill be settled in courts eventually.

11A. On the average, how did your studentsperform compared to students taking similarclasses through traditional means?Better [55]Worse [26]About the Same [109]

11B. If there is a difference, to what do youattribute it?* Distance students on the whole appreciate theconvenience and recognize their obligation towork more independently. Also, because dis-tance courses have to be designed and construct-ed up front, they tend to be better in terms ofmeeting course objectives in a thoughtful andcoherent manner that the student can see fromstart to finish.* Students who complete the course are 1) moremotivated; 2) less influenced by peer pressure; 3)given more time to reflect on the material; 4)forced to use more critical thinking skills ratherthan regurgitating what the teacher has presented.* I have a wider range of students in my tradi-tional classes. Up to this point, more independ-ent, motivated students gravitate towards theonline courses.* Since this was a telecourse I had contact withmost students throughout the semester.Telecourses do not present the problems that adistance learning * Students who stay have to be self-motivatedand organized or they won’t be able to completethe course. This type of student usually excels inthe traditional classroom, too.* The medium and pedagogy gives students withvaried learning styles to demonstrate theirachievements in their own way. It also promotescommunication skills which may not be requiredin a traditional classroom. TV classes have to besmaller and it is less likely that a student willhide from the camera than from the unaided eyeof the faculty member.

12. Did you notice that some particular kinds ofstudents perform better than others in a distanceeducation mode?

Yes [168]No [27]

Please explain:

* Older do better [18]* More Motivated do better [80]* Younger do better [2]* Mid career adults do better [12]

13A. What kind of technical support were youprovided in conducting your distance educationcourse(s)?* Help Line [26]* Technical Support Staff [56]* Seminar/Class [22]* Distance Ed office [6]* Minimal [20]* None [14]* Other [44]

13B. Was it sufficient?Yes [139]No [59]

Selected “No” Comments.

* I would have liked more technical support forprint-based courses including info on ServiceProviders (which they have begun to do) and useof virtual resources at the College.* Frequent problems forced us to a) lose accessto site; b) shut down early and c) poor quality ofaudio limited discussion.* Transient problems with equipment and trans-mission lines frequently disrupt course work.Sound systems are particularly insensitive. Thisadds strain and miscommunication whichdetract from the learning environment. Thisneeds some serious work and investment.* Very little technical support. This has been, byfar, the major shortcoming/frustration with theprogram. The support consists mostly of every-one involved technologically (vendor, telephonecompany, etc.) blaming everyone else for prob-lems when the system goes down. Repairs, ifany do take place, seem to take forever.* Weather was a problem which was never dis-cussed. Exams were not discussed. When I hadslide projector problems there was no assistance.

13C. Did your institution provide satisfactory

23Q U E S T I O N N A I R E

technical support to students in the distancelearning course(s) you taught?Yes [120]No [60]

IN CLOSING:

14. If you have an opportunity to teach coursesthrough distance education again, would youwant to do so?Yes [169]No [31]

Please explain.

* I am committed but my administration hasnot supported me. It’s the wave of the future.* I feel I know my students better in distantlearning than in a traditional classroom meeting.Among the students I’ve met are the house hus-band home tending the 3-year-old while the wifeworks; the graphics artist in Chicago; the work-ing housewife that did Earth Science Saturdaymorning at home while the family slept; the stu-dent who could not otherwise squeeze a sciencecourse in her schedule; the retired lawyer whoanswered essay questions with great detail andexacted answers from me for many questions ofhis own; and many more. DL has opened awider world to me as much as it has for some ofmy students.* It has been stimulating and exciting preparingto teach a long distance course.* I am monumentally impressed by the qualita-tively overall superior understanding and fluencywhich online students develop and demonstrate.I am impressed by the quantitatively increasedlevel of interaction and participation which theonline environment supports.* It was rewarding. We are able to reach a largepopulation who would otherwise not be able tobe on campus and obtain a college education.* For the discipline in which I teach, media stu-dios, it is a great way to teach, better than theclassroom for many courses. There will alwaysbe students and faculty who will prefer tradition-al, however. My concern is that many programswill not survive in the traditional environmentwithout significant distance components.* It reaches students who otherwise would be

unable to participate, but it is hard to find alter-native course activities because you are “shack-led” to the camera. We used films, guest speak-ers, presenters, student presentations as alterna-tive course activities.* Distance is at least as rewarding as campusteaching. I get a chance to help students livingin remote villages in Alaska have opportunitiesthat they otherwise might not have and present-ing a lab science course by distance is a continu-ous creative challenge.* Students’ demand for distance learning willonly increase; therefore this is an emerging rolein providing access. I personally am enjoyingthe challenge.* I’m hoping to use this system as a vehicle forteaching my discipline (geography) in the sixlocal private colleges that do not have geographydepartments but do have two-way video roomswith the same type of equipment. This is poten-tially the most meaningful service that I couldrender to my profession and discipline. (I’m notpublishing great research or holding organiza-tional offices, and I don’t expect to in thefuture.)* This medium holds the opportunity for a greatdeal of creativity in the educational and learningprocesses.* Although it is more time-consuming, I enjoythe level of self-disclosure that I see on-line. Theentire group shares at a deeper level. I thinkthey benefit from more one-on-oneinstruction/feedback.* It is a challenge! It is more work, but it is alsomore convenient. Students can go to class any-where, anytime but so can professors.* Good way to reach a larger number of peoplewho otherwise might not be able to come to mycollege for economic reasons or due to distance.* Compensation would be an issue. At leasttwice the amount of effort as a traditional lectureclass. However, results are significantly better.* I believe it is beneficial not to see the student.I like working from home and setting my ownhours.

15. In your opinion, how much of an under-graduate’s coursework could be taught by dis-tance education without impairing the educa-tional experience?* 76-100% [36]* 51-75% [6]

24D I S T A N C E E D U C A T I O N

* 26-50% [58]* 0-25% [56]* Other [59]

Please explain.

* I oppose any degree program which allows100% to be distance learning.* The learning can be harder in this environ-ment. Courses on teamwork would be an inter-esting addition to an online degree.* If we provide rich, robust online courses andprograms, all could be distance. The majority ofstudents are not involved in an institution’sefforts for camaraderie. Most individuals knowwho they know, and don’t get involved.Traditionalists deceive themselves, and use aninvalid argument, that many schools engendermuch esprit de corps. Online, they actually“know” their fellow-students much better.* Each class should have an on-line componentas described below. I don’t believe any classshould be taught completely on the Internet,instructor contact is a necessity. I would suggest30% of the time be spent in the traditionalmode of instruction, 50% on self-directed, con-tent based study materials, and 20% on group-directed, content based project materials.

16. Are there any other important points to bemade about good practices, practices to avoid,etc. in distance education that you have notaddressed in your other answers?* Institutions need clear goals and objectives.Both faculty and student technical support iscritical. Full degree programs are not yet withinreach of current technology without some loss ofquality and content. Class sizes must be con-trolled for non-automated courses.* I think online courses or distance learning isvaluable and important for learning institutionsto offer. Though there are numerous argumentsagainst these practices, I believe it would be fool-ish to eliminate them. Professors need to edu-cate themselves, lose there paranoia, stop fight-ing the institutions and learn to take advantageof the technology and see the benefits.* Support (technical and developmental) needsto be more readily available to faculty. Facultyneed to be flexible while discovering what worksand what doesn’t, as much as they need to be ina traditional classroom.

* Warn the students that it is a distance learningcourse and give them the choice to those thatcould have a “non distance learning” classoffered at their campus. Some students are notgiven the choice and find out too late in thesemester that the distance learning class is notfor them.* The teacher must work very hard just to be a“talking head”. Site visits are very important.Proctoring of tests is very important. Once insomeone else’s class, the students talked a newproctor into allowing them to use their text-books for a closed book test. Bad idea! Theteacher must work much harder at learningabout each student and their concerns. This isnot so easy. Getting papers back and forth wasdifficult until the college set up a site courierservice. Now we know when umail will arriveand get there. A fax in the room and DL helpstoo. Teacher must be very prepared to teach DLwith information ready before class starts. Weare also paid for each site other than the nativesite if we are not paid for a study guide.* Be prepared before entering the classroom; beaware of the “what ifs”. Good practices, etc.should be documented and shared.* Best practices: lots of support for instructorand recognition of extra work and time thatmany instructors put into distance ed.Screening/self-evaluations for students.Assessment of D.L. classes. Things to avoid:using D.L. to try to solve problems w/budget,staffing, facilities, etc. or to simply respond tostudent demand. Often, the expenditure andtime investment (plus high drop rate) aren’tcompensated by other perceived gains.* It is incumbent on the faculty to keep activewith responding to students on-line and to con-stantly work to lead the students in discussionthreads.* Sharp clear structure for the course is essential.Requirements, expectations should be estab-lished at the start. Contact with students onlist-serve and individually is important.* Very important not to simply take your currentcourse and “copy” the lectures online. Thecourse needs to be thoroughly thought through.Sequencing and consistency in course presenta-tion is important. Most importantly, professorsshould walk through their own courses on theWeb. Often one will find what you thought youdirected or said was not what is actually “coming

25Q U E S T I O N N A I R E

across”.* Quality instruction is quality instruction. Thesame objectives presented and accomplished inthe classroom can be presented and accom-plished through distance education. However,the teaching methods may be quite different.* 1. Training in the pedagogy and technologymakes all the difference; (2) An honest and thor-ough discussion of expectations and limitationsof the medium should begin, progress throughand end every course. Student and facultybehavior must bend to the peculiarities of themedium. (3) The university should see DistanceEducation as a way to enrich programs and toreach the under served and not as a means of

making money.* Perspective is essential for on-line coursedesigners. One should investigate severalapproaches before deciding on methods that fitwith one’s pedagogical goals and personality.Information and workload burnout may beavoided by using Web-assisted courses as transi-tions into asynchronous offerings. On-linelearning helps students and allows institutions toremain competitive with private businesses. Ifacademic institutions fail to integrate technology,some may be replaced by private businesses (inlocations where the student’s cost per credit hourencourages this competition.)

26D I S T A N C E E D U C A T I O N

AMERICANFEDERATION OFTEACHERS

A F L � C I O

HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT

555 NEW JERSEY AVE., NWWASHINGTON, DC 20001

ASK FOR ITEM NO. 36-0693$2.00 PER COPY