All Aboard: The Industrial Technology Department Head’s View of Time-on-Task by Distance Education Faculty

Abstract

Introduction Higher education institutions are escalating their efforts to meet the growing demand for expanded educational opportunities. More and more students are demanding course delivery schemes that are not time and place specific. The emergence of distance education as a course delivery mode is quite evident in our culture. Distance education advocates argue that its rapid expansion is part of the technological revolution on campuses, and institutions that are not the program will be left behind. Others see distance education as a cornucopia for survival in times of low enrollment and budget restraints. Higher education administrators enthusiastically herald the technological revolution that is sweeping American campuses. Department chairs put pressure on faculty to use technology in their teaching, and to participate in distance education. Concomitantly, little thought is given to such issues as research/ publishing demands, teaching load, promotion/tenure, or time-on-task (Higher Education Research Institute, 1999). Rockwell, Schaeur, Fritz, and Marx (1999) identified five obstacles to teaching from a distance (1) time requirements, (2) time taken from research, (3) training requirements, (4) developing effective technology skills, (5) assistance with on-line course design and delivery. At the heart of the above obstacles lie considerations that form the lifeblood of survival in academia--time for research and publishing. The prudent faculty member would be wise to focus on the components of the academic regimen that ensures inclusion and longevity in the system. Teaching, research and service form the trilogy of credible activity that generally guides promotion and tenure in American academia. The most vulnerable to abuse are the junior faculty who must, in addition to showing yearly progress, make themselves available for additional assignments, thus diminishing their ability to do scholarly work. Current research directing higher education toward practical solutions to the distance education mindset seems, at the moment, limited. Ehrmann (1997) suggested that current research has failed to ask the right questions when comparing traditional teaching to distance education. He further proposes that until a full accounting is made of the innumerable and complex variables linked to distance education, decisions will continue to be flawed. The Institute for Higher Education Policy (2000) identified four complex variables that must be addressed in quality distance education programs (1) encouragement to use technical assistance in course development, (2) assistance in transition from traditional to distance learning, (3) available support, and (4) assistance and training. Deciding to embrace distance education may bring accolades from department chairs; however, it is also important to note the paradigm shift when getting the job done is actually considered. Hanna (1999) suggested that the technologies of distance education have changed, but attitudes remain the same. Recent distance education literature has both recommended and described the kinds of paradigm changes needed for the successful implementation of distance education (Hanna, 1999; Higher Education Research Institute, 1999; Institute for Higher Education Policy, 2002; McKenzie, 2000). Schifter (2000) went further to identify two critical parts of the distance education infrastructure that seem contravening, at first glance, but make prefect sense upon closer examination--the art of teaching, on the part of the teacher, and--the art of learning, on the part of the student. The art of teaching involves both motivation to change and efficacy. There is less motivation for change among senior-level faculty than junior-level faculty, (Rockwell, Schauer, Fritz, and Mark, 2000). Senior--level faculty is more inclined to use their traditional style of teaching than to embrace newer ones. They generally feel uncomfortable with the new technology. …