Kindling the Fire: How to Attract Faculty to Distance Education? Kindling the Fire: Attracting Faculty to Distance Education

Go to previous version.

Few institutions these days are expressing interest in delivering courses and programs in a totally traditional (face-to-face) manner. Instead, as evidenced by the explosive growth in the number of institutions offering courses via some form of distance education, there is keen interest in using new technologies to enrich and expand traditional offerings. Because these technologies enable institutions to potentially tap new markets (learners) often in a highly cost-effective manner, launching new or modifying successful traditionally-delivered courses/programs for distance education delivery (in particular, via the Internet) holds strong appeal. Many institutions are simultaneously engaged in pursuits to improve the quality of instruction delivered to learners; the emergence of faculty teaching and learning centers attests to this mission. Additionally, technology-enhanced learning can support improvements in quality.

Given, then, the strong institutional interest, how should administrators attract and recruit individual faculty members to become involved in these new initiatives? What is the best way to "kindle the fire?"

Few institutions these days are delivering courses and programs in only a traditional, face-to-face manner. Instead, new technologies now enrich and expand traditional offerings, as is evident in the explosive growth in the number of courses that institutions offer via distance education. It is greatly beneficial for institutions to launch new or modify existing courses and programs for distance delivery, because new technologies enable institutions to tap new markets (learners) in a highly cost-effective manner. These new technologies also encourage improvement in instruction; the emergence of faculty teaching and learning centers attests to this mission. Considering the strong advantages of institutions' greater technology use, how should administrators attract faculty members to these initiatives? What is the best way to "kindle the fire?" 

According to Bates (2000), part of the "problem" in attracting faculty lies with the traditional criteria by which faculty members are hired and their performance is evaluated: research, teaching and service. "… research universities in particular have levered this to obtain the best research candidates, with a result that research publication is now in many universities and colleges (whether or not research is in their mandate) the predominant or even the only criterion for appointment, tenure, and promotion" (p. 96). As a result, states Bates, "… many young instructors are unwilling to put in the effort required to develop technology-based teaching approaches" (p. 96). If this is to be resolved and more faculty members encouraged to migrate to technology-enhanced learning systems, there must be accompanying changes in the criteria used to hire, train and reward faculty, or there will be little incentive to do so. Similarly, there must be appropriate rewards/incentives to encourage faculty members to adopt learner-centered as opposed to teacher-centered approaches to education, such as advocated by Barr and Tagg (1995).

According to Bates (2000), part of the problem in attracting faculty to programs advocating new technology  lies with the traditional criteria by which faculty members are hired and evaluated: research and teaching and service. He states, ". . . research universities in particular have levered this to obtain the best research candidates, with a result that research publication is now in many universities and colleges (whether or not research is in their mandate) the predominant or even the only criterion for appointment, tenure, and promotion" (p. 96). As a result, explains Bates, "… many young instructors are unwilling to put in the effort required to develop technology-based teaching approaches" (p. 96) [APA calls for quotations shorter than 40 words to be integrated into your own prose]. To encourage more faculty members to embrace technology-enhanced learning systems, there must be accompanying changes in the criteria used to hire, train and reward them. [Please include some examples of this.] Similarly, there must be appropriate rewards and incentives to encourage faculty members to adopt learner-centered as opposed to teacher-centered approaches to education, such as advocated by Barr and Tagg (1995).[Please include examples of approaches advocated by Barr and Tagg.]

One way to encourage faculty member involvement is to offer rewards that motivate. Whatever these rewards or incentives are will probably depend on the institution and its mission, the faculty members themselves, existing contractual agreements and policies, and so on. Faculty members should be self-selecting, since some are more inherently interested in distance education and others are less so. While some institutions "assign" those who hold lower rank and/or new faculty members to teach distance education courses, we have a concern about whether requiring faculty members (either old or new) to teach online courses will produce the best quality of instruction, particularly in a university setting where new hires may have other priorities (research/publication and tenure). A preferable approach, we believe, is to offer appropriate rewards and support systems.

While some institutions assign distance education courses to those who hold lower rank and/or are new, we question whether this requirement produces the best quality of instruction, particularly in a university setting where new hires may have other priorities, such as research, publication, and tenure. We believe a better approach is to attract faculty members to new technologies through support systems and rewards. Especially effective are rewards that motivate. [Please include examples of rewards that motivate here.] These rewards or incentives vary according to the institution and its mission, the faculty members themselves, and existing contractual agreements and policies. 

There has been some research done that applies the "diffusion of innovation" literature (Everett Rogers, 1971) to those who have become involved in distance or technology-enhanced education. For the most part, it seems to indicate that those faculty members who are "innovators" in online education (less than 5 percent of all faculty) tend to be people who are risk-takers, challenged by the "newness" of online education, and intrinsically motivated. They have forged ahead on their own (with little support), teaching themselves to write HTML, etc. They may or may not be a part of the tenure-track process, meaning that they are either tenured already or are outside the tenure-track system (visitors/adjuncts).

Some research applies "diffusion of innovation" literature (Rogers, 1971) to those who have become involved in distance or technology-enhanced education. For the most part, it [What is the "it" here? Do you mean Rogers suggests this? Please clarify your sources for the claims you list in this paragraph.] seems to indicate that those faculty members who are innovators in online education (less than 5 percent of all faculty) tend to be people who are risk-takers, challenged by the newness of online education, and intrinsically motivated. They have forged ahead on their own, with little support, teaching themselves to write HTML, etc. They are either tenured already or are outside the tenure-track system (visitors/adjuncts).

The early adopters "share many of the same characteristics as innovators, but an important difference is their degree of concern for social acceptance, especially with regard to expressive products… they also place high value on being in fashion" (Solomon, 1994, p. 562). These faculty members will be motivated to become involved either because of innovators’ influence or because the early adopters perceive it as offering a perceived relative advantage over current teaching methods (i.e., it improves teaching and learning). The long-term success of any teaching/learning innovation, however, depends on the active participation of the early and late majority faculty members. Because they are somewhat more risk-adverse than innovators and early adopters, they (early and late majority faculty) require more support in terms of the nuts and bolts of delivering instruction online. Unlike innovators, they cannot, for example, be counted upon to learn CGI-scripting on their own. For early and late majority faculty members, the ability to integrate the innovation within the traditional system that already works well is critically important.

In addition to innovators, another category of faculty in the diffusion of innovation model is that of early adopters. These are faculty members who "share many of the same characteristics as innovators, but an important difference is their degree of concern for social acceptance, especially with regard to expressive products… they also place high value on being in fashion" (Solomon, 1994, p. 562). Early adopters are motivated by innovators’ influence or their perception of technology as offering a relative advantage over current teaching methods. 

All in all, the long-term success of any teaching/learning innovation depends on the active participation of early and late majority faculty members. [Please define "early and late majority faculty members."] Because they are somewhat more risk-adverse than innovators and early adopters, they require more support in terms of the nuts and bolts of delivering instruction online [Please provide evidence for this claim.]. Unlike innovators, they cannot, for example, be counted upon to learn CGI-scripting on their own [Why not?]. For early and late majority faculty members, the ability to integrate innovation into a traditional system that already works well is critically important.

For all groups, Rogers and Shoemaker’s "Characteristics of Successful Innovations" are relevant. Faculty members’ interest and support of distance education, and their willingness to become involved in it may depend on the extent to which they perceive distance education as offering the characteristics of successful innovations, according to Rogers and Shoemaker (1971): relative advantage, compatibility, complexity, trialability, observability.

As examples:

1. Relative advantage: If faculty members perceive that the innovation (distance education) offers a high relative advantage over existing alternatives (and these advantages are easily recognizable), the adoption process is speeded. One key advantage of holding discussions online (versus face-to-face) is the opportunity for learners to engage in research and/or reflecting thinking before posting responses. Other advantages might include convenience, attractiveness of format, smallness of classes, and guest speaker opportunities (Shoemaker, 1998).
2. Compatibility: Compatibility refers to how well-matched the offering is with prevailing philosophies, lifestyles, etc. To the extent that distance education offerings are perceived as compatible with current use systems and ways of teaching, adoption will be quicker. For example, if the institution’s mission is to provide more convenient access to instruction, particularly for returning adult learners, then online courses might be viewed as highly compatible with the institutional mission. Similarly, to the extent that faculty members’ instructional mission is to improve the quantity and quality of discussions, the attractiveness of online discussions may increase.
3. Complexity: Ideally, distance education offerings should be low in complexity (easy to understand and use). If a technology is perceived as complex and cumbersome, the faculty members’ level of interest in using it will be slowed. As an example, we recently conducted a faculty training workshop for a school district that had recently installed new interactive television equipment. Unfortunately, in order for the home site audience to view projected materials (via the computer, document camera, etc.), the instructor needed to push five separate buttons on the touch-screen, hardly a procedure that could be described as "easy" which could tend to dampen interest in using the system.
4. Trialability: According to Solomon (1994, p. 565), "Since an unknown is accompanied by high perceived risk, people are more likely to adopt an innovation if they can experiment with it prior to making a commitment." As such, holding "open houses" in interactive television classrooms wherein faculty members could experiment with the equipment may be advantageous. Similarly, if the migration from traditional delivery to distance education can be approached in an incremental (rather than all-or-nothing) manner, trialability is enhanced.
5. Observability: In order for innovations to take root, they and their advantages must be observable so that other potential adopters can become aware of their existence. This means that internal marketing and communication of these capabilities to prospective faculty members takes on added importance. Plain and simply, prospective distance education instructors must be aware of new technologies and their uses/benefits before they can become interested in them.

For all groups, Rogers' and Shoemaker’s (1971) "Characteristics of Successful Innovations" are applicable. Faculty members’ support of and interest and involvement in distance education depends on the extent to which they perceive it as offering what Rogers and Shoemaker call the characteristics of successful innovations: relative advantage, compatibility, complexity, trialability, and observability. The following are examples of these characteristics:

• Relative advantage: If faculty members perceive that innovation such as distance education offers a strong and easily recognizable advantage relative to existing alternatives, they will adopt innovation faster. For example, a key advantage of holding discussions online instead of face-to-face is the learners' ability to engage in research and/or reflective thinking before posting responses. Other advantages of distance education are convenience, attractive format, small classes, and guest speaker opportunities (Shoemaker, 1998). [Is the last sentence of this section the only part that comes from Shoemaker, 1998? If so, please rephrase it to make this clearer (perhaps by beginning the sentence with "According to Shoemaker . . . "). You attribute these bulleted characteristics to Rogers and Shoemaker (1971), so it's important to make it clear if something within is from a different source.]
• Compatibility: Compatibility refers to how well innovation matches prevailing philosophies, lifestyles, etc. When faculty members perceive distance education as compatible with their ways of teaching, they adopt it more quickly. For example, if an institution’s mission is to provide more convenient access to instruction, particularly for returning adult learners, then online courses are highly compatible with the institutional mission. Similarly, to the extent that faculty members’ instructional mission is to improve the quantity and quality of class discussions, online discussions are more attractive.
• Complexity: Ideally, distance education should not be hard to understand or use. If faculty members perceive a technology to be too complex or cumbersome, they will show little interest in using it. For example, we [Do you mean "we" as in "we at California State University-Hayward"? Or "we" as in a specific program or department?] recently conducted a faculty training workshop for a school district which had newly installed interactive television equipment. Unfortunately, the instructor had to push five separate buttons on the touch-screen in order for the home site audience to view projected materials (via computer, document camera, etc.). This procedure could hardly be described as "easy" and could dampen interest in using the system.
• Trialability: According to Solomon (1994), "Since an unknown is accompanied by high perceived risk, people are more likely to adopt an innovation if they can experiment with it prior to making a commitment" (p. 565). As a result, "open houses" in interactive television classrooms may be advantageous, allowing faculty members to experiment with equipment. Similarly, incremental (rather than all-or-nothing) migration from traditional delivery to distance education may enhance trialability.
• Observability: For innovations to take root, potential adopters must be aware of their existence. Therefore, marketing and communicating new technologies to prospective faculty members is important. Plain and simply, prospective distance education instructors must be aware of new technologies and their benefits before they can be interested in them.

A bottom line requirement, therefore, is to provide faculty members with information that will communicate the "successfulness" of distance education and appropriate training programs. If appropriate levels of support are not offered, the distance education initiative may not yield desired results, no matter what reward is offered. Support might be provided through workshops/training on developing classes for distance education delivery (and appropriate incentives for participation, whether these incentives are internal [e.g., recognition] or external [e.g., money]). It is also critically important that workshop facilitators are people who are viewed as "credible" by faculty members—which probably means that faculty members will be more likely to listen to and be motivated by people they view as their colleagues… other faculty members who are (successfully) teaching at a distance.

A bottom line requirement, therefore, is to communicate to faculty members the successfulness of distance education and relevant training programs. If adequate support is not offered, distance education initiatives may not yield desired results, no matter what reward is offered. Support may include workshops on developing classes for distance education, and also it may come in the form of incentives for participation, whether these incentives are internal (e.g., recognition) or external (e.g., money). It is critically important that faculty members view workshop facilitators as credible; they are more likely to be motivated by their peers who are successfully teaching at a distance.

One other critical success factor may be the presence of support services and technical support personnel—for faculty members as well as for learners, wherever they may be located (e.g., counseling and other student services, library, financial aid, academic advising). If faculty members do not see that these services are present, they may feel that they will be required to assume the role for learners. In their absence, instructors may be concerned that the quality of their course offerings may suffer as a result; thereby becoming reluctant bystanders.

Another critical factor for success is the presence of support services and technical support personnel for faculty members and other learners, wherever they are located (e.g., counseling and other student services, library, financial aid, academic advising). Unless these services are visible, faculty members may expect to be assigned the task of providing support for learners and will thereby worry that their courses will suffer. In this situation, they will become reluctant bystanders in the process of infusing new technology into the traditional classroom structure.

In conclusion, there is no magic formula for enlisting faculty members’ support and involvement in distance learning initiatives. Strategies that may be helpful include:

• Offering incentives that are aligned with the institution’s mission, vision and goals
• Providing adequate support systems for faculty members who are integrating new educational technologies into their courses
• Communicating the relative advantages of technology-enhanced educational processes
• Creating an institutional climate that respects the willingness to take risks, try new things, and follow "the road less traveled."

By carefully considering the diffusion process and applying the characteristics of successful innovations, great strides can be made.

There is no magic formula for enlisting faculty members’ support and involvement in distance learning initiatives. But the following strategies are helpful:

• incentives aligned with an institution’s mission, vision, and goals;
• adequate support for faculty members who are integrating new technologies into their courses;
• communicating the relative advantages of technology-enhanced educational processes;
• an institutional climate that respects the willingness to take risks, try new things, and follow "the road less traveled."

When institutions apply the characteristics of successful innovations, they kindle the fire of technological innovation in faculty members.

References

Barr, R. B., & Tagg, J. (1995). From teaching to learning—a new paradigm for undergraduate education. Change, [Please insert volume # and issue # here.], 13-25.

Bates, A. W. (2000). Managing technological change: Strategies for college and university leaders. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Rogers, E. M. & Shoemaker, F. F. (1971). Communication of Innovations (2nd ed.). New York: Free Press.

Shoemaker, C. C. (1998). Leadership in Continuing and Distance Education in Higher Education. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Solomon, M. R. (1994). Consumer Behavior (2^nd ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.