Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Internet and Higher Education 7 (2004) 33–49
Seven strategies for enabling faculty success in distance education
Scott L. Howella,*, Farhad Sabab,1, Nathan K. Lindsayc,2, Peter B. Williamsd,3
aDivision of Continuing Education, Brigham Young University, 312 Harman Building, Provo, UT 84602, USAbSan Diego State University, North Education Building (286), Mail Code 1182, 5500 Campanile Drive,
San Diego, CA 92182, USAcUniversity of Michigan School of Education, Room 2117, 610 East University Avenue, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA
dBrigham Young University School of Education, 150 McKay Building (MCKB), Provo, UT 84602, USA
Received 16 September 2003; received in revised form 6 November 2003; accepted 7 November 2003
Abstract
Many challenges associated with distance education and technology integration initiatives focus on faculty
issues and concerns. This article analyzes these difficulties by identifying from the literature current trends
affecting faculty, faculty motivators, and faculty challenges. Then, following this review and analysis, the
article presents seven strategies for university administrators and faculty to consider as part of their own
strategic plan to mitigate faculty concerns and ensure program success. The seven strategies discussed include
the following: (1) enable colleges and departments to accept more responsibility for distance education
activities; (2) provide faculty more information about distance education programs and activities; (3) encourage
faculty to incorporate technology into their traditional classrooms; (4) provide strong incentives for faculty to
participate in distance education; (5) improve training and instructional support for distance education faculty;
(6) build a stronger distance education faculty community; and (7) encourage more distance education
scholarship and research.
D 2004 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Strategies; Faculty success; Distance education; Faculty support; Faculty incentives; Faculty motivation; Faculty
challenges; Training
1096-7516/$ - see front matter D 2004 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2003.11.005
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-801-361-8910; fax: +1-801-422-0702.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (S.L. Howell), [email protected] (F. Saba), [email protected]
(N.K. Lindsay), [email protected] (P.B. Williams).1 Tel.: +1-619-594-6138; fax: +1-619-594-6376.2 Tel.: +1-734-763-8550.3 Tel.: +1-801-378-6047.
S.L. Howell et al. / Internet and Higher Education 7 (2004) 33–4934
1. Introduction
With a growing acceptance of distance education and widespread technology integration most higher
education administrators face technological, organizational, pedagogical, and cultural challenges in
helping their institutions adapt to current changes. Although leaders must address issues in all such areas,
they should be aware that many experts agree that distance education ‘‘is fundamentally an academic
issue, not a technological one. Although IT may be the stimulus or change agent, the essential matters
are complex and will be the purview of academics’’ (Oblinger, Barone, & Hawkins, 2001, p. 15).
Perhaps the group requiring the most attention from administrators is faculty, as they often feel
uncomfortable with and even irritated by the changing university landscape.
Recently, Brigham Young University’s (BYU) Division of Continuing Education revised their
strategic plan. As part of the planning process, staff from the division canvassed the country,
surveyed the literature, consulted experts in the field, reviewed other universities’ strategic plans, and
carefully interviewed students enrolled in current programs. The research and analysis revealed that
many challenges associated with distance education at BYU center around faculty concerns and
obstacles in assimilating distance education practices. This article outlines these findings and
suggests practices to ameliorate the difficulties. Administrators can more effectively facilitate the
transition to distance education and better technology integration by understanding current faculty
trends and issues and by adapting specific strategies suited to the needs and contexts of faculty at
their own institution.
2. Trends affecting the role of faculty
Increased university interest in distance education and the integration of technology into higher
education are two factors among many that are transforming faculty roles. Presented below are four
important trends affecting professors’ livelihood.
2.1. Traditional faculty roles are shifting or ‘‘unbundling’’
The work of professors 10, 20, or 30 years ago differs drastically from tasks currently completed by
many faculty. Instead of having multiple tasks all performed by one person, universities are
disaggregating these tasks and assigning them to specialized teams and professionals (Paulson, 2002).
This deliberate division of labor utilizes more nontenure track staff positions in new ways. These
positions are often filled by graduate and even undergraduate assistants, allowing highly trained faculty
to concentrate on other areas of research and focus (Paulson, 2002).
In this changing context of distance education, the traditional professor often takes on the role of
course manager (Roberson & Klotz, 2002; Scagnoli, 2001). In this capacity, the professor is still
responsible for teaching, organizing, grading, coaching, problem solving, and even facilitating. But some
roles, such as facilitating, are enlarged, while others are appended, such as mentoring, role modeling,
counseling, supervising, and serving as a liaison (Riffee, 2003). In fulfilling these roles, distance
education faculty usually team up with instructional designers, assistants, technologists, graphic and
media artists, and other faculty (Miller, 2001). Thus, the individual artisan must adapt to a more
industrialized, educational model.
2.2. The need for faculty development, support, and training is growing
The adaptation from traditional to modernized instruction requires faculty to develop new compe-
tencies and increases the need for extensive and continuous training—especially with the integration of
technology. In his 2002 University Computing Study, Green identified helping faculty integrate
technology into their instruction as ‘‘the single most important IT issue confronting . . . campuses over
the next two or three years’’ (p. 7). Similarly, an EDUCAUSE study focusing on the top 10 IT issues for
higher education revealed that faculty development, support, and training was the fifth highest strategic
concern, as well as the number five IT issue most likely to become even more significant in the next year
(Crawford, Rudy, and the EDUCAUSE Current Issues Committee, 2003).
Still, there is a tendency for some faculty to feel that distance education training is unnecessary. As
Dasher-Alston and Patton (1998) found, faculty often initially try to teach at a distance using traditional,
face-to-face techniques. However, they soon realize how crucial the effective use of technology is in
communicating with learners in a distance setting. Despite the initial resistance of some faculty, many
are realizing they must develop new skills to teach effectively at a distance.
2.3. Faculty tenure is being challenged
The unbundling of the faculty role is changing the very nature of the ‘‘faculty’’ position itself, causing
many faculty to retool and receive training in how to integrate technology into their instruction, how to
communicate with and mentor students online, etc. Universities are increasingly using less expensive
labor (i.e., adjuncts, nontenured faculty, and graduate students) to staff their courses and service their
students. Consequently, the need for and meaning of faculty tenure in the academic context of an
increasingly modernized division of labor is coming under further scrutiny and challenge.
There are examples of state, private, and for-profit distance learning institutions who have decided to
eliminate tenure status entirely (e.g., Florida Gulf Coast University and BYU-Idaho). The administrators
for these institutions and many others who are eliminating faculty tenure are not alone in their interest. A
survey of governors from all 50 states found that the least desirable characteristic of a 21st century
university was ‘‘maintaining traditional faculty roles and tenure’’ (de Alva, 2000, pp. 34, 40).
2.4. Faculty attitudes toward distance education and technology are improving as they participate in
distance learning courses
Apparently, shifting roles, added training, and lack of tenure are not completely overwhelming
challenges to those faculty who have actually worked as distance education instructors. A National
Education Association (NEA) survey of college faculty showed that more participating faculty (72%)
viewed distance education favorably than those not participating (51%) (Carr, 2000). The NEA also
found that senior faculty are just as likely as recent graduates to retool to teach distance-learning courses,
partly dispelling the myth that only younger teachers are joining the ranks of distance education (NEA,
2000). Finally, McGraw-Hill (2003) recently found that faculty attitudes toward technology are
improving, as the percent of faculty who view technology as very or extremely important for achieving
success rose from 22% in 1999 to 57% in 2002.
One study exploring faculty attitudes pointed to more practical matters as probable causes for
faculty’s opposition toward distance education and technology integration since ‘‘most teachers (85%)
S.L. Howell et al. / Internet and Higher Education 7 (2004) 33–49 35
S.L. Howell et al. / Internet and Higher Education 7 (2004) 33–4936
were not philosophically opposed to distance education’’ (Lindner, Murphy, Dooley, & Jones, 2002, p. 5).
The study also supported the finding that teaching at a distance improves instructors’ perceptions of
distance education.
3. Faculty motivation
It is clear that trends affecting faculty’s roles, training, tenure, and attitude all contribute to the
success or failure of distance education efforts and technology integration. However, underlying these
global trends and circumstances are faculty who endeavor to reconcile personal perceptions of and
reactions toward these trends with what motivates (or inhibits) their active participation and
involvement in distance education. This section summarizes some of the key findings from the
research exploring faculty, department chair, and university administrator motivation for participating
in distance education.
In a 2000 study, Schifter found personal desire to use technology and the opportunity to innovate to
be the strongest motivators for faculty involved in distance education and technology. McKenzie’s
(2000) findings concurred with both of these motives and added the desire to involve students more
with technology and the opportunity to meet the needs of students at a distance (Crumpacker, 2003).
Kinley’s (2002) study reported that department chairs’ reasons for becoming involved were similar to
those of the faculty in McKenzie’s findings, as well as to reach new markets (i.e., distance students)
and to provide students with greater flexibility. Incidentally, department chairs also claimed they were
not motivated by pressure from administration, nor did they believe distance education would reduce
the costs or improve the quality of their offerings. Interestingly, administrators reported to have
different ideas regarding what motivates faculty than what the faculty said really motivated them; they
ranked more highly the importance of monetary support and credit towards promotion and tenure
(Schifter, 2000).
Given these insights regarding what motivates faculty, it is also useful to explore what does not. The
study by O’Quinn and Corry (2002) found that the highest deterrents to faculty involvement in distance
education were concerns about faculty workload, lack of monetary support, lack of released time, and,
until the faculty had actually had experience teaching at a distance, concern about the quality of distance
courses. Similarly, Schifter (2000) identified the lack of technical support, lack of release time, concerns
about faculty workload, and concerns about the quality of courses as major inhibitors. Shifter, like
O’Quinn and Corry, found the concern for distance education course quality much higher among those
without experience than those with experience teaching at a distance.
Rockwell, Schauer, Fritz, and Marx (1999) conducted a survey on faculty motivation and asserted
that most incentives for involvement in distance education appeared to be intrinsic, while inhibitors
mostly pertained to time. In contrast, Crumpacker (2003) suggested that deterrents are largely centered
on training and could be minimized by providing faculty with adequate education, assistance, and
support. Lee (2001) expressed a similar sentiment, claiming that ‘‘faculty motivation, commitment,
and satisfaction on distance teaching may be in proportion to instructional support they receive’’ (p.
158). These issues of time and support, as they relate to motivation and successful integration of
technology and distance education, must be understood by administrators and addressed by their
institutions if initiatives to advance distance education and technology integration efforts are to
succeed.
S.L. Howell et al. / Internet and Higher Education 7 (2004) 33–49 37
4. Faculty challenges
If institutions are to effectively involve faculty in their transformation efforts, they must align
institution goals with faculty rewards that meet faculty motivations. However, making these strong
motivational connections are not enough; institutions must also understand the obstacles and barriers
impeding faculty participation and seek to remove or mitigate them. This section examines these faculty
deterrents for participating in distance education in greater detail.
As Michael Moore affirms in Berg and Muilenburg (2001)
The barriers impeding the development of distance education are not technological, nor even
pedagogical. We have plenty of technology, and we have a fair knowledge about how to use it. The
major problems are associated with the organizational change, change of faculty roles, and change in
administrative structures. (Berge & Muilenburg, 2001, p. 41)
Lindner, Murphy, Dooley, and Jones (2002) similarly found that faculty perception of and reaction to
technological integration is more important than the technological obstacles themselves.
These two statements by Moore and Lindner et al. should provide the background for examining
faculty barriers and obstacles. Some studies have found that faculty’s top concerns about distance
education were that faculty will not be adequately compensated for their extra work or intellectual
property and that the quality of education will decline (NEA, 2000; Winsboro, 2002). Some faculty are
even worried that the distance education movement threatens their very livelihood and professional
freedom, increasing instructional accountability and oversight, taking traditional students away from the
classroom, and promoting greater access to other content experts while squeezing some faculty members
out of their profession.
Many faculty do not think they have enough time to do research, teach their normal load, and
participate in distance education. Even though some research findings (Paulson, 2002) suggest
otherwise, although some faculty find teaching at a distance less work than on-campus instruction,
most faculty still seem to be worried about time and workload. These faculty fears are further
substantiated by the NEA survey that revealed that more than half of distance-learning faculty spend
more hours on their distance learning course than on traditional courses. In spite of this, ‘‘84% of faculty
get no course reduction, and 63% are compensated for their distance learning course as if it were part of
their normal course load’’ (NEA, 2000, p. 7). LaCost, Iserhagen, and Dlugosh (2000) similarly assert
that distance education can spread faculty members too thinly. For these reasons, it is not surprising that
‘‘throughout the literature on barriers to distance education, time is consistently ranked highest or near
the highest . . . in impediments to distance education’’ (Berge & Muilenburg, 2001, p. 42).
Faculty also worry that participating in distance education will not help them attain tenure and
promotion. ‘‘Wolcott (1997) reported that distance teaching is neither valued nor well rewarded as a
scholarly activity in [some] universities, and not highly related to promotion and tenure decisions’’ (Lee,
2001, p. 155). Paulson (2002) likewise argues that faculty reward structures, and particularly promotion
and tenure guidelines are among the greatest obstacles to reform. He also cites a study by Hagner (2000),
asserting that faculty rewards do not impede ‘‘early adopters’’ or even ‘‘second-wave’’ faculty from
participating in innovative instruction. However, Hagner indicates that ‘‘third-wave’’ faculty members,
crucial to sustainable reform, participate only when it provides them with the opportunity to advance
their professional careers. Regrettably, as Markel (1999) puts it, ‘‘tenure, promotion, and release-time
S.L. Howell et al. / Internet and Higher Education 7 (2004) 33–4938
policies at most institutions fail to acknowledge the considerable time—measured in months, not days or
weeks—needed to create a distance course’’.
Lack of time and incentives are not the only faculty concerns. From their teaching experiences,
professors feel that they best understand their own students’ preferences for learning and preferred
modes of presentation and delivery (Oblinger & Kidwell, 2000). Furthermore, they worry that students
do not learn as much from distance courses as they do in face-to-face courses. Similarly, faculty assert
that some subjects are more easily taught at a distance or online than others (Kariya, 2003). This is
sometimes a thinly disguised way of saying that distance education is not right for their particular
subject. Many faculty also feel that student–teacher interaction commands the highest market value
leaving education at a distance as an inferior way of teaching (Anderson, 2002). Another common belief
is that ‘‘distance education should closely resemble conventional on-campus education, and is deficient
insofar as it is dissimilar to the conventional’’ (Jones & Pritchard, 2000). Many faculty also assume that
distance education students are no different from conventional students in higher education (Jones &
Pritchard, 2000).
Another challenge for faculty is a lack of expertise in the design and delivery of course materials
for distance education environments. Although they may be very skilled researchers and experts in
their fields, it is often difficult for faculty to develop online instructional activities because most do
not have formal training in curriculum and lesson planning and multimedia development. Furthermore,
many faculty have not carefully planned interactive activities before the course, or even the lesson,
begins. Instead, as O’Quinn and Corry (2002) stated, ‘‘they are accustomed to relying upon verbal
cues and the spontaneity of classroom discussion to serve as a catalyst for interaction’’ (p. 2). To
compound the problem even more, according to Anderson (2001), ‘‘nearly all distance education
students and teachers, moreover, come from a background of classroom education. As a result, they
retain deeply ingrained models of in-person peer groups, teacher directedness, and paced delivery and
evaluation’’ (p. 31). If the differences in online technique and presentation are not enough to frustrate
faculty, being asked to troubleshoot technical problems by their students becomes the last straw
(Otton, 2003).
Even with time and expertise, instructors of distance courses can feel isolated. Anderson (2001)
observes that ‘‘many of the support structures that are usually established to act as advocates for students
and faculty, such as student unions and faculty associations, are much less developed (or, indeed,
nonexistent) in distance education than in campus-based settings’’ (p. 33). Distance education staff and
instructional designers must therefore anticipate these feelings of isolation felt by instructors and
students participating in distance education. As Childers and Berner (2000) remind us, ‘‘this isolation
may affect instructor satisfaction, motivation, and potential long-term involvement in distance learning’’
(p. 64).
Most of these challenges exist to one extent or another at BYU. BYU is a Research I institution
(Carnegie classification) with faculty focusing heavily on research, publication, and teaching campus
students. Faculty are very busy with their university assignments, have larger families than peers at
other universities, and do extensive church and community service (see HERI study in Olsen, 2002).
Like faculty at many other universities, BYU faculty receive little or no tenure and promotion credit
for participation in distance education efforts. Despite these obstacles, their distance education
offerings are extensive, and faculty attitudes about distance education are not all pessimistic. A study
conducted by Olsen (2002) at BYU exploring the integration of technology found that about half of
BYU faculty feel they are appropriately rewarded to use technology in instruction. Nearly 80% are
S.L. Howell et al. / Internet and Higher Education 7 (2004) 33–49 39
pleased with the technical support they receive in their integration efforts. Finally, about three quarters
of them feel they receive adequate instructional support for the effective application of technology in
teaching. Although these findings are encouraging there still remains much to be done to better
support and provide incentives for faculty as they participate in distance education and technology
integration initiatives.
5. Seven strategies
As summarized so far, it is evident that institutions interested in promoting distance education and
fostering technology integration should formulate a strategic plan to address faculty concerns.
Accordingly, the research team from BYU’s Division of Continuing Education has proposed the
following seven strategies to be adapted and applied as needed by other institutions:
1. Enable colleges and departments to take more responsibility for distance education and technology
integration activities.
2. Provide faculty with more information about distance education programs and activities.
3. Encourage faculty to incorporate technology into their traditional classrooms.
4. Provide strong incentives for faculty to participate in distance courses.
5. Improve training and instructional support for distance education faculty
6. Build a stronger distance education faculty community
7. Encourage more distance education scholarship and research
If faculty concerns are not addressed, one prediction is that ‘‘faculty in traditional colleges and
universities will revolt against technological delivery of courses and programs and against the emerging
expectations for faculty. Unionization and strikes will increase as faculty fight a rear-guard action to try
to slow down or stop the inevitable’’ (Dunn, 2000, p. 37). While most predictions are not as extreme as
Dunn’s, BYU anticipates that adopting these seven strategies will help make its transition to the
‘‘inevitable’’ a little less traumatic and more inviting to faculty. It is similarly hoped that these strategies
will assist other institutions as they consider the impact of distance education and technology integration
activities at their own institution.
5.1. Enable colleges and departments to take more responsibility for continuing-education activities
As innumerable studies in organizational behavior show, involvement in planning, implementation,
and evaluation minimizes resistance among those affected. Applied to this context, the effectiveness of
distance education increases with more ‘‘faculty ownership, buy-in, control, and shared direction
setting’’ (Kinley, 2001, abstract). Success depends on ‘‘collaborative and shared goal setting, support
and facilitation, encouragement and resource allocation, and chair-based role modeling and mentoring’’
(Kinley, 2001, abstract).
When distance education initiatives and strategic goals are established, faculty members must be
involved in the decision-making process (Hawkins, 2003). It is essential that the university community
develop the plan—not just distance education administrators (see Florida Gulf Coast University Strategic
Plan (SP), 1998; University of Nebraska-Lincoln SP, 2002). Unfortunately, ‘‘the temptation for
S.L. Howell et al. / Internet and Higher Education 7 (2004) 33–4940
university administrators in the face of [the] threats and opportunities [posed by technology] is to try to
respond quickly, that is, without consultation with their existing constituencies in faculty and students’’
(Petrides, 2000, pp. 25–26).
Administrators should encourage departments to create ‘‘distance learning plans,’’ addressing issues
such as ‘‘faculty–student mentoring, cohort group and peer interaction, student organizations, special
events, laboratory and research facilities, and information and instructional resources’’ (University of
Central Michigan SP, 2001, p. 1). Similarly, the distance education program and the department offering
the course should jointly determine issues such as course size and management (see University of
Central Michigan SP, 2001).
Kinley (2002) found that ‘‘the department chairs who were most enthusiastic about distance
education ‘tended to be those that established an articulated direction in advance,’’’ and that ‘‘the
impetus for establishing distance education needs to come from the department rather than from the
administration in order to be successful’’ (p. 8). Respondents to Kinley’s survey suggested that
department chairs do the following: ‘‘set a context and build a framework so faculty understand the
direction the department is taking; articulate a vision of how distance education fits into the
department’s goals; lead by example, . . . [demonstrating] an acceptance of technology at the chair
level; encourage faculty to experiment by providing a safe environment; and provide support and
resources to make it easy for faculty to engage in distance education’’ (p. 8).
Institutions must ensure faculty involvement in the development and implementation of distance
education courses. It is important to give faculty as much control over their content as possible, including
the ability to make corrections themselves and adapt and update material as necessary with as few
technological and policy barriers as possible. San Diego State’s strategic plan states that faculty should
have the ‘‘collective responsibility to ensure the academic quality and integrity of the university’s
courses, programs, and degrees. This responsibility extends to those courses and programs offered
through distance education’’ (San Diego State University SP, 2000, p. 2).
In the area of evaluation, ‘‘departments should explicitly include their distance delivered programs
in ongoing departmental assessment’’ (University of Central Michigan SP, 2001, p. 2). A faculty
committee should ‘‘review all distance education courses and programs, even if the curriculum is
largely derived from existing campus-based courses or programs’’ (San Diego State University SP,
2000, pp. 4–5).
A number of other universities are encouraging more faculty involvement in distance education,
and are working toward buy-in from all stakeholders. For example, Texas Woman’s University
formed a Distance Education Program Evaluation Advisory Committee consisting of students,
faculty, administrators, and staff (Czubaj, 2001). Similarly, Penn State sustained a 3-year ‘‘Innova-
tions in Distance Education (IDE) effort [that] was designed to stimulate a change in the academic
culture that would allow distance education to move closer to the mainstream of academic life
within the University’’ (Miller, 2001, p. 319). Whether they are done in these ways or others
universities must work to enable colleges and departments to assume more responsibility for distance
education.
5.2. Provide faculty with more information about distance education programs and activities
One natural method to better enable colleges and departments to assume more responsibility for
distance education and technology integration efforts is to provide them with more information. Better
S.L. Howell et al. / Internet and Higher Education 7 (2004) 33–49 41
communication between faculty and distance education staff fosters increased collaboration, under-
standing, and goodwill between these two parties who frequently encounter conflict and tension in how
they execute their similar but different missions. Washington State’s strategic plan articulates their desire
to ‘‘increase institutional awareness and encourage additional use of [distance education] services and
resources by departments and colleges through enhanced internal communication’’ (Washington State
University SP, 2001, p. 4). More dialogue with academic areas about distance education, and the
financial support these efforts can produce to support campus activities, can engender trust in faculty that
distance education is legitimate and even laudable.
Distance education administrators must establish a system to provide more data on a consistent basis
to academic chairs and deans about distance education credit programs. Such data might include student
ratings of distance education faculty, student demographics, completion reports, grade point averages,
and enrollment counts—especially highlighting those concurrently enrolled in on-campus courses and
reasons for students enrolling in both, and maybe even some financial data relevant to the academic area.
Some of this information could be distributed through annual meetings between academics and distance
education staff, a campus-wide electronic newsletter; a web site allowing access to only faculty and
administrators; and whenever possible, appending distance education data to existing reports for
academic chairs and deans.
In addition to these resources, universities should continue to create and expand an internal print- and
Web-based library of distance education articles and books for instructional designers, faculty, and others
(see University of Manitoba SP, 2003). In short, every effort should be made to provide faculty with
more information about distance education programs and activities.
5.3. Encourage faculty to incorporate technology into their traditional classrooms
Coupled with efforts to provide faculty with more information, institutions should help them actually
get some experience integrating technology in their campus classrooms. Supporting their efforts to do so
will help facilitate the transition from traditional to distance learning models. Faculty may be more
willing to participate in online education if they are not forced to quickly abandon long-established
practices (O’Quinn & Corry, 2002). Rather, they will gradually gain confidence at one level and feel
prepared to take the next step. Schifter (2000) notes that ‘‘for faculty already comfortable teaching with
technology in the traditional classroom, teaching at a distance is an opportunity to offer flexibility to
students’’ (p. 46).
Some institutions, such as the University of Central Florida, have accordingly developed strategic
goals to ‘‘improve the integration of knowledge and to infuse instructional technologies into the
learning process’’ (University of Central Florida SP, 2000b, p. 13). To achieve this goal, UCF has
devised ‘‘enhanced classes’’ that include ‘‘substantial use of the World Wide Web for content delivery
and learning activities without reducing face-to-face class time’’ (University of Central Florida SP,
2000a, p. 7).
Institutions can make similar innovative efforts to provide technical and training support and thus
accelerate faculty’s integration of technology. For example, at the University of Toledo, staff from the
Distance Learning Design Team provide technology training for faculty. As Rhoda (2002) reports,
‘‘[They are] willing to go to the individual professors’ offices or even their homes to work one-on-one,
demonstrating a great sensitivity to potential faculty embarrassment about not knowing how to deal with
the technology’’ (p. 8).
5.4. Provide strong incentives for faculty to participate in distance courses
If the encouragement to incorporate technology into campus classes is accompanied by strong
incentives to participate in distance courses, faculty will be more willing to take this step. Padgett
and Conceicao-Runlee (2000) found that the institution’s rewards, workload expectations, and
incentives are crucial in the promotion of new programs for faculty development. Similarly, Green
(2002) observed that, ‘‘one of the continuing (and unfortunate) ironies of campus efforts to promote
the instructional use of information technology is the fact that comparatively few campuses provide
formal recognition and reward for faculty efforts at instructional integration’’ (p. 12). A similar
statement and generalization could certainly be made regarding faculty participation in distance
education.
Administrators should therefore provide appropriate incentives in the areas of tenure, promotion,
release time, workload, recognition, pay, and other rewards faculty may deem valuable. The literature is
consistent in reporting: ‘‘To the extent that distance education is a priority for the institution,
administrators should align distance education goals with the university’s feedback and reward system’’
(Prestera & Moller, 2002, p. 8). If they want faculty involvement to expand distance education offerings,
universities must ‘‘ensure that tenure decisions recognize faculty contributions to [distance education]’’
(Crawford et al., 2003, p. 24). They must also address workload implications and any other possible
incentives to encourage faculty support.
Brogden and Couros (2002) have also found that frequently ‘‘faculty [themselves] must provide . . .research-based evidence [of new learning environments’ impact] on student outcomes before department
chairs and deans will be willing to encourage their faculty to participate in on going innovation efforts’’
(p. 27). Consequently, incentives should reward and academic cultures should promote research and
experimental efforts to foster faculty innovation—arguably the most important intrinsic motivator for
faculty.
Similarly, many administrators and faculty have difficulty determining appropriate compensation for
work in distance education. One suggested starting point is to consider the characteristics of measurable
work for tenure and promotion. Common criteria often include the following: ‘‘(1) the activity requires a
high level of discipline-related expertise; (2) the activity breaks new ground, is innovative; (3) the
activity can be replicated or elaborated; (4) the work and its results can be documented; (5) the work and
its results can be peer reviewed; [and] (6) the activity has significance or impact’’ (Brogden & Couros,
2002, p. 27). Replicating these characteristics in distance education and using them as a standard for
determining compensation models will help to match incentives with distance education efforts and
technology integration.
Although most higher education institutions have been slow to provide adequate incentives for
faculty involved in distance education efforts, some individual examples of positive change do exist.
For instance, San Diego State’s distance education plan suggests that ‘‘university standards [be]
followed in setting course loads per instructor and/or academic unit’’ (San Diego State University SP,
2000, p. 6). Similarly, Washington State’s plan emphasizes the importance of ‘‘faculty [receiving]
recognition and rewards from their college and department for their involvement in [distance
education]’’ (Washington State University SP, 2001, p. 5). Efforts such as these, to provide strong
incentives for faculty, will help institutions strengthen faculty support of distance education and
technology integration initiatives and thereby produce additional critical mass for incremental
improvement.
S.L. Howell et al. / Internet and Higher Education 7 (2004) 33–4942
5.5. Improve training and instructional support for distance education faculty
Appropriate faculty incentives, as important as they are, will be limited in their impact if faculty do
not know how to accomplish the academic goals established for distance education and technology
integration at their institution. It therefore follows that sufficient distance education training precedes
effective distance education programs. As Padgett and Conceicao-Runlee (2000) note, ‘‘The importance
of faculty support and training to the success of any distance education or instructional technology effort
has been widely acknowledged in the . . . distance education literature’’ (p. 325). It is essential that
institutions provide ‘‘opportunities that enhance faculty members’ ability to create dynamic, interactive
learning communities through a variety of online instructional tools’’ (Roberson & Klotz, 2002, p. 6; see
also Loeding & Wynn, 1999).
Distance education staff should help faculty develop and maintain the IT and information literacy
skills necessary to develop quality distributed learning experiences (Crawford et al., 2003), and
proactively introduce faculty to new software, Web capabilities, and classroom technologies. From
the literature on distance education, ‘‘recommendations for basic skills [training] include sequencing
activities to build on each other, having local staff available for follow-up, finding a balance between
broad and limited foci in training, and providing hands-on experience’’ (Padgett & Conceicao-Runlee,
2000, p. 326).
One common problem, though, in distance education training is an overemphasis on technology.
Schifter (2000) remarks that ‘‘faculty programs tend to be limited to how to use the technology or
software, not on how to teach at a distance,’’ and this must be improved (p. 43). Institutions should
ensure that distance education training and support for faculty include ‘‘course redesign support, training
in the use and application of distance education technologies, training in teaching methods, and media
and technical support’’ (Lee, 2001, p. 153). In assigning distance education personnel to train faculty
about good instructional practice at a distance, they need to cover such issues as how to promote student
participation in an online environment and how to use class communication features (Otton, 2003). If
available, the faculty center can be assigned to facilitate some of the training (see University of Central
Michigan SP, 2001). Providing such support will not only enable faculty to achieve distance education
initiatives, it will also improve their motivation (Lee, 2001).
Once training mechanisms are in place, faculty can be better held accountable to a standard of
preparedness in their distance education efforts. For example, the University of Maryland requires
training for faculty before they teach online (Rubin, 2003). Similarly, the University of Central Florida
SP (2000a) mandates that before teaching online, faculty receiving special funding to produce an online
course must successfully complete a preparatory faculty-development course. However, institutions
should carefully balance training requirements with opportunities to just get in and try it out; if there are
too many requirements, some will never experiment.
Administrators should also be aware that ‘‘time is the biggest obstacle preventing faculty participation
in the [training] opportunities that are available’’ (Chick et al., 2002, p. 1). Knowing this, they can
develop training programs that accommodate varying schedules. One way to increase faculty training
accessibility is to provide it in a distance education format (Moore & Kearsley, 1996). Doing so allows
faculty the ‘‘anytime–anywhere’’ access that will accommodate their schedules and also give them
experience actually participating in the instructional format they will be using to teach their own
students. This is a great opportunity for a master distance educator to provide faculty with an effective
example to follow.
S.L. Howell et al. / Internet and Higher Education 7 (2004) 33–49 43
S.L. Howell et al. / Internet and Higher Education 7 (2004) 33–4944
Another good strategy, utilizing a similar principle, is to establish a mentoring program that pairs new
or inexperienced distance education faculty with seasoned faculty to foster best practices (see ‘‘Quality
on the Line,’’ 2000). Peer mentoring among faculty can provide ‘‘not only teaching methods and tips on
conducting distance education courses, but also psychological and emotional support to relieve some of
the frustration they experienced with distance teaching’’ (Lee, 2002, p. 39).
There are many examples of institutions that encourage or require faculty members to have an
experienced mentor help them design and develop their first distance course (Milheim, 2001). Such
mentoring programs exist at the University of Maryland, the University of Connecticut (University
of Connecticut SP, 2002), and the State University of West Georgia (West Georgia, 2003). For new
online instructors at the University of Maryland, the first course is taught jointly with an
experienced faculty member (Rubin, 2003). Similarly, facilitating mentoring experiences constitutes
one of the 24 essential benchmarks for quality internet-based distance education at the Institute for
Higher Education Policy (‘‘Quality on the Line,’’ 2000). Whether training be provided in person or
at a distance, with formal or informal mentoring networks, it is most important that institutions find
ways to improve training and instructional support for distance education faculty in a way that
works for them.
5.6. Build a stronger distance education faculty community
The five strategies listed thus far, when carried out, will inherently contribute to a stronger distance
education faculty community. This community, whether formal, informal, or both, will act as a catalyst
in promoting local distance education efforts. Interestingly, informal communication networks and
personal contacts are among the most effective channels in disseminating distance education
information. A study by Chick et al. (2002) found that ‘‘faculty members’ most popular source
(70% of respondents) of information about web-based technology is other faculty members’’ (p. 19).
Administrators can capitalize on this finding by encouraging faculty to train other faculty. Chick et al.
suggest that ‘‘it may be a useful strategy for institutions that want to help their faculty integrate
technology into their teaching to support proficient faculty in taking on this role on a more formalized
basis’’ (p. 19).
Formal channels can be invaluable as well. An annual university conference for faculty on distance
education can serve as such a venue to build camaraderie and share ideas. In such a context, faculty
can lend support to one another while administrators address their concerns and needs. Opportunities
to interact with other faculty during such conferences or training allow faculty to see their peers’
successful strategies in adjusting to new challenges inherent in distance education. Administrators
should allow faculty to see effective models at conferences by giving them opportunities to review and
evaluate each other’s distance education courses. At BYU, the departments of English and Religion
conduct peer reviews on all distance education instructional materials, which not only improves the
quality of instruction but also builds a distance learning subcommunity within the academic
department.
To encourage participation in distance education among incoming faculty, institutions should instruct
them about distance education activities during new-faculty orientations (King, Nelson, & Restauri,
2002). Some universities such as Penn State take this idea one step further and hold continuous distance
education faculty workshops and forums. BYU currently runs a Teaching and Learning with Technology
Faculty Fellowship Program that focuses on technology integration and plans to establish a faculty
S.L. Howell et al. / Internet and Higher Education 7 (2004) 33–49 45
fellowship specifically targeting distance learning. These methods of community building and distance
education training naturally blend together.
These faculty teamwork initiatives, facilitated through conferences, workshops, and fellowships, often
lead to problem solving and improved use of university resources. As one example of this, Crawford et
al. (2003) suggest facilitating ‘‘collaborative relationships among faculty, instructional designers,
librarians, and media specialists to ensure the development of commercial course management systems
that are pedagogically sound’’ (p. 24). Penn State’s Innovations in Distance Education (IDE) group
implemented a faculty team approach to course development, which they say ‘‘allowed the instructor to
focus on content and resource development . . . and reduced total development time by utilizing team
expertise’’ (Childers & Berner, 2000, p. 64). Teamwork efforts such as these help to build a strong
distance learning community, providing extra support for faculty involvement and improving distance
education offerings.
5.7. Encourage more distance education scholarship and research
As universities focus on improving their distance education programs, campus-wide scholarship and
research on distance education will naturally follow. This scholarly productivity can increase even
more if administrators provide incentives and support encouraging it. For example, Washington State
has committed that in order to be a ‘‘major contributor to the national body of scholarship on distance
and continuing education, pedagogy, student services, and faculty support,’’ it will ‘‘provide seed
funding, data, and/or staff support to encourage faculty research on distance learning’’ (Washington
State University SP, 2001, pp. 2, 5). If resources are made available, this seems to be a valuable
approach; however, administrators should keep in mind that funding is not the only way to encourage
scholarship.
Scholarship is also enhanced if faculty view their new distance education and technology
integration undertakings as innovations or research experiments. Many have advocated that approach-
ing the ‘‘online experience not only as a teaching venture but also as a research obligation’’ can
reduce resistance in the academy (Navarro & Shoemaker, 2000, p. 365; see also LaCost et al., 2000,
p. 64). Penn State’s strategic plan suggests practicing with ‘‘pilot groups or trial projects to gain
confidence and competence with a new distance education model. Start with small groups and limited
enrollments, and expand as experience and skill levels increase’’ (Penn State University Strategic Plan,
1998, p. 12).
More active distance education scholarship and publication can also be achieved through
partnerships with academic areas. The university should provide opportunities for graduate students
to have research, evaluation, and internship opportunities within distance education departments. If
there are no on-campus scholars of distance education, a distance education research position can
be created within the division that has joint appointment with a graduate program. Another
possibility is to create an academic center that specializes in distance learning. Some examples of
this are Penn State’s American Center for the Study of Distance Education, founded in 1986 (Penn
State, 2003), and Texas A&M’s Center for Distance Learning Research (CDLR), founded in 1991
(CDLR, 2003).
As distance education efforts at a university grow, some faculty will doubtless want to disseminate
their findings at conferences and through publications, both in distance education and in their own
disciplines. To both expand and share their expertise, faculty could be involved in distance education
S.L. Howell et al. / Internet and Higher Education 7 (2004) 33–4946
associations and conferences, such as the University Continuing Education Association (UCEA,
2003), the Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE, 2003), the ICDE
World Conference on Open Learning and Distance Education (ICDE, 2003), and Annual Conference
on Distance Teaching and Learning sponsored by the University of Wisconsin-Madison (Distance
Education Clearinghouse, 2003). Universities can also encourage such activity by providing travel
support for distance education conferences (Milheim, 2001). There are also many peer-reviewed
journals, such as this one, that publish research findings in distance education. Some other examples
among many include the American Journal of Distance Education (AJDE, 2003), Quarterly Review of
Distance Education (QRDE, 2003), and the Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration
(DLA, 2003). By participating in conferences and publications, participants eager to understand and
implement best practices in the field can further improve and adapt distance learning strategies to their
institution’s unique needs.
6. Conclusion
These are times of change. While distance learning and technological integration in higher
education have met with some faculty resistance and frustration, they have also been embraced by
many, especially when university administrators have been aware of what motivates faculty and what
faculty barriers to innovation need to be mitigated. Furthermore, some researchers have begun to
conduct and publish research exploring the complex challenges and implications of these faculty
initiatives throughout higher education. Based on the trends, motivations, challenges, and strategies
presented herein, there is not only a need for institutions to develop strategic plans suited to their
institutional goals, circumstances, resources, and needs but also a sharing of their research findings
with others so that many more can benefit. These strategic plans must be developed not in isolation at
the institutional level but by engaging those at the department and college levels such that much of the
control for these initiatives is strategically localized. They must also be rigorously evaluated for their
impact on distance education theory and practice and on the appropriate use and integration of
technology.
Similarly, there is a need for institutions to not only plan for their faculty’s future roles but also to
invest in faculty training that emphasizes best practices so that faculty receive the help they will need as
they adapt to distance education and technology innovations. These strategic university actions and
research efforts at many institutions will be further validated as findings and observations are vetted in
distance learning and educational technology journals and professional conferences and associations.
In this period of momentous academic transition, university leaders cannot afford to ignore
concerns voiced by faculty as distance education and technology initiatives revolutionize their
profession. As university administrators better understand the importance of faculty buy-in, training,
and scholarship they will realize significant returns on their faculty investments. As Crawford et al.
(2003) assert, ‘‘The future of technological successes at higher education institutions depends not only
on the availability of technology but also on the extent to which faculty are supported as they develop
innovative ways to integrate technology into the learning and research experience’’ (p. 23). The seven
strategies outlined in this article can provide a helpful framework for other institutions, as they jointly
create their own strategic plan for distance education and technology integration, and as groundwork
for further research.
S.L. Howell et al. / Internet and Higher Education 7 (2004) 33–49 47
References
AACE. (2003, June). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education. Available: http://www.aace.org/.
AJDE. (2003, June). American Journal of Distance Education. Available: http://www.ajde.com/.
Anderson, T. (2001, November/December). The hidden curriculum in distance education: An updated view. Change, 33(6),
28–35.
Anderson, T. (2002, May). An updated and theoretical rationale for interaction (IT Forum Paper No. 63). Athabasca University,
Alberta, Canada.
Berge, Z. L., & Muilenburg, L. Y. (2001). Obstacles faced at various stages of capability regarding distance education in
institutions of higher learning. Tech Trends, 46(4), 40–45.
Brogden, L. M., & Couros, A. (2002). Contemplating the virtual campus: Pedagogical and administrative considerations. The
Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 68(3), 22–30.
Carr, S. (2000, July 7). Many professors are optimistic on distance learning, survey finds. The Chronicle of Higher Education,
A35–A47.
CDLR. (2003, June). Center for Distance Learning Research. Available at: http://www.cdlr.tamu.edu/cdlr_website/text_only/
information.html#history_&_purpose.
Chick, S., Day, R., Hook, R., Owston, R., Warkentin, J., Cooper, P. M., Hahn, J., & Saundercook, J. (2002). Technology and
student success in higher education: A research study on faculty perceptions of technology and student success. Toronto,
Ontario: McGraw-Hill Ryerson.
Childers, J. L., & Berner, R. T. (2000). General education issues, distance education practices: Building community and
classroom interaction through the integration of curriculum, instructional design, and technology. The Journal of General
Education, 49(1), 53–65.
Crawford, G., Rudy, J. A., & the EDUCAUSE Current Issues Committee (2003, November). Fourth annual EDUCAUSE
survey identifies current IT issues (pp. 12–26). Educause Quarterly.
Crumpacker, N. (2003). Faculty pedagogical approach, skill, and motivation in today’s distance education milieu (Online).
Available at: http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/winter44/crumpacker44.html.
Czubaj, C. A. (2001). Policies regarding distance education. Education, 122(1), 119–122.
Dasher-Alston, R. M., & Patton, G. W. (1998). Evaluation criteria for distance learning. Planning for Higher Education, 11–17.
de Alva, J. K. (2000, March/April). Remaking the academy. Educause, 32–40.
Distance Education Clearinghouse. (2003, June). Annual Conference on Distance Teaching and Learning. Available at: http://
www.uwex.edu/disted/conference/.
DLA. (June, 2003). Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration. Available at: http://www.westga.edu/~distance/
jmain11.html.
Dunn, S. (2000, March/April). The virtualizing of education. The Futurist, 34(2), 34–38.
Florida Gulf Coast University Strategic Plan. (1998). Distance learning at Florida Gulf Coast University strategic plan:
Increasing access to higher education. Available at: http://itech.fgcu.edu/distance/strategic_plan.asp.
Green, K. C. (2002). Campus computing 2002: The 13th national survey of computing and information technology in American
higher education. Encino, CA: Campus Computing.
Hagner, P. R. (2000, September/October). Engagement and support in the new learning environment. Educause Review [On-
line]. 27–37. Available at: http://www.educause.edu/pub/er/erm00/erm005.html.
Hawkins, B. (2003). Distributed learning: Promises and pitfalls. Chicago, IL: University Continuing Education Association
(UCO301a).
ICDE. (2003, June). World Conference on Open Learning and Distance Education. Available at: http://www.icde.org/.
Jones, D. R., & Pritchard, A. L. (2000, November/December). The distance education debate: An Australian view. Change,
32–33.
Kariya, S. (2003). Online education expands and evolves. IEEE Spectrum, 40(5), 49–51.
King, F., Nelson, J. G., & Restauri, S. (2002). Reaching the distance learner: The evolutionary process. Education,
122(664–649), 663.
Kinley, E. R. (2001). Implementing distance education, the impact of institutional characteristics: A view from the department
chair’s chair. Dissertation, University of Nebraska-Lincoln.
Kinley, E. R. (2002). Survey: How department chairs lead distance ed programs. Distance Education Report, 6(21), 8.
S.L. Howell et al. / Internet and Higher Education 7 (2004) 33–4948
LaCost, B. Y., Iserhagen, J., & Dlugosh, L. (2000). Collaborating on web-based instruction in higher education: Benefits
and risks. Educational Considerations, 28(1), 61–64.
Lee, J. (2001). Instructional support for distance education and faculty motivation, commitment, satisfaction. British Journal of
Educational Technology, 32(2), 153–160.
Lee, J. (2002). Faculty and administrator perceptions of instructional support for distance education. International Journal of
Instructional Media, 29(1), 27–45.
Lindner, J. R., Murphy, T. H., Dooley, K. E., & Jones, E. T. (2002). The faculty mind and how to read it. Distance Education
Report, 6(14), 5.
Loeding, B. L., & Wynn, M. (1999). Distance learning planning, preparation, and presentation: Instructors’ perspectives.
International Journal of Instructional Media, 26(2), 181–192.
Markel, M. (1999). Distance education and the myth of the new pedagogy. Journal of Business and Technical Communi-
cation, 13(2), 208–222.
McGraw-Hill Ryerson. (2003, June 10). Press release: Web-based technology has immediate impact on student success in
higher education, landmark McGraw-Hill study finds. Available at: http://www.mcgrawhill.ca/highereducation/images/
studentsuccess4epressrelease.pdf.
McKenzie, B.K. (2000, Fall). Needs, concerns and practices of online instructors. Online Journal of Distant Education
Administration, 3(3) (Available at: http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/fall33/mckenzie33.html).
Milheim, W. (2001). Faculty and administrative strategies for the effective implementation of distance education. British
Journal of Educational Technology, 32(5), 535–542.
Miller, G. E. (2001). General education and distance education: Two channels in the new mainstream. The Journal of General
Education, 50(4), 314–322.
Moore, M.G., & Kearsley, G. (1996). Distance education: A systems view. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
National Education Association (NEA). (2000, June). A survey of traditional and distance learning higher education members.
Available at: http://www.nea.org/he/abouthe/dlstudy.pdf.
Navarro, P., & Shoemaker, J. (2000). Policy issues in the teaching of economics in cyberspace: Research design, course design,
and research results. Contemporary Economic Policy, 18(3), 359–366.
Oblinger, D., Barone, C. A., & Hawkins, B. L. (2001).Distributed education and its challenges: An overview.American Council
on Education (ACE). Available at: http://www.acenet.edu/bookstore/pdf/distributed-learning/distributed-learning-01.pdf.
Oblinger, D., & Kidwell, J. (2000, May/June). Distance learning: Are we being realistic? Educause, 31–39.
Olsen, D. R. (2002, Fall). BYU institutional report: Higher Education Research Institute (HERI) faculty survey 2001–2002.
O’Quinn, L., & Corry, M. (2002). Factors that deter faculty from participating in distance education. Online Journal of
Distance Learning Administration, 5(4).
Otton, D. H. (2003). Book review—Teaching and learning at a distance: Foundations of distance education. Journal of
Instruction Delivery Systems, 17(1), 27–29.
Padgett, D. L., & Conceicao-Runlee, S. (2000). Designing a faculty development program on technology: If you build it, will
they come? Journal of Social Work Education, 36(2), 325–334.
Paulson, K. (2002). Reconfiguring faculty roles for virtual settings. The Journal of Higher Education, 73(1), 123–140.
Penn State. (2003, June). College of education: The American center for the study of distance education. Available at: http://
www.ed.psu.edu/acsde/expand.asp.
Penn State University Strategic Plan. (1998). An emerging set of guiding principles and practices for the design and devel-
opment of distance education. Available at: http://www.outreach.psu.edu/de/ide/.
Petrides, L. A. (2000). Case studies on information technology in higher education. Hershey, Pennsylvania: Idea Group
Publishing.
Prestera, G. E., & Moller, L. A. (2002). Goals, structure, and feedback are key to institutional distance education success.
Distance Education Report, 6(8), 8.
QRDE. (2003, June). Quarterly Review of Distance Education. Available at: http://www.aect.org/Publications/qrde.htm.
Quality on the line: Benchmarks for success in Internet-based distance education. (2000, April). The Institute for Higher
Education Policy. Available at: http://www.nea.org/he/abouthe/Quality.pdf.
Riffee, W.H. (2003). Putting a faculty face on distance education programs. Syllabus: Technology for Higher Education
(Available at: http://www.syllabus.com/article/asp?id=7233).
Rhoda, K. (2002, September 15). U. Toledo distance program bucks profitability trend: Director tells how. Distance Education
Report, 6(18), 8.
S.L. Howell et al. / Internet and Higher Education 7 (2004) 33–49 49
Roberson, T.J., & Klotz, J. (2002, Winter). How can instructors and administrators fill the missing link in online instruction?.
Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 5(4).
Rockwell, K., Schauer, J., Fritz, S. M., & Marx, D. B. (1999, Winter). Incentives and obstacles influencing higher education
faculty and administrators to teach via distance. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 2(3) (Available at:
http://www.westga.edu/~distance/rockwell24.html).
Rubin, E. (2003). Speaking personally—With Eugene Rubin. The American Journal of Distance Education, 17(1), 59–69.
San Diego State University Strategic Plan. (2000). Academic policy and planning committee distance education policy.
Available at: http://www.rohan.sdsu.edu/dept/senate/sendoc/distanceed.apr2000.html.
Scagnoli, N. I. (2001). Student orientations for online programs. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 34(1),
19–27.
Schifter, C. C. (2000, March/April). Faculty motivators and inhibitors for participation in distance education. Educational
Technology, 43–46.
UCEA. (2003, June). University Continuing Education Association. Available at: http://www.ucea.edu/.
University of Central Michigan Strategic Plan. (2001). Distance learning standards and guidelines.
University of Central Florida Strategic Plan. (2000a). University of Central Florida distributed learning: Scope and policies.
Available at: http://distrib.ucf.edu/dlucf/dlpolicies.htm.
University of Central Florida Strategic Plan. (2000b). University of Florida strategic planning. Available at: http://www.ucf.edu/
aboutUCF/strategic/plan.
University of Connecticut Strategic Plan. (2002). The mission and vision of the college of continuing studies.
University of Manitoba Strategic Plan. (2003). Distance education program: Strategic directions and performance indicators
2003–04.
University of Nebraska-Lincoln Strategic Plan. (2002). Distance education plan being developed.
Washington State University Strategic Plan. (2001). Extended university services strategic macro plan: 2002–2006.
West Georgia. (2003, June). State University of West Georgia Distance and Distributed Education Center. Available at: http://
www.westga.edu/~distance/faculty3up.html.
Winsboro, I.D.S. (2002). Technology and distance learning lessons from the nation’s newest university: Perceptions and reality.
The Educational Forum, 66(3), 247–252.
Wolcott, L.L. (1997). Tenure, promotion, distance education: Examining the culture of faculty rewards. American Journal of
Distance Education, 11(2), 3–18.
