that the quality of distance education is not upto accepted standards. In higher education,
quality of instruction is measured in many ways. Quality must include access to resources
such as library, labs, and faculty. Quality should also include life experiences designed for
student socialization and affective development via student-to-student interaction which is
not always possible in distance education settings (Bower, 2001).
Tabata et al (2008) made a study of the faculty participation in technology enabled distance
education using a survey. This was done in relation to their technology use, their attitudes
toward technology and distance education, and their adoption of innovations. The authors
states that the factors that influence the faculty acceptance and participation in technology
enabled distance education include technology use and competencies, time, workload,
institutional support, rewards and incentives, promotion and tenure, and quality of instruction
and learning.
Tabata et al (2006) state research findings that the more the comfort level of a faculty with
the technology , the more are the chances of that person participating in technology enabled
distance education. Conversely, those faculty who were intimidated by technology resisted
participation in distance education. Similarly faculty who had higher levels of expertise in
technology were less concerned, than those with lower levels of expertise, about issues that
are barriers to participation in distance education (i.e., compensation, support services, time).
Thus the authors state that teachers are concerned about the amount of time it takes to learn
technology, the effect on their workload, and the lack of release time and instructional
support for developing course materials and it may deter them from participating in distance
education delivery. Hence, providing training, workshops, technical and other forms of
institutional support may be important to encourage faculty participation in distance
education (Tabata et al, 2006). As stated earlier the lack of rewards and incentives, and the
omission of technology and innovative instruction as part of promotion and tenure reviews,
may influence faculty decisions whether to adopt new technologies or engage in distance
education (Tabata et al, 2006). They also state that the perceptions of the faculty regarding
the quality of instruction and learning by distance may contribute toward determining
whether to participate or not. Faculty who feel that the quality of interaction in distance
education is not upto the mark, as compared to traditional education may be unwilling to
participate in distance education programs.
Tabata et al (2006) found that technology competency of faculty is a strong motivator or a
barrier which influences their decision to participate in distance education. Similarly faculty,
who view themselves to be competent with use of technology. are more likely to participate
in technology enabled distance education. Faculty, who have training in instructional
methods in distance education, and access to technical support are more likely to participate
in distance education. Faculty who perceive that distance education is as good in quality as
face to face instruction are more likely to participate in distance education. They also
managed to confirm the earlier concerns of the faculty about the time and workload increase
caused by the participation in distance education. The faculty also seemed to derive positive
benefits to their image and this further helped their participation in distance education. The
authors speculate that this may be due to a variety of factors such as being part of the
No comments:
Post a Comment