A Snapshot of Faculty Attitudes and DL Issues in Kentucky

1. A Snapshot of Faculty Attitudes and DL Issues in Kentucky Carol Wilson Western Kentucky University carol.wilson@wku.edu Sloan-C International Conference on Asynchronous Learning Networks Nov. 14 - 16, 2003

2. Kentucky Virtual University • created by the Kentucky Postsecondary Act of 1997 • designed as a cooperative effort of the KY IHEs • regional universities will be the primary developers and deliverers of programs

3. The state institutions • are mandated to supply courses to the KYVU, • are responsible for • training and • rewarding faculty who engage in DL.

4. Faculty Development Work Group (CPE): design a faculty development initiative to prepare the faculty of KY to participate in the programs of the KYVU.

5. Purpose of the Study Investigate DL in higher ed.: • attitudes about DL issues • faculty proficiency in IT skills • institutional barriers and support for DL.

6. Data Collection • mining of documents • faculty development needs assessment survey N=1500 faculty, 9 KY institutions • interviews with 60+ administrators and faculty

7. Research Problem Nationally the professoriate might be: • unwilling and unpreparedto deliver DL • unrewarded for their efforts • unsupported by the university infrastructure.

8. Continuum Where do faculty fall? • willing ……….. unwilling • well prepared …… unprepared • equitably rewarded ... unrewarded • well supported …. unsupported.

9. Results: Instructional Efficacy • Faculty Neutral whether DL would • provide quality instruction • provide student-centered interactive learning • enhance communication with students

10. Results: Personal Learning According to faculty, DL is the least effective mode of instruction for faculty development.

11. Results: DL Neutral Viewed as a general concept, the respondents had a more positive attitude toward instructional technology (4.05) than distance learning (3.53).

12. However, The means decreased as the questions moved from • the general concept to • departmental involvement to • personal involvement.

13. Results: Prepared in Tech • Report meet most ISTE tech performance standards • Moderately comfortable with: • installing software • using a spreadsheet and a presentation tool

14. Reported frequently used in their courses: • e-mail (66%) • students used electronic resources (57%) • classroom presentations (42%) • course web-site (32%).

15. Results: Preparation in On-line Instruction Moderately comfortable with the "universal" instructional techniques of writing learning objectives and applying learning models. But

16. Uncomfortable • with the instructional techniques associated with distance education, e.g., • modifying existing course for DL or • developing effective online activities.

17. Results: Intrinsically motivated • to use instructional technology • to improve student learning.

18. Results: Under time pressure and Unrewarded for their work with instructional technology

19. Technology Use Valued technology-use was perceived to have value But it was not rewarded in yearly reviews or promotion/tenure decisions

20. Results: Feeling under-supportedby the university infrastructure. Paradox • IHE investing $$$, YET • Faculty feel unrewarded. • Human support often missing

21. Conclusions: Faculty are • not rebellious, unwilling to use DL, • are intrinsically motivated, BUT • unsure of the efficacy of DL • unconvinced of personal involvement

22. They report • under time pressure • prepared for most ISTE standards • but under-prepared in online instruction • feel unrewarded for IT and • under-supported by university.

23. Suggestions for Policy Vertically integrated policy framework involving • the central administration, • deans, • department chairs/heads, • faculty

24. Vertically integrated policy to define the role and importance of instructional technology & DL. Systemic policy change is required

25. Supportive institutional environment • training, • time to participate, • technical support, and • incentives, reward/recognition for participation