A national sample of convenience was used for this second study. Queries were sent to eight listservs (i.e., NUTN, the Urban 13/21 Provosts, UCEA, TAET, TDLA, FDLA, ITC, and DEOS) and were mailed to the membership of the National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges asking for participation in a national survey regarding faculty compensation and incentives policy models for participating in DE programs. A total of 212 individuals from 160 identified institutions completed and submitted the survey. The respondents were from two-year institutions (27%), four-year institutions (56%), primarily graduate education institutions (10%), public institutions (79%), private institutions (10%), state-related institutions (21%), and both public- and state-related institutions (13%). They were from 45 states, Puerto Rico, Mexico, and three Canadian provinces (i.e., New Brunswick, New- foundland, and Quebec). Respondents indicated their institutions have been offering DE options for less than five years (39%), between five and ten years
(20%), and more than 10 years (39%). Also, respondents were from institu- tions where the faculty was unionized (34%), where participation in DE was applicable toward merit pay (37%), and where participation was applicable toward promotion and tenure (43%). According to respondents from institu- tions that have DE participation as part of promotion and tenure procedures, teaching a DE course is treated just like any other teaching assignment, service, or professional development. Only summary information about faculty com- pensation and incentives practices is presented.
Respondents were asked to respond to whether any of seven options were used at their institution for faculty compensation or incentives for faculty
developing a DE course. The “most often” paid expense for faculty was
Internet Service Provider (ISP) costs, while “least often” paid expenses were for graduate assistants (GAs) and faculty overload pay. The “sometimes” response related to many factors, including faculty status, availability of adjunct faculty, and departmental budget constraints.
Overload pay for faculty developing a DE course was the subject of a series of items. Responses showed the minimum overload pay for developing a DE course ranging from $0 - $5,000 with a mean of $1,885. The maximum overload pay ranged from $700 - $15,000 with a mean of $4,097. Differences in overload pay occurred based on school or department policies, faculty rank or level (e.g., full, associate, or assistant professor, instructor, adjunct or on contract), and/or union contract terms.
Regarding graduate or teaching assistants for all institutions represented, respondents were asked under what conditions graduate or teaching assistants were assigned to faculty when a distance course is being developed. For private schools, 10 schools (50%) indicated that they “sometimes” assign a teaching assistant (TA), while eight (40%) “never” assigned a TA. For public schools, 14 (8%) noted they “often” assign a TA, 75 (45%) “sometimes” assign a TA, and 64 (38%) “never” assign a TA. Graduate assistants (GAs) are more often assigned based on departmental policies, documented need, or the scope of the project. One specific function for GAs is technical assistance, so if the faculty member is comfortable with the technical environment or there is technical assistance available in other ways, a GA may not be requested. The respondents were asked to answer whether any of seven options were used at their institution for faculty compensation or incentives for teaching a DE course. The “most often” paid expense was for ISP costs, while “least often” paid expenses were for teaching assistants and, interestingly enough, for
ISP costs. As with developing a DE course, the “sometimes” response related to faculty status, availability of adjunct faculty, and departmental budgets. Overload pay for teaching a DE course was similar to that for developing a course. The minimum overload pay for teaching a DE course ranged again from $0 - $5,000 with a mean of $1,876. The maximum overload pay ranged from $1,200 - $8,000 with a mean of $3,341. As appeared with developing a DE course, differences in overload pay for teaching a DE course occurred based on university or department policies, faculty rank or level (e.g., full, associate, or assistant professor, instructor, adjunct, or on contract), and/or union contract terms.
The results of this study indicated there are no clear models of faculty compensation or incentives for participating in a DE initiative because compen- sation practices vary on many points, including whether the educational institution is public or private, two-year or four-year, the years of institutional experience with DE, the nature of union contracts, and more. According to these respondents, faculty compensation is slightly higher for developing a DE course than for teaching one. This finding is of interest given the anecdotal reports that teaching a DE course requires significantly more faculty time and energy than traditional courses and may be reflective of the “lack of institutional support” noted as a barrier to faculty participation by Olcott and Wright (1995).
Differences were found between non-compensation practices for faculty developing — versus teaching — a DE course. ISP costs appear to be the “most often” paid expense for developing and teaching a DE course and, in some cases, the “least often” paid expense. About one-third of the institutions represented were willing to support this expense, and about one-third were not. Faculty Internet access is fundamental for developing and/or teaching an Internet-based course, so paying for this cost shows institutional support for DE participation. The “least often” paid expenses for developing a DE course were for faculty release time and for a graduate assistant. For teaching the course, the “least often” paid expense was for teaching assistants.
Paying for faculty release time depends on access to replacement faculty, funding sources, or both. One solution is to provide summer pay for faculty rather than a course release for either the development or the teaching of a DE course when a replacement is not available. This may depend, however, on union rules or funding sources. While summer pay may be one option for administrators (and faculty may enjoy the additional income), it does not
compensate for the additional work required in developing a DE course at institutions where the instructor does not have access to an instructional technologist or design team. These policies and practices are institutionally based, and often department-driven.
Graduate assistants (GAs) are not available at two-year institutions or colleges without graduate programs, but they are available at many four-year institutions where they are assigned to faculty based on availability and overall need. As for assigning teaching assistants (TA), schools and colleges have policies for TA assignments, which most often relate to course enrollment. The results of this study indicate that the average maximum number of DE students required for a course to run, after adjusting for outlying responses, was 26 students — a number that might be too low to qualify for traditional TA assignments. Perhaps policies that assign TAs to traditional classes should not be applied to DE courses. In addition, one could argue that if graduate students are being groomed to be the faculty of the future, they should experience the DE environment to be truly prepared to be educators in the 21st century.
Anecdotally, teaching a DE course is more demanding on faculty time, which is why 39 of these institutions capped enrollments in these courses to between 20 and 30 students. While enrollment levels may not seem an obvious incentive to faculty, online DE courses require an increase in faculty-student and student- student interaction; therefore, having a class size that facilitates required computer-mediated interactivity would be an incentive for faculty participation. Large class sizes for DE courses, although potentially eligible for TA support and favorable to economies of scale promoted by many supporters of DE (Green & Gilbert, 1995), would be a factor in the establishment of a pedagogi- cal environment that is not conducive to group interaction — one hallmark of Distance Education.
Summary
The original questions asked in this chapter were: What motivates faculty to want to embrace teaching in a DE environment and change their teaching strategies? and What assistance and compensation policies support faculty in this enterprise? The two studies discussed have attempted to answer these two questions with limited, but applicable, outcomes.
As for why faculty participates in distance education, it is clear from the research that participating faculty members do so because of internal or intrinsic motives. They want to expand their teaching opportunities, reach out to new students, and see teaching at a distance as an intellectual challenge. They were not highly interested in release time, merit pay, or other monetary rewards. The problem is that administrators believe that faculty members must be compen- sated financially to entice them to participate in distance education, although that is not the most compelling motivating factor overall. To provide support for DE initiatives, administrators would be well served to learn more about what motivates and inhibits faculty participation.
The findings of the study on support and compensation that were discussed in this chapter indicate that financial rewards — more so than other support needs — are being used extensively across this country to encourage faculty partici- pation in DE courses. Although extra pay as compensation for faculty participation may seem important from an administrative perspective, non- compensation support can be even more important. For example, faculty compensation in the form of support for ISP costs for at-home access and for the provision of graduate teaching assistants when possible should be consid- ered.
Overall, distance education is here to stay on university and college campuses nationally and around the world. A successful DE program will capitalize upon what motivates faculty to participate and will provide the supports needed to ensure quality courses and student success. To accomplish these goals, the campus culture needs to be understood — what motivates faculty participation on one campus might not be appropriate on another. Once you understand what motivates faculty members to embrace the distance education teaching environment and what motivates them to change their teaching strategies to meet the demands of this new teaching environment, appropriate assistance and support practices can be delivered to sustain this educational metamorphosis.
References
Beaudoin, M. R. (1990). The instructor’s changing role in distance education.
Beaudoin, M. R. (1998). A new professoriate for the new millennium.
DEOSNEWS, 8(5), Doc. N. 98-00004. Retrieved from http://
www.ed.psu.edu/acsde/deos/deosnews/deosnews8_5.asp.
Berge, Z. L. (1998). Changing roles of teachers and learners are transforming the online classroom. Online-Ed, (August 30). Doc N. 74. Retrieved October 22, 2002 from http://www.edfac.unimelb.edu.au/reserve/online- ed/mailouts/1998/aug30.html.
Berge, Z.L. & Collins, M.P. (1995). Computer Mediated Communication
and the Online Classroom. Volumes I, II, & III. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton
Press.
Berge. Z. L. & Muilenburg, L. Y. (2000). Barriers to distance education as perceived by managers and administrators: Results of a survey. In M. Clay (Ed.), Distance Learning Administration Annual 2000. Retrieved October 5, 2002 from http://userpages.umbc.edu/~berge/ man_admin.html.
Betts, K. S. (1998). Factors Influencing Faculty Participation in Distance
Education in Postsecondary Education in the United States: An Institutional Study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The George
Washington University, Washington, DC.
Blumenstyk, G. (1997). A feminist scholar questions how women fare in distance education. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 44(10), A36. Canada, K. & Brusca, F. (1991). The technological gender gap: Evidence and recommendation for educators and computer-based instruction design- ers. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 39(2), 43- 51.
Clark, T. (1993). Attitudes of higher education faculty toward distance education: A national survey. The American Journal of Distance
Education 7(2), 19-33.
DeVillar, R. A. & Fallis, C. J. (1991). Computers and Cultural Diversity:
Restructuring for School Success. Albany, NY: Sunny Press.
Dillon, C. (1989). Faculty rewards and instructional telecommunications: A view from the telecourse faculty. The American Journal of Distance
Education, 3(2), 35-43.
Dillon, C.L. & Walsh, S.M. (1992). Faculty: The neglected resource in distance education. The American Journal of Distance Education, 6(3), 5-21.
Faith, K. (ed.). (1988). Toward New Horizons for Women in Distance
Education: International Perspectives. New York: Routledge.
Field, J. (1982). Characteristics of OU students. Teaching at a Distance
Supplement, No 1. Milton Keynes: Open University.
Forsyth, I. (1996). Teaching and Learning Materials and the Internet. London: Kogan Page.
Gose, B. (1997). Morehouse’s Trinidad connection provides a steady stream of top black students. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 44(17), A41-42.
Green, K. C. & Gilbert, S. W. (1995). Great expectations, content, commu- nications, productivity and the role of information technology in higher education. Change, (March/April), 27(2), 8-19.
Hackman, M. Z. & Walker, K. B. (1990). Instructional communication in the televised classroom: The effects of system design and teacher immediacy on students learning and satisfaction. Communication Education, 39(3), 196-209.
Hiltz, S. R. (1994). The Virtual Classroom. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing. Keegan, D. (1986). The Foundations of Distance Education. London:
Croom Helm.
Khan, B. J. (ed.) (1998). Web-Based Instruction. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
Knowles, M. (1970). The Modern Practice of Adult Education. New York: Association Press.
Lonsdale, A. (1993). Changes in incentives, rewards and sanctions. Higher
Education Management, 5, 223-35.
McIntosh, N. E., Woodley, A., & Morrison, V. (1980). Student demand and progress at the Open University: The first eight years. Distance Educa-
tion, 1(1), 37-60.
Melton, R. (1997). Objectives, Competencies and Learning Outcomes:
Developing Instructional Materials in Open and Distance Learning.
Sterling, VA: Kogan Page Ltd.
Merkley, D.J., Bozik, M., & Oakland, K. (1997). Investigating support for teachers using distance learning in education: A case study. DEOSNEWS,
7(11). Doc. No. 97-00011. Retrieved from http://www.ed.psu.edu/ acsde/deos/deosnews/deosnews7_11.asp.
Olcott, D. & Wright, S. J. (1995). An institutional support framework for increasing faculty participation in postsecondary distance education. The
American Journal of Distance Education 9(3), 5-17.
Sanchez, I. & Gunawardena, C. N. (1998). Understanding and supporting the culturally diverse distance learner. In Gibson, C.C. (Ed.), Distance
Learners in Higher Education, (pp. 47-64). Madison, WI: Atwood
Publishing.
Schifter, C. (2000). Factors influencing faculty participation in distance edu- cation: A factor analysis. Education at a Distance, 13(1). Retrieved from http://www.usdla.org/html/journal/JAN00_Issue/Factors.htm. Sewart, D., Keegan, D., & Holmberg, B. (1983). Distance Education:
International Perspectives. London: Croom Helm.
Strain, J. (1987). The role of the faculty member in distance education. The
American Journal of Distance Education, 1(2), 61-65.
Taylor, J. C. & White, J. V. (1991). Faculty attitudes towards teaching in the distance education mode: An exploratory investigation. Research in
Distance Education, (July), 7-11.
Wolcott, L. L. (1997). Tenure, promotion and distance education: Examining the culture of faculty rewards. The American Journal of Distance
Education, 11(2), 3-18.
Wolcott, L.L. & Haderlie, S. (1996). Institutional support for distance teach- ing: A study of reward practices. Distance Educator, (Fall), 2-5.