Resultados del pre test

All the questions asked during the interviews were aligned with this study’s research questions. Although explained in the e-mails that were sent to arrange the interviews, the reason for conducting the interviews and the possible outcomes of the study were briefly discussed with each participant at the beginning of the interview. Generally, interviews started by gathering demographic data, and followed with more specific questions. After every question follow-up questions were asked (including more structured questions), if necessary, to cover areas to which the participants did not respond.

All interviews started with the question “What was your general impression of teaching in DL courses? (How do you feel about teaching at a distance?).” The reasoning behind asking this question was to determine each faculty member’s general impression about teaching in the DL environment, so that his/her views on DL technologies would become more apparent. Follow up questions were asked to understand:

• The modality’s user friendliness

• The instructional methods faculty used in the DL environment (lecture, discussion, small group case discussion, etc.)

• The main reason for using the specific features of the modality (Was the modality good for lecturing or case discussions).

The answers given to this question provided valuable data for the first primary research question.

The second question was “What are the teaching demands of a DL course?” The reasoning behind asking this question and the follow-up questions was to understand differences between DL modalities and traditional methods in terms of additional preparations, class management time, and compensation issues.

The third question asked was “Is teaching students through any or all distance education methods really nothing more than adapting traditional classroom approaches?” With this question, I tried to understand the way the instructors conduct their DL classes.

The interviewee could compare the effectiveness of traditional and new teaching techniques in reaching course goals while using these DL modalities. With the follow-up questions, the author sought to understand the role of the instructor in the DL environment and the depth of the discussions that take place in the DL classes. Also, the follow-up questions aided in understanding the differences in the quality of student- student and student-instructor discussion between two different synchronous DL modalities: Elluminate and VTC. Six faculty members who have taught synchronous DL courses using both VTC and Elluminate provided answers to these questions.

The fourth question was “Have you encountered any problems (e.g., technical, interaction, cultural, pedagogical) when conducting DL courses? If so, what were they and how did you try to solve them?” By answering this question, the interviewees were expected to tell if they, as instructors, encountered initial hiccups in learning to use the system. They were also expected to relate if there was any confusion in using any features. Apart from the technical challenges that the faculty members encountered, they were also expected to describe if they encountered any problems regarding interaction. For example, faculty were asked what is the level of interaction between or within groups? How do they deal with the student who talks too much? Is it easy to follow student-student interaction in the DL environment? How do they encourage shy students to participate in the discussions? Also, with this question the interviewees were expected to tell if they encountered any additional interaction problems: for example, how do they assess students who do not contribute to class or do not do their homework, and do giving exams and quizzes cause a problem?

The fifth question was “Can you describe the support you received or would like to have received before and during your DL teaching experiences?” Along with the follow-up questions, this question aimed to understand the challenges faculty perceive in terms of administrative support. This question was asked to understand at what level— from the instructor’s perspective—the administration has supported faculty who teach at a distance. This question was important since it helped in understanding the contribution of two of the four areas in the DL model (administration and technical support). Both of these areas can significantly affect faculty’s perceptions of VTE and Elluminate.

The sixth question was “What is the ideal class size for a DL course versus the traditional classroom?” The follow-up question, “Do you have any suggestions for improving the structure of DL courses in the future?” was asked to find the optimal number of sites and the number of students in each site to achieve the most beneficial level of interaction from the perspective of the faculty. The answers to this question also provided different points of view from the faculty members about the configuration of the DL courses (e.g., meeting face-to-face at the beginning of the quarter, visiting the remote sites several times, etc.).

The seventh question was “What will be the impact of teaching using technology on faculty instructional responsibility?” The follow-up questions were “Is teaching in DL, in general, more stressful? Do you feel you are able to meet the same learning goals in the DL environment as face-to-face? Does this create more stress?” These questions were asked to determine if faculty were concerned about their level of expertise in using the technology, and if their level of knowledge about interaction skills was adequate to meet the course goals. Finally, the question tried to gauge the stress level these variables created in the instructor.

The last question was “Please discuss your personal story about teaching online and what you learned from the experience?” This question was asked to cover topics that may not have been disclosed initially by the participants.

The next chapter begins with a description of the faculty members who participated in the study. Then, the challenges they faced while conducting courses in the DL environment and their concerns toward DL technologies are presented. The chapter concludes with analyses of the common themes and concerns that emerged from the interviews.

IV.

DESCRIPTION AND ANALYSIS OF INTERVIEW

RESULTS

A. DESCRIPTION OF THE FACULTY INTERVIEWED, THE TYPE OF