Advances in telecommunications technologies have increased interest in online education in a ‎variety of educational settings including K-12, colleges and universities, professional ‎development and corporate trainings. Allen and Seaman (2003) found that over 1.6 million ‎students were studying online in the fall of 2002. According to Allen and Seaman (2003), eighty-‎one percent of all higher education institutions offered at least one fully or blended course. ‎Nearly one third of all higher education institutions and one half of all public higher education ‎institutions offered complete degree programs online. Allen and Seaman (2004) found that over ‎‎1.9 million students were studying online in the fall of 2003, and the anticipated number of ‎online students by the fall of 2004 is more than 2.6 million. ‎
Much of the literature in distance education shows the importance of faculty, but this group has ‎been largely neglected in the research (Beaudoin, 1990). Distance education research has focused ‎primarily on the learner such as learning outcomes, learner characteristics, and learner attitudes ‎‎(Dillon & Walsh, 1992). From five distance education journals including Distance Education, ‎Journal of Distance Education, Research in Distance Education, The American Journal of ‎Distance Education, and Open Learning, Dillon and Walsh (1992) searched and identified 225 ‎articles relating to faculty, organizational, and instructional development for a literature review. ‎Among the 225 articles, only 24 studies relating to faculty have been conducted. They found that ‎research on faculty is lacking in quality and quantity although much of the literature in distance ‎education discusses the importance of the faculty. ‎

Through a grant project I participated in, I gained access to study two web-based classes in two ‎Midwest universities. The students in the two classes had different motivation and learning ‎experience, and the instructors’ course design and web-based instruction were distinctly different ‎from each other. Although faculty are not the focus of the larger research project, I would like to ‎briefly share the stories of how two university professors conducted web-based instruction. The ‎purpose of this paper is three-fold: 1) to provide a piece of the picture of current practice in web-‎based learning environment; 2) to shed light on the importance of instructors’ changing role to ‎meet the challenges demanded by web-based classrooms; and 3) to call attention to faculty ‎productivity and quality in web-based instruction.‎

University A is a comprehensive, research, and land grant institution. In the year 2002 the total ‎enrollment number was 22,762, among whom 51% were male students and 49% were female ‎students. The total number of faculty was 1,212, among whom 74% were male and 26% were ‎female. University B is also a comprehensive, research, and land grant university. In the year ‎‎2002 it had 11,934 students, among whom 54% were male and 46% were female. The total ‎number of faculty was 982, among whom 62% were male and 38% were female. Class A had 18 ‎students and Class B had 27 students. I collected a variety of data through documents, ‎observation, discussion board, e-mail listserv, questionnaires, and face-to-face or telephone ‎interviews. Most of the students in the two classes were adult, married, and full-time working ‎professionals. I did not know the two professors either personally or professionally before the ‎study. To protect the identity of the two instructors, pseudo-names have been used in this paper, ‎with Frank for Instructor A and Sandy for Instructor B.‎

Frank was very positive about web-based learning. He thought there might be more interaction in ‎web-based learning than traditional face-to-face learning. He said that it was easier to set up ‎stereotype in a classroom regarding who were active or inactive, and there could be a person who ‎was really quiet in the class. Shy students could have same opportunities to participate in online ‎learning. He said, “Online you don’t know they are black, white, tall, small or anything, so it’s a ‎free environment.” ‎

Frank did not have a graduate assistant, and he did not get any financial compensation for web-‎based instruction. He was willing to learn and try new technologies. He categorized his lectures ‎into seven modules, and used streaming audio and downloadable PDF files for key concepts and ‎themes for each unit. He offered chat room as virtual office hours Monday evenings. He set up a ‎Webcam on his computer to net-meet with students. He also set up an open discussion forum for ‎the students to share ideas and learn from each other. He wrote: “Please feel free to use this ‎message board for open discussions. This is an area to talk, ask questions, and learn a bit more ‎about the profession from your fellow students. Have fun!”‎

Frank addressed the importance of interaction and collaborative learning in the syllabus, which ‎was reflected in course goals, learning options, and assessment criteria. He used a variety of ‎methods to maintain interaction between students as well as between the instructor and students, ‎including announcements, weekly discussions, e-mail listserv, chat room, open discussion forum, ‎web-conferencing, and calendar. ‎

Frank thought there was adequate interaction in his class. He said there were two reasons for him ‎to value interaction: nature of the graduate program and his concern about the quality of web-‎based course from students’ perspective. He said, “I think in our major, undergraduate and ‎graduate, there are certain skills that they have to have. And interaction is one of them.” He also ‎wanted to provide some value to students through web-based courses from a student’s ‎perspective. He said, “If I pay the $1,000 for a course, I think I really want to know there is a real ‎faculty person there. And then I can talk with him and be given information.” ‎
Students showed in questionnaire answers a very positive opinion on Frank’s availability and ‎help. All the student interviewees in Class A spoke favorably of their web-based instructor. ‎When talking about Instructor A’s performance in discussion, Student W who had just finished ‎his master’s degree in this online education program remarked, “He makes you feel, like yea, it’s ‎almost a classroom dialogue back and forth. He is the only professor to do that. Other professors ‎just have to ask questions, but you never hear from the professor. He (Frank) did help us in the ‎classroom, teaches us in the discussion.” ‎

The same student continued to comment on the chat room offered by Frank. He said: ‎

And you can say, wow, gosh, he is the only face on the screen. Is that valuable? Yea, it ‎gives that personal touch again that come through technology. And other professors ‎haven’t taken the opportunities to use. He’s done that. He’s done the dynamic discussion ‎board that he set into different groups. He himself is available in the chat room. Not all ‎the professors have done that.‎

Student M, who only needed two more web-based courses to complete his master’s degree in this ‎distance education program, spoke favorably of the open discussion forum that Frank set for the ‎students to communicate and learn from each other. He remarked, “You can post questions there ‎besides the weekly discussions and what’s going on… Actually this is the first class that has ‎actually done that.” ‎

Although feeling okay most of time, Frank was frustrated with lack of opportunities to share with ‎other instructors, ineffectiveness of workshops, and lack of support from the university. “Here I ‎have no idea what I’m doing works and if it doesn’t work. Other people could be doing stuff ‎that’s really interesting and I have no idea. So I’m totally working in blind. I’ve never seen ‎another instructor’s course.” When talking about technology workshops, he said: “It was neither ‎about technical nor about how-to. It’s always about how to boost software. Learn it, but not learn ‎about it. Not enough to do anything.” He expected to make his course more efficient and ‎appealing through technology tools such as converting some of his PowerPoint into a video. He ‎said, “It’s money and support. I mean I can get things together, but I don’t have the skill or ‎maybe the time to bring that video clip, putting it there because that takes hours.”‎

Sandy had a graduate assistant who helped her as a grader. She did not have any lecture notes ‎posted on the course website. All course materials were posted in the form of text. Students did ‎six discussions during the semester, including five class discussions and one group discussion. ‎Basically, Sandy asked one or two questions each time and students discussed the questions. No ‎chat room or open discussion forum was provided for the students. Generally, Sandy posted the ‎discussion question and seldom showed up in the discussion though she stopped by once in a ‎while to provide a brief comment. She told students about her role in discussion in a message ‎posted on the Discussion Board. She wrote, “My role in the discussion group is a mere observer ‎and occasional participant.” ‎

Sandy emphasized interaction in the syllabus, which could be found through the grading criteria. ‎She used several ways to maintain interaction in her class, including announcements, discussion ‎board, e-mail, and telephone. She did not think there was adequate interaction among the ‎students as well as between the instructor and the students in her class. This was due to her ‎limited time and students’ problems. Sandy said, “Usually what happened is that I usually over-‎interact with students for their problems. It is not adequate because I don’t think there is enough ‎in general, you know, this is interesting about material and you have a question and let me ‎clarify. I don’t think much of that kind.”‎

Based on data in questionnaire answers, students in Class B were neutral about availability and ‎help from their web-based instructor. All the student interviewees in Class B shared their ‎frustrations with me. Student B said: “I mean basically everyone put their opinions out there. ‎There is little response. There is no comment or argument. Sometimes I put in discussion, and ‎there is no response at all for anyone. For the discussion, I don’t think I’ve got very much out of ‎the interaction out of the discussion right now.” Student R remarked, “I’ve been e-mailing the ‎professor a number of times asking questions. She has never e-mailed me back. It is like she ‎doesn’t exist.” ‎

Unsatisfied with workshops and university support, Sandy was particularly frustrated with time ‎issue. She said:‎

To explain my workload - I am currently teaching eight credits, including the masters ‎course, which requires about six credits worth of work for the three credits of the course. ‎I also have three major grants, the ten graduate student advisees, 45 undergraduate ‎advisees, the executive directorship of a regional organization, chair of a major university ‎committee, membership on a committee to reorganize the college and numerous other ‎responsibilities. I have four interns working with me and three paid staff members. The ‎upshot is that I work night and day for at least six days per week - usually six and a half ‎days per week. ‎

However, they were different in attitude toward technology and opinions on web-based learning. ‎Frank was passionate for learning and using technology whereas Sandy was reluctant to learn ‎and use technology. Frank was very positive about web-based learning because of access to a ‎diverse population of learners and opportunities for more interaction. On the contrary, Sandy was ‎negative about web-based learning in terms of social interaction and learning experience on the ‎grounds that there is no classroom in distance education and there is no opportunity for ‎interaction. ‎
‎ ‎
In addition, the differences between these two professors were also reflected through their ‎teaching philosophy and course design. Frank considered himself a mentor and facilitator to his ‎students rather than a keeper of knowledge. Sandy wasn’t quite clear about her teaching ‎philosophy, but considered herself as an instructional designer to her students. Their course ‎design was different in content presentations, learning activities, and learning assessment. Frank ‎integrated technology into content presentation, designed collaborative learning activities, and ‎used formative and authentic assessment. Sandy didn’t take advantage of technology to enhance ‎her course design and focused more on individual work and traditional assessment methods such ‎as assignments and exams.‎

Research and evaluation evidence indicates that teaching online requires more faculty time and ‎effort (Lee, 2002; Palloff & Pratt, 1999). According to Palloff and Pratt (1999), “Instructors in ‎the online arena will find that the time needed to deliver this type of class is two or three times ‎greater than to deliver a face-to-face class” (p. 49). ‎

Distance education revolves around a learner-centered instructional system (Beaudoin, 1990). In ‎this learner-centered instructional system, distance instructors basically need to pay attention to ‎two things. First, faculty accustomed to a classroom teaching mode need to acquire new skills to ‎assume expanded roles to organize instructional resources fit in content and format for distance ‎learners. Second, unlike classroom-based instructors whose traditional role is mainly to select ‎and share content, faculty in distance education must focus on process to facilitate students’ ‎learning. ‎

According to Gunawardena (1992), one of the new skills for web-based instructors to develop is ‎utilizing technology to effectively mediate the communication process. Competency to use ‎communication media includes three aspects: 1) the ability to interface with technology; 2) the ‎ability to thoroughly understand the unique strengths and weaknesses of each medium so as to ‎design instruction; and 3) the ability to use media for communicating with distance learners. ‎

Online education represents a major shift in teachers’ and students’ roles (Beaudoin, 1990). In ‎the learner-centered instructional system, the instructor is only one type of resource that is ‎accessible to the learner among other resources such as other learners, library, and databases. ‎The instructor’s major role is that of a facilitator, which is to link learners to other resources and ‎provide enough support to empower learners and thus enrich their learning experience. Learners ‎are more active participants in the learning process. Beaudoin said:‎

The teaching function is not becoming obsolete, but the role is being transformed ‎dramatically. In addition to being adept at both content and process, faculty must ‎recognize the role of instructional technology as a learning resource. The teacher is ‎increasingly an intermediary between students and available resources. Teachers must ‎know something about the potential of technology to facilitate learning and to enhance ‎their own effectiveness. (p. 22)‎

Studies (Dillon, Gunawardena, & Parker, 1992; & Gilcher & Johnston, 1989) showed that distant ‎learners view faculty member as very important to their educational success. However, few ‎efforts are made to train faculty in practice. In most cases, the training programs focus primarily ‎on the operation of technology rather than how to teach at a distance (Dillon & Walsh, 1992). ‎
‎ ‎
In line with research findings in the literature, the experiences of the two university professors ‎showed their frustrations in isolation in web-based instruction, ineffective workshops, and lack ‎of institutional support. Their experiences also demonstrated that underlying philosophy and ‎beliefs in teaching might bring difference in their teaching practice and distant learners’ learning ‎experience. Changing teaching style may mean changing underlying teaching philosophy, ‎epistemological belief, and perceptions of interpersonal interactions (Gunawardena, 1992). This ‎can be vice versa based on the stories of the two web-based instructors: changing underlying ‎philosophy and epistemological belief may change teaching styles and thus change students’ ‎learning experience. ‎

The rush of educational institutions to offer web-based courses raises issues concerning ‎education quality. Quality should follow the constructivist principles in an integrated way ‎‎(Garrison & Anderson, 2003). While web-based instructors need to change their role to meet the ‎challenges demanded by web-based classrooms, administrators’ and policy makers’ vision and ‎changing role are also essential. In order to increase faculty productivity in distance education ‎and assure the quality of web-based instruction, not only effective professional development ‎programs are needed to ensure faculty growth in how to design and teach web-based courses as ‎well as the use of technology, but efficient organizational development programs are also needed ‎to provide an environment that is supportive of faculty’s changing role in distance education. ‎

Allen, E., & Seaman, J. (2004). Entering the main stream: the quality and extent of online ‎education in the United States, 2003 and 2004. Needham, MA: Sloan Foundation. ‎

Beaudoin, M. (1990). The instructor’s changing role in distance education. The American ‎Journal of Distance Education, 4(2), 21-27.‎

Dillon, C. L., Gunawardena, C. N., & Parker, R. (1992). Learner support: the critical link in ‎distance education. Distance Education, 13(1), 29-45.‎

Dillon, C. L., & Walsh, S. M. (1992). Faculty: the neglected resource in distance education. The ‎American Journal of Distance Education, 6(3), 5-21. ‎

Garrison, D. & Anderson, T. (2003). E-learning in the 21st century: a framework for research ‎and practice. London: Routledge Falmer.‎

Gilcher, K., & Johnston, S. (1989). A critical review of use of audiographic conferencing systems ‎by selected educational institutions. College Park, MD: International Universities ‎Consortium, University of Maryland. ‎

Gunawardena, C. N. (1992). Changing faculty roles for audiographics and online teaching. The ‎American Journal of Distance Education, 6(3), 58-71.‎

Khan, B. H. (Ed.) (1997). Web-based instruction. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational ‎Technology Publications.‎

Lee, J. (2002). Faculty and administrator perceptions of instructional support for distance ‎education. International Journal of Instructional Media, 29(1), 27-46.‎

Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (1999). Building learning communities in cyberspace. San Francisco, ‎CA: Jossey-Bass. ‎

Prummer, C. (2000). Women and distance education: challenges and opportunities. New York: ‎Routledge.‎