| |
|
AbstractTechnology beckons us with promises of new levels of efficiency and new paradigms for counseling and counselor education. One of the applications that appears to have great potential for enhancing counselor education is the use of technology for distance education. Distance education may provide new and creative options for counselor educators, such as: providing training to counselors in rural areas; taking advantage of other educators’ expertise when they work hundreds or perhaps thousands of miles away; adding a needed course to current curriculum without hiring a new faculty member; or co-teaching with a colleague at another counselor education program. Exciting as these options may be, the power of new technology also brings the potential for substantial difficulties. When the technology we rely on goes awry, the quality of the learning experience can be seriously threatened. Unfortunately, because much of the technology used for distance learning is so new, it is often difficult to anticipate what can go wrong. Perhaps one of the best ways to learn about the problems and the potential of distance learning is to learn from the experience of others. It is the purpose of this article to provide an account of the authors’ experiences with a distance learning course, including the technology used, the problems encountered, the solutions to these problems, and our recommendations.
What is Distance Education?
“Distance Education” is a structured teaching and learning method that uses a wide spectrum of technologies, including computer networking, audio/video conferencing, and paper-based materials, to reach learners at a distance (Wulf, 1996). This definition suits most distance education deployments, but must be expanded to address a new distance education arena – collaborative education.
Rather than placing the responsibility for instruction on the instructor site, which may or may not have students present, collaborative distance education places equal value on both/all ends of the distance connection. In its most effective deployment, collaborative distance education is not more efficient or cost effective, but richer by providing increased diversity of opinion and perspectives from multiple instructors. Collaborative education is an extension of distance learning that began over three decades ago.
What Does the Research Say?
Because distance education is perceived as an increasingly effective method of instruction, educational researchers have examined the purposes and situations for which distance education is best suited. The research questions cluster in four areas:
- Is distance education teaching as effective as traditional face-to-face teaching?
- Why is distance instruction successful?
- How important is interaction in the distance education process and in what form(s) can this interaction most effectively take place?
- What cost factors should be considered when planning or implementing distance education programs and how are those costs offset by benefits to the learner?
Is distance education teaching as effective as traditional face-to-face teaching?
Do distance students learn as much as students receiving traditional face-to-face instruction? Research comparing distance education to traditional face-to-face instruction indicates that teaching and studying at a distance can be as effective as traditional instruction if three conditions are met: the method and technologies used are appropriate to the instructional tasks; there is student-to-student interaction; and there is timely teacher-to-student feedback (see Moore & Thompson, 1990; Verduin & Clark, 1991).
Can distance education provide the same level of academic excellence as courses taught in traditional modes? Moore and Thompson (1990, 1997) reviewed much of the research from the 1980s and 1990s and concluded that distance education was considered effective "when effectiveness was measured by the achievement of learning, by the attitudes of students and teachers, and by return on investment" (1997).
Research indicates that the instructional format itself has little effect on student achievement as long as the delivery technology is appropriate to the content being offered and all participants have access to the same technology. Achievement on various tests administered by course instructors tends to be higher for distant as opposed to traditional students (Sounder, 1993). Conventional instruction is perceived to be better organized and more clearly presented than distance education (Egan, et al., 1991). However, this may be a result of familiarity as most distance courses include online syllabi and course outlines that are recreations of traditional materials. The organization and reflection needed to effectively teach at a distance often improves an instructor's traditional teaching.
Why is distance instruction successful?
Good distance teaching practices are fundamentally identical to good traditional teaching practices and "those factors which influence good instruction may be generally universal across different environments and populations." (Wilkes & Burnham, 1991). Schlosser & Anderson (1994) suggest distance educators must consider the following in order to improve their effectiveness:
- Extensive pre-planning and formative evaluation is necessary. Teachers cannot "wing it."
- Learners benefit significantly from a well-designed syllabus and presentation outlines. Structured note taking, using tools such as interactive study guides, and the use of visuals and graphics as part of the syllabus and presentation outlines contribute to student understanding of the course. However, these visuals must be tailored to the characteristics of the medium and to the characteristics of the students.
- Teachers must be properly trained both in the use of equipment and in those techniques proven effective in the distance education environment. Learners get more from the courses when the instructor seems comfortable with the technology, maintains eye contact with the camera, repeats questions, and possesses a sense of humor (Egan, et al., 1991).
How Important is Interaction?
Many distance learners require support and guidance to make the most of their distance learning experiences (Threlkeld & Brzoska, 1994). This support typically takes the form of some combination of student-instructor and student-student interaction. Collaborative distance education is designed to facilitate interaction between students, professors and students and between professors.
Research findings on the need for interaction have produced some important guidelines for instructors organizing courses for distant students:
· Learners value timely feedback regarding course assignments, exams, and projects (Egan, et al., 1991).
· Learners benefit significantly from their involvement in small learning groups. These groups provide support and encouragement along with extra feedback on course assignments. Most importantly, the groups foster the feeling that if help is needed it is readily available.
· Learners are more motivated if they are in frequent contact with the instructor. More structured contact might be utilized as a motivational tool (Coldeway, et al., 1980).
· Utilization of on-site facilitators who develop a personal rapport with students and who are familiar with equipment and other course materials increases student satisfaction with courses (Burge & Howard, 1990).
Cost vs. Benefits
When establishing a distance education course, one of the first considerations is the cost of the system. Several cost components factor into the design of a distance education system (Threlkeld & Brzoska, 1994):
· Technology - hardware and software.
· Transmission - the on-going expense of leasing transmission access (e.g., ISDN, satellite, ATM, IP).
· Maintenance - repairing and updating equipment.
· Infrastructure - the foundational network and telecommunications infrastructure located at the originating and receiving campuses.
· Production - technological and personnel support required to develop and adapt teaching materials.
· Support - miscellaneous expenses needed to ensure the system works successfully including onsite support costs, registration, advising/counseling, local support costs, facilities, and overhead costs.
· Personnel - to staff all functions previously described.
Distance Learning in Counselor Education
In a Presidential Address to counselor educators at the American Counseling Association conference in 1998, Michele B. Thomas proposed “providing distance education courses via distance learning” as the first of several needs or concerns that she heard expressed around the country at regional ACES conferences during the fall of 1997 (Thomas, 1998). Yet the literature specific to the use of Distance Learning (DL) in counselor education remains sparse (Hayes, 1999). Perhaps because the use of Interactive Television (ITV) in delivering human service courses is such a new mode of delivery, there are only a few examples of articles from the human service fields, i.e., counseling, psychology and social work. These articles report beginning experiences with using the ITV format for distance education.
One example from the field of social work discusses an attempt to use ITV to teach a basic research methods course for graduate-level social work students. Patchner, Petracchi, and Wise (1998) used DL to teach a foundation course in research methods. Although the results reflect the limitations of a small convenience sample, they found no significant differences between scores testing for knowledge base in statistics or on scores of a scale measuring students’ attitudes toward research between the two student groups involved. In this study, both classroom groups were favorable toward ITV; in fact, 100% of the students indicated that they would enroll in another course if it were offered in the interactive television format (Patchner, Petracchi, & Wise, 1998).
Julie Ancis (1996) describes an experience in teaching an undergraduate human services counseling methods course by using televised instruction. As with this current article, Ancis offers strategies and suggestions for moving forward in the use of this medium for both traditional and non-traditional students. Many of the ideas that she highlighted were confirmed by the experience of the authors. These ideas will be reiterated and expanded upon in the discussion section focusing on strategies for providing DL in the ITV format.
As reported by the National Center for Education Statistics, delivering distance education through the use of ITV is currently the most widely used technology (American Council on Education, 1997). As counselor educators consider developing DL courses, they will begin to look to those who have gone before them in experimenting with ITV and collaborative education. With the limited research in this area, reports of the challenges and pitfalls that other counselor educators have encountered in this new territory will begin to add to the literature and open up ideas for further research.
Distance Learning in counselor education can take a variety of forms, from correspondence courses to ITV classrooms. These forms could employ any of the following technologies along a continuum according to instructional needs (Wulf, 1996): 1.) electronic mail to deliver course materials, send assignments, and give and receive feedback; 2.) the use of a course listserv for electronic group discussions; 3.) specific topics could be addressed through bulletin boards or newsgroups; 4.) course materials or tutorials could be downloaded; 5.) on-line databases, library catalogs, and websites could be used to acquire information and pursue research related to the topics under investigation; and 6.) the use of real-time, ITV classrooms. The form that we employed and will discuss further is the specific use of DL that includes collaborative education through ITV classrooms that are located on two separate campuses in order to deliver course materials that would otherwise not be available to the university designated as the satellite campus. In this scenario, both classrooms have television cameras and monitors for visual contact, and Polycom SoundStations for carrying audio from site to site.
Developing the Course
Our experience in DL began through the procurement of a grant through the Mid-Atlantic Addiction Technology Transfer Center (MATTC). A new licensure for substance abuse treatment practitioners was being developed in Virginia and there was a shortage of counselor education programs that could offer sufficient substance abuse coursework to meet the requirements for the license. In response to this shortage, the MATTC implemented a grant program for counselor education programs to develop courses that could be shared with other programs in the state. This sharing of courses and resources through a kind of “academic common market” would allow counseling students in all sections of the state to begin working on courses required for the licensure. The College of William and Mary had recently developed a prevention course as part of its Community and Addictions specialty track in Counselor Education. The instructors believed that this course would be appropriate to share with other Counselor Education programs through DL. There were few other programs that offered a prevention strategies class, and being a new course, it was viewed as being easily modified to meet the needs of a DL course. The challenge for this project was to offer a course to another site in the state, yet provide the same quality instruction that was being offered at the original site.
Beyond the purpose of the grant, there were several other motivating factors for developing the DL course. One motivation was the desire to prove that a quality DL course could be successfully taught over the Internet. William and Mary had just received equipment from the Virginia Educational Technology Alliance (VETA) program, and the faculty members were eager to demonstrate its capabilities. Toward this end, the counseling faculty recruited the VETA coordinator, the School of Education’s technical consultant and the faculty member who is responsible for the integration of technology into the School of Education’s instructional activities. The School of Education at William and Mary had never taught a DL course, creating a need to begin experimenting with a new approach to teaching. Synchronous course delivery had always been expensive due to the need to use satellite technology, which can cost hundreds of dollars per hour. Time on the Internet is free, allowing even colleges and school systems with limited budgets to transmit or receive courses if the equipment is available. The development of effective course delivery using this technology and appropriate teaching approaches could lead to broader applications in counselor education. For example, the possibility of sharing faculty expertise across programs, across distance, and across nations with relatively inexpensive technology was exciting to all members of the team. This project had the potential to contribute to a significant change in the way counselors are trained.
Realizing that this would be a pilot program and that it would be a sufficiently complex task to share an entire course with only one site, the two counselor educators involved in the grant decided to approach only one other state school about sharing the prevention course. Because of a close working relationship with the University of Virginia (UVA), the William and Mary faculty approached the UVA Counselor Education coordinator with the concept. UVA did not have a prevention course and was willing to experiment with sharing the course with William and Mary. UVA contributed a doctoral-level graduate assistant and access to a room that contained the appropriate technology (Please see Appendix A for a list of hardware and software used at the sites).
Course Content and Population of Students
The shared course was entitled "Prevention Strategies for Schools and Communities." This prevention course was a part of the counselor education program with a particular focus on school counseling students. The purpose of the course was to examine the field of prevention from its theoretical base to models, strategies, and programs and to develop basic skills in the identification of, prevention of, and early intervention in substance abuse, violence, and other behaviors that interfere with academic performance.
Students at the main course site were composed of fifteen (15) masters level students and one (1) undergraduate. There were eight (8) school psychology majors, three (3) counseling majors, one (1) biology major, and four (4) graduate unclassified students. Four (4) of the students were male and twelve (12) were female.
The composition of students at the satellite site provided some interesting challenges for the instructors. There were eight (8) undergraduates (with varying disciplines from astronomy to history), three (3) masters-level counselor education students (two school counselors, one community agency counselor), and one (1) doctoral student in counselor education. There were four (4) males and eight (8) females. The varying levels of development, life experiences, and motivation for learning the subject matter differed greatly among the satellite students; however, strategies developed by the authors (to be discussed later) helped to highlight the diversity of the students as a strength, particularly when students were asked to contribute through group discussions and other small group experiences.
Challenges and Teaching Strategies
The first challenge was preparing all personnel involved in the delivery of the course (instructors, technical support staff, and curricular support staff) to work in a collaborative fashion, by participating in several training events. These included training sessions to provide orientation to the specific equipment used (both hardware and software). Consultation sessions (both face to face and via technology) with UVA instructors who had conducted similar courses, and rehearsal sessions between sites, helped ease some of the anxiety of working with this new medium for distance education. From the first training session, we learned that we needed to be patient with the technology, e.g., the tech experts were frantic for several minutes until they realized that someone had forgotten to plug in one of the many pieces of equipment involved. The first training/rehearsal took 45 minutes to fully connect the two classrooms. Needless-to-say, there are benefits to having a practice run with ample technical support available.
Based on recommendations from the UVA instructors, our plans included using an interactive teaching style in order to maximize involvement of students at both sites. Some of the strategies included discussion (rather than lecture), the use of small group work, involvement in teaching and facilitating by the satellite instructor at UVA, extensive use of the whiteboard and its various applications (internet capabilities, documents, PowerPoint presentations), and student group presentations.
The challenges were evident from the first class session. The main class site instructor's preferred teaching style was active, i.e., moving around the room and actively engaging students. We found that the camera was not able to keep up with the rapid movements, which left the students at the distance site seeing various sections of the classroom without the instructor or a literal blur on the screen. The solution to this problem came after several attempts to rearrange the configuration of the room - chairs, desks, tables - to accommodate both classroom activities. Our preferred configuration was a horseshoe, with chairs in a single row. The instructor was encouraged to sit in one spot in the center of the configuration so that she could address the main class site and look directly into the camera so as to provide more consistent eye contact with the satellite site. Figure 1 shows our optimum class configuration. The camera itself also provided some unanticipated outcomes. Students found that learning to use the video equipment could be fun. In addition, it was noted that, as the camera “panned” the room, it forced students at both sites to pay attention (no one wanted to be caught yawning on camera).
Figure 1
Having a clear audio connection between sites was the most significant technical challenge, and we quickly learned that even temporary problems with the video feed can be overcome when the audio is functioning properly. A poor audio connection, however, leaves the sites guessing what was said. Our conference phone system (which was state of the art) was not able to work at full duplex because of interference in the classroom (e.g., paper shuffling on one end or spontaneous discussion and background noise on the other end). Therefore, the sound either faded in and out or was lost temporarily. The solution to this problem came in asking both classes to minimize background noise whenever possible. In addition, the instructors and students at each site were required to repeat questions and statements as needed to insure that the messages came through.
We would like to be able to say that as time went on the audio and video challenges were conquered and classes went smoothly. Unfortunately, this was not the case. But we learned as we went along and asked the students to help with this learning process. One student at William and Mary commented that: “we’ve come to expect technological problems… we expect something to go wrong every week… we’ve gotten used to it.” Some of the students became ingenious at tackling the challenges. Many of them took on the challenge of breaking down preconceptions of their roles and began taking the initiative to tackle and solve problems. For example, student ideas for resolving microphone/sound problems included “becoming Oprah,” i.e., taking the microphone from person to person as each spoke. Another was the use of a chair in the middle of the room holding the microphone–and moving to the chair to speak, or sliding the microphones between chairs and using them in the way of a “talking stick.” The suggestions worked, but they came over time and with much trial and error, and patience.
Class size may have contributed to the technical and logistical difficulties. Because of sheer numbers of students at William and Mary (sixteen, versus 10 at UVA), the William and Mary group dominated. They also had a tendency to “chat” in small groups when not officially engaged in discussions, which contributed a great deal of background noise, and interfered with transmission to the UVA site. The authors recommend no more than 10-12 students at either distance learning course sites. If any more students are involved, it becomes difficult to keep the class engaged. For example, because of a national conference, several class members were absent from one particular class session. This balanced the numbers of students at both class sites and the class session was noticeably smoother (both technologically and pedagogically).
Communication between sites remained a challenge throughout the semester. Many strategies were attempted to incorporate participation between sites, including some that were previously mentioned, e.g., the instructor repeating student questions and comments, having students repeat comments into the microphone, and directly inviting specific individuals to participate. Small group work became one of the primary solutions for interaction. Using group experiences that involved both classrooms helped to build a collaborative spirit. For example, we asked several class members from both sites to participate in a group discussion via ITV. In using this cross-site strategy, it is helpful to have any other groups that are participating in this group exercise to use another room. The audio technology will pick up on any excess noise from both sites. Having the groups report results from the discussions to both sites via SoftBoard applications (a Word document which contained all results or writing information from each group on the SoftBoard) was also effective.
Several additional strategies helped to increase communication between sites. Having the instructor from the main site visit the satellite site increases the energy of the satellite students and offers the main site students a chance to empathize with their satellite site counterparts. Along the same line of thinking, teaching from both sites or having guest speakers at both sites dealing with a similar issue is helpful. Instruction moves into the realm of panel discussions between classrooms, honoring diversity of sites.
An unanticipated outcome of the course was an increase throughout the semester in the use of CourseInfo, the asynchronous component of the course. Because of the necessity to read lecture notes in advance in order to participate in experiential activities, we discovered that students made extensive use of the information available. By the end of the course we had received over 2500 hits on the CourseInfo site. Students also became proficient and creative in their use of the software programs available for the SoftBoard. Presentations were extremely creative and effective in their use of the SoftBoard. When slides or outlines were posted on the SoftBoard, students focused attention on them, rather than on the instructor. Perhaps this lead to increased attention and retention.
Reflecting on some of these challenges, we would like to make the following suggestions. Make sure students are aware that this is a synchronous DL course (our students were not informed in advance). Anticipate problems and alert students to expect possible delays each class session. Ask for their help in offering creative solutions. Have tech support available to train students to use technology, e.g., for planning and presenting presentations. Take the time at the beginning of the first class session (and possibly each subsequent one) to explain the technology being used. It might be helpful to require a “posting” to the forum just about the technological aspects of the course each week, with observations, reflections, and suggestions.
Strategies for keeping the Satellite students engaged
Social norms do develop in cyberspace (Kerka, 1996) as in actual classroom spaces. For this reason, it is important for the satellite instructor to help establish these norms from the first class meeting. Discuss the challenges, strengths and pitfalls of distance education through ITV in the first class session. Expect technical distractions, e.g., out of synch audio and video or audio problems. Highlight the fact that these technical distractions will be a norm for the class. Communicate the need for collaboration between students and instructors at both sites to work together to create a satisfying and meaningful learning environment (Ancis, 1996). Emphasize the strengths of DL through ITV, e.g., honor the diversity due to the location of sites (rural vs. urban) or the value of being introduced to the use of a state of the art technology.
Students at the satellite site and the satellite instructor are by design going to feel somewhat isolated from the “main class” site. Following are other micro-strategies for keeping the satellite site students engaged:
1.) When not involved in the lecture, the tendency may be for the satellite instructor to sit back and work the camera from outside the semi-circle of the satellite students. We found that the more active the satellite instructor is, the more students at both sites will be engaged in a lecture-discussion format. For example, it is helpful for the satellite instructor to sit at the table with the satellite students, modeling attentive behavior, asking questions, and clarifying statements and comments from both classroom settings.
2.) Panning the camera around the room and zooming in and backing off from students helps to keep the satellite students engaged. Students tend to sit up and attend to class discussion if they can see themselves on camera as doing so.
3.) Having the students use the technology in the classroom can be helpful, particularly if they are able to work the camera, use the electronic whiteboard, or transmit a presentation using the technology (e.g., PowerPoint presentations).
4.) Satellite instructors will need to convey any non-verbal cues that are not being picked up by the main site instructor, e.g., grimaces when a bathroom break is overdue.
5.) Develop a user-friendly system for dealing with miscommunications and a contingency plan for technical difficulties. Have the students participate and offer suggestions for setting these group norms.
6.) Attention must be paid to allowing students enough time to ponder any questions that are asked, and to allow them to generate ideas and responses (Ancis, 1996). The satellite instructor must be vigilant to this activity and cue the main instructor when the satellite students have questions and comments.
To summarize, the satellite instructor’s knowledge about and attitude towards ITV technology sets the tone for the satellite site. Secondly, communication and collaboration between instructors and students are a must. And finally, establishing helpful group norms and having a sense of humor are the keys to success in keeping satellite students engaged in the educational process.
Final Thoughts
This experience with collaborative distance education was as much a learning experience for the instructors and support staff as it was for the students. We were challenged to question teaching styles, content, and approaches to course delivery. We were forced to take a leap into the unknown. Although we tried to anticipate problems, there were many that we never imagined. For example, we lost the audio component during the first class session, yet in the practice session, the audio was the most reliable component. One unanticipated outcome of this experience has been the establishment and forging of collaborative partnerships between counselor education and instructional technology, and between two different university sites.
Until we have more experiences with ITV distance education, the technology may continue to provide us with learning experiences that may be both humorous and humbling. The technical support staff asked each week if we would do this again, and each week brought different answers. With several months having passed since the end of our experience, we now say: “Sure we would… now that we have some strategies to deal with the problems that we know will arise.” We hope that this article will help readers anticipate some of the difficulties that we encountered. However, to those who choose to enter these waters, we say: “Expect the unexpected.”
References
American Council on Education (1997). Research briefs: Most colleges offer distance education courses. Washington, D.C.: Author.
Ancis, Julie R. (1996). Teaching counseling methods via satellite. In J. R. Ancis (Chair), Interactive-Television and Multimedia classrooms: Teaching psychology at a distance. Symposium presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Burge, E.J., & Howard, J.L. (1990). Audio-conferencing in graduate education: A Case Study. The American Journal of Distance Education, 4(2), 3-13.
Coldeway, D.O., MacRury, K., & Spencer, R. (1980). Distance education from the learner's perspective: The results of individual learner tracking at Athabasca University. Edmonton, Alberta: Athabasca University. (ED 259 228)
Egan, M.W., Sebastian, J., & Welch, M. (1991, March). Effective television teaching: Perceptions of those who count most...distance learners. Proceedings of the Rural Symposium, Nashville, TN. (ED 342 579)
Hayes, B. G. (1999). Where’s the data: Is multimedia instruction effective in training counselors? Journal of Technology in Counseling, 1, 1. http://jtc.colstate.edu/vol1_1/
Kerka, Sandra. (1996). Distance learning, the Internet, and the World Wide Web, ERIC Digest No .168.
Moore, M.G. & Thompson, M.M., with Quigley, A. B., Clark, G.C., & Goff, G.G. (1990). The effects of distance learning: A summary of the literature. Research Monograph No. 2. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University, American Center for the Study of Distance Education. (ED 330 321)
Moore, M. G., & Thompson M. M. (1997). The effects of distance learning (Rev. ed. ACSDE Research Monograph No. 15). University Park, PA: American Center for the Study of Distance Education, Pennsylvania State University.
Patchner, M. A., Petracchi. H., & Wise, S. (1998). Outcomes of ITV and face-to-face instruction in a social work research methods course. Computers in human services, 15, (2-3), 23-38.
Schlosser, C.A., & Anderson, M. L. (1994). Distance education: A review of the literature. Ames, IA: Iowa Distance Education Alliance, Iowa State University. (ED 382 159)
Sounder, W.E. (1993). The effectiveness of traditional vs. satellite delivery in three management of technology master's degree programs. The American Journal of Distance Education, 7(1), 37-53.
Thomas, Michele B. (1998). Presidential Address: Advocating for meaningful linkages to our global future. Counselor Education and Supervision, 38, 131-141.
Threlkeld, R., & Brzoska, K. (1994). Research in distance education. In B. Willis (Ed.), Distance Education: Strategies and Tools. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications, Inc.
Verduin, J. R. & Clark, T. A. (1991). Distance education: The foundations of effective practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Wilkes, C.W., & Burnham, B. R. (1991). Adult learner motivations and electronics distance education. The American Journal of Distance Education , 5(1), 43-50
Wulf, K. (1996). Training via the Internet: Where are we?” Training and Development, 50 (5), 50-55.
About the Authors
Mark S. Woodford is a doctoral candidate in counselor education at the University of Virginia. Laurie Rokutani is an instructor in Prevention Strategies at the College of William and Mary. Charles Gressard is an associate professor at the College of William and Mary. L. B. Berg is employed by the Virginia Educational Technology Alliance.
Correspondence can be directed to Mark S. Woodford at msw4p@virginia.edu.
