Accounting Faculty Members' Perceptions of Distance Learning:

An Exploratory Study

By

Michael Mosebach and Richard I. Newmark

 

ABSTRACT

This study measures the perceptions of faculty members who teach accounting with recent distance learning (DL) experience towards DL. Subjects are from universities with nationally recognized DL programs. Seventy-six of the 230 surveys were returned, but only 22 of the respondents have recently taught a DL course, with 15 respondents using interactive television as their primary delivery medium. These faculty members believe their DL courses are equally rigorous in terms of quantity and complexity of material. While subjects generally feel accounting poses no unusual problems for DL delivery, some faculty members feel journal entries and complex solutions are difficult to present via the Internet or interactive television. Other concerns are that students are intimidated by DL media, and interaction and information retention is lower for DL students. Another finding is that accounting departments at these DL-committed universities are slow to adopt DL. Finally, subjects overwhelmingly acknowledge that their opinion towards DL changed after actually teaching a DL course.

 

INTRODUCTION

Distance learning (DL) is broadly defined as any form of instructor-student communication where the student and instructor are separated during the process of education delivery (Swift, Wilson, and Wayland 1997). Universities use many different media to reach students who cannot attend on-campus classes due to temporal and/or geographical restrictions. Many university distance learning programs can be classified into two general types, those that use interactive television (ITV) and those that use the Internet for course delivery.  Interactive television combines two-way audio with either one-way or two-way video, while use of the Internet includes audio and video, synchronous chat, asynchronous discussion forums, LISTSERVâ, e-mail, static web pages, and interactive web sites. Usually, several content delivery media are used within the same course.

Many prestigious universities are involved in DL, including University of California-Berkeley, The Pennsylvania State University, University of Chicago, Columbia University, and University of Wisconsin. Several new for-profit organizations are entering the “business” of higher education such as UNext, Jones University, and University of Phoenix. Additionally, corporations are offering DL courses (some of them accredited) to their employees (Moore, 1997). These and other DL efforts have caused much controversy among faculty members. Ardent supporters of DL feel it is part of a much needed paradigm shift from teacher-centered, passive learning (e.g., lectures) to student-centered active learning (Beaudoin, 1990). The most vocal detractors, on the other hand, believe that DL will damage higher education by reducing it to mere training (Young, 2000). Among these detractors are the members of the American Federation of Teachers, who recently passed a resolution that opposes undergraduate degrees earned entirely online (Carnevale, 2000).

This disparity of opinions has expanded beyond academic circles, as illustrated by two recent Business Week articles. In the first article, Nobel Prize winner Gary Becker stated that in addition to supporting DL conceptually, he is investing in a for-profit organization involved in this educational delivery mode (Becker, 1999). Business Week followed up this positive view of DL with a response presenting an opposing view. In this article, Richard A. Hale, Professor Emeritus of the University of Maine, openly displayed his distaste for DL. He states, “Having a degree implies that you have an education . . . [which is] obtained by being physically part of the college community, interacting face to face with instructors and fellow students in and out of class...” (Hale, 2000).

One point of contention in the DL debate addressed in these articles is the quality and quantity of interaction both in class and outside of class. This combination of formal and informal interaction helps to create a “community of learning," which many believe significantly enhances the education process (Brown and Duguid, 2000). Hanno (1999) addressed the issue of creating a community of learning as a way to energize one’s teaching, “...taking the time to speak on a personal level with a student may be more memorable...than your most dynamic lecture.” Detractors of DL question the ability of DL courses to create a community of learning (Brown and Duguid, 2000). Many fear that what little student-instructor interaction takes place in face-to-face classes will be further reduced by using DL course delivery methods. For instance, Gardiner (1997) found that over half of face-to-face students have little or no interaction with faculty members.

Another concern described by Noble (1999) is the lack of faculty member involvement in universities’ decisions to implement DL programs. Noble notes that administrators’ disregard for faculty members input contributed to the downfall of correspondence courses (the oldest form of DL; Watkins and Wright, 1992) at prestigious universities (e.g., University of California-Berkeley, University of Chicago, Columbia University, and University of Wisconsin) a century earlier.

This paper explores the perceptions of faculty members who teach accounting with DL teaching experience towards distance learning. Although other studies have surveyed DL faculty members about their attitudes towards DL (Taylor and White, 1991; Clark, 1993; NEA, 2000, SUWGA, 2000), these studies do not necessarily reflect the opinions and concerns of faculty members who teach accounting. Moreover, the only study in accounting concerning DL (Seay and Milkman, 1994) was a study to assess student performance and attitudes in an interactive television accounting course. Therefore, faculty members who teach accounting at seventeen schools identified as leaders in distance learning are surveyed. Since these respondents have DL teaching experience at institutions committed to DL, their perceptions are used to highlight issues that may warrant consideration by accounting departments considering DL initiatives.

 

RESEARCH METHOD

Sample

We surveyed faculty members who teach accounting at universities identified by Forbes Magazine as the top 20 schools in DL (Ebeling and Bistayi, 1997). Four additional universities were included because they offer online courses or degrees and are AACSB accredited [1] (Beta Gamma Sigma News, 1998). Of the original 24 institutions, seven were not listed in the Accounting Faculty Directory 1998-1999 (Hasselback, 1998), indicating they either did not have an accounting department or they did not grant undergraduate accounting degrees. The seventeen universities remaining in the sample are listed in Table 1.

 

Table 1

Universities Listed as Active in Distance Learning

 

California State University - Dominguez Hills

Carnegie Mellon University

Colorado State University

Duke University

Indiana University

Michigan State University

New York Institute of Technology

Nova Southeastern University

Old Dominion University

University of Akron

University of Alaska Southeast at Sitka

University of Colorado at Colorado Springs

University of Maryland

University of Missouri - St. Louis

University of Tennessee

University of Wisconsin - Oshkosh

Washington State University

 

Source:  Forbes Magazine, June 16, 1997 and Beta Gamma Sigma News, Fall 1998

 

Two hundred thirty (230) surveys were sent to faculty members listed in the Accounting Faculty Directory 1998-1999 (Hasselback, 1998) as members of the institutions in Table 1. Of the 76 surveys returned (33 percent response rate), 44 respondents (19 percent of the sample; 58 percent of the respondents) indicated their accounting departments either did not offer DL courses or they did not teach DL courses. This left 22 usable surveys (9.5 percent of the sample) [2]

Demographics of Respondents/Institutions

Demographic information for the respondents and their institutions are presented in Table 2. Most faculty members are terminally qualified (86 percent) and the majority are CPAs (64 percent). The most common teaching areas are financial and managerial accounting, though all areas are represented. Additionally respondents are experienced teachers (mean teaching experience = 17.3 years), which is consistent with studies in other disciplines describing the characteristics of DL faculty members (NEA, 2000). The demographic information indicates subjects in this study are a diverse and seemingly representative, albeit small, sample of faculty members who teach accounting. Moreover, the demographics of respondents who had no recent DL experience possessed similar characteristics (86 percent doctorates, 72 percent CPAs, most common teaching areas were financial and managerial accounting, mean teaching experience of 17.9 years).

Demographic Information (n=22)

Education Level (highest):		Masters								Ph.D./DBA														Total
		3								19														22
		(14%)								(86%)														(100%)
CPA Certification:		CPA										Non-CPA													Total
		14										8													22
		(64%)										(36%)													(100%)
Teaching Experience (Yrs):								17.3 Mean 15.5 Median														9.0 Std. Dev.
DL Sections Taught past 2 yrs:	1					2							3							4				5										Total
2.1 Mean      1.0 Std. Dev.	6 (27%)					10 (45%)							4 (18%)							1 (5%)				1 (5%)										22 (100%)
Teaching Expertise:	Fin			Mgrl							Audit							Tax					Cost							Systems							Other
	11			13							4							4					8							5							5
% of sampleA	(50%)			(59%)							(18%)							(18%)					(36%)							(23%)							(23%)
Primary DL	ITV								Internet								Other												Total
Delivery Medium:	15								6								1												22
	(68%)								(27%)								(5%)												(100%)
Choice To Teach DL Classes:							Yes									No												Total
							16								6												22
							(73%)								(27%)												(100%)
Compensation to			Salary					Release Time																		None						Total
Teach Dl Classes:			10					11																		1						22
			(45%)					(50%)																		(5%)						(100%)
Entire Degree Program on DL?					Yes									No							Don't Know												Total
					14									6							2												22
					(64%)									(27%)							(9%)												(100%)
If Yes, Which Degree(s)?					BSBAcct														MSAcct												MBA
Some offer multiple DL degrees					7														5												11
multiple DL degreesB					(32%)														(23%)												(50%)
Has DL Increased # of					Yes									No							Don't Know												Total
Acct Students? [3]					6									10							6												22
					(27%)									(46%)							(27%)												(100%)

 

 

Size of Univ (000s):	5-10	10-15	15-20	20-30	>30	N/AC	Total
# of Universities:	1	1	4	5	1		10
	(10%)	(10%)	(40%)	(30%)	(10%)		(100%)
# of Respondents:	2	2	8	6	2	2	22
	(9%)	(9%)	(37%)	(27%)	(9%)	(9%)	(100%)
# of Acct Faculty:	1-5	6-10	11-15	16-20	21-25	N/AC	Total
# of Universities:	1	3	4	1	1		10
	(10%)	(30%)	(40%)	(10%)	(10%)		(100%)
# of Respondents:	2	5	11	1	1	2	22
	(9%)	(22%)	(50%)	(5%)	(5%)	(9%)	(100%)

 

^A Faculty were allowed to designate multiple areas of teaching expertise.

^B Percentage based on total of yes and no responses (20 responses).

^C Data was not available.

 

Subjects have taught an average of 2 DL course sections during the past two years, indicating that they have had recent experience with DL teaching. The primary course delivery method was interactive television (68 percent), which consists of two-way audio with either one-way or two-way video—one-way video allows students to see the instructor, but the instructor cannot see students at remote sites. Twenty-seven percent of the sample used the Internet for course delivery and 5 percent used print correspondence. [4] ITV is an older technology, and has involved a large capital investment, which helps explain its widespread use. Additionally, it is often used by universities because it more closely represents a traditional classroom experience, which makes it easier for both instructors and students to adapt to the delivery medium (Delbecq and Scates, 1991, p. 344).

The universities in this sample are mostly large institutions—80 percent of the subjects are from universities with over 15,000 students. This is to be expected given the large amount of resources needed to support a large-scale distance learning program. For ITV, the technical resources include broadcast and receiving classrooms, broadcast infrastructure such as satellite up-links at broadcast sites and satellite down-links at receiving sites, and additional computer network infrastructure to facilitate communications outside the classroom (e.g., e-mail, web pages, bulletin boards, chat rooms). ITV also requires additional support personnel such as broadcast technicians, and technical and administrative personnel at remote sites. For online course delivery via the Internet, the computer network infrastructure must be able to support the heavy demands that online courses place on computer networks.

As technological advances improve the quality of video delivered over the internet, universities will likely shift from ITV to streamed Internet delivery because universities will not have to maintain costly receiving sites and students will be able to take courses from any location where they have access to a computer with an Internet connection. This will reduce the overall costs to the university and expand the pool of potential that can be served.

For any type of distance learning program, additional personnel are needed to support DL courses such as instructional designers, who help faculty members adapt their courses to DL. In addition, someone must co-ordinate and lead the DL functions. For example, The Wall Street Journal recently reported that Old Dominion University was offering $150,000 - $200,000 to hire a Vice President of Distance Learning (Dunham, 1999).

Additional administrative resources are also necessary to provide student support services: e.g., registration, advising, and career placement) to distance students. Also, sufficient electronic library and research resources must be provided as students at a distance often lack access to local physical resources of their universities.

Most subjects, 73 percent, reported that their institutions give faculty members the choice of whether they teach in distance learning. Three respondents (14 percent), however, commented that while they officially have a choice, refusing a DL teaching assignment is viewed very negatively by their college and university administration. Almost all subjects (95 percent) reported receiving some extra compensation for teaching DL courses. Additional compensation was either in the form of a one-time course release (50 percent) or extra monetary compensation (45 percent). [5]

Almost two-thirds of respondents (64 percent) indicated students can earn an accounting or MBA degree via DL. Twenty-three percent of the respondents indicated their universities offer degrees via DL for both undergraduate and graduate accounting and an online MBA.  Another 27 percent of the sample indicated their universities only offered an MBA degree, and two subjects (9 percent) indicated that only a bachelors degree in accounting was offered through DL.

Respondents were also asked if DL had increased the number of accounting students in their programs. Only 27 percent believed that DL had increased accounting enrollments while 46 percent indicated no increase in enrollments and 27 percent did not know. [6]   Of the six respondents who indicated DL had increased their accounting enrollments, three subjects reported an increase greater than 10 percent.

This study's small sample size reflects the number of institutions with accounting departments that participate in distance learning. Of the 17 institutions nationally recognized for their DL efforts, surveys were received from faculty members at 15 of those institutions. Respondents at four of those institutions indicated no DL courses are offered in accounting. When these responses are combined with the two institutions who only offer DL courses for their MBA program, respondents indicate that 35 percent of these institutions recognized for their DL programs do not offer any accounting courses (other than support for a DL MBA program) via DL.

Test Instrument

The survey instrument contained 28 statements on a seven-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree; 7 = strongly agree) to gather information about faculty members perceptions of distance learning. The following areas were addressed: student quality (four questions), student outcomes (two questions), interaction (five questions), community of knowledge (two questions), course content (three questions), teaching methods (two questions), faculty members preparation (three questions), effects of teaching medium on course delivery (five questions), and overall attitude towards DL (two questions). Additionally, the survey contained a section to gather demographic information about the subjects and their institutions. The survey was sent with a cover letter describing the purpose of the survey and stressing that perceptions were important to the study. Subjects were encouraged to fill out the demographic data even if they did not have any DL teaching experience.

 

RESULTS

Table 3 presents the results of the survey. Responses are trichotomized to highlight strong attitudes towards DL. Responses of 1 or 2 (strong disagreement) are grouped together. Responses of 3, 4, or 5 are considered neutral responses. The “don’t know” responses are included in the same column next to the neutral responses so they can be easily aggregated with the neutral responses. Responses of 6 or 7 (strong agreement) are grouped together. Additionally, the means, medians, and standard deviations of responses to each statement are reported (“don’t know” responses are not included in the computations). The items are grouped by the categories set forth above to facilitate discussion.

Table 3

Faculty Perceptions of Distance Learning Students (n = 22)