DEOSNEWS Vol. 4 No. 1.
Copyright 1994 DEOS.

Director of ACSDE and Editor of AJDE:  Dr. Michael G. Moore.
DEOSNEWS Editor:  Melody M. Thompson
DEOSNEWS Reviewer:  Doreen M. Lyons

DEOS was established with a grant from the Annenberg/CPB Project.

=========================================================================

EDITORIAL

     It would seem self-evident that widespread acceptance of distance
education must be based on faculty support and committment. Yet, as
Dillon and Walsh (1992) point out in their review of research related
to faculty participation in distance education, "the dominant theme of
distance education research has been the learner" (p. 5). A recent
exception to the trend is Clark's (1993) study of attitudes of
participating and nonparticipating higher education faculty toward
distance education, in which he examined faculty members' general
receptivity to distance education, the relationship between their
professional characteristics and receptivity, and the connection
between their experience with distance education and their receptivity
to the concept.
     Gregory Blanch, author of the article for this issue of DEOSNEWS,
presents an intriguing and valuable perspective on the issue of faculty
acceptance and support of distance education. Using a diffusion-of-
innovation paradigm, he focuses on five attributes that influence the
rate of adoption of an innovation. Readers will find this discussion of
the factors that influence a faculty member's decision to accept or
support innovative distance education programs to be a useful addition
to the literature on faculty participation in distance education.

REFERENCES

Clark, T. 1993. Attitudes of higher education faculty toward distance
education: A national survey. The American Journal of Distance
Education 7(2):19-33.

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



DON'T ALL FACULTY WANT THEIR OWN TV SHOW?
BARRIERS TO FACULTY PARTICIPATION
IN DISTANCE EDUCATION

Gregory Blanch
School of Hotel and Restaurant Management
California State Polytechnic University-Pomona
3801 W. Temple Avenue
Pomona, CA 91768-4083


INTRODUCTION

During the 1980s, many colleges and universities, including
California State Polytechnic University, Pomona (Cal Poly
Pomona), sought cost-effective and pedagogically sound ways
to accommodate larger student enrollments and provide better
access to public higher education to people in surrounding
communities.  Distance education was one of the alternatives
discussed and ultimately adopted at Cal Poly Pomona because it
seemed to present tremendous advantages to students, the
institution, and faculty.  For students, the distance education
format promised to free them from the considerable time and
effort of commuting in the congested Southern California area in
which the university is located.  It also would preclude the
associated problems of parking on campus and other "logistical"
problems.  For the university, distance education seemed to
offer a way to facilitate enrollment growth without concomitant
capital outlay expenditures for new facilities.  Benefits also
seemed to loom large for faculty:  the medium afforded faculty a
new, high-technology stage for teaching--they would have the
chance to "star" in their own television show.  In addition, they
could pursue a new challenge in teaching, and they would have
the opportunity to reach new student populations.  Finally,
because participating faculty were given a small stipend for their
department, distance education offered a way for faculty to
augment their department's budget for travel, supplies and
services, student assistants, etc.

The distance education concept engendered a contagion of
enthusiasm among college administrators and students.
However, from the outset faculty were largely immune to this
passion for distance education.  Given the substantial benefits
that seemed to accrue to them, it was curious that they were not
at the forefront of the distance education movement.  Why this
reluctance? This article describes results of research conducted
at Cal Poly Pomona to identify barriers to faculty participation in
distance education.  A qualitative study, using the diffusion-of-
innovation paradigm, focused on identifying key factors in a
faculty member's acceptance or rejection of the distance
education format.  The diffusion of innovation paradigm offered
by Rogers (1962, 1971, and 1983) identifies five attributes that
directly affect the rate of adoption of an innovation and influence
the decision-innovation process:  relative advantage of the
innovation; compatibility of the innovation with existing values,
previous experiences and the needs of the adopters; complexity
of the use of the innovation; trialability of the use of the
innovation; and observability of the results of the innovation.
Other models have been proposed to explain the diffusion and
adoption of innovations (Bhola 1984; Fullan 1985), but Rogers'
work offers the most comprehensive paradigm, the one that
lends itself most easily to comparative study (Koontz 1989).
Therefore, the major research questions for this study were
derived from the five attributes identified by Rogers:  (a) Do
faculty see relative advantages of distance education that can be
measured in economic, social-prestige, and convenience terms?
(b) Is distance education compatible with existing values, norms,
needs, and past experience of faculty?  (c) Is distance education
perceived as being complex?  (d) Can faculty "try out" the
distance education format without committing themselves to
participate?  (e) Is it relatively easy for faculty to observe the
results of distance education?

The model conceptualized by Rogers (1983) for the innovation-
decision process consists of several stages.  In the first stage,
"knowledge," an individual is exposed to the innovation's
existence and begins to gain some understanding of how it
functions.  "Persuasion" occurs when an individual forms a
favorable or unfavorable attitude toward the innovation.  A
"decision" is made when an individual engages in activities that
lead to a choice to adopt or reject the innovation.
"Implementation" occurs when an individual puts an innovation
to use, and "confirmation" follows when an individual seeks
reinforcement on an innovation-decision that already had been
made.  The possibility still exists at the confirmation stage of
reversing the previous decision if the person receives conflicting
information about the innovation.  This model served as the
basis for analyzing how the faculty included in this study
embraced or rejected the distance education format.  The results
of this study have implications for the key components of a
distance education program with regard to factors influencing
faculty participation.

METHOD

The research design included two major elements: a
questionnaire and a series of personal interviews.  The
questionnaire, which was administered before the interviews
were conducted, was intended to elicit the views of Cal Poly
Pomona faculty who had participated in the university's distance
education program, PolyNet.  The personal interviews were
intended to supplement the questionnaire.

Preparation of Questionnaire

The questionnaire comprised 26 questions requiring both
open-ended and forced-choice responses.  Questions one
through five dealt with the respondent's historical connection
with PolyNet and included such items as the number of times the
faculty member had taught on the system, the size of the class
he/she taught, and the initial way in which the faculty member
became aware of PolyNet.  The questionnaire was specifically
intended to gather information about the extent to which specific
attributes of innovation were present in the faculty member's
interaction with the PolyNet system.  Questions six through 16
addressed the attributes of innovation and attempted to determine
to what extent these attributes were present.  The questions were
written in such a way as to elicit this information while not
identifying the specific attribute in the question itself.  The third
goal of the questionnaire was to develop a demographic profile
of the respondents.  Questions 17 through 26 focused on issues
such as departmental affiliation, years of service as a university
instructor, rank, and tenure status.  This information was
gathered to facilitate study of possible correlations between
demographic features such as rank and tenure with specific
characteristics of innovation.

Distribution of Questionnaire

The survey was sent to PolyNet faculty under a cover letter
from the researcher indicating general background information
on the researcher's interest in distance education, on-going
research in which the respondent's participation would be
appreciated, and the confidentiality of the survey.  In addition,
the cover letter stated that the research project had the support of
the director of the PolyNet system.

Determination of Sample and Return Rate

Thirty-five Cal Poly Pomona faculty members have taught a
course on the PolyNet system since its inception.  Of that
number, 13 had retired or left higher education and could not
be contacted to participate in this survey.  The remaining 22
faculty were sent a questionnaire; a total of 15 were returned for
a 68% response rate.  Faculty members who responded were
distributed across the following five academic areas: arts,
engineering, agriculture, education, and hotel and restaurant
management.  The sample, like the population from which it was
drawn, did not reflect the general characteristics of the Cal Poly
Pomona faculty with respect to gender, age, or national origin.

Limitations of Survey

Faculty participation in the PolyNet system has been limited for
several reasons: PolyNet has been in existence for only seven
years and the subject matter taught over the system has been
restricted to  introductory and general education courses.  In
addition, broadcast facilities can accommodate the offering of
only three courses per academic quarter.  Accordingly, a
maximum of nine faculty can teach on PolyNet each academic
year and, as a result, the sample population for the research
survey was small.  Of the 22 faculty who have taught on
PolyNet, many have taught on more than one occasion.

Follow-up Interviews with Respondents

Follow-up interviews were conducted with four respondents
who had indicated on the questionnaire their willingness to
provide additional commentary about their experience with
PolyNet.  These interviews were intended to generate additional
data and to create a context within which the surveys could be
evaluated.  The interviewees were selected on the basis of their
discipline, the number of times they had taught on PolyNet, and
their familiarity with other innovative educational delivery
systems.  The interview questions attempted to elicit from each
faculty member more in-depth descriptions and analyses of their
involvement in PolyNet, and to establish what connections, if
any, they could draw between the specific characteristics of
innovation and their own, as well as their colleagues',
involvement with distance education.

RESULTS

Demographic Profile of the Questionnaire Respondents

The majority of the questionnaire respondents (86.7%) were 41
years of age or older, 80% were tenured, 100% had full-time
appointments and 93.4% held the rank of associate professor
or professor.  Almost three-quarters (73.3%) of the respondents
were male; 26.7% were female.  When asked to identify their
ethnic affiliation, 60% said "White, non-Hispanic," 19.9%
"declined to state," and 6.7% marked "American Indian,"  "Black,
non-Hispanic," and "Chicano," respectively.

Most of the respondents (60%) taught in the arts and humanities,
20% were from the sciences, and 6.7% each reported an
affiliation with business, engineering, and hotel and restaurant
management, respectively.  Doctoral degrees were held by 66.7%
of the respondents; the balance held master's degrees or the
equivalent.  Almost all the respondents were experienced
teachers with over 10 years of teaching at the university level.

Survey Responses

Ten questions on the questionnaire were concerned with the
respondents' beliefs about PolyNet in terms of the five
characteristics of diffusion: relative advantage, compatibility,
complexity, trialability, and observability.  In respect to relative
advantage and compatibility, 46.7% of the respondents said that
teaching at a distance was not a viable alternative to the
traditional model.  In response to the questions concerning
complexity, 60% indicated that PolyNet was more complicated
than anticipated.  In terms of trailability, 33.3% said  the chance
to experiment with a new instructional model was a very
important factor in influencing their decision to teach on
PolyNet, while 26.7% each indicated that "compensation for the
department" and "reaching a new student population" were very
important factors.

Other responses from the survey with implications for the
question of diffusion, or lack thereof, were as follows: the
respondents were evenly split (46.6% on each side) on the
question of whether teaching on PolyNet confers any positive
status or prestige on the instructor; 6.7% were undecided. Almost
half (46.7%) said they did not think their faculty colleagues
believed that teaching on PolyNet was a viable alternative to the
traditional model; 20% thought it was; and a third (33.3%) were
undecided.

A majority of respondents (66.7%) thought that the courses
delivered on PolyNet met the needs of students; 13.3% said they
did not, and 20% were undecided.  Most respondents (60%)
thought teaching on PolyNet was more complicated than they
had initially anticipated, and only a third (33.3%) had ever
attempted to persuade someone else to teach on PolyNet.  For
the vast majority of respondents (80%), PolyNet was the first
and only innovative educational delivery system in which they
had participated.

Seven faculty members responded to an open-ended question
about the most difficult barriers they had faced in teaching on
the PolyNet system.  This question elicited responses that could
be grouped into two categories: a) technical problems (e.g.,
learning to look into a camera, not being able to move freely
around the studio/classroom, having to use different types and
sizes of overhead transparencies); and b) pedagogical concerns
(e.g., lack of student interaction with the instructor or other
students in different locations, inability to deviate from planned
syllabus, complexity of administering tests, inability to judge
immediate student reactions to the material being taught).

Interview Results

The interviews elicited expanded comments from faculty
regarding the degree to which the attributes of innovation were
present with respect to the educational innovation of PolyNet.
Interviewees were assured confidentiality of their responses and
provided with general information about the subject of diffusion
of innovation and the specific diffusion attributes being studied.
The interview responses were aggregated to assure anonymity
and arranged under each of the five diffusion attributes that were
discussed:

1. Relative Advantage. This attribute refers to the degree to
which an innovation is perceived as better than the one it
supersedes (Rogers 1983).  As the interviewees discussed this
characteristic, there was unanimity of agreement that, in this case,
distance education (PolyNet) was not better than traditional
forms of education.  Their comments revealed a perspective that
PolyNet was appropriate for delivery of lower-division and
general education course work, but they did not believe that
courses requiring more in-depth analysis (and greater
faculty/student interaction) than the "survey type" course would
work as well in the distance format  It was their feeling that it was
"still to be shown" whether PolyNet could have broader applica-
tions for the university's comprehensive range of course offerings.
None of the respondents suggested that distance education has
a relative advantage over the traditional format for education.

2. Compatibility. This attribute reflects the degree to which an
innovation is perceived as consistent with the existing values,
past experiences, and needs of potential adopters (Rogers,
1983).  In discussing this attribute, one of the interviewees was
particularly adamant that neither PolyNet nor any other form of
distance education was going to "become a tool which would act
to replace the existing values held by my colleagues."  This
respondent went on to say, "without a full media blitz about the
benefits of distance education, PolyNet is never going to be
widely accepted."  To some degree this attitude was reflected in
the comments of the other interviewees.  Although they were not
as forceful in their remarks, it was clear that they felt their
faculty colleagues needed to be educated about distance learning.
Some interviewees offered specific recommendations as to how
their colleagues might become better informed about this topic.
These suggestions pointed to things the university administration
could do, e.g., hold "workshops" for faculty.  None of the
faculty members interviewed saw themselves as agents of change
or as being in a position to influence how their colleagues regarded
PolyNet.

3. Complexity: This attribute is the degree to which an
innovation is perceived as relatively difficult to understand and
use (Rogers, 1983).  All of the faculty interviewed said they
found PolyNet more complicated than they had anticipated.
They emphasized, however, that once they taught on the system,
they were able to discover ways to adjust their traditional
teaching approach to the television format.  One of the
interviewees described using PolyNet as analogous to learning
to use a computer: "I walked up and down the hallways of my
building for quite a long time seeing people writing notes and
preparing course work by hand when a computer with a word
processing program was no more than two feet away."

4. Trialability. This attribute is the degree to which an innovation
may be experimented with on a limited basis (Rogers, 1983).  A
number of the interviewees stated that finding a way to let
faculty "try out" PolyNet in a meaningful way would be
"revolutionary," and that if this opportunity were made available,
it would result in a "tremendous lift" for the PolyNet program.
Several of the interviewees suggested that their colleagues had
actually asked if there were a way in which to "try out" PolyNet.
In all cases, the response had been that the only "trial method"
was to guest lecturer during one of the courses.

5. Observability. This characteristic is the degree to which the
results of an innovation are visible to others (Rogers, 1983).
Interviewees reported that they had not given much thought to
the idea that increased  "observability," as a result of marketing,
might also increase the use and acceptance of distance education.
The interviewees considered observability something that might
take place within their own discipline; none thought of PolyNet
or their work in distance education as a way to increase their
"observability" to others.

DISCUSSION

Within each social system, innovations will diffuse at varying
rates from the time of their introduction to their general use.
This study looked at the degree to which Rogers' five
characteristics of innovation--relative advantage, compatibility,
complexity, trialability, and observability--have influenced the
decision-innovation process with respect to faculty participation
in the PolyNet distance education program at Cal Poly Pomona.

Based on the data compiled through the questionnaire study and
interviews, the following conclusions are drawn:

Relative Advantage/Compatibility: Is distance learning a viable
alternative to the traditional model and does it meet student
needs?

Faculty surveyed did not believe that distance education is
a viable alternative to the traditional teaching format. In
taking this position, faculty indicated that they view PolyNet
as having no "relative advantage" over traditional teaching,
even though they believe that student needs are being met by
the current lower-division courses delivered on PolyNet.
Faculty asserted that student needs would not be met if the
courses offered went beyond the introductory level.
"Compatibility," the belief that the needs of the adopters
(students) are being met, is present at the level of course
instruction now being offered.

Observability: Are PolyNet faculty accorded special status within
the university?

Instructors do not perceive that high status is conferred upon
those who teach on the PolyNet system.  On the survey,
faculty members responded either "no" or "undecided" to the
question of whether prestige accrued to instructors who taught Poly-
Net courses. Based on the interview comments, status and prestige
seem to be more important to university faculty than are monetary
rewards, a critical issue in structuring a distance education program
that is attractive to faculty.  The diffusion trait "observability" is
not evident in either the survey or interview responses. Teaching
a course on PolyNet is not recognized by the faculty-at-large, a
sentiment expressed clearly and unambiguously in the research.

Trialability/Complexity: Is PolyNet perceived as complicated to
use?  Should faculty have an opportunity to "try out" the
distance education format?

The faculty responded in similar ways to the issue of
"trialability" and "complexity."  The majority of faculty stated
that a method to "try out" the system would be beneficial and
increase interest.  Their resounding affirmation that PolyNet is
more complicated to use than they had anticipated seems to
underscore the need to provide faculty with a way to "try out"
the format in advance of committing to teach a course over the
system.

General Faculty Comments

The interviews, in particular, pointed out that teaching over
television presents several additional challenges for teachers.
The interviewees' comments were remarkably homogeneous and
easily sorted into two categories: administrative/technical
problems and academic concerns.  In both these areas the
interviewees emphasized what they thought should be done in
order to increase faculty awareness and utilization of PolyNet.
Under the aegis of "administrative/technical" problems, they
indicated that PolyNet needs a higher profile within the campus
community and commented that not enough status is conferred
upon those who teach on the system.  In terms of "academic"
concerns, the most urgent comment had to do with the lack of
face-to-face student interaction.  Instructors are accustomed to
relying on students' facial expressions to judge responses to the
material being presented, and the lack of those responses was
disconcerting to them.  In addition, questions lingered about the
efficacy of distance education in the teaching/learning process.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The purpose of this research was to identify the critical barriers
to faculty adoption of a distance education format.  Those
aspects which faculty identified as presenting the greatest
obstacles for the increased use of the Cal Poly's PolyNet were a
lack of awareness on the part of the university community to the
general benefits of distance education, lack of faculty incentives
for involvement with PolyNet, an unrealistic requirement to
commit, without any trial period, to teaching a course using a
technology that requires a very different teaching approach, and
the faculty's sense that distance education is not integrated within
the university's programs and plans.

As previously stated, the relative newness of Cal Poly Pomona's
program has limited both the total course offerings and the
number of opportunities to teach a distance education course.
This restriction, in turn, has limited the sample size. Thus, further
research is necessary to determine whether these findings can
be generalized to other settings. However, based on the current
research, four general recommendations emerged which, if
followed, would increase the likelihood of faculty participation in
distance learning programs:

1. Campus Visibility. It is critical that the university community
becomes aware of distance learning.  Increasing the general
awareness of this educational delivery system would result in
several subsidiary benefits.  Foremost, there would be a greater
chance of identifying those persons who could be categorized
as "change agents," people who are venturesome and eager to
try new innovations, a requirement for any innovation to move
through the innovation-decision process.  Additionally, a greater
awareness of the distance education system and its accom-
plishments could serve to enhance the status of those who teach
on the system.  As part of the effort to educate faculty about
distance education, faculty concerns about the efficacy of distance
education could be addressed and dispelled.

2. Faculty "Introduction" to Distance Education. Faculty should
be able to learn more about distance learning and to "try out"
the technology before they are required to make a commitment
to teach a course in this format.  This trial period would allow
faculty to learn first-hand how much adaptation is required in a
course taught over television.

3. Enhanced Faculty Incentives. Incentives for those who teach
over television must be part of a distance education program.
While emphasis could be placed on non-monetary rewards,
one possible incentive could be increased support for
instructors who wish to do research and write about their
experiences using a distance education format.

4. Integration of Distance Learning with Major University
Initiatives. Distance learning should be used as a vehicle to
enhance existing university initiatives, programs, and plans.
Instructors should be encouraged to look at new ways in which
distance learning can benefit their teaching, scholarship, and
service activities, as well as benefit the entire university
community by integrating teaching over television with major
university initiatives.

As Cal Poly Pomona's distance education program evolves from
"pilot" status to a program that is fully integrated into the
organizational fabric, the university must develop a distance
education schema that meets the needs of students and, at the
same time, addresses the concerns of faculty.



REFERENCES

Bhola, H.S. 1985. Planned Educational Change: A Model and
Critiques Thereof. Viewpoints in Teaching and Learning, 58, 4.

Fullan, M. 1985. Change Processes and Strategies at the Local
Level. The Elementary School Journal, 85.

Koontz, F.R. 1989. Critical Barriers to the Adoption of
Instructional Television in Education. Educational Technology,
April.

Rogers, E.M. 1962. Diffusion of Innovations. New York:
Free Press of Glencoe.

Rogers, E. M. 1983. Diffusion of Innovations. New York:
The Free Press.

Rogers, E. M., and F. F. Shoemaker. 1971. Communication
of Innovations. New York: The Free Press.

==================================================================

Top of Page

The American Center for the Study of Distance Education (ACSDE)
The Pennsylvania State University
College of Education
110 Rackley Building
University Park, PA 16802-3202
Phone (814) 863-3764  FAX (814) 865-5878
ACSDE@psu.edu
www.ed.psu.edu/ACSDE

©2001 The Pennsylvania State University
College of Education