DEOSNEWS Vol. 6 No. 1, ISSN 1062-9416.
Copyright 1996
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
EDITORIAL
 
In attempting to understand the many aspects of effectiveness in
distance education, some researchers have focused on participants'
attitudes toward distance education. Understandably, early studies
on this topic focused on the attitudes expressed by students and
teachers. More recently, the focus on attitudes has expanded to
include those involved at the administrative level of educational
provision: principals, superintendents, deans, etc.
 
In this article, Margaret Haughey and Tara Fenwick discuss the
perceptions of high-school superintendents responsible for
implementing a province-wide distance education initiative in
Alberta, Canada. Interested readers also may want to examine two
related articles: "Distance Learning in North Dakota: A Cross-
technology Study of the Schools, Administrators, Coordinators,
Intructors, and Students" (V. Hobbs 1990; ED 328 225) and "What
Library Schools Teach About Library Support to Distant Students: A
Survey" (M. Kascus 1994; The American Journal of Distance
Education 8(1).
 
 
 
SUPERINTENDENTS' PERCEPTIONS OF A DISTANCE EDUCATION
IMPLEMENTATION INITIATIVE
 
Margaret Haughey, PhD
Department of Educational Policy Studies
7-104 Education North
University of Alberta
Edmonton, AB
T6G 5G5
Margaret_Haughey@admin.educ.ualberta.ca
 
Tara Fenwick, MEd
Department of Educational Policy Studies
7-104 Education North
University of Alberta
Edmonton, AB
T6G 5G5
 
 
INTRODUCTION
 
In Alberta, in 1989, the provincial government spearheaded an
initiative to decentralize the provision of distance education
programs in order to improve the access of rural secondary students
to a complete high school curriculum. Revisions to the high school
diploma requirements meant that many rural or smaller schools were
finding it difficult to offer the broad range of courses required by
students. The purpose of distance education was defined as a means
to "enable the school to provide courses not otherwise available by
traditional delivery methods due to (a) insufficient student numbers
in these courses, or (b) absence of an on-site specialist to deliver
these courses" (Alberta Education 1990a, 2).
 
To assist jurisdictions in implementing this initiative the
government made available a Distance Education Grant to all eligible
schools (those with fewer than 150 students, offering at least one
distance education course, at least 30 km. from a high school with
150 or more students, and with a jurisdiction assessment per student
of less than $100,000). Schools which met these criteria could
receive a one-time equipment accession and installation grant, and a
yearly operating grant based on the number of distance education
student credits offered. Alberta Education also expected that
jurisdictions would contribute to the cost of their own distance
education programs from local resources. The equipment grant was
most often spent on the purchase of the mini-VAX computers to run
the data bases of test items, on audioconferencing equipment which
would allow for real-time interaction among students and teachers,
and on facsimile machines to reduce cost and time in postage and to
provide quick student feedback.
 
Alberta Education's Distance Learning Centre continued to
develop distance education course materials and these were made
available for purchase to school jurisdictions. They were mainly
print based but the senior-level mathematics and science courses
include videotapes, and some courses--for example, mathematics--
were available through computer-managed learning which provided
a data base of test items. And the test banks were also available on
CD ROM. Each jurisdiction was responsible for developing an
appropriate infrastructure which would provide tutoring, marking
and student support. Some superintendents chose to provide the
services by developing linkages among schools within their own
jurisdictions. Many jurisdictions formed consortia which were
responsible for the coordination of these services. Most often, the
tutor services were provided through some combination of presently
employed teachers and retired teachers in the local community, the
former involved as part of extra-curricular expectations, or to make
up a full-time assignment.
 
Despite the short time frame for implementation, the initiative
could be considered a success given the increased numbers of
students who registered for distance education courses and the
remarkable completion rate from approximately 30% when students
accessed courses through the provincial correspondence school to
90% when they registered through their local school (Alberta
Education 1990b). The people who had major responsibility for the
implementation of this initiative were the school superintendents.
The support they provided for the initiative and their presentations to
their own school boards were crucial in influencing the extent of
participation and willingness of school staffs to work with the
"messiness" inherent in any change process.
 
In most jurisdictions, the superintendent was responsible for
encouraging schools to offer the distance education programs and
determining how the district would organize itself for
implementation. He or she would negotiate collaborative
arrangements with other districts if the decision had been made to
join a consortium and take part in policy-making and management
committees representing the consortium. Most importantly,
superintendents often accepted responsibility for communication:
articulating the potential of distance education to school boards,
staff, and parents, and maintaining close communication with other
districts.
 
This three-year study explored the perceptions of Alberta
superintendents regarding the distance education initiative. We were
interested in discovering the ways they had decided to organize and
manage the new distance education programs, the kinds of results
they were observing among staff and students, as well as some of
the issues that were emerging. We also wanted to explore
superintendents' own feelings and attitudes about the innovation and
whether those changed over time.
 
This paper documents our study of superintendents'
perceptions of distance education, explaining the methods we used
to explore superintendents' perceptions, our findings and analysis of
the data, and the implications of our conclusions for the future of
distance education in school districts in Alberta.
 
METHODOLOGY
 
Basing our questions on case study data (Gonnet 1991;
Haughey 1990; Hough 1992) and on conversations with
government officials responsible for assisting in the implementation
of the initiative, we developed a 64 item survey. The questions
sought to determine superintendents' extent of understanding of
distance education, the involvement of their jurisdictions, and their
concerns regarding implementation. Each item statement had a Likert
scale response option from 1 to 5 with 1 labeled "Low" and 5
"High".
 
At the time of the first survey, April 1991, the distance
education initiative was completing its second year. In April 1993,
when we repeated the survey and did follow-up interviews, a cut of
8% in the distance education grant had been announced. We
wondered whether superintendents were still enthusiastic about the
initiative or whether given the restrictions on resources they were
less willing to support the implementation of distance education in
their jurisdictions.
 
In 1991 and 1993 there were 146 jurisdictions in Alberta but
only 121 superintendents, since some provided leadership for a
number of small jurisdictions. In 1991, the response rate was 83%,
and in 1993, 77%. Telephone interviews were held with fifteen
superintendents chosen from those who agreed to a further
discussion of distance education. They represented a sample of
urban and rural districts located in various regions of the province
and engaged in different stages of implementation of distance
education. The interviews were free-flowing conversations based on
open-ended questions following up some specific areas of the
questionnaire.
 
Typically, superintendents talked about the advantages and
disadvantages of distance education as they experienced it in their
districts, what they perceived to be the impact of distance education
on teachers and students, their attitudes towards working with a
consortium of other districts to deliver distance education, and their
sense of what might happen in the future with respect to distance
education implementation in their districts. The findings of the two
surveys and interview results are described in the next section. In
reporting data, the percentages refer to 1993 data unless specified
and are a combination of responses for either the first or last two
response options on the scale.
 
DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS
 
The sources of superintendents' knowledge and
understandings about distance education appeared to vary. All had
records of student course completion rates and achievement in
distance education courses to compare with student scores from
regular classrooms. Some had completed district-wide surveys of
student and staff attitudes to the new programs. A few had visited
distance education classrooms and talked with teachers and students
involved in implementation.
 
Although not questioned directly about their own role in the
distance education implementation, those superintendents who were
interviewed talked of themselves as active "cheerleaders," but not as
"champions" of the innovation. Nor were they disposed to make the
innovation mandatory in their schools. As one superintendent stated:
"We've been encouraging, we've been prompting, we've been
supporting any kind of initiatives that we can get, but we have not
said we're going to compel." Most were quite open about the
limitations in their understandings, and readily discussed their own
perceived lack of sufficient knowledge about the technology
involved in their current distance education implementation.
 
Despite some of their concerns and criticisms, most
superintendents (85%) supported distance education and there had
been an increase in the use of distance education between 1991 and
1993. While a quarter of superintendents in both years made
extensive use of distance education, the percentage of those
indicating some use rose from 55 to 61%. In 1993, over half (57%)
of the superintendents said that distance education was expanding in
their jurisdictions while 75% said that there had been no reduction of
services.
 
Most agreed that a major advantage of Alberta's distance
education courses was that these programs offer significant
flexibility to smaller high schools. The majority felt that the distance
education programs offered not only an increase in course options
but also in quality of education for students in small schools, but
fewer agreed that course options and quality were enhanced in larger
schools. Perhaps as a result of their experience, many more
superintendents (from 10% in 1991 to 34% in 1993) agreed that for
small schools distance education provided educational opportunities
equal to those in large schools. However, only 40% thought that
distance education was absolutely essential in order for students in
small schools to satisfy the diploma requirements. In contrast, one
superintendent suggested that certain small schools in his district
would have been threatened with closure if they hadn't been able to
offer the distance education courses purchased from Alberta
Education.
 
TEACHING
 
Over 60% of superintendents believed that distance
education would change both the concept of teaching and of school
and that it provided an opportunity for teachers to restructure their
teaching role and place greater emphasis on the facilitation of
instruction. In the interviews, it became apparent that while many
superintendents shared a vision of significant changes to the
teacher's future role, most did not view these changes as imminent.
Most interviewees reported their belief that teachers in their districts
were still integrating distance education materials into their
classrooms in conventional ways. However, some superintendents
felt that the course modules had changed teaching practice from a
focus on moving groups of students through a curriculum, to
enabling a focus on individual student growth. The distance
education program "forces the teacher to know where each
individual student is. They're not teaching classes, they're teaching
individual kids."
 
In the interviews, superintendents reflected varying attitudes
towards their teachers. While many praised teacher initiatives, some
were somewhat pessimistic about the intransigence and traditional
teaching styles of staff members. This issue was identified as one of
professional development: helping teachers gain enough knowledge
about the distance education programs and enough confidence with
the technology to integrate it comfortably into their instruction. One
superintendent felt a real need to "constantly educate some of our
teachers," because he perceived that "a lot of our [classroom]
teachers think distance education is an easy way out." The teachers
in his district who had had the opportunity to work closely with
distance education programs realized "the amount of work and effort
that must go into the course completion and the organizational skills
the student must have," and they had become "strong advocates" of
the innovation.
 
Others perceived that while some teachers in their districts
felt anxiety about the technology ("this fancy Digital stuff, it
scares... them") or were worried about changes to their
assignments, most teachers became more positive and even
enthusiastic after working with the programs:
 
I think there was a fear it was going to replace them, and we
noticed that our teachers have changed, have adapted and
have accepted distance education and are more cooperative
now in monitoring; many of them even want to be distance
learning teachers.
 
One respondent who felt that distance education teaching
involved more work than did regular classroom teaching, noted that
his staff had been very supportive of the new program, committing
time to develop the innovation and make it work. Another
superintendent felt that distance education was a welcome resource
for most teachers, who were genuinely struggling to meet individual
student needs:
 
Teachers in high school in particular would like to see their
students be successful, graduate and achieve their goals and
objectives, and I think it's always a source of frustration for
teachers when students either fail a course or have to drop a
course. . . . So I think the provision of distance education
programs relieves teachers of some of that concern and
worry and provides them with the perspective that the school
they work in is doing everything that it can to assist students
in being successful.
 
In comparing the differences between regular classroom
instruction and distance education, several superintendents referred
to limited student opportunities for discussion as a key disadvantage
of distance education. Teleconference discussions, some noted,
were difficult to organize among students in schools governed by
different timetables. Many superintendents felt strongly that distance
delivery of humanities courses like Social Studies, Language Arts,
and Career and Life Management was inferior because of their
perception of a lack of discussion mediated by a teacher. Students
had a less satisfying experience and learned less, thought
superintendents, although students typically could "crack off" the
distance education course in a relatively short period of time. At the
same time, many of them acknowledged the quality of the distance
education materials and one described how teachers not in distance
education sought to obtain copies of the materials as a source of
"well-thought out activities that relate directly to the curriculum."
Monitoring as well as motivation of students appeared to be
a key concern of superintendents, requiring a "caring, concerned
teacher who is prodding kids along," as one respondent put it.
Teacher tutor-marker contact with students was perceived by
superintendents to be essential for motivating and assisting students
at a distance in problem-solving. This contact was, in some districts,
less frequent than superintendents would like and some had begun
to make tutoring part of regular teaching assignments so that
students had someone they knew by name to talk to and share their
enthusiasm and frustrations. When the tutor made personal,
frequent, face-to-face contact with students, the perception was that
students learned more and generally had a more positive experience
with distance education. Some superintendents felt that their in-
school distance education facilitators provided the necessary
encouragement, assistance, and guidance that learners, separated
from their tutor-markers, needed. Others expressed concerns that
this in-school facilitator could not provide the support that a
classroom teacher specialist could:
 
They'll have a class of 25 kids which could be on 15
different subject areas, some of which this [in-school
facilitator] doesn't have a clue about. And so, as far as being
able to motivate the kids and inspire them on the subject, is
pretty tough. They can guide the kids to resources, but
usually the resources aren't there either.
 
Despite their support for distance education in general, less
than half of surveyed superintendents (45%) viewed distance
education as a desirable replacement for traditional classroom
instruction in their district's schools. Many comments in interviews
echoed the following superintendent's remarks: "Maybe it's an old-
fashioned concept, but we feel that the best opportunities for
students are in a classroom with a teacher," because this situation
offers "immediate feedback and immediate assistance." The majority
of respondents simply felt that "face-to-face" contact between
teachers and students was the best way to mediate learning
effectively. In one district where students were enrolling
enthusiastically in distance education programs, the superintendent
found himself trying to limit the number of distance education
credits that students were allowed to take, because he was concerned
that, with all the distance learning, they were missing out on
valuable classroom instruction and teacher interaction. Another,
reflecting the views of colleagues, noted," We get regular
classroom, face-to-face first, and then if we can't get it, or there's
some timetabling difficulties or even some personality conflicts, then
[we] access the distance education component."
 
STUDENTS
 
Over 90% of superintendents saw distance education as
appropriate for high-school students while only 36% would support
its use with junior-high students. A small but growing percentage
(from 6% in 1991 to 14% in 1993) believed that distance education
materials were appropriate for elementary children. We wondered if
this was partly due to the impact of home schooling, a rapidly
growing alternative in the province. Not surprisingly, over 90% saw
distance education as very appropriate for the more able student and
81% thought that there should be post-secondary courses provided
for high school seniors.
 
Half of the superintendents thought that distance education
was not suited to less able students. However, they also admitted
that many of their distance education students were in this category.
Alberta high-school courses in the "non-academic" stream typically
have the lowest enrollments, so in smaller schools, logically these
would be the courses that would be offered to individual students
using distance education. This situation was a concern to several
superintendents, who perceived that "less able" students were less
capable as self-directed learners, and needed more direct help from a
teacher than they had access to in a distance learning situation.
 
There were exceptions to this view, since 30% of
superintendents saw distance education as appropriate for less able
students. One superintendent claimed that these "less able" students
"learn to adjust and adapt and over a period of time . . . become
rather self-disciplined learners." Another felt that the "less able"
students, those that have experienced difficulties learning in regular
class settings, are more successful in distance education than the
"high achievers"
 
because they're always being measured against the top end.
Now all of a sudden [with distance education] there's no
comparison made . . . the slow learners want to continue
taking distance education when they have success with it.
 
The issue of independent learning skills was raised by
twelve of the fifteen superintendents interviewed. Some felt that
regular classroom instruction "spoon-feeds" students too much, and
distance education programs helps even passive students to develop
self-reliance and become more self-directed, independent, and
resourceful as learners. A few indicated that all students should have
the opportunity to try at least one course of independent learning for
this reason. However, most still were of the opinion that because
distance learning, as one superintendent put it, fosters in students "a
sense of responsibility for their own fate," regular classroom
instruction with its face-to-face advantages is preferable if it can be
made available.
 
Despite their obvious preferences for classroom teaching
involving direct teacher instruction, superintendents were pleased
that distance education was a positive addition to their jurisdiction's
offerings. The most likely reason for the rising positive perception
of distance education among Alberta superintendents was increased
course completion: most superintendents interviewed in 1993
reported high average rates (as much as 90%) of students finishing
their distance education courses. In the early phases of
implementation some superintendents indicated that student
achievement results were sometimes low. However, by 1993
superintendents apparently were finding that "students do about as
well as they would with live instructed courses." In discussing the
increase in student achievement, one superintendent explained that
"we had to get the bugs out" of the system, referring to tightening
up the district's monitoring of students' course completion. Several
superintendents indicated that distance education became successful
after it was made a district priority, and especially when in-school
"tracking" of students was given greater attention.
 
TECHNOLOGY
 
Superintendents generally indicated strong interest in
educational technology and a willingness to explore and expand its
use in schools. The vast majority supported the use of technology as
a supplement (82%) or within the regular classroom (84%) and
thought that access to the electronic highway would expand distance
education options (83%). They saw being involved in distance
education as an opportunity for teachers to learn about tele-
communications (71%), and agreed that distance education
technology could be used to provide inservice opportunities (84%).
Three quarters of the superintendents strongly agreed that the
distance education materials helped keep teachers up-to-date about
curriculum changes but fewer (44%) were as assertive about the
materials being a source for model courses and exams for teachers.
 
One superintendent noted that the new distance education
technology raised the status of the school in the perceptions of
parents and the local community "as willing to try new technology,
being on the edge of development." Their major concerns in this
area centered around a perception that "we've only scratched the
surface" of integrating distance education technology into schools
because of financial constraints and staff reluctance in some cases.
As one stated,
 
To be quite frank, I think that we are still at the horse and
buggy stage in the technology part of it, because to be
successful we have to deliver somehow through a
technological interface that kind of human connection
between a teacher and a student where students are motivated
to learn by themselves, and that happens in the classroom
through the interpersonal relationships.
 
Some jurisdictions were quite heavily involved in piloting interactive
computer conferencing while others used audioconferencing and the
computerized test banks, and some depended on fax and phone.
 
The first thing superintendents chose to discuss when asked
about implementation issues was the impact of distance education on
their staff and students. They had experienced different responses to
the innovations among their own communities and staffs, ranging
from very enthusiastic, to skeptical, to apparent resistance. Of
particular interest were the superintendents' own responses to what
they perceived were the schools' and communities' attitudes to
distance education. One superintendent, admittedly "somewhat
disillusioned at this point with a lot of this [distance education
programs]", described how teachers in his district were "having a
tremendously difficult time making the adjustment. . . . Change just
takes a long, long time. Parents and students still associate learning
as a teacher in front of the class and students sitting down and taking
orders." Some superintendents thought that the initial
implementation by their predecessor had been poorly handled and
that, as a result, they had to move slowly. One described the
variability that could occur within a jurisdiction: "In two of our
schools the ownership is excellent--tremendous . . . They tracked
students and could keep them on task. In the other two schools, that
wasn't done."
 
Several felt that the key to effective implementation of an innovation
like distance education was a champion: "get a good person or two
and back them." Two superintendents indicated their belief that
implementation was being held up in their districts because no
person with the necessary drive and skills had yet stepped forward
to lead implementation. The perception seemed to be that if such a
person were appointed, implementation would be less successful
than if a teacher or administrator voluntarily "picks up the ball and
runs with it." Few superintendents perceived themselves as a
possible "champion" for distance education implementation in their
jurisdictions.
 
IMPLICATIONS
 
For Alberta superintendents, reaction to the decentralization
of distance education has been generally positive. Those in rural
jurisdictions with small high schools are pleased at the increased
flexibility in timetabling (scheduling) and in student course options
combined with the more cost effective deployment of teachers which
distance education has brought. And in some schools, initial
enthusiasm had given way to problems and teacher resistance. For
some, their staunch beliefs that distance education was a second-best
alternative and that student-teacher discussion was integral to any
genuine learning were evident barriers which any alternative to the
status quo had to overcome. Having obtained their boards' support,
superintendents seemed to see the initiative as now being the
responsibility of the staff. Nonetheless superintendents were
hopeful that advances in technology would allow them to have both
direct teaching and distance education.
 
In 1994, the Alberta government announced a further 8% cut
to education budgets, and a reduction in the number of jurisdictions
to 60. Such circumstances will test superintendents' commitment to
distance education, especially the commitment of those who do not
see themselves as championing the cause.
 
 
REFERENCES
 
Alberta Education. 1990a. Distance Education Handbook.
Edmonton, AB: Author.
 
Alberta Education. 1990b. Director's Report: Distance Education
Implementation. Edmonton, AB: Provincial Advisory
Committee on Distance Education.
 
Gonnet, C. 1991. The organization of educational consortia: A case
study of the Central East Distance Education Consortium.
Unpublished master's project, University of Alberta,
Edmonton, AB.
 
Haughey, M. 1990. Distance education in schools. The Canadian
Administrator 29(8):1-8.
 
Hough, P. 1992. The impact of distance education on the
organization of schools and school systems in Alberta.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Alberta,
Edmonton, AB.
 

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