Improving Distance Education: Perceptions of Program Administrators

Distance education programming has become a common component of higher education institutions. These programs often are developed singularly by faculty or through divisions of continuing education, and the results can be non-focused, disjointed program offerings. A major problem associated with distance education is the lack of "program" focus, with the majority of attention going to individual course offerings. Accepting the notion that a holistic view must be assumed for distance education programs to be considered "effective," the current study is one in a series associated with the factors necessary for a holistic view of distance education. Using a three-round Delphi survey instrument, distance education administrators were questioned about their perceptions of variables and factors necessary for effective distance education programs. Administrators agreed most strongly that programs should encourage quality and a customer orientation, but mostly, should provide the tools necessary for faculty members to modify course materials. Distance education has changed from an anomaly to a standard component of most higher education institutions. Through the delivery of courses on-line, via the internet, or through satellite or television broadcasts, colleges and universities have found it profitable to provide learning services and opportunities through alternative delivery methods. The incentive for offering courses via "the distance" has been largely pronounced as two-fold: to better serve constituents who would not otherwise have access to programs, and to generate additional revenue streams outside of traditional course offerings. Although the first alternative, albeit altruistic, has real potential for developing positive relations with legislative and governing bodies, the second concept, that of generating revenue, has been a dominant concern for many administrators. For private institutions, this has taken the form of providing the same "product," that of educational opportunity, at often reduced or alternative rates to a broader group of people in a more cost-effective manner (Cushman, 1996). Regardless of individual institutional considerations, the notion of distance education has become, and considering all trends will continue, to be a major focus for institutional livelihood (Moore, 1995). A prominent concern for institutions has been the structuring of how to offer courses via distance education programming. Once the domain of individual faculty volunteering to teach on television or through radio-broadcasts, the business of mass education has become a multi-million dollar industry, and the structure and offering of courses has become the responsibility for highly trained and skilled administrators. Typically, these individuals have a background in marketing and training, and understand that programs are successful only when adequate numbers of learners choose to enroll in any one given course or offering. These individuals, however, are rarely the subjects of study, as faculty dimensions to teaching and learning generally dominant questions about program effectiveness. The question of curricular delivery has been hotly debated on many campuses as faculty and administrators engage with outside constituents about learning effectiveness and the quality of programs. This dialogue, although meaningful, generally provides an advantage to the faculty member. In a sense, the academic content of a course is the domain of a faculty member, and administrators looking to promote programs become secondary both on