Planning and Managing The Development of Courses For Distance Delivery

Published on October 2021 | Categories: Documents | Downloads: 2 | Comments: 0 | Views: 41
of x
Download PDF   Embed   Report

Comments

Content

 

Planning and Managing the Development of Courses for Distance Delivery: Results from a Qualitative Study

W. Dean Care, RN, EdD  Assistant Professor  Professor   Academic Assistant Assistant to tthe he Dean  Faculty of Nursing Nursing University of anito!a Winni"eg, anito!a, Canada R#$ %N% $ele"hone& '%()* )+)--/  Fa0& '%()* )+)+1/% )+)+1/% dean2care3umanito!a.ca

   4udith . 5canlan, RN, PhD  Assistant Professor  Professor   6nternational Affairs Affairs Coor Coordinator  dinator   Faculty of Nursing Nursing University of anito!a Winni"eg, anito!a, Canada R#$ %N% $ele"hone& '%()* )+)/7+  Fa0& '%()* )+)+1/% )+)+1/%  8udith2scanlan3umanito!a.ca  8udith2scanlan3umanito!a.ca

  Converting traditional face-to-face course offerings into distance delivery formats is one of the greatest challenges facing administrators and faculty in higher  education today. In addressing this challenge, it is evident that there are two primary approaches to managing distance course development. Some faculties opt to develop and deliver courses on their own (Reinert & Fryac!, "##$%, whereas others wor! in close collaoration with selected university or college departments to implement this conversion process. he e'perience of the authors is the latter, that is development and delivery of courses for distance education has occurred in collaoration with other  disciplines in the university. his his article will ee'amine 'amine the e'periences of administrators, faculty, and staff from supporting university departments as they

struggled with the issues inherent in interdisciplinary course development. Background Information In recent years, the development of courses for f or distance delivery is no longer an

 

option for faculties or departments who wish to remain competitive co mpetitive for students in an increasingly gloal community. community. In a western Canadian faculty of nursing, administrators have e'perienced considerale pressure from licensing odies, nursing unions, and practicing professionals ali!e, to estalish courses and programs that are accessile and relevant. Course offerings at the undergraduate and graduate level, such as, advanced nursing practice, and intensive care, as well as special  programming for rural and and northern areas are in high demand. demand. Furthermore, the  population of the region region is geographically disp dispersed, ersed, ma!ing it diff difficult icult for many nurses to access university education. Compounding this prolem, faculty administration have een mandated y the government to e'tend its resources to meet a responsiility for all professional nursing education in the province. ne strategy to meet this demand has een to increase the numer of distance delivery course offerings. o o reali)e this goal, faculty at this educational facility wor!ed closely with other sectors in the university, ssuch uch as, instructional designers, media producers and technicians, administrators, and other faculty in designing nursing courses for distance delivery. In light of these demands, administrators and faculty must ecome more effective and efficient in developing courses for distance delivery. his his design process is an e'pensive underta!ing. *any of the true costs are hidden as time spent y faculty on this activity is usually not udgeted for, nor trac!ed in a comprehensive manner. Sessional faculty are often hired to ta!e on scheduled teaching to free faculty faculty to  participate in course design. design. In addition, faculty generally generally does not posses possesss the re+uisite e'pertise and resources to develop and design distance delivery courses on their own. Conse+uently, they must see! out and use the e'pertise housed within their own faculty and other departments of the university university.. For the most part, these collaorative partnerships have een successful ecause of the mutually shared goal of producing a +uality, learner-centered product. he development of courses for distance delivery has not een discussed ade+uately in the literature. In fact, there is a dearth of sustantive discussion on the merits of interdisciplinary course development. *uch of the modern day thin!ing around distance education has a philosophical perspective ased upon the ritish pen niversity (% model. ccording to /arrison and Shale ("##0%, 1the success of the  gave the rest of the world a practical model and an astonishing demonstration of  the success of the open education concept1 (p. 2%. he  model uses an

 

interdisciplinary team approach to course development. his approach is ased on the notion that developing a distance course is not simply applying an interactive technology to traditional course offerings. Rather distance education should capture what teachers do in the classroom in a way that can e understood y students studying at a distance. 3ot only does it re+uire an understanding of how students learn, ut also how the content should e reorgani)ed so a particular level of student can effectively meet the course o4ectives. Interaction with the teacher re+uires different approaches to e'plain and clarify difficult concepts. It is for these comple' reasons that course development re+uires an interdisciplinary approach. Interdisciplinary education has een defined as 1an approach in which two or more disciplines collaorate in the learning process with the goal of fostering interprofessional interactions that enhance the practice of each discipline1 (C3, "##5, p. ""#%. In ta!ing an interdisciplinary approach, administrators need to e'amine collaorative  partnerships with an understanding understanding of the talent talents, s, ailities, and strengt strengths hs of each team memer. his his notion is supported y Foster ("##2% who states, 1when a course is created y a team enterprise, there e'ists, maye transiently transiently,, a culture in which is it hardly possile not to learn from one6s colleagues, hardly possile not to ac+uire insights into their s!ills, approaches and philosophies in respect to teaching and learning1 (p. "#5%. his 1pro4ect management1 approach is also promoted y ates (2000% who elieves that 1resources are used efficiently and that individual team memers contriute appropriate s!ills and !nowledge to the pro4ect1 (p. 57%. ates views this pro4ect management model as eing advantageous to teachers ecause the  pro4ect manager can assume assume most of the adminis administrative trative and ureaucratic duties thus thus freeing faculty to function as content e'perts. he planning phase of course design and development is of ma4or importance in distance education. In the asence of attention to course design, instruction has the  potential to appear dis4ointed dis4ointed and teacher-centered. teacher-centered.  ccording ccording to Schieman, e eare, are, and *c8aren ("##2%, what must e avoided is a 1standy approach where traditional on-campus courses are re-wor!ed slightly1 (p. 5"% and then offered as distance courses. his is supported y 9astmond ("##:% who states, 1when instruction is systematically developed, the course has organi)ation, logical consistency, and wholeness that can engage students and supply the conditions for efficient learning1 (p. #5%. y e'amining the roles and relationships of the various sta!eholders involved,

 

administrators and educators can uild a etter model for future interdisciplinary distance course development. he purpose of this article is to descrie the issues facing administrators in supporting faculty to plan for and develop distance courses. Methodology Statement of the Prolem

here is a general lac! of understanding regarding the e'periences of administrators, faculty, and staff from other departments in the development of distance education courses. he researchers6 interest in the prolem developed from their teaching and admini adm inistr strati ative ve e'p e'peri erienc ences es in pla planni nning ng for and des design igning ing dis distan tance ce course courses. s. he research +uestions guiding the study were; •



<hat are the main issues facing aadministrators, dministrators, faculty faculty,, and staff in  planning and designing distance distance education courses= <hat organi)ational structure and resources are est suited for distance education course design=

he research study was approved y the 9thical Review Committee of the Faculty of  3ursing, niversity of *anitoa. Research Design

 +ualitative +ualitative research design was chosen for the study given the small sample si)e (n>""% andguide the asence of information in thethe literature on the prolem.  n n open ended interview was developed to facilitate interviews. ?uestions guiding these interviews are included in ale ale ".  !ale ": Intervie# Questions   •

Can you tell me how you went aout developing your course for distance delivery=



<hich other departments in the university did you wor! with when developing this course=



<hat was this e'perience li!e=

 



@id you e'perience any an y prolems that interfered with or slowed down course develop development= ment=



@o you have any recommendations for how the course development process can e improved in the future=

hese interview +uestions were designed to elicit the e'periences of the participants in the course development process. Aowever, in !eeping with the tenets of +ualitative research, these +uestions served as a guide only, allowing the researchers to pursue the data as they emerged. Interviews of appro'imately one hour in length were conducted. @etailed notes were !ept during the interviews. Content analysis of the interview notes was conducted independently y each of the researchers. his independent review enhanced the confirmaility of the findings (*iles & Auerman, "##:B olit, ec!, & Aungler, 200"%%. nce the initial analysis was completed, the researchers identified the ma4or themes that emerged from the data.

Participants

 purposive sample of eleven participants was interviewed. Selection of a purposive sample was in !eeping with the goals of this study in that the e'periences of these  particular participants were integral integral to the research. 9ight 9ight faculty memers taught in the accalaureate rogram for Registered 3urses (R3% andDor the /raduate rogram. hree memers of the @istance 9ducation @epartment (@9@% who  participated in the study study wor!ed in an instruct instructional ional design or adm administrative inistrative role with nursing faculty in the course development phase. hese @9@ faculty were memers of a separate university unit within the Continuing 9ducation @ivision. riangulat riangulation ion of multiple sources from two different university units added crediility to the findings (*iles & Auerman, "##:%. his study was conducted within one educational institution, and therefore, the findings are not transferale to other settings. he findings and recommendations, however, may e useful to other administrators who are struggling with the issues inherent in planning and managing the development of distance education courses. $indings

Several ma4or themes emerged from analysis of the data. he authors have e'trapolated and presented those findings that impact specifically on the planning and management of distance course development. he ma4or themes include; i% faculty wor!load, ii% administrative models, iii% ownership of course materials, and iv% administrative costs.

 

$aculty %orkload

ll faculty participants agreed that designing distance courses was time consuming and impacted upon their aility to fulfill other scholarly responsiilities re sponsiilities.. s one faculty respondent stated, 1*y wor!load wasn6t ad4usted. It6s more wor! than designing an in-class course1. *ost faculty reported that designing courses for distance delivery was carried out in addition to their regular teaching assignments.  related issue which affected faculty receptiveness to ta!e on course conversion to distance delivery was the elief that this activity was not fully recogni)ed or seen as a  priority for promotion promotion and tenure purposes. 3ot surprisingly this iss issue ue was a ma4or concern to untenured faculty who are under pressure to e productive in the area of research and scholarship.  final wor!load issue cited y faculty was they would have appreciated collaorating with those faculty who had previous e'perience in designing distance courses. <ithout e'ception, faculty wor!ing in a more independent fashion descried the trial and error approach used in the design phase. In their view, w wor!ing or!ing with more e'perienced faculty would have ameliorated this laor intensive approach to course design. Faculty wor!load was also a concern for administrators.  ss one administrator ad ministrator cited;    Designing distance courses courses is so time consumin consuming, g, faculty are often 9or:ing  for less than minimum minimum 9age. ne faculty memer, a former administrator administrator,, recommended providing faculty with 1release time1 from their regular teaching assignment if designing distance courses. In that way, faculty time for research and pulication would e protected. &dministrative Models

his study revealed there were two distinct ways in which course planning and development too! place. he first model uncovered was laeled the arallel-8inear *odel (see Figure"%.

 

his h is mo mode dell wa wass mo most st evid eviden entt in th thee  R3 R3.. It incl includ uded ed tw two o pa para rall llel el stru struct ctur ures es operating simultaneously. <ithin the @9@, the participants in the design process included a program director, instructional designer, and mediaDtechnical support staff. From the Faculty, participants in the design phase were the @irector of the R3  program, faculty as content specialists, and technical and support staff. lthough this model provided the opportunity for fre+uent e'changes among the participants, the interaction was limited to any two individuals meeting together at one time. he fre+ fre+uen uency cy of th thes esee meet meetin ings gs wa wass a func functi tion on of the the fa facu cult lty y me mem mer er6s 6s te teac achi hing ng e'perience and comfort with the development of hisDher course for distance delivery. t no time time di did d all all th thee pa part rtic icip ipan ants ts in th this is mo mode dell come come toge togeth ther er to disc discus usss the the

 

develo dev elopin ping g cou course rse.. hi hiss app approa roach ch is con consis sisten tentt wit with h the 18o 18one ne Ran Ranger ger *odel1 *odel1 descried y ates (2000%. ates elieves this model for planning and developing distance courses contriutes to a poor use of technology, su-standard production of  educ educat atio iona nall ma mate teri rial als, s, lim limited ited appl applic ica ail ilit ity y of the the fi fini nish shed ed pr prod oduc uct, t, and and an inappropriate

use

of

faculty

time.

 

he second model was descried as an Interdisciplinary eam *odel (see Figure 2%.

 

  his approach was found to e successful particularly in developing courses in the graduate program. In this model, the various participants met as a team on a regular asis to develop the course, prolem solve, and discuss issues as course development unfolded. his team approach seemed to e particularly well suited for courses incorporating advanced technology in distance delivery, such as, we-ased courses. *emership on the team was comprised of faculty memers with e'pertise in course content, a coordinator of the overall pro4ect, and technical support personnel. he strength of this model was that team memers learned from one another,  roadened their !nowledge ase, ase, and appreciated the strength strengthss which the other memers rought to the tale. he team continued to meet after the course development phase was completed to deal with issues as they arose during course delivery. '#nership of Course Materials

Faculty respondents identified course ownership as a ma4or concern. wnership was defined as giving up copyright and control of course material to another university unit. he arallel-8inear *odel in the R3 was such that @9@ contracted the services of faculty to develop and teach the nursing courses. Faculty stated they  preferred having the same independence independence and control over their courses courses as they did with traditional approaches. Faculty highlighted ownership issues such as; i% assignment of course materials copyright to @9@, ii% the right to revise their own courses independently, and and iii% @9@ control over programming and course design decisions. From the perspective of the @9@, ownership of course materials was viewed as necessary for two reasons. First, if faculty owned the copyright, changes and reassignment of the course to another faculty memer would e prolematic. Secondly, it would e difficult for the @9@ to fulfill their commitment to lease courses to other Canadian universities. &dministrative Costs

Faculty and administrators who developed clinical practice courses for distance delivery identified administrative costs as an issue.

 

$here are unantici"ated unantici"ated costs in clinical courses that 9ere not !udgeted  for.. Distance Education did  for didn;t n;t e0"ect these costs and 6 didn;t :no9 a!out  them. lthough the faculty !new the time needed for planning would e protracted, they had no idea how long it would actually ta!e. In contrast to a theoretical course, one  participant had to design design separate course manuals for the the theory and clinical port portions ions of a course. Furthermore, issues such as administrative contracts with health care agencies and letters of consent for clients had to e developed. In the delivery phase, compensation costs for faculty were consideraly higher related to oth the increased time spent with students in the practice settings and the numer of faculty re+uired to mentor students in the clinical practice component of the course.

he data revealed that the cost of maintaining distance courses was higher than originally anticipated. his was directly related to the rapidity of change in nursing !nowledge and the need to !eep course materials current. he Faculty of 3ursing has  een re+uired to update course materials materials every three to four years. his is a signif significant icant cost to the unit, oth in financial and human resources, for these revisions.

Recommendations

he findings of this study have raised several suggestions to improve the administration and delivery of distance courses. hese recommendations include; Develop

a

Strategic

Plan

Senior administrators in universities and colleges must invest in a strategic plan for  distance education. *anagement must provide leadership in developing this plan for  the institution as a whole. nit administrators (@eans, @irectors, @epartment Aeads% can then adopt the strategic directions that est suit their needs. ccording to ates

 

(2000%, this 1plan should e concrete, with a detailed vision statement, goals identified for action over the ne't three to five years, action steps or implementation strategies, and me measur asurea eale le or eas easily ily rec recogn ogni)a i)ale le 1de 1deliv livera erale les1 s1 or out outcom comes, es, all clearl clearly y specif spe cified ied11 (p. E5% E5%.. he strat strategi egicc pla plan n nee needs ds to ui uild ld on the unit6 unit6ss str streng engths ths and minimi)e its limitations. nce estalished, the strategic plan should e shared widely with faculty and staff. It is this dissemination and participation which contriutes to acceptance

&dopt

and

adherence

an

to

the

future

directions

Interdisciplinary

of

the

!eam

unit.

Model

he interd interdisc iscipl iplina inary ry app approa roach ch act active ively ly inv involv olves es mor moree sta sta!eh !ehold olders ers dur during ing ot oth h development and delivery phases, therey ensuring continuity and avoiding overlap of  roles and responsiilities. here are several advantages to the Interdisciplinary eam *odel. his strategy is dynamic in that team memers can e rought in and out of  th thee te team am as ne need eded ed.. h hee resp respec ecti tive ve capac capacit itie iess of the the te team am me mem mer erss e eco come me transparent as the team wor!s together, thus defining roles and responsiilities for   oth development and delivery phases. he model provides a supportive environment in which all constituents can learn from the strengths of one another. his approach is consistent with the wor! of Foster ("##2% who advocates for the use of the collective strengths of team memers. In contrast, faculty operating within the arallel-8inear  *odel remain at a distance from the technical e'pertise housed in other departments. herefore, there is a tendency to sustain the lac! of technical familiarity within the faculty

Institute

and

thus

ecom omee

disheartened

$aculty

wi witth

the

intensified

wor!load.

Development

hee wa h wall llss of hi high gher er educ educat atio ion n in th thee 2" 2"st st cent centur ury y wi will ll e lowe lowere red d or e ecom comee none'istent. s such, administrators and faculty need to shed the 1techno-peasant1

 

 persona. /enerally faculty are unaware of the capacity of technology technology.. hey are more comfortale using what they !now and a fear of the un!nown ma!es them averse to change cha nge.. he here re is a sha sharp rp lea learni rning ng cur curve ve whe when n fac facult ulty y par partic ticipa ipate te in dev develo elopin ping g distance delivery courses leading to an increase in wor!load. Faculty need to assume a commitment for ecoming more conversant with technology so we can ecome more informed

team

participants.

dministrators must e cogni)ant of and wor! within the oundaries estalished y collective agreements. In higher education, it is clear that administrators are restricted  y 1technology clauses1 in faculty agreements that re+uire faculty memers6 consent  efore they can e assigned to develop or teach a course using advanced technologies. It is apparent that faculty development activities will help ameliorate resistance y faculty and facilitate the development of distance courses. hese faculty development initia ini tiativ tives es mus mustt e inc includ luded ed in adm admini inistr strati ative ve ud udget gets. s. h hee ini initia tiall cos costs ts of the these se acti activi viti ties es wi will ll e ne neut utra rali li)e )ed d y th thee lo long ng-t -ter erm m re retu turn rn on this this inve invest stm ment. ent.

*entoring new faculty is essential to the production of courses for distance delivery. he Interdisciplinary eam eam *odel can address this issue. Ine'perienced faculty can e  rought into the team prior to assuming responsiility for course development and delivery. he team can e supportive and mentor ine'perienced faculty early in the  process, ultimately facilitating their wor! and decreasing frustration in the development phase. nce again, the up front costs of this initiative will e minimi)ed  y

&d(ust

the

long

$aculty

term

gain.

%orkload

he commitment and willingness of senior administrators within the institution are essent ess ential ial to eff effect ective ive dev develo elopme pment nt of dis distan tance ce pro program grams. s. In respon response se to fac facult ulty y

 

comments aout the amount of time re+uired, a method must e identified to factor  development of courses for distance delivery into wor!load assignments.  reasonale approach for calculating wor!load would e to assign distance course development a factor worth three credits hours of classroom teaching ( hours per wee!% for theory course development and si' credit hours (5 hours per wee!% when developing a clinic cli nical al prac practic ticee cou course rse.. h his is sug sugges gestio tion n is as ased ed on the e'p e'peri erienc ences es of fac facult ulty y regarding the amount of time spent in course development. Release time for faculty to develop distance delivery courses has resource implications. 1Funding is an issue for  distance learning programs 1 (Reinert & Fryac!, "##$, p. :2:%. In their study they found that three of the seven programs they investigated had to find financial support for the program out of their aseline udgets. Aowever, they concluded that faculty must receive financial support if the distance education offerings are to succeed in the long term.

Revise

!enure

an d

Promotion

Criteria

here undoutaly will e increasing demands on faculty to participate in distance delivery development related to increased pressure for access to courses. his pressure will e driven y student demand, as well as the increased capacity of technology. Aowever, distance delivery is a time-consuming tas! and, as such, needs to e valued within the university system. Faculty, especially those who want to advance through the university ran!s, will e reluctant or will not participate in distance delivery  ecause of the lac! of rewards for this activity within the university university system. In Reinert and Fryac!6s study ("##$%, faculty reported having little or no time for research or   pulications when they were involved in developing courses for distance delivery. herefo he refore, re, rec recogn ogniti ition on of dev develo elopin ping g or tea teachi ching ng in dis distan tance ce delive delivery ry cou course rsess as cr crea eati tive ve wo wor! r!,, must ust e in incl clud uded ed in th thee cr crit iter eria ia for for te tenu nure re an and d pr prom omot otio ion. n. dministration must ensure that processes are in place to have this issue sufficiently

 

addressed

y

tenure

&ddress

and

promotion

committees.

'#nership

Issues

he issues related to intellectual property and ownership of educational materials developed for distance courses are comple' and sensitive. he e'plosion of distance technology warrants a careful e'amination of this issue. dministrators dministrators must attend to the fol follow lowing ing +ue +uesti stions ons;; wha whatt is the ins instit tituti utiona onall pol policy icy reg regard arding ing int intell ellect ectual ual  propertyB what happens if the course author leaves the institutionB can the faculty memer sell or lease the course to othersB and, can other faculty e assigned to teach the

distance

course

designed

y

another

(8in!

&

Sholt),

2000%.

 supplementary supplementary partnership arrangement would see the Faculty of 3ursing ta!ing the leadership role in the development and delivery of distance education degree courses. his would maintain ownership of course materials within the unit. 9'pertise from supporting units could e purchased as needed. his would necessitate the creation of  an infrastructure within the Faculty of 3ursing to manage the day-to-day operations of  course cou rse del delive ivery ry.. Suc Such h an arr arrang angeme ement nt wou would ld con contin tinue ue to val value ue the str streng engths ths and contriutions of each partner, while at the same time allow the Faculty of 3ursing to respon res pond d mo more re +uic!l +uic!ly y to iss issues ues whi which ch ari arise se in the devel developm opment ent and del delive ivery ry of  distance education courses. dministrators will need to thin! carefully aout this approach as it will impact on oth the financial and human resources of the unit.

he ownership deate will continue to escalate in higher education as educators choose to incorporate we-ased strategies into their courses. he recent introduction of sophisticated educational technology is forcing administrators and faculty to reevaluate traditional models of ownership. ur! ("##$% contends that faculty who create course materials will want 1to preserve their academic integrity1 (p."0% and

 

assign copyright to this material. n the other hand, colleges and universities have a vested interest in securing copyright on 1their1 product to cur the migration of these materials to competing institutions. It is evident that the ownership and intellectual  property issues have and will generate much discussion. he issue of clear allocation of ownership is paramount to avoid administrative or legal disputes from occurring.

Conclusion

ne of the iggest challeng challenges es facing admi administra nistrators tors and educa educators tors is to rethin! what constitutes education. he university or college of the 2"st century will not e a repository where students come for learning. It has ecome increasingly clear that students are capale of learning without the physical presence of a teacher. dvances in edu educat cation ional al tec techno hnolog logy y are for forcin cing g adm admini inistr strato ators rs and fac facult ulty y to con contem templa plate te different modalities for course offerings, especially distance delivery. In a highly competiti compe titive, ve, gloal mar!et place, stude students nts are no longe longerr limi limited ted or conf confined ined to local universities or colleges. o continue to e relevant and accessile, higher education must ust e cr crea eati tive ve in and and rece recept ptiv ivee to alte altern rnat ativ ivee ap appr proa oach ches es to ed educ ucat atio ion. n.

@esigning courses for distance delivery re+uires careful thought and a strategic plan. here are wor!load issues that must e addressed efore faculty will e receptive this ne new w in init itia iati tive. ve. o en enga gage ge and and in infl flue uenc ncee facu facult lty y of the the impo import rtan ance ce of dist distan ance ce education, administrators must give attention to what is valued and rewarded within an academic environment. his re+uires re-thin!ing the criteria used for tenure and  promotion purposes. Faculty Faculty,, administrators, and supporting units need to wor!  together, not only in the development of distance delivery, ut also in estalishing sc scho hola lars rshi hip p

cr crit iter eria ia

rela relate ted d

to

th this is

de deve velo lopm pmen ent. t.

<or! r!in ing g

co coll llec ecti tive vely ly

in

interdisciplinary teams ma'imi)es resources and motivates faculty to e productive. Instituting faculty development activities will enhance the learning potential of faculty

 

and contriute to their support of distance education. Finally, administrators must attend to the need for estalishing clear guidelines related to intellectual property rights.

his study has captured the e'periences of those involved in development of courses for distance delivery. lthough the results of the study are limited to the participants and should e interpreted with caution for use in other settings, the findings are rele releva vant nt and and us usefu efull for for cons consid ider erat atio ion n y teac teache hers rs and and adm admin inis istr trat ator orss who who ar aree concerned with the delivery of +uality distance offerings.

References

merican ssociation ssociation of Colleges of 3ursing. ("##5%. Interdisciplinary education and  practice. 4ournal  practice.  4ournal of Professional Professional N Nursing  ursing ,"2(2%, ,"2(2%, ""#-"2. rmstrong, R.@. (200"%. Faculty strategies for learning to teach at a distance with instructional technology. @939<S, ""("%, "-7. vailale;http;DDwww vailale; http;DDwww.ed.psu.eduD .ed.psu.eduDacsdeDdeosDdeonews.html acsdeDdeosDdeonews.html.. ates, .<. .<. (2000%. *anaging technological change. San Francisco, C; Gossey-ass. ur!, @.8. ("##$%. wnership of electronic course materials in higher education. Cause<Effect , 20(%, "-"7. Care, <.@., <.@., & Scanlan, G.*. (2000%. *eeting the challenges of developing courses for  distance delivery; wo wo different models for course development. $he 4ournal of Continuing Education in Nursing, "(%, Nursing,  "(%, "2"-"27. 9astmond, 3. ("##:%. ssessing needs, developing instruction, and evaluation results in distance education. In . <illi <illiss (9d.%, (9d.%, Distance  Distance education& 5trategies 5trategies and tools (pp. 7$-"05%. 9nglewood Cliffs, 3G; 9ducational echnology. Foster, /. ("##2%. 8essons from team wor!; o owards wards a systemic scheme for course development. =igher development.  =igher Education, Education, 2:, "#-2"". /arrison, @.R., & Shale, @. ("##0%. Education ("##0%.  Education at a distance& distance& Fro From m issues to "ractice "ractice.. *alaar, F8; Hrieger.

 

Aolmerg, . ("#75%. >ro9 >ro9th th and structure of distance education education.. 8ondon; Croom Aelm. 8in!, @./., & Scholt), S.*. (2000%. 9ducational technology and the faculty role; <hat you don6t !now can hurt you. Nurse you. Nurse Educator , 2E(5%, 2$:-2$5. *iles, *.., & Auerman, .*. ("##:%. ?ualitative data analysis. analysis . 8ondon; Sage. lcott, @., & <right, S.G. ("##E%. n institutional support framewor! for increasing faculty participation in postsecondary distance education. $he American 4ournal of  Distance Education, Education, #(%, E-"$. olit, @.F., ec!, C.., & Aungler, .. (200"%. Essentials (200"%. Essentials of nursing nursing resear research& ch&  ethods, a""raisal, and utili@ation utili@ation.. hiladelphia; 8ippincott. Reinert, .R., & Fryac!, . .. . ("##$%. @istance learning and nursing education. 4ournal education.  4ournal of Nursing Nursing Education Education,, 5(#%, :2"-:2$. Schieman, 9., eare, eare, S., & *c8aren, G. ("##2%. owards a course development model for graduate level distance education. 4ournal education.  4ournal of Distance Education Education,, II(2%, E"-5E. nline 4ournal of Distance Bearning Administration, olume 6, Num!er 66, 5ummer %((7 5tate University of West >eorgia, Distance Education Center 

Learning Administration  Back to Journal of Distance Learning Administration Contents

Sponsor Documents

Or use your account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Forgot your password?

Or register your new account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link to create a new password.

Back to log-in

Close