Abramson, T. (2003). Development Time for Distance Learning. Journal of Instruction Delivery Systems, 17(1), 3-4.

 

From the Desk of the Executive Editor

 

Development Time for Distance Learning

 

Gertrude (Trudy) Abramson

 

 

The time needed to develop a distance education course should be carefully considered. The Association recognizes that evidence documenting the amount of work required for distance-education courses remains largely anecdotal… In the absence of more definitive data, workload provisions should take into account the anecdotal evidence that distance education course development is taking two to three times as long as comparable courses taught in the traditional manner.

American Association of University Professors (AAUP). Report of Special Committee on Distance Education & Intellectual Property Issues to the Collective Bargaining Congress, December 1999.

 

A survey or report is a snapshot in time.  The data used to create the AAUP report were collected almost half a lifetime ago in the history of Internet-based distance learning. Nowhere in the report was it evident that data were sought as to the number of online courses faculty had developed, or how the faculty in question related their comfort level with the technology before undertaking the process, or even the number of instances of development upon which their comments were based. These three factors are essential considerations if we are to arrive at an accurate picture.

 

Recollection from an Earlier Life

Join me in a giant step backward to my first teaching experience at the postsecondary level.  I had taught in different K-12 settings, served as a public speaker for several organizations and had conducted an accounting clinic in the community college in which this first adult-teaching experience was to take place. The course was called Introduction to Data Processing and was offered through the Department of Business.  The learners were traditional community college students and people who were interested in the growing use of computers in society; the year was 1977.  Some of the adult students had previously earned Masters’ degrees in various subjects and others were not yet high school graduates. This widely diverse population was a new and challenging audience.

 

The course met for two, 75-minutes sessions, Tuesday and Thursday afternoons.  Beginning about three weeks before the start of the term and continuing throughout, the better parts of Monday through Thursday were invested in developing the course, preparing lecture materials, visual support materials, and examinations.  Why did it take so long?  First, my comfort with the content was lower than it had appeared to me or to the chairperson who hired me as an adjunct.  Second, I was not at all familiar with the environment and methodology of teaching adult learners. Each subsequent course took considerably less time to develop.  By the time I had prepared all the courses in our newly formed Computer Studies department, in which I was on an assistant professor tenure track, my week’s work consisted of 15 hours of teaching and five in the office.

 

Collecting Anecdotal Information

As our readers probably are aware, we, at the Graduate School of Computer and Information Sciences (GSCIS), offer a partially online, doctoral level course called Instruction Delivery Systems (IDS), in which students become immersed in the theoretical and practical aspect of teaching and learning online.  Students teach three-week online lessons and participate as online learners in at least three other lessons.  Lessons, or mini-courses, must require asychronous online discussion and may not be

skills-building experiences.  Working on a solid foundation of current literature related to online teaching and learning, each student must develop and teach an instructionally sound, intellectually demanding online lesson. Individually and collectively, we read and analyze, teach and learn, critique and brainstorm using the online environment as our classrooms. The overwhelming majority of the students are teachers or trainers in schools, industries and government. Many of the teachers and all the trainers work in postsecondary environments, often in computer-related fields.  Others are elementary and secondary teachers.  A surprisingly large number work in allied health care fields and there are always a few program administrators in our ranks.  A masters’ degree in a related field and self-assessed comfort with online technology are prerequisite for participation in the program called Computing Technology in Education (CTE).

 

Following the publication of the AAUP report quoted above, we have been testing the report findings against our experiences.  (Development time is addressed here but different aspects of the report will be examined in future columns.)  The most interesting finding is the consistency of reporting from the different teaching/training populations across the years. Elementary and secondary school teachers with a background of curriculum development and instructional design found that the time needed to develop an online lesson was very similar to that required for a classroom-based experience.  Trainers and administrators, many who had never before developed lessons or courses, had to invest the largest number of hours in preparing to deliver the lessons.  They, however, attributed the time needed to what they described as the “education” aspects such as defining measurable learning objectives, establishing relevance between the readings and the lesson, and developing assessment instruments. College instructors, probably the largest group represented, were split in their analyses.  The most frequently occurring remarks about development time constraints dealt with the need to prepare the entire course quickly before the beginning of the term. 

 

Development Time, Circa 2003

The biggest difference between the GSCIS population and that of AAUP relates to attitude toward technology.   To arrive at accurate comparative numbers, the question of the time it takes to develop an online course really needs to be rephrased: Given a self-assessed comfort level with online computing and communication, how long does it take to develop an online course compared to developing a classroom-based course?  Discussion of this question inevitably raises another:  Is it advisable or possible to develop and teach an online course if one has never taught the equivalent course in a classroom?  Interestingly, answers to this sub-question are generally based upon the age of the responder.  Younger students (those under 40) tend to feel absolutely no need to teach the course in the classroom first.  Older students are less certain. 

 

Here are our observations on development time for distance learning:

 

  1. Teaching online requires that the online learning environment become natural as the classroom environment.  Reaching that comfort level takes time and experience or, in education terms, guided practice.  Once the online environment becomes natural, it often becomes the teaching place of choice.

 

  1. Classroom courses are largely chalk and talk.  Preparing lecture notes for words that disappear into the air is not the same as typing entire lectures.  The fact that words, once posted, are there for the duration, mandates greater attention to detail, consistency and accuracy.

 

  1. Many online learning environments are computer managed system (CMS) modules that have rules of their own that need to be mastered.  One of the most difficult things for computer novices to accept is that they are required to master systems that may not be logical, efficient, or responsive to their needs.

 

  1. Electronic slide shows, readily usable in online learning are much easier to prepare than were the manual slides used with a slide projector in classrooms.  Hooray for PowerPoint! 

 

  1. Online technology is not a new learning medium.  It is an alternate learning place.  Full-color, multimedia technologies will not improve poor instruction.  The role of the teacher in the learning process remains.

 

  1. Conventional wisdom was that all one needed to teach at a college level was a doctorate in the field of expertise.  We have endured decades of derision from colleagues who looked down upon our immersion in learning how to teach.  Traditional, or classroom instruction, is likely to improve based upon the new focus on development of online courses in the postsecondary environment.  Competition is healthy.

 

  1. One’s expertise is not always as complete as one might believe.  The online environment with its paper trail coupled with readily available online search engines mandate a higher level of instructor competence and a greater need to keep one’s knowledge base state-of-the-art.  This requirement is one more reason that development of an online course is very time consuming.

 

  1. The need to prepare and post a course-long syllabus before the first day of the online course is less than comfortable for many long-time instructors.  This is one aspect of online delivery that will need to be revisited and perhaps modified as the environment matures.

 

 

This editorial began with a quote from AAUP and ends with another: No member of the faculty should be required to participate in distance education courses or programs without adequate preparation and training, and without prior approval of such courses and programs by the appropriate faculty body. To this statement, we add, No member of the faculty should be required to teach in an uncomfortable environment if alternate environments are available within the institution.  The increasingly large numbers of us who are enchanted by the possibilities offered by online learning at the postsecondary level are more than sufficient to meet institutional needs.