How Institutionalized is Distance Learning?

How Institutionalized is Distance Learning? A Study of Institutional Role, Locale and Academic Level

The purpose of this study was to determine areas of strengths and weaknesses in the institutionalization of distance learning at colleges and universities. To accomplish this goal, 30 factors found to influence the institutionalization of innovations were identified from the literature of several area. These factors were rated by distance learning professionals on how successfully each of the individual factors was being implemented at their respective institutions. Results were analyzed and compared according to institutional role (distance learning administrators or distance learning faculty), academic level of the institution (associate, masters or doctorate) and institutional locale (rural, suburban or urban).

According to research conducted by the Sloan Consortium, distance learning appears to be a vibrant part of higher education, with 83% of higher education institutions offering some form of distance learning (Allen & Seaman, 2007). But are distance learning programs at each of these colleges and universities equally healthy? Do they all offer a full range of online degree programs with full organizational, infrastructure, design and technical support for distance learners and their instructors, or do many provide merely a few courses each semester with no discernable growth?

Researchers examining distance learning programs at higher education institutions report many cases of successful, well-developed and thriving programs (e.g. Moore, 2004) and others that stagnate, shrink or have been discontinued (e.g. Garrett, 2004; Schell, 2004). For many of the latter institutions “decisions about distance education are made too often without adequately considering the broader institutional context” (Boyd-Barrett, 2000, p.1) and “some institutions that are struggling to keep up with the demand for Internet-based courses have made a conscious decision to serve students immediately and plan later” (Phipps & Merisotis, 2000, p.7).

One reason for the lack of success of many of these programs and similar innovations is that they have never been fully institutionalized within their organizations (Curry 1992; Oldford, 2002). In other words, they have not become a “normal” and integral part of the institution, losing their “special project” status (Surrey & Ely, 2002). Most models of organizational change (e.g. Rogers, 2003) tend to view adoption or implementation as the final step in the change process. Surry and Brennan (1998) point out that the research based on these models tends to demonstrate “a deterministic bias—it assumes that once an innovation has been adopted, it will continue to be used” (p.2). Ellsworth (2000) notes that “the successful transition from implementation to institutionalization is rarely mentioned in the literature” (p. 43).

In this study, 30 factors found to influence the institutionalization of innovations are applied to distance learning programs at colleges and universities, to determine where the areas of greatest strengths and greatest weaknesses lie. To gain a broad perspective, both distance learning administrators and distance learning faculty are surveyed. In addition, other institutional variables, namely the academic level of the institution and the locale or setting of the institution are considered in the analysis.

Research conducted by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) at the U.S. Department of Education and elsewhere, reveals that distance learning outcomes vary (often significantly) at different types of higher education institutions. Among the variables that have been found to affect distance learning are institutional locale (i.e. rural versus suburban versus urban) and the academic level of the institution (i.e. undergraduate versus graduate) (NCES, 2003). In addition, there is evidence to suggest that those with different roles within the institution (e.g. faculty and administrators) may have different perceptions of distance learning. These findings can be used to generate hypotheses for the present study.

According to Keenan (2007), college and university faculty and administrators tend to have different perspectives and priorities with regard to their institution. Some of the areas of the “faculty-administrator divide” include collegial versus managerial relationships, disciplinary or departmental versus managerial perspectives and micro versus macro views of the institution (Smart & Kuh, 1997). Another source of this difference is that “administrators often have more influence over resource allocation than individual faculty” (McMillin, 2002, p. 3). Administrator perceptions toward their institutions tend to be more favorable. In their study of faculty and administrator’s view of distance learning, Selani & Harrington (2002) found that distance education places different expectations on faculty and administrators. Faculty tended to be most concerned about quality issues of learning outcomes, faculty training and selection, academic misconduct, and teaching loads. Faculty and administrator perspective differed with respect to learning outcomes, classroom management, faculty selection and training, compensation, teaching load, and program marketing. Lee (2002) found that faculty and administrators perceptions were different with regards to instructional support for distance learning. Keenan (2007) found that administrators and faculty disagreed on the implementation of class size limits and technical support for distance learning. It is hypothesized that administrators would rate their institutions higher than would faculty when it comes to successfully institutionalizing distance learning.

Classification of higher education institutions by degree level is a method used both inside and outside academia. An example of the former is the “Classification of Institutions of Higher Education” developed by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching (McCormick, 2000). An example of the latter is the annual ranking of colleges by U.S. News and World Report (Morse, Flanigan & Setoodeh, 2004). The NCES (2003) study found that institutions with graduate degree programs offered distance learning courses at a slightly higher rate than institutions with only undergraduate programs (63% versus 57%). Public and private 4-year institutions were more likely to offer entire degree programs via distance learning (48% and 33% respectively) than 2-year colleges (20%). Universities tend to have access to greater resources and per-student funding than community colleges (Center for Community College Policy, 2000; Murphy, 2004). It is hypothesized that distance learning at institutions that award graduate degrees will tend to be more successful at institutionalizing distance learning than those colleges that award solely 2-year undergraduate degrees.

Distance learning has a long history in rural education, dating to the late 1800s, when the University of Wisconsin and Pennsylvania State University began extension and correspondence programs to provide agricultural education to rural families (Simonsen, Smaldino, Albright & Zvacek, 2006). Service areas for rural colleges and universities tend to be much larger than those for those that serve urban or suburban areas. Higher education institutions with large rural service areas, such as those in Wyoming, Virginia and Iowa were among the first to establish state-wide distance learning consortia and technology systems (Shoemaker, 1998; Sorensen, Maushak & Lozada, 1996). It is hypothesized that rural colleges and universities will be more successful at institutionalizing distance learning than urban or suburban institutions.

The sample consisted of 170 respondents involved in distance learning at their institutions. Respondents were classified according to their institutional role (distance learning administrator or distance learning faculty), the academic level of their institution (highest degree offered) and institutional locale (urban, suburban or rural). Due to the low number of respondents from bachelor degree granting institutions, this category was excluded from the institutional academic level analysis. Table 1 shows the breakdown of respondents by institutional classification.

Classification	Sub Groups	Respondents
Institutional Role	Distance Learning Faculty Distance Learning Administrator	111 59
Institutional Academic Level	Associate Degree Bachelor Degree Master/Specialist Degree Doctorate Degree Unknown	50 3* 59 55 3*
Institutional Locale	Urban Suburban Rural Unknown	60 52 55 3*
Note: * Excluded from the data analysis for this classification

A literature review of factors necessary for the institutionalization of innovations was undertaken in the areas of service learning (Furco, 1999; Kramer, 2000), organizational behavior (Tolbert & Zucker, 1994), health care (Goodman & Steckler, 1989; Public Education Network, 2004), engineering (Colbeck, 2002), educational leadership (Aronsen & Horowitz, 2000), library science (Oldford, 2002), and distance learning (Levin, 2005; Phipps & Merisotis, 2000; Western Cooperative for Educational Telecommunications, 2000). After eliminating certain area-specific items and modifying the wording of others to be relevant to distance learning, a total of 30 factors were identified. Following Furco (1999) and Kramer (2000), a survey instrument was created that included an application item for each factor. The instrument also contained a section to identify respondents as distance learning administrators or faculty, report the highest degree offered by their institutions, and whether their institutions were located in an urban, suburban or rural setting. Table 2 lists the 30 institutionalization factors and the application item for each factor.

Factor	Item	Factor	Item
Institutional Mission	Distance learning is compatible with institution mission/vision statements	Master Plan	There is a specific master plan for distance learning
Policies and Procedures	Formal policies and procedures for distance learning have been adopted	Marketing	There is an aggressive marketing plan to promote distance learning
Needs Assessment	There is periodic assessment of faculty, student and institutional distance learning needs	Evaluation	There is a formal plan for ongoing evaluation of distance learning
Campus-Wide Function	Distance learning is a campus-wide function, not a dependent unit of a particular school, department or discipline	Centralized	Distance learning is coordinated by a single central entity, rather than run from many different departments.
Collaboration	Distance learning staff collaborates regularly with other entities on campus to insure broad base support.	DL Leadership Authority	Distance learning director/coordinator has decision making authority
Visibility	Distance learning is visibly recognized on the institution’s web site, catalogue, bulletins or organizational chart	Communication	There is a formal mechanism for informing the campus community about distance learning activities
Instructional Design Support	Instructional design help to assist faculty to develop distance learning courses is available	Faculty Tech Support	The institution provides technical support for distance learning faculty
Staff Development	Comprehensive and on-going staff development in distance education is provided	Funding	The distance learning program and staff are permanent budget items funded by hard money
Infrastructure	The campus hardware and software infrastructure can support distance learning systems	Course Management System	Distance learning utilizes a course management system such as Blackboard
Distance Learning Director	There is a director/coordinator whose primary responsibility is distance learning	Permanent Staffing	Distance learning staff consists of permanent, rather than temporary, employees
Full-Time Staff	Distance learning staff are assigned full-time to distance learning	Faculty Participation	Faculty (especially faculty leaders) are actively recruited to teach distance learning courses
Professional Incentives	Professional incentives for teaching distance learning courses (e.g. positive evaluation for promotion/tenure) available	Financial Incentives	Financial incentives for teaching distance learning courses (e.g. course development fees, royalties) are available
Online Registration	Students can register for, add and drop courses on line	Online Library Resources	Students can access a full range of library/research services on line
Advising & Counseling	Students have access to counselors and advisors without having to come to campus	Student Tech Support	The institution provides technical support for distance learning students
Online Degree	Students can complete an entire degree program via distance learning	Multiple Disciplines	Distance learning courses are available in multiple disciplines

The instrument was constructed and distributed online using SurveyMonkey software (SurveyMonkey, 2004). IP data was collected by SurveyMonkey to prevent duplicate completion of surveys; however data sent to the researcher was aggregated to maintain respondent confidentiality. Solicitations to complete the survey were sent to the electronic mailing list (listserv) of regional and state-wide distance learning consortia and professional associations with a link to the survey’s website. Reliability of the instrument was verified by using Cronbach’s Alpha, which yielded a coefficient of .93 across all thirty items.

Respondents were asked to rate how successful their respective institutions were at implementing each of the 30 factors. A five-point Likert-type scale with values of 1 (completely), 2 (mostly), 3 (a little), 4 (not at all) was utilized. Respondents who did not know whether their institutions implemented specific factors were given the option of answering “I don’t know” to any of the items on the questionnaire. These “I don’t know” answers were excluded from the final data analysis. Responses were grouped and analyzed according to the respondents’ role (faculty versus administrators), academic level of their institutions (highest degree awarded), and locale of their institutions (urban, suburban or rural). Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics (mean scores, standard deviations, rank ordering), and inferential statistics, (ANOVA, Scheffé’s post-hoc test for multiple comparisons). Alpha level for significance was set at P < .05. Originally, the study also included data by institutional affiliation (public or private) and size of student enrollment (less than 3,000, 3,000-10,000 or above 10,000). However these last two classifications did not produce the same significant results as institutional role, level and locale, so they have been excluded from this report.

Table 3, which reports mean scores, standard deviations and rank orders for distance learning faculty and administrators, demonstrates that both groups are in basic agreement as to which factors are most successfully implemented by their institutions. Both agree that course management systems are the best implemented factor. Institutions are also most successful in the implementation of online registration, online library resources, distance learning director, faculty technology support, visibility and permanent distance learning staff. All of these were judged to be either “completely” or “mostly” implemented. Faculty and administrators agreed that their institution’s weakest areas were in offering professional and financial incentives to faculty, recruiting participation by faculty and performing assessment of distance learning needs.

ANOVA, revealed significant differences between administrators and faculty for the factors of offering financial incentives, collaboration with other on-campus entities, providing fully online degrees, accessing advisement and counseling services, and offering professional incentives. These are listed in Table 4. In each of these cases, administrators rated their institutions as more successful in implementing the factors than did faculty. The hypothesis that administrators would rate their institutions higher than faculty finds support in five (17%) of 30 factors.

Faculty were more likely than administrators to answer “I don’t know” when asked to rate how well their institutions implemented the institutionalization factors. Of the 111 faculty surveyed, 50 (45%) answered “I don’t know” to at least one of the implementation items. The item answered “I don’t know” most often by faculty (37) was whether distance learning was a permanent budget item funded by hard money. Only 5 of 59 administrators (8%) gave an “I don’t know” answer on at least one of the items. The item answered “I don’t know” most often by administrators (4) was whether there was a master plan for distance learning.

Factor	Administrators			Faculty			Total
	Mean	S.D.	Rank	Mean	S.D.	Rank	Mean	S.D.	Rank
Course management system	1.40	0.724	1	1.45	0.772	1	1.43	0.754	1
Online registration	1.69	0.876	4	1.47	0.854	2	1.55	0.865	2
Online library	1.60	0.674	2	1.53	0.701	3	1.56	0.691	3
Infrastructure	1.78	0.832	7	1.74	0.725	4	1.75	0.762	4
DL director	1.68	0.973	3	1.87	1.050	6	1.80	1.024	5
Faculty tech support	1.80	0.689	8	1.85	0.768	5	1.83	0.740	6
Visibility	1.73	0.848	5	1.92	0.848	8	1.85	0.850	7
Permanent staff	1.83	1.028	9	1.91	0.877	7	1.88	0.933	8
Campus-wide function	1.76	0.865	6	2.02	0.879	11	1.93	0.880	9
Budget	1.88	1.010	11	2.01	1.000	10	1.95	1.003	10
Multiple disciplines	1.92	0.816	12	2.00	0.828	9	1.97	0.822	11
Institutional mission	1.93	0.896	13	2.02	0.736	11	1.99	0.794	12
Centralized	1.83	0.985	9	2.11	1.110	13	2.01	1.073	13
Student tech support	2.03	0.909	14	2.16	0.865	15	2.11	0.880	14
Instructional design support	2.10	0.885	17	2.15	0.960	14	2.14	0.932	15
Policies & procedures	2.12	0.751	18	2.16	0.874	15	2.15	0.831	16
Staff development	2.21	0.853	20	2.23	0.905	17	2.22	0.885	17
Full time staff	2.16	1.182	19	2.33	1.115	19	2.26	1.140	18
Advisement & counseling	2.03	0.898	14	2.45	0.972	22	2.29	0.963	19
Communication	2.38	0.895	24	2.28	0.890	18	2.32	0.890	20
Collaboration	2.07	0.944	16	2.49	0.890	23	2.33	0.930	21
Master plan	2.35