This article was downloaded by: [Queensland University of Technology]On: 20 October 2014, At: 05:24Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street,London W1T 3JH, UK

American Journal of DistanceEducationPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hajd20

Media and adult learning:A forum: The role of thefaculty member in distanceeducationJohn Strain aa Coordinator of University Program at the Centerfor Independent Study , University of Missouri ,400 Hitt Street, P.O. Box 1636, Columbia,Missouri, 65205–1636Published online: 24 Sep 2009.

To cite this article: John Strain (1987) Media and adult learning: A forum: Therole of the faculty member in distance education, American Journal of DistanceEducation, 1:2, 61-65, DOI: 10.1080/08923648709526585

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08923648709526585

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of allthe information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on ourplatform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensorsmake no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy,completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views ofthe authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis.The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should beindependently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor andFrancis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings,demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever

or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, inrelation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private studypurposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of accessand use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Que

ensl

and

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

echn

olog

y] a

t 05:

24 2

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF DISTANCE EDUCATIONVol. 1 No. 2 1987

MEDIA AND ADULT LEARNING: A FORUMAs reported in Vol. 1, No. 1, The American Journal of Distance Educationsucceeds Media and Adult Learning as a publication forum for members of theMedia and Technology section of the American Association of Adult andContinuing Education (AAACE). This "Forum" section of The Journal is forAAACE members, and others, who wish to express opinions and ideas about therelationship between distance education and the broader field of adulteducation.

The Role of the Faculty Member inDistance Education

John Strain

It is encouraging to us in American distance education at the universitylevel when one of our colleagues is able to address some of our importantissues to a wide audience outside the immediate profession. David Gross-man, director of the University of Minnesota Independent Study Program,has recently presented some ideas about the role of university faculty indistance education to three forums.

"Hidden Perils: Instructional Media and Higher Education," an occa-sional paper published by the National University Continuing EducationAssociation, is one of several versions of a work that has also beenpresented to the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools, andhas appeared in the Chronicle of Higher Education. Grossman has initiateda lively debate, a healthy indication that the craft of distance education hasan intellectual vibrancy in the United States at this time.

Grossman asks about the appropriate role of faculty in the developmentor adoption of television-led distance instruction. By a natural expansion ofhis question, an important dilemma is posed for us practitioners. Has ourcraft, especially with the incorporation of sophisticated electronic mediaand technology, crossed the threshold from craft to an impersonal, mass-oriented, industrially defined delivery system?

To introduce a counterbalance to Grossman's arguments and to placethem into a broader context, I would like to discuss briefly the theory ofOtto Peters, foundation rector of Germany's FernUniversitat. Of all majortheorists of distance education, Peters might be one of the least known andunderstood in America. His major work, The Didactic Structure of Dis-tance Education, Research into an Industrialized Form of Teaching andLearning (1973) has yet to be translated (except for the title) into English

61

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Que

ensl

and

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

echn

olog

y] a

t 05:

24 2

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF DISTANCE EDUCATION

from the original German. Fred Jevons (1986), in a review of this work,points out that the one, 19-page summary article in English representsmerely the tip of the iceberg of a comprehensive, intellectually derivedtheory.

Peters realized early in his study of distance education that, "conven-tional education terminology is not sufficiently comprehensive," to "ex-plain the phenomenon of distance teaching" (Peters 1983, 95). Peters hasdeveloped an analogy to industrial production which for many educatorscreates a new way of perceiving their professional activities.

Peters' analogy, or theory, equates a distance teaching institution to anindustrial organization. "The comparison," he points out, however, "ispurely heuristic" (1983,96). He does not equate the teaching and learningprocesses to an industrial process, merely the operational activities of ourkind of educational systems. Using descriptive terms usually employedwith industrial settings, he demonstrates the division of labor in courseproduction (faculty write course materials, editors and instructional de-signers assist course authors, graphic specialists provide layout and illus-tration); the evaluation system (an instructor/evaluator need not be theperson who wrote the course material); the record-keeping system; andother student services, such as counseling and advising.

Other key concepts in Peters' theory include rationalization, massproduction of learning materials, mechanization and automation of recordkeeping and in some instances evaluation, high-level planning, scientificquality control, and strong organization. The theory, or analogy, isdescriptive of the kind and level of organization required to bring qualityinstruction to off-campus students.

Peters' (1983) analogy is not purely abstract. He points out that univer-sity distance education began at about the same time as the development ofthe railroads and that our educational system depends upon an efficientmail service (perhaps to be replaced to some extent by other, moresophisticated means of signal transmission). "When one further realises,"he says, "how much technical support distance teaching establishmentsneed nowadays in order to cater effectively for large groups of students, itbecomes clear that distance study is a form of study complementary to ourindustrial and technological age" (p. 95-96).

Peters' theory establishes a dichotomy between conventional universityclasses (a preindustrial form of education, he says, that was developed inthe medieval universities of Europe but that for the most part remainsrelatively unchanged) and distance education. His theory provides a way ofexplaining the trade-offs inherent in our new system of education. Facultyin our system do not teach students in a personal, face-to-face mode, butmass production of courses and industrial operations allow one teacher to

62

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Que

ensl

and

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

echn

olog

y] a

t 05:

24 2

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

J. STRAIN

reach a theoretically unlimited number of students. The cost effectivenessof reaching large numbers of geographically dispersed students has notbeen lost on developing nations, as demonstrated by the number of distanceteaching universities and other organizations recently established in theThird World.

David Grossman's thesis is that adoption of externally produced tele-vision "packages" by the distance teaching departments of Americanuniversities creates some negative consequences that he feels overshadowthe positive aspects of using such mediated instruction. He recognizes thatsuch a policy "demands the separation of instructional development fromdissemination. It requires participating faculty to change roles (emphasismine) from being creators of instruction to managers of resources andstudents, and to disseminate the views of someone else. The adoptionprocess deprives faculty of a truly creative role in instruction" (Grossman1987, 5-6).

Grossman has perceived one of the realities of distance education: therole of the faculty changes when making the transition from classroomteaching to teaching distance students. Charles Wedemeyer (1983) recog-nized the changes: "What is different about learning via technology todayis the scope of learning facilitated by technology, the altered roles ofteachers (emphasis mine) and learners, the changed environment forlearning necessitated by technology, and the sophistication of the processused in developing instruction that will be communicated by technology"(p. HI) .

For Grossman, the disadvantages of the changes in faculty roles thatoccur with such practices as course adoption outweigh the advantages. Forothers such as Peters (1983), the advantages outweigh the disadvantages:

As tutors and consultants have largely been relieved from the taskof conveying course matter, they are able to devote themselves to aconsiderable degree to more demanding tasks, such as aidingmotivation, providing individual support, structuring course con-tent for students, identifying problems and establishing con-nections, (p. 108)

Grossman feels that in the ideal situation faculty should be involved inthe development of instructional television and all media used for teachingthe distant student. Up to this point, Grossman cannot be criticized; manyfaculty members are probably more engaged and more committed to acourse in which they are involved in every facet of its development.

Grossman (1987) may have initially erred in his thinking when heoverestimated the power of the medium of television for instructionalpurposes. He says "Faculty (who would adopt externally produced course

63

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Que

ensl

and

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

echn

olog

y] a

t 05:

24 2

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF DISTANCE EDUCATION

material), underestimate the power of the medium and means of delivery"(p. 6). Richard Smith of Maryland Public Television, referring to animportant, early-television-utilization study, demonstrates my point: "TheUniversity of Mid-America (UMA) found out, to its chagrin, that studentsin an accounting (televised) course using only the printed texts and guidesperformed as well on the examinations as those who had watched all of therather expensively produced TV segments" (Smith 1983, 119).

Frances Aversa (1983, 329), in a more comprehensive study of UMAstudents, found that more students felt print components of televisedcourses to be important than did those who highly valued the electroniccomponents. Richard Smith relates the UMA experience with the BritishOpen University which discovered similar occurrences and began" . . . moving toward the development of programs that are designedsimply to arouse interest and curiosity." An assessment by the Center forTelecommunications at the Dallas Community College District also dis-covered that students indicated that "The Study Guides were consideredthe most useful components in preparing examinations, followed bytextbooks and telelessons" (Dallas Community College District, 1983,317).

Grossman has raised important concerns in his paper that have initiated anational debate. I recommend his article as well as Peters' article. Tosummarize, I would like to make the following comments:

1. The television component of a distance education course may not bethe most important from a student's point of view.

2. Adopted televised courses can be adapted by the faculty just as aretexts.

3. External students probably do not care where a television componentof a course was produced, but only care if it is instructionally sound andhelps them maintain an interest in the entire course.

4. David Grossman is correct; if possible local faculty should getinvolved in media course development.

5. Peters (1983), Wedemeyer (1981), Holmberg (1982), Moore(1973), and other distance education theorists have realized for some timethat distance education has become a sophisticated, complex set of phe-nomena which has drastically altered the role of the teaching faculty.Distance education requires a group, or team, effort.

6. Cost effectiveness is an important consideration for any mode ofteaching, and that is why distance education techniques have frequentlyreplaced the itinerant extension teacher.I have attempted to place Grossman's paper into a wider context; I feel thatthe debate his paper has engendered will enable us to think more re-flectively about our policies and practices.

64

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Que

ensl

and

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

echn

olog

y] a

t 05:

24 2

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

J. STRAIN

References

Aversa, F. 1983. Evaluation of distance learning systems: selected issues andfindings. In Reaching New Students through New Technologies, ed. L. Purdy.Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company.

Dallas Community College District. In Reaching New Students through NewTechnologies, ed. L. Purdy. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company.

Technologies, ed. L. Purdy. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company.Grossman, D. 1987. Hidden Perils: Instructional Media and Higher Education.

Washington, DC: NUCEA Occasional Paper 5.Holmberg, B. 1982. Distance study and mediated teaching in a continental

European context. In International Yearbook of Educational and InstructionalTechnology, ed. C. W. Osborne. London: Kogan Page.

Jevons, F., and O. Peters. 1986. Die didaktische Struktur des Fernunterrichts.Untersuchungen zu einer industrialisierten Form des Lehrens und Lernens.Distance Education 7:1.

Moore, M. 1973. Toward a theory of independent learning and teaching. Journalof Higher Education 44:661-679.

Peters, O. 1983. Distance teaching and industrial production: A comparativeinterpretation in outline. In Distance Education: International Perspectives,eds. D. Sewart, D. Keegan, and B. Holmberg, 95-113. London: Croom Helm.

Smith, R. 1983. Educational television is not educating. In Reaching NewStudents through New Technologies, ed. L. Purdy. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/HuntPublishing Company.

Wedemeyer, C.A. 1981. Learning at the Backdoor: Reflections on Non-Traditional Learning in the Lifespan. Madison, WI: University of WisconsinPress.

65

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Que

ensl

and

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

echn

olog

y] a

t 05:

24 2

0 O

ctob

er 2

014