Roles and Competencies for Distance Education Programs in Higher ...

THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF DISTANCE EDUCATION, 17(1), 45–57 Copyright © 2003, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Roles and Competencies for Distance Education Programs in Higher Education Institutions Peter E. Williams Rogers State University This study had three purposes: to identify the roles and competencies needed in distance education in higher education, to rate the importance of those competencies, and to compare the results to those of a competency study conducted five years previously. The research identified thirteen roles and thirty general competencies as well as role-specific competencies. The roles of leader/change agent and trainer emerged as significant for successful implementation of distance education programs. Interpersonal-related and communication-related skills were necessary across all roles and dominated the top ten general competencies. Institutions of higher education can use the results in the staffing of distance education programs and in the design of staff/faculty development.

As institutions implement distance education programs, decisions must be made regarding staff and training. Researchers in the field of human resource development have produced a number of competency studies including an early study on adult learning by Lindeman ([1938] 1991), Knowles’ (1962) study on competencies of doctoral candidates, as well as Nadler’s (1968) study and subsequently Pinto and Walker’s (1978) analysis of trainer competencies. Thach (1994) documented a lack of research in the area of distance education competencies, which can lead to ineffective implementation; Mirabito (1996) noted the lack of personnel resources in distance education during the implementation of Marywood College’s online graduate courses.

Requests for reprints should be sent to Peter E. Williams, Rogers State University, 1701 West Will Rogers Boulevard, Claremore, OK 74017. E-mail: [email protected]

45

ROLES AND COMPETENCIES

Institutions implementing distance education programs would benefit from research defining the necessary roles and competencies. The current research project was designed to identify the roles and competencies needed to implement distance education in higher education environments permeated by the Internet. The face of distance education has changed drastically in the last decade due to the integration of telecommunication-based technologies that have allowed many institutions to implement programs (Simonson et al. 2000). Increased use of computer and Internet-based communication and information distribution/retrieval systems—such as threaded discussion lists, electronic mail, chat, groupware, and Web-linked databases—gives educators a variety of tools with which to promote interaction of the three types mentioned by Moore (1989) as necessary in distance education: learner–instructor, learner–content, and learner–learner. Increasingly, teachers and students have the opportunity and the tools to interact and to create a richly interactive learning environment. Dede (1990) referred to this new level of distance education as “technology-mediated interactive learning” (254) and described it as including direct person-to-person interaction, spontaneous interactions, and collective experiences. The ever-evolving landscape of technology requires that the distance educator continually develop new skills. Increasing use of the World Wide Web for training and instruction (Khan 1997; Romiszowski 1997) as well as other technologies alter the roles in distance education (Schotsberger 1997). As institutions of higher education implement programs of distance education, they are faced with the need to implement training programs for existing staff, including administrative, instructional, and support staff, and they find themselves in the position of creating new positions to manage and support the distance education program. Although Thach (1994) conducted a study to identify distance education roles and competencies five years prior, with the changes brought on by the effects of telecommunications technologies on instruction it is critical that the current competencies be identified. The initial step in creating a successful professional development program is to identify the competencies needed to perform the functions and outputs of certain major roles. Rothwell and Cookson (1997) provided a review of various competency studies that have helped define roles and competencies of human resource development professionals. The American Society for Training and Development commissioned the study of Pinto and Walker (1978) and the subsequent study of McLagan and McCullough (1983). The theoretical framework for the present study is based on accepted 46

WILLIAMS

practice in human resource development, that certain competencies—comprised of skills, knowledge, and attitudes—are needed to produce the desired outputs of the workplace. These competencies can be organized into distinguishable roles, albeit oftentimes with overlapping areas. In a period just after the advent of the World Wide Web when distance education was still dominated by paper-based courses, telecourses, and videoconferencing, Thach (1994) conducted a competency study to identify the roles, outputs, and competencies needed by distance education professionals. She targeted approximately one hundred distance education experts working in higher education across the United States and Canada. Thach used two rounds of questionnaires, modeled after the McLagan and McCullough (1983) competency study, to identify the roles, outputs, and competencies needed by distance education professionals. Thach identified four roles as the most important in distance education: administrator, instructor/facilitator, instructional designer, and technology expert. She also was able to identify the ten most important competencies overall. Thach’s findings emphasize the need for communication skills as well as technical skills. Across all roles, the ten most important competencies were the following: interpersonal communication, planning, collaboration/teamwork, English proficiency, writing, organizational, feedback, knowledge of distance learning field, basic technology knowledge, and technology access knowledge. As noted by Thach (1994) and Piskurich and Sanders (1998), the continuous evolution of learning technologies requires new competencies and the further study of roles and competencies. There are, however, identified roles and competencies with which to begin the current research project. This study identified the competencies and roles needed in distance education, examining their relative importance and comparing the results to those of Thach (1994) to identify any differences or trends. It expands on the limited research base available to trainers and experts in the field by analyzing distance education experts’ perceptions of what roles and competencies are important in the distance learning environment and how those roles may have changed. The results include a menu of roles and related competencies that are determined to be most important in implementing and managing a distance education program in higher education. Methodology This study follows the pattern of previous competency studies by using a panel of distance education experts to determine roles and competencies 47


(McLagan 1989; Rothwell 1996; Rothwell and Cookson 1997; Piskurich and Sanders 1998). The Delphi technique was selected to structure the group process. Ziglio (1996) said, “The Delphi is an exercise in group communication among a panel of geographically dispersed experts” that “allows experts to deal systematically with a complex problem or task” (9). Limited time and financial resources for travel along with geographically dispersed experts necessitated the use of a method that would allow the chosen experts to participate from their respective locations (Linstone and Turoff 1975; Turoff and Hiltz 1996). Several features characterize the Delphi technique: a relatively small group of participants, anonymity of participants, multiple rounds of survey, and the reporting of group results to individual participants. The participants typically do not meet face-to-face in the course of the Delphi process, although Turoff and Hiltz (1996) pointed out that anonymity is optional and, in some cases, the research goal may not require that participants remain anonymous. According to Isaac and Michael (1995), the Delphi was designed to generate group consensus. However, Turoff and Hiltz (1996) pointed out that, although some degree of consensus may be attained, the Delphi is “aimed at producing critical examinations and discussion, not at forcing a quick compromise” (57). The Delphi, then, can be used to move toward group consensus without discouraging minority views. Moreover, the Delphi method of group interaction avoids the following disadvantages of face-to-face group discussions (Isaac and Michael 1995): the bandwagon tendency; deference to the most prestigious or powerful member of the group; the vulnerability to manipulation; and the reticence on the part of individuals to change their minds in front of others. A careful, multistep process that includes four criteria was used to identify the pool of distance education experts from which the expert panel emerged. The four criteria were that the expert

• • • •

must have made a noteworthy contribution to the field through writing; must have at least three years of experience in the field; must be nominated by at least two peers, independent of each other; must be willing to participate.

The final expert panel was comprised of fifteen individuals who participated in all four rounds. The time required to collect the data was three and one-half months during the fall of 1999. The expert panel reported an average of 11.4 years of experience in distance education, ranging from a low of 4 years to a high of 20 years. Eleven 48

WILLIAMS

(73%) of the panelists were men and four (27%) were women. The final panel consisted of seven directors, five professors (currently teaching via distance education), two deans, two instructional designers, one coordinator, and one manager. Three panelists reported dual titles of professor and director resulting in a total of eighteen professional titles. The round-one survey consisted of a menu of twelve roles with their accompanying descriptions and related outputs that had been derived from the literature of distance education. Experts were to accept or reject each of these roles or make modifications to any element of each role. They also were given the opportunity to suggest additional roles. A summary of the role changes generated by round one was presented to the experts to review before participating in round two. The round-two questionnaire required participants to select competencies for each of the roles that had been established in round one. A menu of fifty-seven competencies derived from the distance education literature was provided from which the experts could select. The experts could write in additional competencies. In round three, experts were instructed to rate the competencies on two scales: criticality and frequency. In round four, experts were asked to review their rating of each item in comparison with the group median. This study was descriptive and therefore relied primarily upon descriptive measures. Due to the small group size, the measure of central tendency chosen was the median. The median and the corresponding interquartile range (IQR), being less sensitive to extreme scores within the small group (Gall, Borg, and Gall 1996), have been used in various Delphi-based studies to determine consensus or convergence (see Jones 1975; Wicklein 1993; Drain 1998; Hahn, Toumey, Rayens, and McCoy 1999). The IQR is defined as the difference between the twenty-fifth and the seventy-fifth quartiles. Assumptions and Limitations This study was limited to higher education, including both two-year and four-year institutions, and assumed a certain level of technology use in the distance education setting, including Internet access. In many parts of the world, this level of technology development does not exist, and the results of this study would not be applicable. The study was limited to English-speaking experts in distance education. The participating distance education experts were primarily from the United States, with one each from Canada and Australia. Therefore, the results of this study may 49


not be generalizable to certain international settings that are non-English speaking or where the technology infrastructure does not allow Internet access. Results Three research questions were addressed in this study. Research Question 1: What Are the Roles and Competencies Necessary in Distance Education in Higher Education? This question was addressed in the round-one and round-two questionnaires. In round one, the experts were instructed to review the preliminary list of twelve roles that had been identified in the literature along with the role descriptions and outputs. They were asked to accept or reject each, modify any portion of each, and suggest additional roles. Comments of the panel concerning these roles led to modifications in the number of roles, the role names, role descriptions, and outputs. Modifications were made based on the input of at least two experts, and the resulting modifications were put before the group for approval in the subsequent round. The total number of roles increased to thirteen. The first role in the preliminary list, administrator, was split into two distinct roles: administrative manager and leader/change agent. Experts also suggested that the role of Web publisher be modified to include all media; the role name was changed to media publisher/editor. The following thirteen roles resulted: administrative manager, instructor/facilitator, instructional designer, technology expert, site facilitator/proctor, support staff, librarian, technician, evaluation specialist, graphic design, trainer, media publisher/editor, and leader/change agent. In round two, the expert panel selected more than fifty competencies for each role (M = 50.7 per role). Further, the panel decided that all the roles had thirty competencies in common. These competencies were the general or generic competencies (see Table 1) and can be categorized as communication and interaction (comm), management and administration (mana), technology (tech), and learning and instruction (inst). There were eight general competencies related to communication and interaction, nine related to management and administration, four related to technology, eight related to learning and instruction, and one classified as miscellaneous (data analysis skills). Feedback skills and facilitation skills 50

WILLIAMS

Table 1. General Competencies Assigned by Panel Members to All Roles Rank

Competency Name 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Collaboration/Teamwork skills Basic technology knowledge Interpersonal communication skills English proficiency Knowledge of distance learning field Writing skills Questioning skills Skills in development of collaborative, student-focused learning environment Adult learning theory Knowledge of support services Feedback skills Organizational skills Technology access knowledge Planning skills Software skills Knowledge of intellectual property, fair use, and copyright regulations Facilitation (Discussion) skills Public relations skills Multimedia knowledge Presentation skills Consulting skills Evaluation skills Group process skills Editing skills Project management skills Change agent skills Negotiation skills Needs assessment skills Data analysis skills Personal organization skills

Category Comm Tech Comm Comm Inst Comm Comm Inst

Inst Mana Inst Mana Tech Mana Tech Mana Inst Mana Tech Inst Mana Inst Comm Comm Mana Mana Comm Inst Misc Mana

Note: Comm = communication and interaction; Tech = technology; Inst = learning and instruction; Mana = management and administration; Misc = miscellaneous.

were classified as learning and instruction but also could have been categorized as communication skills, further highlighting the importance of communication and interpersonal skills. Table 1 reports the general competencies along with the respective rank based on the average number of

51


experts assigning the competency to each role. Together, these thirty general competencies form a foundation of knowledge and skill that is necessary in each role. Research Question 2: How Do Distance Education Experts Rate the Importance of the Competencies? Competencies were divided into two categories: general competencies and role-specific competencies. A general competency was a competency assigned to all roles (see Table 1). Role-specific competencies are those that were required only by certain roles. The expert panel rated the role-specific competencies on scales of criticality and frequency. Criticality was rated on a 1-to-6 scale with labeled poles—1 labeled “not necessary” and 6 labeled “critical.” The frequency scale ranged from 1 to 6, with 1 labeled “never” and 6 labeled “daily.” In order to move toward consensus, in round four we asked panelists to review their ratings. If the ratings fell outside the IQR, the panelists were given the opportunity to either change their rating or support their position with comments. This technique is central to the Delphi and results in movement toward consensus and a clarification of minority viewpoints. To be considered very important, a competency had to receive a median rating of 5 or 6 and an IQR of 1 or less on either scale, indicating consensus that the competency was very important due to either its inherent importance or to the frequency with which it was needed. Where the IQR was equal to or less than 1, indicating that at least 50 percent of ratings fell within one point, consensus was achieved. The thirteen roles and their associated competencies, those qualifying as “very important,” are presented in Table 2. Regarding the role-specific competencies, the roles with the most competencies rated as very important were instructional designer (10), instructor/facilitator (7), trainer (6), and leader/change agent (6). On the other end of the spectrum, the role of site facilitator/proctor had no competencies rated as very important, whereas three roles had one competency each rated as very important: support staff, evaluation specialist, and librarian. The number of competencies rated as very important should not be used as a measure of the overall importance of the particular role.

52

WILLIAMS

Table 2. Roles and Role-Specific Competencies That Were Considered Very Important Role Administrative manager Instructor/Facilitator

Instructional designer

Trainer

Leader/Change agent

Technology expert Graphic designer Media publisher/Editor Technician Support staff Librarian Evaluation specialist Site facilitator/ Proctor

Competencies Managerial skills, budgeting skills, marketing skills, strategic planning skills Content knowledge, teaching strategies/models, general education theory, skill with Internet tools for instruction, instructional design for interactive technologies, library research skills, modeling of behavior/skills Instructional design skills, instructional design for interactive technologies; media attributes knowledge; general education theory; text layout skills; skill with Internet tools for instruction; teaching strategies/models, Web-related programming skills; learning style and theory; HTML authoring skills Training skills (for technology), modeling of behavior/skills, general education theory, teaching strategies/models, skill with Internet tools for instruction, advising/counseling skills Modeling of behavior/skills, managerial skills, marketing skills, strategic planning skills, policy-making skills, general education theory Computer hardware skills; technology operation/repair skills; skill with Internet tools for instruction Graphic design skills; text layout skills; media attributes knowledge; skills with Internet tools for instruction Skills with Internet tools for instruction; graphic design skills; media attributes knowledge Technology operation/repair skills; computer hardware skills; computer networking skills Advising/counseling skills Library research skills General education theory Consensus not reached on any competencies as very important

Research Question 3: How Do These Roles and Competencies Differ From Those Identified by Thach (1994)? The intent of this question was to discover if dramatic changes in the technology used in distance education produced similar changes in the competencies needed to conduct a distance education program.

53


Two new roles emerged in this study: leader/change agent (as separate from administrative manager) and trainer. It was noted that these roles are necessary for both organizational and individual change. This finding reflects the awareness of the expert panel of the importance of change agency within the institution. Several trends were noted from a comparison of the top general competencies. Interpersonal and communication skills remained necessary across all roles and dominated the top ten competencies in both studies, Thach (1994) and this study. Basic technology skills became more important, whereas more advanced technology skills, such as engineering, became less important. Three competencies related to the Internet emerged in this study as well as two competencies related to pedagogy, underscoring on the one hand the changing technology and on the other hand the need for sound pedagogical practice. Conclusions and Recommendations Thirteen distinct roles are needed to implement and manage distance education programs in higher education (see Table 2). These roles are not equivalent to positions or titles. Many roles can be assumed by one position. However, all these roles should be considered in staffing and training decisions. Two roles emerged in this study: leader/change agent (as separate from administrative manager) and trainer. The importance of the roles and competencies will vary depending on the institutional environment particularly related to the distance education model being implemented. Site facilitator/proctor, for example, is critical to videoconferencing but not to online instruction. Specific technology competencies will vary depending on the mode of delivery of instruction to distant students. A set of general competencies emerged that are necessary to varying degrees across all roles. These general competencies are a foundational skill set that can be considered entry level for any of the roles (see Table 1). Based on the comparison of the current results to the findings of Thach (1994), interpersonal and communication skills remain necessary across all roles and dominated the top ten competencies in both studies. Basic technology skills became more important, whereas more advanced technology skills such as engineering became less important. It can be concluded that a dual trend emerged related to technology skills. First, the more advanced competencies, such as engineering skills, are needed less frequently and by fewer staff than previously. Second, the basic technology skills are indispensable across all roles, having become part of the 54

WILLIAMS

entry-level skill set needed by any staff member. Collaboration/teamwork skills as a competency remains necessary across all roles, being the competency most often assigned to a role. As a result of this research, the following recommendations are made:

• Institutions of higher education should consider the thirteen identified roles as a guide in the selection of staff, keeping in mind that a single position may encompass several roles. • Training programs for distance education professionals can utilize these competencies and roles as a framework. • Trainers and administrators should highlight the importance of teamwork and collaboration skills in policy and staff/faculty development activities, emphasizing the importance of teamwork in the development of courses and in the implementation of technology. • Institution-specific training should use the competencies identified here as a foundation and tailor the specific skills to the environment and needs of the institution. Further research might identify distinct roles and competencies needed in different types of higher-education institutions and for the different instructional delivery models. Additional research is needed to determine the level of skill mastery needed by the different roles. This study indicates that all roles include some degree of need for the identified general competencies, but it does not identify the level of mastery or depth of knowledge required for the different functional areas represented by the thirteen roles. Further research would do well to focus on specific roles and the level of knowledge, skill, or attitude required in each role. Furthermore, research is needed to identify the knowledge, skills, and attitudes making up the competencies. By doing so, institutions could develop more specific training programs to target the identified knowledge, skills, and attitudes. Due to the rate of change in technologies used to deliver instruction and related changes in higher education, it is recommended that another study to identify roles and competencies be carried out in approximately five years.

References Dede, C. 1990. The evolution of distance learning: Technology-mediated interactive learning. Journal of Research on Computing in Education 22 (3): 247–264. 55


Drain, T. 1998. Reform trends facing athletic programs in the 21st century as identified by Division I-A athletic directors. Ph.D. diss., Texas A & M University, College Station. Gall, M., W. Borg, and J. Gall. 1996. Educational research: An introduction, 6th ed. White Plains, NY: Longman. Hahn, E., C. Toumey, M. Rayens, and C. McCoy. 1999. Kentucky legislators’ views on tobacco policy. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 10 October. Available online at http://www-east.elsevier.com/ ajpm/ajpm162/ajpm0208fla.htm Isaac, S., and W. Michael. 1995. Handbook in research and evaluation, 3rd ed. San Diego, CA: Educational and Industrial Testing Services. Jones, C. 1975. A Delphi evaluation of agreement between organizations. In The Delphi method: Techniques and applications, ed. H. Linstone and M. Turoff, 160–167. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Khan, B. 1997. Web-based instruction: What is it and why is it? In Web-based instruction, ed. B. Khan, 8–18. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications. Knowles, J. 1962. A general theory of the doctorate in education. Adult Education Quarterly 12 (3): 136–141. Lindeman, E. [1938] 1991. Preparing leaders in adult education. In Models for HRD practice: The academic guide, ed. N. Dixon and J. Henkelman. Alexandria, VA: American Society for Training and Development. Linstone, H., and M. Turoff. 1975. Introduction. In The Delphi method: Techniques and applications, ed. H. Linstone and M. Turoff, 3–12. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. McLagan, P. 1989. Models for HRD practice. Alexandria, VA: American Society for Training and Development. McLagan, P., and R. McCullough. 1983. Models for excellence: The conclusions and recommendations of the ASTD training and development competency study. Alexandria, VA: American Society for Training and Development. Mirabito, M. 1996. Establishing an online educational program. T.H.E. Journal 24 (1): 57–60. Moore, M. 1989. Three types of interaction. The American Journal of Distance Education 3 (2): 1–6. Nadler, L. 1968. A study of the needs of selected training directors in Pennsylvania which might be met by professional education institutions. Ph.D. diss., Columbia University, New York, 1962. Dissertation Abstracts International 24 (2): 601. 56

WILLIAMS

Pinto, P., and J. Walker. 1978. A study of professional training and development roles and competencies. Alexandria, VA: American Society for Training and Development. Piskurich, G., and E. Sanders. 1998. ASTD models for learning technologies: Roles, competencies, and outputs. Alexandria, VA: American Society for Training and Development. Romiszowski, A. 1997. Web-based distance learning and teaching: Revolutionary invention or reaction or necessity? In Web-based instruction, ed. B. Khan, 25–37. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications. Rothwell, W. 1996. ASTD models for human performance improvement: Roles, competencies, and outputs. Alexandria, VA: American Society for Training and Development. Rothwell, W., and P. Cookson. 1997. Beyond instruction: Comprehensive program planning for business and education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Schotsberger, P. 1997. Emerging roles for instructors and learners in the WBI classroom. In Web-based instruction, ed. B. Khan, 101–106. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications. Simonson, M., S. Smaldino, M. Albright, and S. Zvacek. 2000. Teaching and learning at a distance: Foundations of distance education. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill. Thach, E. 1994. Perceptions of distance education experts regarding the roles, outputs, and competencies needed in the field of distance education. Ph.D. diss., Texas A & M University, College Station. Turoff, M., and S. Hiltz. 1996. Computer based Delphi processes. In Gazing into the oracle: The Delphi method and its application to social policy and public health, ed. M. Adler and E. Ziglio, 56–88. London: Kingsley. Wicklein, R. 1993. Identifying critical issues and problems in technology education using a modified-Delphi technique. Journal of Technology Education 5 (1), 10 October. Available online at http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JTE/v5n1/ wicklein.jte-v5n1.html Ziglio, E. 1996. The Delphi method and its contribution to decision-making. In Gazing into the oracle: The Delphi method and its application to social policy and public health, ed. M. Adler and E. Ziglio, 3–33. London: Kingsley.

57