Teaching Time: Distance Education Versus Classroom Instruction

THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF DISTANCE EDUCATION, 18(2), 103–114 Copyright © 2004, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Teaching Time: Distance Education Versus Classroom Instruction Diane M. Bender School of Design Arizona State University

B. Jeanneane Wood Human Environmental Studies Central Michigan University

Jon D. Vredevoogd Human Environment and Design Michigan State University This study presents time-and-task records of faculty and teaching assistants’ time for comparable computer-aided design courses at two state universities in the midwestern United States. One course was taught at a distance and the other course was a conventional face-to-face course. Results indicate a distance course takes less time to teach than a traditional classroom course, if student enrollment and assessment procedures are not included in analysis. When analyzed on a per-student basis, both faculty and teaching assistant time was higher for the distance course.

There is minimal and conflicting research on the direct comparison of time spent teaching at a distance versus the more traditional on-campus model (DiBiase 2000; Visser 2000). As distance education offerings increase, faculty could experience an escalating workload as they are called upon to teach both distance and on-campus courses (Moore 2000).

Requests for reprints should be sent to Diane M. Bender, School of Design, College of Architecture and Environmental Design, P.O. Box 872105, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287–2105. E-mail: [email protected]

103

DISTANCE EDUCATION VERSUS CLASSROOM INSTRUCTION

Review of Literature The distinction between development time and instructional time for distance education courses is critical in faculty workload research. Recent research suggests an online course takes more time to develop than a traditional course (Abe 1988; Gaud 1999; Mason 1999; Sherron and Boettcher 1997). Over half (53%) of the respondents in a National Education Association survey reported spending more hours per week preparing and delivering their distance course than they do for a comparable course taught in a traditional manner (Abacus Associates 2000). Visser (2000) examined development and delivery time in his graduate-level public administration course. The elective course was offered for the first time at a distance, using a combination of Web-based instruction and two-way interactive television. This was compared to a traditional three-credit course offered for twelve weeks, one night per week for three hours. The instructor had no prior distance teaching experience. With his teaching assistant omitted from analysis, Visser found the delivery time for the online course (84.75 hours) was almost equal to the conventional course (96.00 hours). With the inclusion of the teaching assistant, approximately fifty more hours were added for the delivery of the distance course. This is substantially higher than teaching a course for the first time by traditional means (Visser 2000). DiBiase (2000) examined both development and instructional time, suggesting course development for an online course may be inversely proportional to instructional time. This study of two comparable geography courses detailed his time spent teaching one course on campus to traditional undergraduate students (n = 223) and teaching the other course online to adult professionals (n = 71). He found teaching a classroom course took more time (259.8 hours) than a distance course (190.2 hours). However, he did not utilize teaching assistants in the distance course. He also did not include in his analysis the time of eighteen teaching assistants in the classroom course, thus distorting a comparison of true workload in each course. He concluded that teaching a distance course required no more time than teaching in a classroom setting, exclusive of development or adaptation time. An obvious limitation to this finding is the difference in student demographics between the two courses. Assessment, feedback, and student communication are important factors in distance education courses, due to the limited amount of physical contact between instructor and student. Though the Internet is utilized for this interaction, the primary mode seems to be via e-mail (Abacus Associ104

BENDER, WOOD, VREDEVOOGD

ates 2000). The use of extensive e-mail and the downloading of student assignments from course Web sites can contribute to a very heavy instructor workload (Landstrom 1995; Ukpokodu 2000). In a study by White (2000), faculty members expressed concerns about the substantial amount of time spent answering student e-mail and participating in online discussions. If the faculty provided immediate feedback, it only increased the student’s expectations of instructor availability (White 2000; Wiesenberg 1999). Description of Courses This study reports the time spent teaching both the classroom version and distance version of an introductory course in computer-aided design (CAD) at two state universities in the midwestern United States. This fifteen-week course, offered in spring 2002, introduced students to basic two-dimensional and three-dimensional CAD drawing. The classroom course had been taught at one university for over five years. The instructor was approached by the second university to teach the same course but in a distance format. (The instructor had prior online teaching experience, but this was the first time teaching this particular course, in this format, at this university). Administrators at the second university believed the students would benefit from a distance education experience and would use the acquired technology and communication skills in future coursework. The courses were identical with respect to length, objectives, requirements, assignments, examinations, and grading criteria. Varying degrees of multimedia were utilized in both courses, including e-mail, course Web sites, CD-ROM-based lectures, Internet conferencing, and instant messaging. Classroom Course Instructional Strategy The classroom course involved 111 students and 38 undergraduate teaching assistants. Each week, students followed detailed textbook instructions to learn how to operate the CAD software. The students attended a one-hour weekly lecture where the instructor would provide highlights for the coming week’s assignment. In addition, the instructor was available during a weekly office hour. Teaching assistants were available in computer labs thirty-eight hours a week to help students complete their CAD projects, which were printed and submitted during weekly lecture times. To grade projects, the instructor and two teaching assistants would meet weekly for approximately one hour. The graded projects would be deliv105


ered to the university’s scoring services for computer processing. Scoring services would e-mail grades to the instructor for verification and e-mail individual results to each student.

Distance Course Instructional Strategy The distance course involved eighteen students and five undergraduate teaching assistants. To introduce the students to this new course format, the instructor and teaching assistants traveled to the second university on the first day of class, and they made three subsequent site visits. The students followed detailed textbook instructions for the projects and watched a series of MP3 lectures on CD-ROM. These multimedia lectures provided audio and visual project instructions (complementing the textbook) because the distance course had no weekly lecture. To provide assistance, the instructor was available via Internet conferencing software and e-mail during the same two hours each week. Teaching assistants also provided three hours of online support each week. (The difference in the amount of available assistance between the courses is a reflection of the difference in student enrollments). The examination review content was identical to that of the classroom course and was provided on CD-ROM as an audio PowerPoint file. As learning to print from the CAD software is a course objective, three projects in the distance course were printed and submitted to the department secretary, who would express mail them to the instructor. The remaining four projects were submitted electronically to the course Web site. The grading procedure for the distance course was different from that of the classroom course. The instructor would either grade from printed and mailed projects or download submissions from the course Web site. The process to download projects involved accessing individual student folders on the course Web site and transferring files to the instructor’s computer. Because a university scoring service was not available for the distance course, the instructor individually e-mailed results to students.

Sample For both groups of undergraduate students, the majority were female, White, and interior design majors (see Table 1). Eighty percent of the students in the distance course were between twenty-one and twenty-five years of age. The majority of students in the classroom course (69.3%) were twenty years of age or younger. 106


Table 1. Summary of Participant Demographics Demographic Age Gender Ethnicity Major Graduation requirement

Distance Course 80.0% between 21 and 25 100% female 100% White 100% Interior Design 100% Yes

Classroom Course 69.3% 20 or under 68.0% female 92.0% White 39.2% Interior Design 72.0% Yes

Data Collection The instructor and teaching assistants used a time-and-task data collection method for recording time spent engaged in teaching activities. A daily time log in fifteen-minute increments was used for data collection. This method of duration recordings has been used in previous research (DiBiase 2000; Lazarus 2003; Visser 2000) and was selected to present as accurate a reflection of time spent on teaching and assessment tasks as possible (Kember et al. 1995). An obvious limitation is the dependence on memory and perception of workload (Chambers 1992), which makes this method useful for comparative studies. Adapted from DiBiase (2000), categories for data collection included coordination, student contact, assessment, and instruction. The coordination category included contact with teaching assistants and Web site personnel to manage both classes and troubleshoot technology problems. The student contact category recorded time spent working with individual students in person, via e-mail, via instant messaging (i.e., chat), or through Internet conferencing software. The assessment category included collecting projects in class or from the course Web site, grading course projects (not examinations), and providing feedback to the students. The instruction category included classroom instruction during weekly lecture, virtual instruction provided through e-mail and Internet conferencing software, plus the proctoring of two on-site examinations.

Data Analysis Comparative data based on daily time logs indicates teaching a course with a high amount of distance education methodologies takes less total time than teaching a comparable course with a lesser degree of technology infusion (Tables 2 and 3). The distance course required 57.00 hours of faculty time and 123.75 hours of teaching assistant time. The classroom 107


Table 2. Total Faculty Time per Course (in Hours) Task Category

Distance Course

Classroom Course

Coordination Student contact Assessment Instruction Total

8.50 9.00 6.50 33.00 57.00

12.75 21.50 6.75 34.25 75.25

Table 3. Total Teaching Assistant Time per Course (in Hours) Task Category Attending lab Attending examinations Assessment Total

Distance Course

Classroom Course

106.75 17.00 0.00 123.75

532.00 40.00 9.50 581.50

course required 75.25 hours of faculty time and 581.50 hours of teaching assistant time. Table 4 shows total hours in the classroom course (656.75 hours) exceeding the distance course (180.75 hours). A significant difference in faculty time was spent on coordination and student contact. Table 5 compares faculty and teaching assistant time based on student enrollments of 18 students in the distance course and 111 students in the classroom course. When the number of students is factored into the analysis, faculty and teaching assistant time for the distance course (10.05 hours Table 4. Comparison of Time (in Hours) Group Faculty time Teaching assistant time Total

Distance Course

Classroom Course

57.00 123.75 180.75

75.25 581.50 656.75

Table 5. Comparison of Time per Student (in Hours) Group Faculty time Teaching assistant time Total

108

Distance Course

Classroom Course

3.18 6.87 10.05

0.67 5.24 5.91


per student) was higher than the classroom course (5.91 hours per student). An average of 3.18 hours was spent by the faculty per distance student, compared to 0.67 hours per classroom student. Likewise, teaching assistant time per distance student was higher (6.87 hours) than per classroom student (5.24 hours). Discussion Due to the number of students enrolled, it is obvious the classroom course was more time consuming (656.75 hours) for both instructor and teaching assistants than the distance course (180.75 hours). It is believed class size in this study was relevant to delivery time. When considering the difference in student enrollment, the distance course was substantially more time consuming for the instructor than the classroom course, with teaching assistant time almost equivalent between the two courses. This was not anticipated because the classroom course serviced over six times the amount of students than the distance course. According to Lazarus (2003), the time spent on both courses falls within the range of reasonable teaching expectations. Her research on the amount of time necessary to teach three distance courses ranges between 3.5 and 7 hours per week. This is in line with live courses that meet one to three times per week. An examination of each instructional category may explain these differences. The instructor corresponded weekly with two lead teaching assistants (one per course) who coordinated the larger group of assistants. Faculty coordination with teaching assistants on the distance course was more time consuming than anticipated. Because the distance course was offered in this format for the first time, many technology and pedagogy problems arose and were addressed. In addition, the teaching assistants involved in the distance course required additional technology training in order to respond to problems electronically, because they could not assist students the same as in a classroom setting. Therefore, teaching assistants were more involved in the distance course and this obviously required more faculty time. If the distance course were offered again, there would be less training needed. Student contact in the classroom course was primarily face-to-face and via e-mail for a total of 570 hours. Students in the distance course were provided 101.75 hours of e-mail and Internet conferencing assistance, plus 30 hours of face-to-face time in a classroom setting. In the beginning of the distance course, student contact was sparse and sporadic during online meeting times. As the semester progressed and students had more complex questions, online contact increased. 109


Faculty time spent grading in distance education courses is extensive (Gaud 1999; Landstrom 1995). Results of this study concur. The student projects and examinations for both courses were all individually graded. One would presume the larger classroom course would be more demanding, but the procedure in place streamlined the process. Downloading individual projects and the lack of a computerized grading process in the distance course resulted in more work. Unlike the classroom course, which utilized university facilities to electronically grade assignments and e-mail students, the instructor assumed this responsibility in the distance course. University facilities were not available for these tasks. Omitting assessment from the analysis of instructor and teaching assistant time has little impact on the study results. On a per-student basis, instructor time would decrease from 3.18 hours to 2.80 hours in the distance course and from 0.67 hours to 0.62 hours in the classroom course. Because teaching assistants were not involved in distance course assessment, the time per student remains at 6.87 hours. By omitting their involvement in the classroom course, the time per student slightly decreases from 5.24 hours to 5.20. If university grading services were identical for both courses, it is assumed instructor and teaching assistant time would be comparable. Instruction time was almost equal for the distance (33.00 hours) and the classroom course (34.25 hours). Gillespie (1998) found that e-mail, computer-generated presentations, and use of Internet resources are three of the most popular instructional technology applications in higher education. Of particular interest is the amount of e-mail exchanged in each course between instructor and students. Only e-mails directly related to the course were counted. These included instructor-initiated e-mails to the whole class and to individual students and student-initiated e-mails to the instructor. The total number of e-mail messages was higher for the classroom course (236) than the distance course (97). This result was anticipated based on total student enrollments. However, the distance course resulted in more than twice as many e-mail messages per student (5.389 versus 2.126). This is consistent with prior research findings (DiBiase 2000; Lehman 1996). The increased e-mail correspondence in the distance course could be a substitute for the personal interaction experienced in the classroom course. When the difference in student enrollment is acknowledged, the distance course workload is almost six times greater (1.83 hours versus 0.31 hours). This is due in part to the technology. Research shows faculty members and support personnel often spend most of their problem-solving time dealing with the challenges students have with their computer equipment (White 2000). In this study, the instructor and two teaching assistants had to travel an 110


additional day to the site of the distance course (approximately 100 miles) to troubleshoot technology problems. These problems included microphones and sound cards not functioning, students consistently being disconnected from the Internet, and disabling a security firewall that prevented students from accessing conferencing software on vendor servers. Study Limitations and Future Research There are several limitations to this study. This was not a controlled experiment but a natural experiment in which research occurred due to the nature of the circumstances (Kerlinger 1986). Therefore, the groups of students were not randomly selected and the population of the distance course was very homogeneous. The data-collection method of recording time increments while engaged in teaching tasks is questionable, as teaching assistants may have entered data retrospectively or inconsistently. There may be a bias in data collection in which the instructor or teaching assistants may have unconsciously distorted the data (Fraenkel and Wallen 2000). To minimize this threat to validity, the time logs used were standardized for all teaching assistants and instruction for using it was provided prior to study participation. Grading criteria were identical between courses, but the procedures were different. In addition, it must be kept in mind that the instructor was teaching this course in a distance format for the first time, as compared to years of experience teaching the course in a traditional classroom setting. As distance education gains prominence in higher education, future research is needed. One area of research involves investigating student workload in a distance course. If the use of technology increased faculty time in this study, it may be assumed students would spend a high amount of time participating in distance education activities. The effect of technologically enhanced courses on students’ learning styles is another area of possible future research. By looking at the learning style preferences of students in distance education courses, implications for alternative instructional models can be assessed. A comparison of various types of courses (such as lectures, labs, and seminars) and the varying levels of technology used in those classes would help answer the question “What is the optimal combination of Web-based and face-to-face technologies to maximize learning?” Finally, the role of distance education in the faculty reward system is unclear (Wolcott 1997). Due to the larger workload of teaching a distance education course (Coppola and Thomas 2000; Willis 1998), investigating the position of distance education in the faculty tenure and promotion system is necessary if faculty participation is to be encouraged. 111


Summary Based on measurements of faculty and teaching assistant time, the study data does not support the belief that teaching a classroom course takes less time than a distance course. However, when student enrollment is included in analysis, the distance course took almost twice as much time as the classroom course. This is not at all surprising, considering the course was offered in a distance format for the first time at the second university and the grading procedures were not as refined in this course. Therefore, on a per-student basis, all task categories were more time consuming for the distance course. The amount of e-mail correspondence between students and faculty, differences in student demographics, high student anxiety due to taking a distance course for the first time, and the difficulties in using technology to deliver the asynchronous course also had an impact on the success of this study. If these factors were more equivalent, results suggest the distance course would be more time efficient. Though these results suggest a mainly asynchronous course increases faculty workload, the concept of infusing education with technology and alternative pedagogy should not be abandoned altogether. Faculty workload is already high, without adding additional technology and pedagogy challenges. In fact, the results of this study may dissuade faculty from participating in distance education endeavors. It is clear that distance education will impact pedagogy and policy, as full-time mainstream faculty are called upon to teach distance education courses as part of their regular workload (Moore 2000). Faculty who have a reduced workload are more likely to be satisfied with their involvement and may provide positive feedback to their peers who are still deciding if distance education is worth the effort (Abacus Associates 2000). Technology frees the faculty member from delivering fundamental and redundant information, which provides more opportunity for engaging students in extended discussions. The goal is to increase interaction, participation, and ultimately, learning. If technology can be used to effectively increase instructional quality with the same amount of faculty time, distance education will be viewed in a more favorable light.

References Abacus Associates. 2000. A survey of traditional and distance learning higher education members (National Education Association). Available online at http://www.nea.org/he/abouthe/d/study.pdf 112


Abe, Y. 1988. Communications technology. In World Conference of the International Council for Distance Education: Developing distance education, ed. D. Sewart and J. S. Daniel, 9–15. Varnamo, Sweden: Falths Tryckeri. Chambers, E. 1992. Work-load and the quality of student learning. Studies in Higher Education 17 (2): 141–153. Coppola, J. F., and B. A. Thomas. 2000. Beyond “chalk and talk”: A model for e-classroom design. T.H.E. Journal 27 (6): 30–36. DiBiase, D. 2000. Is distance teaching more work or less work? The American Journal of Distance Education 14 (3): 6–20. Fraenkel, J. R., and N. E. Wallen. 2000. How to design and evaluate research in education. Boston: McGraw-Hill. Gaud, W. S. 1999. Assessing the impact of Web courses. Syllabus 13 (4): 49–50. Gillespie, F. 1998. Instructional design for the new technologies. In The impact of technology on faculty development, life, and work. Vol. 76, ed. K. H. Gillespie, 39–52. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Kember, D., Q. W. Jamieson, M. Pomfret, and E. T. T. Wong. 1995. Learning approaches, study time and academic performance. Higher Education 29:329–343. Kerlinger, F. N. 1986. Foundations of behavioral research, 3rd ed. Fort Worth, TX: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Landstrom, M. 1995. The perceptions and needs of faculty in distance education in a conventional university. Canadian Journal of Educational Communication 24 (2): 149–157. Lazarus, B. D. 2003. Teaching courses online: How much time does it take? Journal of Asynchronous Learning 7 (3): 47–54. Lehman, J. D. 1996. Computer networking in distance education. In The electronic classroom: A handbook for education in the electronic environment, ed. E. Boschmann, 147–155. London: Learned Information. Mason, R. 1999. The impact of telecommunications. In Higher education through open and distance learning, ed. K. Harry, 32–47. London: Routledge. Moore, M. G. 2000. Editorial: Is distance teaching more work or less? The American Journal of Distance Education 14 (3): 1–5. Sherron, G. T., and J. V. Boettcher. 1997. Distance learning: The shift to interactivity. CAUSE Professional Paper Series, No. 17. Boulder, CO: CAUSE. Ukpokodu, N. 2000. The efficacy of an electronic modularized course for preservice teachers: The multicultural education course. In Teaching 113


with technology: Rethinking tradition, ed. L. Loyd, 279–293. Medford, NJ: Information Today. Visser, J. A. 2000. Faculty work in developing and teaching Web-based distance courses: A case study of time and effort. The American Journal of Distance Education 14 (3): 21–32. White, C. 2000. Learn online: Students and faculty respond to online distance courses at Grant MacEwan Community College. T.H.E. Journal 27 (5): 66–70. Wiesenberg, F. 1999. Teaching on-line: One instructor’s evolving ‘theory-of-practice’. Adult Basic Education 9 (3): 149–161. Willis, B. 1998. Effective distance education planning: Lessons learned. Educational Technology 38 (1): 57–59. Wolcott, L. L. 1997. Tenure, promotion, and distance education: Examining the culture or faculty rewards. The American Journal of Distance Education 11 (2): 3–18.

114