Rebekah Raulerson
Grant Project Coordinator
University of Florida

Ricky W. Telg
Associate Professor
University of Florida

Lori L. Moore
Ph.D. Student
University of Florida

Kim E. Dooley
Assistant Professor
Texas A&M University

Background

Offering support for technology-based faculty training and development efforts is a key issue facing many institutions of higher learning. In general, according to the 1999 Campus Computing Survey, “Assisting faculty efforts to ‘integrate information technology into instruction’ remains the single most important information technology (IT) issue confronting American colleges and universities” while “providing adequate user support” ranked second (p. 1). As one of the tenets of their mission to provide “life-long learning,” land-grant universities and many other agricultural institutions have been at the forefront in developing extensive infrastructures to facilitate distance education delivery of courses to a diverse community of learners, both traditional and non-traditional (Miller & Pilcher, 1999). Most of these programs involve technological delivery of distance education coursework in a variety of majors at both the graduate and undergraduate levels utilizing teleconferencing, videotape, and the Internet. In fact, a study by the National Center for Education Statistics (1998) lists agriculture within the top ten disciplines in terms of development of distance education at the post-secondary institutional level.

Over time, many of these institutions have developed some form of faculty training for distance education, but their programs vary considerably in terms of potential factors such as structure and focus, size, centralization within the wider institution, and degree of flexibility and customizability of programmatic offerings (Irani & Telg, 2001). However, few institutions have invested in the training and development of instructional designers or educational technologists assigned to assist faculty develop distance education courses (Telg, 1995). Research in this area is still limited, perhaps due to the challenges associated with developing an assessment framework that can accommodate faculty training and development programs that differ widely as to resource allocations, institutional support and philosophical direction, and disciplinary content.

However, as might be expected, more than a technological infrastructure is necessary to effectively encourage and train faculty members to teach at a distance. Other components, primarily focused on providing institutional support to assist a faculty member’s development, such as teaching incentives, instructional design support, and technology training, have been shown to be necessary in creating successful distance education training and development programs (Berge, 2001).

According to Garrison (1990), the use of telecommunication technologies in distance education marks a new generation in designing the educational transaction. Researchers have said this next generation calls for new knowledge and skills for instructors to teach effectively by distance education (Beaudoin, 1990; Brigham, 1992; Dillon, Hengst, & Zoller, 1991; Shaeffer & Farr, 1993; Willis, 1993; Wolcott, 1993). But technology skills alone are not enough (Thach, 1993). Early researchers such as Levinson-Rose and Menges (1981) felt that faculty training in the development of the concepts of teaching and learning was as important, if not more so, than skill-based training. Beaudoin (1990) wrote that distance education theory and practice should be mandatory as a condition of employment for new and continuing faculty. King (1999) wrote that distance education training helps provide faculty with a “reservoir of ideas” to teach and encourage critical thinking skills in students (p. 170). Spotts (1999) indicated that if instructors are expected to use instructional technologies – including distance education technologies – they need technical support and training. However, these two questions still remain: who provides the technology skills and instructional design training and support for faculty? And are these staff members adequately prepared to train and support the faculty?

A study of 14 land-grant universities (Irani & Telg, 2001) found that nearly two-thirds (61.5%) of distance education faculty training was conducted by staff instructional designers – with no faculty appointment. Also, 64.3% of instructional designers actively working with faculty had had no prior training or knowledge of instructional design methods used in distance education before working at their universities. Twelve of the 14 respondents said they had learned distance education instructional design methods while “on the job.”

These findings mirror a previous study of video production specialists who support their universities’ distance education effort. Telg (1995) found that the video production specialists had learned distance education instructional methods while on the job. Because much learning – on the part of production personnel – still is being done on the job, according to Telg’s 1995 study and the Irani/Telg (2001) study, it is important for the instructional designers and technology specialists to be knowledgeable about not only the latest technology, but also the educational methods to use that technology. Telg (1996a) recommended that a training curriculum be developed to teach television-production-specialist-turned-instructional-designers the information and skills – particularly knowledge of instructional design – that they needed to perform their jobs, so they can subsequently support faculty members’ efforts. Because then, as now, much of the on-the-job learning took place in the video production specialists’ situated environment, a hands-on approach to learning instructional design methods was identified to best suit their needs (Telg, 1996b). Particular areas of instructional design that video producers needed more knowledge in included the following: audience identification and needs, adult education theory, adapting content to the technology, distance education theory, interaction methods in distance education, and evaluation techniques in distance education (Telg, 1996c). Because technology changes so rapidly, instructional designers must be provided means to learn about how to apply these information technologies in learning environments and about learning theories in distance education. Instructional designers must be adequately prepared in order to assist faculty, so that faculty can effectively teach undergraduate and graduate distance courses.

In response to this need, six universities – University of Florida, Texas A&M University, Texas Tech University, the University of Idaho, the University of Missouri-St. Louis, and Iowa State University – are collaborating on a project titled Training the Trainer: The Distance Education Instructional Designer Project. This project is funded by a USDA Challenge Grant and seeks to develop effective materials and innovative approaches to better prepare instructional designers at land-grant universities and other universities with agricultural academic programs to support their universities’ distance education teaching programs. The project will have far-reaching impact in the land-grant system across disciplines because it will provide distance education instructional designers – who may be learning instructional design theory and practice on the job – with skills and knowledge to more effectively help faculty members developing distance education courses.

Method

To assess this specialized population, the project development team has partnered with Agricultural Communicators in Education’s Distance Education and Instructional Design (ACE DE&ID) special interest group and ADEC: American Distance Education Consortium. These two organizations encompass most of the instructional designers working in distance education in the land-grant system. The audience, therefore, has already been selected and is interested in this project. This project is being developed in three phases: research design, implementation, and evaluation. Each will be discussed in the results section.

Results

Research Design
The research design phase was completed with a needs assessment of ACE DE&ID and ADEC members. The purpose of the needs assessment was to help identify key characteristics of this virtual training project. An online questionnaire was sent to ACE DE&ID and ADEC listservs, with an e-mail reminder being sent one week later. A total of 24 individuals responded to the online needs assessment. A summary of the needs assessment results follows:
· Respondents were generally interested in participating, saw the project as useful, said they would have the time to complete the training program, wanted to be certified as effective instructional designers upon completion of the program, and preferred asynchronous delivery methods.
· When asked to rate their understanding of distance education technologies on a scale from 1 to 5, with 1 being “poor” and 5 being “excellent,” 0.3% responded with a 1, 16.7% responded with a 2, 26.1% responded with a 3, 43.5% responded with a 4, and 13% responded with a 5. (All of the following results are based on the same 1- to 5- point scale.)
· When asked to rate their understanding of distance education instructional design, 4.2% responded with a 1, 16.7% responded with a 2, 33.3% responded with a 3, 41.7% responded with a 4, and 4.2% responded with a 5.
· When asked to rate their ability to apply distance education technologies, 21.7% responded with a 2, 8.7% responded with a 3, 43.5% responded with a 4, and 26.1% responded with a 5.
· When asked to rate their ability to apply distance education instructional design, 25.0% responded with a 2, 8.3% responded with a 3, 45.8% responded with a 4, and 20.8% responded with a 5.

Respondents reported being from 1862 and 1890 land-grant institutions, as well as 1994 tribal colleges. Degrees held ranged fairly evenly with bachelor’s, master’s, specialist, Ed.D, and Ph.D degrees. Respondents’ position titles included training specialists, administrators, information technologists, instructors, academic deans, faculty members, extension agents, and Web developers.

Respondents were also asked what training they felt they were most in need of in the areas of instructional design and development. Their responses included design for asynchronous learning, engaging and designing content for adult learners, distance education best practices, and creating manageable segments for learners. When asked about previous training in distance education instructional design, training, and development, most had had some technology and software training, but said that instructional design principles were self-taught.

As a follow-up, five non-respondents from the ADEC listserv were contacted and asked to answer questions from the needs assessment questionnaire during telephone interviews. Overall, non-respondents’ answers were similar to original respondents’ comments. They reported general interest in the program and saw the project as useful.

Implementation
Following the research phase, implementation of the project began. The project team has opted to go with the theme Roadmap to Effective Instructional Design, which guides participants in instructional design methods and delivery. Each of the modules, then, will be called destinations. WebCT will be the delivery format. Plans also include a small amount of time spent in synchronous chats at the end of several destinations. The University of Florida serves as the project coordinating institution. Iowa State University will lead the development of the WebCT course. Texas A&M University is also responsible for the certification process during the course.

Much of the actual program design is based on the needs assessment results. In the original USDA grant proposal the program’s individual modules were to have been delivered every other month, meaning it would take 12 months to complete the six modules. Respondents in the needs assessment said they wanted a much shorter timeframe in which to complete the program. Therefore based on the findings, there will be six, online four-hour asynchronous virtual sessions, delivered in a much shorter timeframe. As to stay consistent with the results of the needs assessment, the six destinations will be offered once per month starting in mid- to late September 2003 and going through November 2003. Then, a break will be given for December and January to compensate for holidays and increased workload of instructional designers at the beginning of a semester. The last three destinations will resume in February of 2004 and go through April 2004. The six destinations (modules) and the universities in charge of developing the content and interactive components are as follows (in order of when the destinations will be delivered): 1) Effective teaching principles--September 2003, University of Florida 2) First-time course development--October 2003, University of Florida 3) Technology issues in training--November 2003, Iowa State University 4) Advanced teaching methods--February 2004, University of Idaho 5) Assessment and evaluation--March 2004, University of Missouri-St. Louis 6) Instructional designer competencies--April 2004, Texas A&M University / Texas Tech University.

Enrollment is limited to 75 participants to allow for easier management of the project. Each of the six collaborating institutions will select 10 participants from their own university. Then, the remaining 15 slots will be opened up to ACE and ADEC members on a first-come, first-in basis. Since each of the collaborating institutions has ACE or ADEC members, the majority of the 60 pre-selected participants most likely will be ACE and ADEC members. A marketing plan will be completed in early spring 2003, and promotional pieces will be developed to use as the project is discussed with potential participants at the various institutions. Part of the marketing plan will include advertising at the 2003 ACE Conference.

Once all 75 participants are registered, they will be divided into groups for the remainder of the project. The teams will be made up of around seven participants per team. The purpose of the team concept is for team members to serve as accountability partners throughout. One team exercise will take place within each destination to give teams a chance to discuss matters. Also, there will be a microproject that each individual will complete at the end of each destination. The team members will critique the microproject and provide feedback to each person on the team. Ideally, the team’s structure will reflect diversity. The process for randomly assigning participants to groups has not yet been decided. The use of the microprojects for evaluation and certification will be discussed later.

Another aspect of the implementation phase of this project is the development of an “exemplar” database of exceptional undergraduate and graduate distance education courses that the participants have worked on or know about at their universities. Participants will be asked to share the Websites of exemplary distance education courses and provide a synopsis of the design and development aspects of the courses, including the subject matter area of the courses, the instructional design approaches, the media used, evaluation methods used, and the positives/negatives in the courses’ development.

In addition to the creation of the database, another major purpose of this project is to provide Web-based training materials to the participants to use free of charge in the training of their faculty members. These materials, which will be based on the Distance Education Faculty Training Program (DEFT) at the University of Florida’s College of Agricultural and Life Sciences (http://training.ifas.ufl.edu/deft), will provide in-depth information on instructional design methods, technologies, and resources. Downloadable files and video clips of professors who have effectively taught distance education courses and interactive segments will be found interspersed throughout the materials that the participants can adopt and adapt to their individual institutions’ needs.

Evaluation
There are three parts to the evaluation phase: evaluation of the participants, certification, and evaluation of the project.

Evaluation of the participants will be based largely on the microprojects discussed in the previous section. The microprojects that the participants develop at the end of each destination will build on each other in each destination, so that the participant has a complete training product at the end of the last destination. The collaborating institution in charge of a given destination will ensure that the microproject for that particular destination is evaluated correctly. Rubrics will be used for the participant to self-assess the microproject and for the teams to peer-evaluate the microproject., while the collaborating institution serves as facilitator.

The overall outcome of this project is for participants to be certified as effective instructional designers, based on six core competencies identified in previous research (Thach, 1994). The six core competencies, along with characteristics of each competency, are as follows: 1) Adult learning theory--Philosophy of teaching, adult learner characteristics, learning styles 2) Technological knowledge--Web development tools, videoconferencing, computer hardware/software, communication tools (e-mail, threaded discussion) 3) Instructional design--Course planning and organization, gaining attention, writing instructional objectives, active learning strategies, evaluation 4) Communication skills--“Presenting” content, questioning and facilitation, feedback, collaboration/teamwork 5) Graphic Design--Formatting visuals for TV display, design considerations for Web pages, multimedia components 6) Administrative issues--Support services, copyright/intellectual property, technology access, financial considerations.

The six microprojects will reflect each core competency. Example microprojects that reflect these competencies might include requiring participants to complete the following (numbers in parentheses also reflect the core competency identified in Table 2): (1) determine their learning philosophy, (2) determine what technology to use to teach the lesson, (3) write objective statements for the lesson they will teach, (4) integrate interactive learning methods, (5) develop a graphic that would be used in the lesson, and (6) develop an assessment tool that would be accessible to people with disabilities. The six microprojects – culminating in a final training product – will be a Web-based “train-the-trainer” piece to deliver to the participants’ clientele. The teams, mentioned previously, will serve as the students of the training product, field-test the lesson, and provide feedback. Texas A&M University’s Center for Distance Learning will confer the certificate for instructional designers completing the program.

At the completion of this program, an exit survey will be sent to all participants, where they will be asked for their perceptions of what they learned and how the overall Roadmap to Effective Instructional Design program was structured and delivered. Results will be used to strengthen the program when it is delivered to others in the future.

Conclusions

As discussed earlier, there is a need for this type of project. This project addresses the issue of providing adequate support for people developing distance education courses (Campus Computing Survey, 1999). Participation in this project will allow instructional designers to be more adequately prepared so that they can assist faculty, who in turn, can teach undergraduate and graduate courses more effectively. Based on a collaborative effort of six universities (University of Florida, Texas A&M University, Texas Tech University, Iowa State University, the University of Idaho, and the University of Missouri-St. Louis) with well-recognized and respected distance education programs, Training the Trainer: The Distance Education Instructional Designer Project will raise the level of the type of work done by distance education instructional designers. The certification process will play a major role in helping distance education instructional designers raise their own stature for the positions they hold at their respective universities.

Interest in this project already has exceeded expectations. Potential participants are being asked to join a waiting list of instructional designers who are ready for the destinations to begin in September 2003. This project is being used as a pilot for future training. Plans are being underway to expand this training to 1890 and 1994 institutions, based on the needs assessment results. Interest has also been generated with instructional designers and distance education specialists outside of the land-grant university system. Over the next year though, collaborators see this as a tool that will improve the land-grant system by fulfilling a need for training distance education trainers. Overall, this project will better prepare instructional designers at land-grant universities to support their universities’ distance education teaching programs.



References
Beaudoin, M. (1990). The instructor’s changing role in distance education. The American Journal of Distance Education, 4(2), 21-30.

Berge, Z.L. (2001). A framework for sustaining distance training. In Z. Berge (Ed.), Sustaining distance training: Integrating learning technologies into the fabric of the enterprise. (pp.13-30). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Brigham, D. (1992). Factors affecting the development of distance education courses. Distance Education, 13(2), 169-189.

Dillon, C., Hengst, H., & Zoller, D. (1991, Spring). Instructional strategies and student involvement in distance education: A study of the Oklahoma Televised Instruction System. Journal of Distance Education, 7(1), 28-41.

Garrison, D. (1990). Communications technology. In D. Garrison & D. Shale (Eds.), Education at a distance: From issues to practice. (pp. 41-52). Malabar, FL: Krieger.

Irani, T. & Telg, R.W. (2001). Planning for the New Wave: Assessing Current Faculty Distance Education Training and Development Needs. Journal of Applied Communications, 85(4).

King, K.P. (1999). Unleashing technology in the classroom: What adult basic education teachers and organizations need to know. Adult Basic Education, 9(3), 162-175.

Levinson-Rose, J. & Menges, R.J., (1981). Improving college teaching: A critical review of research. Review of Educational Research, 51, 403-434.

Miller, G., & Pilcher, C. (1999). Desired and assessed cognitive levels of instruction: Are college of agriculture courses taught on campus and at a distance comparable? Proceedings of the 26th National Agricultural Education Research Conference. (pp. 343-351). Orlando, FL.

Shaeffer, J., & Farr, C. (1993, April). Evaluation: A key piece in the distance education puzzle. T.H.E. Journal, 20(9), 79-82.

Spotts, T.H. (1999). Discriminating factors in faculty use of instructional technology in higher education. [online]. Educational Technology & Society, 2(4). Available: http://ifets.gmd.de/periodical/vol_4_99/spotts.html

Telg, R.W. (1995). Adapting prior television production experience for distance education instructional design. Journal of Applied Communications, 79(4), 1-16.

Telg, R.W. (1996a). The roles of television production specialists in distance education programming. The American Journal of Distance Education, 10(1), 50-61.

Telg, R.W. (1996b). How television production specialists learn distance education skills and knowledge. Distance Education, 17(2), 289-303.

Telg, R.W. (1996c). Skills and knowledge needed by television production specialists in distance education. Educational Technology Research and Development, 44(3), 73-82.

Thach, L. (1993). Exploring the role of the deliverer in distance education. International Journal of Instructional Media, 20(4), 289-307.

Thach, E. (1994). Perceptions of distance education experts regarding the roles, outputs, and competencies needed in the field of distance education. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX.

Willis, B. (1993). Strategies for teaching at a distance. (Report No. ED 351008). Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EDO IR 92 8)

Wolcott, L. (1993). Faculty planning for distance education. The American Journal of Distance Education, 7(4), 26-35.