Perceived Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats

PERCEIVED STRENGTHS, WEAKNESSES, OPPORTUNITIES, AND THREATSIMPACTING THE DIFFUSION OF DISTANCE EDUCATION TECHNOLOGIES IN A

COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE AND LIFE SCIENCES

Theresa Pesl Murphrey, Visiting Assistant ProfessorKim E. Dooley, Assistant Professor

Texas A&M University

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to determine the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threatsassociated with using distance education (DE) technologies in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciencesat Texas A&M University from the perspective of administrators, faculty, and professional support staff.Rogers ' Diffusion of Innovation (1995) served as the theoretical underpinnings for the study. Qualitativeresearch (naturalistic inquiry) was employed and the constant comparative method was used for dataanalysis (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Analysis revealed that respondents perceived various organizationalstrengths and recognized the opportunity to utilize DE technologies to improve instruction and reach newaudiences through collaboration and new courses/programs. A need was expressed to expandpolicies/procedures to address critical issues (i.e., incentives, support, training, quality control, careers,and communication channels). Competition, dependency on outside assistance, and misinformation on theInternet were perceived as organizational threats. Based on Rogers ' attributes (1995), the rate of adoptionof DE technologies could be enhanced through revised policies/procedures and the development ofstrategies to address critical issues.

Introduction & Theoretical Framework

Many colleges of agriculture are dedicatingresources to high-speed Internet connections andinteractive videoconferencing to reach newaudiences through distance education. Specifically,continuing education, academic courses, and fulldegree programs are being developed to meetdemand from individuals seeking non-traditionalaccess. Nationally, there were 93 “cybercolleges,”or accredited institutions offering credit-grantingcourses online in 1993, listed in Peterson 's Guide.Now, there are 1,000 degree and certificateprograms available from nearly 900 institutions(Peterson, 2000). According to the InternationalData Corporation, the number of people taking atleast one college course over the Internet willtriple by the year 2000 to approximately 2.2million (Thornton, 1999).

Based upon the strategic planning

document Vision 2020, Texas A&M University isdeveloping a framework of action to increaseaccess to knowledge resources. “Coincidentally,we must recognize that the technology related tothe storage, access, and distribution of knowledgeresources has changed as much in the last decadeas in the 550 years since the invention of movabletype.. . The wedding of communications andcomputer technology will, no doubt, yield themost formidable change in academe by 2020”(Vision 2020, p. 5). This vision includes advancesin information technology strategies andinfrastructure, to “increase to 50 percent theproportion of the master’s population enrolled indistance and other non-traditional master’sofferings” (p. 24). As these programs areimplemented, the determination of administrative,faculty, and professional support staff perceptions,concerns, and interests regarding distanceeducation (DE) technologies will be crucial. Thisunderstanding can facilitate the diffision of DE

Journal of Agricultural Education 39 Vol. 41 Issue 4, 2000

mary.rodriguez

Text Box

Journal of Agricultural Education Volume 41, Number 4, pp. 39-50 DOI: 10.5032/jae.2000.04039

technologies throughout the institution to enhancestudent learning while maintaining employee(administrator, faculty, and staff) involvement andsatisfaction.

The theoretical foundation for this studystems from Rogers’ diffusion of innovationresearch. Multiple theorists focus on changetheory. Tony Bates (Managing TechnologicalChange) and Hord, Rutherford, Huling-Austin,and Hall (Taking Charge of Change) haveconsidered specific contexts in business andeducation settings. Roger’s diffision ofinnovationwas selected because this theory provides afamiliar framework to determine obstacles that canimpede the diffusion of DE. Applying Roger’stheory can advance understanding of the adoptionrate of DE based upon attributes of the innovation.

increase the degree of relative advantage. Thesecond attribute, compatibility, “is the degree towhich an innovation is perceived as consistentwith the existing values, past experiences, andneeds of potential adopters” (Rogers, 1995, p.224). The third attribute, complexity, “is thedegree to which an innovation is perceived asrelatively difficult to understand and use” (Rogers,1995, p. 242). The rate of adoption is slower withmore complex innovations. The fourth, trialability,(sometimes called divisibility) “is the degree towhich an innovation may be experimented with ona limited basis. New ideas that can be tried on theinstallment plan are generally adopted morerapidly than innovations that are not divisible”(Rogers, 1995, p. 243). The last attribute,observability, “is the degree to which the results ofan innovation are visible to others” (Rogers, 1995,p. 244).

Rogers defined an innovation as “an idea,practice or object that is perceived as new by anindividual or other unit of adoption” (1995, p. 11).“Diffusion is the process by which an innovationis communicated through certain channels overtime among the members of a social system”(Rogers, 1995, p. 5). The innovation-decisionprocess is the “process through which anindividual (or other decision-making unit) passesfrom first knowledge of an innovation, to formingan attitude toward the innovation, to a decision toadopt or reject, to implementation of the new idea,and to confirmation of this decision” (Rogers,1995, p. 20). The process can be influenced byprior conditions, characteristics of the decision-making unit, the perceived characteristics of theinnovation, and communication channels.

DE technologies continue to increase

Purpose & Research Questions

The purpose of this study was to determinethe strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, andthreats (SWOT Analysis) associated with using

40 Vol. 41 Issue 4, 2000

Rogers (1995) discussed five attributesthat impact the rate of adoption: 1) relativeadvantage, 2) compatibility, 3) complexity, 4)trialability, and 5) observability. “Relativeadvantage is the degree to which an innovation isperceived as being better than the idea itsupersedes” (Rogers, 1995, p. 212). Many changeagencies use incentives to increase the rate ofadoption. The main function of an incentive is to

rapidly in power while decreasing in cost. Newtechnologies such as the World Wide Web andmultimedia have the potential to widen access tonew learners, increase flexibility for “traditional”students, and improve the quality of teaching byachieving higher levels of learning, such asanalysis, synthesis, problem solving, and decisionmaking (Bates, 2000). “The view of distanceeducation as an innovation provides an importantmeans for understanding the phenomena ofdistance education, particularly from theperspective of those upon whom its acceptancedepends: the faculty” (Dillon & Walsh, 1992, p.6). How people perceive and react to thesetechnologies is far more important than thetechnical obstacles in influencing implementationand use, thus, this study explores this realm indetermining the rate of diffusion of DE as aninnovation.

Journal of Agricultural Education

DE technologies for a college of agriculture fromthe perspective of administrators, faculty, andprofessional support staff. Strengths andopportunities, including perceived benefits,promote the diffusion of DE innovations whileweaknesses and threats hinder diffision. Threeresearch questions were developed to guide thestudy:

1. What were the perceived strengths andopportunities expressed by therespondents?

2. What were the perceived weaknesses andthreats expressed by the respondents?

interviews continued until the researchers felt therewas a consensus of information and redundancy inresponses. A total of 42 interviews wereconducted. The interviewees consisted of 16administrators, 15 faculty members, and 11support unit employees. Total respondentsconsisted of 8 females and 34 malesApproximately one-half (22) of the respondentswere professors, 7 were associate professors, 1was an assistant professor, 1 held the title ofresearch assistant, and 11 were professional staff.All respondents were familiar with DEtechnologies (i.e., interactive videoconferencing,Internet, CD-ROM).

Respondents were coded to ensure3. How did the perceived strengths,

weaknesses, opportunities, and threatsimpact the rate of adoption of distanceeducation as an innovation?

confidentiality, with the letters indicating adepartmental abbreviation and the numberscorresponding to the sequence of the interviewwithin a department. Nine individuals werenominated but failed to respond to persistentcorrespondence. See Table 1 for a list ofrespondent codes and group affiliation.

This study used an alternative to thetraditional positivistic view of research, whichstates that the ideal “is the formulation of generallaws, laws that we hope are universal. Theessential feature of such laws is that they becontext independent, free of the specificconstraints of any particular context and thereforeapplicable to all” (Mishler, 1979, p. 2).Investigators in educational research haveincreasingly begun to propose alternativeapproaches that are more appropriate to the studyof meaning in context (Bronfenbrenner, 1977;Mishler, 1979). This study employed thealternative approach of naturalistic inquiry as themethodology.

Methodology

4 1 Vol. 41 Issue 4, 2000,

Respondents were selected using thesnowball sampling technique (Babbie, 1989) inwhich individuals were interviewed based uponrecommendations from the original interviewees.The process began with a high level official withinthe College of Agriculture who mentioned keyemployees who were leaders in using DE, The

According to Warwick (1973), “everymethod of data collection is only an approximationof knowledge. Each provides a different andusually valid glimpse of reality, and all are limitedwhen used alone” (p. 190). For this study, theresearchers used a variety of qualitative methodsto ensure truth value, applicability, consistency,and neutrality (Erlandson, Harris, Skipper & Allen,1993, pp. 133-161): 1) Prolonged Engagement -The researchers interviewed respondents Ii-omAugust - December, 1999. Interviews typicallyranged from 30 minutes to 1% hours. 2) InterviewProtocol Development was based on the review ofthe literature, specifically with regard toprocedures for a SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses,Opportunities, Threats) Analysis (Goodstein,Nolan & Pfeiffer , 1993) and diffusion ofinnovations (Rogers, 1995). 3) The InterviewProcess served as the primary data collectioninstrument. Individuals were asked probingquestions to gather descriptive information.


Table 1. Group Affiliation and Respondent Codes, 1999 (N=42)

Group Codes IncludedAdministration (A) ED2, EC1, SC1, BB1, RP1, WS1, AN1, EN4, RE1, EG1, PP3, HS2, EG3,

FS1, EG5, HS3Faculty (F) HS1, PSI, ED1, PP1, CM1, PP2, WS2, AN3, AN4, AN2, EN3, EN2, EG4,

EG2, HS4support units (s) ODE1, OC1, ODE2, DE1, OC2, DE1, OC2, OC3, DE2, OC4, EN1

The interviews were semi-structured with eachinterview beginning with a brief explanation of thereason for the meeting. Questions included itemssuch as “How do you see this technologyimpacting your department?” and “In relation todistance education technologies - what strengths,weaknesses, opportunities, and threats do yousee?” Interviews were reconstructed using fieldnotes. 4) Member Checking was done throughoutthe interview by asking for verification orclarification of the information. 5) Triangulationwas used to verify the data. A variety of peoplewith varying perspectives were interviewed overthe four-month period. In addit ion tointerviews/field notes, some respondents providedadditional documents that were reviewed. Theresearchers also used triangulation in analyzing thedata based upon the theoretical framework(Rogers, 1995). 6) A Reflexive Journal and AuditTrail included interview scheduling, logisticalinformation, insights/reflections, methodologicaldecisions, and respondent codes to documentoriginal data sources.

The constant comparative method wasused for the data analysis (Lincoln & Guba, 1985,pp. 339-344). This method includes four stages: 1)comparing incidents applicable to each category,2) integrating categories and their properties, 3)delimiting the construction, and 4) writing theconstruction. For the first stage, the researcherstudied the detailed field notes to determine trendsin the data fi-om the varying perspectives. Eachidea (unit) was initially listed, without placementinto categories. The investigators drew upon tacitknowledge in making these initial judgments for

Journal of Agricultural Education 42

early category formulation. Colored markers wereused to differentiate respondent themes so that thedata would remain in context and provide visualindications of emerging categories.

“The first rule of the constant comparativemethod is that while coding an incident for acategory, compare it with the previous incidents inthe same and different groups coded in the samecategory. This constant comparison of theincidents very soon starts to generate theoreticalproperties of the category....Thus the process ofconstant comparison stimulates thought that leadsto both descriptive and explanatory categories”(Lincoln & Guba, 1985, p. 341). Categories wereestablished from this process.

For the second stage of the constantcomparative method, a peer debriefing wasconducted in February 2000 with the DEWorkgroup within the Department of AgriculturalEducation. This group was familiar with DE issuesat the university level, but was not interviewed inthe study. This session and subsequent e-mailcorrespondence allowed the researchers to testemerging categories and move into the next stageof the constant-comparative method. As the dataanalysis progressed, the researchers were able tocombine and more specifically define categoriesbased on overlying themes in the data. Once thecategories emerged, fewer modifications wererequired as more data were processed. Delimitingthe construction occurred as the data sourcesbecame saturated and the categories wereintegrated.

Vol. 41 Issue 4, 2000

Findings and Conclusions

1. What were the perceived strengths andopportunities expressed bv therespondents?

Within the context of a SWOT Analysis,strengths and opportunities refer to those thingsthat currently exist within an organization andthose things that have not been realized but may beable to be taken advantage of to achieve theorganization’s desired future , respectively.Evaluation and synthesis of the responses revealedtopics related to technology, audiences, content,the institution, enhancement of teaching, andcollaboration.

Seven primary categories related tostrengths surfaced out of comments provided bythe interviewees. The first category addresses thecontinuous improvement of distance educationtechnologies as a fundamental strength. “The Webis the primary strength - we can deliver anything,anywhere, anytime” (OC2). The second categoryfocuses on the ability to reach new audiencesand existing demand for particular content.Respondents expressed this in both specific terms(i.e., “urban population” (EN3), “workshops”(PP3)) and broad terms (i.e., “teach morestudents” (EG2), “contact a greater number ofpeople” (AN3)). The accessibility created by thetechnology was perceived by the respondents toallow nontraditional students to be reached (FS1,EN4, EN3, HS2, EG3, PP2, AN3, EG2, AN2,PP3). Respondents indicated that audiences werecomfortable with technology (HS4) and that insome cases demand for particular topics exceededwhat could be handled with traditional delivery(HS4). Presence of early adopters andproximity to technology encompasses the thirdcategory. “Faculty [who] are bent on technology”(EC1) was perceived to encourage adoption of thetechnologies. In addition, having an interactivevideoconference room in the building (PP3) was aperceived strength in that it facilitated the use ofthe technology.

The fourth category focuses on the reputation forquality content at the institution. “[Theinstitution] is well known for its’ expertise and hasa reputation for quality” (ED1). The institutionwas also noted to have “well-defined contentexperts” (ED2) and “unique content” (ED1). Theextensive infrastructure and network of theinstitution serves as the fifth category.Respondents noted that the “state and internationalnetwork that has been established” (ED2) was animportant strength. The sixth category involves theuse of technology to enhance teaching andlearning. Respondents indicated “delivery willbecome more and more sophisticated” (PP2)“making teaching more effective” (FS1). Multipletechnologies to improve teaching and learningwere mentioned by the respondents. “E-mail”(AN2, EG2), “electronic bulletin boards” (EG2),“animations” (EG4), and “graphics” (EN2, EN1)are examples. One of the prevalent aspects wasproviding students access to information.“References and resources” (EG4), “old tests”(EN3), “support material” (SC1, EN4), andinformation in general (EG1, EN1, EN3) werespecifically stated. “Convenient” (EG2, EC1, RP1,PP2, EN3) access to the information wasperceived to be a significant strength. The finalcategory focuses on adminis t ra t iveencouragement and support. Respondentsindicated that “support from administration to dothese types of things such as online development”(PS1) and “Department Head support” (WS2)were strengths within the organization.

In relation to opportunities, five primarycategories surfaced out of comments provided bythe interviewees. The first category focuses onexpansion of the audience base to reachnontraditional students. Respondents indicatedthat opportunities are being created for studentswho cannot come to campus for courses anddegrees (EN1, EG2, AN4). Geographically,respondents indicated the opportunity to reachpotential students internationally (PS1) andspecifically in Latin America and across the state(ED1). The opportunity to reach all people in a


new way (SC1, HS3, EG3, FS1, EN3) (i.e., “olderstudents” (RP1), “inner-city youth” (HS2), “county extension agents” (FS1)) was expressed asa significant opportunity. Continuing education(HS1, DE2, OC2, WS1, EC1, EG5, HS4, HS3,EG2, HS2) was specifically addressed. "Profit-driven topics can feed back into the classroom”(HS4).

The second category relates to theexpansion of collaboration with private andpublic institutions. Respondents indicated thatdistance education technologies were providingopportunities to collaborate across educationalinstitutions (HS1, FS1) (i.e., “public schools”(ED2), “community colleges” (HS3), systemschools (BB1, AN1, AN2, PP3)) and to partnerwith the private industry (EG4, PP2). Theopportunity to create an individualized andenhanced interactive learning experiencedefines the third category. “Students have grownup with computers and are expecting this” (EN1).Distance education technologies are creatingopportunities to enhance courses (ED2), “peakstudents’ interest” (AN3), and provide higherlevels of training (CMI, EN3). In addition,communication through e-mail is providingopportunities for students to ask things they wouldnot ask in class (AN3). “The teacher can becomea facilitator of learning” (HS4).

The fourth category focuses on theopportunity to provide unique and specializedcourses/programs. Because “graduate studentsalready know how to learn, there is a lot ofopportunity at the graduate level with Masterdegrees” (EG4). In addition to Master’s programs(HS1, WS1), respondents indicated opportunitiesin Extension (HS2) and undergraduate programs(WS1). The concept was mentioned that smallerprograms could exist by pooling students frommultiple locations (EG4). The final categoryrelates to the advancement of technology. “Thefuture is in web-based delivery” (DEl). Asbandwidth issues continue to diminish (EG5) withthe advancement of desktop videoconferencing

(AN2, PP2) and better technologies (AN1),instantaneous delivery (EG3) will createopportunities.

Based on the findings, respondentsperceived administrative encouragement andsupport, extensive infrastructure, and reputationfor quality content to facilitate the use of DEtechnologies. Respondents perceived theopportunity to utilize new technologies to improvethe delivery of instruction and expand that deliveryto new audiences. Collaboration with otherinstitutions to offer new courses and programs canfacilitate these opportunities. A summary of theperceived strengths and opportunities can be foundin Table 2.

2. What were the Perceived weaknesses andthreats expressed by the respondents?

Within the context of a SWOT analysis,weaknesses and threats refer to those things thatcurrently exist within the organization and thosethings that, while not realized, can prevent theorganization from achieving its desired future,respectively. Evaluation and synthesis of theresponses revealed topics related to incentives,expertise, communication channels, administrativeand student issues, competition, and job security.In relation to weaknesses, there were sevenprimary categories that surfaced out of commentsprovided. The first category focuses on limitedincentives, development support, and funding.Incentives for faculty to participate in distanceeducation course development were predominantweaknesses mentioned by the respondents (PP1,ED1, HSl, OC4, CM1, WS1, EC1, SCI, WS2,EN4, PP3, HS2, EG4, HS4, HS3, PS1, PP2).“Just because it is a good thing -- is not enough ofa reason” (HS3). A number of respondentsindicated that they felt that participation indistance education course development should beincluded in the review process for promotion andtenure (WS2, HS3, EG3). Lack of developmentsupport (ED1, DE1, PP2, WS2, FS1, EC1) andresources to participate (OC4, RP1, PP2, WS2)


Table 2. Categories of Strengths and Opportunities Expressed bv Respondents, 1999 (N=42).

Strengths

Continuous improvement of DE technologies

Opportunities

Expansion of audience base to reachnontraditional students

Ability to reach new audiences and existingdemand

Presence of early adopters and proximity totechnology

Reputation for quality content

Extensive infrastructure and network

Use of technology to enhance teaching andlearning

Expansion of collaboration with private andpublic institutions

Create an individualized and enhanced interactivelearning experience

Provide unique and specialized courses/programs

Advancement of technology

Administrative encouragement and support

were also noted as weaknesses. As threerespondents stated, “There is no time to do this”(ED1, OC4, WS2). The second category focuseson limited knowledge regarding copyright andintellectual property. Respondents indicated thata need existed to inform faculty regardingcopyright issues (HS3) and legal aspects (EN3)involved in delivering distance education courses.The third category focuses on weakcommunication channels. Respondents indicatedthat only limited information was availableregarding distance education courses (DE1, EC1,PS1). In addition, the procedures to conduct adistance education course (PS1), the availability ofsupport (EG2, DE2, RP1), and the administrativevision (DE2, PP2, EC1, ED2, HS1, RP1) is notreadily known.

The fourth category relates to slow actionon critical issues. Respondents indicated that theneed to standardize distance education delivery(AN2, DE2) and coordinate efforts (WS2) had notbeen addressed. In addition, respondents perceivedthat slow action in regard to incentives, support,and funding issues created an inherent weakness.The fifth category relates to the current

technological limitations. “Technologies comewith baggage to work out” (AN4). Technologyissues, such as bandwidth limitations andavailability, are perceived as weaknesses (FS1,EG4, OC2, PP3). The speed of technologicalchange (EN1) itself creates a weakness. Lack ofskill, expertise, and desire to developinteractive DE courses is the sixth category.Respondents indicated that they lacked theexpertise required to create distance educationcourses (EG2, EC1, FS1) and that “you need adesire to do this kind of thing” (WS2). The finalcategory relates to the loss of interaction.Disconnect between students and faculty wasindicated as a significant weakness (AN4, EN4,EN2, EG2, RP1, SC1, AN1, EN3, EG1). The ideathat students would have to be self-motivated inorder to succeed at distance education courseswas expressed because it was perceived that theinteraction with the faculty and other studentscreated motivat ion (AN4). The loss ofextracurricular activities commonly called the“other” education was also perceived to be asignificant weakness (AN4, RP1).

In relation to threats, there were six


primary categories that surfaced out of commentsprovided by the interviewees. The first categoryfocuses on career and job security. Onerespondent posed the question, “AS faculty, are wesafe to do this in a career?’ (PS1). Faculty reviewsare based on the number of publications produced,not on teaching techniques (CM1, EN1).Additionally, the extent to which the webcircumvents the role of educators (OC4) and theissue of intellectual property (FS1) werementioned. I f courses are s tand-alone,administration could try to downsize faculty(WS2, AN4). The second category relates tocompeti t ion from private and publicinstitutions . The statement, “If we don’t do it -someone else will” (HS3, ED2, RP1, HS1, WS1)was a predominant threat expressed. Respondentsfelt that there could be a “threat to the long-termsurvival of the university” (HS1) in that studentscould go elsewhere (OC4) and thus createbusiness/revenue issues (FS1). The overallinstitutional threat (EG5, HS4, PP3) from otheruniversities (RP10) and the private sector (HS4)was mentioned. The third category relates todependency on ou t s ide deve lope r s /programmers and security concerns .Respondents indicated that there is a danger inexternal groups developing courses for youbecause you become dependent on them (HS1). Inaddition, the potential for content information tobe edited by hackers (OC2, AN3) was also cited asa threat. Quality measurement issues constitutethe fourth category. One respondent asked thequestion, “What does this mean for qualityeducation down the road?” (SC1). The idea oflosing one’s focus on the content by beingdistracted by the technology was a concern in thatquality would be lost (AN3, DE2). “If it is notdone right - you lose your reputation” (PS1). Thefifth category relates to using old models todevelop new policies. Respondents indicated thatinstitutional treatment of academic and outreachprograms should not be treated the same (HS2).The limited motion forward (ED2) and poorresponse time (ED2) associated with "weakness-related” issues (i.e., incentives, support) created an

inherent threat to diffision. Lack of new policiesrelated to procedures for students to take DEcourses (AN2), coordinating board issues (EG5),and lack of a communicated commitment (HS2)regarding the new delivery mechanisms creates athreat. The final category relates tomisinformation on the Internet. Respondentsindicated concern regarding misinformation (OC2,EN1, EN4, EG4) due to the ease of publishing andlack of peer review often inherent on the Internet.

Based on the findings, respondentsperceived a need to expand policies andprocedures to address issues related to incentives,support, training, quality control, careers, andcommunication channels. Respondents believedthat competition, dependency on outsideassistance, and misinformation on the Internet arethreats to the organization’s ability to achieve itsdesired future. A summary of perceivedweaknesses and threats can be found in Table 3.

3. How did the perceived strengths,weaknesses, opportunities, and threatsimpact the rate of adoption of distanceeducation as an innovation?

Based on the Innovation-Decision Process(Rogers, 1995), all of the respondents can beclassified at the “implementation” stage ofdiffusion. The respondents were theinnovators/early adopters as the result of snowballsampling. Their reflections were based upon howto diffuse distance education across the institution.The rate of adoption of an innovation (DEtechnologies) is influenced by the perceivedcharacteristics of the innovation. Respondentsdescribed DE technologies to have some degree of“relative advantage.” The respondents indicatedthat they recognized the usefulness of thetechnologies (i.e., accessibility to information,improving the teaching and learning experience,reaching more students); however, they alsoindicated that using the technologies requiredincreased time and effort and were not rewarded.


Table 3. Categories of Weaknesses and Threats Expressed by Respondents, 1999 (N=42).

Weaknesses

Limited incentives, development support, andfunding

Threats

Career and job security

Limited knowledge regarding copyright andintellectual property

Competition from private and public institutions

Weak communication channels

Slow action on critical issues

Current technological limitations

Dependency on outside developers/ programmersand security concerns

Quality measurement issues

Using old models to develop new policies

Lack of skill, expertise, and desire to developinteractive DE courses

Misinformation on the Internet

Loss of interaction

In relation to the at t r ibute of“compatibility,” adoption of the DE technologieswas perceived by the respondents to benefit theadministration more so than the faculty. Whilerespondents did not define “benefit” specifically, itcan be inferred that benefit corresponds tofinancial gain. “There are too many studentsalready -- why do we want to gain more at adistance?” (PPl, ED1). The idea is raised thatunless there is an incentive to use the technologyit will not be compatible because there is noperceived “need.” Past experiences for therespondents involved interaction with students ona face-to-face basis. The idea to replace face-to-face interaction with communication throughtechnology is not perceived to be compatible(AN4, EN4, EN2, EG2, RP1, AN1, SC1, AN3,EN3, EG5, EG1).

The respondents’ perception of the“complexity” of DE technologies is illustrated bythe strong expression of the need for support(ED1, DE1, PP2, WS2, FS1, EC1) and training(WS1, RE1, EG3, EC1, FS1). The respondentsperceived “use” to be something more complexthan something they can handle on their own.


Additional complexity relates to logistical issuesexpressed by the respondents, such as studentregistration and reporting procedures (DE1, EC1,HS2).

The respondents’ perception of the“trialability” of DE technologies varied, dependingon the type of technology. The use of two-wayinteractive video conferencing is perceived torequire special skills that cannot be implementedincrementally (PS1). In relation to web-basedtechnology, respondents implied that it can bedone -- but it “takes time to do it right” (ED1,OC4, WS2, BB1).

“Observability” was perceived to increasewhen there was a “champion” of DE technologiesin the department or unit. In addition, theproximity of a video conferencing room to adepartment increased respondents’ willingness toparticipate. Respondents perceived that DE takesextensive time and effort but is not recognized orrewarded. This lack of recognition and rewardimpacts the “observability” aspect of the diffusionof DE technologies.

Vol. 41 Issue 4, 2000

Based on triangulation of Rogers’attributes (1995), respondents did perceive DEtechnologies to have a “relative advantage;”however, because there are limited incentives orrequirements regarding use, respondents did notsee it being “compatible” with their currentsituation. Because respondents perceived the“complexity” of the technologies to include policyrelated issues, and the “trialability” of thetechnology to be limited due to required time andeffort, the “observability” aspect of diffusion isimpacted, thus negatively affecting the rate ofdiffusion.

Recommendations & Implications

Actions can be taken to diffuse DE inhigher education settings, specifically withincolleges of agriculture. Based upon the attributesof an innovation (Rogers, 1995), an incentivestructure must exist in order to increase the“relative advantage” of using DE. Incentives couldinclude release time, faculty workload adjustments,DE fees distributed back to units/departments,salary supplements, and providing expertise suchas media experts/instructional designers to assist inconverting courses to DE technologies.

For “compatibility,” DE must be viewed asbeing consistent with the existing values, pastexperiences, and needs of potential adopters.Respondents in this study mentioned limitedadministrative vision and support. Havingtechnical infrastructure alone does not ensure thediffusion of an innovation. The need for policiesand procedures that are “seamless andtransparent” to the distant learner for admission,registration, financial aid, technical support, etc.,must also be institutionalized and communicated.Additionally, instruction is currently deliveredprimarily using lecture formats. DE requires a newassessment of how we teach and learn - oftenrequiring time-intensive instructional design on thepart of the faculty member.

The “complexity” of the use of technology

for teaching and learning is often difficult toovercome. Just when a faculty member hasmastered a technology, it changes! The learningcurve on some technology (i.e., videoconferenceequipment and basic presentation software) ismuch less complicated than other authoringprograms that allow the creation of a highlyinteractive online course. One recommendationwould be to train faculty, staff, and students on theless complicated software/applications and providetechnical expertise through development centerson the more complicated technologies. Facultycould then focus their time and effort on contentconversion/delivery and sound instructionaldesign, not on mastering the technology.

“Trialability” is the degree to which aninnovation may be experimented with on a limitedbasis. A faculty member can start the diffusionprocess by simply converting documents intodigital formats/presentation software to use in thetraditional classroom. Once these items areconverted, displaying the material over TVmonitors in an interactive video classroom andposting them on a course website is a logical nextstep. The complete re-design of lecture intointeractive modules can then follow.

For “observability,” those who are usingDE technologies must be recognized throughawards and grants to encourage these effortsamong other faculty. Institutions should establishmultiple communication channels (i.e., listservs,newsletters), workshops, presentations, anddemonstrations to “show and tell” others about theimpacts of DE on teaching and learning. Opinionleaders and change agents can be strategicallyplaced throughout departments and units to helpthose who would like to “try” this new andinnovative way of teaching. In addition, incentivesput in place should be communicated clearly.

In summary, the three majorrecommendations to diffise DE technologies are:1) administrative support, 2) training, and 3)incentives. Administrative support would include


student/technical support and providing a seamlessinfrastructure and “virtual presence” for the distantlearner. Training should not only includetechnology exposure, but instructional design,pedagogy/andragogy, and “cook-book” strategiesand “how-to” manuals. Support extends beyond“verbal” to providing the support/professional staffto assist. By providing incentives such as releasetime, mini-grants, continuing education stipends,and recognition in the promotion and tenureprocess, faculty will have more than verbalencouragement to continue, or begin, using DEtechnologies and will have the reason to do so.

Contribution to Knowledge

Analysis of an organization’s strengths,weaknesses, opportunities, and threats provides aframework to review and improve strategies toencourage the diffusion of DE technologies in themost efficient and effective manner. Colleges ofagriculture, considering DE, can benefit from thefindings presented in this study. The importance ofincentives cannot be overlooked by administration.The quote, “Just because it is a good thing-is notenough of a reason” (HS3), expresses it quiteconcisely. The new paradigm of DE requires thatpolicies, procedures, and strategies be reviewedand revised to ensure that critical issues areaddressed and clearly communicated to allparticipants.

Further studies should be conducted toadvance our understanding of DE. While financialgain did not surface as either a strength or anopportunity in this study, recognition of the rolerevenue will play in DE within institutions cannotbe overlooked. Research is needed to: determinespecific needs for access to programs offered at adistance and innovative strategies to reach thesepopulations; examine the perspectives of studentswho will participate in DE programs; addressreasons for the adoption of DE and processes bywhich the adoption is encouraged. This studyillustrates a framework to review and improvestrategies to encourage the diffusion of DE


technologies and also provides techniques to doso. Additional research could further enhanceunderstanding of the variables that impact thediffusion of DE and provide guidance in theimplementation of DE programs.

References

Babbie, E. (1989). The practice of socialresearch. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth PublishingCompany.

Bates, A. W. (2000) . Managingtechnological change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1977). Toward anexperimental ecology of human development.American Psychologist. 32(7), 513-531.

Dillon, C. L. & Walsh, S. J. (1992).Faculty: The neglected resource in distanceeducation. American Journal of DistanceEducation, 6(3), 5-2 1.

Erlandson, D. A., Harris, E. L., Skipper, B.L. & Allen, S. D. (1993). Doing naturalisticinquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Goodstein, L., Nolan T. & Pfeiffer. J. W.(1993). Applied strategic planning: How todevelop a plan that really works. New York:McGraw-Hill.

Hord, S. M., Rutherford, W. L., Huling-Austin, L. & Hall, G. E. (1987). Taking charge ofchange. Austin, TX: Southwest EducationalDevelopment Laboratory.

Lincoln, Y. S. & Guba, E. G. (1985).Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Mishler, E. G. (1979). Meaning in context:Is there any other kind? Harvard EducationalReview. 49(1), 1-19.

4 9 Vol. 41 Issue 4, 2000

Peterson’s Lifelong Learning Group(2000). Peterson’s guide to distance learningprograms, 2000, Lawrenceville, NJ: ThomsonCorporation.

Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion ofinnovations. 4th Edition, New York, NY: The FreePress.

Texas A&M University (2000). Vision2020: Creating a culture of excellence. College


Station, TX: Texas A&M University.

Thor-ton, C. (1999). Back to school, web-style. PC World. 17 (7), 39-40.

Warwick, D. P. (1973). Survey researchand participant observation: A benefit-costanalysis. In D. P. Warwick & S. Osherson (Eds.),Comparative research methods (pp. 189-203).Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Vol. 41 Issue 4, 2000

Documents

Perceived Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats