The College of Education and Professional Studies at Jacksonville State University provides numerous opportunities for distance education among its various program offerings. The purpose of this study was to compare student attitudes and opinions toward in class and online course instruction.

Teaching without the teacher's personal presence in the classroom to provide direct instruction is a modem day miracle of 21st century education. Computer-related course instruction has made a tremendous impact on the provision of instruction and student learning at colleges and universities (Piotrowski & Vodanovich, 2000). Distance education opportunities have brought the classroom from the university setting to the home. allowing students the privilege to pursue college degrees without the inconvenience of actually traveling to campus for course completion. Literally thousands of students are earning college degrees with little or no traditional college participation and/or interaction with professors or other college students.

The Internet is currently the advanced technological mode used to support distance education course presentation in higher education (Owston, 1997; Rossman, 1992). Published literature supports the advantages of Internet use for instruction. Chamberlin (2001) offers the suggestion that by taking advantage of the pedagogical strengths of on campus and online teaching, instructors can offer students the greatest chance to discover their strengths and weaknesses as learners and the best opportunity to find their path to achieving success. Distance education Internet based instruction translates to the fact that students spend less time in the college classroom and are able to complete course work at their convenience in the privacy of their own homes. Less money is spent on travel since class attendance is often not required or is optional. Additionally, more seats are often available in classes taught by distance education, which tends to reduce the concern that some students have regarding course closure due to high enrollment. Chamberlin (2001) further states that online communication can diminish student inhibitions regarding communication by removing psychological and social barriers to student-teacher and student-student interactions.

While there are advantages to instruction provided through distance education. perceived disadvantages appear to exist. Many students learn best through direct interaction provided by professors and other students. Distance education often prohibits this interaction, making learning and direct involvement less personal. The socialization so traditional to standard college attendance is often lacking, especially if instructors fail m utilize available opportunities for student interaction through various online software packages. In addition, students who lack the technological skills required for various types of distance education may fear approaching learning situations provided through nontraditional modes. Problems related to privacy issues, technological difficulties, and technology rather than content focus have been noted (Piotrowski & Vodanovich, 2000).

The College of Education and Professional Studies at Jacksonville State University provides numerous opportunities for distance education among its various program offerings. One of the most recent opportunities for nontraditional course presentation is through Blackboard. Blackboard is a Web-based server software system that offers industry-leading course management, an open architecture for customization and interoperability, and a scalable design that allows for integration with student information systems and authentication protocols (Yaskin & Gilfus, 2002). Blackboard provides a structured format for teachers to post announcements, assignments, course documents, faculty credentials, and course notes for easy student access. Opportunity for direct communication between teacher and students through Email, Discussion Boards, and the Virtual Chat Room make Blackboard attractive as the chosen distance education format for online instruction for many universities. The Virtual Chat Room can be described as an open forum opportunity for active participation and learning for both students and teachers. It serves as an excellent vehicle for topic discussion, individual and group participation. as well as content and assignment clarification and expansion.

The purpose of this study was to compare student attitudes and opinions toward in class and online course instruction. The course was offered through both on campus and online (Blackboard) instructional formats to graduate students enrolled in Special Education. Attitudes and opinions were determined using a questionnaire that surveyed both on campus and online course instruction.

Participants

The participants were 42 students enrolled in a Characteristics of Severe Disabilities class. Questionnaires were distributed during the final examination period and 25 were collected. Of the respondents, 21 were female and 3 were male. Eleven were aged from 22-35. 10 were 36-50 and 3 were 50+. Seven were enrolled in the non-traditional 5th year program and 16 were in the graduate program. Eight were specializing in the K-6 Collaborative Teacher program, 8 were enrolled in the 6-12 Collaborative Teacher program, 4 were enrolled in both programs and 1 was enrolled in the Early Childhood Education for the Handicapped program. Twenty were teaching full time with 14 residing in Alabama and 11 residing in Georgia.

Setting

This study took place in a university setting in the southeastern United States. Participants were enrolled in the graduate level Characteristics of Severe Disabilities class during the fall semester. The class was conducted using a traditional method of lecture only for the first half of the class with the second half conducted by the instructor using Blackboard to post the lecture notes and supplemental materials for the students. With the material posted on the web, attendance became optional.

Method

Traditional classroom instruction began in the fall semester with 42 students enrolled in the characteristics course. Classroom instruction was to continue for 6 weeks. Then the class was switched to using Blackboard as a supplemental teaching aid. Classroom attendance became optional, as the classroom lecture notes were available outside the lecture hall.

Lecture notes were posted in the Digital Drop Box on Blackboard. Students would then simply log on and double-click on the appropriate file, which would then be opened on their personal computer in either a PowerPoint presentation, in Microsoft Word format or in WordPerfect format.

A set of questions was developed to determine student responses to the two modes of instruction -- traditional classroom and Web based. Questions and student responses are detailed in Table !. Further, data were kept on the attendance of students who did come to class. Average attendance before posting notes on the Internet was 37. Attendance after posting was 15, with 7 of these students driving from Georgia to attend class. (See table 1) Written comments:

During the course of the semester, written student comments regarding course presentation were collected. Comments typically provided Support for Internet instruction. Several students continued to favor and participate in both modes of instruction. Table 2 provides a sampling of student written comments. (See table 2)

Discussion

Averages ranged from a high of 4.72 on item 10 (I would recommend this class format to my friends) to a low of 4.28 on item 9 (I prefer to take internet classes to traditional classes). Lower scores were reported in the areas of student interaction (4.36) and helping select curriculum content (4.44). Students reported that the class format allowed them to proceed at an individualized pace (4.68), and allowed them to further their working knowledge of working with students with disabilities (4.64).

Conclusion

This was the first time many of the students had taken an Internet based course. Some expressed concern about the lack of instructor interaction (as did the instructor) and the inability to interact with other students. There were also the hardware and software concerns, as some students expressed their frustrations at trying to connect to the website. However, all students stated that they would take another Internet course, and many said they would take another Internet course, but they preferred interaction with the instructor.

Written comments on the survey tended to focus on flexibility and stress release. Students, especially teachers who work full time, occasionally have problems making classes at given times. Using this format, students who cannot attend class still have access to the instructor's notes and, when used in conjunction with the text, reported that they learned as much as coming to class (average 4.48).

Table 1

Student Questions and Average Responses

  Question                                    Average Response

1. The class content lends itself             4.56
easily for an Internet class

2. I have the opportunity to interact
with other people in the class                4.36

3. The class has allowed me to
further my working knowledge of
students with disabilities                    4.64

4. The class allows for reasonable
accommodations for students
with disabilities                             4.6

5. The class allows me to proceed
at an individualized pace                     4.68

6. This class helped me select
curriculum content for
students with disabilities                    4.44

7. This class helped me learn
new teaching techniques for
students with disabilities                    4.52

8. I learned as much from this
Internet class as I would have
learned from a traditional lecture class      4.48

9. I prefer to take Internet classes
to traditional classes                        4.28

10. I would recommend this class
format to my friends                          4.72

Table 2

Written Comments

• Teaching full time, the day doesn't end at 3:30. Sometimes, it's 4:30-5:30 before I can leave due to meetings, activities, etc. This format gives me the flexibility to do what I need to get done & still attend class, if I can.

• Enjoyed the class discussions. Having a choice seems very fain By using the Internet and coming to class, my old mind seemed to grasp important information.

• I feel I learned a lot from learning about your experiences. This type of practical experience is more valuable in many ways than some of the book theory. I liked the format of the notes on the Internet.

• This class was handled in a manner that I really enjoyed and was very helpful. To be honest, it took a lot of stress off the GA and local students. I look forward to my next semester class with you.

• I enjoyed the class time as well as the flexibility.

• Decrease on long distance driving & works well with a work schedule.

• I choose to get the notes from the Blackboard web page and by coming to class.

• I enjoyed both because it gave me an opportunity to come when I could from GA and not miss that much class. I enjoyed having an option because it gave the class a very relaxed feeling. I truly enjoyed this way of learning.

• Classes need to have some professor contact.

• If I use to attend class as well as use the Internet because if an emergency should arise I would feel comfortable just knowing I could miss and still not get behind because I could get it on the Internet. Just to know it won't be held against me if I wasn't able to make it to class although I prefer being in class.

• Although Internet classes have some advantage for "distance learners" only the live format can offer spontaneous digressions, which may lead to new perspectives, opinions, and so forth.

• I would prefer to take Internet classes because of the distance I have to travel. I have to arrive to class late because I can't leave class to get here.

Chamberlin, W.S. (2001). Face to face vs. cyberspace: Finding the middle ground, Syllabus, 15, 11.

Owston, R. (1997). The World Wide Web: A technology to enhance teaching and learning, Educational Researcher 26 (2). 27-33.

Piotrowski, C. & Vodanovich. S.J. (2000). Are the reported barriers to Internet-based instruction warranted?: A synthesis of recent research. Education. 121.48-53.

Rossman, P. (1992). The emerging worldwide electronic university: Information age global higher education. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Yaskin, D. & Gilfus, S. (2002). Blackboard 5: Introducing the blackboard 5 learning system [On-line]. Available: www.Blackboard.com

~~~~~~~~

By Lawrence A. Beard, Assistant Professor and Cynthia Harper, Acting Associate Dean, College of Education and Professional Studies Jacksonville State University, Jacksonville, Alabama 36265

Lawrence A. Beard is an Assistant Professor of Special Education in the Department of Curriculum and Instruction at Jacksonville State University, Jacksonville, Alabama.

Cynthia Harper is the Acting Associate Dean in the College of Education and Professional Studies at Jacksonville State University, Jacksonville, Alabama.

Technology-mediated distance education models have had a major impact on preservice and inservice preparation of special education and related services personnel over the last several decades. The increasing availability of Internet access and the multimedia capabilities of the World Wide Web have combined to spur the growth of online programs as a medium for both initial certification and continuing activities. This study reports the development, implementation, and evaluation of four courses designed as professional development activities for practicing personnel working in early intervention, early childhood special education, elementary and secondary special education, and adult disability services in rural areas of West Virginia and the surrounding Appalachian region. The article explains the process used to create learning materials and technology formats for presentation of content and interaction with learners, outlines the steps in developing and implementing the courses, and presents the results of evaluation activities conducted to assess learning outcomes and participant perceptions of the online learning experience. The findings of this study suggest that Web-based instruction is a viable mode for delivering staff development. Participants demonstrated the acquisition of new knowledge and skills, expressed satisfaction with most aspects of online teaching and learning, and reported specific applications of the information in their own classroom and intervention program settings.

Special education and disability services are undergoing a period of rapid change in the contexts in which educational programs are offered and in the instructional strategies used for working effectively with children and adults with special needs. Practicing teachers and therapists often find that their knowledge and skills are seriously out of date and sometimes not congruent with current best practice even just a few years out of their preservice programs. Consequently, personnel in this field are always in need of inservice training opportunities to stay informed of and engaged with new ideas and practices. Emerging technologies, especially the World Wide Web, offer promising new avenues for providing staff development activities to update the knowledge and skills of practitioners, especially in rural and remote areas.

The preservice preparation of special educators and related services specialists to serve individuals with disabilities in early intervention, early childhood special education, elementary and secondary special education, and adult disability services has long absorbed the profession's attention. Over the past several decades, educators focused on supplying the demand for new positions in response tofederal and state laws mandating a free appropriate education for all students and adequate habilitation programs for adults. Today many leaders have begun to acknowledge an urgent need for inservice preparation as well to provide staff development to novice and veteran practitioners alike.

Staff Development Needs in Special Education and Disability Services

Staff development of practicing personnel now is a critical issue in special education and disability services, especially for public schools and community agencies in rural areas. Persistent critical shortages of professional personnel in many specializations in special education and various disciplines in related services have resulted in a situation where many professionals are untrained or inadequately trained for the positions they hold (Boe, Bobbitt, & Cook, 1997). Individuals working on temporary permits or out-of-field authorizations require extensive inservice training to orient and prepare them for their roles and responsibilities on the job (Simpson, Whelan, & Zabel, 1993). In addition, rapid changes in practice have made it nearly impossible to insure that even certified teachers and therapists stay abreast of developments in the field to provide state-of-the-art education and habilitation programs to children, adolescents, and adults with disabilities (Boe, Cook, Kauffman, & Danielson, 1996).

Staff development (or the lack of it) also may be related to personnel burnout and attrition. Special education and related services personnel, especially those working with low incidence populations or in rural areas, are often isolated from their colleagues, have little opportunity to interact with peers or experts, and only limited access to training to update specialized knowledge and skills (Cooky & Yovanoff, 1996). These factors create stress and burnout in teachers and therapists and lead to high attrition rates in many school systems (Frank & McKenzie, 1993.) Special educators have cited inadequate inservice opportunities as one factor that increases the likelihood of leaving a teaching position (Westling & Whitten, 1996).

Public schools and community agencies in rural areas of the country are especially in need of effective staff development programs. Because of significant personnel shortages in the field in general and rural areas in particular, rural teachers and therapists are often untrained or minimally trained for their jobs (Berkeley & Ludlow, 1991; Billingsley & Jones, 1993), so they are in desperate need of continuing education to insure that they engaged in appropriate practices designed to meet the needs of children and adults with disabilities. In addition, rural special educators have a higher attrition rate than their peers in urban and suburban schools (Gold, Russell, & Williams, 1993). Effective staff development is a critical component of retention efforts in rural areas (Storer & Crosswait, 1995), while mentoring and support activities are crucial factors in improving the morale and job satisfaction of rural personnel (Whitaker, 2000).

Evolution of Staff Development Practices

Staff development continues to be an integral component of both general and special education, but educators now are showing renewed interest in this aspect of personnel preparation. Traditional approaches that relied on attendance at conferences or workshops and left application to the whim of the individual practitioner have been criticized for failure to change minds or programs (Elmore, 1996; Lieberman & Miller, 1991). Newer models focus less on passive transmission of information by experts and more on active involvement of educators in collaborative problem solving and program development (Ball & Cohen, 1999; Richardson, 1994). Today's professional development activities need to motivate educators to be change agents, to foster application of new knowledge and skills to classroom practice, to promote collaboration among colleagues and a sense of community, and to stimulate a spirit of inquiry and lifelong learning (Joyce & Showers, 1995; Putnam & Borko, 2000).

Leaders in special education and disability services also have called for reform of staff development practices. Older approaches have been criticized for their failure to effect change in classrooms and intervention programs (Gallagher et al., 1997). Current programs emphasize the need for active involvement, experiential learning, and guided practice to insure that practitioners effect change in the real world of classroom and clinic (Stowitschek, Cheney, & Schwartz, 2000). Some educators have advocated the use of technology-mediated instruction (Schnorr, 1999) and distance education models (Howard, Ault, Knowlton, & Swall, 1992) to enhance the quality and accessibility of staff development activities. Such approaches have been recommended as one way of addressing the problems and issues in providing effective and efficient inservice training in rural areas (Ludlow, 1998; Squires, 1996).

Staff Development for Rural Special Educators

Faced with the challenges of preparing personnel in and for rural schools and community agencies, educators have utilized telecommunications technologies to deliver preservice and inservice programs. A recent survey of the professional literature for the last 15 years identified 32 distance education programs preparing prospective or practicing teachers and therapists in rural areas, with only seven programs offering inservice training (Ludlow & Brannan, 1999). Their data showed that relatively few programs have reported extensive use of the Web to train special education personnel, either at the preservice or the inservice levels.

Web-based preservice training. A number of personnel preparation programs across the country have begun to experiment with Web delivery. These efforts have taken several forms: integration of Web-based cases into campus courses (Smith, Martin, & Lloyd, 1998); Web enhancements such as email and threaded discussions for face-to-face courses (Hains, Belland, Conceicao, Santos, & Rothenberg, 2000); online course modules for use with existing courses (Meyen, Lian, & Tangen, 1997); an individual Web course as part of a traditional program (Blackhurst, Hales, & Lahm, 1998); a set of courses in a certification program transmitted via Internet Protocol (IP) teleconferencing (Spooner, et al., 1998); and, practicum supervision at remote sites via desktop videoconferencing (Menlove, Hansford, & Lignugaris-Kraft, 2001).

Web-based inservice training. There has been relatively little use of the Web for inservice training of special education and related services personnel. Activities reported in the literature have included electronic mail messaging and listserve groups in an induction program for beginning teachers in (Kendall, 1992); electronic study groups offered for individual professional development (Council for Exceptional Children, 1997); a single web course in a campusbased graduate program for practitioners (Smith, Jordan, Corbett, & Dillon, 1999); a website created to facilitate sharing of resources with and by deaf educators in rural areas (Johnson, 1997); and. online posting of documents and discussion groups for continuing education activities in rural schools (Rodes, Knapczyk, Chapman, & Chung, 1999).

West Virginia University (WVU) has offered graduate certification and degree programs in Severe/Multiple Disabilities and Early Intervention/Early Childhood Special Education to train practicing personnel in rural areas of West Virginia and surrounding states in the Appalachian region since 1983. The program was initially offered as a field-based model with faculty and students travelling to regional sites for face-to-face instruction and later as a distance education program offered via satellite broadcasts and telephone conferencing. Graduates of these programs over the years reported a lack of appropriate inservice training opportunities due to low incidence and remote locations. Program staff tried various options to remedy this situation, including holding an annual conference and offering regional workshops, with little or no impact on practice. They considered use of satellite or compressed video technologies, but abandoned the idea because of the high cost and limited accessibility. Although staff recognized the potential of the Internet for delivering staff development to this audience, initial efforts were stymied by the target audience's lack of access to the Internet in this very rural area. When an annual survey of graduates revealed that 80% to 90% could access online instruction at home or at work, the program coordinator decided to test the feasibility of adding a Web-based staff development component to the existing distance education program.

The program coordinator assembled a team of individuals with complementary expertise to develop the Web-based courses. Collaboration between instructional and technical personnel is necessary to insure design of effective instruction, a user-friendly human-computer interface, and prevention and remediation of problems to promote teaching and learning in the online environment (Meyen, Tangen, & Lian, 1999). The coordinator served as content expert and instructor for the courses and was responsible for designing all instructional materials and learning activities. One graduate assistant, a doctoral student in special education with an emphases in low incidence disabilities, served as a content assistant to assist in developing instruction, while another, minoring in instructional technology, served as technology assistant to convert materials for use on the Web. A media producer helped in the preparation of media files (including photographs, audio interviews, and video segments) for embedding in the text-based modules. This team developed two Web courses (on community-based instruction and home visiting) during the 1998–1999 academic year and offered them in summer 1999; then they developed two additional courses (both on assistive technology but at different age levels) in 1999–2000 and offered them in summer 2000.

All courses were developed by the team for delivery though WebCT, a course management software program made available through a site license at WVU and hosted on a Unix server dedicated to online courses. Course management systems simplify production and organization of online course components by providing a suite of development and communication tools within a single program (Jones & Farquhar, 1997). Each course required the following time to prepare for online use: for the instructor, about two weeks for preparing an outline and assembling materials to prepare content plus about four weeks for writing the six content modules; for the content assistant, about three weeks for contacting and scheduling guests and writing case study materials and comprehension check answers; for the technology assistant, about two weeks for preparing the basic course structure and another four weeks for programming Web formats; and, for the media producer, about two weeks of taping audio segments and shooting video segments, with an additional four weeks of editing and digitizing media files for use on the Web. In each year, the team began working on the two courses for the following summer in January and had most materials ready for online access by the end of May.

Course Design. For each course, the instructor prepared an outline of content and resources, wrote a syllabus with schedules, requirements, and policies, identified a set of learning activities to develop knowledge, skills, and values related to course topics, and planned several performance measures to assess participant learning upon completion of the course. Effective online instruction must follow the principles of good instructional design by relating learning objectives to content organization and assessment procedures (Wagner & McCombs, 1995). She selected a professional reference book on the topic for use as a text (the only material not available online) as well as a set of journal articles that were made available through WVU's electronic reserve library system. Together with the content graduate assistant, she also identified experts, parents, and practitioners willing to moderate online chats and located web sites that could be used as links throughout the course. To evaluate the course, the instructor converted the WVU Student Evaluation of Instruction Form for use online and designed two special surveys. A component survey asked participants to rate each online course component and to respond to open-ended questions to solicit comments about the best and worst features of each component. A comparative survey asked participants to compare the online course with face-to-face instruction and with other distance education formats. She also scheduled a focus group session to be held a few weeks after completion of the first two courses. Finally, she prepared a set of follow-up questions to be emailed to participants six to eight months after each set of courses.

Content modules. The instructor wrote a series of six content modules for each course: an overview module introduced learners to course content and objectives and online learning formats and guidelines; four modules addressed the rationale for the importance of the course topic, basic concepts, principles, and strategies, specific recommendations for practice, and legal, ethical, and social issues related to the topic; and, a summary module highlighted key ideas and offered resources for additional information. Each module contained 10–20 pages of single spaced text prepared on a standard word processing program. Modules were written in a conversational style with appropriate use of text styling and white space to separate the narrative into easily readable chunks of content. Well-structured, clearly organized, simply written text facilitates scanning and minimizes scrolling to locate information when online (Hartnett, 2000; Nielsen, 2000). Some modules incorporated photos, audio clips and video segments, or linked to readings or web sites. Such hypermedia designs incorporating links to a variety of materials take full advantage on the Web environment and are believed to enhance the effectiveness of online instruction (Hedberg, Brown, & Airighi, 1997).

Learning Activities. To assist participants in learning content, the instructor developed experiential activities, comprehension checks, and case studies. Experiential activities were interactive routines that asked participants to reflect on their prior knowledge and relate it to course content to deepen their understanding of concepts and principles. For example, in the assistive technology courses, participants were asked to think about common technologies they do or do not make use of prior to a discussion of assistive device adoption and abandonment. Comprehension checks were ungraded objective items and short answer questions that enabled participants to assess their recognition, recall, and application of key terms and concepts. For example, in the home visiting course, participants were asked to identify laws governing family and child rights as they apply to intervention in the context of home visits. Case studies presented brief descriptions of real or hypothetical situations and asked the participants to solve a problem or recommend an action based on principles learned in the course. For example, in the community-based instruction course, participants were asked to recommend appropriate strategies for instruction in different settings and to offer ideas for troubleshooting problem behaviors during community outings. Upon completion of experiential activities, comprehension checks, or case studies, participants were provided with a feedback on their responses, but the activities were not scored or counted as part of the final grade. Providing opportunities such as these for interaction with content throughout online instruction helps learners to stay focused, to engage in reflection, and to test their understanding (Bonk & Cummings, 1998). The use of ungraded interactive routines such as these within online instruction facilitates encoding of information, increases retention and recall, and provides practice in applying knowledge to practice (Polichar & Bagwell, 2000).

Performance assessments. The instructor planned four measures to assess participant learning and performance throughout each course based on principles of authentic activities and assessments. Authentic activities (ones that have real world analogs) foster learning that lasts and facilitate application to practice (Putnam & Borko, 2000), while authentic assessments insure accurate and fair performance measures (Darling-Hammond, Ancess, & Falk, 1995). Each participant was required to construct a case study of an individual or family with whom s/he was currently working; this four part assignment required to describe the person(s) and their service needs, discuss how course content would be applied in this case, identify the issues presented by this case, and propose strategies for using content knowledge and skills in addressing needs, enhancing the educational program, and resolving any issues. For example, in the assistive technology course, learners were asked to select an individual who could benefit from assistive devices, conduct an ecological assessment to select activities in which devices could promote independence or participation, search the Web to identify possible devices appropriate to the person and task, and develop a plan to locate and try out the devices for possible future use. The use of case studies has been shown to promote critical thinking, creative problem solving, and habits of reflection needed for success in professional practice (Shulman, 1992). Every participant also was required to prepare a professional development plan, a four part assignment that included a critique of present practices, an outline of strategies to make changes in the coming year, and a plan for implementing and evaluating proposed changes. For example, in the community-based instruction and home visiting courses, participants discussed to what extent their own programs met standards of best practices, identified two priority areas for improvement, and outlined a set of activities and a timetable for adding new activities over the next few months. Experiential learning activities encourage active experimentation and reflection in and on practice (Meyer & Jones, 1993).

Some performance assessments involved group activities and interaction. Participants were assigned to teams of four or five individuals to complete a collaborative group project; the group created a product that could be used by all members in daily practice, such as guidelines for handling emergencies during community-based instruction, a brochure for families explaining what to expect on the first home visit, or a resource list of funding available to purchase assistive technologies. Collaborative activities capitalize on the Web's ability to support cooperative and problembased learning (Reeves & Reeves, 1997). In addition, all participants were required to engage in a variety of online interactions with experts, practitioners, and parents through online chats, threaded discussion groups, or bulletin board postings to earn participation points for the course. To facilitate these online interactions, the instructor scheduled a variety of chats on different topics, posed a series of discussion questions related to content, posted photos and short biographies of all course participants, staff, and guests, and offered guidelines for practicing “good netiquette”. Each participant could choose different participation activities to earn varying amounts of points toward the final grade. Structuring opportunities for interaction in real and delayed time and providing clear guidelines for online participation has been shown to promote a sense of community and increase interactions among participants in Web-based courses (Paloff & Pratt, 1999).

Media segments. The instructor secured permission for and made arrangements to tape classroom and intervention program scenarios illustrating best practices as well as personal interviews to express parent and professional perspectives to embed as media segments within the content modules. The use of original media avoids the problems of seeking releases from copyright holder for permission to use commercial materials in online instruction (Hampe, 1999). The media producer taped all audio and video segments using a Sony Beta SP professional analog camera on a tripod with a wireless microphone and additional lighting whenever possible to insure high quality original signal. Such precautions are needed when video and audio will be delivered on the Web, because digitization, compression, and low bandwidth further deteriorate image quality (Shaw, 1997; Waggoner, 1999). He captured, digitized, and edited the original footage using a Media 100 component nonlinear editing system and compressed the final clips and segments using and the Sorenson codec. The Sorensen video codec is recognized as the best compression scheme for producing high quality images at very low data rates (Waggoner, 1998). All media files were outputted as Apple Quicktime 4.0 movies (a format that is compatible with most computer platforms) and as Hypertext Streaming Protocol (HTSP) progressive download files. This streaming format allows immediate viewing after a short buffering delay and prevents copying to insure privacy and protect intellectual property rights (Hinman, 1999). Audio clips were prepared as 8 Khz mono Qualcomm voice files approximately 20–30 seconds long with a photo of the person and a controller bar to adjust volume and playback. These settings achieve a good balance between sound quality and file size (Tanaka, 1997) Video clips were prepared as 56 Kbps streaming files at 192 x 144 pixels resolution no more than 60–90 seconds long with a controller bar to adjust volume and playback. These settings insure relatively a relatively short buffering time and mostly smooth playback, yet minimize file size for low bandwidth access (Ozer, 1998).

Web programming. All online formats were created in hypertext markup language (HTML) or Portable Document Format (PDF) files to insure compatibility across computer platforms and browsers. The delivery of Web-based instruction is made easier for both instructor and learner when the specific technology formats are selected to be compatible with most equipment, to require little additional expense, and to promote successful learning (Hannafin, Hannafin, Hooper, Rieber, & Kini, 1996). The technology assistant used Adobe GoLive, an HTML editing program, to convert content modules and media for Web use and used the quizzing function within WebCT to create comprehension checks, case studies, assignment response forms, and evaluation surveys. A consultant from WVU's academic computing services created a template using Javascripting for interactive routines that the technology assistant and media producer used to program the experiential activities and embed them into the Web modules. Library staff used Adobe Acrobat Distiller to convert journal articles to PDF files for access via password in the university's electronic reserve system. The technology assistant also wrote directions for each Web format used in the course; these directions included screen shots of the features of each course component, step-by-step instructions for accessing each the component and completing required activities, and information about downloading and installing free plug-ins for Apple Quicktime Player (to play media files and Adobe Acrobat Reader (to read PDF files). Simple, clearly written directions are essential to foster independence and minimize technical problems (Williams, 1996).

Delivery of Web Courses

The development team also collaborated in the delivery of the online staff development activities throughout the summer sessions. The program coordinator served as instructor for each course, overseeing the activities of all staff and participants. The content assistant served as the facilitator and grader for each course, responding to participant requests for information or assistance. The technology assistant (with guidance from the media producer) served as technical support personnel, and helping participants learn to use technology formats and troubleshooting any problems that arose.

The availability of each course was advertised by means of a flyer distributed via surface mail to a list of all program graduates about two months prior to the summer session in which the course was scheduled to be offered. Individuals were eligible for the course if they met three criteria: they were graduates of either program; they were currently employed in early intervention or early childhood special education for some courses or in elementary and secondary special education or adult disability services for others; and, they had skills in using the Internet and a computer equipped for Web access at home or at work. Eligible individuals were invited to enroll in the courses for three semester hours of continuing education credit (by paying a fee) or elective credit toward a degree (by paying tuition).

Students who enrolled were sent email messages with the URL address for the course and a personal password to access the WebCT system. To facilitate student success in the unfamiliar online learning environment, the instructor made sure that all relevant due dates for participation activities and required assignments were listed in the syllabus and posted on the course calendar. The content assistant sent reminders by electronic mail of dates when specific items were due and posted helpful hints for completing assignments and participation activities on the bulletin board. The technology assistant was available by email and by telephone throughout the course to assist in resolving any technical problems that occurred. Participants were encouraged to work at their own pace and request help as often as needed but to remember to plan in advance and schedule their time online to meet all deadlines.

Evaluation of Web Courses

Program evaluation was an essential component of this Web-based staff development project, since it was intended to assess the feasibility of offering inservice training and other continuing education activities online. Meaningful evaluation of staff development should involve collection of quantitative and qualitative data from objective and subjective courses at several points in time (Guskey, 2000). In this study, a range of data were collected to assess learning out-comes and participant perceptions though audit trails, online surveys, a focus group session, and a follow-up questionnaire.

Audit trails. WebCT includes a tracking function that automatically keeps data on every learner as well as on each page of content and calculates means and percentages for frequency and duration of access. These data revealed a wide range of differences in the number of hits per student as well as in the average time per hit. The most frequently visited course components were the directions for the assignments, while the longest amount of time was spent reading the content modules. The least frequently visited pages were the readings in the online library, and the shortest amount of time was spent reading the syllabus.

Online surveys. Three surveys were developed with the WebCT quizzing function and analyzed with its compilation and computation feature to identify participant perceptions, ratings of course components and comparisons with other delivery formats. On the instructor evaluation form with a scale of 1–5, the instructor received the highest ratings for knowledge of content, facilitation of learning, and respect for individuals, and the lowest ratings for interesting presentations, explanation of content, and advance preparation. On the component evaluation form, participants rated the live chats and the content modules as contributing the most to learning, and the audio and video media as causing the most technical problems. On the comparative evaluation form, most participants felt that online instruction was the same as or better than face-to-face instruction as well as satellite instruction, while nearly everyone stated that they would take another online course. The instructor and both graduate assistants also conducted a content analysis of participant written comments on all survey forms to identify and categorize themes that emerged from the data. These comments suggested that the strengths of online instruction were excellent organization, quick response to requests for help, and support for technical problems They also revealed three areas of weaknesses related to the amount of work required, the delay in interactions, and the stress induced by technology failures.

Focus group session. All participants in the first summer courses were invited to attend a focus group session and offered a small stipend to assist with travel costs. At the session held on a Saturday in Fall 1999, moderators led a discussion on each course in separate groups in the morning and on web-based instruction in general with both groups in the afternoon. All discussions were audiotaped and print transcripts were prepared for content analysis by the instructor and graduate assistants. This analysis identified three themes: participants felt that online interactions developed relationships with program staff and with colleagues; printing some materials such as the syllabus, guidelines for assignments, and directions for technology formats was important to success; and, the professional development plan was helpful in promoting application of theory to practice. Participants also elaborated on frustrations caused by technical problems which limited access to course materials at critical times and on the difficulties experienced in planning and conducting the collaborative group project totally online.

Followup questionnaire. About eight months after the courses (in Spring 2000 and Spring 2001), the instructor sent an anonymous email questionnaire asking participants who completed a course to rate the usefulness of course content in the job setting and to describe specific applications to new knowledge and skills. Nearly all respondents rated the Web courses as informative and useful and reported that they had implemented new ideas in their own classrooms and intervention programs. Nearly everyone indicated that s/he would consider participating in other Web-based staff development activities in the future.

Web-based instruction clearly represents a promising new technology to improve both access to and quality of staff development activities in special education and disability services. As this study showed, well designed Web workshops and courses can be used to offer multimedia presentation of content and to promote interactions in real and delayed time among practitioners and between practitioners and experts. Online instruction can be used to support teachers and therapists in developing new knowledge and skills as well as to create and maintain support networks to facilitate coaching by colleagues and mentoring by supervisors to foster individual professional growth. Web-based models of staff development will be especially useful in rural areas because they will open up new possibilities for institutions of higher education, state and regional education agencies, and cooperative groups of school systems to offer readily accessible, yet high quality staff development programs.

Advantages and Disadvantages of Web Delivery of Staff Development

Web-based instruction offers a number of important advantages in developing and delivering staff development for special education and related services personnel in rural areas.

1. Web delivery allows training to be offered to individuals or small groups across a broad geographic area or a number of isolated sites, even in the most remote areas.
2. Online teaching and learning activities eliminate the time and costs associated with travel to attend inservice training workshops and courses for both instructions and participants.
3. Web-based interaction formats provide a mechanism to support ongoing staff development programs using coaching and mentoring over weeks or even months with opportunities for implementation of changes and feedback on new practice.
4. The Web can support the formation of communities of practice around a common theme (for example, low incidence disabilities) by facilitating interactions and sharing of ideas that eliminate the boundaries of time and distance.
5. Online activities help practitioners acquire advanced technology skills that help them make better use of the Internet to locate resources and network with colleagues.

However, the use of Web-based instruction for staff development, still in its infancy, is not without its disadvantages as well.

1. Web-based instruction requires a considerable investment of personnel and financial resources in upfront costs to support maximum effectiveness.
2. The design and production of online learning materials requires a significant amount of advance preparation as well as time- and labor-intensive effort.
3. The target audience for Web-based staff development programs may not have adequate Internet access or appropriate computing equipment to make use of more advanced formats such as streaming media, videoconferencing, or webcasting.
4. Both instructors and learners may need orientation, training, and assistance before they can make appropriate and efficient use of new technologies for staff development.
5. Technical problems such as server outages, high local traffic, and incompatible equipment may cause stress and impeded learning.

Institutions considering whether to develop Webbased staff development activities will need to weigh these advantages and disadvantages to determine whether the Web for s specific application. Online instruction must offer clear and convincing benefits to offset the commitment of time and energy needed to design an effective course or program.

Implications for Research, Policy, and Practice

Initial efforts at using Web-based instruction for staff development in special education and disability services in rural area have many implications for research, policy, and practice. Research is clearly needed on the online instructional formats that practicing teachers and therapists find most effective as well as the extent to which Web-based presentation, interaction, coaching, and mentoring activities actually result in change in the classroom or intervention program or improved outcomes for children and adults with disabilities. Policies need to be developed at all levels to insure that the Web is used in appropriate, effective, and efficient ways to promote professional development. And, educational institutions need to continue to experiment with online teaching and learning formats to extend the practical knowledge base about what works in what circumstances for individuals and for groups.

Future research needs. A comprehensive research effort is needed to inform the development and implementation of Web-based staff development in the future. Descriptive studies of an individual program like this one help to gain an understanding of key factors in Web-based staff development. However, experimental studies will be needed to assess how manipulation of variables such as type of content (text versus media, didactic or discovery mode) and degree of interactivity (real time versus delayed, daily or weekly) affect learning of new knowledge and skills. In addition, studies such as this one that assess program effects and participant perceptions can be useful in understanding some of the dynamics of teaching and learning in the online environment. But other investigations will need to use more objective measures, including observations of practice and review of products, to assess both short-term outcomes and longterm impact.

Proposed policy development. If Web-based activities are to be readily accepted and widely used for staff development, state and even national policies will be needed to define best practice in this area. Professional organizations, especially those that have a role in the certification of special education personnel (such as the Council for Exceptional Children (CEC)) and related services personnel (such as the American Speech and Hearing Association (ASHA)) should establish minimum standards for the use of online formats for staff development. Standards are needed for both group-based strategies such as courses and workshops and to individual-based strategies such as coaching and mentoring. State education agencies, perhaps working collaboratively among themselves through the National Association of State Directors of Special Education (NASDSE), could also outline policies and procedures governing Web-based staff development that would guide institutions of higher education as well as local and regional education agencies in developing new models and programs. Policies must address how to translate online learning activities into contact hours for continuing education credit, what evidence is needed to document professional growth, and who is qualified to create content, supervise learning activities, or coach and mentor practitioners in the online environment.

Incentives to advance practice. Because web-based instruction requires a significant investment of time and money, federal and state governments must develop incentives to developing Web-based staff development efforts in special education and disability services. Some of the personnel preparation grant funds administered by the United States Office of Special Education and Rehabilitation Services (OSERS) could be targeted to inservice as well as preservice education, both to insure support for education reform initiatives such as inclusion and transition and to help special educators and related services specialists stay abreast of current best practice. Federally funded distance education models for staff development could target a national audience and/or provide expertise in specialized topics such as play-based assessment or feeding disorders or low incidence areas such as vision or hearing impairments. Professional organizations such as CEC, ASHA, and NASDSE,, which have already experimented with some forms of technology-mediated staff development, could even work with federal agencies on a contract basis to establish comprehensive systems of staff development that would promote consistency in practice across states and allow public schools and community agencies to become consumers rather than providers of inservice training. State legislatures could allocate funds to support statewide Web-based training activities, with state education agencies identifying the content focus and colleges and universities or school partnerships requesting funding to support programs that would reach a broad service area.

Ball, D. L., & Cohen, D. K. (1999). Developing practice, developing practitioners: toward practice-bases theory of professional education. In L. Darling-Hammond & G. Sykes (Eds.). Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 3–32). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Berkeley, T. R., & Ludlow, B. L. (1991). Meeting the needs of special student populations in rural locales. In A. J. De Young (Ed.), Rural education: Issues and practices (pp. 239–268). New York: Garland Publishing.

Billingsley, B. S., & Jones, P. R. (1993). Instructional supervision in special education: Strategies for rural programs. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 12(2), 3–9.

Blackhurst, A. E., Hales, R. M., & Lahm, E. A. (1998). Using an education server software system to deliver special education coursework via the Worldwide Web. Journal of Special Education Technology, 13 (4), 78–98.

Boe, E. E., Bobbin, S. A., & Cook, L. H. (1997). Whither didst thou go? Retention, reassignment, migration, and attrition of special and general education teachers in national perspective. Journal of Special Education, 30(5), 371–389.

Boe, E. E., Cook, L. H., Kaufman, M. J., & Danielson, L. (1996). The shortage of fully certified teachers in special and general education. Teacher Education and Special Education, 21(3), 1–21.

Bonk, C. J., & Cummings, J. A. (1998). A dozen recommendations for placing the student at the centre of web-based learning. Educational Media International, 35 (2), 82–89.

Casey, C. (1999). Accessibility and the educational web site. Syllabus, September, 1999, pp. 26–30.

Cooley, E. & Yovanoff, P. (1996). Supporting professionals-at-risk: Evaluating interventions to reduce burnout and improve retention of special educators. Exceptional Children, 62, 336–355.

Council for Exceptional Children. (CEC). (1997). CEC introduces electronic study group. Teaching Exceptional Children, 29 (6), 11.

Darling-Hammond, L., Ancess, J., & Falk, B. (1995). Authentic assessment in action. New York: Teachers College Press.

Elmore, R. (1996). Getting to scale with good educational practice. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 1–26.

Frank, A. R., & McKenzie, R (1993). The development of burnout among special educators. Teacher Education and Special Education, 16, 161–170.

Gallagher, P., Malone, D. M., Cleghorne, M., & Helms, K. A. (1997). Perceived inservice training needs for early intervention personnel. Exceptional Children, 64(1), 19–30.

Gold, V. Russell, S., & Willams, E. (1993). Special education in Northwest Ohio: A case study of rural service delivery options. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 12(3), 42–46.

Guskey, T. R. (2000). Evaluating professional development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Hains, A. H., Belland, J., Conceicao-Runlee, S., Santos, R. M., & Rothenberg, D. (2000). Instructional technology and personnel preparation. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 20(3), 132–144.

Hampe, B. (1999). What video does well in education — and what it doesn't. Syllabus, 13(1), 12–14.

Hannafin, M. J., Hannafin, K. M., Hooper, S. R., Rieber, L. P., & Kini, A. S. (1996). Research on and research with emerging technologies. In J. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 378–402). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

Hartnett, J. (2000). Why Johnny can't read WBT. Inside Technology Training, 4(4), 60–65.

Hedberg, J., Brown, C., & Arrighi, M. (1997). Interactive multimedia and Web-based learning: Similarities and differences. In B. H. Kahn (Ed.), Web-based instruction (pp. 47–58). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications

Hinman, L. (1999). Streaming video: Adding real multimedia to the Web. Syllabus, 12 (5), 18–23.

Howard, S. W., Ault, M. M., Knowlton, H. E., & Swall, R. A. (1992). Distance education: Promises and cautions for special education. Teacher Education and Special Education, 15 (4), 275–283.

Johnson, H. A. (1997). Internet solutions for isolation: Educational resources and professional development opportunities for educators of deaf and hard of hearing students. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 16(2), 33–41.

Jones, M. G., & Farquhar, J. D. (1997). User interface design for web-based instruction. In B. H. Khan (Ed.), Web-based instruction (pp. 239–244). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (1995a). The essential role of staff development systems. In B. Joyce & B. Showers (Eds.), Student achievement through staff development: fundamentals of school renewal (2nd. ed). (pp. 3–24). White Plains, NY: Longman.

Kendall, R. (1992). Evaluating the benefits of a computer-based telecomm network: Telementoring and teletraining for educators in rural areas. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 5(1), 41–46.

Lieberman, A., & Miller, L. (1991). Revisiting the social realities of teaching. In A. Lieberman & I. Miller (Eds.), Staff development for education in the nineties: New demands, new realities, new perspectives (pp. 92–109). New York: Teachers College Press.

Ludlow, B. L. ( 1998). Preparing special education personnel for rural schools: Current practices and future directions. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 14(2), 57–75.

Ludlow, B. L., & Brannan, S. (1999). Distance education programs for preparing personnel for rural areas: Current practices, emerging trends, and future directions. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 18(3/4:), 5–20.

Menlove, R., Hansford, D., & Lignugaris-Kraft, B. (2000). Creating a community of distant learners: Putting technology to work. In J. Lemke (Ed.), 2000 conference proceedings of the American Council on Rural Special Education (pp. 259–264): Manhattan, KS: Author.

Meyen, E. L., Lian, C. H. T., & Tangen, P. (1997). Teaching online courses. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 12(3), 166–174.

Meyen, E. L., Tangen, P., & Lian, C. H. T. (1999). Developing online instruction: Partnership between instructors and technical developers. Journal of Special Education Technology, 14(1), 18–31.

Meyer, C., & Jones, T. B. ( 1993). Promoting active learning: Strategies for the college classroom. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Nielson, J. (2000). Designing Web usability. Indianapolis: New Riders Publishing.

Ozer, J. (1998). The 9 rules of digital video creation. EMedia Professional, 11 (5), 36–52.

Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (1999). Building learning communities in Cyberspace: Effective strategies for the online classroom. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Polichar, V. E., & Bagwell, C. (2000). Pedagogical principles of learning in the online environment. Syllabus, 13 (9), 52–56.

Putnam, R. T., & Borko, H. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking have to say about research on teacher learning? Educational Researcher, 29(1), 4–15.

Reeves, T. C., & Reeves, P. M. (1997). Effective dimensions of interactive learning on the World Wide Web. In B. H. Kahn (Ed.), Webbased instruction (pp 59–66). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

Richardson, V. (1994). Teacher inquiry as professional staff development. In S. Hollingsworth & H. Sockett (Eds.). Teacher research and educational reform (pη. 186–203). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Rodes, P., Knapczyk, D., Chapman, C., & Chung, H. (1999). Involving teachers in Web-based professional development. T.H.E. Journal,

Schnorr, J. M. (1999). Developing and using technology for course delivery. Teacher Education and Special Education, 22(2), 114–122.

Shaw, R. (1997). Sound advice: Getting the best audio out of your video system. Digital Video, 9(11), 44–48.

Shulman, J. H. (1992). Case methodsin teacher education. New York: Teachers College Press.

Simpson, R. L., Whelan, R. J., & Zabel, R. H. (1993). Special education personnel preparation in the 21st century: Issues and strategies. Remedial and Special Education, 14, 7–12.

Smith, S. J., Jordan, L., Corbett, N. L., & Dillon, A. S. (1999). Teachers learn about AD HD on the web: An online graduate special education course. Teaching Exceptional Children, 31(6), 20–27.

Smith, S. J., Martin, L. F., & Lloyd, J. W. (1998). Preparing prospective teachers on the web. Teaching Exceptional Children, 30(5), 60–65.

Spooner, F., Agran, M., Spooner, M., & Kiefer-O'Donnell, R. (2000). Preparing personnel with expertise in severe disabilities in the electronic age: Innovative programs and technologies. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 25(2), 92–103.

Squires, J. (1996). Preparing personnel in rural areas. In D. Bricker & A. Widerstrom (Eds.), Preparing personnel to work with infants and young children and their families: A team approach (pp. 253–272). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.

Storer, J. H., & Crosswait, D. J. (1995). Delivering staff development to the small rural school. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 14 (3), 23–30.

Stowitschek, J. J., Cheney, D. A., & Schwartz, I. S. (2000). Instigating fundamental change through experiential inservice development. Teacher Education and Special Education, 23(2), 142–156.

Tanaka, A. (1997, March). Audio production techniques for interactive media. Interactivity, 35–42.

Waggoner, B. (1998). Making a great first compression: The new delivery codecs. Digital Video, 6 (6), 25–34.

Waggoner, B. (1999). Making great Web video. Digital Video, 7 (10), 46–56.

Wagner, E.D., & McCombs, B. L. (1995). Learner-centered psychological principles in practice: Designs for distance education. Educational Technology, 35(2), 32–35.

Westling, D. L., & Whitten, T. M. (1996). Rural special education teachers' plans to continue or leave their teaching positions. Exceptional Children, 62(4), 319–335.

Whitaker, S. D. (2000). Mentoring beginning special education teachers and the relationship to attrition. Exceptional Children, 66 (4), 546–568.

Williams, M. D. (1996). Learner-control and instructional technology. In J. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 957–983). New York: Macmillan

~~~~~~~~

By Barbara L. Ludlow, West Virginia University; John D. Foshay, Central Connecticut State University; Sara A. Brannan, Wittenburjj University; Michael C. Duff, Discover Video Productions and Katrina E. Dennison, West Virginia University

Abstract: This article discusses the design, development, and implementation of a distance-delivered master's degree program leading to licensure as a teacher of students with visual impairments. The evolution of the program, based on improvements in technology, growth in faculty expertise, and students' enhanced performance, is described.

The shortage of teachers of students with visual impairments has reached crisis proportions (Mason, Davidson, and McNerney, 2000). At the University of Northern Colorado (UNC), the number of traditional, full-time enrollments declined during the early 1990s. In response, UNC developed a summers-only on-campus program and several extension programs in neighboring states. Whether the cause or the result, the enrollment of alternative students, those who came to the campus only in the summer or who attended classes at out-of-state sites, gradually increased. The demographics of the student body changed as well, from first-career professionals with new baccalaureates to more experienced individuals who were either changing careers or adding a new endorsement to their teaching credentials, many of whom were employed as teachers of students with visual impairments on emergency credentials.

As the decline in traditional on-campus students continued, UNC was faced with a dilemma: It could (1) maintain the status quo, continually justifying courses with low enrollments and hoping that the university would not cancel them during the academic year; (2) discontinue the academic-year program in favor of the extension and summer programs, which were funded differently and offered no security for either the programs or the faculty; or (3) find a way to reach the alternative students while maintaining the academic-year programs and funding. Had the faculty tried to maintain the status quo, they would have eventually been forced into the second option anyway, and they already had concerns about the quality of the extension programs. The university had different concerns because the extension programs did not generate student full-time-equivalents (FTE) that led to state appropriations. After 30 years of preparing personnel in visual impairment, the program risked closure if it did not develop a way of attracting students that also generated revenue to support it.

In late 1996, the faculty envisioned a distance-delivered version of the campus degree program for the master's degree in Special Education, Severe Needs: Vision that would expand the enrollment base, provide security for the program and the faculty, and operate year round. Earlier that year, the program had achieved status as a Western Regional Graduate Program from the Western Interstate Commission on Higher Education (WICHE). This status, which required review and approval by the state departments of higher education in all 14 western states, was essential for any effort to build the student base, since residents of these 14 states would pay in-state tuition (a savings of nearly $400 per credit hour) to acquire the degree. The university agreed to this loss of revenue because students in a technology-based program would still generate student FTE that would be reimbursable by the state.

In 1996 the primary technology for interactive distance delivery of instruction was compressed video. The World Wide Web (hereafter, "the web") was just emerging as an information resource that would allow relatively easy access to the Internet via new software applications called "browsers." Consequently, a proposal was written to request federal funding for the master's degree program in visual impairment that would be delivered primarily through compressed video technology to the 14-state WICHE area. By the time the proposal was funded by the U.S. Department of Education in January 1998, the web had exploded as a delivery medium for distance education. This article describes the intervening three years until the grant project ended in December 2000 (the program has been ongoing since then)--what was learned; the challenges faced; the critical questions that emerged; the results of choices, decisions, and evaluations; and the authors' perceptions of the advantages, disadvantages, and cautions related to distance delivery of an academic degree program.

The delivery of a complete degree program required the participation of many special education faculty and specialists in educational technology. A project development team was formed that included the project director, a project coordinator with expertise in adaptive technology, special education faculty who would redesign their courses, an educational technology faculty member with experience in instructional design (ID) and distance education, and two educational graduate students with experience in multimedia development and ID. This project was the first of its kind for all the parties involved, and some special education faculty members were dubious that their courses could be taught other than in the traditional face-to-face lecture format. Others had unsuccessful experiences with other methods of distance-delivered course work and were reluctant to participate. These perceptions engendered long conversations about teaching and learning in distance environments and required considerable investment by the educational technology faculty and students, who simultaneously had to teach the special education faculty about ID and learn about the unique pedagogy for teaching children with visual impairments.

From the start, the focus of the project was on the content and the students. On the basis of an analysis of students and a needs assessment (who were potential students, where were they, and what they needed to know first), two courses were identified for redesign and delivery in fall 1998--literary braille and the medical and educational implications of visual impairment. Professional standards drove the redesign of the courses, and performance-based assessment drove the evaluation of students' learning. The team was committed to the premise that the content would determine the instructional method and that the instructional method would, in turn, determine the delivery technology (Persichitte, 1996). The primary delivery technology was changed to the web, with multiple other distance delivery media (such as CD-ROM, text packs, compressed video, e-mail, videotapes, listservers, and e-reserve) planned to support distance instruction. This commitment forced the issue of customized versus vendor-produced online courses. Expertise in ID and customized applications was critical to the success of the project, so the option of purchasing a readily available web vendor was set aside. Furthermore, none of the template courseware at that time was accessible to individuals with disabilities.

It was expected that 5% of potential students would be visually impaired (i.e., would be blind or have low vision). These students would be particularly challenged by the web, since the medium had not been used to any great degree at that point. A baseline ID decision was made that would become the overarching premise of the entire project: Regardless of the technology, the content, the technological skill level of the student, or the disability, all instruction delivered as a part of this distance project would be accessible to all students.

As the course analysis continued, the team determined that some content could not be delivered in distance formats: individualized instruction in orientation and mobility (O and M), clinical practice in O and M, and the part of the technology course that required hands-on practice with adaptive technology. This content was scheduled for summers and required students' residence on campus for 1 to 16 weeks over two summers. The special education faculty felt strongly that these courses contained some content that could be delivered with distance technologies, but that some content required face-to-face instruction. Individualized instruction in O and M cannot adequately be simulated with today's technology, regardless of whether it should be. Similarly, the high-end specialized adaptive technologies that exist in the campus distance learning facility are rarely available to remote learners for hands-on training purposes.

There were also issues associated with the facility, since no distance education classroom existed in UNC's College of Education. The team wanted to create an environment that supported interactive teaching, faculty practice, and students' interaction within distance delivery technologies. Therefore, the Bresnahan-Halstead Distance Learning Laboratory was developed as a multiuse classroom facility that allows for small class lectures, small-group activities, computer-based instruction, compressed video, and access to specialized adaptive technologies (such as braille printers, braille displays, text enlargers, screen readers, closed-circuit televisions, scanners, and braille translators) for instruction and for testing of materials prior to use in the distance education project. Also in the laboratory are a web server and four Mac and four PC computers, fully Internet capable, a high-end development station for the creation and editing of customized digital videotapes.

In addition to this technology, the Bresnahan-Halstead Laboratory is also equipped with three video cameras (one with infrared remote control), four monitors for the instructor and students, ceiling-mounted button microphones, a custom-designed instructor's station (with a PC and Mac computer, an Elmo for projection, a whiteboard, a VCR, a fax machine, and a telephone), and a facilitator's station (with two minimonitors to view incoming and outgoing videos; a VCR to capture outgoing instruction; audio- and video-control panels for the cameras and microphones; and the wireless connection to the compressed video COC, located in a nearby campus building).

The laboratory was totally funded by private donors; like most federal personnel preparation grants, the budget contained no funds for equipment but was devoted primarily to assistance to students and the personnel needed to implement the distance program. But the laboratory turned out to be critical to the success of the project. As the project evolved, the laboratory was used less for compressed video transmission than as a developmental, testing, instructional, and adaptive technology facility, primarily because the geographic location of the students made compressed video unfeasible.

Two immediate, significant challenges were program design and development. These challenges actually became cyclical, since each semester the team worked with new faculty, new courses, and/or new distance students. First, the team created a faculty training and support system that capitalized on the expertise and pedagogical experience of the special education faculty as the team worked with them to redesign and reconceptualize their courses for distance delivery. Second, the team developed a student support system that allowed the remote students to focus on the content of their course work instead of on the inevitable technological problems. Because students must complete 30-62 semester hours of course work (depending on their previous training and whether they are pursuing O and M endorsement and/or teacher licensure), some of the support was transient while some was ongoing, given the rapid change in distance technologies and increased access to computer-based technologies in the home.

The anchor technology for the project became the project's web site. Every course had its own site linked to the project site, and the extent to which that site was used for the purposes of delivering instruction varied. Over the three years of the project, the web site grew to encompass many of the student support functions as well.

The team chose to implement a basic ID model at three levels: project implementation, faculty support, and student support. The model selected, called ADDIE (analysis, design, development, implementation, evaluation), was a well-known, basic ID model whose author was unknown. Each design decision was based on an analysis of the content, the students, students' and faculty members' access to the delivery technology, and the strengths and weaknesses of the given technology in supporting specific content and instructional strategies. The design phase focused on the incorporation of professional standards; the creation of interactive, engaging learning environments that leveraged the strengths of the Internet; and the encouragement of special education faculty to "think out of the box" about constructive learning activities with performance-based assessment components.

The development phase took on a rapid prototyping aspect as the graduate students in educational technology worked closely with individual faculty on course conversions that began with analysis and design discussions and then moved to the special education faculty's review of efforts in the development of educational technology. This iterative developmental process allowed for continuous input from the content expert and a quick turnaround at each step of the course redesign.

Design efforts began one semester before the semester a class was scheduled for delivery to discuss several ID questions:

1. What is the critical content of this course?
2. Are there activities that were incorporated previously that must be included in this distance course?
3. Are there alternative activities that may accomplish the same objectives, but make better use of the capabilities of the technology?
4. What special or unusual content is in this course?
5. Is there content with which students typically struggle?
6. What instructional problems were encountered previously when this course was taught on campus?
7. Can the content be sequenced and parallel instructional activities, readings, and relevant information be identified?

Educational technology personnel then moved to the development phase, in which instructional materials and environments were actually created. At periodic junctures during this phase, educational technology personnel met with special education faculty to review the emerging products and to suggest revisions before the course was completed. This level of collaboration is not widespread among users of rapid prototyping, but it was effective for this team.

At the course level, the development phase consisted of creating a course web site (linked to the project web site) with standardized support for students and navigation for each course. In addition, every course was supported by a class listserver, synchronous chats, a threaded discussion area, and links to a variety of content supplements. Other instructional materials, such as digital videotapes, interactive computer-based simulations, and tutorials, were custom created for this project. Case studies and computer-based quizzes were also developed. Once Acrobat Access became available, many instructional resources were converted to Adobe PDF files for easy downloading and screen-reader access from the web site. For materials that were copyright protected, educational technology personnel worked closely with the project director and special education faculty to obtain appropriate permissions. (Most copyright holders were accommodating, once they were assured that the site was password protected.) Access to browsers and digital braillers (like Netscape and Perky Duck) was negotiated with software companies. Graphic images were manipulated for individuals with visual impairments and tagged for screen-reader accessibility. By far, the greatest developmental challenge was to ensure that every resulting instructional material or environment was fully accessible to students regardless of their disabilities.

Development also included the evolution of an internal tech support system for the remote students and special education faculty. This system evolved from a conceptual redesign of the project's web site to incorporate remote students' access to the university's library, the graduate school, financial aid office, university bookstore, general program information, faculty advisers, and a virtual "commons area" for students to meet and socialize. As the project evolved, students became more dependent on these delivery technologies for academic, professional, and peer-communication purposes. The educational technology staff also provided the technical support that ensured students and faculty nearly round-the-clock access to instruction, information, and communication via a wide variety of technologies. Since most of the students worked during the day, the educational technology staff monitored the server at night, usually via remote server software, and sometimes had to visit the university late at night to reboot the server.

The first implementation (delivery) of course work occurred in fall 1998 with two courses. By the fourth semester, seven courses were delivered to 73 students in 18 states, using campus-based special education faculty. Fourteen courses have now been redesigned for distance delivery and, in most cases, revised and substantially updated in subsequent semesters to accommodate changing distance environments. The project has been online for eight consecutive semesters.

It became apparent that distance delivery did not require a campus-based instructor. When more instructors were needed in the fifth semester of implementation, a highly skilled adjunct faculty member was hired whose residence would have prohibited her teaching a weekly on-campus course. Recently, an adjunct from a neighboring state joined the faculty. Distance delivery allowed the program to hire the best instructors, regardless of where they lived and regardless of their disability. Online content, e-mail, and the electronic transmission of students' papers and assignments also meant that instructors who are blind were no longer dependent on others to assist them in some of their teaching functions (such as reading papers). Distance delivery also permitted invitations to experts and mentor teachers to participate in courses via both synchronous and asynchronous discussions with students.

Challenges to the project's implementation included the following:

• Maintaining a focus on and commitment to total accessibility without accepting an "alternative" as appropriate (like "text-only" web sites linked to graphics, slide presentations, or audio files). The project staff fervently believe that "separate but equal" was declared unconstitutional in Brown v. Board of Education (Ferrell, 1999, 2000) and have strived not to perpetuate it electronically.
• Keeping pace with the rapid changes in software versions and hardware capacity, while recognizing a broad spectrum of access among our remote students.
• Helping faculty test the compressed video environment so they understood the limitations (such as students' access problems, same-time scheduling conflicts, multisite transmission delays), as well as the possibilities of the technology.
• Working in an environment that demanded specialized support for students on a nearly round-the-clock basis.
• Finding and supporting the expertise in the educational technology staff to develop, support, and implement their efforts each semester while managing their overlapping time lines.
• Learning to use synchronous technologies like Internet chat and compressed video when students were distributed across multiple time zones that differed by up to six hours.
• Funding the recurring costs of practicum supervision, technology infrastructure, maintenance, and upgrading.
• Supporting students in practicum placements that were dispersed across a broad geographic area, particularly when mentor teachers were not available and when the UNC faculty's time was constrained by the greater amount of time required for online instruction and interaction. Supervisory visits to out-of-state practicum students were limited because state funds normally used for supervisory travel could not be used, and funds from the federal grant were insufficient.
• Developing a collaborative working environment for the special education faculty and the educational technology staff that emphasized cooperation, innovation, risk taking, and mutual dependence.
• Providing ongoing faculty development for changes in pedagogy required within interactive distance education environments.
• Identifying external resources that supported the use of technologies and compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Vocational Rehabilitation Act. (See Box 1 for some examples of such resources.)

The evaluation component of the ADDIE model incorporated both formative and summative strategies. At the midpoint and end of each semester, the students were asked to complete an online course evaluation form that elicited responses to queries about the quality of instruction, effective use of technology, instructional and technical support, and satisfaction with the distance learning experience.

Demographic data indicated that the students in this project were generally middle aged (80% were aged 25-49), predominantly female (typically 90% or more for each course), and lived more than 100 miles from the UNC campus (typically over 60% of each course's enrollment). Part-time students outnumbered full-time students 2 to 1 each semester. Over 75% of the respondents reported that the distance courses required "about the same amount of effort" as an on-campus course (in contrast, the faculty's response was that more effort was required). Also, over 80% of the respondents reported more than six individual contacts with the instructor during the semester, in addition to the instructor's use of the course listserver. The cumulative data from the students' evaluations were overwhelmingly positive (over 90% of the respondents each semester) regarding (1) satisfaction with their distance learning experience, (2) the likelihood that they would take another distance-delivered course after this experience, (3) the quality of the instruction, and (4) the effectiveness of the course structure and delivery. An evaluation of on-the-job teaching competence is planned for the coming year, now that the project has produced a critical mass of graduates sufficient for analysis.

Evaluation data at the end of each semester were used to launch the next semester's discussions about design and to focus on developing and implementing revisions. The special education faculty were also asked to complete evaluation questionnaires periodically that provided data for the improvement of the design process and the elaboration of the faculty development initiatives. The evaluations served the dual functions of providing data to drive decisions and allowing the students and faculty to have input in the decision-making process.

Results and unintended consequences

Table 1 compares the admissions and enrollment data for the three years immediately preceding the grant period, during which the program was delivered on-campus during the summer and academic year, and the three years of the grant period. Because some students overlapped the two periods, data for those whose total program has been or will be delivered using distance methodologies are also given in the right-hand column. New admissions to the program increased 14.5% during the life of the grant, but significantly, the number of admitted students who eventually enrolled increased 42.9%. This admissions yield appears to have been maintained among the distance-delivery students, suggesting a better and perhaps more deliberate match between applicants and the program.

The total enrollment also increased by 52.7% during the grant period. The enrollment of minority-group members increased by 50.0% (from 4 to 6 students), and the enrollment of persons with disabilities increased by 40.0% (from 5 to 7 students). The enrollment of these two groups of students remained stable at 8.9% for total distance-delivery enrollment.

Program completers (degree program graduates, plus those seeking endorsement only) increased by half (52.4%) during the grant period. Overall, the distance-delivered program seems to produce a slightly higher graduate yield (completers as a proportion of enrollees) at a slightly faster rate, since students in the distance-delivered program complete their studies in a mean 6.4 semesters (a little over 2 full years), rather than the mean 7.6 semesters (over 2 1-2 years) for the on-campus program. Although withdrawals are high in the distance program (10.7%), they are not as high as they were in the on-campus program (16.4%).

Out-of-state enrollment increased dramatically during the project period and continues to make up two thirds of the distance program. During the on-campus program, a larger proportion of completers were from out of state (80.9%), but during the project period, completers were almost evenly split between Colorado and out-of-state residents. The greatest proportion of students taking the distance program, however, are out-of-state residents.

As a result of this project, students, special education faculty, and educational technology staff have learned much about the creation of distance delivery systems that are robust enough for graduate degree programs. They have also encountered some surprises. While the distance education research and literature of the 1990s focused largely on delivery technologies and development with those technologies, this project focused on the theoretical bases of distance education: content, pedagogy, and communication. The early decision to focus on content and instructional method paid huge dividends in the motivation of the special education faculty, the quality of the instructional product, and the completion rate of students. The special education faculty consistently reported that this experience had improved their pedagogy in on-campus and distance settings and described feelings of invigoration and currency with the content. They also believed, with a sense of pride, that the extra effort put into this project returned significant professional dividends in the number of certified professionals who now work with visually impaired children.

Most of the unexpected consequences occurred among the students. On their own initiative, the students developed miniclusters that communicated online regarding a wide variety of professional, academic, and social topics outside "class" and organized their own synchronous discussions to work on assignments in teams. Many described a newfound reliance on academic resources because those resources were now accessible anytime and anywhere. The professional isolation that many initially reported because of their geographic dispersion was reduced, since they were able to "talk" with peers and faculty members when they needed advice, and many used the technologies to socialize and connect in meaningful human interactions. Finally, the students reported that the distance learning experience brought them a new understanding of how children with visual impairments learn--and how much they relied on visual input when teaching--because now they, too, were not able to see the instructor or each other.

Another set of unintended consequences occurred as a result of the decision to make the program completely accessible. Blind instructors, using adaptive technology, competed on an equal level with sighted instructors when teaching online. And though students with visual impairments have always been enrolled in UNC programs, the enrollment of persons with disabilities now constitutes almost 9% of the student body. Both these unanticipated consequences are encouraging for the future of a field in which only about 5% of the current faculty are visually impaired (Corn and Silberman, 1999), and both directly address the personnel preparation requirement in Part D of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, to "give preference to institutions of higher education that are successfully recruiting and preparing individuals with disabilities" (Section 673(g)(3)(B)).

This project has been successful according to a number of criteria. First, UNC met the objectives stipulated in the original grant proposal, contributing to the preparation of 84 new professionals and 32 graduates, 56.3% of whom lived outside Colorado, over the three years of the grant. During the previous three years, UNC graduated only 21 teachers, 80.9% of whom lived outside Colorado, thus demonstrating the increased capacity of the distance program to meet both in-state and out-of-state needs. Second, UNC has involved all faculty in the program in the redesign and implementation of their courses, and this training has spilled over to other special education faculty in the department, such that even core courses in special education are now available online. Third, students have been satisfied with their training and appreciate the efficiency and accessibility of the online format. And fourth, the distance-delivered program is sustainable now that federal funding has ended.

In spite of, and with the reluctant participation of, many skeptics, this effort has not only met the objectives stipulated in the grant proposal, but has surpassed the radical idea first discussed in 1996. The following principles, derived from UNC's experience and practice, may be useful for other programs that are planning a distance delivery system:

• Content determines methodology (Ferrell, 1999, 2000; Persichitte, 1996). Decide what needs to be taught first and then decide how best to teach it. The goal is not simply to teach online, but to teach students who live at a distance from the campus.
• Instructional methodology drives the selection of the delivery technology. Distance delivery is more than use of the Internet.
• Professional standards drive the course design (including objectives, structure, sequence, articulation of the curriculum, and assessment).
• The working environment needs to leverage the expertise of all participants and be team oriented.
• The right people are needed to get the job done--content specialists (special education faculty), ID specialists (educational technology faculty), multimedia specialists, and distance education specialists.
• Performance-based assessment that is closely aligned with professional standards drives the evaluation of students' learning.
• A facility is needed to support instruction, development, and student interaction.
• Instruction that is accessible to all students, all the time, should be created from the beginning of the design effort to avoid revising courses later in response to individual needs. Alternative text files not only double the files needed to deliver the course, they double any efforts to revise or update as well.

The authors invite the readers to visit the program's web site, now located at the National Center on Low Incidence Disabilities www.NCLID.unco.edu, and they challenge the reader to explore the potential for distance education to provide greater access for the next generation of professionals in the field.

Preparation of this article was supported, in part, by Grant H029A70113 from the U.S. Department of Education, Personnel Preparation for Individuals with Disabilities, CFDA 84.029A. The authors thank other members of the staff who contributed to the success of this project: Charles Wright, project coordinator; Lucia Hasty; David Kappan; Carol Love; Madeline Milian; D. William Muir; and Sandra Ruconich. They also thank AFB, the American Printing House for the Blind, and the Hadley School for the Blind for their generous permission to incorporate portions of their copyrighted materials into the web site discussed in this article.

Accepted July 18, 2001.

Adaptive Technology Consulting -- www.adaptivetech.net

World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) -- www.w3.org

Equal Access to Software and Information (EASI) -- www.rit.edu/~easi

We Media Inc. -- www.wemedia.com

Trace Center -- www.trace.wisc.edu

LEDATA -- www.abledata.com

Center for Applied Special Technology -- www.cast.org/bobby/

There are 5 main column heads in this table: Criterion, Spring 1995-Fall 1997: On campus, with subheads N and %; Spring 1998-Fall 2000: Project period, with subheads N and %; % change; and Spring 1998-Present: All distance education with subheads N and %. Under Criterion there are 12 rows: New admissions, Admissions yield (admitted who enrolled), Total enrollment, Minority enrollment, Disability enrollment, Total completions, Graduate yield (completions as proportion of enrollment), Average time to completion (in semesters), Withdrawals, Terminations, Out-of-state enrollment, and Out-of-state completers.

Note: This table does not reflect enrollment in the O and M extension program that was implemented between 1996 and 2001.

-- means not applicable, no value entered.

Criterion: New admissions for Spring 1995-Fall 1997: On campus, N is 62; percent is --; for Spring 1998-Fall 2000: Project period, N is 71; percent is --; % change is +14.5; for Spring 1998-Present: All distance education N is 79; and percent is --.

Criterion: Admissions yield (admitted who enrolled) for Spring 1995-Fall 1997: On campus, N is 35; percent is 56.5; for Spring 1998-Fall 2000: Project period, N is 50; percent is 70.4; % change is +42.9; for Spring 1998-Present: All distance education N is 56; and percent is 70.9.

Criterion: Total enrollment for Spring 1995-Fall 1997: On campus, N is 55; percent is --; for Spring 1998-Fall 2000: Project period, N is 84; percent is --; % change is +52.7; for Spring 1998-Present: All distance education N is 56; and percent is --.

Criterion: Minority enrollment for Spring 1995-Fall 1997: On campus, N is 4; percent is 7.3; for Spring 1998-Fall 2000: Project period, N is 6; percent is 7.1; % change is +50.0; for Spring 1998-Present: All distance education N is 5; and percent is 8.9.

Criterion: Disability enrollment for Spring 1995-Fall 1997: On campus, N is 5; percent is 9.1; for Spring 1998-Fall 2000: Project period, N is 7; percent is 8.3; % change i