THE COLORADO Legislature has set aside $800,000 to help bring four-year-degree programs to two-year colleges m rural areas through a program that relies heavily on online education.

The Rural Education Access Program, or REAP, will begin this fall and is meant to help students who often must decide either to forgo earning bachelor's degrees or to move away from their hometowns to study. Even though online education has become widespread, Colorado officials say rural students need the program, because many don't have the computers and Internet connections necessary to reap the benefits of Web-based courses.

Under the program, two-year Velleges will work with four-year institutions to provide upper-division courses to rural students, both by sending professors to the rural institutions and by providing online courses.

The online courses will carry most of the load, says Christine Johnson, vice president for academic services at the Community Colleges of Colorado. "The online component is really what makes this possible," she says.

REAP's purpose is not only to Help rural students but also to aid the economies in those areas, Ms. Johnson says. When rural students move to cities to get their degrees, sometimes it is hard to get them to move back, she notes. If students stay near their hometowns, they are more likely to help develop rural areas economically.

Community colleges in Colorado have already developed online-education programs, but they are mostly limited to associate degrees. Tim Foster, executive director of the state's Department of Higher Education, says studies show "the obvious": that students who live in rural areas don't have access to bachelor's degrees.

"Given their geographic location and the absence of a four-year college within a hundred miles, there's a lack of access in the area," he says.

In rural areas, telephone and cable connections to the Internet are often slow, Mr. Foster says, so students can't always take online courses at home. The community colleges will provide the equipment for the online courses and will provide facilities for visiting professors from four-year institutions to carry out the program.

The department will decide which colleges get the money. Colleges are submitting proposals, along with their university partners, to offer various degrees. Each partnership will only be able to offer two four-year degrees because there isn't enough money to pay for more, Mr. Foster says.

The money will be awarded in a manner that spreads the services out geographically to reach as many students as possible. The proposals by each partnership reflect the needs of that region of the state, Ms. Johnson says. For example, some colleges in western Colorado want to set up bachelor's degrees in environmental science and technology because the mining industry is active in the area.

"They're really focusing on serving local needs," Ms. Johnson says. "Every quadrant of the state is being served."

The proposals already submitted seem to favor education degrees--to make up for the shortage of teachers in rural areas, she says. "Rural districts are having a hard time finding and recruiting teachers," she explains. "They're trying to find their own cadre of homegrown students."

One coalition already has been formed among Trinidad State Junior College, Otero Junior College, and Lamar Community and Adams State Colleges. The coalition will offer degrees in education and in business this fall.

Three other consortia of rural community colleges and four-year institutions have submitted proposals, but the total of those proposals exceeds the $800,000. The department may grant money for only some of the proposals, or may try to negotiate the costs down a bit, Ms. Johnson says.

~~~~~~~~

By Dan Carnevale

ABSTRACT. In an empirical study, the predominant needs of 2 contrasting groups of students in distance learning programs were investigated. One group was composed of traditional, on-campus students. The other was composed of nontraditional, off-campus students from a rural area. We administered a survey to 95 distance learning students to determine their primary educational needs, and completed a contrasting analysis to determine if accessibility of the instructor and satisfaction levels varied across groups. Results show that satisfaction levels did not vary significantly across student segments.

In an increasingly competitive environment, universities must continually review their curriculum and the method by which instruction is delivered to students. Often that involves developing a simple marketing plan to determine the basic needs of students and programs to facilitate the satisfaction of their objectives.

For many years, marketers have recognized that the way to improve satisfaction levels and commitment in consumers is to identify desired traits and tailor their products to include those characteristics (Engel, Blackwell, & Kiniard, 1995). Unfortunately, in the academic setting, a lag in adopting that marketing concept has resulted in an old-style production mentality toward product offerings: "If we build it, they will come!" Course offerings, degree programs, and locations have often been at the convenience of the university, departments, and faculty rather than the student (Charron & Obbink, 1993). That lack of focus on the customers' (students') needs has been identified as a contributory factor to declining enrollments in certain degree programs at larger state institutions.

Recently, however, that perspective has been shifting; as Dillon and Walsh (1992) remarked, "The academy has a responsibility to shift more from a faculty-centered to a student-centered educational system" (p. 17). That study reflects efforts by a large regional university to reorient and refocus on the customer (student). Nontraditional and off-campus students have already altered the college scene tremendously (Carl, 1991), and it is essential to recognize that those students' needs, wants, and expectations vary from those of the traditional students. In the present study, we investigated distance education programs targeted to graduate and undergraduate business students.

Regional universities often face the challenge of remaining competitive with both private institutions and major state-funded universities. In facing that challenge, they have identified groups of unsatisfied or previously unrecognized students and offer degree programs and other options that make their campuses and course offerings more appealing to potential students. To remain competitive, regional universities must offer services and products that are unique and serve the needs of certain identifiable groups of consumers.

One recent development enabling regional universities to remain competitive is the use of distance learning programs. Ohler (1991) provided the following definition of distance learning: "Distance education occurs when the student is in one place and the teachers, peer learners, or resources are in another" (p. 22). In other words, in distance learning programs, educational services are provided at a variety of locations and at least one group of students remains physically separated from the instructor. Distance learning includes the use of compressed video technology, correspondence, desktop video conferencing, and telecourses. We focused on distance learning courses that use technology to deliver interactive distance learning programs. More advanced approaches, such as compressed video technology, have off-site and on-site participants.

Early uses of distance learning, however, have suffered from poor usage rates of facilities and much resistance among prospective faculty participants (Threlkeld, 1993). Concerns have been voiced relating to a lack of institutional support to train, compensate, and reward faculty efforts in distance education (Olcott, 1996; Olcott & Wright, 1995), in addition to a lack of quality control and ineffectiveness of delivery (Carl, 1991). Further, there has been concern that developing off-site courses will diminish the demand for and enrollments in on-site courses (Carl, 1991).

The traditional student is 18-22 years old, attends a university full time immediately following high school, and lives on or near campus (Schuemer, 1993). However, student profiles have changed dramatically over the last 20 years (Carl, 1991). As the economics of education and socioeconomic trends have evolved, students have been forced to complete their college education in nontraditional ways. For example, many working teachers continuing their education can attend courses only at night or during summer terms (Charron & Obbink, 1993). Working professionals often must attend classes in urban/suburban centers on weekends or evenings to comply with work and time limitations. Westbrook (1993) found that satisfaction levels among those students appears to be high because the distance learning format affords them reasonable opportunities to advance their education. Effectiveness has also been documented (Molly & Draper, 1996); distance learning often provides the only source of needed information.

It has become necessary for universities to adapt their programs and course offerings to become more in touch with the needs of this changing student market. The element of convenience has emerged as one of the primary requirements of the nontraditional student, reflecting Cropley and Kahl's (1983) findings that it is difficult for the nontraditional student to reconcile conflicting requirements, commitments, and school. Thus, distance learning can provide opportunities to nontraditional students and consequently, growth potential for universities.

There is a group of nontraditional students for which distance learning is of particular importance--the rural student. Some rural students are not able to relocate to the campus area but are highly motivated to seek alternative instructional options to complete their education. Distance learning is a tool to mitigate geographic isolation and allow rural students to participate in the educational marketplace.

In the present study, we used market segmentation techniques to identify and evaluate two groups of distance learning students. One group was composed of traditional students from an urban or suburban environment, living on or commuting to the main campus. The other group was made up of rural students, living in and attending courses at remote, rural sites. We sought to identify the needs of the two groups and determine if distance learning is a product that can serve either or both of those groups effectively. Finally, we analyzed the role of distance learning in university strategy development.

We examined the educational needs of each group. The students participating in the study were enrolled in an introductory marketing course offered via compressed video technology. Most distance learning studies have compared constructs across student groups that receive their education in the traditional classroom with students participating in distance education classrooms. In the present study, we sought to integrate those two concepts in a distance learning course with both on-site and off-site participants. We used comparative analysis to examine various wants and needs of those student groups and to determine products that may best serve their needs. Finally, we compared student satisfaction levels.

Burnham and Seamons (1987) remarked that there are a number of questions that need to be addressed to further our understanding of the distance learning process. Those include whether the remoteness of the teacher and the learner inhibits or enhances interaction. Inherent in that question is whether the distance student feels too removed from the educational process or the instructor to participate fully. Does that lack of interaction reduce satisfaction levels? Motivation and expectations are also prominent areas for investigation; they reflect the necessity of identifying determinant attributes and associated expectations of the distance learning format and how they affects satisfaction levels.

Accessibility

Researchers have shown that students experiencing higher levels of interaction have more positive attitudes toward the learning process and techniques (Garrison, 1990; Hackman & Walker, 1990). However, as the number of miles between the instructor and the student increases in the distance learning format, the level of interaction and resulting motivation to attend lectures diminishes (Fulford & Zhang, 1993). Faculty have expressed concerns that off-campus students do not have regular, personal contact with instructors. Many view personal interaction as critical to the successful delivery of information (Carl, 1991). Some have argued that rural students would have similar access to faculty through posted phone hours and that such faculty access could minimize feelings of being removed from the educational processes (Carl, 1991).

Because distance learning cannot provide the remote student with immediate feedback and support that is available in the traditional classroom (Cropley & Kahl, 1983), perceived accessibility of the instructor is of interest in predicting satisfaction levels of participating students. Lack of accessibility can engender a lack of attentiveness, eroding satisfaction with the learning experience. If that occurs, it would seem reasonable that satisfaction levels would ultimately differ significantly between the rural (remote) and urban/suburban (on-site) students. We tested the following hypothesis:

H1: Accessibility of the instructor will differ significantly between the on-site (urban/suburban) participants and the off-site (rural) students.

This question is of interest because it is essential that evaluation occur as universities continue to innovate to attract new students (customers). Of primary interest in distance learning is the maintenance of performance and satisfaction in the remote (rural) students. That increased satisfaction promotes enrollment and long-term commitment by students to the program.

Determinant Product Attributes

"If there is one thing that social choice theory has taught us over the last several decades, it is that strange things may happen when we try to aggregate individual choices into some meaningful whole" (Brams, Kilgour, & Zwicker, 1994, p. 25). However, as frustrating as that assertion is, university administrators need a basic understanding of the benefits sought by a group of students enrolling in a distance education course to develop well-thought-out programs and offerings that best meet the needs of various student groups. Hence, in studying the requirements of various segments of students, researchers must determine the product characteristics desired by each major segment to refine product development and better serve the customer (Kotler & Armstrong, 1994). Charron and Obbink (1993) proposed that one of the primary requirements of many students in today's marketplace is the element of convenience. In the present study, we investigated that assertion empirically. We tested the following hypothesis:

H2: Rural marketing students' desired product attributes will differ significantly from those of on-site, urban, and suburban students.

We attempted to identify significant differences in why students sought out and purchased this educational product. The students were asked to identify the primary reasons they enrolled in the courses. Options available to the respondents in the survey instrument included (a) proximity to home, (b) convenience of location, (c) time course offered, (d) learning style/environment, (e) required course, (f) content, and (g) time commitment.

Satisfaction

A fundamental obstacle to creating and assessing customer satisfaction is that a single product cannot be ideal for all customers if customers have different conceptions of ideal products (Burt, 1996). Hence, fundamental to the assessment of student satisfaction with educational products is the determination of how their preferences relate to educational offerings. Further, distance education mandates the investigation of satisfaction and expectations differences that may exist between student groups (i.e., rural and urban/suburban).

We investigated satisfaction levels to determine if the rural student was any more or less satisfied with the course offerings than the urban/suburban student. Biner (1993) found that satisfaction across sites tends to be similar and that to maintain a successful distance learning program it is necessary to continually monitor satisfaction levels. However, as interaction and accessibility diminish, there is concern that overall satisfaction levels of students will fall. Constant monitoring of satisfaction and its predictors aids in determining potential positive word of mouth and commitment to programs of distance education (Biner, Welsh, Barone, Summers, & Dean, 1997). In addition, market researchers have concluded that identifying satisfaction levels is vital in the success of any product introduction. Customer satisfaction ultimately yields positive word of mouth and generates increased levels of demand (Shimp, 1993). We tested the following hypothesis:

H3: Satisfaction levels across the two student groups (rural vs. urban/suburban) will not differ significantly.

Attitudes

Previous research investigating the role of attitude formation and differences between student groups supports the general belief that attitudes toward distance learning remain fairly consistent across distance sites. That the formation of positive attitudes toward the products and services directly affects satisfaction levels has been documented thoroughly in the marketing literature. However, the development of unreasonable expectations may, in fact, spur the formation of unrealistically high impressions resulting in unrealistic product and service expectations. It is therefore necessary to investigate not only measured satisfaction levels but also the accompanying attitudes formed. Dissimilar attitudinal structures between groups should result in dissimilar reported satisfaction levels.

Hence, we developed Hypothesis 4 to reflect that attitudinal responses of students with regard to the distance learning experience across the two groups will be equal. Building on earlier work in satisfaction (Biner, Dean, & Mellinger, 1994; Biner et al., 1997), we tested the following hypothesis:

H4: Attitudinal structures of rural and urban/suburban students should not differ significantly.

Biner et al. (1994) remarked that high learner satisfaction from previously enrolled distance learning students helps to increase enrollments, reflecting positive word-of-mouth referrals. We attempted here to show support for rural distance learning programs by finding high and equivalent satisfaction scores with the urban/suburban, on-site student.

Survey

Because distance learning is used to grow enrollment, the evaluation of student attitudinal and satisfaction levels is critical. Our purpose in the present study was to investigate the needs and satisfaction levels of rural marketing students and determine if they differed significantly from the urban/suburban marketing student. It was therefore necessary to survey students with recent experience in the distance learning environment. The distance learning experience of the surveyed students was a two-way, interactive, compressed video course transmitted from the main campus to three locations throughout the region. (Four different locations, three rural off-site and one on-site, were surveyed through various courses; however, the three off-site locations were not necessarily served concurrently).

Data collection was conducted at a large, regional university in the Southeast. Ninety-five students enrolled in principles of marketing courses responded to the survey. The students were asked to respond to a variety of items regarding demographic, attitudinal, and behavioral characteristics. All surveyed students were in the last weeks of completing a semester-long distance learning course. Data were collected through self-administered surveys given at the end of the spring semester. Clark and Verduin (1987) remarked that early studies may have been biased by having different instructors across experimental groups; that pitfall was avoided in this study.

Survey Instrument

We designed the survey instrument to assess distance learning students' satisfaction levels, demographic information, attitudinal responses, and behavioral intentions. The attitudinal, behavioral, and satisfaction items were all assessed through the use of Likert-type items with 5 choices ranging from 1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree). We then used a summated scale that incorporates the instrument items to assess satisfaction levels. Measurement items are presented in the appendix.

Items that assessed drive time to the site, site where the course was taken, and the city or town where the respondents currently resided permitted classification of the students as nontraditional, rural or traditional, urban/suburban. Additional demographic items assessed ranges for age, income, grade point average, and marital status.

Procedure

The survey instrument was administered at each site by site coordinators during the last month of the course. Brief instructions were given regarding anonymity and procedures. Response rates at each site were 100% for students present that evening. Attendance rates were approximately 95% on survey administration dates.

The students were classified into rural and urban/suburban groups on the basis of their responses to drive time to site, site enrolled, and town of residence. That resulted in 65 traditional, urban/suburban students and 30 nontraditional, rural students.

In the initial survey, the students responded from one of the three sites to which the course was broadcast by the university or the one on-site location. Because the program was in its early stages of growth, a large number of respondents were located at Site 1--the main campus (see Table 1). Those students received instruction in person approximately three fourths of the time. For the remaining one fourth of the class meetings, the professor traveled to the remote sites and broadcast the lecture back to the main campus. Table 1 contains profiles by site.

Data Analysis Approach

The method used reflects the planned comparison (a priori) of means between the two student groups. A priori comparisons are similar to commonly used post hoc techniques; they differ by reflecting a less exploratory examination of the data through the specification of the group comparisons to be made in advance of examining the data (Hair, Anderson, Tathem, & Black, 1995). We used planned comparisons that reflected conceptual support for the specific comparisons highlighted in the hypotheses.

To test Hypothesis 1, we used a planned comparison of mean responses across the two groups. The data did not support Hypothesis 1 (see Table 2). The on-site students found more problems with the accessibility of the instructor than the remote-site students did. That finding is significant for the development of distance learning curriculum. Strategies for encouraging interaction and participation often focus on remote students. Those approaches may be isolating on-site students.

With Hypothesis 2, we sought to identify if differences existed in the primary reasons students enrolled in the distance learning course. We conducted a comparison of determinant attributes by group. A comparison of mean responses is highlighted in Table 2 and indicates support for Hypothesis 2. Convenience and time of offering were the primary variables used by the rural student to select the course, whereas content was the primary determinant for the urban/suburban student.

We also assessed satisfaction levels across the two groups to determine any differences in self-reported levels of satisfaction with the course, the instructor, and the technology. Internal consistency (reliability) was assessed on the items over the entire sample group, resulting in a reported standardized Cronbach's alpha of .9. That is well within acceptable standards. Acording to Nunnally (1978), reported reliabilities above .7 denote sufficiency.

Results regarding satisfaction revealed an F value of 1.24 and a significance of .2990, highlighting no difference in satisfaction levels between the two groups. Mean comparisons results are summarized in Table 3. Hypothesis 3 was accepted. Because overall satisfaction levels did not differ significantly, the use of distance learning to meet the needs of the targeted rural student was supported.

We also assessed overall attitudes toward distance learning across groups with items inquiring about students' feelings toward the process, technology, and activities (see Table 4). We used a summated scale for analysis purposes. Reliability analysis revealed a standardized Cronbach's alpha of .84, again, well within acceptable guidelines. Sample items are included in the appendix.

There were also no significant differences across groups with regard to the attitudinal components. Table 4 contains highlights of results that indicate support for Hypothesis 4. No significant differences were identified between groups across the summated attitudinal scale. Those findings support the use of distance learning technique and the potential for growth reflected by continued student commitment to distance learning programs.

The results of this study revealed a number of important conclusions for the educator and administrator seeking to expand enrollments. We investigated student perceptions regarding accessibility of the instructor, attitudinal structures, and satisfaction levels. According to recent research, remote students might feel isolated in distance learning courses (Charron & Obbink, 1993); however, our results did not corroborate that conclusion. Our results could be explained by the fact that the on-site students felt the professor was less accessible because of style and technique adjustments made to accommodate remote students. That is certainly an area worthy of further investigation. Clearly, it is problematic if instructors are overcompensating to motivate remote-site students, thereby inadvertently isolating on-site participants. Ultimately, on-site satisfaction and enrollments could suffer as the number of sites and remote students continues to rise.

The results also highlight the importance of identifying new groups of students being targeted by distance learning programs. It has been empirically shown that different groups of students have varying educational needs. That information would be useful if the university's goals are to expand its reach, remain competitive, and service new groups of consumers. Different promotional approaches to reach those students will be necessary to successfully implement an expansion strategy. The results, however, are encouraging with regard to positive word of mouth and long-term commitment. Furthermore, as time and convenience emerge as the primary determinants for rural, remote-site students, attempts to further refine those requirements will be necessary to best serve their needs. Location of sites and availability of instructors will continue to be important factors in increasing enrollments of remote-site students.

It is encouraging that our results support overall impressions of the distance learning approach across various student segments. We found that the urban/suburban and rural student did not exhibit significantly different impressions or satisfaction levels. Therefore, further expansion of course distance learning offerings and programs should prove successful. It now seems prudent to investigate the impact of certain approaches to the technology and reduction of intimidation levels in students to achieve an overall improvement in satisfaction scores. We hope that will result in increased willingness to recommend those courses in the future. "Techno fear" is potentially problematic for both the on-site and remote student. It will also become necessary to identify the optimum number of remote sites to avoid deterioration of satisfaction levels. Technology cannot stand alone in the delivery of educational products--it is merely part of the overall package (Threlkeld, 1994).

Legend for Chart:

A - Site
B - Frequency (no. students)
C - %

        A              B        C

1 -- Main campus       65      70.7
2 -- Remote Site A     18      18.9
5 -- Remote Site B      4       4.2
6 -- Remote Site C      8       8.5

Total                  95     100.0

Note. For the purpose of analysis, the rural students served
through Sites 2, 5, and 6 were grouped together for comparison
with the traditional on-site urban/suburban students.

Legend for Chart:

A - Variable
B - Group 1
C - Group 2
D - F
E - Significance

          A                    B       C       D        E

Instructor availability      2.2      2.65    5.32    .002
Reason for taking course     3.98     1.7    10.1     .0000

Legend for Chart:

A - Source of variance
B - SS
C - MS
D - df
E - F
F - P

   A          B        C      D       E        F

Between      18.97    6.32     3    1.243    .2990
Within      447.58    5.09    88

Legend for Chart:

A - Source of variance
B - SS
C - MS
D - df
E - F
F - P

   A           B         C      D       E        F

Between      254.74    84.91     3    1.288    .2831
Within      5800.95    65.92    88

Biner, P. M. (1993). The development of an instrument to measure attitudes towards televised courses. The American Journal of Distance Learning, 7, 62-73.

Biner, P. M., Dean, R. S., & Mellinger, A. (1994). Factors underlying distance learner satisfaction with televised college-level courses. The American Journal of Distance Education, 8, 60-71.

Biner, P. M., Welsh, K. D., Barone, N., Summers, M., & Dean, R. S. (1997). The impact of remote-site group six on student satisfaction and relative performance in interactive telecourses. The American Journal of Distance Education, 11, 23-33.

Brams, S. J., Kilgour, D. M., & Zwicker, W. S. (1994). A new paradox of vote aggregation. Second Integration Conference for Social Choice and Welfare. Rochester, NY.

Burt, G. (1996). Quality provisions for students: The implications of social choice theory. The American Journal of Distance Education, 10, 37-49.

Carl, D. L. (1991). Electronic distance learning: Positives outweigh negatives. T.H.E. Journal, May, 67-70.

Charron, E., & Obbink, K. (1993). Long distance learning: Continuing your education through telecommunications. The Science Teacher, March, 56-60.

Clark, T. A., & Verduin, J. R. (1989). Distance education: Its effectiveness and potential use in lifelong learning. Lifelong Learning: An Omnibus of Practice and Research, 12, 24-27.

Cropley, A. J., & Kahl, T. (1983). Distance education and distance learning: Some psychological considerations. Distance Learning, 4, 27-39.

Dillon, C., & Walsh, S. M. (1992). Faculty: The neglected resource in distance education. The American Journal of Distance Education, 6, 71-83.

Engel, T., Blackwell, C., & Kiniard, P. (1995). Consumer behavior. New York: Dryden Press.

Fulford, C. P., & Zhang, S. (1993). Perceptions of interaction: The critical predictor in distance education. The American Journal of Distance Education, 7, 8-21.

Garrison, R. D. (1990). An analysis and evaluation of audio teleconferencing to facilitate education at a distance. The American Journal of Distance Education, 4, 13-24.

Hackman, M. Z., & Walker, K. B. (1990). Instructional communication in the televised classroom: The effects of systems design and teacher immediacy on student learning and satisfaction. Communication Education, 39, 196-206.

Hair, J. F., Jr., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1995). Multivariate data analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Kotler, P., & Armstrong, G. (1994). Principles of Marketing (6th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Molly, L., & Draper, D. (1996). Examining the viability of distance education as an instructional approach, Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 45(3), 12-21.

Nunally, J. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw Hill.

Ohler, J. (1991). Why distance education? The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 514(13), 22.

Olcott, D. J., Jr. (1996). Aligning distance education practice and academic policy: A framework for institutional change. Continuing Higher Education Review, 60(1), 27-41.

Olcott, D., Jr., & Wright, S. J. (1995). An institutional support framework for increasing faculty participation in postsecondary distance education. American Journal of Distance Learning, 9, 5-17.

Schuemer, R. (1993). Some psychological aspects of distance education. Hagen, Germany: Institution for Research into Distance Education, Fern University.

Threlkeld, R. M. (1994). Rural voices: Conversations about distance learning with four rural California schools. Ed Journal, 78, J-1-J-17.

Westbrook, T. (1993). Changes in students' attitudes toward graduate business instruction via interactive television. The American Journal of Distance Learning, 11, 55-69.

Attitudinal items

The distance learning environment makes me feel uncomfortable when asking questions.

I feel the compressed video technology improves the learning process.

I am intimidated by the microphones and cameras.

I like the convenience of being able to take classes at a site closer to my home.

Once I got used to the equipment, the compressed video technology, a class in this environment is just like any other course.

I was instructed on the first night about how to use the compressed video technology.

Satisfaction items

Overall, I am satisfied with the distance learning experience.

I would be willing to take a course in the compressed video classroom environment again.

Overall, I consider this method of instruction delivery to be adequate.

The pace of the distance classroom lectures is too fast.

Overall I consider this method of instruction to be excellent.

Accessibility indicators

I feel isolated from my classmates at the remote sites.

The camera makes me feel shy or uncomfortable about asking questions of the instructor.

I have trouble paying attention when the instructor is not at my site.

My interaction with the instructor was inhibited due to the format.

I feel that the instructor is intimidated by the cameras and microphones.

Rural indicators

Please indicate your driving time to the university campus site, the local (community) site.

Do you consider yourself to live in an urban, rural, or suburban area?

Determinant Attributes

Please indicate the primary reason you enrolled in this course:

Convenience to my home

Required course

Learning style

Time

Content

Instructor

Other

Note. Items included were assessed with a Likert-type scale indicating levels of agreement.

~~~~~~~~

By Melodie R. Phillips and Mary Jane Peters

In this study, a review of the professional literature from 1985 through 1999 was conducted to identify any reports of technology-mediated distance education programs designed to prepare special education and related services personnel in rural areas. Data collection involved an index search of refereed journals as well as conference programs or proceedings of professional organizations, an online search of Web sites of colleges and universities, and contacts with professional colleagues known to be engaged in distance education. For each reference or report located, data were collected to answer questions related to the target population, the technologies used for delivery, the program components, the funding sources, and the intended outcomes of the program. Where needed data were lacking, researchers sought additional information by reviewing the program's Web site, brochure or other material, and interviewing personnel reposnsible for each program to clarify inconsistencies to obtain missing data. Analysis of the data revealed that many of the distance education programs that currently exist in special education and related services are focussed on personnel preparation in rural areas. In addition, the technologies utilized for distance education have changed considerably over time as new options became available, with most programs making use of a combination of media for distance delivery. The demonstrated longevity of many distance education programs suggests that this mode of delivery will continue to have a major impact on personnel supply and demand in rural special education and disability services in the years to come.

Distance education is a "hot topic" in today's world. People read newpaper articles about it, see magazine advertisements for it, and view television programs on it. Professionals write journal articles on topics and issues associated with distance education and discuss them at conference presentations and organizational meetings. Policymakers and practitioners debate the merits of different technologies for delivering educational programs to various audiences. Teacher educators experiment with new models of distance education for preservice and inservice training. In fact, many instructors and learners have already experienced distance education, by giving or taking a training session or completea course via television or the Internet. Educators in special education and disability services have been quick to appreciate the importance of technology-mediated distance education in addressing critical personnel shortages, especially in rural areas. The present study examines the growth of distance education programs to prepare personnel in rural areas over the past 15 years and discusses the implications of patterns and trends for the future.

An extensive review of the professional literature suggests a relationship between personnel shortages in special education and disability services, an ongoing need for innovative models of personnel preparation at the preservice and inservice levels, and the development of distance education models designed to prepare personnel in rural areas.

Insuring an adequate supply of appropriately trained and certified professional personnel to meet the need for special educators and related services specialists in local schools has been a problem that has plagued the field since its inception. Nationally, there has been a critical and persistent shortage of teachers and therapists to fill positions in many areas of the country for the past several decades (Boe, Cook, Bobbit, & Terhanian, 1998; Lauritzen, 1988; Smith-Davis & Billingsley, 1993). The shortage is attributable to two major forces: the inablility of institutions of higher education to prepare sufficient numbers of new personnel to meet the demand (Broyles & Morgan, 1992; Hales & Carlson, 1992) and to the attrition of veteran personnel who leave positions due to personal or professional reasons (Billingsley, 1993; Lauritzen & Friedman, 1993). This persistent supply-demand imbalance continues to threaten the quality of special education and disability services provided in the nation's public schools and community agencies.

Shortages have been especially severe in rural areas, which reportedly experience nearly a 100% turnover of special education personnel in a three year period (Helge & Marrs, 1982; Hicks, 1994). Rural schools often are unable to fill positions, because new teachers and therapists tend to select higher paying jobs in more attractive urban and suburban areas (Helge, 1992; Lemke, 1995). In addition, attrition is higher in rural schools, where personnel may face the challenges of geographic and social isolation, as well as limited training and resources (Keiper & Busselle, 1996; Westling & Whitten, 1996). Difficulties in recruiting and retaining qualified personnel jeopardize access to a free appropriate education and adult habilitation programs in many rural communities (Berkeley & Ludlow, 1991; Bowen & Klass, 1993). These problems have made personnel preparation one of the most critical issues in rural special education and disability services today.

Educators have made many efforts over the years to address personnel shortages in rural schools. State education agencies authorized schools to hire some personnel on emergency permits or out-of field authorizations to fill vacant position in special education and disability services (Bornfield, et al., 1997; Singer, 1992). Some rural school systems have offered recruitment incentives in an effort to attract qualified teachers and therapists into available positions (Billingsley & Cross, 1991). Schools also instituted staff development programs to support personnel in their jobs and encourage them to remain in rural areas (Lemke, 1994). Institutions of higher education collaborated with state, regional, and local education agencies to design and deliver innovative, field-based training programs to provide on-the-job training to practicing, but uncertified, personnel working in rural schools and community agencies (Luft, 1993). Educators hoped that these "grow your own" programs would enable local schools and other agencies to hire individuals with an existing commitment to live and work in a rural area and guarantee access to quality training to obtain state licensure in special education or disability services.

Initial efforts to address the personnel shortages in special education and disability services sparked a variety of innovative efforts to make personnel preparation programs more accessible to prospective and practicing educators in rural areas. At first, these programs provided coursework required for certification on campus in the evenings, on weekends, or during the summer months (Berkeley & Ludlow, 1991; Jensen, Mortoff, & Meyers, 1992). Later, some programs began to allow instructors to travel offcampus to provide instruction at remote sites and to conduct practicum experiences in students' own job settings (Ludlow & Lombardi, 1992). These field-based programs improved the accessibility of preservice and inservice programs to interested individuals in rural areas, but they required an immense effort in time, energy, and expense related to travelling long distances (Ludlow, 1995; Sebastian, 1995). Personnel preparation programs soon looked to technology for a solution to bridging these distances.

Rapid developments in telecommunications technologies at the end of the 20th century gave impetus to the movement to utilize distance education for teaching and learning applications. Colleges and universities with personnel preparation programs in special education or related services serving rural areas were among the original "early adopters" of technology-mediated instruction (Ludlow, 1995; Squires, 1996). The earliest reports of distance education efforts were published in the mid-1980s in the Rural Special Education Quarterly, the quarterly refereed journal of the American Council on Rural Special Education. The first description of a preservice distance education program in the field was reported by the University of Utah (Egan, McLeary, Sebastian, & Lacy, 1989), while the first description of an inservice program was reported by Utah State University (Rule & Stowitscheck, 1991). As time went on, a growing number of programs were initiated, especially in low incidence areas such as severe/multiple disabilities (Spooner, 1996) or early intervention (Hughes & Forest, 1997). As educators began to share successful applications of distance education through journal articles, conference presentations, and informal networking activities, faculty at other colleges and universities soon recognized the promise of technology-mediated instruction for preparing personnel in other rural areas.

Distance education is now definitely established in personnel preparation in special education and disability services, especially among institutions responsible for rural areas. Over the last two decades, educators have debated the advantages, disadvantages, and appropriate applications of distance education for preparing teachers and therapists (Howard, Ault, Knowlton, & Swall, 1992; Sindelar & Marks, 1993). However, little is known about the sope and structure of the distance education programs currently in existence (Ludlow, 1998). Nevertheless, the persistent critical shortages of teachers and therapists in rural areas suggests that special education, as a professional discipline, needs a better understanding of the nature of distance education and its impact on the preparation of personnel.

The present study was planned to locate, survey, and compare distance education programs designed to prepare personnel for special education and disability services in rural areas from 1985 through 1999. The goal was to gather sufficient information about existing programs to describe current practices, identify emerging trends, and predict future directions, and to assess their potential impact on critical issues in rural personnel preparation issues.

Data for this study were collected through a variety of means to obtain the broadest possible representation of the use of distance education in personnel preparation programs in special education and disability services. The research involved the following activities:

1. review of the tables of content for all issues of major professional journals addressing personnel preparation issues and published from 1985 through 1999 (Exceptional Children, Journal of Special Education, Remedial and Special Education, Teacher Education and Special Education, Journal of Special Education and Technology, Journal of Early Intervention, and Rural Special Education Quarterly) to identify any articles reporting on distance education programs;
2. review of the titles, descriptions and/or abstracts of all sessions printed in professional conference programs or proceedings likely to address personnel preparation issues and puplished from 1985 through 1999 (Council for Exceptional Children (including its Teacher Education Division, Technology and Media Division, and), The Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, and the American Council on Rural Special Education) to identify presentations on distance education programs;
3. an online search of books and articles in print (using the descriptors special education plus personnel preparation, teacher education, rural education, distance education, distance learning, technology, telecourse, satellite, compressed video, interactive video, interactive television, based instruction, and online courses) from 1985 through 1999 to identify any other published reports of distance education programs;
4. an online search of the ERIC system to identify documents (using the descriptors listed above) from 1985 through 1999 to identify other reports of distance education programs;
5. a Web search via using the Excite and Yahoo search engines (using the descriptors listed above) to identify any other programs offered but not reported in the literature; and
6. personal contact with colleagues known to be involved in distance education programs to determine if they were aware of other distance education programs not reported in the literature.

A three-part rubric was developed to guide the data collection and analysis process and to select distance education programs for inclusion in the study:

1. "distance education" was defined as instructional activities in which the instructor and learners were separated by some physical distance; and
2. "program" was defined as a series of courses or workshops offered toward some specific outcome, such as a certificate or degree; and
3. "rural" was defined as a program that identified itself as providing primary or secondary service to a rural area (either rural campuses or rural field-based sites).

This rubric allowed permitted elimination from consideration those programs in which instructors travelled to remote sites for offcampus instruction, those reports that noted only a single course or training session with no continuity over time, and those institutions that did not have rural service areas. As a result of applying this rubric, a total of 32 programs reported to be using distance education to prepare personnel in special education or related services in rural areas of the country were identified over the 15 years of the study. This study reports only the data and findings from these rural distance education programs.

Each of the 32 identified programs was catalogued by entering data into a computer database using Filemaker Pro software. Data were entered on 25 parameters: sponsoring institution; location; program name; area(s) of specialization; target audience; program outcome; program level; type of technology; funding source; start date; years of operation; scope of service area; delivery method; percent distance delivery; program faculty; total credit hours; course requirements; practicum requirements; other requirements; administration; unique features; contact name; address; phone; email. When adequate information on these parameters was not available from the existing data collected during the search process, resarchers made the effort to contact someone responsible for the program by telephone or email to supply missing facts or clarify unclear data. Such followup data were then added to the database to insure that all pertinent data were obtained and confirmed.

The findings and interpretations presented here reflect the study's best effort to provide a "snapshot" of the state of the art of distance education for personnel preparation in special education and disability services at this point in time. Unfortunately, obtaining a definitive portrait of distance education is difficult, because programs are changing rapidly as they adapt to emerging technologies and changing needs. Undoubtedly, there are other distance education programs that exist, but could not be located through the searcg mechanisms used in this study. In addition, much of the information about these programs is reported in different ways or in different formats and data parameters are presented using terms that are relevant to a specific funding agency or institution of higher education, so it was somewhat difficult to make comparisons. Nevertheless, the data reported here are as accurate as possible as of January 2000 when the final review of data was conducted and obviously cannot reflect any changes since that time.

Information in the database and accompany materials on each of the 32 rural distance education programs was reviewed to compare and contrast features and identify any patterns or trends in the data. This analysis revealed variations in distance education applications across the United States, including similarities and differences between programs as well as changes in uses of specific technologies over time and allows for cautious interpretation of the meaning of current practices, emerging trends, and future directions.

This study located 32 programs using distance education for personnel preparation in special education and disability services in rural areas during the 15 year period from 1985 through 1999. The earliest such program appears to be the one implemented at the University of Utah in the mid-1980s; other early adopters included Utah State University, the University of Maine, West Virginia University), and the University of Kentucky, each initiated early in the 1990s. All but a few of these programs have a continuous history of existence, although in some cases the target audience or the type of technology employed by the program has changed over time. Table 1 presents summary data for all programs, which are discussed in detail in the following sections.

Sponsoring institution. Sponsoring institutions were classified as institutions of higher education, state or local educational agencies, or professional organizations. In most cases (25 out of 29 programs), distance education programs were developed and operated by institutions of higher education, generally a land-grant or other large university in a rural state. A few (four) programs were designed and managed through collaboration between universities, either within one state, as in North Carolina or Kentucky or across multiple states in a region, as in the consortium in the upper West headquartered in Utah. Only one program was initiated by a state education agency (Hawaii), while no programs were established by school systems, either alone or through collaborative efforts. Two programs were instituted by a professional organization in collaboration with a university (the Council for Exceptional Children (CEC) and the University of Wisconsin Madison (UWM) and the National Association of State Directors of Special Education (NASDSE) and the University of New Mexico (UNM)).

Program location. The study identified 32 programs in 27 states with a considerable population base in rural areas. Figure 1 disaplays the location of these programs on a national map.

A review of the map shows that. while most programs were in substantially rural states, a number of similarly rural states did not have any distance education programs. Two states (Utah and Kentucky) had three programs and one state (California) had two programs. One program, located at the University of Utah, in actually represented a consortium of several states in the upper West. The remaining programs had a single program, often serving a local or statewide area.

Service area. Service areas were categorized into four types: local, statewide, regional, or national, depending on how broad a geographic area was targeted by the program. Most programs (23 out of 32) were classified as having local or statewide service areas, defined as limiting their service to the state or even particular areas within the state; two examples of such programs are those housed at the University of Maine and the University of Kentucky. A few (five) programs were classified as having a regional service area, defined as more than one state; the program at West Virginia University serves the central Appalachian region, while the Utah Consortium Project serves several states in the upper West. Only four programs were classified as having a national service area: the vision impairments programs at the University of Lousiville; the University of Georgia's professional development course on the topic of attention deficit disorder; the UWM-CEC collaborative continuing education program and the UNM-NASDSE collaborative program in assistive technology.

Specialization area. More than half (22 of 32) of the programs are designed to prepare personnel in low incidence areas: seven programs in the area of severe/multiple disabilities; nine programs in early intervention or early childhood special education; three programs in the area of vision impairments; one program in deaf education; one program in severe emotional disturbance; and one program for speech and language therapy. No programs currently prepare other related services personnel such as occupational and physical therapist. Only a few (six) programs prepare personnel in high incidence areas. The remaining four programs address special topics such as Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, inclusive education and, assistive technology through continuing education activities.

Program level/outcome. Most (25 out of 32) of these programs are certification and/or degree programs offered for practicing preservice and inservice personnel; only seven programs are intended as staff development for inservice personnel. In addition, nearly all (27 out of 32) of the certification programs are offered at the graduate level; only two programs (at Utah State University and the collaborative effort between the University of Hawaii at Manoa and the Hawaii Department of Education) offer certification at the undergraduate level.

Technology type. These programs use a wide variety of technologies to deliver their courses and many have changed the type of technology over the years. The most frequently used technology is some form of video, with nine programs using one-way video broadcasts via satellite (with two-way audio via telephone conferencing or two-way closed-circuit television via microwave relay systems) and 11 programs using two-way interactive compressed video via telephone lines. Several programs rely on low-tech delivery systems for distance education. For example, four programs use some form of audioconferencing, like the University of Indiana's audiographics system, while eight programs use videotapes, such as the University of Utah's Professor Plus series. A few (five) programs recently have begun to use applications of the Internet and World Wide Web for distance education; in particular, the consortium program in the upper West housed at the University of Utah uses Web-based videoconferencing to deliver instruction. Most programs adopted the technology that was most widely available at the time of initial implementation, and several programs have switched to different delivery systems as new technologies emerged. Figure 2 displays the prevalence of types of technologies in distance education programs over the 15 year period from 1985 through 1999.

Delivery mode. Each program's mode of delivery was characterized as campus-based (if some program requirements had to be completed on campus) or field-based (if all program requirements could be completed at a distance. The majority (25 of 32) programs used field-based delivery, while only seven programs used some campus-based delivery in addition to distance education activities.

Funding source. Programs relied on a variety of funding sources to support development and operation of the technologies used for distance education. Many (22 out of 32) programs reported obtaining start-up funds from federal agencies, often through personnel preparation grants from the U.S. Office of Special Education and Rehabilitation Services. Several (10) programs also reported assistance from state sources, either through state-funded telecommunications networks (as in Kentucky and West Virginia) or from state education agencies (as in Utah and Hawaii). A few programs indicated that students paid additional fees to support distance education activities. Two programs, the electronic study groups in the UWM-CEC collaborative and the UNMNASDSE assistive technology training, received some funding support from a professional organization.

The data from the 32 rural programs examined in this study shed important new light on many aspects of the application of technology-mediated distance education to personnel preparation in special education and disability services. Data analysis revealed many similarities and differences in the programs as well as apparent patterns in the evolution of distance education applications over the 15 year period of the study. In fact, these data hold no surpises for educators familiar with personnel preparation issues in general and programs offered in rural areas in particular. Nevertheless, the findings offer additional insights into the present implementation and future development of distance education programs to prepare personnel for rural service.

Key program features. The features of these programs reveal the potential impact of distance education on rural special education and disability services. Distance education is most likely to be used to facilitate the post-baccalaureate or graduate preparation of personnel in low incidence areas, and least likely to be used for undergraduate preservice programs in high incidence areas. Nearly all of the programs are targeted at the areas of highest need for personnel in special education and disability services, suggesting that rural educators have focused distance education efforts on addressing the most pressing personnel shortages in rural areas (Helge, 1992; Hicks, 1994) or recognizing the urgent need for staff development activities in isolated locations with limited resources (Kannapel & DeYoung, 1999; Keiper & Busselle, 1996), rather than on the expansion of program enrollment to new areas or populations. In addition, most programs are sponsored by a large university or a collaborative arrangement between universities and state education agencies or professional organizations. Because the design and delivery of technology-mediated distance education requires considerable expertise with respect to both content knowledge and technical skills (Spooner, et al., 1998), universities are most likley to have the range of personnel and material resources needed for success. It also is not at all surprising that these personnel preparation programs relied on state and federal funds to support their distance education efforts. The use of telecommunications technologies for distance education is an expensive undertaking, demanding substantial development costs and operational expenses unlikely to be available without external funding (Ludlow, 1995). Finally, distance education programs take advantage of emerging technologies, adapting their delivery modes to changing times. Such adaptation reflects the need to make the most effective and efficient use of each technology's ability to promote teaching and learning in presenting content areas or accomplishing learning goals (Ludlow & Duff, 1998). A review of these data can provide guidance to educational agencies considering whether and what kind of distance education models and technologies may be appropriate to their own situations.

Distance education impact. The widespread use of distance education technologies to prepare special education and related services personnel for rural schools and community agencies suggests that distance education is a major force in the field in today's world. In addition, the longevity of these distance education programs bears witness to their success in providing preservice and inservice training to teachers and therapists in rural schools. These facts support the contention that technology-mediated distance education will continue to be an important factor in personnel preparation in special education and disability services (at least in some areas of special education and in some areas of the country) for many years to come (Ludlow, 1995; Spooner, 1996; Schnorr, 1999. But these data, and the published reports upon which they are based, provide only limited evidence of the long-term outcomes of distance education programs. Educators have argued for a decade that distance education could be a promising strategy for reducing critical shortages, especially in rural areas and delivering a quality training program (Howard, et al., 1992; Ludlow, 1998). However, research to date has failed to conclusively demonstrate the effectiveness of distance education in achieving specific outcomes (Phipps & Merisotis, 1999; Russell, 1999). Consequently, personnel preparation programs need to report data not only on the number of individuals trained in, certified through, or graduated from these programs, but also conduct follow-up studies of the retention and attrition rates for special education and rlated services personnel trained at a distance. Without proof that personnel prepared through this approach do indeed pursue and maintain employment in the field, especially in rural areas, the ultimate success of distance education and its impact on the special education and disability services cannot truly be evaluated.

The pupose of this study was to conduct a survey to determine the components of existing distance education programs preparing special education and related services personnel for rural areas. In this section, the data collected and analyzed by the researchers is used to describe current practices, identify emerging trends, and predict future directions in the use of technology-mediated instruction for distance education and personnel preparation.

These findings represent an overview of the state of the art in distance education used for personnel preparation in special education and disability services. The data suggest that existing programs share three primary characteristics: limited focus; need for external support; and program sustainability.

Limited focus. It is clear that educators do not see distance education as the solution to all of the problems in personnel preparation for rural schools. In fact, these programs are quite clearly focused on a rather limited subset of special education and disability services personnel, most notably low incidence disabilities. There are probably several factors that explain this narrow focus on low incidence areas: these areas are generally recognized as having the most critical personnel shortages (ASCUS, 1998; USDOE, 1999); such training programs have the lowest cost-effectiveness ratios and the least support from institutions of higher education (Bowen & Klass, 1993; Ludlow, 1998); and recruitment and retention in these areas is made more difficult by negative attitudes toward severe disabilities and perceptions of more stressful working conditions (Weber & Toffler, 1989; Westling & Whitten, 1996). This idea is supported by the fact that federal funding for personnel preparation is more readlily for low incidence disabilities, recognizing the need for external support of high cost, low enrollment training programs.

Need for external support. Nearly all of these programs reported relying on some source of external support for initial development if not for ongoing operation of technology-mediated distance education models to prepare teachers and therapists to work in rural areas. Facilities and services associated with the use of telecommunications technologies are expensive to create and maintain (Halpern, 1994; Owston, 1997). Few institutions of higher education and nearly all local education agencies could not afford the costs associated with technology-mediated instruction without support from external funding sources. This underscores the continuing need for such support, particularly from grant funding of distance education efforts and especially for low incidence disabilities and in rural areas (Simpson, et al., 1993; Ludlow, 1998). State and federal agencies as well as national professional organization will continue to play an important role in the application of distance education in personnel preparation for special educators and related services specialists.

Program sustainability. Perhaps the most promising finding is that most of today's distance education programs have been around for quite sometime and seem poised to continue operation well into the future. The two programs in Utah are still going strong after 15 years of operation and the programs in West Virginia and Kentucky have passed the decade mark. This suggests that distance education is a viable model for personnel preparation in in rural areas and that the programs have been sufficiently successful in maintaining enrollments, in recovering costs, and in increasing the supply of personnel to meet the demand in rural schools ad community agencies (Howard, et al., 1992; Ludlow, 1995; Sebastian, 1995). However, the fact that these programs meet the immediate need, but the shortages continue to exist, suggests a paradox: if distance education has been successful, why is it still necessary? Nevertheless, although the overall problem of personnel shortages reflects a number of factors outside the scope of personnel preparation, distance education can at least be major factor in keeping an adequate supply of newly trained personnel in the pipeline.

Several emerging trends in distance education can be deduced from a review of the programs described in this study and a careful reading of the professional literature. These trends include: collaborative efforts; evolving technologies; and technology combinations.

Collaborative efforts. The data reveal a clear trend in which programs are engaging in more collaborative efforts in offering distance education program to rural areas. Such collaboration may involve institutions within a single state (as in Kentucky or North Carolina) or may include institutions across several states in a region (such as the consortium in the upper West headquartered in Utah). Such collaboration is understandable as a response to several interacting factors. The high development and operational costs associated with technology-mediated instruction promotes sharing of resources across institutions, especially within state boundaries, to distribute expenses and improve cost-recovery (Owston, 1997). Technology-based delivery systems, such as those developed in several states, often require colleges and universities to cross-list courses (West Virginia), team teach courses (Kentucky), or share program responsibilities (North Carolina). Funding incentives provided by state and federal agencies may encourage such collaboration to insure wise use of resources (Ludlow, 1995). In fact, personnel preparation grants offered by the U.S. Office of Special Education and Rehabilitation Services to support low incidence personnel preparation programs now include collaborative efforts or a regional service area as a requiremnent for funding. Finally, collaboration may be an effort to minimize the likelihood of competition between programs seeking enrollments or resources by deliberately creating opportunities to share resources and revenues (Ludlow & Duff, 1998). It is probable that collaboration in distance education will continue to grow, since the quality of personnel preparation programs can be enhanced by pooling instructor expertise, distributing workload assignments, and permitting greater use of expensive technology facilities and services.

Evolving models. Data collected in this study suggest that there has been a gradual evolution in the types of technologies used for distance education in preparing rural teachers and therapists. Today's programs use more sophisticated technologies than programs used in the past (e.g., use of audioconferencing has given way to two-way videoconferencing; use of live television broadcasts is begin replaced by Web-based multimedia). They also make greater use of technology for different aspects of teaching and learning (e.g., assignments once sent by surface mail may now be transmitted by facsimile machine or email attachment; desktop conferencing is being used instead of live visits for practicum supervision). This evolution represents that availability of new technologies with greater capacities for interaction (Schnorr, 1999) as well as growing familiarty and comfort with technologies on the part of instructors and learners (Spooner, et al. 1998). Distance education programs will continue to represent dynamic, evolving models of personnel preparation, that constantly change and adapt to new circumstances, as educators strive to capatalize on the capabilities offered by newer technologies.

Technology combinations. This study reveals that distance education programs are beginning to move away from reliance on a single technology and moving toward the adoption of multiple technologies, each selected to accomplish a different function of teaching and learning. A few examples illustrate this process. The University of Kentucky has been using interactive video for some courses and satellite broadcasts in others, and now is beginning to offer some parts of the program on the Web. West Virginia University will begin offering all courses in its program partly by satellite and partly on the Web beginning with the next academic year. Utah State University has moved away from use of satellite and compressed video to more extensive use of Web-based instruction and desktop videoconferencing. Such technology combinations will become even easier through the increasing digitization of media, which will allow television broadcasts, telephone conversations, and Internet access to be seamlessly interfaced in a single course or program (Fidler, 1997; Negroponte, 1999). Research in technology-mediated instruction suggests that different media are equally effective for teaching and learning, but perhaps are best used to accomplish certain learning goals or to address individual learning styles (Clark, 1994; Kozma, 1994). It is apparent that no one technology, no specific organization, and no single set of features works in all settings or for all purposes, so instructors must learn to use the technology best suited to a specific purpose (Van Horn, 1998). Use of multiple technologies will continue to increase, as instructors learn how to adopt and adapt technologies to prepare and deliver better content presentations and to provide more dynamic learner interactions in distance education programs.

Although a single survey study provide no crystal ball with a vision of the future, it is possible to make some general predictions about the future status of distance education based upon the findings in this study and the discussion in the current literature. Some probable developments in distance education for personnel preparation in special education and disability services in rural areas include: on demand programs; growing competition; and new inservice training opportunities.

On demand programs. The success of these distance distance education programs suggests a greater desire on the part of learners and an increasing willingness on the part of instructors, to engage in on-demand learning. On-demand learning opportunities allow learners to access content knowledge at any time, in any place, and from any source (Burton, 1994; Storck & Sproull, 1995). Most instructors and learners have a long history of real time or synchronous learning experiences, typically through face-to-face interactions in a classroom setting, and distance education programs often attempt to simulate that model of instruction. Today's programs are becoming more interested in exploring delayed time or asynchronous learning experiences, using computer- or Web-based multimedia applications, as instructors and learners become more technologically literate. However, this will mean that instructors will need to develop skills for creating virtual learning environments, conducting threaded discussions and collaborative projects, and designing feedback strategies that anticipate learner needs (Burton, 1994; Wagner, 1996). Learners will need to develop skills for searching resources, collaborating with experts and peers, and planning and organizing their own learning experiences (Dillon, 1992; Valcke, 1993). In addition, it is now possible to create "virtual universities" that allow learners to develop an individually tailored program by selecting course offerings from several institutions (Schnorr, 1999). These developments will significantly transform the nature of program organization as well as the roles of instructors amd learners in the personnel preparation programs of the future.

Growing competition. It is possible to foresee a time when distance education programs may actually compete for enrollments or resources, whether within a given state, across a geographic region, or even nationally or internationally. The potential for such competition already exists: programs which offers courses by satellite (the program in West Virginia has had a few students in North Carolina, who could have been served by that system). Programs offered via the Internet (such as the consortium in the upper West based in Utah) are potentially accessible by students across the country. Expanding use of the World Wide Web will only increase the likelihood of competition, since the growing availability of Internet connections in most rural communities will allow learners to choose among an array of programs (Katz, et al., 1999). Such universal availability of personnel preparation programs will encourage preservice and inservice teachers and therapists to select programs based on considerations of quality, cost, and accessibility without the constraints of distance or time (Ldulow & Duff, 1998). This situation will raise several crucial questions: will it be necessary for programs to file for and be granted approval to offer licensure by more than one state? will state education agencies be torn between supplying funds to their own institutions of higher education or accessing quality programs at institutions outside the state? At present, educators are working to establish national certification and licensure standards to insure that special education and disability services personnel are qualified to teach across state boundaries (Ludlow, 1998). Personnel preparation programs that meet national standards for certification (such as those established by the National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) and the Council for Exceptional Children (CEC) (CEC, 2000) will be better positioned to enter and win this competition.

New inservice training opportunities. These data reveal that distance education has only rarely been used to provide inservice training opportunities for practicing special education and related services personnel. Teachers and therapists in rural areas often have little or no access to quality staff development due to the limited resources and geographic isolation of rural schools (Kannapel & DeYoung, 1999; Keiper & Busselle, 1996). Unfortunately, most educational agencies continue to rely on traditional inservice models, such as workshops and conferences (Guskey & Passaro, 1994; Sexton, et al., 1996), despite growing evidence that they are unsuccessful in encouraging practitioners to implement new practices in the classroom or clinic. Yet, distance education has enormous potential for delivering accessible and high quality training to practicing special educators and related services specialists in rural areas, precisely because of the widespread availability of new technologies (Helge, 1992; Ludlow, 1995). Once educators realize this potential, the field will see expanding use of technology-mediated distance education to provide staff development opportunities on the local, state, and even national levels.

This purely descriptive study was designed to examine the current status of distance education as it is used for preparation of special education and related services personnel in rural areas. No doubt the success of these programs will encourage other institutions of higher education, state education agencies, and professional organizations to consider the possibilities of technology-mediated instruction. In addition, the development and implementation features of these programs provide some glimpse into the future course of distance education in preparing teachers and therapists for rural areas. However, the researchers made no attempt to assess the effectuveness of distance education programs in addressing personnel shortages in rural areas or in achieving specific program outcomes. Indeed, insufficient data have been reported in the professional literature to even begin to answer this question, let alone examine this area. Nevertheless, the findings and interpretations of this study reveal the state of the art in distance education for rural personnel preparation in special education and disability services as the profession enters the 21st century. Distance education has made a powerful start in addressing the personnel needs of rural areas and offers a promising future in improving not only the accessibility of preservice and inservice training programs for rural teachers and therapists, but also the quality of the services they provide to children, adolescents, and adults with disabilties in rural schools and community agencies.

Direct all correspondence to: Barbara Ludlow, Special Education Programs, P.O. Box 6122, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV 26505-6122, 304-293-3450 (phone), 304-293-6834 (fax), bludlow@wvu.edu

Legend for Chart:

A - Sponsoring Institution
B - Program Location
C - Service Area
D - Specialization Area
E - Program Level/Outcome
F - Technology Type
G - Delivery Mode
H - Funding Source

A                                                             B
                                   C            D             E
                                   F            G             H

1.  U. Of Arkansas                                            AR
                                    S          SLP     CRT,MS/MA
                                   VT            F             F

2.  Bowl Green State U                                        OH
                                    L      MI, SMD     CRT,MS/MA
                                   VT            F             F

3.  California State U                                        CA
    @ Chico                         L         SPED           CRT
                                   BC            C             U

4.  Grand Valley State U                                      MI
                                    S           EI           CRT
                                   BC            F             U

5.  Indiana U                                                 IN
                                    L    MI,LD,SED           CRT
                                   VC            F             F

6.  Murray State U                                            KY
                                    S         SPED           CRT
                                   VC            C             F

7.  Oklahoma State U                                          OK
                                    S           EI           CRT
                                   BC            F           S&U

8.  San Jose State U                                          CA
                                    L           MI     CRT,MA/MS
                                VC,BC            C             U

9.  Southeastern Louisiana U                                  LA
                                    S           EI           CRT
                                   BC            F             S

10. Texas Women's U                                           TX
                                    S          SLP     CRT,MA/MS
                                   VC            F           S&U

11. U of Alabama                                              AL
    @ Birmingham                    S           VI     MA/MS,CRT
                                   VT            C             U

12. U of Alaska                                               AK
                                    S           EI     CRT,MA/MS
                             AC,VT&IW            F           S&F

13. U of Georgia                                              GA
                                    N            O            PD
                                   IW            F             F

14. U of Hawaii                                               HI
                                    S         SPED           CRT
                                   VC            F           S&F

15. U of Kansas                                               KS
                                    R           HI           CRT
                                   VC            F             F

16. U of Kentucky                                             KY
                                    S       EI,SMD     CRT,MS/MA
                                VC,BC            F         F,S&U

17. U. of Louisville                                          KY
                                    N           VI     MA/MS,CRT
                                   BC            C             U

18. U of Maine                                                ME
                                    S          SMD     MA/MS,CRT
                                   VC            C             F

19. U of Montana                                              MT
                                    S            O            PD
                                   VC            F             F

20. U of Nevada @ Reno                                        NV
                                    L           EI       CRT,CEU
                                   AC            F             F

21. U of New Mexico                                           NM
                                   NB            O            PD
                                   VT            F           P&U

22. U of NC @ Charlotte                                       NC
                                    S          SMD     MA/MS,CRT
                                   VC            F             F

23. Northern AZ U                                             AZ
                                    R         SPED     MA/MS,CRT
                                   VT            F        SD,F,U

24. U of N. Colorado                                          CO
                                    R           VI      MNMS,CRT
                                   IW            F             F

25. U of S. Dakota                                            SD
                                    S           EI            PD
                                VT,AC            F           F&S

26. U of Utah                                                 UT
                                    S       MI,SMD           CRT
                             BC,VT,VC            F           S&F

27. U of Wisconsin                                            WI
                                    N            O            PD
                                   IW            I           P&F

28. U of Wyoming                                              WY
                                    S           EI            PD
                                   AC            F           F&S

29. Utah Consortium                                           UT
                                    R          SMD           CRT
                                   IW            F             F

30. Utah State U                                              UT
                                    S           MI     CRT,BA/BS
                                   VC            F             F

31. West Virginia U                                           WV
                                    R       SMD,EI     MA/MS,CRT
                                   BC            F           F&S

32. Oregon Consortium                                         OR
                                    S         SPED           CRT
                                   VC            C             F

Key:

1. Sponsoring Institution - State Initials
2. Service Area:

L - local

S - state

R - regional

N - national

3. Specialization Area(s):

EI - early intervention

HI - hearing impaired

LD - learning disabilities

SED - severe emotional disorders

MI - mild disabilities

SMD - severe multiple disabilities

SPED - gen. special education

SLP - speech language pathology

VI - visual impairments

O - other

4. Program Level/Outcome:

BA - bachelors degree

MA - masters degree

CRT - certification

CEU - continuing education credits

PD - professional development

5. Technology:

AC - Audio Conferencing

BC - broadcast television/satellite

I/W - Internet Web

VC - video conferencing

VT - video tapes

6. Delivery Mode:

C - campus based component

F - field-based

7. Funding Source:

F - federal

S - state

U - university

P - professional org.

MAP: Figure 1

GRAPH: Figure 2

Association for School, College, and University Staffing. (1998). Teacher supply and demand in the United States: 1998 report. Addison, IL: Author

Bender, W. N., McLaughlin, P. J., & Ehrhart, L. M. (1993). ADDNET network: A low-end technology success. T.H.E. Journal, 21(2), 96-100.

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

Billingsley, B.S. (1993). Teacher retention and attrition in special and general education: A critical review of the literature. Journal of Special Education, 27(3), 137174.

Billingsley, B. S., & Cross, L. H. (1991a). General education teachers' interest in special education teaching: Deterrents, incentives, and training needs. Teacher Education and Special Education, 14(3), 162-168.

Boe, E. E., Cook, L. H., Bobbitt, S.A., & Terhanian, G. (1998). The shortage of fully certified teachers in special and general education. Teacher Education and Special Education, 21(3), 1-21.

Bornfield, G., Hall, N., Hall, P., & Hoover, J. H. (1997). Leaving rural special education positions: It's a matter of roots. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 16(1), 30-37.

Bowen, M. L., & Klass, P. H. (1993). Low-incidence special education teacher preparation: A supply and capacity pilot study. Teacher Education and Special Education, 16(4), 248-257.

Broyles, S., & Morgan, F. (1992). National trends, education degrees conferred. Washington, DC: National Center for Statistics, U. S. Department of Education.

Burton, C. (1994). Using the Internet for teaching, learning, and research. In D. F. Halpern (Ed.), Changing college classrooms: New teaching and learning strategies for an increasingly complex world (pp. 119-212). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Clark, R.E. (1994). Media will never influence learning. Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 2129.

Cooley, E. & Yovanoff, P. (1996). Supporting professionals-at-risk: Evaluating interventions to reduce burnout and improve retention of special educators. Exceptional Children, 62(4), 336-355.

Council for Exceptional Children. (2000). What every special educator must know: The international standards for the preparation and certification of special education teachers (4th. ed), Reston, VA: Author.

Derer, K., Polsgrove, L., & Rieth, H. (1996). A survey of assistive technology applications in schools and recommendations for practice. Journal of Special Education Technology, 13(2), 62-80.

Dillion, C. L. (1992). Learner support: the critical link in distance education. Distance Education, 13(1), 29-45.

Egan, M.W., Mcleary, I.D., Sebastian, J.P., & Lacy, H. (1989). Rural preservice teacher education preparation using two-way interactive television. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 9(3), 27-33.

Fidler, R. (1997). Mediamorphosis: Understanding the new media. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Gold, V., Russell, S.; & Williams, E. (1993). Special education in northwest Ohio: A case study or rural service delivery problems. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 12(3), 42-46.

Guskey, T. R., & Passaro, P. D. (1994). Teacher efficacy: A study of construct dimension. American Education Research Journal, 31(4), 627-643.

Hales, R. M., & Carlson, L. B. (1992). Issues and trends in special education. Lexington, KY: Human Development Institute, University of Kentucky.

Halpern, D.F. (1994). Rethinking college instruction in a changing world. In D. F. Halpern & Associates (Eds.), Changing college classrooms: New teaching and learning strategies for an increasingly complex world (pp. 0000). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Helge, D. (1992). Special education. In M. W. Galbraith (Ed.), Education in the rural American community: A lifelong process (pp. 107-136). Malabar, FL: Krieger Publishing.

Helge, D. I., & Marrs, L. W. (1982). Personnel recruitment and retention in rural America: A growing problem. The Pointer, 26(2), 28-33.

Hicks, J. (1994). Special education in rural areas: Validation of critical issues by selected state directors of special education: Final report. Alexandria, VA: NASDE(ERIC Reproduction Service NO. ED 738 767.

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.

Hughes, M.M., & Forest, S. (1997). Distance education in early intervention personnel preparation. In P. J. Winton, J.A. McCollum, & C. Catlett (Eds.), Reforming personnel preparation in early intervention: Issues, models, and practical strategies (pp. 475-494). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.

Jensen, M. C., Mortoff, S. A., & Myers, S. P. (1992). On-the-job training: Is it the answer to a special personnel shortage? Teacher Education Quarterly, 19(2), 91-101.

Jordan, L., Spooner, F., Calhoun, M.L., Beattie, J., Algozzine, B., & Gallaway, T. (In press). Beyond the large city: Distance education program in learning disabilities at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 18, (3/4).

Kannapel, P.J., & DeYoung, A.J. The rural school problem in 1999: A review and critique of the literature. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 15(2), 67-79.

Katz, R. N. & Associates (Eds.). (1999). Dancing with the devil: Information technology and the new competition in higher education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Keiper, R. & Busselle, K. (1996). The rural educator and stress. Rural Educator, 17(1), 18-21.

Kelly, J.T., & Leckbee, R. (1998). Reality check: What do we really know about technology, and how do we know it? Syllabus, 12(1), 24-26, 53.

Kozma, R.B. (1994). Will media influence learning? Reframing the debate. Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 7-19.

Lemke, J.C. (1994). How to keep qualified teachers in rural and small towns: What administrators need to know. Small Towns, 25(1), 22-25.

Lemke, J. C. (1995). Attracting and retaining special educators in rural and small schools: Issues and solutions. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 14(2), 4752.

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

Ludlow, B. L. (1998b). Using distance education to prepare personnel in severe/multiple disabilities. Developmental Disabilities Bulletin, 26(2), 1-13.

Ludlow, B.L. (1995). Distance education applications in rural special education: Where we've been and where we're going. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 14(2), 45-52.

Ludlow, B. L. (1994). Using distance education to prepare early intervention personnel. Infants and Young Children, 7(1), 51-59.

Ludlow, B.L., & Duff, M.C. (1998). Distance education and tomorrow's schools. Fastback 439. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa.

Ludlow, B. L., & Lombardi, T. P. (1992). Special education in the year 2000: Current trends and future developments. Education and Treatment of Children, 15(2), 147-162.

Luft, V. (1993). Teacher recruitment and retention practices in rural school districts. Rural Educator, 14(2), 20-24.

Negroponte, N. (1993). Being digital. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

Owston, R. D. (1997). The World Wide Web: A technology to enhance teaching and learning? Educational Researcher, 26(1), 27-33.

Parette, J.P. (1997). Assistive technology devices and services. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 32(4), 267-280.

Phipps, R., & Merisotis, J. (1999). What's the difference? A review of contemporary research on the effectiveness of distance learning in higher education. Washington, DC: The Institute for Higher Education Policy.

Rule, S., & Stowitscheck, J.J. (1991). Use of telecommunications for inservice support of teachers with disabilities. Journal of Special Education Technology, 11,(1), 57-63.

Russel, T. L. (1999). The no significant difference phenomenon. Chapel Hill, NC: Office of Instructional Telecommunications, North Carolina State University.

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

Sebastian, J. P. (1995). Using technology to prepare teachers: Future possibilities. In G. A. Slick (Ed.), Emerging trends in teacher preparation: The future of field experience (pp. 60-69). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Sexton, D., Snyder, P., Wolfe, B., Lobman, M., Stricklin, S., & Akers, P. (1996). Early intervention inservice training strategies: Perceptions and suggestions from the field. Exceptional Children, 62(6), 485-495.

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(2), 7-22.

Sindelar, P. T., & Marks, L. J. (1993). Alternative route training: Implications for elementary education and special education. Teacher Education and Special Education, 16(2), 146-154.

Spooner, F. (1996). Personnel preparation: Where we have been and where we may be going in severe disabilities. Teacher Education and Special Education, 19(3), 213-215.

Spooner, F., Spooner, M., Algozzine, B., & Jordan, L. (1998). Distance education and special education: Promises, practices, and potential pitfalls. Teacher Education and Special Education, 21(2), 121-131.

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: Brookes.

Stork, J., & Sproull, L. (1995). Through a glass darkly: What do people learn in video conferences? Human Communication, 22(2), 197-219.

United States Department of Education (USDOE). (1999). Twenty-first annual report to Congress on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Washington, DC: Author.

Valcke, M. M. A. (1993). the actual use of embedded support devices in self-study materials by students. Distance Education, 14(1), 55-84.

Vanttorn, R. (1998). Visions: Enabling technology for programs of distinction. Phi Delta Kappan, 79(5), 477-478.

Wagner, N. (1996). Telecommunications and the changing nature of instructional delivery. Syllabus, 9(9), 10-12.

Weber, D. B., & Toffler, J. D. (1989). Burnout among teachers of students with moderate, severe, or profound mental retardation. Teacher Education and Special Education, 12(2), 117-125.

Westling, D., & Whitten, T. (1996). Rural special education teachers' plans to continue or leave their teaching positions. Exceptional Children, 62(4), 319.355.

~~~~~~~~

By Barbara L. Ludlow and Sara A. Brannan, West Virginia University