In this issue's Teacher Education and Technology column, a description by Belva Collins and Jean Hess of a course offered at the University of Kentucky focused on the delivery of distance education is featured. This overview offers an excellent example of the issues one needs to address in delivering distance education. Similarly, the University of Kentucky offers a model for a course on the delivery of distance education. From their experience, the authors illustrate ways technology can be used to convey content information while also preparing future educators to use this technology in their teaching.

Distance education is becoming a more widespread means of preparing special education teachers and related personnel (Collins & Schuster, in press). In particular, distance education is an efficient method to train personnel: (a) who work in low incidence disabilities where few personnel preparation programs are available, (b) who live in remote, rural regions where students must travel great distances across geographical barriers (e.g., hazardous roads, inclement weather conditions) to access coursework, and (c) who need a flexible coursework schedule due to employment and family obligations. Several such programs (e.g., University of Kentucky, University of North Carolina at Charlotte, Utah State University, West Virginia University) are described on the website of the Teacher Education Division of the Council for Exceptional Children (Ludlow & Spooner) (http://www.tese.uc.edu/). While some special education faculty have delivered individual courses via the internet (Blackhurst, Hales, & Lahm, 1998), most certification programs rely on a single synchronous mode of technology that utilizes television (e.g., interactive video, satellite) or a combination of televised and internet technologies.

Evaluations of coursework have shown that there are few differences in the outcomes for students who participate in coursework through various modes of distance education (e.g., interactive video, audioconferencing, videotapes) (Collins, Hemmeter, Schuster, & Stevens, 1996; Spooner, Jordan, Algozzine, & Spooner, 1999; Yellen, 1998); however, distance education instructors often find that, to be effective, they must acquire a different set of skills than they use in a traditional classroom (Abernathy, 1997; Collins & Grisham-Brown, in press; Ho, 1991; Gilbert & Moore, 1998; Mikovsky, 1997; Schrum, 1996; Shade & Shade, 1995). For example, planning must be conducted in advance, materials must be made to conform to the standards of the technology used, and lectures must formatted to be interactive enough to hold students' attention when they are not in the direct presence of the instructor.

Several institutions have addressed the need to provide advance preparation for instructors who will be delivering distance education coursework by providing training workshops or written materials on effective practices (Baird, 1995; Lawrence, 1996-97; Parisot & Waring, 1994). Based on 10 years of experience of training graduate special education personnel through distance education (e.g., interactive video, satellite, internet, on-site supervision) at the University of Kentucky (UK) (Collins, Schuster, Hall, & Griffen, 1999) and the recognition that future faculty would benefit from having the skills to be effective distance educators, we have developed a doctoral program that focuses on special education distance education in the Department of Special Education and Rehabilitation Counseling (EDSRC) at UK (Blackhurst & Collins, 1996). The remainder of this column will describe the development and revision of a course offered in that program that focuses on specific issues in distance education delivery.

EDSRC doctoral students at UK take a core of coursework that focuses on distance education (e.g., instructional technology, instructional design, telecommunications). In addition, students enroll in practica that allows them to team-teach distance education coursework with experienced faculty. Based on our departmental experience with delivering a graduate program to train personnel in moderate/severe disabilities and early childhood special education, we decided that we needed a supplemental course in the doctoral program that focused on interactive video and satellite technology. As the designer and instructor of this course, my goal was to share my experience in distance education since 1990, and to provide students an opportunity to practice delivery skills through hands-on experiences with the technology. Since doctoral students gain the skills necessary to develop and deliver web-based coursework through a number of courses already offered in the program, I initially offered a course in 1998 that focused solely on skills needed to use television-based technologies.

In developing the distance education delivery course, I first conducted a review of the professional literature. An analysis of the literature allowed me to sort articles into topical areas. I then narrowed the articles down to no more than six per topic. The resulting topics were: (a) planning a distance education course, (b) overviewing satellite and interactive video instruction, (c) planning a distance education class, (d) preparing staff and students for distance education, (e) providing support for distance education programs, (f) comparing distance education models, and (g) identifying problems associated with distance education delivery. In addition to designing class sessions around each of these topics, I added a session in which students visited classrooms that were designed for satellite and interactive video instruction and made short presentations for each other using these two types of technology. I developed each topic to be presented during a 2 1/2 hour session, incorporating various materials (e.g., series of commercial videotapes [Minnesota Satellite and Technology, 1998]) on distance education technology. These included a series of videotapes showing excerpts from distance education classes offered through the EDSRC, a set of instructor-designed supplemental materials for critiquing distance education classes, criteria for developing lesson plans for distance education courses, and timelines for program delivery).

Using previously developed checklists (Collins & Grisham-Brown, in press), I designed activities to be completed both in-class as a group and independently outside of class. In-class, group activities included: (a) watching and discussing videotapes; (b) completing checklists for selecting technology, format, planning, and implementing a course session; (c) developing course and class development timelines and activities; (d) listing advantages and limitations of distance education technologies, (e) discussing readings; (f) practicing with distance education equipment; (g) making and critiquing videotapes of student delivery; (h) listing needed distance education supports and resources; (i) comparing distance education models across variables; (j) observing and critiquing distance education instruction; and (k) discussing issues with a panel of experts. Independent activities outside of class included: (a) developing course timelines and activities, (b) critiquing a distance education class, and (c) writing and delivering a lesson using distance education technology.

Students earned grades for the course based on the following components: (a) participating in class meetings ­ 10%, (b) critiquing a satellite class and an interactive video class ­ 10%, (c) developing activities and timelines for distance education course delivery ­ 25%, (d) practicing a course introduction via satellite ­ 5%, (e) teaching a lesson using interactive video ­ 25%, and (f) developing a lesson plan for a distance education class ­ 25%. To guide the students in these assignments, I designed a form for critiquing distance education, a grading sheet for the activities and timelines, and a suggested lesson plan format.

Nine doctoral students enrolled in the initial offering of the course (EDS 647: Seminar in Special Education Technology: Delivering Distance Education) during in the fall of 1998. All students completed all course activities and received a final grade of "A." At the end of the course, the students completed the course evaluation form that is standard for UK courses. On a scale of 1 (poor) to 4 (excellent), these evaluations yielded a rating of the overall value of the course as 4.0 and the overall quality of teaching as 3.9. Written comments about the course were positive and conveyed student enthusiasm over what they had learned.

One year later, I conducted my own evaluation of the course to assess how useful students had found the course content as time passed. This evaluation consisted of a follow-up questionnaire in which students: (a) provided demographic information, (b) reported distance education experiences in which they had participated since taking the course, (c) rated their perception of how well they were trained in distance education delivery skills, (d) rated the usefulness of the components of the course, and (e) provided suggestions for course improvement. Based on these follow-up data, I noted changes that would be desirable when the course was again offered during the Fall of 2000. (Specific evaluation data are available upon request.)

The first change involved adding technology to deliver the course. While I continued to teach the course face-to-face for on-campus students, a technical team assisted me in taping and videostreaming each class over the Internet within three days following the original class session. This made the course available to students across a broader geographic region and to students who needed more flexibility in scheduling. It also enabled me to model distance education techniques using the internet since students in the traditional on-campus classroom setting also had access to the videostreamed sessions, were required to perform activities to be submitted online, and were required to interact with distant students through threaded online discussions. In addition, I expanded the course readings to include issues in Internet delivery.

Second, in addition to analyzing the evaluation data of the students who participated in the course, I worked with the Director of UK's Distance Learning Programs to convene a focus group of experienced distance educators across disciplines (e.g., agriculture, educational administration, engineering, library and information science, pharmacy). These faculty members offered suggestions for additional content. As a result, the revised course contains 10 modules and a panel discussion. Current course topics are listed in Table 1. In addition, the Director of UK's Distance Learning Programs currently is developing a second course for EDSRC to address distance education administrative, support, and issues (e.g., copyright, library support, regional issues, etc.).

Third, I expanded the class readings across disciplines and included videotaped interviews with experienced distance educators from UK and selected institutions across disciplines (e.g., agriculture, biology, communications, education, engineering, family studies, library and information science, physical therapy). This opened the course to interested students outside of special education (e.g., English, foreign language, communications) and allowed the EDSRC doctoral students to benefit from the experiences of a broader array of faculty. I also selected a sample of videoclips from previous EDSRC distance education courses using satellite and interactive video to use as examples of both effective and ineffective practices. Videoclips of the interviews and classroom practices are presented and discussed during class session.

The resulting distance education delivery course offered to our doctoral students is comprised of a series of modules 2 1/2 hours in length that are placed on a TopClass server. In addition, students participate in a monthly threaded discussion based on a questions posted on the server. Prior to each session, students analyze selected readings from the professional literature on a given topic and submit a response via the Internet (25% of their grade). Within each class session, students complete and submit a short lecture activity based on the topic (e.g., critiquing a taped lesson for ineffective practices) via the Internet (25% of their grade).
Following each session, students submit an independent activity based on the topic (50% of their grade). Some independent activities are submitted over the Internet (e.g., timelines for developing and implementing a distance education course) and some are mailed and hand-delivered (e.g., videotape of student teaching a short lesson using interactive video).

Table 1 provides an overview of current activities completed by students in EDS 647.
At the present time, I am working with UK administration on resolving issues that will allow us to share this course (and the one concerning administrative issues that will follow) with other interested institutions across state lines. For those who are interested in developing their own training programs for distance education delivery, we offer the following guidelines.

1. Do not tie the training to a specific technology or software system that may become outdated. Instead, focus on issues in delivery that can generalize across technologies.

2. Before searching for outside resources, investigate institutional resources that are already available. Most institutions have distance education faculty and administrators who are effective and willing to share their expertise.

3. Provide hands-on opportunities for personal development. Focus on teaching what is readily applicable rather than theoretical.

4. Keep abreast of the current professional literature. Hundreds of articles on distance education topics are published yearly and offer much insight into what is and is not effective.

5. Collect evaluation data from those you train. Use these data to improve future training projects.

References

Abernathy, D. (1997). A Start-Up Guide to Distance Learning. Training and Development, 51(12), 39-43, 45-47.

Baird, M. (1995). Training distance education instructors. Adult Learning, 7, 24-26.

Blackhurst, A. E., & Collins, B. C. (1996). Special Education Doctoral Program in the Delivery of Distance Education. Lexington, KY: University of Kentucky.--

Blackhurst, A. E., Hales, R. M., & Lahm, E. A. (1998). Using an education server software system to deliver special education coursework via the World Wide Web. Journal of Special Education Technology, 13, 79-98.

Collins, B. C., & Grisham-Brown, J. (in press). Guidelines for distance learning content delivery. In B. L. Ludlow & F. Spooner (Eds.), Distance education in special education: Personnel preparation applications. Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.

Collins, B. C., Hemmeter, M.L., Schuster, J.W., & Stevens, K.B. (1996). Using team teaching to deliver coursework via distance learning technology. Teacher Education and Special Education, 19, 49-58.

Collins, B. C., & Schuster, J. W. (in press). Distance education (Topical Issue). Rural Special Education Quarterly, 18(3/4).

Collins, B. C., Schuster, J. W., Hall, M, & Griffen, A. K. (1999): Ten Years of Distance Learning: Changing to Meet Geographical, Institutional, and Student Characteristics. 1999 Conference Proceedings of the American Council for Rural Special Education. Kansas: ACRES.

Gilbert, L., & Moore, D. R. (1998). Building interactivity into web courses: Tools for social and instructional interaction. Educational Technology, 38, 29-35.

Ho, C. P. (1991). Instructional strategies for interactive television. Journal of special Education Technology, 11, 91-98.

Lawrence, B. H. (1996-97). Online course delivery: Issues of faculty development. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 25, 127-131.

Ludlow, B. L., & Spooner, F. (Eds.). Distance education applications in teacher education in special education. Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children, Teacher Education Division. Available: http://www.tese.uc.edu

Mikovsky, E. (1997). Techniques for distance learning instruction. Media and Methods, 34, 24.

Minnesota Satellite and Technology (1998). Distance Learning Today [Videotape Series]. (Available from Minnesota Satellite and Technology, 500 World Trade Center, 30 East Seventh Street, St. Paul, MN 55101)

Parisot, A., & Waring, S. (1994). At a distance: The beginner's view of teaching with technology. Adult Learning, 6, 10-11.

Schrum, L. (1996). Teaching at a distance: Strategies for successful planning and development. Learning and Leading with Technology, 23, 30-33.

Shade, M. A., & Shade, R. A. (1995). Effective teaching and learning strategies using compressed video. TechTrends, 40, 18-22.

Spooner, F., Jordan, L., Algozzine, B., & Spooner, M. (1999). Student ratings of instruction in distance learning and on-campus classes. The Journal of Educational Research, 92, 132-140.

Yellen, R. E. (1998). Distant learning students: A comparison with traditional studies. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 28, 215-224.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
N.B. This column describes a class offered in the Special Education Doctoral Program in the Delivery of Distance Education (Project Number HO29J90010) funded through the U.S. Department of Education. All correspondence should be addressed to Dr. Belva C. Collins, Dept. of Special Education and Rehabilitation Counseling, 229 Taylor Education Building, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40506-0001 (bcoll01@pop.uky.edu).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you have ideas or would like to submit illustrations of ways your teacher preparation program integrates technology, please feel free to contact Sean Smith at seanj@ukans.edu.