Kenneth
W. Mentor, J.D., Ph.D.
|
Criminal
Justice Distance Education:
|
|
|
Frequency |
Percent |
AGE |
26-30 |
2 |
3.6 |
|
31-35 |
9 |
16.4 |
|
36-40 |
4 |
7.3 |
|
41-45 |
7 |
12.7 |
|
46-50 |
10 |
18.2 |
|
51-60 |
19 |
34.5 |
|
over 60 |
2 |
3.6 |
|
Total |
53 |
96.4 |
Respondents were also asked to report their academic rank:
Frequency
Percent
RANK
Full Professor
17
30.9
Associate Professor
16
29.1
Assistant Professor
12
21.8
FT - Non-tenure
6
10.9
PT - non-tenure
2
3.6
Total
53
96.4
Respondents were also asked about the highest degrees offered in their department:
Frequency
Percent
DEGREES
Ph.D
10
18.2
Master's
25
45.5
Bachelor's
17
30.9
Associate's
1
1.8
Total
53
96.4
These demographics indicate that a range of programs and educators were reached through this method of data collection. The programs grant degrees ranging from Associate's to Doctoral. It would appear that there is some bias toward Doctoral programs as community colleges and other smaller institutions are under-represented in the sample.
The sample included more men than women, as might be expected given statistics regarding internet usage (Stanton, 1998). However, these statistics would also predict that a sample of internet users would be younger than the general population (Couper, 2000). In the current survey 60% of the respondents were older than 45. The methods used in identifying the contact people for various programs most likely resulted in the names of department heads and senior faculty. This could be expected to be an older population. This appears to be verified by the fact that the majority of respondents hold Full or Associate faculty ranks.
Several areas were examined in the survey. One group of questions asked about time demands and rewards for developing online courses. Other questions asked respondents to give their opinion about the value of distance education. Another Another group of questions focused on tenure and professional development issues. Perceptions of institutional support were also assessed. Finally, respondents were asked about the current distance offerings and any plans to move toward distance courses in the future.
At this time, only the raw data is presented. A modification of this survey will be offered to a larger sample so the following results are preliminary. Each of the following items was assessed on a seven point scale anchored at one end by "very strongly agree" which was coded as one. "Very strongly disagree," which was coded as a seven, was at the other end of the scale. Mean scores and the actual wording of each question are included below. Lower scores indicate agreement with the statement.
MEAN |
|
Online
courses place greater demands on the time and effort
of the instructor. |
2.46 |
My
teaching style will not be effective in an online
course. |
4.17 |
Additional
compensation would motivate me to develop an online
course. |
2.96 |
Addition
release time would motivate me to develop an online
course. |
3.06 |
Concerns
about copyright and ownership issues have discouraged
me from teaching online. |
4.39 |
Online
courses are inferior to courses offered in a
traditional classroom environment. |
4.02
|
In
an online course I would miss the face-to-face
opportunities available in a traditional classroom. |
2.54
|
Online
courses offer greater flexibility for educators.
|
3.24
|
I
value the opportunity to serve non-traditional
students through distance education. |
3.07
|
Online
courses give me the opportunity to interact more
frequently with students. |
4.17
|
Untenured
faculty should be discouraged from online teaching.
|
4.19
|
Research
expectations should be reduced for faculty who are
developing and teaching online courses. |
3.70
|
Faculty
reward structures should place a higher value on
innovation and technological change. |
3.20
|
Promotion
and tenure policies should be altered to reward
innovative efforts to teach online. |
3.67
|
My
professional prestige and status is enhanced by the
ability to teach online. |
4.17
|
The
ability to develop and teach online makes me more
marketable. |
3.43
|
My
institution offers the training and support needed to
prepare an online course. |
3.48
|
Senior
faculty support efforts to develop online course
material.
|
4.48
|
My
institution offers adequate support for faculty
interested in distance education. |
4.07
|
My
Dean and/or Chair supports efforts to develop online
course material. |
3.39
|
Most
courses in the criminal justice curriculum can be
taught online. |
4.00
|
Web-based
courses are most appropriate for lower division
students. |
4.85
|
Web-based
courses are most appropriate for upper division
students. |
3.96
|
A
faculty member should not be asked to teach more than
one distance course per year. |
3.80
|
Our
pool of prospective students is sufficient to support
a distance Master's degree program. |
3.94
|
Our
pool of prospective students is sufficient to support
a distance Bachelor's degree program. |
3.63
|
Faculty were asked whether they have taught, or plan to teach, FULL COURSES online:
Frequency |
Percent |
|
3-5 years |
10 |
18.2 |
1-2 years |
6 |
10.9 |
Plan in 3-5 |
1 |
1.8 |
Plan in 1-2 |
11 |
20.0 |
No experience or plans |
25 |
45.5 |
Total |
53 |
96.4 |
Faculty were asked whether they have, or plan to, INTEGRATE ONLINE MATERIALS in traditional courses:
|
Frequency |
Percent |
3-5 years |
14 |
25.5 |
1-2 years |
22 |
40.0 |
Plan in next 3-5 |
3 |
5.5 |
Plan in next 1-2 |
5 |
9.1 |
No experience or plans |
9 |
16.4 |
Total |
53 |
96.4 |
Faculty were asked about the highest level of online offering CURRENTLY AVAILABLE in their department:
|
Frequency |
Percent |
Online graduate program |
4 |
7.3 |
Online undergraduate program |
5 |
9.1 |
Online courses |
19 |
34.5 |
Online Content in traditional Courses |
12 |
21.8 |
None |
12 |
21.8 |
Total |
52 |
94.5 |
Faculty were asked about the highest level of online offering UNDER CONSIDERATION for the future:
|
Frequency |
Percent |
Online graduate program |
10 |
18.2 |
Online undergraduate Program |
5 |
9.1 |
Online courses |
18 |
32.7 |
Online content in traditional courses |
7 |
12.7 |
None |
11 |
20.0 |
Total |
51 |
92.7 |
I
am able to send attachments with e-mail.
|
6.61
|
I
am able to scan photographs into digital files.
|
5.5
|
I
am able to use software to manipulate digital images.
|
5.07
|
I
am able to create a presentation with PowerPoint or
other software. |
5.91
|
I
am able to create a web page.
|
4.56
|
I
am able to create and maintain a web site.
|
4.36
|
I
am familiar with teaching methods appropriate for
distance education. |
4.78
|
I
could teach online but do not have the skills needed
to design an online course. (Reverse coded) |
4.42
|
I
have the skills needed to design and teach an online
course within the next year. |
4.69
|
The following links provide examples of course web pages.
Many criminal justice programs offer, or plan to offer, web-based courses or degrees. The following lists include programs that offer online coursework leading to a complete degree. These lists are limited to programs offered by traditional "brick and mortar" institutions.
Graduate Programs
Undergraduate Programs
A growing number of criminal justice degree programs are being offered by internet-based institutions. In contrast to traditional universities, these are "for profit" ventures. Accreditation is typically from an organization that specializes in accrediting online degree programs.
Remember that an assumption of this presentation is that skilled distance educators will, when provided with adequate resources, create online learning environments that are equivalent to, or superior to, the learning environment found in "traditional" classrooms. To be brutally honest, and perhaps somewhat biased, a review of the "for profit" educational sites cast doubt on the validity of that assumption.
Institutions are rapidly adopting web-based models of distance education. Departments, colleges, and individual faculty are being pressured to create online courses and programs, in spite of the lack of experience and expertise in distance education. To make matters worse, those who are exerting this pressure may be similarly unprepared for the challenges of delivering and supporting web-based educational content.
Is the pressure to move toward web-based models a threat? Does this pressure lead to opportunity for those that "take the bait?" How does web-based education interact with intellectual property rights, academic freedom, and tenure? What level of institutional support will be required? The following links provide information about a range of issues to be considered.
The state of web-based education in criminal justice is unsettled. Some institutions have rapidly, and perhaps naively, expanded their offerings in web-based distance education. Faculty members have devoted a significant amount of energy in their efforts to "go online." Students have been lured by promises, either real or imagined, of an educational experience that fits into their busy schedules.
Distance education has always been promoted as a low-cost solution to many problems faced by higher education. Eventually, institutions get around to counting money. We are now reaching that stage and these institutions are discovering that distance education is not, at this point, as profitable as they anticipated (see the Chronicle of Higher Education article linked below).
Those who have experienced success in web-based education will be quick to point out that a focus on profitability diverts attention from the effectiveness of web-based course delivery. Web-based courses have the potential to be at least as effective as traditional courses. In addition, web-based courses meet distance needs that have always been active, especially in sparsely populated areas that cannot support traditional institutions.
Many criminal justice educators who have integrated web content into their courses report high levels of satisfaction, both with the process and the result. This effort requires a significant commitment in terms of time and energy. The results of this survey indicate that many faculty have the skills to begin this process.
Educators have strong feelings about retaining academic freedom. Web-based education provides another battle ground regarding this issue. In many cases the educator feels liberated by an educational setting that offers an unprecedented level of control over course content. However, this freedom can be eliminated if online educators do not make informed arguments about the future of this method of course delivery. In effect, knowledge of the issues surrounding online education are important for all educators, even those who do not plan to teach online.
Is web-based education for everyone? No, of course not. Is this method of delivery equally effective in all contexts? Again, no. However, for a growing number of administrators, educators, and students, web-based education makes a lot of sense. Distance education has a past that has not always included successful innovation. The internet offers an opportunity to resolve many of the problems associated with previous efforts to educate at a distance. As such, the future of web-based education appears to be quite bright. Through the careful efforts of educators, that potential may be reached.