Opportunities and Obstacles for Distance Education in Agricultural Education

A nationwide study using delphi techniques was conducted to develop consensus andprovide focus and direction for future research activities concerning the adoption of electronic communication, information, and imaging technologies for instructional use in agricultural education settings. A panel of 61 distance education experts were identified The four objectives were to identify the: I)positive effects of electronic technologies designed to facilitate communication, information gathering/retrieval, and imaging for instruction; 2) major obstacles that must be overcome in their adoption; 3) most promising technologies at the secondly level; 4) mostpromising technologies at the post-secondary level. Panelists suggested 21 ways these technologies improve instruction; responses clustered around: 1) increased availability of educational opportunities; 2) improved informational resources; 3) more effective instructional materials; 4)more convenient delivery methods. Panelists achieved consensus on 13 obstacles, which clustered around: 1) time constraints; 2) lack of a formalized faculty reward system; 3) lack of technical support; 4) equipment costs; 5) inadequately designed facilities. There was little difference between technologies identified as being most promising for the secondary and post-secondary levels. In general, panelists identified technologies clustered around four systems areas: I) distributed information; 2) computer-based information; 3) computer-assisted telecommunications; 4) graphical image production and display. Introduction and Theoretical Framework We live in a time of change. Gelatt (1993) said “Change itself has changed: It has become so rapid, so complex, so turbulent, and so unpredictable that is now called ‘white water change”’ (p. 10). The currents of change move so swiftly that they destroy what was considered the norm in the past, and by doing so, create a flood of new opportunities. Education, and more specifically, agricultural education, is not immune to the effects of change. The development and use of communications technologies and instructional systems currently taking place are certain to bring about change in education. Wilkinson and Sherman (199 1) stated that technology to deliver and receive educational programs over distance has become more accessible and acceptable. Moore and Thompson (1990) pointed out that many states are in the process of installing telecommunications technology to allow distance education to occur in all levels of education, cradle to grave. Looking to the future, Pessanelli (1993) speculated that technologies will allow learning to take place virtually everywhere. Recently, President Bill Clinton and Vice-President Al Gore (1993) expressed the commitment of their administration to have every school in the nation connected to the “information superhighway.” A vast number of technologies have a place in distance education strategies. While video-based technology is currently the primary method of instructional delivery, a variety of others are used as well (Wilkinson & Sherman, 1991). Many desktop computer-based delivery systems show great promise. Documents, pictures, videos, sounds, and multimedia presentations can be accessed through computer networks such as the World Wide Web Joumal of Agricultural Education 28 VoI_ 39, No. I, 1998 (Hill, 1993). Salvador (1994) described how “pen computing,” where an electronic pen is used with a LCD screen pad, is being used in a middle school to connect students to an instructor and to one another. The Virtual Online University, as reported by Marklien (1995), will connect faculty from universities around the world to more than 3500 students. Despite these developments, challenges persist. Faculty and administrators consider these changes in educational delivery systems to be threatening (Beaudoin, 1990). Such concerns focus on poor attitudes toward distance education, suspicion of the nontraditional, and required changes in instructional methods (Dillon, 1989). Miller and King (1994) were able to identify 16 obstacles that exist in delivering distance education to secondary agricultural education programs. However, Moore (1993) encouraged educators to look beyond these challenges and consider the vast opportunities distance education technologies and methodologies facilitate. The opportunities for agricultural educators are numerous. Agricultural educators will be able to deliver programs to broader audiences, including learners of all ages and from diverse backgrounds. It will be possible to design and research distance education methodologies and assist colleagues in other areas of agriculture to enhance their teaching capabilities. Promise exists for partnerships and collaborative efforts with agricultural extension services and agribusinesses as never before. However, for these opportunities to develop from promise to reality, there is need to explore this evolving methodology of distance education, determine specific benefits it offers to the profession and obstacles it presents, and clarify a vision for the future. Purpose and Objectives The purpose of this study was to develop a consensus document to provide focus and direction for future research activities concerning the adoption of electronic communication, information, and imaging technologies for instructional use in agricultural education settings. The specific objectives were to identity the: 1. positive effects of electronic technologies designed to facilitate communication, information gathering/retrieval, and imaging will have upon the instructional process. 2. major obstacles that must be overcome in the adoption of these technologies. 3. technologies that hold the most promise for instruction at the secondary level. 4. technologies that hold the most promise for instruction at the post-secondary Methods and Procedures The conceptual model for this level. study was taken from Buriak and Shinn (1989) who used a Delphi approach involving expert opinion leaders to identify a research agenda for agricultural education. The Delphi method was selected for its ability to identify, and even create consensus among expert opinion leaders (Stackman, 1974). While decisions should be based upon a developed knowledge base, if one is unavailable, the opinions of experts are an acceptable alternative (Helmer, 1966). Buriak and Shinn (1989) suggested a Delphi model in which the study progresses in separate phases, “each phase moving closer to satisfying the objectives” ( p.14). The phases of this research project are described below. Phase I: Identification of the Panel The Delphi method is heavily reliant upon the proper selection of an expert panel (Dalkey, 1969; Stackman, 1974). In order to identify an appropriate panel of experts, 37 names were purposely selected by an advisory committee from appropriate sampling frames. These frames included Journal of Agricultural Education 29 Vol. 39, No. I, 1998 the Directory of Teacher Educators in Agriculture (Shelhamer, 1993) and the Agricultural Educators Directory (Henry, 1993). Experts were selected on the basis of recognized involvement with programs of agricultural education utilizing these technologies. A request was sent to each of these people on March 3 1, 1994. They were asked to identify expert opinion leaders to serve on a Delphi panel to examine how the new electronic communication, information, and imaging technologies will be used to improve instruction in the years ahead. They were also informed that panel members would be asked to identify the decisive obstacles that must be overcome in the process of adopting these technologies and the consequential instructional benefits derived following their adoption. These 37 individuals nominated 61 members to serve on the Delphi panel. Only two panel members were duplicated during the identification process, indicating that there is not a consensus among opinion leaders as to expertise in this field. All 61 identified panelists were therefore invited to participate and informed of the commitment required to complete the study. Of the 61 panelists invited to participate and mailed the first round instrument, 50 accepted and returned the instrument. Of these, 35 were university faculty members and 15 represented industry, state teacher supervisors, and secondary teachers of agriculture and technology courses. University faculty were primarily from departments of agricultural education, although agricultural extension, communications, and technology departments were represented as well. Forty-two of these 50 panelists completed the second round, and 38 completed the third. According to studies completed by the Rand Corporation, questions of process reliability when using the Delphi method are satisfactorily answered by a panel size larger than 13 (Dalkey, 1969). Phase Two: Collection of Opinion In the first round, panelists were asked to offer their response to four open-ended questions. These questions reflected the specific objectives of the study, and remained unchanged throughout the study. Phase Three: Determining the Value of Opinion In the second round, panelists were asked to review their own and the other panel members’ responses and assign a value rating based upon the level of agreement with the item. To identify those items on which panelists held the strongest positions, a seven-point Likert scale was employed with items ranging from a 1 for “Strongly Disagree” to a 7 for “Strongly Agree.” Items 3 and 5 allowed panelists to “Somewhat Agree” or “Somewhat Disagree” with a statement. Space was provided at the end of each section for panelists to suggest new ideas. Panelists were also encouraged to further refine existing statements by adding comments and suggestions. Phase Four: Working Toward Consensus Based upon the suggestions and comments from the second round, new items and parenthetical clarifications to several existing items were added in the creation of the third round instrument. Frequency distributions were used to refine further Round II responses. A 66% consensus level was established for this phase a priori. Only those statements on which 66% of the panel members selected “Somewhat Agree” (rating of 5), “Agree” (rating of 6) or “Strongly Agree” (rating of 7) were retained for the third round. In the third round, panelists were asked to re-evaluate items given the summary data from Round II responses as a guide to a new rating. Each panelist again indicated his/her level of agreement with the items, using the seven-point Likert scale. Journal of Agricultural Education 30 Vol . 39, No. I, 1998 Phase Five: Analyzing the Data Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the data collected. Means and frequency distributions and percentages were calculated for each statement on the third round instrument. The fact that only small changes in the frequencies of retained items were found between the second and third rounds indicated that a consensus had been reached and the Delphi process could conclude.