Arkansas Barriers to Real Time Agricultural Distance Education Initiatives: A Survey of Institution Schedules1

NACTA Journal, Mar 2005 by Stark, C Robert Jr

Abstract

Agricultural distance education provides an opportunity for offering higher education to students beyond the traditional, individual classroom on a particular college campus. Institutions that offer coordinated courses taught by shared faculty may also realize economic savings compared to offering the courses individually. Potential barriers to teaching such agricultural courses in real time revolve around the academic calendar and class schedule of each cooperating institution. A review of Arkansas college and university academic calendars and class schedules reveals four major barriers and three minimal barriers to coordinated, shared courses in real time. Possible solutions to these barriers are offered with a discussion of some steps necessary to achieve the changes. Recognition of the extent and nature of these barriers in Arkansas may benefit educators in other states who are currently offering agricultural distance education courses or are considering the development of similar programs in the future.

Introduction

Distance education evolved from the correspondence courses of the late nineteenth century. During the middle of the 20th century, instruction began to embrace radio and television outlets (Imel, 1998). Students in more recent years who could not meet simultaneously used videotaped and audio taped lectures. Faculty began to use the World Wide Web as a class instructional aid and eventually as a primary course delivery mode. Most recently, streaming video through the Internet and Compressed Interactive Video (CIV) technology has permitted simultaneous real time instruction at multiple locations (Valentine, 2002). Distance education is now defined to be when a teacher and student(s) are separated by physical distance and technology is used to bridge the instructional gap (Willis, 1994).

The acceptance of distance education has occurred somewhat grudgingly by traditional colleges and universities. Much of this reluctance may have stemmed from questionable reputations for integrity associated with the old correspondence courses (Stenerson, 1998). New issues have arisen regarding residency requirements, fee structure, articulation agreements, and technical support for all involved (Olcott, 1992). Opportunities to increase student numbers, stretch limited resources, expand geographical boundaries, and reach into previously untapped workforce and underserved populations have now drawn the traditional institutions into distance education. After entering, however, some assert that these institutions became the major barrier to distance education development. The effects from the institutions surfaced in federal program funding procedures, regional accreditation agencies, state legislative funding formulae, and institutional administrative rules and regulations (Moore, 1994). With respect to the institutional administrative level, one recurring issue is scheduling (Hillman and Colker, 1987; Miller and Miller, 2000; Muilenburg and Berge, 2001; and Seehusen, 2002). Arkansas distance educators identified this issue as a point of concern as early as 1999 (Arkansas Department of Higher Education, 1999).

Arkansas initiated several programs over the past decade to promote distance education. Arkansas Virtual School is a pilot program of the Arkansas Department of Higher Education that uses technology to deliver public instruction to K-7 students (ARVS, 2003). Governor Mike Hucabee serves as a member of The Southern Regional Education Board (SREB), a consortium of 16 states that developed the SREB Electronic Campus where colleges and universities share courses and degree programs. This consortium recently announced a "Ways in Mentor" program that will combine the Electronic Campus with Xap Corporation to facilitate distance education opportunities (SREB, 2003). The Arkansas Distance Learning Association (ARDLA), a state chapter of the United States Distance Learning Association, holds an annual conference to discuss distance education issues and observe the latest technology developments. ARDLA reports that 153 videoconferencing units exist statewide in colleges, hospitals, educational cooperatives, public schools, and health education centers (ARDLA, 2003). The Arkansas Association of Two-Year Colleges supports ACCESS Arkansas, a website program where such colleges can advertise distance education course offerings (AATYC, 2003).

Distance education offerings of agricultural courses in Arkansas have been motivated by opportunities similar to those that attracted traditional institutions to distance education. These offerings have also been hindered by similar institutional barriers. The University of Arkansas System offers agriculture courses at one non-land grant state university and two land grant universities. The non-land grant University of Arkansas at Monticello (UAM) offers undergraduate agriculture courses and houses research and extension faculty within the Southeast Research & Extension Center of the University of Arkansas System. The land grant institutions, The University of Arkansas (UAF) and The University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff (UAPB), teach a broad undergraduate and graduate curriculum of agricultural courses in addition to conducting research and extension. All three universities have offered distance education agriculture courses in real time (simultaneously) over multiple locations. The UA System also includes a number of two-year colleges that offer undergraduate agriculture courses.