VOL. 14, No. 1, 75-88
In the last decade considerable attention has been directed toward issues to do with graduate education at a distance. In addition, concerns over the competencies and expertise required of those working as distance educators or in distance educational organizations has also received attention. Beginning in early 1993 a collaborative inquiry initiative was undertaken among staff in the Centre for Distance Education at Athabasca University, Canada, in an effort to identify the competencies required of master’s-level experts in distance education. A competencies analysis, curriculum plan, and eventually courses were developed for a master’s-level program in distance education. This article reviews this development phase and describes the recent work done to revalidate these competencies and curricula for a distance education expert at the master’s level. The competencies are then clustered in four skill sets, and basic procedures for developing a taxonomy of cognitive/performance levels and an analysis of content/curricula for distance educators are described. Finally, the implications of this work for other programs and efforts in this important area are outlined.
On s’est souvent penché, au cours de la dernière décennie, sur la problématique des études supérieures à distance. On s’est également intéressé aux compétences et au seuil de spécialisation pour ceux qui travaillent comme éducateurs à distance et pour les autres professionnels qui œuvrent dans des établissements d’enseignement à distance. Dès 1993, une enquête collaborative a été menée auprès du personnel du centre d’éducation à distance d’Athabasca University (Canada), afin d’identifier les compétences que doivent posséder les étudiants qui terminent une maîtrise en éducation à distance. Une analyse des compétences a conduit à l’élaboration d’un programme d’études pour une maîtrise en éducation à distance, puis au développement des cours eux-mêmes. Le présent article étudie ce processus d’élaboration et offre une description des récents travaux effectués en vue de revalider les compétences et le programme. Par la suite, les auteurs regroupent ces compétences en quatre grappes, puis décrivent les procédures servant à l’élaboration d’une taxonomie des niveaux cognitifs et seuils de performance, qui servira à son tour à analyser le contenu des programmes. Pour clore, l’article présente un aperçu de l’utilisation qu’on peut faire de ce travail dans le processus d’élaboration d’autres programmes.
As early as the mid-1980s serious attention was being paid to issues of graduate-level distance education (Bynner, 1986). In his review of the International Centre for Distance Education’s new computerized data-base, Harry (1984) indicated that approximately 75 institutions were involved in graduate education at a distance. Obviously that number has grown in the past 15 years. Although few systematic or empirical studies have been reported on the many issues surrounding graduate education at a distance, it is clear that offering graduate programs using distance delivery methods has become part of the fabric of distance education.
One empirical study used survey methods in attempting to identify competencies for Distance Education professionals (Thach & Murphy, 1995). Although the results of this investigation were useful, they were much more relevant to human resource development concepts than they were to distance education. The results from the Thach and Murphy study were influenced by the nature of the questions they asked and an attempt to find generic competencies in a wide variety of job classifications. The results outline neither a comprehensive curriculum for training distance educators nor the level at which professionals in DE should be trained (e.g., certificate, diploma, or degree). Also, the generic skills required of a good professional working in any form of education or training, and certainly in distance education and training, were not addressed in the study. However, the study did identify the importance of key team members’ roles in the distance education development and delivery process. Because of the generic nature of the competencies identified by Thach and Murphy, the major areas of skills they identified are not specifically dealt with in the work reported here. Although these competencies are important as “meta-objectives” for distance education professionals, they were considered to be integrated into the more specific development of the competencies for the Athabasca University Master of Distance Education (MDE) program.
Defining competencies for distance education practitioners is similar to previous efforts to define competencies for instructional developers (Task Force on ID Certification [AECT Division of Instructional Development], 1981). Although the role of the instructional designer (ID) is less varied than the potential role of the distance education (DE) practitioner, many of the skills overlap. The work concerning competencies of instructional designers points out the importance of defining competencies in performance terms as opposed to academic terms. Moreover, the importance of core competencies was also made clear in the ID analysis work. Although efforts have been made to define core competencies in this article, the terms used and content defined as competencies are clearly not as performance-based as the work of the ID task force.
This article describes an action research initiative that was undertaken at Athabasca University in Canada to define competencies for graduate education in DE. Action research and action science are forms of inquiry into practice. Their central feature is the improvement of practice, and as Elliott (1982) noted, it provides a link between self-evaluation and professional development, in this case for faculty involved in instructing in a graduate degree program. Action research is based on a cycle of activities from identification of the problem, through diagnosis, planning, implementation, and monitoring before beginning the cycle again (Winter, 1989). Reflection, both in the diagnosis and planning stages and following implementation in the monitoring phase, is a crucial aspect of this approach. Cooperative inquiry, as Reason (1998) points out, is a version of action research where small groups of professionals come together to examine their practice. It stresses mutual enquiry, and its validity “rests on the high-quality, critical, self-aware, discriminating, and informed judgments of the co-researchers, which may be called `critical subjectivity’“ (Reason & Rowan, 1981, p. 267). Although its four-part cycle of action and reflection formed the basis for the work described here, this article focuses on the outcomes of the cycles rather than on the faculty development that is integral to that process.
Following the action/reflection cycle of cooperative inquiry (Reason, 1998), the procedures used in this analysis of competencies can be divided into three sections. Section one describes the method used in the original DACUM analysis and the outcomes of that process. Section two describes the procedures used to assess the curriculum and make revisions over the first five years of delivery of the MDE program and the comments of staff. Finally, section three describes the procedures and outcomes of the most recent DACUM analysis. It should be noted that both DACUM analyses focus on the core competencies for master’s-level practitioners. Also, the Master of Distance Education degree program includes both academic and practical competencies. In addition, the program serves a range of interests in distance education from people interested in pursuing more advanced doctoral work after the MDE to those interested in developing functional skills useful in roles that range from training to education.
The work began with a series of symposia. As described in Coldeway and Spencer (1993) and Coldeway, Hardy, and Mason (1993), the members of the Centre for Distance Education began to discuss some of the issues of importance in offering graduate education at a distance. Issues of curriculum, instruction, and credibility were high on a list of concerns discussed during these symposia and in the short papers that accompanied them. Following the initial series of symposia, six expert faculty members from the Centre for Distance Education and one administrator participated in the original DACUM analysis. The primary focus of the analysis was to establish core competencies for students completing the MDE degree program. The DACUM process used followed these steps:
The groupings of the content ideas from the first DACUM analysis results in the following:
Group One: Overview of DE (philosophy, definition, models, and applications);
Group Two: The Learner (adult learning, support, pacing, gender, etc.);
Group Three: Outcomes from DE (cost, economics, institutional performance, etc.);
Group Four: Systems (including instructional systems design and general systems);
Group Five: The future of DE (research, evaluation, cooperative activity).
Each group of competencies was then regrouped to form the objectives for a particular course. The five core courses were as follows:
Course One: Introduction to DE (primarily content from groups one and five);
Course Two: Methods of Inquiry in DE (primarily content from group five);
Course Three: Systems Design in DE (primarily content from group four);
Course Four: Distance Education I: Instructional Design and Evaluation (primarily content from groups two, three, four, and five);
Course Five: Distance Education II: Institutional performance and management of DE (primarily content from groups two, three, and five).
The initial core curriculum for the MDE program was designed to cover most aspects of the core competencies and content determined by the DACUM analysis. However, the core courses did not represent the total range of skills, knowledge, and experience deemed important for professionals at the master’s level in DE. The MDE program also had a requirement that students take four additional elective courses (3 credits each) and do one of the following:
The elective courses were also determined as a function of the original curriculum analysis and the following courses were developed:
This cycle is described in more detail in Coldeway and Spencer (1996), who presented and discussed some of these early efforts to establish, design, and deliver a Master of Education distance education program. The report outlines how a curriculum development methodology (Develop A Curriculum—DACUM) was used to establish core courses (e.g., competencies) and optional courses (i.e., more specific competencies deemed important by the distance education field, students, and faculty) and in how the DACUM process resulted in five core clusters that formed the basis for the core curriculum for the MDE degree program.
Section Two: Ongoing Curriculum Analysis and Course Revisions
After the initial curriculum analysis (section one), courses were developed and the program was implemented. The focus of this section is the information obtained from instructors about their work in the first four academic years of the MDE program (1994-1998). All courses in the core of the MDE program were offered in the first two years and were modified by the principal faculty author of each course every year (i.e., these were usually minor modifications based on student feedback). Option courses (courses not in the core of the MDE program) were also designed according to the original curriculum analysis. Most option courses were also modified over time.
The five faculty members who were responsible for the original design and delivery of each core course and were still offering these courses were contacted and asked to respond in writing to the following questions:
Given the open-ended nature of the questions asked, it was possible to integrate opinion into the following generalized responses.
All five faculty had made revisions to the design of the courses, and four had also changed some specifications of the delivery format of their courses. All indicated that they had made the changes because the content of their courses had changed over the four years and they sought to keep the material current. Further, additional materials had been incorporated that helped enhance the likelihood of learners meeting their objectives. Three faculty also indicated that although new information and materials were added, some was removed from courses. As well, all faculty indicated that they had changed the assignments each year to maintain consistency and currency of content. The extent of content change varied among the respondents, with one making changes to over 15% of the course material, three indicating 10-15%, and one respondent with minimal changes of less than 10%.
As part of their course package students received evaluation forms that encouraged them to comment on the materials and delivery options. Students also had opportunities to comment informally to instructors during the courses. It was evident that students’ comments had played an important part in either encouraging or supporting faculty decisions about changes to content and delivery format. Whereas two faculty identified the direct link with student comments, the other three made changes as a result of being sensitive to student perceptions about the currency of the course content. Other sources of course changes involved, in two instances, changes to the structure of the course.
Instructors changed assignments every year, partly to ensure fairness and partly to reflect accurately the current content and emphasis of the course. Also, it was known informally that there had been changes to content in order to ensure currency of materials, to improve the learners’ likelihood of success, and in response to students’ comments. As well, some changes seemed to be based on the addition or deletion of competencies and skills made by the author of the course. As a result, the program coordinator decided to begin a process of reverification of competencies to keep pace with the changes that had occurred incrementally and to give an opportunity for faculty to reflect on these changes.
In an effort to validate the original curriculum, a second DACUM process was carried out, this time with the additional expertise of several faculty members, garnered through their extensive experience teaching in the MDE program, as a further source of information. This section outlines the process and presents the results of that analysis and a summary of changes made to the curriculum as a result of the second analysis.
The six faculty members involved in the MDE degree program, all of whom were faculty in that program and experts in DE, began the DACUM process. The goal was identical to that section one: to establish core competencies for students in the MDE program. The process was also identical, and the same rules were followed (see section one). It should be noted that defining performance outcomes in relationship to each content area was not the initial goal of this activity. Although a competency profile of performance measures for DE practitioners may be important, it is also important to specify the core competencies, that is, the academic and skill areas required for course planning and eventual skill mastery.
The result of this curriculum planning effort was confirmation that the core curriculum was relevant to MDE students and deemed credible by MDE faculty. Although some revision was made to all core courses over time, the total amount of revision was small and based more on keeping courses current than on adjustments for faulty planning.
The second DACUM analysis identified the core competencies for a distance education program (see Figure 1 for the core competencies in the MDE program at Athabasca University). The alignment of the core competencies with existing courses in the MDE program was reassessed to ensure that the program was current. The team leaders for the courses were able to identify which competencies were already part of the course content and which should be added to their courses. Based on the discussion of the focus group, it was recommended that there should be minor revisions to two of the core courses in the MDE program. These changes will ensure the program’s currency and help reflect the needs of the distance education profession.
The action/reflection process associated with the DACUM analysis has been beneficial to MDE faculty at Athabasca University. Besides a reverification and adaption of their curriculum content to better integrate current competency requirements, the process has also provided opportunity for discussion of two related aspects of competency development. These are the identification of skill sets and their allocation among various Distance Education credentials associated with academic study and the development of a taxonomy of performance levels that could be used to assess various skill levels in specific clusters of competencies.
Although the DACUM process reported on academic and practical competencies, another way to assess the items identified is to examine them from the perspective of a skills set. Based on the information from the focus groups, we clustered four distinct categories of skills that were identified as important for successful performance by practitioners at the master’s level in distance education. They were categorized as follows:
Category One: Generic Skills (Thach & Murphy, 1995);
Category Two: Core DE Skills (see sections one and three);
Category Three: Specific DE skills (e.g., specific use of technology, issues related to specific interests, etc.);
Category Four: Cognate DE skills (e.g., computer programming, understanding of learning and instructional theory, statistical skills, etc.).
The categories are not unique but overlap each other. The specific skills are those required in using specific delivery technology or specific models and are related to the interests of the students. For example, these skills are acquired through completing application projects in courses and through independent study courses. The cognate skills in the program are the skills students acquire in using information to complete projects and assignments. For example, students need to know learning theory to develop instruction for adults or research design skills to review the research literature critically. It is also possible to examine each of these skill clusters to identify specific cognitive performance levels and to assign these to different credential requirements. This would provide a taxonomy of skills for distance education (see Figure 2).
The importance of this taxonomy is that it can be used both to identify the content/curriculum for distance educators and define the cognitive level of that content/curriculum required for effective practice. In the development of future programs and in the revision of existing programs, it would then be possible to extend the analysis of skills to include both content/curriculum and level of competency (i.e., cognitive or performance level).
Figure 2 illustrates a graduated list of cognitive/performance levels that are a combination of various taxonomies of learning (see Gagné, 1985, or Merrill, 1987, for examples of taxonomies of learning).This hybrid combination was intentional in that it demonstrates that any version of a taxonomy can be substituted and used in the matrix, based on the preferences of the analyzer. In addition, attitudinal categories could also be added if they were important in the program planning efforts (e.g., values, ethics, motivational levels, etc).
The taxonomic representation of content/curriculum and cognitive and performance levels also allows for an indication of academic or training level of the curriculum. By identifying the importance of each level and content domain in the matrix (see Table 2 for an example), a profile for various programs levels can be established. Using the taxonomy as a tool, faculty can express and then validate their views on DE programs and program level in education and training plans. For example, skills required at the master’s level may differ from those required at the certificate or diploma levels. It would be possible to imagine that the content for these three levels could be constant, but the cognitive/performance level of the skills in content domains would change with each program designation.
The information provided in this article is an attempt to describe programs important for various levels of distance educator training and knowledge more precisely and functionally. Additional work is required to validate both the content and levels of performance for programs in distance education and in particular for specific skills and cognate skills.
The data obtained for this analysis were limited to a small group of distance education faculty who have worked fairly closely together over the years. Obviously their opinions will be more highly correlated than one would expect from a more diverse group or a large sample. This analysis requires expansion to both a more diverse group with an increase in sample size. However, the taxonomy and baseline information in this study should provide a starting point for this work.
Bynner, J. (1986). Master’s teaching in education by distance methods. Distance Education, 7(1), 23-37.
Coldeway, D.O., Hardy, D., & Mason, W. (1993, August). Graduate education at a distance: A discussion of academic and instructional credibility issues. Paper presented to the ninth annual conference on Distance Teaching and Learning: Teaming up for Success, Madison, WI.
Coldeway, D.O., & Spencer, R.E. (1993, October). Graduate education in distance education: Issues of curriculum, instruction and credibility. Paper presented to the first annual conference on Distance Education: Sharing the Experience, Portland, OR.
Coldeway, D.O., & Spencer, R.E. (1996). Graduate education at a distance: The MDE experience. Paper presented to the Canadian Association for Distance Education meeting, Moncton, NB.
Elliott, J. (1982). Action-research: A framework for self-evaluation in schools. Working paper No. 1, Teacher-pupil interaction and the quality of learning. London: Schools Council.
Gagné, R.M. (1985). The conditions of learning and theory of instruction (4th ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston
Harry, K. (1984). The International Center for Distance Education’s new computerized database.,ICDE Bulletin, 6, 6-7.
Merrill, M.D. (1987). The new component design theory: Instructional design for courseware authoring. Instructional Science, 16, 19-34.
Reason, P. (1998). Three approaches to participative inquiry. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Strategies of qualitative inquiry (pp. 261-191). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Reason, P., & Rowan, J. (Eds.). (1981). Human inquiry. A sourcebook of new paradigm research. Chichester, UK: John Wiley.
Task Force on ID Certification (AECT Division of Instructional Development). (1981). Competencies for the instructional/training development professional. Journal of Instructional Development, 5(1).
Thach, E.C., & Murphy, K.L. (1995). Competencies for distance education professionals. Educational Technology Research and Development, 43(1), 57-79.
Winter, R. (1989). Learning from experience. Principles and practice in action-research. London: Falmer.
1. The distinct omission of technology content from the core MDE curriculum was intentional and based on a philosophy that technology is overemphasized in DE and should be integrated into a more systems view.
2. Students are allowed to select topics and work independently or in small groups. Topics have included corporate training issues in DE, television as a medium, organizational acceptance of DE, and a variety of other topics.
Mohamed Ally is an associate professor in the Master of Distance Education Program at Athabasca University. He has completed many projects in competency profile development and has taught courses in adult education, research in distance education, and instructional systems design. His e-mail address is mohameda@athabascau.ca.Dan O. Coldeway is a professor of distance education at Athabasca University. His interests include behavioral instruction, instructional systems design, and distance education design and delivery systems. His e-mail address is dano@athabascau.ca.