Web-Based Instruction and Community College Faculty Workload

College Teaching

Volumn 56, Issue 1, 2008, Pages 17-21

  Mupinga, Davison M ^a   Maughan, George R ^a  

^a INDIANA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

class size; faculty workload; online courses

Indexed keywords

EID: 69949108238     PISSN: 87567555     EISSN: 19308299     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3200/CTCH.56.1.17-22     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Accrediting Council for Independent Colleges and Schools. 2001. Final criteria changes, proposed criteria, and other information. http://www.acics.org/library/July01.doc
2. American Association of University Professors. 2003. Lives in the balance: Compensation, workloads and program implications. http://www.aft.org/pubs-reports/higher_ed/distance.pdf
3. American Federation of Teachers. 2004. Guidelines for good practice. http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/protect/legal/topics/livesbalance.htm
4. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, IV(II). Bower, B. L., 2001. Distance education: Facing the faculty challenge. http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/summer42/bower42.html
5. Cahoon, B., 2000. About the development of online courses. http://www.georgiacenter.uga.edu/gcq/gcqfall00/cahoon.html
6. Case, D., D. K. Bauder, and T. J. Simmons, 2001. Decision making in the development of web-based instruction. Education at a Distance.http://www.usdla.org/html/journal/MAY01_Issue/article04.html
7. Clark, T., 1993. Attitudes of higher education faculty toward distance education: A national survey. The American Journal of Distance Education 7 (2): 19-33.
8. Cohen, A. M. and F. B. Brawer, 2003. The American community college. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
9. Del Mar College. 2005. Institutional report for distance education and off-campus instruction. Corpus Christi, TX: Department of Distance Learning. http://www.delmar.edu/media/thecb-delmar-dl2005-all.pdf
10. DiBiase, D., 2000. Is distance education teaching more work or less work? American Journal of Distance Education 14 (3): 6-20.
11. Dillon, C. L., and S. M. Walsh, 1992. Faculty: The neglected resources in distance education. American Journal of Distance Education 6 (3): 5-21.
12. Khan, B. H., 1995. Obstacles encountered during stages of the educational change process. Educational Technology 32 (2): 43-46.
13. Lenz, T. L., R. M. Jones, and M. S. Monaghan, 2005. Faculty workload comparison between a campus-based and Internet-based patient assessment course. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education 69 (4): 67-68. Article 67.
14. Mancing, H., 1991. Teaching, research, service: The concept of faculty workload. Association of Departments of Foreign Languages. ADFL Bulletin 22 (3): 44-50.
15. Mayes, L. D., 1998. Assessing faculty workload: A review of the University of Kentucky Community College System process and outcomes. Community College Journal of Research and Practice 22 (2): 145-50.
16. National Education Association. 2000. A survey of traditional and distance learning higher education members. Washington, DC. http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/16/81/5c.pdf
17. National Center for Education Statistics. 2001. Distance education at higher education institutions: 2000-01 (PEQIS 13): Public-Use Data Files and Documentation. http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2005118
18. National Study of Postsecondary Faculty:99. 2002. Distance education instruction by postsecondary faculty and staff: Fall 1998. Postsecondary Education Descriptive Analysis Reports.http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2002/2002155.pdf
19. Olcott, D. Jr., and S. J. Wright, 1995. An institutional support framework for increasing faculty participation in postsecondary distance education. The American Journal of Distance Education 9 (3): 5-17.
20. Parrott, S., 1995. Future learning: Distance education in community college. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. Ed 385 311.
21. Perreault, H., L. Waldman, M. Alexander, and J. Zhao, 2002. Overcoming barriers to successful delivery of distance-learning courses. Journal of Education for Business 77 (6): 313-18.
22. Quarshire-Smith, B., and L. Watson, 2000. The changing nature of work in community colleges: Rethinking faculty workload and student learning. Planning and Changing 31 (1-2): 95-106.
23. Rifkin, T., 2000. Improving articulation policy to increase transfer: Policy Paper. (ED439770) (accessed March 24, 2006).
24. Rockwell, S. K., J. Schauer, S. M. Fritz and D. B. Marx, 1999. Incentives and obstacles influencing higher education faculty and administrators to teach via distance. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration II (111). 2.4. http://www.westga.edu/~distance/rockwell24.html
25. Schmidt, H., 1999. Information technology staff load calculation: A proposal. http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~hws/load.html
26. Schneider, H., 1999. Faculty concerns about developing web-based courses. Journal of Instructional Delivery Systems 13 (2): 21-24.
27. Tomei, L. A., 2004. The impact of online teaching on faculty load: Computing the ideal class size for online courses. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning.http://www.itdl.org/journal/Jan_04/article04.htm
28. Turoff, M., 1999. An end to student segregation: No more separation between distance learning and regular courses. Paper presented at Telelearning 99 Meeting in Montreal, Canada, November 1999.
29. Virtual College of Texas. 2004. Faculty compensation and course sizes for online/VCT courses statewide. http://https://www.securedserver.net/vct/beta2/FacultyCompensation.doc
30. Visser, J. A., 2000. Faculty work in developing and teaching web-based distance courses: A case study of time and effort. The American Journal of Distance Education 14 (3): 21-32.
31. Wytheville Community College. 2005. Faculty loads in the Virginia Community College System. http://www2.wcc.vccs.edu/html/faculty_staff/facultyloads.htm
32. Zuckweiler, K. M., M. J. Schniederjans, and D. A. Ball, 2004. Methodologies to determine class sizes for fair faculty work load in Web courses. International Journal of Distance Education Technologies 2 (2): 46-59.