student and faculty issues in distance education occupational safety and health graduate programs

Student and faculty issues in distance education

occupational safety and health graduate programs

David L. Fender *

Department of Occupational Safety and Health, Murray State University, 157 Industry and Technology Center,

Murray, KY 42071-3347, USA

Received 02 July 2001; received in revised form 30 November 2001; accepted 09 January 2002

Abstract

Problem: There is increasing interest in delivering degree programs without requiring students

to attend traditional classroom-based classes. There are many differences between classroom and

distance courses that must be addressed to have effective distance programs. Method: Occupational

safety and health faculty and occupational safety and health professionals were surveyed to

determine the need for graduate occupational safety and health programs, delivered by means of

distance education, and the best means to deliver the program from the perspective of faculty and

working occupational safety and health professionals. Results: Adequate time is the largest problem

issue for potential students and the distance student’s needs must be considered when developing

program policies and procedures. Faculty must be sufficiently trained in pedagogy, technology, and

communications so that they have the same comfort level with this method of instruction as they

do for the more familiar classroom, and technical and instructional support personnel need to be

readily available to work with the faculty and support course development. Impact on Industry:

Findings indicate that there is interest in a distance education-based program and it is believed that

industry will be positively impacted as educational opportunities expand for working professionals.

D 2002 National Safety Council and Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Safety; Distance education; Learning; Education; Continuing education

1. Introduction

Working professionals can find it difficult to pursue advanced degrees. It can be

particularly difficult for professionals working in relatively small fields such as occupational

safety and health when only a small number of universities offer such degree programs. This

0022-4375/02/$ - see front matter D 2002 National Safety Council and Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

PII: S0022 -4375 (02 )00024 -5

* Tel.: +1-270-762-6651; fax: +1-270-762-3630.

E-mail address: [email protected] (D.L. Fender).

www.elsevier.com/locate/jsr

Journal of Safety Research

33 (2002) 175–193

makes it difficult for most safety professionals to pursue a graduate degree, unless they are

willing to terminate their employment and move to enroll in a traditional, classroom-based

program. For many, this is too large of a sacrifice to make or may just not be feasible.

Technology is changing our world, including higher education. Although it is not

uncommon for faculty to use technology in their teaching, it tends to be principally used

within the existing classroom-based educational paradigm. This pattern is changing,

however, due to advances in technology that have made it easier to conduct quality

education, particularly through the use of computers and the Internet. Many educators are

now realizing that education can be conducted without having students sit in a conven-

tional classroom and even without traditional lectures from professors. Performed

properly, this concept of distance education can make it possible for safety and health

professionals to continue work while pursuing a graduate degree. Thus, a distance

education-based occupational safety and health graduate program would seem to be a

good way to make education more widely available for working professionals.

The concept of distance education is not new, having been around since 1833 when

‘‘correspondence courses’’ first emerged (Holmberg, 1987; Sherow & Wedemeyer,

1990). What is changing is how instruction is delivered and the instructional options

that technology offers. This change from traditional classrooms to ‘‘virtual’’ classrooms

will have a dramatic effect upon higher education and all who are connected with it.

Only time will reveal how extensive this change will be, but indications are that the

change will be significant. Many institutions and individuals are working on and

conducting courses delivered via various methods of distance education. If distance

education is to be more useful to students, the focus needs to shift from individual

courses to offering complete degrees. In order to offer the most effective degree

programs, research needs to be performed to ascertain the characteristics that distance

education programs should have.

Another issue involves whether or not occupational safety and health courses can be

effectively delivered via distance education. While the author is not aware of any specific

studies regarding occupational safety and health, there have been studies completed in

other fields that indicate the feasibility of delivering instruction through distance

education. For example, the University of Minnesota’s Masters of Education degree in

Human Resource Development was considered a success as rated by students (Tillson,

Warner, & McLean, 2000). Schrum and Benson (2000) report that a large southeastern

university’s on-line MBA program was considered an effective program. The State

University of New York has several distance education-based programs that have been

successful, including community college programs and a MS program in instructional

technology (Fredericksen, Pickett, Shea, Pela, & Swan, 2000). Wegner, Holloway, and

Garton (1999) conducted a study within a graduate curriculum that showed outcomes were

similar for distance courses compared to in-class courses and on-line students had a more

positive experience than in-class students. Evans, Murray, Daily, and Hall (2000) reported

in a study on the effectiveness of an on-line engineering course that students rated the

course format positively in relation to effectiveness and satisfaction, as well as positive

learning outcomes as measured by pretest and posttest results.

The purpose of this study was to determine the need for graduate occupational safety

and health programs, as indicated by occupational safety and health professionals,

D.L. Fender / Journal of Safety Research 33 (2002) 175–193176

delivered by means of distance education, and the best means to deliver the program from

the perspective of faculty and students. The study sought to document the need for

occupational safety and health graduate programs delivered through distance education, to

identify the required resources and considerations, and to make recommendations to guide

the development and delivery of such programs. This research provides insights for

students, faculty, and administrators into the advantages and disadvantages of distance

education graduate programs and areas of concern that must be addressed if such programs

are to meet the needs of students and requirements of faculty.

For this study classroom instruction will be defined as conventional instruction where

students and instructor are physically together in a classroom. Distance education is

defined as taking courses where the student and instructor are separated from each other by

distance. In a distance education-based degree program, individuals do not attend regular

campus-based classes but perform course work from where they live. Forms of distance

education considered within this study are some combination of correspondence courses,

videotape, e-mail, interactive computer programs, and using the Internet to deliver voice,

video, and instructional material (Willis, 1994).

2. Method

The research design was formed around two survey instruments. The first survey, the

Safety Professional Distance Education Survey, was of practicing safety professionals who

have bachelor’s degrees, as these individuals are considered the largest potential audience

for graduate-level distance education programs. The American Society of Safety Engineers

(ASSE) provided the names and addresses of all members, with a US address, who

reported having no higher than a bachelor’s degree. From this list, 500 names were

randomly selected. The number of surveys returned, after the initial mailing and a

reminder postcard, was 192, which yielded a return rate of 38%.

The other survey, the Faculty Distance Education Survey, was of safety faculty in

degree-granting graduate occupational safety and health management programs. All 17

identified colleges and universities that offer graduate degrees in the occupational safety

and health management area were contacted for the names and addresses of their

occupational safety and health faculty and all 108 faculty members were mailed the

survey. The number of usable surveys returned, after the initial mailing and a reminder

postcard, was 56 for a return rate of 51%.

2.1. Instrumentation

The Safety Professional Distance Education Survey was designed to gather demo-

graphic information about the respondents, their attitudes toward technology and distance

education, and what attributes a distance education program will need in order to best meet

the lifestyle and needs of the students. Using a Likert scale, the survey gathered

information about the respondents’ comfort level with various types of distance education

technology, determined the importance of specified program attributes to respondents, and

determined the level of agreement with typical attributes of distance education programs.

D.L. Fender / Journal of Safety Research 33 (2002) 175–193 177

There were also three open-ended questions. The survey is formed around three constructs

that are listed in Table 1.

The Faculty Distance Education Survey was designed to learn about the demographics

and attributes of occupational safety and health graduate faculty, including how willing to

change they were, their level of concern about distance education, their attitude toward

distance education, and how comfortable they were with technology. There were three

open-ended questions addressing general concerns and comments. The four constructs

included on the Faculty Distance Education Survey are shown in Table 2.

The instruments were based upon instruments used and validated in faculty evaluations

performed as part of the Iowa Distance Education Alliance (IDEA; Pollock-Maushak,

1997), which in turn was based upon the work by Hurt, Joseph, and Cook (1977).

Evidence indicated both predictive and construct validity for the instrument. In the

previous Iowa studies the Individual Innovativeness scale had a Cronbach coeffiient aof .89, with the split half reliability of a=.94, level of concern about distance education

scale (a=.64), and attitude toward distance education scale (a=.89).Analysis was performed with a five-point scale that consisted of two negative

responses, one undecided and two positive responses. For most of the analysis, the two

negative responses were combined as well as the two positive responses when looking at

frequencies and percentages.

Table 1

Safety professional distance education survey constructs

Construct Definition Measurement

Attitudes toward technology How comfortable individuals

are with technology aspects of

distance education

Uncomfortable/comfortable

scale

Attitudes toward distance

education

How comfortable individuals

are with distance education

Disagree/agree scale

Student services Importance of various student services Not important/important scale

Table 2

Faculty distance education survey constructs

Construct Definition Measurement

Individual innovativeness Individual characteristic indicating

the willingness to change


Level of concern about

distance education

Individual’s perceptions of about

how change related to distance

education relates to them on

a personal level


Attitude toward distance education An individual’s beliefs about

distance education


Comfort level with technology How comfortable individuals are

with technology aspects of

distance education

Uncomfortable/comfortable

scale


3. Results

3.1. Demand for distance education

Research question 1 was: ‘‘What is the demand for master’s degree occupational safety

and health programs to be delivered through distance education by occupational safety and

health professionals in the United States with bachelor’s degrees?’’

Respondents to the Safety Professional Distance Education Survey were limited to

those working safety professionals living in the United States who had no degree higher

than a bachelor’s degree. A slim majority of respondents (n=87, 53.4%) agreed with the

statement, ‘‘I would be interested in a distance education graduate program in occupational

safety and health if a program was currently available.’’ Forty respondents (24.5%)

indicated that they would not be interested and 36 respondents (22.1%) said that they were

unsure if they would be interested. Eighty-one percent (n=132) of respondents agreed with

the statement, ‘‘If I was going to pursue a master’s degree in occupational safety and

health, I would be interested in a good distance learning program if it was available.’’ The

correlation between the two statements was significant at the .05 level.

3.2. Program attributes necessary for students

Research question 2 asked: ‘‘What are the necessary program attributes such as

administrative policies, access to hardware and software, and instructional practices for

working professional students to participate and learn effectively in occupational safety

and health graduate courses delivered through distance education?’’ Characteristics of

individuals responding are presented in Table 3. Statistically significant items at the

.05 level were age, field of study, year degree obtained, and average hours worked in

a week.

To consider program attributes, it is important to consider who the students will be. In

this case, the student audience is comprised of working safety and health professionals.

Results from the survey indicated that the mean age for those interested was 42 years and

that 88.5% were male, 90.8% were white, and they worked on average no more than 50

hours a week. Only 13.8% of those responding that they were interested in such a degree

program worked more than 50 hours per week. Another area affecting time available for

pursuing a degree is traveling, and 56.0% of those interested said they traveled 1–6 days

per month. The average number of days spent traveling per month was 5.3 for all

respondents and 5.6 for those who indicated they were interested in a distance education

program.

The majority of respondents (84.7%) had a Bachelor of Science degree. This is

important because the science requirements are significant for an accredited graduate

program. Those with Bachelor of Arts degrees are less likely to have the necessary

background to be successful in the program. Also connected with type of degree is the

field that the undergraduate degree is in. Individuals with degrees in safety-related fields,

industrial technology, engineering, and most sciences are best prepared to pursue a

graduate program, and 73.6% of the respondents who were interested in a graduate

program had degrees from these fields. The remaining degree areas were business-related


Table 3

Safety professionals’ characteristics (reported in percentages)

Characteristic All

(n=163)

Interested in

DE (n=87)

Not interested in

DE (n=40)

Unsure

(n=36)

Gender

Male 89.0 88.5 95.0 83.3

Female 11.0 11.5 5.0 16.7

Age

24–30 11.1 14.0 2.5 13.9

31–40 30.9 31.4 17.5 44.4

41–50 29.0 33.7 20.0 27.8

51–60 19.1 16.3 37.5 5.6

61–73 9.9 4.7 22.5 8.3

Ethnicity

White 94.5 90.8 100 97.2

Black 1.8 3.4 – –

Hispanic 1.8 3.4 – –

Asian 0.6 1.1 – –

Other 1.2 1.1 – 2.8

Degree

BA 15.3 17.2 17.5 8.3

BS 84.7 82.8 82.5 91.7

Field of study

Safety-related 29.4 34.5 15.0 33.3

Industrial technology 11.0 11.5 12.5 8.3

Science 14.7 13.8 12.5 19.4

Business-related 16.0 12.6 20.0 19.4

Engineering 15.3 13.8 22.5 11.1

Humanistic studies 12.3 13.8 15.0 5.6

Other 1.2 – 2.5 2.8

Certification

Yes 47.1 48.2 28.2 23.5

No 52.9 59.0 20.5 20.5

Year graduated

1948–1970 17.9 9.2 46.2 8.3

1971–1980 24.1 24.1 25.6 22.2

1981–1990 35.8 39.1 20.5 44.4

1991–2000 22.2 27.6 7.7 25.0

Average hours worked weekly

V40 27.0 19.5 35.0 36.1

41–45 25.2 21.8 35.0 22.2

46–50 38.0 44.8 11.5 2.3

51–60 8.0 11.5 5.0 2.8

61–70 1.8 2.3 – 2.8


and various humanistic studies such as education, psychology, political science, and

criminal justice. In addition, those interested tended to be more recent graduates; 66.7% of

interested respondents had graduated since 1980.

Those who held a certification were not appreciably more likely to want to pursue a

degree (48.2%) than those who did not hold a certification (51.7%). The type of business

that the respondents worked for was scattered throughout all categories of organizations.

The largest numbers of responses were in insurance (26.4%), manufacturing (18.4%),

construction (11.0%), and chemical/petroleum (10.4%). When compared to individuals

interested in a distance education graduate program or not, those who reported working for

the insurance industry had the highest negative response with 60.5% saying no or unsure.

Those working for manufacturing had the highest percentage of positive comments, with

76.7% interested.

Survey items A14 through A19 were only answered by those who stated they were

interested in a master’s degree in occupational safety and health via distance learning. The

results of these survey items are listed in Table 4. Respondents who were interested in a

distance education-based graduate program indicated that they had access to the Internet,

to a computer, a fax machine, and to a nearby college library. This high level of access to

technology and information is a positive indicator of the availability for at least part of the

essential infrastructure required for a distance education program.

Characteristic All

(n=163)

Interested in

DE (n=87)

Not interested in

DE (n=40)

Unsure

(n=36)

Average days travel monthly

None 17.8 14.9 20.0 22.2

1–5 49.1 50.6 57.5 36.1

6–10 16.6 18.4 7.5 22.2

11–15 11.0 12.6 12.5 5.6

16–20 3.7 2.3 – 11.1

21–30 1.8 1.1 2.5 2.8

DE=distance education.

Table 3 (continued)

Table 4

Safety professionals’ descriptive statistics (reported in percentages, n=87)

Item Yes No

A14/access to college library 96.6 3.4

A15/access to computer 97.7 2.3

A16/access to Internet 98.9 1.1

A17/access to fax machine 97.7 2.3

A18/willing to travel one time 600 miles for

1–2 weeks duration to complete requirements

73.6 26.4

A19a/only interested if courses are offered

only via distance education

77.6 22.4

A19b/only interested if courses are offered face-to-face 17.9 82.1

A19c/only interested if courses are offered

using face-to-face and distance education

73.8 26.3


In the occupational safety and health graduate curriculum, there are requirements for

labs and other activities that may be difficult if not impossible to replicate on-line. Because

of this, even though it may seem to be the antithesis of what distance education is

supposed to be about, it may be necessary to have students come to the campus or other

central location in order to meet these necessary hands-on requirements. With this in mind,

survey questions were asked to gather information about coming to campus. The first

question asked, ‘‘If there was a requirement to travel one time 600 miles, for 1–2 weeks’

duration, to complete your degree would you still be interested in the [graduate safety and

health] program?’’ Of those interested in pursuing a graduate degree by means of distance

education, 64 (73.6%) said yes. The second question, ‘‘If there was a requirement to travel

at least 600 miles to campus as part of the degree requirements what would be the

maximum number of times you would be willing to do this?’’ The four response choices

ranged from one to four times. Responses indicated that a shorter period of time was

preferred, with one time (45, or 52.3%) and two times (29, or 33.7%) accounting for 86%

of the responses. The third question asked, ‘‘If you were required to travel to campus to

accomplish certain degree requirements that could not be done via distance learning what

would be the longest time that you could reasonably stay at one time?’’ Responses were

either 1 week (73, or 84.9%) or 2 weeks (13, or 15.1%). In summary, it appears that

potential students are reluctant but willing to travel to campus to complete specific degree

requirements. However, if necessary, such travel is preferably only one time and no more

than two times for the entire degree program and for a duration of no more than 1 week at

a time.

The three questions (A19a–A19c) that addressed methods of teaching courses are listed

in Table 4. It appears that, although the respondents did not reject face-to-face methods,

they do not find desirable the option of doing course work only face-to-face.

Table 5 lists questions that addressed the respondent’s attitude toward distance

education. Potential students want a program that is recognized as being of high quality.

This is evident in the comments made in the open-ended questions as well as the responses

that indicated that 97.6% of respondents thought it was important that the program

be accredited.

Communication appears to be very important to potential students. Those who believed

it is important to be able to communicate with the instructor totaled 93% of the

respondents. Connected with this result is the finding that 91.9% of respondents thought

it is important for the instructor to have telephone office hours. Additionally, 78.0% of

respondents indicated that it is important that the instructor respond to e-mail the same day

it is sent. Potential students were asked to indicate by ranking from 1 to 5 their preferred

method of communication with instructors. The composite rankings, in order, were e-mail,

phone, fax, mail, and in-person. Confirming this preference for e-mail were questions that

indicated a high level of comfort with using e-mail to communicate (91.9%) and with an e-

mail-based course (87.3%).

Communication is essential for socialization, which is a part of the educational

experience. Findings indicated that a slight majority (53.5%) of respondents believe it is

important to meet with faculty at least once in order to get to know them; however, these

potential students are unsure of the importance of meeting fellow students for peer support

(important=19.8%, no opinion=41.8%, unimportant=38.4%). Similar issues and responses


are those indicating a lack of importance in interacting face-to-face with faculty

(important=36.1%, no opinion=36.0%, unimportant=27.9%) and interacting face-to-face

with fellow students (important=24.1%, no opinion=34.9%, unimportant=40.7%).

Respondents indicated that 86.1% believe it to be important that the course work relates

to their job. Flexibility was considered important by 95.3% of the respondents, and

affirmed by the number of remarks that stressed this point in responses to open-ended

questions. Comments to open-ended questions indicated a particular need for flexibility

regarding time because of all the other demands that professionals have on their time

Table 5

Safety professionals’ attitude toward distance education (reported in percentages)

Item VU UC U C VC M S.D. n

1 2 3 4 5

B10/General comfort level with DE 0 3.3 9.0 68.0 19.7 4.04 0.65 122

Interested in DE graduate program 0 0 7.0 69.8 23.3 4.16 0.53 86

Not interested/unsure about DE graduate program 0 11.1 13.9 63.9 11.1 3.75 0.81 36

E1/Feasible for meaningful education through Internet 0.6 4.3 6.2 59.0 29.8 4.13 0.76 161


Not interested/unsure about DE graduate program 1.4 9.5 9.5 55.4 24.3 3.92 0.92 74

E2/DE is at least equal in quality to classroom course 2.5 19.3 16.1 49.1 13.0 3.51 1.03 161

Interested in DE graduate program 0 9.2 14.9 59.8 16.1 3.83 0.81 87


E3/Possible for individual to take courses via Internet 1.3 4.4 12.6 59.1 22.6 3.97 0.80 159



U E4/DE course has less work than classroom course 9.4 46.5 26.4 15.7 1.9 2.54 0.93 159

Interested in DE graduate program 10.5 43.0 25.6 18.6 2.3 2.59 0.99 86


U E5/Learn less in a DE course compared to classroom 9.4 45.3 20.1 22.6 2.5 2.64 1.02 159



E6/Learning through media is impersonal 4.4 25.8 24.5 38.4 6.9 3.18 1.03 159



U E7/Degrees obtained through DE have less value 15.7 46.5 20.8 14.5 2.5 2.42 1.00 159



U E8/Easier to obtain degree through DE 5.0 33.3 28.3 25.2 8.2 2.98 1.06 159



E9/I’m interested in DE if I wanted to get a

graduate degree

2.5 4.4 10.1 49.7 33.3 4.07 0.91 159



Total construct – – – – – 3.70 0.40 121

Interested in DE graduate program – – – – – 3.76 0.36 85

Not interested/unsure about DE graduate program – – – – – 3.56 0.46 36

VU=very uncomfortable, UC=uncomfortable/moderately uncomfortable, U=undecided, C=moderately comfort-

able/comfortable, VC=very comfortable, DE=distance education, U =negatively worded item recoded prior to

computing construct mean.


including work, travel, and families. Also related to flexibility, respondents indicated that

they would prefer that the maximum amount of time necessary to complete course

requirements would be 2 years or less (58.6%); 3 years was selected by 29.9% of

respondents.

Table 6 lists a summary of the questions asked regarding various methods of distance

education teaching and how comfortable or uncomfortable safety professionals and faculty

were with these methods. Respondents rejected none of the methods; however, the lowest

response was for meeting at an Internet site at a specific time (62.1%). From a student

point of view, this method would make a course much less flexible because of the

expectation to be at a specified place at a specific time for a specific length of time, as is

required by most classroom-based courses. Respondents (87.4%) indicated they would

prefer evening classes between the hours of 6:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. if they were required

to do course work at a particular time. The highest comfort level among respondents was

with using interactive computer programs (93.1%), videotape- and print-based courses

(90.8%), and using an Internet site on their own schedule (88.4%).

Student support services are also important to potential students and responses are listed

in Table 7. The most important support services according to survey respondents are

computer support, bookstores, library, and registration. Significantly less important were

opportunities to interact with other students for peer support, and student counseling

services. To properly serve distance students, a university will need to consider and

address these specific needs.

3.3. Faculty issues

Research question 3 asked: ‘‘What human and technical issues (training, support,

hardware, software, and technical knowledge) will be faced by faculty who will develop

and deliver occupational safety and health graduate education programs using distance

education?’’

Faculty respondents to the Faculty Distance Education Survey were predominately

male (82.1%), white (89.3%), and between 46 and 55 years of age (52.7%). A majority of

these faculty (64.2%) possessed a doctoral degree, had 11 years or more of teaching

Table 6

Rankings of methods of distance education (reported in percentages)

Method Faculty Student

% Ranking % Ranking

B4/Comfort with e-mail-based course 66.0 1a 87.3 4

B5/Comfort using interactive computer programs 66.0 1a 93.1 1

B8/Comfort with meeting at Internet site at specific time 62.5 2a 62.1 9

B9/Comfort with using Internet site on own schedule 62.5 2a 88.4 3

B3/Comfort with videotape and print-based course 60.0 3 90.8 2

B2/Comfort with videotape course 58.9 4 80.4 6

B7/Comfort using Internet video 53.5 5 79.3 7

B1/Comfort with correspondence course 51.8 6 81.6 5

B6/Comfort using Internet voice 42.9 7 77.0 8

a Responses tied by percentage.


experience at the college level (64.3%), were tenured (64.3%), and held one of the

professor ranks (85.6%). Additionally, the majority (53.6%) was likely to have had some

experience with distance education by having taught at least one course via a distance

education means.

The occupational safety and health field has many technological aspects to it. It is not

surprising, therefore, that responding faculty indicated that they were generally comfort-

able with technology. The respondents indicated that they were comfortable using e-mail

(83%) and were generally comfortable with the concept of instructing via distance

education (67%). There were 10 survey items that sought to identify how receptive to

change the respondents were; results indicated that these faculty were receptive to change,

with the lowest indication being 66.1% and ranging up to a 98.2% indication of being

receptive to new ideas and concepts.

Respondents were asked questions (see Table 6) regarding various methods of distance

education and asked how comfortable or uncomfortable they were with these methods.

Some of methods were more favored than others. The highest level of comfort (66.1%)

was identical for instruction and lessons being sent using e-mail and using preprogrammed

interactive computer-based lessons. The next highest level of comfort (62.5%) was

indicated for students being required to go to an Internet site at a specific time, once a

week, for interaction with the instructor and other students through video or audio

Table 7

Safety professionals’ attitude toward student services (reported in percentages)


1 2 3 4 5

C11a/Important to have computer support 1.6 4.9 9.8 56.6 27.0 4.02 0.85 122


Not interested/unsure about DE graduate program 2.8 0 5.6 66.7 25.0 4.11 0.75 36

C11b/Important to have bookstore services 0.8 13.1 24.6 49.2 12.3 3.59 0.90 122



C11c/Important for opportunities to interact with

fellow students

4.9 22.1 27.0 40.2 5.7 3.20 1.01 122



C11d/Important to have student counseling services 6.6 35.2 29.5 22.1 6.6 2.87 1.04 122



C11e/Important to have library services 2.5 18.0 19.7 48.4 11.5 3.48 1.00 122



C11f/Important to have student registration services 1.6 13.9 27.0 16.7 10.7 3.51 0.92 122



Total construct – – – – – 3.44 0.66 122

Interested in DE graduate program – – – – – 3.45 0.66 86

Not interested/unsure about DE graduate program – – – – – 3.43 0.67 36


able/comfortable, VC=very comfortable, DE=distance education.


communications and e-mail, and requiring students to go to an Internet site once a week at

a time of their choosing and spending about 2–3 h reviewing instructor lectures through

video or audio communications. Of the choices given, these two methods are most similar

to traditional classroom teaching methods.

The other choices, regarding methods of distance education, in order of preference were

videotape- and print-based courses (60%), videotape-based courses (58.9%), Internet-

based video courses (53.5%), mail correspondence courses (51.8%), and Internet-based

audio courses (42.9%). The two methods that garnered the highest level of discomfort

among faculty respondents were Internet-based audio courses (44.7% uncomfortable,

12.5% undecided) and correspondence courses where everything is written and assign-

ments are sent back and forth using the mail (44.6% uncomfortable, 3.6% undecided).

Table 8 lists questions regarding how concerned the faculty was about distance

education. Responses indicated that faculty had some knowledge about distance education

courses (76.8%), and that they are concerned about how distance education is going to

affect them personally (85.7%) and what their institution is going to want from them

(76.4%). These responses indicate that the respondents are concerned about distance

education and how it will affect them.

Faculty indicated (Table 9) that they believe that distance education is important to their

department (76.8%), their university (82.2%), and to the future of education (85.7%); they

also believe it can expand learning opportunities (94.7%). Responses to open-ended

questions also indicated that faculty felt that distance education has advantages for

nontraditional students and the potential to increase enrollment. Additionally, respondents

indicated that they would be interested in teaching by distance education (75.5%); this was

further reinforced by 83.5% indicating that their attitude toward distance education is

positive and by faculty responses made to the open-ended questions.

Through the open-ended questions respondents also indicated their concerns about

distance education. These concerns included lack of interaction with students, inadequate

time to develop courses and teach, insufficient technical and administrative support, course

Table 8

Faculty level of concern about distance education (reported in percentages)


1 2 3 4 5

U C11/I don’t know what DE is 78.6 21.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.21 0.41 56

U C12/I am not concerned about DE 46.4 30.4 7.1 14.3 1.8 1.95 1.13 56

U C13/I have very limited knowledge about DE 25.0 51.8 3.6 17.9 1.8 2.20 1.07 56

C14/I would like to know what my institution

would require of me

3.6 7.3 12.7 50.9 25.5 3.87 1.00 55

C15/I would like to know how my teaching

is suppose to change

1.8 5.4 7.1 66.1 19.6 3.96 0.81 56

C16/I would like to know how my role will

change using DE

5.4 7.1 5.4 64.3 17.9 3.82 0.99 56

Total construct – – – – – 4.06 0.53 55





quality issues, inadequate compensation for the extra workload, insufficient university

administration support and commitment, and unease about pedagogy.

4. Discussion

This study looked at graduate course work via distance education from the view of

faculty and potential students. These groups are two of the three major groups directly

involved in education, the third being university administration. As used in this context,

university administration includes funding and support, general policies and practices,

training, and ancillary functions such as library, registrar, counseling, advising, and

computer and technical support. Faculty and students comprise the two groups that are

most directly involved in an individual’s education and have the most direct interface with

each other. Thompson and McGrath (1999) stated that the infrastructure to support

distance education must be as solid as that supporting resident instruction. This means

that the third group, university administration, needs to establish policies and practices that

enable and encourage faculty and students to maximize the educational experience and to

be especially careful that policies and practices do not get in the way of education.

The potential students considered within this study are working safety and health

professionals. A majority of these respondents expressed an interest in a graduate-level

degree program in safety and health taught via distance education. Thus, it can be

concluded that a potential demand exists for such a program. Such interest by working

Table 9

Faculty attitude toward distance education (reported in percentages)


1 2 3 4 5

C17/DE can expand learning opportunities 0.0 3.6 1.8 51.8 42.9 4.34 0.69 56

U C18/Cost of implementing DE is too high 8.9 33.9 33.9 16.1 7.1 2.79 1.06 56

C19/DE will promote collaboration

among colleges

1.8 14.3 35.7 37.5 10.7 3.41 0.93 56

U 20/DE will not allow interaction between

instructor and students

14.5 50.9 5.5 27.3 1.8 2.51 1.10 55

C21/DE is important to the future of

education in general

1.8 7.1 5.4 66.1 19.6 3.95 0.84 56


my university

1.8 10.7 5.4 64.3 17.9 3.86 0.90 56


my department

1.8 17.9 3.6 62.5 14.3 3.70 0.99 56

C24/DE can be at least equal in quality to a

traditional course

16.4 12.7 18.2 47.3 5.5 3.13 1.22 55

C25/I would be interested in teaching by DE 3.8 13.2 7.5 47.2 28.3 3.83 1.10 53

C26/My attitude toward DE is positive 3.6 7.3 5.5 60.0 23.6 3.93 0.96 55

Total construct – – – – – 3.68 0.70 52





adults in distance education-based programs was supported by Gibson’s (1992) finding

that adults tend to choose educational options delivered via a means that allows them to

minimize disruption of their lives including their employment and family.

The single largest group (slightly over one third) within those interested in a graduate

program has their bachelor’s degree in a safety-related field. These individuals are well

positioned to enroll directly in an accredited graduate curriculum. A little over one-third

have degrees in other fields such as industrial technology, engineering, and various

sciences. These individuals would most likely have to take a few undergraduate courses

before being admitted into a graduate safety and health program. The third group was a

little under one third of those interested, and they had degrees in various business and

humanistic studies. These individuals would likely have extensive undergraduate require-

ments to meet before they could pursue graduate study in an accredited safety and health

program. Universities setting up distance education programs will need to understand the

wide variance in educational background of those working in the safety and health field,

be very clear about requirements in any promotional materials, and have formal, justifiable

evaluation systems in place. This is critical for students and for the reputation and quality

of the program as well as being important to ensure meeting accreditation requirements.

Additionally, entry requirements may require students to take prerequisite courses, perhaps

from other institutions. This raises the issue of quality of these courses and what will be

accepted and what will not. Formal open procedures and policies will need to be

established to avoid problems.

The mean age of those interested in a degree program in this study was 42 years, with

most being no more than 50 years of age. They also tended to be white males and to have

received their bachelor’s degrees within the last 20 years. While all this demographic

information is useful, programs cannot be strictly tailored to these specifications. The field

is becoming more diverse, with women and minorities becoming an increasing part of the

safety and health field, and their needs must also be considered.

Respondents indicated that program flexibility is very important to them. Although the

responses indicated that flexibility meant different things to different people, a common

word used with flexibility was time. To illustrate, respondents indicated that job require-

ments necessitate working more than 40 h, although few exceeded 50 hours per week.

Traveling for business is also a common necessity, requiring on average 1 to 6 days per

month. Those interested in pursuing a graduate degree are very concerned that the program

be flexible from a time perspective. O’Malley and McCraw (1999) pointed out that a major

advantage indicated by students who have taken distance education courses is the

flexibility it gives them. Gibson (1992) indicated that adult learners prefer to work on

their own, at their own pace, and to not be overloaded because of their other obligations.

The respondents in the current study appear to fit this profile in their desire for flexibility.

Schrum and Benson (2000), in a study of a MBA distance education-based program,

discovered that the working students in the program indicated that they struggled to

balance the time required in their course work with their professional and personal lives

and that this caused them the most stress. To provide flexibility, it will require a different

mindset from a course administration point of view. Deadlines may need to be more

flexible and will have to be established well in advance and made very clear. Another

aspect of time is the time required to complete the program. Students would like to


complete degree requirements within 2 years. Strict long-term planning will be necessary

to lay out the curriculum so that this can be possible.

Although the majority of respondents indicated they had access to a college library, a

safety and health curriculum requires access to books and references that are not found in

typical college libraries. The library at the host institution will need to establish access and

loan procedures that meet the needs of distance students and due to shipping time they will

need multiple copies of key material. Much of this material could be made available

through the Internet, but access to appropriate databases would need to be established.

This will require close coordination between faculty and library personnel to ensure that

appropriate material is available.

Respondents overwhelmingly indicated that they have access to computers, the

Internet, fax, and e-mail. Clear and definite information will have to be provided as to

what technology is expected to be used by students, and faculty will need to adhere to

those standards. In some cases, students will need to purchase equipment or software and

they should not be expected to purchase additional equipment just because one faculty

member decides that he or she wants some additional capability.

It may be necessary for students to come to campus or other central location in order to

accomplish hands-on requirements such as those that are usually performed in labs.

Potential students indicated that they are willing to travel to fulfill this need, but this travel

should be as little as possible, ideally only once for the entire degree and absolutely no

more than twice. Additionally, when traveling they want to stay away from home no more

than 1 week. Requiring students to travel defeats much of the purpose of a distance

education program from a student’s point of view. Ideally, the program should be set up to

require students to travel only once and for only 1 week to meet all on-campus

requirements. This will require a careful review of necessary lab requirements and an

efficient use of time to meet them.

Potential students indicated that they want a program that is recognized as being of high

quality. They also indicated that it was very important that the program be accredited. This

indicates that an institution that already has a conventional accredited graduate program

that is widely recognized within the field as being of high quality, would be strongly

considered by individuals who want a graduate degree, as long as the distance education

program is perceived as being of equal quality. Such an institution may have a marketing

advantage over other institutions that were not accredited or did not have as strong

a reputation.

Attention to quality must be made during program development and throughout

implementation. Quality is hard to define and much of what is perceived as quality is

in the eye of the beholder. Because of this, program administrators and faculty should be

sensitive to the comments and opinions of potential and actual students in order to ensure

that the program’s high quality is being received as it is intended. Quality as a major issue

with potential students was confirmed by a study performed by Perdue and Valentine

(2000) of certified public accountants that showed this group’s concern about quality was

actually hindering pursuit of distance education by this group. Quality issues, real or

perceived, must be properly addressed.

Communication is very important and is extra critical in a distance education program

where face-to-face communication is not possible. Nixon and Leftwich (1999) found that


constant and timely communication is crucial and that students have a need to know that

someone is listening and that they have been ‘‘heard.’’ Students want instructors to have

telephone office hours and to respond quickly to e-mail. E-mail followed by phone and fax

were the preferred means of communication; procedures to handle what could become a

high volume of communication will need to be established and followed.

Potential students indicated that they would like to meet faculty at least one time. Being

able to ‘‘put a face’’ to a name and to a communication could be an important component

of quality and enhanced communications. One example of what could be done is to put

pictures and biographies on a web site where students could access them. Another method

that might be used is to bring all students starting the program to campus for

approximately 1 week to meet faculty and other key personnel and to fulfill hands-on

requirements as previously discussed. This would also allow the students to meet each

other and should enhance attachment to the department and the university.

The potential students who responded in this study did not reject any of the principal

methods of conducting classes by means of distance education; however, they thought less

of synchronous courses. Emphasis should be placed on conducting courses that allow

maximum flexibility, including varying work schedules and travel. Asynchronous as

opposed to synchronous courses would better meet this requirement. If synchronous

courses are conducted, potential students prefer evening hours.

Potential student respondents in this study felt that the most important student support

services were computer support, bookstore, library, and registration. Counseling and peer

interaction were much less important. It will be important to consider the different needs of

distance students from on-campus students. Anything that the student will need to do must

be able to be done easily without coming to campus. To address this need, policies and

procedures may have to be changed, hours modified, and services made available via the

Internet and other means. Additionally, the importance of various support services will

likely be different for distance than for campus-based students. For example, computer

help desks may need to be open longer hours and have more people assigned to them or

the bookstore may need to hire more personnel, perhaps even install a Internet-based

purchase system or toll-free number ordering system to handle book requests.

Faculty demographics in this study followed the safety professionals’ demographics in

that the respondents were predominately male, white, and 46–55 years of age. These

faculty respondents tended to hold tenured positions at one of the professor (assistant,

associate, or full) ranks, and a slight majority had taught at least one course via distance

education. The faculty indicated that they were generally comfortable with technology and

with the concept of distance education and that they were generally receptive to change

and to new ideas and concepts. This being said, that does not mean that faculty were

totally comfortable or understood distance education methods and requirements. Two of

the higher rated preferred methods of teaching were those requiring students to go to an

Internet site at a specific time once a week for interaction with the instructor and other

students through video or audio communications and requiring students to go to an

Internet site once a week at a time of their choosing and spend about 2–3 hours reviewing

instructor lectures through video or audio communications. It is not surprising that these

methods would be more comfortable for many faculty; they are just adaptations of the

traditional classroom. Williamson, Bernhard, and Chamberlin (2000) found that faculty


needs to use appropriate pedagogy in consideration of the results desired and the

technology available, and to not just try to modify a classroom approach. Faculty will

require training and support to be able to effect this change.

Faculty respondents in this study indicated that they had some knowledge about

distance education and were concerned about how distance education will affect them.

They believed that distance education is important to their department, their university, and

to the future of education. They also felt that distance education has the capability of

expanding learning opportunities, especially for nontraditional students, and has the

potential to increase enrollment. Faculty, whether they had taught by distance education

means before or not, indicated that they had a generally positive attitude toward distance

education and would be interested in teaching by distance education means. Those who

had previously taught a course by means of distance education were more positive about

teaching another course than were those who had not taught via distance education means.

This is consistent with Fuller, Norby, Pearce, and Strand’s (2000) research, which found

that most faculty who had previously taught an on-line course were willing to do so again.

Faculty respondents in this study also had concerns about distance education. These

included lack of interaction with students, inadequate time to develop courses and teach,

insufficient technical and administrative support, course quality issues, inadequate

compensation for the extra workload, insufficient university administration support and

commitment, and unfamiliarity with appropriate pedagogy. These types of issues are

common with faculty and similar concerns have been found in other studies (Botsch &

Botsch, 2000; Rockwell, Schauer, Fritz, & Marx, 1999; Muilenburg & Berge, 2001).

5. Recommendations

Based upon the findings of this study, the following recommendations are made for

occupational safety and health educators who want to develop and deliver graduate

education through distance education.

1. Institutions need to be very clear and up-front in marketing and promotion about

what is expected of students and the nature of distance education. Some students have an

unrealistic expectation of distance education, believing it will be easy or underestimating

time requirements for completion.

2. Technology should never get in the way of instruction. Students will need to be

trained in available technology as well as be provided quality computer support so that

they can focus on the instruction and not on the technology. It may be necessary to assess

individual students’ level of technological knowledge and train them where they are

deficient. Additionally, an instructor will likely be the first person a students contacts when

experiencing a problem therefore, in order to help students, instructors must be trained on

common problems.

3. Considering the needs of distance students must be a primary concern. Care should

be taken to not try to just plug the distance education program into existing administrative

policies and procedures. Entry requirements and academic standards should be the same

for distance and on-campus students. Policies and procedures will need to be established

for acceptance of transfer credit and for evaluation of previous work.


4. Faculty should be encouraged to participate in delivering courses via means of

distance education. To accomplish this, faculty need to be given training in pedagogy,

technology, and communications. Faculty need to be sufficiently trained so that they have

the same comfort level with this method of instruction as they do with more familiar,

traditional classroom instruction methods. Technical and instructional support personnel

need to be readily available to work with the faculty and to support course development. It

also would be helpful to establish faculty mentorship efforts, so that those faculty who

have experience with distance education can assist those who do not. Additionally,

individual faculty distance education efforts need to be recognized by university admin-

istration in promotion and tenure decisions as well as in administrative decisions regarding

financial rewards, release time, and honor systems.

5. Further research needs to be focused on specific technologies and pedagogical issues

in distance education in order to develop best practices for course delivery.

References

Botsch, C., & Botsch, R. (2000, July/August). Gaining faculty acceptance for online courses at a traditional

college. The Technology Source. [On-line]. http://horizon.unc.edu/TS/cases/2000-07.asp.

Evans, R. M., Murray, S. L., Daily, M., & Hall, R. (2000). Effectiveness of an Internet-based graduate engineering

management course. Journal of Engineering Education, 90(1), 63–71.

Fredericksen, E., Pickett, A., Shea, P., Pela, W., & Swan, K. (2000). Student satisfaction and perceived learning

with on-line courses: principles and examples from the SUNY learning network. Journal of Asynchronous

Learning Networks, 4(2), 1–29.

Fuller, D., Norby, R. F., Pearce, K., & Strand, S. (2000). Internet teaching by style: profiling the on-line professor.

Educational Technology and Society, 3(2), 71–85.

Gibson, C. (1992). Distance education: on focus and future. Adult Education Quarterly, 42(3), 167–179.

Holmberg, B. (1987). The development of distance education research. American Journal of Distance Education,

1(3), 16–33.

Hurt, H. T., Joseph, K., & Cook, C. D. (1977). Scales for the measurement of innovativeness. Human Commu-

nication Research, 4(1), 58–65.

Muilenburg, L., & Berge, Z. L. (2001). Barriers to distance education: a factor-analytic study. American Journal

of Distance Education, 15(2), 7–22.

Nixon, M. A., & Leftwich, B. R. (1999). Leading the pack: from an on-campus program to Internet-based

delivery. The Technology Source. [On-line]. http://horizon.unc.edu/TS/cases/1999-11a.asp.

O’Malley, J., & McCraw, H. (1999). Students perceptions of distance learning, online learning and the traditional

classroom. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 2(4) ([On-line]. http://www.westga.edi/fdistance/omalley24.html).

Perdue, K. J., & Valentine, T. (2000). Deterrents to participation in web-based continuing professional education.

American Journal of Distance Education, 14(1), 7–26.

Pollock-Maushak, N. J. (1997). Distance education, innovativeness, and teacher education: status in Iowa

independent, 4-year colleges and universities (Doctoral dissertation, Iowa State University, 1997). Dissertation

Abstracts International, 58/06, 2172.

Rockwell, S. K., Schauer, J., Fritz, S. M., & Marx, D. B. (1999). Incentives and obstacles influencing higher

education faculty and administrators to teach via distance. Online Journal of Distance Learning Adminis-

tration, 2(4) ([On-line]. http://www.westga.edu/fdistance/rockwell24.html).

Schrum, L., & Benson, A. (2000). Online professional education: a case study of an MBA program through its

transition to an online model. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 4(1), 52–61.

Sherow, S., & Wedemeyer, C. A. (1990). Origins of distance education in the United States. In D. R. Garrison, &

D. Shale (Eds.), Education at a distance: from issues to practice ( pp. 7–22). Malabar, FL: Robert E. Krieger.


Thompson, M. M., & McGrath, J. W. (1999). Using ALNs to support a complete educational experience. Journal

of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 3(2), 54–63.

Tillson, T. M., Warner, J. C., & McLean, G. N. (2000). An evaluation of distance learning in the University of

Minnesota human resource development program. DEOSNEWS, 10(1), 1–11.

Wegner, S. B., Holloway, K. C., & Garton, E. M. (1999). The effects of Internet-based instruction on student

learning. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 3(2), 98–106.

Williamson, C., Bernhard, J. T., & Chamberlin, K. (2000). Perspective on an Internet-based synchronous distance

learning experience. Journal of Engineering Education, 89(1), 53–61.

Willis, B. (1994). Distance education: obstacles and opportunities. Education Technology, 34(5), 34–36.

David Fender, Ed.D., CSP, is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Occupational Safety and Health at

Murray State University. He received his Ed.D. from Vanderbilt University, his Master of Science degree in

Safety from the University of Southern California, and his Bachelor of Science degree from Central Missouri

State University. He also is a consultant and previously worked at the US Army Safety Center.


student and faculty issues in distance education occupational safety and health graduate programs

Documents