<< Chapter < Page Chapter >> Page >

Table 5

In 2004, the studio class was 35.7% female, while the off-campus students were 51.8% female. In the studioclass in 2004, 71.4% of the students were classroom teachers, and 14.3% were school administrators. At the remote sites in 2004,79.1% were teachers, with 18.0% stating that they were administrators. In 2002 we noted that females did select theon-campus class more than the off-campus sites. This was reversed in 2004, so no conclusions can be made about selection of sites bygender.

The reasons the students chose a particular method of course delivery was also an area of inquiry. The studiostudents were asked if they would have preferred to have taken the course off campus instead of coming to the studio. Although in2004, 11.9% said that this was sometimes true, 85.7% stated that it was never true (a change from 30.6% and 69.4% in 2002, but similarif added together). The students who completed the course off campus did not have to pay student fees (recreation, library use,sports and musical tickets, etc.) and only paid tuition for the three-hour graduate course. Students on campus had to pay the fulltuition and fees amount. When we asked the off-campus students the advantage of taking a course on television, 93.5% said that it wasfor convenience. An important question for the off-campus students was the following:“Considering the advantages and the disadvantages of a television course, would you take another one ifit was something that you needed and it was at a convenient site?”Responses indicated that 97.8% would take another televised course. Clearly, the advantages outweighed the disadvantages for thesestudents.


Distance education experience was more evident in the 2004 survey. The“no-call-in”rule was considered reasonable by the students, and most of the on-campus students werenot bothered by the phones. Taking attendance took quite a bit of class time, and students at both sites wished that takingattendance could be reduced or eliminated. There were problems with the technology, but these problems were not major for moststudents. Students who had no prior degrees from these two universities took the television courses, pointing out potentialrecruitment benefits of this method of instruction. When asked the reason that off-campus students completed the course by television,the overwhelming reason was the convenience of driving to a nearby site instead of traveling to campus.

The results were positive for our off-campus students and technology-based leadership development. Theoff-campus students received the same instruction as campus students for a lower cost, with no major technological problems,and at a convenient location. The on-campus students seemed to accept the various technological requirements necessary for ouroff-campus students. For school district leaders considering technology-based leadership development, the results areencouraging.


Jones, D. R.,&Pritchard, A. L. (1999). Realizing the virtual university. Educational Technology, 39(5),56-59.

Kelly, M. (1990). Course creation issues in distance education. In Education at a distance: From issues to practice (pp.77-99). Malabar, FL: Krieger.

Lamb, A. C.,&Smith, W. L. (2000). Ten facts of life for distance learning courses. Tech Trends, 44(1), 12-15.

Sharp, W. L.,&Cox, E. P. (2003). Distance learning: A comparison of classroom students withoff-campus television students. The Journal of Technology Studies, 29(1), 29-34.

Sinn, J. W. (2004). Electronic course delivery in higher education: Promise and challenge. The Journal ofTechnology Studies, 30(1), 24-28.

Souder, W. E. (1993). The effectiveness of traditional vs. satellite delivery in three management of technology master’s degree programs. The American Journal of Distance Education, 7(1), 37-53.

Stammen, R.,&Schmidt, M. (2001). Basic understanding for developing distance education for onlineinstruction. NASSP Bulletin, 85(628), 47-50.

Swan, M. K.,&Jackman, D. H. (2000). Comparing the success of students enrolled in distance education courses vs.face-to-face classrooms. The Journal of Technology Studies, 26(1), 58-63.

Weigel, T. (2000). E-Learning: The tradeoff between richness and research in higher education. Change, 33(5),10-15.

Questions & Answers

a perfect square v²+2v+_
Dearan Reply
kkk nice
Abdirahman Reply
algebra 2 Inequalities:If equation 2 = 0 it is an open set?
Kim Reply
or infinite solutions?
Embra Reply
if |A| not equal to 0 and order of A is n prove that adj (adj A = |A|
Nancy Reply
rolling four fair dice and getting an even number an all four dice
ramon Reply
Kristine 2*2*2=8
Bridget Reply
Differences Between Laspeyres and Paasche Indices
Emedobi Reply
No. 7x -4y is simplified from 4x + (3y + 3x) -7y
Mary Reply
is it 3×y ?
Joan Reply
J, combine like terms 7x-4y
Bridget Reply
im not good at math so would this help me
Rachael Reply
how did I we'll learn this
Noor Reply
f(x)= 2|x+5| find f(-6)
Prince Reply
f(n)= 2n + 1
Samantha Reply
Need to simplify the expresin. 3/7 (x+y)-1/7 (x-1)=
Crystal Reply
. After 3 months on a diet, Lisa had lost 12% of her original weight. She lost 21 pounds. What was Lisa's original weight?
Chris Reply
preparation of nanomaterial
Victor Reply
Yes, Nanotechnology has a very fast field of applications and their is always something new to do with it...
Himanshu Reply
can nanotechnology change the direction of the face of the world
Prasenjit Reply
At high concentrations (>0.01 M), the relation between absorptivity coefficient and absorbance is no longer linear. This is due to the electrostatic interactions between the quantum dots in close proximity. If the concentration of the solution is high, another effect that is seen is the scattering of light from the large number of quantum dots. This assumption only works at low concentrations of the analyte. Presence of stray light.
Ali Reply
the Beer law works very well for dilute solutions but fails for very high concentrations. why?
bamidele Reply
how did you get the value of 2000N.What calculations are needed to arrive at it
Smarajit Reply
Got questions? Join the online conversation and get instant answers!
QuizOver.com Reply

Get the best Algebra and trigonometry course in your pocket!

Source:  OpenStax, Mentorship for teacher leaders. OpenStax CNX. Dec 22, 2008 Download for free at http://cnx.org/content/col10622/1.3
Google Play and the Google Play logo are trademarks of Google Inc.

Notification Switch

Would you like to follow the 'Mentorship for teacher leaders' conversation and receive update notifications?