A distance education case study: A comparison of instructional delivery methods practiced by higher education faculty and emerging standards

The purpose of this research was to compare the delivery methods as practiced by higher education faculty teaching distance courses with recommended or emerging standard instructional delivery methods for distance education. Previous research shows that traditional-type instructional strategies have been used in distance education and that there has been no training to distance teach. Secondary data, however, appear to suggest emerging practices which could be pooled toward the development of standards. This is a qualitative study based on the constant comparative analysis approach of grounded theory.^ Participants (N = 5) of this study were full-time faculty teaching distance education courses. The observation method used was unobtrusive content analysis of videotaped instruction. Triangulation of data was accomplished through one-on-one in-depth interviews and from literature review. Due to the addition of non-media content being analyzed, a special time-sampling technique was designed by the researcher--influenced by content analyst theories of media-related data--to sample portions of the videotape instruction that were observed and counted. A standardized interview guide was used to collect data from in-depth interviews. Coding was done based on categories drawn from review of literature, and from Cranton and Weston's (1989) typology of instructional strategies. The data were observed, counted, tabulated, analyzed, and interpreted solely by the researcher. It should be noted however, that systematic and rigorous data collection and analysis led to credible data.^ The findings of this study supported the proposition that there are no standard instructional practices for distance teaching. Further, the findings revealed that of the emerging practices suggested by proponents and by faculty who teach distance education courses, few were practiced even minimally. A noted example was the use of lecture and questioning. Questioning, as a teaching tool was used a great deal, with students at the originating site but not with distance students. Lectures were given, but were mostly conducted in traditional fashion--long in duration and with no interactive component.^ It can be concluded from the findings that while there are no standard practices for instructional delivery for distance education, there appears to be sufficient information from secondary and empirical data to initiate some standard instructional practices. Therefore, grounded in this research data is the theory that the way to arrive at some instructional delivery standards for televised distance education is a pooling of the tacitly agreed-upon emerging practices by proponents and practicing instructors. Implicit in this theory is a need for experimental research so that these emerging practices can be tested, tried, and proven, ultimately resulting in formal standards for instructional delivery in television education. ^

Database As A Tool For Hospitality Management

In his discussion - Database As A Tool For Hospitality Management - William O'Brien, Assistant Professor, School of Hospitality Management at Florida International University, O’Brien offers at the outset, “Database systems offer sweeping possibilities for better management of information in the hospitality industry. The author discusses what such systems are capable of accomplishing.” The author opens with a bit of background on database system development, which also lends an impression as to the complexion of the rest of the article; uh, it’s a shade technical. “In early 1981, Ashton-Tate introduced dBase 11. It was the first microcomputer database management processor to offer relational capabilities and a user-friendly query system combined with a fast, convenient report writer,” O’Brien informs. “When 16-bit microcomputers such as the IBM PC series were introduced late the following year, more powerful database products followed: dBase 111, Friday!, and Framework. The effect on the entire business community, and the hospitality industry in particular, has been remarkable”, he further offers with his informed outlook. Professor O’Brien offers a few anecdotal situations to illustrate how much a comprehensive data-base system means to a hospitality operation, especially when billing is involved. Although attitudes about computer systems, as well as the systems themselves have changed since this article was written, there is pertinent, fundamental information to be gleaned. In regards to the digression of the personal touch when a customer is engaged with a computer system, O’Brien says, “A modern data processing system should not force an employee to treat valued customers as numbers…” He also cautions, “Any computer system that decreases the availability of the personal touch is simply unacceptable.” In a system’s ability to process information, O’Brien suggests that in the past businesses were so enamored with just having an automated system that they failed to take full advantage of its capabilities. O’Brien says that a lot of savings, in time and money, went un-noticed and/or under-appreciated. Today, everyone has an integrated system, and the wise business manager is the business manager who takes full advantage of all his resources. O’Brien invokes the 80/20 rule, and offers, “…the last 20 percent of results costs 80 percent of the effort. But times have changed. Everyone is automating data management, so that last 20 percent that could be ignored a short time ago represents a significant competitive differential.” The evolution of data systems takes center stage for much of the article; pitfalls also emerge.