Differences in competencies between doctoral students on‐campus and at a distance

This article was downloaded by: [Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen]On: 16 December 2014, At: 05:16Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street,London W1T 3JH, UK

American Journal of DistanceEducationPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hajd20

Differences in competenciesbetween doctoral studentson‐campus and at a distanceJames R. Lindner a , Kim E. Dooley b & Tim H.Murphy ca Assistant Professor in the Department ofAgricultural Education , Texas A&M University ,2116 TAMU, College Station, TX, 77843–2116 E-mail:b Assistant Professor in the Department ofAgricultural Education , Texas A&M University ,2116 TAMU, College Station, TX, 77843–2116 E-mail:c Assistant Professor in the Department ofAgricultural Education , Texas A&M University ,2116 TAMU, College Station, TX, 77843–2116 E-mail:Published online: 24 Sep 2009.

To cite this article: James R. Lindner , Kim E. Dooley & Tim H. Murphy (2001)Differences in competencies between doctoral students on‐campus andat a distance, American Journal of Distance Education, 15:2, 25-40, DOI:10.1080/08923640109527082

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08923640109527082

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hajd20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/08923640109527082

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08923640109527082

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of allthe information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on ourplatform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensorsmake no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy,completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views ofthe authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis.The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should beindependently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor andFrancis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings,demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, inrelation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private studypurposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any formto anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and usecan be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Rad

boud

Uni

vers

iteit

Nijm

egen

] at

05:

16 1

6 D

ecem

ber

2014

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF DISTANCE EDUCATIONVol. 15 No. 2 2001

Differences in Competenciesbetween Doctoral Students

On-Campus and at a DistanceJames R. Lindner, Kim E. Dooley, and Tim H. Murphy

Abstract

This article describes differences between on-campus and distancelearners by knowledge, skills, and abilities. On-campus doctoralstudents at Texas A&M University were compared with doctoralstudents enrolled in a distance education program offered jointlywith Texas Tech University. Student perceptions of their compe-tency levels were gathered using a mixed mailed/Internetquestionnaire. On-campus and distance education students had dif-ferent levels of competence. Competency models can serve facultyand administrators as an assessment tool for strategic decision mak-ing and development of courses and curricula. This study provides amodel for benchmarking competencies and provides baseline datafor making such changes.

Adults' Choice of Distance Education

Meeting the growing demand for distance education and determiningpolicies to examine course delivery and evaluation are challenges facingadministrators of higher education. As distance education becomes moreprevalent, higher education attempts to meet the growing demand anddetermine policies to examine course delivery and evaluation. TheWestern Interstate Commission for Higher Education (WICHE) (2001)states that

New delivery systems test conventional assumptions, raising freshquestions as to the essential nature and content of an educationalexperience and the resources required to support it.

A greater understanding of why adults choose to study via distanceeducation and what competencies they bring into the program are neces-sary to ensure quality of the educational experience.

25

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Rad

boud

Uni

vers

iteit

Nijm

egen

] at

05:

16 1

6 D

ecem

ber

2014

THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF DISTANCE EDUCATION

In a 2000 report on lifelong learning, the National Association of StateUniversities and Land Grant Colleges (NASULGC) noted that 80% ofadults believe that furthering their education is important for success atwork. Four out of five adults have received some type of job-related trainingor education during the previous three years, while more than half say theywill enroll in a college course in the next three years (NASULGC 2000).

The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) (1998) conducteda survey on distance education courses offered by higher-education insti-tutions. According to the NCES, in 1998, about 6% of adults in theUnited States were participating in adult education part time, seeking adiploma, degree, or certification. Universities offered an estimated 690degrees and 170 certificates in the fall semester. Further, an estimated3,430 students received degrees exclusively at a distance. Employedadults and females were more likely to participate in distance education.About 20% took work-related courses provided by universities.

Moore (1986) identified three types of adult learners normallyenrolled in distance educational programs. The first type, the self-directed learner, has decided that the program offered by the educationalinstitution meets his/her learning goals. The second type, the motivatedlearner, is "motivated by the need for a degree or some other formalaccreditation" (12). The third type of learner does not need a degree orcertification, but learns to "satisfy an emotional need for dependence"(12). Each of these types of adult learner will incorporate different learn-ing styles and techniques as he/she progresses throughout a distanceeducation course or program, and student learning outcomes will differ.

Numerous studies have compared media for the delivery of distanceeducation courses and programs (Clark 1983; Russell 1999; Schlosser andAnderson 1994; Smith and Dillon 1999). Findings show that, regardlessof what is being taught, more than one medium will produce adequatelearning results. Studies have also been conducted to identify competen-cies needed by faculty who are teaching distance education courses (Allyand Coldeway 1999; Thach and Murphy 1995). Further, to ensure coursequality, institutional policies are being created to ensure equality in courserigor, faculty credentials, and student support services (Keast 1997). TheTexas Higher Education Coordinating Board (2000) writes that

student learning in programs or courses delivered electronicallyshould be comparable to student learning in programs offered at thecampus where the programs or courses originate (1).

26

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Rad

boud

Uni

vers

iteit

Nijm

egen

] at

05:

16 1

6 D

ecem

ber

2014

LINDNER, DOOLEY, AND MURPHY

Recently, researchers have begun to review the transformation of aca-demic equivalency in distance education, shifting from a unit ofmeasurement that relies on time in the classroom to one that focuses onlearner achievement (Watkins and Schlosser 2000). To fully achieve thistransformation, we need a better understanding of competencies of doc-toral students on-campus and at a distance.

The researchers for the current study are asking not if one group isbetter than the other, but whether distance learners use a differentbundle of competencies or processes to assimilate information.Research has shown that distance learners typically are more self-directed (Garrison and Baynton 1987; Moore 1986), but how thistranslates into measurable student knowledge, skills, and abilities hasremained unanswered.

Assessing Competencies of On-Campus and Distance Learners

A learner must possess certain knowledge, skills, and abilities in orderto successfully complete a planned course of study.

• Knowledge is a body of information applied directly to the perfor-mance of a given activity.

• Skill is a present, observable competence to perform a learnedpsychomotor act.

• Ability is a present competence to perform an observable behavior,or a behavior that results in an observable product.

Collectively, knowledge, skills, and abilities are recognized as compe-tencies. Competencies are behavioral dimensions that help identifyeffective performance from ineffective performance (Maxine 1997).Identification of competencies associated with higher employee perfor-mance is known as competency modeling (Stone 1997). For competencymodels to be useful, competencies must be validated and correlated tospecific activities (Parry 1998; Maxine 1997).

Because competencies can be influenced by a student's personalitytype, biological function, social style, and/or personal styles and values,competency models must be broad enough to allow students to offsetweaknesses on certain competencies with strengths on others. Compe-tency models can be used as a student-recruitment-and-selection tool; astudent-assessment tool; a tool to develop curricula and other teaching

27

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Rad

boud

Uni

vers

iteit

Nijm

egen

] at

05:

16 1

6 D

ecem

ber

2014


material; a coaching, counseling, and mentoring tool; a career-develop-ment tool; and a behavioral requirement-benchmarking tool.Competency models can also be useful in helping organizations makestrategic decisions about their mission, vision, strategies, structures, pro-cesses, and systems (Yeung, Woolcock, and Sullivan 1996).

There are many models and methods for collecting the information neces-sary to establish a competency model. The knowledge category used in thisresearch was based on the census of graduate-course offerings at Texas A&MUniversity and Texas Tech University and is inherently valid and reliable.The skill and ability competencies were derived from the US Department ofLabor's Occupational Information Network (O*NET) (2000). Jackson andSchuler (2000) noted that O*NET provides a national benchmark that offersa common language for all users of competency information.

The skill category is based on Mumford and Peterson's (1995) taxon-omy of basic and cross-functional skills. These authors have shown thatskills taxonomy is a valid and reliable model for collecting data on skills.

The ability category is based on Fleishman's ability requirements tax-onomy and its associated measurement system and has been shown to bea valid and reliable method for collecting data on ability factors(Fleishman et al. 1995). Fleishman's ability requirements taxonomyincludes cognitive, psychomotor, physical, and sensory ability.

Other institutions of higher education offering graduate degrees canuse the Department of Labor's skills and abilities as a standard measure-ment to benchmark competencies. Using the standard inventory ofgraduate courses to measure knowledge would be specific to each insti-tution and content area.

The literature has identified differences in personal characteristics ofadult learners who have chosen to participate in distance education. Theliterature also tells us that on-campus and distance learners will both besuccessful. We know that students rely on a bundle of knowledge, skills,and abilities (competencies) to be successful. What we don't know iswhether the bundle of competencies is similar between on-campus anddistance learners.

How Comparable Are On-Campus and Distance Learners' Competencies?

The purpose of this study was to examine competencies as perceivedby current on-campus Texas A&M University agricultural educationPh.D. graduate students and by current Texas A&M University and

28

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Rad

boud

Uni

vers

iteit

Nijm

egen

] at

05:

16 1

6 D

ecem

ber

2014


Texas Tech University agricultural education Ed.D. graduate stu-dents participating at a distance. The specific objectives of the studywere

1. to describe and explore perceived knowledge competencies ofon-campus students and students participating at a distance;

2. to describe and explore perceived skill competencies of on-campusstudents and students participating at a distance;

3. to describe and explore perceived ability competencies of on-campusstudents and students participating at a distance.

Methods and Sources of Data

The research design used for this study was descriptive in nature. Thetarget population was all current on-campus Texas A&M Universityagricultural education doctoral students and current Texas A&M Univer-sity and Texas Tech University agricultural education doctoral studentsparticipating at a distance. Fifty students participated in the census. Theycompleted a questionnaire designed to measure their perceptions onbehavioral dimensions used to assess knowledge, skills, and abilities.The participants were asked to indicate their current level of competencein each dimension on a five-point Likert-type scale. The points on thescale were

1 = very low (VL);2 = low (L);3 = average (A);4 = high (H); and5 = very high (VH).

The research followed Borich's (1980) and Altschuld and Witkin's(2000) model for assessing and interpreting discrepancies that arise in acensus. A discrepancy score was computed to describe the magnitude ofdisagreement in perceived level of competence between on-campus stu-dents and distance learners. The score was computed by taking theabsolute value of the difference between mean competency scores. Alimitation of this research is that interpretation of discrepancy scoresprovides indicators of differences, and not statistically significant differ-ences between mean scores. Because a census was taken, the mean

29

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Rad

boud

Uni

vers

iteit

Nijm

egen

] at

05:

16 1

6 D

ecem

ber

2014


scores are presented as parameters, which limits certain statisticalanalyses and generalizability of the results. Given the limited populationand sample size, additional research is needed to support and prove thefindings of the study.

Data for this study were collected using a mixed mailed/Internet ques-tionnaire. Dillman's (2000) general procedures for mailed/Internetquestionnaires were followed. A response rate of 78% (n = 39) wasobtained for the study. To control for nonresponse error, late respondentswere compared to early respondents on the scaled items. No significantdifferences were found; therefore, the results of the study are generaliz-able to the target population.

The instrument was pilot tested with seventeen master's-level gradu-ate students at Texas A&M University. Instrument reliability wasestimated by calculating a Cronbach's alpha coefficient. Overall reliabil-ity for the instrument was .89. Reliability for scales knowledge (.86),skills (.78), and abilities (.89) also were calculated. A panel of experts atTexas A&M University and Texas Tech University established instru-ment content and face validity. Data were analyzed using the StatisticalPackage for the Social Science (SPSS).

Results

This section summarizes the findings by objective. A majority (61%)of on-campus students were female and averaged twelve years of profes-sional experience. Distance students were predominately male (69%)and averaged fourteen years of professional experience.

Objective 1

The first objective of the study was to describe and explore perceivedknowledge competencies of on-campus students and students participat-ing at a distance.

Table 1 shows that all knowledge competencies scored between lowand high (i.e., between 2 and 4 on the Likert scale). Using means as indi-cators, one can rank the students' perceived levels of knowledge.

The on-campus students perceived the highest level of knowledgecompetency in advanced computer applications in agricultural andextension education (M = 3.78), and the lowest level of knowledge com-petency in advanced methods in distance education (M = 2.39).

30

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Rad

boud

Uni

vers

iteit

Nijm

egen

] at

05:

16 1

6 D

ecem

ber

2014


Table 1. Perceived Level of Doctoral Student Knowledge

On-CampusLearners(n = 23)

DistanceLearners(n = 16)

Knowledge Competency Ma Ma DSD

Methods of technological change 3.35 2.50 0.85

Evaluation of programs in vocational, technical,and extension education

Philosophy of agricultural education

Theory of agricultural education research

College teaching in agriculture

Planning for the future in agricultural education

Research methods and analyses in agriculturaland extension education

Initiating, managing, and monitoring projects ofinternational agricultural development

The transfer of technology by institutions

The agricultural advisor in developing nations

Institutions serving agriculture indeveloping nations

Advanced methods in agricultural education

Advanced computer applications in agriculturaland extension education

Historical and philosophy of agricultural education

Principles of adult education

Contemporary issues in agricultural andextension education

Advanced methods in extension education

Youth leadership programs

Advanced methods in distance education

Guidance and counseling for rural youth

Advanced methods in agricultural leadership

Program development in agricultural andextension education 3.26 3.44 0.18

3.433.30

2.91

3.04

3.22

3.13

2.87

3.65

2.78

2.65

3.48

3.78

3.26

3.61

3.35

3.22

3.48

2.39

3.26

3.74

2.692.56

2.25

2.44

2.63

2.56

2.31

3.13

2.31

2.19

3.06

3.44

2.94

3.31

3.06

2.94

3.75

2.13

3.00

3.50

0.750.74

0.66

0.61

0.59

0.57

0.56

0.53

0.47

0.46

0.42

0.35

0.32

0.30

0.29

0.28

0.27

0.27

0.26

0.24

' 1 = very low; 2 = low; 3 = average; 4 = high; 5 = very high' DS = discrepancy score: mean on-campus score minus mean distance learners score

31

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Rad

boud

Uni

vers

iteit

Nijm

egen

] at

05:

16 1

6 D

ecem

ber

2014


Among the distance learners, the highest perceived knowledge levelwas youth leadership programs (M = 3.75), and the lowest was advancedmethods in distance education (M = 2.13).

The largest discrepancy in perceived level of knowledge between on-campus students and distance learners was methods of technologychange (Af = 0.85). The smallest discrepancy was program developmentin agricultural and extension education (M= 0.18).

Objective 2

The second objective of the study was to describe and explore per-ceived skill competencies of on-campus and students participating at adistance.

Table 2 shows that skill competencies were between low and veryhigh. On-campus students perceived the highest level of skill compe-tency in service orientation (M = 4.48), and the lowest level of skillcompetency in repairing (M = 2.43). For distance learners, the highestperceived skill level was speaking (M = 4.31); the lowest was testing(M = 3.06).

Table 2. Perceived Level of Doctoral Student Skill

Skill Competency

Repairing

Information organization

Learning strategies

Installation

Synthesis/reorganization

Equipment maintenance

Implementation planning

Time management

Idea evaluation

Identification of key causes

Troubleshooting

Active learning


Ma

2.43

4.09

4.35

2.78

3.74

2.52

4.13

3.70

3.96

4.13

3.00

3.91


Ma

3.50

3.313.63

3.50

3.06

3.19

3.50

3.13

3.50

3.69

3.44

3.50

DSb

1.07

0.77

0.72

0.72

0.68

0.67

0.63

0.57

0.46

0.44

0.44

0.41

Table continued on the following page

32

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Rad

boud

Uni

vers

iteit

Nijm

egen

] at

05:

16 1

6 D

ecem

ber

2014


Table 2. Perceived Level of Doctoral Student Skill (continued)

Skill Competency

Management of personnel resources

Information gathering

Testing

Reading comprehension

Idea generation

Active listening

Negotiation

Monitoring

Visioning

Social perceptivenessMathematics

Writing

Service orientation

Science

Critical thinking

Management of material resources

Persuasion

Solution appraisal

Instructing

Systems perception

Equipment selection

Management of financial resources

Problem identification

Operations analysis

Speaking

Systems evaluation

Judgment and decision making

Coordination

Identifying downstream consequences

Operation and control

Technology design


Ma

4.134.30

2.70

4.17

4.04

4.223.74

3.78

3.96

3.96

3.52

4.17

4.48

3.78

4.093.70

3.61

4.00

4.30

3.30

3.65

3.48

3.96

3.22

4.39

3.26

4.09

3.91

3.35

3.35

3.35


Ma

3.75

3.94

3.06

3.81

3.69

3.88

4.06

3.50

3.69

3.69

3.25

3.94

4.25

3.56

3.88

3.50

3.81

3.81

4.13

3.13

3.81

3.633.81

3.31

4.31

3.19

4.13

3.88

3.31

3.31

3.38

DSb

0.38

0.37

0.37

0.36

0.36

0.34

0.32

0.28

0.27

0.27

0.27

0.24

0.23

0.22

0.21

0.20

0.20

0.19

0.18

0.18

0.16

0.15

0.14

0.10

0.08

0.07

0.04

0.04

0.04

0.04

0.03

11 = very low; 2 = low; 3 = average; 4 = high; 5 = very highDS = discrepancy score: mean on-campus score minus mean distance learners score

33

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Rad

boud

Uni

vers

iteit

Nijm

egen

] at

05:

16 1

6 D

ecem

ber

2014


The largest discrepancy in perceived level of skill between on-campusstudents and distance learners was repairing (M = 1.07). The smallestdiscrepancy was technology design (A/ = 0.03).

Objective 3

The third objective of the study was to describe and explore perceivedability competencies of on-campus students and students participating ata distance.

As shown in Table 3, all ability competencies were between averageand very high. Using means as indicators, one observes that on-campusstudents perceived the highest level of ability competency in writtenexpression (M = 4.35). The lowest level of ability competency wasmathematical reasoning (M = 3.09).

Of the distance learners, the highest perceived ability level was visu-alization (M = 4.00); the lowest was mathematical reasoning (Af = 3.13).

The largest discrepancy in perceived level of ability between on-campus students and distance learners was written expression (M = 0.54).The smallest discrepancy was spatial orientation (M = 0.01).

Conclusions and Implications

Based on the study objectives, the following conclusions were drawnand implications given.

Conclusion 1

Discrepancy scores on knowledge competencies can provide informa-tion useful in understanding differences between on-campus anddistance learners. Using a calculated discrepancy score as an indicator,the largest differences in perceived level of knowledge between on-cam-pus students and students at a distance were methods of technologicalchange; evaluation of programs in vocational, technical, and extensioneducation; philosophy of agricultural education; theory of agriculturaleducation research; and college teaching in agriculture. On-campus stu-dents had higher perceived levels of knowledge on all five items.Whether these perceived levels of knowledge meet minimally acceptablestandards for success in a doctoral program are not known. Althoughresearch shows little difference in the success of on-campus and distance

34

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Rad

boud

Uni

vers

iteit

Nijm

egen

] at

05:

16 1

6 D

ecem

ber

2014


Table 3. Perceived Level of Doctoral Student Ability

Ability Competency

Written expression

Number facility

Speech recognition

Visualization

Speech clarity

Problem sensitivity

Oral comprehension

Written comprehension

Category flexibility

Time sharing

Inductive reasoning

Selective attention

Deductive reasoning

Perceptual speed

Auditory attention

Speed of closure

Information ordering

Originality

Fluency of ideas

Flexibility of closure

Mathematical reasoning

Memorization

Spatial orientation

On-CampusLearners(II =23)

Ma

4.354.04

3.913.57

4.224.134.17

4.22

3.52

3.83

3.78

3.48

4.00

3.573.30

3.30

3.613.78

3.96

3.30

3.09

3.65

3.83

DistanceLearners(B = 16)

Ma

3.81

3.56

3.44

4.00

3.81

3.81

3.88

3.94

3.25

3.56

3.56

3.69

3.81

3.44

3.19

3.19

3.50

3.69

3.88

3.25

3.13

3.63

3.81

DSb

0.54

0.48

0.48

0.43

0.40

0.32

0.30

0.28

0.27

0.26

0.22

0.21

0.19

0.13

0.12

0.12

0.11

0.10

0.08

0.05

0.04

0.03

0.01

11 = very low; 2 = low; 3 = average; 4 = high; 5 = very high' DS = discrepancy score: mean on-campus score minus mean distance learners score

learners (TeleEducation 2000), low levels of knowledge on certain itemsmay manifest into problems such as attrition, or it may result in opportu-nities for faculty to gain a better understanding of student characteristics.

For example, doctoral students must ultimately become experts in theoryand design of research problems. Low levels of knowledge related to the

35

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Rad

boud

Uni

vers

iteit

Nijm

egen

] at

05:

16 1

6 D

ecem

ber

2014


theory of research may result in frustration, demotivation, impeded learn-ing, and, ultimately, failure for students. Faculty may similarly becomefrustrated in the development and delivery of course material if they arechallenged with students who do not possess the requisite knowledge tomaster course material; or, faculty may be able to use this information toimprove curricula, teaching materials, and instructional delivery methods.Comparisons of on-campus and distance learners may also result in acontrast effect, whereby faculty and/or students create an unhealthy andunproductive competition between students resulting in self-destructingattitudes. More research is needed to explore these relationships.

The research presented here suggests that on-campus and distancelearners have different levels of knowledge—that is, on-campus and dis-tance learners rely on different bodies of knowledge to achieve academicsuccess. This supports the notion that students can offset low levels oncertain competencies with high levels on others.

Conclusion 2

The largest differences in perceived level of skill between on-campusstudents and students at a distance were repairing, information organiza-tion, learning strategies, installation, and synthesis/reorganization.On-campus students had higher perceived levels of skill in informationorganization, learning strategies, and synthesis/reorganization. Distancelearners had higher perceived levels of skill in repairing and installation.Minimally acceptable skill standards for success in a doctoral programare not known, and the problems and opportunities listed above alsoapply here. For example, doctoral students must be able to structure orclassify multiple pieces of information in order to complete many courseassignments. Higher levels of information-organization skills may resultin on-campus students having an easier time completing assignments; or,the skills may simply be a function of on-campus culture or studentaccess to libraries, high-speed Internet connections, peers, and faculty. Ifthe latter is the case, then distance learners are at a distinct disadvantagefor completing a doctoral degree.

Discrepancy scores on skill competencies provide additional informa-tion about the differences between on-campus and distance learners.On-campus students have different levels of skills than distance learners.They rely on different observable learned psychomotor acts to achieveacademic success. A better understanding of a doctoral student's skill set

36

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Rad

boud

Uni

vers

iteit

Nijm

egen

] at

05:

16 1

6 D

ecem

ber

2014


may help faculty develop and implement course and curricula to takeadvantage of that student's skill set and learning style. Self-directed dis-tance learners, for example, may need to rely more on pragmatic skills,such as repairing and installation, than do motivated or emotionallydependent learners (Moore 1986).

Conclusion 3

The largest differences in perceived level of ability between on-campus students and students at a distance were written expression,number facility, speech recognition, visualization, and speech clarity.On-campus students had higher perceived levels of ability in writtenexpression, number facility, speech recognition, and speech clarity. Dis-tance learners had higher perceived levels of ability in visualization.Again, the problems and opportunities discussed in the first two conclu-sions apply here, and little is known about acceptable ability standardsfor success in a doctoral program. The ability to communicate informa-tion and ideas in writing so others will understand, for example, isessential for most academic endeavors in a doctoral program. The find-ings presented here, however, indicate that distance learners have lowerperceived written-expression ability. This is a problem that we, asresearchers of this study, have experientially witnessed and have had toremedy. Our initial expectations, with respect to written-expression abil-ity of our doctoral students at a distance, were based on our experienceswith on-campus students. After teaching several courses, we concludedthat our distance education students had lower written-expression abili-ties, which led both to frustration by faculty and to frustration and lowerlevels of performance by students. Lower perceived levels of written-expression ability may also be a function of on-campus culture orstudent access to libraries, high-speed Internet connections, peers, andfaculty.

On-campus students and students at a distance have different levels ofability competencies. They rely on different competence to perform anobservable behavior or a behavior that results in an observable product.Structuring and delivering distance education assignments that takeadvantage of the doctoral students' strengths in visualization and writtencomprehension may result in greater student learning and performanceand, ultimately, provide time for the development of stronger written-expression abilities.

37

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Rad

boud

Uni

vers

iteit

Nijm

egen

] at

05:

16 1

6 D

ecem

ber

2014


Implications

As noted earlier, a limitation of self-administered rating scales, suchas the one used for this study, is that they measure perceptions of theperson making the judgment. Additional research is needed to verify thevalidity of such judgments. Further, replication of this study with otheron-campus and distance learners is needed to evaluate the extent towhich the results presented here would be similar and recommendationsapplicable. One procedure for gathering this data would be to conductauthentic assessments of student competencies through testing, facultyassessment, peer assessment, or other forms of external assessment. Thisprocedure would result in larger samples of ratings, which may lead tohigher reliability. Faculty members teaching doctoral students at a dis-tance can use these results now, in limited and expanded capacities, totake advantage of a student's unique bundle of knowledge, skill, andabilities. Faculty can create individual learning plans for students byauthenticating these results. We have used this approach to help studentsuse their strengths on certain competencies to overcome weaknesses inothers. Authentication of these results by faculty can also provide direc-tion in development and refinement of courses and curricula for bothon-campus and distance student cohorts. These findings, additionally,provide information to university administrators and leaders that may beuseful in making strategic decisions about their mission, vision, strate-gies, structures, processes, and systems related to distance education(Yeung, Woolcock, and Sullivan 1996).

The findings of this study contribute to the growing body of literaturerelated to identifying characteristics of, and differences between, on-campus students and distance learners. This study provides a model forbenchmarking competencies and provides baseline data for making suchchanges.

References

Ally, M., and D. O Coldeway. 1999. Establishing competencies andcurricula for the distance education expert at the master's level.Journal of Distance Education 14 (1): 75-88.

Altschuld, J. W., and B. R. Witkin. 2000. From needs assessment toaction: Transforming needs into solution strategies. Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage Publications.

38

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Rad

boud

Uni

vers

iteit

Nijm

egen

] at

05:

16 1

6 D

ecem

ber

2014


Borich, G. D. 1980. A needs assessment model for conducting follow-upstudies. The Journal of Teacher Education 31 (3): 39-42.

Clark, R. E. 1983. Reconsidering research on learning from media.Review of Educational Research 53 (4): 445-59.

Dillman, D. A. 2000. Mail and internet surveys: The tailored designmethod, 2nd ed. New York: Wiley & Sons.

Fleishman, E. A., L. I. Wetrogan, D. D. Uhlman, and J. C. Marshall-Mies. 1995. Abilities. In Development of prototype occupationalinformation network: Content model, ed. N. G. Peterson, M. D.Mumford, W. C. Borman, P. R. Jeanneret, and E. A. Fleishman,10.1-10.39. Salt Lake City, UT: Utah Department of WorkforceServices.

Garrison, D. R., and M. Baynton. 1987. Beyond independence in dis-tance education: The concept of control. The American Journal ofDistance Education 1 (3): 3-15.

Jackson, S. E., and R. S. Schuler. 2000. Managing human resources: Apartnership perspective, 7th ed. Cincinnati: South-Western.

Keast, D. A. 1997. Toward an effective model for implementing distanceeducation programs. The American Journal of Distance Education 11(2): 39-55.

Maxine, D. 1997. Are competency models a waste? Training & Develop-ment 51 (10): 46-9.

Moore, M. G. 1986. Self-directed learning and distance education. Jour-nal of Distance Education 1 (1): 7-24.

Mumford, M. D., and N. G. Peterson. 1995. Skills. In Development ofprototype occupational information network: Content model, ed.N. G. Peterson, M. D. Mumford, W. C. Borman, P. R. Jeanneret,and E. A. Fleishman, 3.1-3.75. Salt Lake City, UT: Utah Depart-ment of Workforce Services.

National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges(NASULGC). 2000. [online]. A learning society: Data and question-naires. Available at http://www.nasulgc.org/publications/Kellogg/DataLearn.pdf

National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). 1998. [online]. Dis-tance education in higher institutions: Highlights. Available athttp://nces.edu.gov/pubs98/distance98062-1.htm

Occupational Information Network (O*NET). 2000. [online]. Availableat http://www.onetcenter.com

Parry, S. B. 1998. Just what is a competency? Training 35 (6): 58-64.

39

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Rad

boud

Uni

vers

iteit

Nijm

egen

] at

05:

16 1

6 D

ecem

ber

2014


Russell, T. L. 1999. The no significant difference phenomenon. Raleigh,NC: Office of Instructional Telecommunications, North Carolina StateUniversity.

Schlosser, C. A., and M. L. Anderson. 1994. Distance education: Reviewof the literature. Ames, IA: Research Institute for Studies in Educa-tion, Iowa State University.

Smith, P. L., and C. L. Dillon. 1999. Comparing distance learning andclassroom learning: Conceptual considerations. The American Journalof Distance Education 13 (2): 6-23.

Stone, B. B. 1997. [online]. A systems' approach to professionaldevelopment. Journal of Extension 35 (2). Available athttp://www.joe.org/joe/1997april/tt2.html

TeleEducation. 2000. [online]. The no significant differencephenomenon. Available at http://teleeducation.nb.ca/nosignificantdif-ference

Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board. 2000. [online]. Principlesof good practice for academic degree and certification programs andcredit courses offered electronically. Available athttp://www.thecb.state.tx.us/divisions/univ/principl.htm

Thach, E. C., and K. L. Murphy. 1995. Competencies for distance educa-tion professionals. Educational Technology Research andDevelopment 43 (1): 57-79.

Watkins, R., and C. Schlosser. 2000. Capabilities-based educationalequivalency units: Beginning a professional dialogue. The AmericanJournal of Distance Education 14 (3): 34-47.

Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education (WICHE). 2001.[online]. Regional accrediting agency documents on electronicallyoffered degree and certificate programs. Available athttp://www.wiche.edu/telecom/Article1.htm

Yeung, A., P. Woolcock, and J. Sullivan. 1996. Identifying and develop-ing HR competencies for the future: Keys to sustaining thetransformation of HR functions. HR. Human Resource Planning 19(4): 48-58.

40

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Rad

boud

Uni

vers

iteit

Nijm

egen

] at

05:

16 1

6 D

ecem

ber

2014

Documents

Differences in competencies between doctoral students on‐campus and at a distance