Next | Previous | Table of Contents

Demographics of Respondents
Demographic data were gathered to determine organizational settings, target audiences, purposes of programming, geographical distribution of programming, and years of operation of statewide GSAMS sites. Of the 135 individuals who responded to the question regarding organizational setting, 48% were at K-12 institutions (n = 64), 28% were from universities or colleges (n = 38), and 13% were from prisons (n = 17). The remaining respondents were from state government agencies (n = 2), nonprofit educational institutions (such as zoos; n = 8), and other sites (n = 6). Figure 1 displays these data.

Forty-nine percent of GSAMS sites described their target audience as children and 46% said their primary target audience is adults (mostly college and university students). Other target audiences listed were employees and citizens (including prisoners). See Figure 2 on the following page.

Approximately 13% of those whose primary audience is children also reported that they have multiple target audiences. Seven percent of sites serving children also serve adult students and 3% serve employees. Three respondents indicated serving three different audiences.

Respondents were asked to list the purposes of their GSAMS programming. Formal education was listed by 84% of respondents, staff development and training was listed by 57% of respondents, conferences were listed by 50% of respondents, meetings were listed by 44 % of respondents, and mission-related business was listed by 6% of respondents.

GSAMS programming was reported to be distributed statewide (43%), within schools (32%), within colleges/ universities (16%), and within non-school organizations (9%; see Figure 3).

Respondents were asked to indicate how many years they had been in operation with GSAMS. Of the 135 who answered this question, 13% indicated one year or less, 12% responded two years, 19% responded three years, 23% responded four years, and 32% answered five or more years (see Figure 4).

Administration/Management
This section of the questionnaire included questions on GSAMS procedures, budgeting, scheduling, charges for GSAMS facilities and facilitators, and programming times. When asked if written GSAMS administration and/or management procedures are in place, 48% responded that no procedures are in place, 44% said that procedures are in place, and 8% said procedures are currently being developed. Respondents were asked to indicate to whom the GSAMS unit was responsible to report. Results can be found in Figure 5.

The following agencies/individuals were also listed as being individuals to whom respondents report: curriculum directors, VP of Instruction, Deputy Warden (prisons), Assistant VP of Technology, superintendent, VP of Student Services, technology director, Board of Education, Dean and Director, Director of Media Services, and media specialist.

Figure 6 (following page) shows individuals responsible for making budget decisions for the GSAMS sites. In the category listed as other, respondents listed the following: President, Assistant VP of Technology, VP of Instruction, finance department, media specialist, superintendent, and the Dean’s office.

Some respondents indicated that budget decisions regarding GSAMS are made by multiple individuals at their sites. Eight respondents said that two individuals and/or offices are responsible for budget decisions. Two respondents said that three individuals and/or offices make budget decisions at their sites.

Figure 7 shows the types of assistance provided to distance learning instructors. In addition to these categories, some respondents noted that training, orientation, and technical support are provided to distance learning instructors at their sites.

When asked what percentage of workload time the GSAMS director was credited for coordinating the site, 22% of respondents said full time, 36% of respondents said part time, and 42% said no time.

Respondents indicated that the majority of GSAMS classes are scheduled by distance directors and media specialists/ tech trainers. Figure 8 contains this information. The category labeled other includes GSAMS coordinators, facilitators, trained teachers, the VP of Student Services, technology coordinators, conference coordinators, and secretaries.

When asked whether outside users are charged for using the respondents’ GSAMS facilities, 25% said that outside users are charged, 42% indicated that outside users are not charged, and 33% said that it depends on the user. For those sites that do charge outside users for use of their GSAMS site, the majority (69%) charge $30 per hour or less.

Respondents were asked whether outside users are charged for the use of a distance learning facilitator. Of the 122 individuals who responded, 36% said that outside users are charged, 32% said that outside users are not charged, and 32% indicated that charges are levied depending on the user. Respondents were also asked whether outside users are required to use facilitators from their sites. Thirty-one percent reported that outside users are required to use site facilitators, 25% do not require the use of site facilitators, and 44% reported that it is dependent on the individual user.

When respondents were asked when GSAMS programming is going out or being received from their sites, 78% responded 8:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m. on weekdays, and 72% said from 12:00 p.m. – 5:00 p.m. on weekdays. Fifty-four percent send/ receive GSAMS programming after 5:00 p.m. on weekdays, and 15% send/receive programming on the weekends. This information is displayed in Figure 9. Many respondents indicated that programming is sent/received at multiple times throughout the day and on weekends.

Teaching
The teaching section of the questionnaire consisted of questions regarding teaching policies, selection of distance learning instructors, incentives for distance learning teachers, communication between instructors and students, and types of teaching strategies used in the distance learning classes. When asked whether written GSAMS teaching policies are in place at their sites, 71% of respondents said that there are no written policies, 21% said that policies do exist, and 8% said that policies are currently being developed.

Methods used to select distance learning instructors included recommendations from administrators or supervisors (28%), asking for volunteers (57%), and requiring instructors to teach via GSAMS (17%). Some respondents indicated that instructors are also selected by delivery sites or that instructors are hired by vendors. One participant said that (s)he was selected as the distance learning instructor because the GSAMS equipment was located in his/her room.

Criteria used to select distance learning instructors included interest in teaching with GSAMS, the need for information to be disseminated via GSAMS, teaching effectiveness, teaching experience, instructional design experience, and ability to operate distance equipment (see Figure 10). Some respondents also indicated additional criteria such as content expertise and interest in the course content.

When asked whether distance learning instructors at their sites are give incentives for teaching via GSAMS, 86% of respondents said that no incentives are given. Fourteen percent of respondents indicated that incentives are given to GSAMS instructors. Figure 11 displays the types of incentives given to distance learning instructors.

When asked whether GSAMS instructors are provided with assistance when delivering GSAMS classes, 78% of respondents said instructors do receive assistance. Ninety-eight percent indicated that facilitators are provided to instructors, 13% said that instructional designers are available, and 11% said that graphics designers are available to instructors. Twenty-two percent of participants said that part-time assistance is provided to instructors to help in organizing class projects or mailings. Other types of support listed by respondents include class aides, training support, and technical support.

Respondents were asked whether sites provided a student orientation to GSAMS. Sixty percent of participants said that students are given a GSAMS orientation session. Figure 12 shows the types of student orientation provided to students as described by participants. Other types of orientation listed by respondents included workshops and opportunities to observe GSAMS presentations.

Seventy-one percent of sites reported using a verbal overview by the facilitator during student orientation. Instructor verbal overviews are used by 53% of the respondents. Packets of materials are distributed by 15% of responding sites. Instructional videos are used by 11% of the sites. Only 3% of the respondents said that they used websites for student orientation.

Sixty-nine percent of respondents said that, as instructors, they provide feedback and/or establish communication with learners outside of the distance learning situation. Fifty-eight percent of respondents said that they communicate with learners in their GSAMS courses via FAX. Other communications methods used include e-mail and/or listservs (45%), phone (40%), visiting remote sites (39%), and regular mail (31%). Some respondents also use couriers, keep office hours, or communicate via the web.

Respondents indicated a variety of teaching strategies are used in their distance classes, including class lectures, student presentations, and group work. Figure 13 shows various methods used by distance learning instructors and the percentage each was reported to be used.

The most popular teaching strategies used are class lectures (74%), use of opaque projectors (62%), class discussions (57%), instructor demonstrations (52%), student presentations (45%), and group work (44%).

The survey included an open-ended question that prompted respondents to indicate challenges faced when teaching via GSAMS. Responses are listed in Table 1.

Training
The training section of the questionnaire included questions regarding whether GSAMS training procedures exist at various sites, how and where training takes place, who delivers training, and ways in which training needs are identified. Fifty-two percent of respondents said that training procedures are in place at their sites. Another 8% said procedure are currently being developed. Approximately 40% of respondents indicated that no training procedures are currently in place within their organizational settings.

When asked who delivers GSAMS training, 60% of respondents said personnel from the institution, 11% said outside experts or consultants, 9% said GSAMS personnel from other institutions, and 5% said the Board of Regents provides OIIT training (see Figure 14). Other individuals listed as trainers included faculty volunteers, site coordinators, and department of correction staff.

Fifty-six percent of respondents said that GSAMS training takes place at their institutions. Twenty-one percent are trained in the GSAMS room from the GSAMS office, 12% are trained off campus at other GSAMS sites, and 11% receive training at distance conferences.

Figure 15 shows the individuals responsible for coordinating GSAMS training at the various sites. The majority of sites are staffed with training coordinators, though titles for these positions vary by site.

Forty-seven percent of respondents indicated that distance instructors at their sites receive GSAMS training. Other individuals who receive GSAMS training include distance facilitators ( 45%), GSAMS students (15%), and distance coordinators/directors (16%). Some sites also provide training to teachers, media specialists, and any staff member interested in the training.

Of the 116 individuals who responded to the question regarding whether GSAMS training was required for instructors, 54% indicated that training is not required. Respondents were also asked whether GSAMS training is required for facilitators. Seventy-seven percent of respondents said that training is required for facilitators, and 46% said that training is required for instructors. Seven percent of respondents indicated that training is required for students.

When asked how GSAMS training needs are identified at their sites, 54% said via informal feedback from GSAMS instructors or staff, 26% said through informal feedback from GSAMS users and/or students, and 18% said through GSAMS/distance education office expertise. Thirty-three percent of respondents said that training needs are identified through surveying users either through student evaluations from other GSAMS classes, through formal student/user surveys, or via formal GSAMS needs-assessment surveys.

Figure 16 shows the various times GSAMS training is provided at the respondents’ sites. Twenty-eight percent of respondents said that ongoing GSAMS training is provided during the distance learning course.

Figure 17 shows the ways in which GSAMS training is provided to distance learning instructors. Fifty-five percent of respondents said that training is provided upon request by the distance instructor. Twenty-four percent of sites offer training on an irregular schedule throughout the year.

Participants indicated that a variety of topics are covered during GSAMS training, including equipment operation, control board operation, oral and visual communication strategies, equipment troubleshooting, design strategies, learning strategies, and evaluation strategies. Figure 18 shows the numbers of these responses.

GSAMS orientation, control board operation, and equipment operation are most popular topics covered during GSAMS training. Other popular topics include oral and visual communication strategies and equipment troubleshooting.

Respondents were asked to list the types of resources and learning activities that are included in their locally developed programs. Figure 19 shows percentages of responses.

Sixty-nine percent of respondents said that GSAMS training programs began at their sites within 6 months after GSAMS installation, and 15% said programs began between 6 and 12 months after GSAMS installation. Other responses included 1-2 years after installation (12%), 2-3 years after installation (3%) and more than 3 years after installation (1%).

Content analysis of the open-ended question on training issues revealed various difficulties encountered by respondents. In addition to listing difficulties, respondents provided possible solutions for dealing with difficulties that were mentioned. Table 2 on the following page displays this information.

Technical
Participants were asked questions regarding technical policies at their various sites. Respondents answered questions about technical support, equipment updates, equipment procedure manuals, and the type of room used at the GSAMS sites. Sixty-seven percent of respondents said that there were no written technical policies in place within their organizational settings

Of the 123 individuals that responded, 65% said that they currently have a full- or part-time person who takes care of technical problems with equipment. Persons in charge of technical support within the various organizational settings include media specialists/tech. trainers (32%), distance coordinators/directors (32%), facilitators (26%), and computer center personnel (10%). Some respondents listed the assistant principal, GSAMS coordinator, and outside coordinators as individuals responsible for providing technical assistance. Forty-two percent of participants said that distance delivery instructors at their sites are expected to troubleshoot when equipment problems arise. Sixty percent of participants indicated that equipment operation procedure manuals are available at their sites for distance delivery instructors or facilitators.

When asked whether GSAMS equipment is periodically updated, 67% of respondents said that there are regular updates at their sites. Figure 20 shows the frequency of updates.

Respondents were asked what type of room is used at their GSAMS sites. Seventy-three percent said regular classrooms are used, 11% said GSAMS rooms, 3% responded that TV studios are used, and 2% said school library media centers. Other responses included conference rooms, labs, and the school counselor’s office (see Figure 21).

Respondents were asked to answer an open-ended question regarding the most frequently occuring technical problems experienced with GSAMS. Table 3 displays responses.

Evaluation
For the evaluation component of the questionnaire, participants answered questions regarding the individuals and programs evaluated. Questions were asked in order to determine how distance learning coordinators, instructors, and program effectiveness are evaluated. Fifty-seven percent of respondents said that there is an evaluation plan in place within their organizational settings and 6% said evaluations plans are currently being developed.

People and programs currently being evaluated at the responding sites can be found in Figure 22:

Figure 23, on the following page, displays the percentages of responses to the question regarding what is evaluated by the distance learning coordinator/director at the various sites. Overall program effectiveness was reported to be evaluated by the distance learning coordinator at approximately 38% of the sites. Over 20% of respondents said that program effectiveness, scheduling procedures, and facilitator effectiveness are also evaluated by the distance learning coordinator.

When asked what the distance learning instructor evaluates at their sites, 26% of respondents said that instructors are not involved in the evaluation. Program elements that are evaluated by the distance learning instructor include GSAMS class effectiveness (24%), instructor satisfaction (16%), instructors’ teaching effectiveness (15%), facilitator/support staff effectiveness (10%), GSAMS facilities (9%), distance coordinator effectiveness (4%), initial training programs (4%), and scheduling procedures (1%). Also mentioned were programming satisfaction and programming opportunities. Respondents were asked to list the program elements evaluated by distance learning students. Results are shown in Figure 24.

Figure 25 displays how distance learning coordinators/directors are evaluated at the GSAMS sites. Over one third of respondents said that distance coordinators and/or directors are not evaluated within their organizational settings. Twenty-four percent said that informal feedback from instructors, students, colleagues, and/or supervisors is used, whereas 20% said that coordinators/directors are evaluated via personal observations.

Participants were asked how distance learning instructors within their organizational settings are evaluated. Twenty-one percent said that distance instructors at their sites are not evaluated. Those sites that did report evaluating distance learning instructors listed the following evaluation strategies: informal feedback from instructors, students, colleagues, and/or supervisors (25%), personal observations (22%), broad, formal assessment instruments designed by the organization (20%), and specific, formal assessment instruments designed for the evaluation of GSAMS leadership (14%).

Twelve percent of respondents reported that the effectiveness of distance classes at their institutions are not evaluated. Those sites that do have class evaluations reported utilizing informal feedback from instructors, students, colleagues and/or supervisors (37%), personal observations (25%), specific, formal assessment instruments designed to evaluate GSAMS leadership (22%), and broad, formal assessment instruments designed by the organization (21%).

When asked whether instructor training programs are evaluated, 38% of respondents said that they are not. For the remaining respondents who indicated that instructor training programs are evaluated at their sites, 26% said that informal feedback from instructors, students, and/or facilitators is used, 14% rely on personal observations, and 7% reported that specific, formal assessment instruments designed specifically for training program evaluation are used.

Participants were asked about the frequency of overall GSAMS program evaluations at their institutions. Figures 26a through 26d show the frequencies of the various responses. Frequencies are reported as the number of individuals responding, rather than the percentage.

Evaluations of classes, instructor and facilitator training sessions, and program effectiveness were all reported to be evaluated more often on a regular basis at the end of training rather than randomly.

When respondents were asked to describe the ways in which evaluative data generated from their organizational settings are used, 38% said it is used for program decisions, 33% said for program planning, 13% said for professional development purposes, and 10% said for annual reviews of distance personnel. Only one respondent said that evaluative data at his/her college/university was used for salary increases.

Respondents were also asked to respond to an open-ended question about their greatest needs in the area of evaluation. Table 4 displays the responses.

Table 4 Evaluation Needs

Next | Previous | Table of Contents