Don’t Silence “the Dinosaurs”: Keeping Caution Alive With Regard to Social Work Distance Education

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=wtsw20

Download by: [UNSW Library] Date: 14 September 2015, At: 16:14

Journal of Teaching in Social Work

ISSN: 0884-1233 (Print) 1540-7349 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wtsw20

Don’t Silence “the Dinosaurs”: Keeping CautionAlive With Regard to Social Work DistanceEducation

Pooja Sawrikar, Caroline Lenette, Donna McDonald & Jane Fowler

To cite this article: Pooja Sawrikar, Caroline Lenette, Donna McDonald & Jane Fowler(2015) Don’t Silence “the Dinosaurs”: Keeping Caution Alive With Regard to SocialWork Distance Education, Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 35:4, 343-364, DOI:10.1080/08841233.2015.1068262

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08841233.2015.1068262

Published online: 12 Sep 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 35:343–364, 2015Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 0884-1233 print/1540-7349 onlineDOI: 10.1080/08841233.2015.1068262

Don’t Silence “the Dinosaurs”: Keeping CautionAlive With Regard to Social Work Distance

Education

POOJA SAWRIKAR, CAROLINE LENETTE, DONNA MCDONALD,and JANE FOWLER

School of Human Services and Social Work, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia

Distance education (DE) in social work programs and studies onits comparable effectiveness with face-to-face education continueto increase. Yet not all faculty are convinced of the results, and thisstudy explores why. Three case studies indicate that reservationscenter on valuing the process of learning and nonverbal commu-nication. Issues regarding duty of care to families to be served byfuture social workers primarily educated in a virtual classroomalso matter significantly. The trend toward DE may be inevitable,but this does not mean that educators should not voice their con-cerns; their skepticism has merit, and they have a responsibility tobe vocal.

KEYWORDS case studies, distance education, face-to-faceeducation, pedagogy, qualitative research, social work

INTRODUCTION

Background

To state the obvious with respect to what some have called a “revolution”(Kurzman, 2013), social work schools are increasingly adopting distance edu-cation (DE) as a serious alternative to the traditional face-to-face (F2F) oron-campus educational mode. For example, more than one third of BSWprograms and one fourth of MSW programs in the United States are offeredcompletely online with no course work requiring human contact (Vernon,

Address correspondence to Pooja Sawrikar, School of Human Services and Social Work,Griffith University, Building G01_3.14, Parklands Drive, Southport, Gold Coast campus,Queensland 4222, Australia. E-mail: [email protected]

343

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UN

SW L

ibra

ry]

at 1

6:14

14

Sept

embe

r 20

15

344 P. Sawrikar et al.

Vakalahi, Pierce, Pittman-Munke, & Adkins, 2009). The School of HumanServices and Social Work (HSV) at Griffith University (GU), Queensland,Australia, is no exception.

GU is one of 30 universities in Australia to offer social work degrees,but not one of the largest, with HSV’s largest intake in 1st-year coursesacross its three programs (Bachelor of Child and Family Studies, Bachelorof Human Services, and Bachelor of Social Work) at slightly more than200 in 2014. Australian universities are accredited and subject to reviewevery 5 years, in accordance with Australian Social Work Education andAccreditation Standards (2012), and recently they were revised to pay greaterattention to online education. Currently, about one third of all social workprograms in Australia are offered online (Australian Association of SocialWorkers, 2013) and GU’s HSV already has more than 20 online postgraduatecourses per semester.

As part of GU’s Online Strategy,1 1st-year courses within the BSW havegone online for Semester 1, 2015. In the lead up to the undergraduate pro-gram going online, reservation from some faculty and staff, and debateamong all, has gathered momentum. Similar caution was exercised in theschool 10 years ago when the MSW program first went online. Thus, theschool has had a decade to find evidence for the unequivocal comparabil-ity of DE to its F2F counterpart and silence its skeptics, but this has notoccurred. The same issues are revolving; the debate about the effectivenessof DE has not ceased or been resolved.

The broader research base on DE in social work, now spanning 30 years(Levin, Whitsett, & Wood, 2013), is still accumulating evidence for itsequal value to on-campus learning, especially for undergraduate programs(Buchanan & Mathews, 2013). Thus, pedagogical issues surrounding DEremain. As recently as 2012, Brown reported that students do not demon-strate less satisfaction with an online version of a course but, all things beingequal, prefer a F2F environment to an online one. Thus, despite the growingevidence that these two modalities are equal in what they have to offer, itstill seems that something is amiss. Perhaps there is validity in the caution ofskeptics? This article addresses this question.

Literature Review: Taking Stock of What We Know so Far AboutDistance Education

DE has the appeal of flexibility (Ferrera, Ostrander, & Crabtree-Nelson, 2013;Jones, 2010; Noble & Russell, 2013; Reamer, 2013). Students are able to studyaround their family and work commitments (Flynn, Maiden, Smith, Wiley, &Wood, 2013), and sometimes even attend their virtual classes in their pajamas

1 Only available on GU’s intranet.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UN

SW L

ibra

ry]

at 1

6:14

14

Sept

embe

r 20

15

Caution With Distance Education and Social Work 345

or lying down in bed (Levin et al., 2013). DE also caters to different learningand teaching styles. For example, some students may prefer visual and tactilelearning or podcast audios (Reamer, 2013), and some teachers “who haveless charisma in the traditional classroom may be able to function better inan online environment, particularly if their organisation skills and attentionto detail help them attend to the demands of the modality” (Noble & Russell,2013, p. 499).

However, DE also gathers much of its energy and support from the factthat it increases educational access and opportunity to remote students, andaccess to opportunity is a social justice value central to the practice of socialworkers (Kurzman, 2013; Pelech et al., 2013; Reamer, 2013; Wilson, 1999).Indeed, good social workers come from all walks of life including work-ing families, single parents, remote dwellers and others, and so all shouldhave the opportunity to participate. Having said that, access to (good) com-puter networks is not level in society and an acknowledgment that DE mayin fact disadvantage some people is a critical observation (Reamer, 2013).Nevertheless, given that DE embodies a value for social justice, most educa-tors feel it is an important and viable alternative that should remain and besupported in the higher education system.

Nonetheless, the question becomes: Is it as effective as F2F education?Supporters of DE are quick to point out that the two modes are like “applesand oranges” (Kurzman, 2013) and therefore cannot (and should not) becompared. Yet research evaluating the effectiveness of DE often measuresitself against criteria used for assessing the effectiveness of F2F education.For example, studies appear to show that the two modes do not differon “student satisfaction, licensing exam pass rates, post-graduation careerachievement” (Kurzman, 2013, p. 335), and performance and grade out-comes (McAllister, 2013; Petracchi, Mallinger, Engel, Rishel, & Washburn,2005), and use these findings as evidence for the position that the two meth-ods of instruction are comparable. (There is one important factor, however,on which the research shows they do differ; student retention is lower foronline courses McAllister, 2013).

There is in fact an implication that, although F2F and DE are different,they are sufficiently similar to be able to compare them; if they really weredifferent, there likely would be nothing on which they could be comparedand indicators of their respective strengths and weaknesses would also bedifferent from one another. The fact that research keeps measuring themboth against the same criteria indicates that there is an attempt to put themon the same measuring scale, and for such comparisons to be meaningful.It is as if the research is “unconsciously” treating these two modes as similarenough to be compared yet “consciously” saying they are different, andhence should not be compared. In theoretical terms, it reflects the emic-eticdebate: to what extent, and how, can two things really be compared?

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UN

SW L

ibra

ry]

at 1

6:14

14

Sept

embe

r 20

15

346 P. Sawrikar et al.

Of importance, measures of student satisfaction, academic achievement,and employment statistics reflect “outcome variables.” Kurzman (2013) notedthat “online education is less interested in how students acquire a compe-tency (i.e. the process) than in offering evidence that the competency wasmastered” (p. 333). Thus it seems that evaluative research using these kindsof outcome variables as indicators of the success of DE might be incomplete;the process also matters and often seems not to be taken into sufficientaccount.

Some research on “process variables” has been conducted, but it seemsto have more to do with the process of delivery rather than the process oflearning. For example, Noble and Russell (2013) found that students mostliked feedback from their instructor, a short response time, and attentionfrom the instructor when returning grades, and comments and when clearingup questions. Therefore, what may be at the crux of the debate betweendistance and F2F education is comparability in the process of pedagogy.[Note that this article uses “pedagogy” synonymously with “andragogy” butacknowledges that historically the former was used to be more specific tochildren learners and the latter more specific to adult learners (Knowles,1968, 1980).]

According to Knowles (1980), there are six principles of adult learning:adults need to know why they are learning something; they need founda-tional experience (including room for error) in their learning activities; adultsneed their education internalized into their self concept by being responsiblefor their educational decisions and involved in the planning and evalua-tion of their instruction; adults need personal and professional readiness bylearning about subjects that have immediate relevance to them; adults’ ori-entation to learning is problem centered rather than content centered; andadults respond better to internal rather than external motivation. Thus, it maybe the case that being truly able to compare the relative effectiveness of dis-tance and F2F education requires comparison on these six specific processvariables related to pedagogy. Prima facie, DE may offer these opportunitiesin the same way that F2F education, but empirical research with evidence ofthis is yet to be conducted.

McAllister’s (2013) results seem to summarize the key themes in thistopic most succinctly: The primary advantage of online education wasfound to be flexibility; the primary disadvantages were challenges in com-munication and exchange. The primary advantage of F2F education wascommunication and interaction with classmates and the instructor, and nodisadvantage for F2F education was cited. In her words, “the clearest mes-sage coming from comparison of online and face-to-face students . . . isthe perception that online learning provides fewer opportunities for in-the-moment communication and spontaneous exchanges among students andfaculty” (McAllister, 2013, p. 527). As such, it may even be the case that nomatter how much empirical evidence is gathered, even on the process of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UN

SW L

ibra

ry]

at 1

6:14

14

Sept

embe

r 20

15

Caution With Distance Education and Social Work 347

pedagogy, F2F education simply offers something by virtue of its F2F man-ner that online education cannot, no matter how high its quality. Indeed,related to the “sociality” of the F2F mode, Edmundson argued that “Internetlearning promises to make intellectual life more sterile and abstract than italready is—and also, for teachers and students alike, far more lonely” (ascited in Kurzman, 2013, p. 336).

The importance of the interaction and communication that F2F offers ismost evident in the practicum component of social programs. Field place-ments are seen as critical for monitoring and assessing interpersonal skillsand for promoting and enhancing professionalism and job readiness. Yeteven changing trends are emerging here (Laitinen, 2014; Peteri, 2014); “fieldwork education, sometimes considered to be the pedagogical exception tothe rule, can (now) be secured using a 3D virtual world” (Reamer, 2013,as cited in Kurzman, 2013, p. 333). Nevertheless, concern about the abilityto monitor and assess students’ interpersonal skills and nonverbal behaviorshas been noted in the literature (Reamer, 2013). This is because learning clin-ical skills in a virtual world—a forum incongruent with the job they need tobe ready for, which will be full of real human contact—becomes an ethical“duty of care” issue for the future clients of DE students.

The increasing need for a business model in schools of social work(Flynn et al., 2013; McCormack, 1996), sensitive to budgetary considerationsand faculty workloads (Pelech et al., 2013), has meant that new, innovative,and “cheaper” models of delivering education have accordingly sprung. DEis supposedly one such model. However, the preconception that DE is cost-effective, or even profitable (Vernon et al., 2009), needs to be more broadlyaddressed.

Although more research is required, the small number of studies sofar (e.g., Bray, Harris, & Major, 2007; Stotzer, Fujikawa, Sur, & Arnsberger,2013) indicate that perceptions of the cost-effectiveness of DE have notbeen fulfilled. Studies recognize that synchronous learning—simultaneousinteraction in real time—enhances the educational experience more thanasynchronous learning (or what Inglis, Ling, & Joosten, 2002, referred toas “classroom-based” vs. “resource-based” learning). Synchronous learningincreases cognitive, teaching, and social presence (Garrison, Anderson, &Archer, 1999; Swan, 2003), whereas asynchronous learning is associated onlywith cognitive presence (Flynn et al., 2013). In turn, the teaching methodsused to create the “dynamic and interactive” environment in synchronouslearning (Eaton, 2001) are more resource intensive, and the costs associatedwith this kind of quality education are as high as teaching F2F (Vernon et al.,2009).

Stotzer and colleagues (2013) reported that their DE program at theUniversity of Hawaii ran 3 times more costly than their campus-based pro-gram. Some DE programs have even been reported to run at a loss (Bledsoe,2008; Taylor, Parker, & Tebeaux, 2001). Thus, if the rise of DE is driven by

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UN

SW L

ibra

ry]

at 1

6:14

14

Sept

embe

r 20

15

348 P. Sawrikar et al.

economic rationalism and neo-liberalist pressure to cut costs, these studiesshow that this premise may not be well founded; the costs are just redis-tributed to persistent technology maintenance rather than education (Kreuger& Stretch, 2000).

In short, DE should remain for social justice reasons, should not befalsely advertised as sufficiently different from F2F teaching or as being cost-effective, should not be wholly assessed on outcome variables, and mustalso be evaluated via process variables related to pedagogy, because thepedagogical value of DE may be the only real measure of its comparableeffectiveness to its F2F counterpart.

Aims and Significance of This Study

Although there is considerable research on the effectiveness of DE, and asmaller but growing body of evidence on its effectiveness for social workprograms, there is hardly any research emanating from Australia. Indeed,only one other study on DE in social work programs from Australia (Jones,2010) was found at the time of writing. As such, it has been necessary to bor-row from the international literature to help frame the review and researchquestions in this article. There is little reason not to expect transferabilityin findings about the effectiveness of DE in SW programs from the UnitedStates to Australia, given that both countries have similarities in sociocultural,economic, and political dimensions and similar social work accreditationrequirements. Nonetheless, it is still important to conduct research that repre-sents and includes Australia’s voice and experiences. This reality is especiallyimportant because GU is about to join a small group of only three otherAustralian universities that currently offer their BSW in DE mode.

The nascent body of current research also uses a range of researchmethods. Some studies have used quantitative methods (e.g., Buchanan &Mathews, 2013; Buquoi, McClure, Kotrlik, Machtmes, & Bunch, 2013; Stotzeret al., 2013; Tucker, 2001) and others have used a mixed methods approach(e.g. McAllister, 2013; Noble & Russell, 2013; Petracchi, 2000). An empha-sis on quantitative methodology in evaluative research is premised on etic,objective measures of the efficacy and effectiveness of DE, consistent withthe implicit assumption that DE and F2F education can be compared. Lessresearch was found using only qualitative methods (e.g., Aguirre & Duncan,2013; Ferrera et al., 2013; Kanter’s personal e-mail to Reamer, 2013).

The qualitative method of critical narrative inquiry is of value because itemphasizes a ground-up approach to the development of theory and prac-tice. Indeed, literature reviews are critical for identifying what is alreadyknown about the pros and cons of online teaching, but generating furtherknowledge on the issue should not be wholly guided by this either. Thus,the use of open-ended critical inquiry is an important and useful tool.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UN

SW L

ibra

ry]

at 1

6:14

14

Sept

embe

r 20

15

Caution With Distance Education and Social Work 349

Broadly then, the aim of this study is to use qualitative research methodsto flesh out where the caution with DE among faculty and staff from GUAustralia comes from and to explore if it is related to the process ratherthan the outcome of pedagogy and/or the definitive characteristic of F2Fteaching—the opportunity for interaction and spontaneous communicativeexchange.

METHOD

Process and Ethics

This article has used critical narrative inquiry, asking three faculty memberswithin the HSV at GU to qualitatively reflect on their experiences of teach-ing their courses online. They were part of a collaborative writing groupwithin the school on social work pedagogy. Of importance, they were notquestioned or guided by a semistructured interview but simply asked oneopen-ended question at the end of 2013: “Can you please reflect on yourexperiences of the last course you taught online?” and key themes then wereidentified. Note that all DE courses at GU are taught using Blackboard. As theperceptions of students from the courses examined here are not includedin this article, and there is no reference to any identifying information ofindividual students, there are no ethical issues to identify or report.

Sample

Author 1 is a 37-year-old female and teaches postgraduate research meth-ods, but the course allows entry of some undergraduate students. It isusually taken by students wishing to go on to do a Masters or PhD, orcurrently enrolled in their 1st year of these degrees. The course covers liter-ature reviews; ethical and legal issues in research; evidence-based practice;identifying research problems, questions, hypotheses, and research frame-works; designing qualitative and quantitative research; sampling; conductingresearch; collecting and analyzing data; research rigor (reliability and valid-ity); and writing and disseminating one’s research. It is delivered online over13 weeks (one semester). Hard copies of course material are sent to studentsvia post at the beginning of the semester. The first assessment requires stu-dents to post a personal introduction and then two versions (draft and final)of a research question they wish to explore as the basis for the later assess-ments. Their draft research question is revised and finalized based on onlinediscussions and feedback they receive from the group. Students develop acogent and feasible research question (worth 10%, due by Week 3), after tak-ing into account feedback they received from other students on their initialresearch question (worth 10%, due by Week 5). One of the principal aimsof this assessment is to generate dialogue among students who cannot see

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UN

SW L

ibra

ry]

at 1

6:14

14

Sept

embe

r 20

15

350 P. Sawrikar et al.

each other. The second assessment is a 1,500-word literature review on theirresearch question (worth 30%, due by Week 8), and the final assessmentpiece is a 2,000 word research proposal based on their research question(worth 50%, due by Week 13). Author 1 had extensive experience in F2Fteaching (9 years) but had taught this course only once before online.

Author 2 is a 34-year-old female and teaches a postgraduate course onworking with marginalized populations that do not have equitable accessto sociocultural and economic opportunities. The topics include workingwith migrants; refugees; Indigenous Australians; people with disabilities; theaging population; and gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender individualsand families. The course is offered as part of two master’s degree programsand is delivered online over 12 weeks (one semester). The first assessmentincludes posting to other students in their cohort a personal introductionand then outlining professional aspirations on a discussion board to createan online network among those with similar interests (worth 10%, due byWeek 4). The second assessment is a 1,500-word case study analysis (worth40%, due by Week 8), and the final assessment is a 2,500-word essay onthe topic “Working Across Difference” (worth 50%, due by Week 13). Allmarking is done online, using a software program called Turnitin. This wasonly the second time that Author 2 had taught a course online, but Author2 had been teaching F2F for 5 years.

Author 3 was a 59-year-old female and an early career academic in her3rd year of teaching online postgraduate disability studies courses. Studentsare enrolled in divergent programs (Masters of Social Work, Masters ofHuman Services, and Graduate Certificate in Disability Inclusion) but ofcourse have in common that they are in people-oriented helping profes-sions. Most students work in the allied health fields such as mental healthservices, occupational therapy, disability support, speech therapy, vocationalcounseling, and rehabilitation counseling. Others work in professions suchas special education, child and family services, and child protection. Author3 redesigned her courses when they were first assigned 3 years earlier.She reflected on two of them for this article. One course is now rigorouslyembedded in standpoint epistemology, having previously had an emphaticfocus on “difference.” The three-part assessment strategy—weighted at 30%–40%–30%—requires students to write three research-based critical analysesof several disability narratives. Students are encouraged to participate in theonline Discussion Forums every week, but this participation is not formallyassessed. The other offering, which requires students to have passed anintroductory course in disability studies, has been reframed to respond tocontemporary Australian policy issues, allowing students to deepen theirpolicy research skills. Their assessment comprises 10% for participating withtheir peers on the Discussion Board, 30% for a 1,000-word case-study anal-ysis of a topical issue by Week 6, and 60% for a small research project of3,000 words. This project is staged over several weeks, with the draft outline

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UN

SW L

ibra

ry]

at 1

6:14

14

Sept

embe

r 20

15

Caution With Distance Education and Social Work 351

of the project (20%) due by Week 9 and the final paper (40%) due by Week14. As with Author 2, all marking in both courses is done online using thesoftware program called Turnitin.

RESULTS

Case Study 1: Author 1

When I was first asked to teach research methods online I was skeptical.I had never really believed that the convenience of being able to work fromhome, at any time that suited me, would be equivalent to the quality ofeducation that can be offered in a face-to-face forum. Part of this opinionis personality; I’m a social person and like social contact. Also part of thisopinion is prior experience; in a previous job a long time ago (in 2004) Itaught psychology to students on a remote campus via live streaming andcould see the disengagement in them compared to the students sitting right infront of me. Then there’s just the fact that advances in technology generallydo not excite me. I’m not technologically unaware or uninformed, it justdoesn’t thrill me.

When I first started preparing the course, like anyone new to a course,I didn’t quite know how much time would be involved or how to pacethe content across the semester. I don’t think this is an issue that can bewholly addressed a priori; some things you just have to learn the hard way.I will know for next time how to pace my energy better. Having said that,it may have been helpful to know that others new to online teaching had asimilar experience. In particular, the workload is uneven across the semester.At the beginning, there is very little required of you, but this changes as theassessments start rolling in and the flurry of emails and discussion boardquestions emerge. What would take you five minutes to say in a face-to-facelecture can take you 30 or 40 minutes to type out. And that’s just for onestudent. If you are teaching another course during the semester, this can getburdensome and planning your time well becomes a critical skill.

The lack of facial expressions and nonverbal cues from students youwould otherwise get in a face-to-face forum, and which help you immedi-ately tailor the pace of delivery, are an obvious drawback of online teaching.I was not able to see who was falling behind to help catch them before theyfell. And in a postgraduate course where there are only really two majorassessment items, each worth a lot, that’s not a problem students can afford.

While some students are quite vocal, and happy to create a group envi-ronment at the beginning of semester, I noticed that this petered out by themiddle of semester, when they began to realize that there were really onlya small handful carrying the weight of trying to create a collegial and stim-ulating classroom. I guess this happens in a face-to-face forum too; quietstudents remain quiet. Still, in a classroom it is at least easy to spot them, try

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UN

SW L

ibra

ry]

at 1

6:14

14

Sept

embe

r 20

15

352 P. Sawrikar et al.

various ways to encourage their participation, and instill the confidence theymay need to do so.

Funny enough, it’s not just those students who are quietly lagging (andwho can’t be seen or heard) who become a problem for instructors whocare about their students; it is also on the other end. At the end of mysemester of teaching online, I termed these students the “ungracious highachievers.” Students until now (in their undergraduate course) may havedone very well and were used to doing very well. But in a postgraduateresearch methods course, that is preparing potential PhD students for therigor that will be expected of them during the next four years, standardsincrease considerably. And some high-achieving students may not be ableto receive the disappointing feedback, and marks they get, if their primaryaim is to get the marks they need to enter such a competitive course ofstudy—rather than learn from the experience and knowledge of those whocan show them how to improve their research ideas and expression.

And it takes a whole package to get into a PhD program. It is not justabout brains. A person’s ability to receive constructive feedback (and learnfrom it) is a critical attribute of all budding and established academics if theyare to continue learning. In fact, this very attribute can be hard to commenton in references that I have been asked to write for students applying for aPhD whom I have never met.

On a final note, I’ve learned not to give my mobile number out. I workfrom home where there is no landline so my mobile was my only form ofphone communication. While I was happy to call students who had prear-ranged a phone meeting, I was not happy that some of these students thenwent on to take the liberty of texting me their questions (or panic) aboutwhether or not their assignment had been correctly submitted. These areboundaries that some students may need to be explicitly asked to observe.

Overall, while I enjoyed the challenge and stimulation that comes withlearning something new, I was not convinced out of my initial skepticism.Despite the advantage of increased access to remote and regional students(which is the only real advantage I see of online education), I do see it as“second best.” At the same time, I do not see that a need for it should beruled out; such black-and-white opinions are fruitless as they fail to takeinto account the diversity of our students and their needs, but I would becautious about saying that what it offers is on par with what face-to-faceeducation can offer. Sometimes, “old school” is better. The Internet cannotreplace everything.

Case Study 2: Author 2

The online course I taught had not been offered for two years prior to 2013.I therefore restructured the course by updating the content and redesigningthe assessment items. This was an interesting process and involved collating

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UN

SW L

ibra

ry]

at 1

6:14

14

Sept

embe

r 20

15

Caution With Distance Education and Social Work 353

input from a number of teaching staff with expertise on the different topics.The group of 34 students came from a range of professional and personalbackgrounds, which made the initial online discussions rich and diverse.However, it became difficult to sustain online discussions as the semesterprogressed. My time was taken up with teaching two large courses involvingfirst-year students on campus. Most of the online students, particularly thoseworking full-time, were more concerned about getting assignments donerather than engaging in deep discussions around the topics. The end-of-semester feedback, however, indicated that some students would have likedregular structured online discussions on each topic.

The choices for the case study analysis task allowed students to reflecton difficult issues of contemporary importance (abuse of children with intel-lectual disabilities, asylum-seekers in detention, or Indigenous Australians inAurukun, the Far North tip of Queensland). The major essay further chal-lenged their perspectives on the topics explored in the course, and askedthem to reflect on the shift in their personal and professional approach.The assessments were interesting to read—at times fascinating—given thescholarship that most postgraduate students demonstrated. However, thiscourse was also the first university experience for a couple of students inthe group. This meant significant challenges to address the assessment tasksat the level required. These students required much more support via e-mailand through telephone conversations. I shared the resources designed forfirst-year students to assist with basic notions such as critical thinking andbuilding an argument in academic writing.

What I found difficult with teaching this course was that face-to-facestudents took up most of my time and it became “easy” to lose track of whatwas going on in the online classroom, unless students specifically askedfor assistance. In on-campus classes, I rely on a number of nonverbal cuesto determine whether students are struggling with the content or with theassessment tasks, and I adjust my teaching style accordingly. This is obvi-ously missing when teaching online, which makes my responses reactiverather than proactive. This also means providing even more feedback onassessment items to ensure comments are understood in context.

I posted weekly announcements to introduce the topic under discus-sion. I found writing introductory content on each topic in advance ratherrigid as a process. I did, however, complement the content by regularly shar-ing news items particularly relating to policy changes or interesting examplesfrom local and international contexts. In terms of maintaining a regular com-munication flow, I responded to e-mail queries shortly after I received them.I have not figured out yet whether it would be useful to set a specific timeslot aside each week to “teach” an online course in order to have a regular“online presence” in the virtual classroom.

Teaching online is not my preferred method. I enjoy being in a class-room and observing how students struggle and then absorb and process the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UN

SW L

ibra

ry]

at 1

6:14

14

Sept

embe

r 20

15

354 P. Sawrikar et al.

content. Witnessing students’ progress gives me a lot of satisfaction. In theonline context, it is much more difficult to encourage participation to enrichtheir learning experiences. However, what I do appreciate is the smaller sizeof the group. This makes it much easier to track each student’s progress fromthe beginning to the end of the semester. I also enjoy the flexibility that isattached to the virtual classroom, as I can prepare and post content, andrespond to queries for the most part at any point during the week. This isimportant in terms of maintaining work–life balance as much as possible.

Case Study 3: Author 3

To understand my views about online teaching, it is useful to understandmy professional context. I came into the academic profession late in life butwith still youthfully idealistic expectations of what I might bring to the stu-dents. For over thirty years, I had been in pioneering and leadership rolesas a social worker, contributing to new social policy initiatives. I thought Imight share my experiences and insights with my students. I had much toshare: I had provided policy advice to Federal, State, and Local governmentsin Australia and in England and had established extensive policy networks.Those roles and responsibilities had been highly relationship oriented, entail-ing face-to-face discussions with individuals, team meetings, organizationalworkshops, community-sector consultations, intergovernmental negotiationmeetings, and much working of the telephones. In short, I was out andabout a lot.

I was dismayed, then, to be told on my first day on campus that Ihad been assigned to teaching online courses. No on-campus courses wereon my rap sheet. Filled with foreboding, I foresaw a Kafkaesque future ofendless days trapped in front of my computer, with the cursor blinking itsmysterious messages as it scrolled across the monitor. Because I am deaf (Iwas brought up and educated in one of the oralism traditions; I do not useAuslan – Australian Sign Language), I detected a whiff of doubt by the seniormanagers about my ability to “perform” in a real-world class with students.When I was told that online teaching was the “new education technologyrevolution,” my putative paranoia was allayed, but only to be replaced byskepticism. People like to christen new ideas with the epithet “revolution,”as if that’s a good thing. Why? Too many revolutions are accompanied bybloodshed and loss of lives. So, why the celebration? Three years later—having by now taught several on-campus courses in addition to my onlinecourses—my skepticism has hardened.

Online teaching evangelists talk about technology in education in thesame torpor-inducing way that motoring zealots bang on about cars, mar-veling at their torque, adaptive cruise control, camshaft, and what have you.However, the modern car has not essentially changed since it first hit theroad when German inventor Karl Benz patented his “motorwagon” in 1886.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UN

SW L

ibra

ry]

at 1

6:14

14

Sept

embe

r 20

15

Caution With Distance Education and Social Work 355

It still comprises four wheels, a chassis, and an engine. Everything since thenhas just been tweaks, bells, and whistles to improve comfort and drivability.Certainly, the speed of cars can now exceed 200 km per hour, but what’s thepoint when median safe driving range is about 60 km per hour?

Similarly, education remains a Socratic contract between a teacher anda student: the transfer of knowledge—in all its guises of skills, wisdom, anal-ysis, ideas, insights, and sometimes even answers to questions—from one tothe other. In an ideal teaching setting, that transfer becomes an exchangewhereby the teacher learns from the student as well. This is a dialogue.Nothing has happened since the days of ancient Greece to trump the integrityof this pedagogical relationship between teacher and student.

I find the process of transferring knowledge online passably efficient, ifintensively time-consuming. The preparation of the materials to be uploadedis particularly exhaustive. Where once upon a time I might have scrib-bled some notes for myself to guide my lecture, and knocked out a fewPowerPoint slides for the class presentation, I am now scrupulously diligentin preparing creatively prepared content. The basic textual material is repletewith illustrations, embedded audio-visuals such as YouTube clips and TEDtalks, hyperlinks to associated references, recorded lectures by guest speak-ers, and other relevant supporting materials. I do all this because I do notwant the students to plow through wads of black type on a white screen.I want the students to be attracted to the course content, to engage with it inits entirety. I want them to enjoy it. However, this takes time. In recompensefor this cannibalizing of my allotted teaching time, I’ve learnt to establishtemporal boundaries in the online world where there are no chiming clocksor students jostling noisily outside lecture theatres to remind you that thenext class is due to begin. After the first four disastrously inefficient onlineteaching semesters—in which I let myself be at the beck and call of thestudents 24/7—I learned to schedule my online times as if my course con-tent were delivered in the lecture halls on campus. At the beginning of thesemester, the students are advised of the times I will be online (three hoursonline student contact time per week per course, plus an additional hourper course when students can telephone me for individual consultations).They are regularly reminded of these protocols over the thirteen weeks ofthe course. I am stern with myself. I do not dawdle online, and if I have notcompleted what I want to achieve with my students within those set hours, Iadvise them that I will complete any remaining tasks during the next week.With experience comes efficiency; I rarely have any “carry-over” tasks thesedays. When I initiated these online protocols, I was anxious that the studentsmight think me mean or stingy with my time. Perversely, while I now spendless time online than I did in my first four semesters, most students reportthat they are appreciative of my availability.

In contrast, establishing the ideal dialogic relationship online betweenthe students and me in the first instance, and among the students as a

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UN

SW L

ibra

ry]

at 1

6:14

14

Sept

embe

r 20

15

356 P. Sawrikar et al.

learning collective thereafter, has been much more daunting. Despite consis-tently positive student evaluations of their experiences in my online courses,I find the online process troubling and deeply unsatisfying for me as theireducator and facilitator of learning.

I am troubled because I wonder whether the students have learnt whatI am trying to teach them, especially in the course that draws on standpointepistemology. Here, I aim to expose students to the lived experiences ofpeople with a disability or mental health illness from the “insider perspec-tive.” No prior disability studies background is assumed for enrolling in thiscourse. However, students are advised that they must allow their assump-tions about disability, chronic illness, and mental health to be challenged.They must commit to a weekly program of reading memoirs, and watchingdocumentaries, films, and TED talks via YouTube. Some of the films anddocumentaries are made available through the students’ online course site.Others (historic or hard-to-find documentaries) are provided to students ona DVD at the beginning of the semester as part of their course materials.

By examining these first-person disability narratives, I hope that stu-dents come to understand how disability is just one influence among manyinfluences in shaping the direction and quality of people’s lives. While theirwritten assignments appear to provide me with some evidence of theirnewfound perspectives—in the absence of face-to-face classroom contact—Ihave no way of directly witnessing their learning or testing them throughthe immediacy of peer-based rhetoric, argument, debate, and challenge. It isall very well for them to be strategic in their written responses—as so manyclearly are—but how do they fare in the real world of people with disabili-ties? Despite the richness of the disability narratives they are exploring, thestudents rarely engage with each other on the Discussion Board, beyondthe casually glib comments of “this was an interesting documentary” or “thatwas a sad memoir.” It is as if they do not dare to reveal the extent of theiremotional and intellectual responses to the inevitably challenging narratives,even in the safety of a facilitated Discussion Board. Thus, how do I know ifI have really succeeded in chasing away the spectres of voyeurism, patron-age, and noblesse oblige towards people with disability? This course is, afterall, intended to shape the attitudes of current and future practitioners in thehelping professions about the hopes, aspirations and possibilities of peoplewith disabilities. Is it really possible to achieve this goal via a computer in aclosed room?

The extent of my qualms here is highlighted by the relative lack of themin my other second-semester disability studies course, which is grounded inthe principles of social inclusion, human rights, and social justice. In thatcourse, students explore challenges in working responsively and effectivelyalongside people with disabilities and their families, within the context ofgovernment and community sector service delivery. Some of the policy, pro-gram and service issues that students explore include the National Disability

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UN

SW L

ibra

ry]

at 1

6:14

14

Sept

embe

r 20

15

Caution With Distance Education and Social Work 357

Insurance Scheme; Australian governments’ political and policy responsesto disability; debates about the admission of migrants with disabilities; thehealth and disability status of Aboriginal Australians; and disability equity andaccess issues in work, education, and housing. This all sounds demanding—and it is—but deep lessons can be acquired through sustained, reflectivereading and research, together with online discussions with their peers andme. In fact, the high quality of students’ assignments in this course has star-tled me: They demonstrate the students’ willingness to challenge themselvesand their eagerness to contribute to a body of knowledge.

At this stage of my reflections, I must now make a late admission.In recent months, through a series of serendipitous events that life throws upfrom time to time, I have met several of my former and still current onlinestudents: One is a public servant with cerebral palsy; another young man, aparticularly gifted thinker and writer, is a paraplegic; a third is a profoundlydeaf woman who works in Student Support Services at a major university;and the fourth former student is a lively human services worker in a largeregional hospital and has dyslexia. None of their disabilities is visible in theonline world. All these students were active and enthusiastic participants inthe online discussion forums. They were all outstanding students, presentingaccomplished, thoughtful assignments with nary a glib word to be found.I have to ask myself, Would this level of engagement and scholarly achieve-ment be possible for these students in the rough and tumble of the real-worldclassroom? In light of this latter observation, perhaps I am simply dissatisfiedwith online teaching because above all, I find it to be a lonely commitment.

DISCUSSION

Summary of Findings

The aim of this study was to use critical narrative inquiry from three socialwork educators in an Australian university that has been using DE in post-graduate courses for more than 10 years and is soon about to embark on itsundergraduate program going online because of managerial pressure to doso. More specifically, this study aimed to see, from the range of themes per-tinent to the caution with DE, if issues to do with the process of pedagogyand the opportunity for communication and interaction lay among them.

Evidence was found: Being able to see a student’s journey from expo-sure to comprehension of course content (and help catch lagging studentsbefore they fall too far behind), much of which may be nonverbal and whichcan be easily seen in the F2F mode, seems to be at the heart of teachingand learning satisfaction. In addition, uneven participation in communica-tion among students and during the semester occurs in both distance andF2F education, but the F2F mode offers two things the DE mode does not.First, it is unencumbered by digital woes (that can vary from annoying to

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UN

SW L

ibra

ry]

at 1

6:14

14

Sept

embe

r 20

15

358 P. Sawrikar et al.

stifling) such as small screens, difficulty making or maintaining eye contact,and poor connections or lack of sufficient IT support (Levin et al., 2013;Reamer, 2013). Second (which may or may not be related to the first), F2Feducation offers the opportunity for spontaneous dialogue. DE prides itselfon offering the opportunity for students to carefully consider their commentsbefore they post them; although this is a good thing, it does not seem to beable to provide the same level of teaching and learning satisfaction as thespontaneous communicative exchange that a classroom permits.

Other themes also were identified from the three case studies. Somewere consistent with the literature, and others are new findings. Three advan-tages of DE were identified: flexibility for enhancing work–life balance, thestimulating exposure to a new form of teaching, and increased access forremotely located and regional students in Australia. However, caution withDE noted by teaching staff was found to be related to several factors:

a social personality, extensive work experience with a high social component, a general lack of enthusiasm about technology, the time intensity of the workload (for sustaining online discussions across

the semester, assisting some students with basic critical thinking and aca-demic writing skills, and providing more feedback to ensure comments areunderstood in context),

concern that students are more interested in completing assignments orattaining high marks rather than valuing learning for the sake of learningand engaging in deep discussions,

possibly inappropriate expectations about the contact availability of staffand their lack of privacy,

writing references for PhD applicants (including on their ability to receivefeedback) without ever having met them, and

loneliness.

Of importance, some themes were identified in the literature but not inthe case studies. For example, Lokken and colleagues reported that oldereducators experience technology anxiety and hence used technology lessfrequently than their younger counterparts (as cited in Buquoi et al., 2013);although lack of enthusiasm for technology here was cited, technologyanxiety was not.

Another more important issue is that of ethics. Levin et al. (2013)reported ethical issues such as children being privy to class conversationsif they were in the background, and being able to pick up on, and helpsupport, the mental health problems of students, typically disclosed duringstressful times such as when assignments are due. In fact, it may be the case

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UN

SW L

ibra

ry]

at 1

6:14

14

Sept

embe

r 20

15

Caution With Distance Education and Social Work 359

that being able to address the mental health problems of DE students didnot emerge as a theme in these case studies because the instructors werenot aware of them, and if such is the case, this may be a serious ethicalissue.

Arguably, issues to do with duty of care are more easily identifiablein the F2F mode, and surely nonverbal communication observable in aclassroom assists in this. Indeed, no matter how much flexibility and acces-sibility DE offers both students and educators and remains attractive forthese reasons, the ultimate duty of care of social work educators is directedprospectively toward the clients whom our future social workers will serve.In the end, their work will be with people, F2F, and the training ground fortheir ability to do their job well, and therefore best help the individual orfamily in need, needs to match their professional practice.

In a world where technology seems old before it’s even off the shelf,constantly and rapidly moving and changing, educators need to ask them-selves whether the move is in fact forward or just sideways. As Lee (2005) putit, “the novelty factor can often cause us to be tempted to implement the lat-est and greatest technology, sometimes without thinking carefully enoughabout whether or not this is actually going to result in meaningful learn-ing” (p. 19). It seems then that there is a place for “slow learning,” andalthough cautious instructors should be encouraged and supported to trynew technologies, they should not be made to feel that they representan outdated mode of teaching and need to “get with the times.” Somethings just take time to develop, mature, and sophisticate. Skills in criti-cal thinking are one example. Respect for difference is another. A socialworker in the making who is an Afghani refugee, for example, may notbe so sensitive to the experiences of homosexual and transgender people,or one who is physically disabled, and therefore may need to work onhis or her racial, religious, and/or ethnic biases. Everyone will have some-thing to learn in that classroom, and learning to break down such barrierscan be a long and slow process. Repeated exposure to a diverse class-room over a 3-year degree can go a long way in helping the process toslowly ripen; when it occurs, the graduating class will be well placed todeliver services in ethical and just ways to diverse client families. Althoughnot identified in the case studies, duty of care/ethics also is tremendouslyimportant, and may be more difficult to assess and achieve via distanceeducation.

In short, three key issues underpin our caution with the deployment ofDE in social work programs: a value for the process of learning, an appre-ciation for nonverbal communication, and addressing issues to do with dutyof care to families serviced by future social workers who were primarilyeducated in a virtual classroom.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UN

SW L

ibra

ry]

at 1

6:14

14

Sept

embe

r 20

15

360 P. Sawrikar et al.

The Bigger Picture and the Future

While it is essential that social work educators . . . work to resist . . . thecorporatisation of universities which threaten to undermine the valuesand principles that underpin social work education, it should also berecognised that moves towards greater flexibility in the delivery of highereducation may create new opportunities . . . for promoting access to edu-cation and for developing creative uses of technology in the service ofsocial justice oriented education. (Jones, 2010, p. 226)

Hence, blended learning—a combination of F2F and DE—may be aworthwhile pursuit. It may help to resolve the debate about having to choosebetween mutually exclusive binaries, and it may temper the view of somethat “the olden days were better” against the impulsivity of the modern era.Positively, “online blended learning is a newly emerging trend in highereducation and is defined as the purposeful integration of synchronous andasynchronous learning to provide educational activities that maximise thebenefits of each” (as cited in Levin et al., 2013, p. 409).

Blended learning, above all else, offers educators and students choice,and since it serves this important function, “structures will continue to be putin place to ensure [its] survival” (Kurzman, 2013, p. 336). In the same waythat students have different learning styles, teachers have different teach-ing needs. As Noble and Russell (2013) stated, “because of the differencesbetween these delivery modalities, and because they each draw on differ-ent talent pools, some faculty may be better suited for either on-campus oronline courses” (p. 512). Blended learning also relies less on the “sage onstage” approach (King, 1993; Kurzman, 2013, p. 335), which is seen to beincongruent with student-centered learning.

Having options matters: Teachers, like students, should be able to selectwhat’s best for them. They should not be forced by pressure from the top toteach in ways they do not prefer, or have less skill or interest in, and certainlyteaching allocations should not reflect discriminations about the abilities ofpeople with disabilities. Obviously “it would be shortsighted to ignore thegreat potential that digital technologies have to improve, extend and trans-form teaching, learning and skills training” (Grossman, as cited in Kurzman,2013), but social work schools, and universities, have a responsibility to col-lect evaluative data on whether their efforts to increase the use of technologydo in fact achieve their pedagogical goals.

This imperative is especially important if the assumption that DE is cost-effective goes unquestioned. In a neo-liberal world, it is hard for educationto fight for its right not to be reduced to a dollar value, as if a cost–benefitanalysis of the money saved from online education would represent suffi-cient grounds to move toward it. The choice is not just about being able touse technology, but to also not use it. Faculty may feel pressured to teach

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UN

SW L

ibra

ry]

at 1

6:14

14

Sept

embe

r 20

15

Caution With Distance Education and Social Work 361

in a mode they are either uncomfortable with and/or fully disagree with.Although the actual opportunity to teach via DE may help relieve some oftheir discomfort and concerns about teaching online, and certainly expandtheir skill set, instructors should not be forced to work in ways that do notsuit their preference or play to their skills. In short, faculty should not besilenced by administrative pressure to adopt this new technology.

Thus, it is important that staff within a school push back on directivesfrom management to increase online learning if the motives of administrationprimarily reflect economic rationalism. Budgets are by no means a trivial mat-ter, and schools need to work within them, and hence evidence for the cost-effective value of blended learning is a necessity. Funding for DE should notcome from a redistribution of already limited resources away from F2F teach-ing. It also is the responsibility of a school to promote healthy, collaborative,collegiate conversations that openly discuss the pros and cons of onlineteaching, so that all voices, including those of the “dinosaurs,” are heard andrepresented. This inclusive process will ensure that all factors are consideredduring the planning of a course to be converted to an online mode.

Methodological Strengths and Limitations

This study emphasized the importance of grounded theory, integrating whatis already known with unprompted and self-reflective knowledge, as thebasis for further knowledge production and the advancement of the qualityof education for social work students. In this way, prior knowledge is notoverlooked, key themes already identified in the existing literature can bemore clearly brought out, and emerging themes can be identified.

Some limitations of the qualitative case study approach, however, needto be acknowledged. One is that key themes are generated from who is spo-ken to, and thus this article has not exhausted themes that could emerge fromfaculty with longer standing experience in online teaching, male instructors,and those who teach courses that have an experiential component. Futureresearch with these groups would be of value. Although the perception ofstudents was not the aim or focus of this study, it might well be importantto triangulate their views with those of faculty, and future research shouldconsider this option.

Concluding Remarks

Online education is increasing and is here to stay. Nevertheless, just becauselife does not stand still and adaptation to changing times is critical to success,such openness does not always mean that new is better. In fact, the advent ofonline teaching may arguably give all social work educators the opportunityto deeply reflect on how good F2F teaching is.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UN

SW L

ibra

ry]

at 1

6:14

14

Sept

embe

r 20

15

362 P. Sawrikar et al.

Commentators also need to be careful about stating that contrasting DEand F2F is like comparing “apples and oranges”—that they are so differ-ent that they cannot be compared—because if the issue is about the qualityof social interaction and the extent to which exposure to difference andspontaneous dialogue leads to respect for differences and skills in criticalthinking, then the skeptics are not taking a position of emic relativism.No amount of data that shows that DE is comparable to F2F education(because they do not differ on objective measures like student satisfaction,achievement, and employment outcomes) is going to silence the critics ofDE because these outcome variables are simply not of interest to them.

Pelech et al. (2013) argued that “the notion that social work educationcan be conducted only in a traditional classroom may be becoming a con-fining and antiquated notion” (p. 394). This may be true—failing to provideoptions for modalities of teaching may indeed be outdated. Yet the valuefor the process of learning that occurs in the classroom is not necessarilyout of date. This position should not be seen as one that belongs to “thedinosaurs.” Staff pro “old school” (Maiden, 2013) can come from any agegroup and may or may not be “digital natives.” They too have somethingimportant to say about the pedagogical value for the process of learning,and they have the responsibility to speak and to be heard by us all. DEshould be supported, as should diversity in teaching modes and the freedomto express diverse options. To help promote this freedom of choice, thestrengths of F2F teaching should not be forgotten—they must remain loudand clear in our academic settings.

REFERENCES

Aguirre, R. T. P., & Duncan, C. (2013). Being an elbow: A phenomenologicalautoethnography of faculty-student collaboration for accommodations. Journalof Teaching in Social Work, 33, 531–551. doi:10.1080/08841233.2013.827611

Australian Association of Social Workers. (2012) Australian Social WorkEducation and Accreditation Standards (ASWEAS) 2012 V1.4. Retrieved fromhttp://www.aasw.asn.au/document/item/3550.

Austrilian Association of Social Workers. (2013) Membership. Retrieved fromhttp://www.aasw.asn.au/membershipinfo/aasw-accredited-courses.

Bledsoe, C. A. (2008). Distance education financial expenditures in North Carolinacommunity colleges (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of NorthCarolina at Greensboro.

Bray, N. J., Harris, M. S., & Major, C. (2007). New verse or the same old cho-rus?: Looking holistically at distance education research. Research in HigherEducation, 48, 889–908. doi:10.1007/s11162-007-9054-7

Brown, J. L. M. (2012). Online learning: A comparison of web-based and land-basedcourses. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 13, 39–42.

Buchanan, R. L., & Mathews, D. A. (2013). A comparison of student knowledgeand attitude toward research: Are main campus students different from those

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UN

SW L

ibra

ry]

at 1

6:14

14

Sept

embe

r 20

15

Caution With Distance Education and Social Work 363

in a hybrid environment? Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 33, 467–480.doi:10.1080/08841233.2013.828668

Buquoi, B., McClure, C., Kotrlik, J. W., Machtmes, K., & Bunch, J. C.(2013). A national research survey of technology use in the BSW teach-ing and learning process. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 33, 481–495.doi:10.1080/08841233.2013.833577

Eaton, J. S. (2001). Maintaining the delicate balance: Distance learning, highereducation accreditation, and the politics of self-regulation (Council for HigherEducation Accreditation Monograph Series, 2001, No. 1). Retrieved from http://www.chea.org/pdf/mono_1_dist_learning_2001.pdf

Ferrera, M., Ostrander, N., & Crabtree-Nelson, S. (2013). Establishing a communityof inquiry through hybrid courses in clinical social work education. Journal ofTeaching in Social Work, 33, 438–448. doi:10.1080/08841233.2013.835765

Flynn, M., Maiden, R. P., Smith, W., Wiley, J., & Wood, G. (2013). Launching the vir-tual academic center: Issues and challenges in innovation. Journal of Teachingin Social Work, 33, 339–356. doi:10.1080/08841233.2013.843364

Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (1999). Critical inquiry in a text-basedenvironment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet andHigher Education, 2, 87–105. doi:10.1016/S1096-7516(00)00016-6

Inglis, A., Ling, P., & Joosten, V. (2002). Delivering digitally: Managing the transitionto the knowledge media (2nd ed.). London, UK: Kogan Page.

Jones, P. (2010). Collaboration at a distance: Using a Wiki to create a collabo-rative learning environment for distance education and on-campus studentsin a social work course. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 30, 225–236.doi:10.1080/08841231003705396

King, A. (1993). From sage on the stage to guide on the side. College Teaching, 41,30–35. doi:10.1080/87567555.1993.9926781

Knowles, M. S. (1968). Andragogy, not pedagogy. Adult Leadership, 16 ,350–352, 386.

Knowles, M. S. (1980). The modern practice of adult learning: From pedagogy toandragogy (Rev. ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Cambridge University Press.

Kreuger, L. W., & Stretch, J. J. (2000). How hypermodern technology in social workeducation bites back. Journal of Social Work Education, 36 , 103–114.

Kurzman, P. A. (2013). The evolution of distance learning and onlineeducation. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 33, 331–338.doi:10.1080/08841233.2013.843346

Laitinen, T. (2014). My journey towards eCompetence in social work. In A.Kilpeläinen & K. Päykkönen (Eds.), eCompetence for social work (pp. 121–124).Rovaniemi, Finland: University of Lapland Printing Centre.

Lee, M. J. W. (2005, October). New tools for online collaboration: Blogs, wikis, RSSand podcasting. Training and Development in Australia , 32(5), 17–20.

Levin, S., Whitsett, D., & Wood, G. (2013). Teaching MSW social work practice in ablended online learning environment. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 33,408–420. doi:10.1080/08841233.2013.829168

Maiden, R. P. (2013). Toward the future. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 33,607–610. doi:10.1080/08841233.2013.846024

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UN

SW L

ibra

ry]

at 1

6:14

14

Sept

embe

r 20

15

364 P. Sawrikar et al.

McAllister, C. (2013). A process evaluation of an online BSW program: Gettingthe student perspective. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 33, 514–530.doi:10.1080/08841233.2013.838200

McCormack, T. (1996). Understanding the true cost of distance learning. The Journalof Academic Media Librarianship, 4(1). Retrieved from http://wings.buffalo.edu/publications/mcjrnl/v4n1/watch3.html

Noble, D., & Russell, A. C. (2013). Research on webbed connectivity in a web-basedlearning environment: Online social work education. Journal of Teaching inSocial Work, 33, 496–513. doi:10.1080/08841233.2013.829167

Pelech, W., Wulff, D., Perrault, E., Ayala, J., Baynton, M., Williams, M. . . .

Shankar, J. (2013). Current challenges in social work distance education:Responses from the Elluminati. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 33, 393–407.doi:10.1080/08841233.2013.834863

Peteri, S. (2014). Information technology and social work practice: Examples of expe-riences from social work practice training. In A. Kilpeläinen & K. Päykkönen(Eds.), eCompetence for social work (pp. 73–82). Rovaniemi, Finland: Universityof Lapland Printing Centre.

Petracchi, H. E. (2000). Distance education: What do our students tell us? Researchon Social Work Practice, 10, 362–376.

Petracchi, H., Mallinger, G., Engel, R., Rishel, C. W., & Washburn, C. (2005).Evaluating the efficacy of traditional and web-assisted instruction in an under-graduate social work practice class. Journal of Technology in Human Services,23, 299–310. doi:10.1300/J017v23n03_09

Reamer, F. (2013). Distance and online social work education: Novel eth-ical challenges. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 33, 369–384.doi:10.1080/08841233.2013.828669

Stotzer, R. L., Fujikawa, K., Sur, J., & Arnsberger, P. (2013). Cost analysis of a distanceeducation MSW program. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 33, 357–368.doi:10.1080/08841233.2013.826318

Swan, K. (2003). Learning effectiveness: What the research tells us. In J. Bourne &J. C. Moore (Eds.), Elements of quality online education, practice and direc-tion (pp. 13–45). Needham, MA: Sloan Center for Online Education of BostonUniversity.

Taylor, T. H., Parker, G. D., & Tebeaux, E. (2001). Confronting cost and pricingissues in distance education. Educause Quarterly, 3, 16–23.

Tucker, S. (2001). Distance education: Better, worse, or as good as traditionaleducation? Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 4(4).

Vernon, R., Vakalahi, H., Pierce, D., Pittman-Munke, P., & Adkins, L. F. (2009).Distance education programs in social work: Current and emerging trends.Journal of Social Work Education, 45, 263–276. doi:10.5175/JSWE.2009.200700081

Wilson, S. (1999). Distance education and accreditation. Journal of Social WorkEducation, 35, 326–330.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UN

SW L

ibra

ry]

at 1

6:14

14

Sept

embe

r 20

15