Introduction

The purpose of this paper is twofold.  First, it discusses attributes that an effective distance education (DE) leader should possess.  This writer will examine why each attribute is critical, whether the attribute has changed much in this era of DE, and whether the attribute is universal to most DE settings.  This paper also discusses critical issues that DE leaders must tackle in order to succeed, how the issues can be addressed, and the forces that have brought these issues to the forefront.

Analysis

        Attributes

          The first vital attribute is learning technology acumen such that the DE leader can determine what, if any, technology tools can enhance learning.  In order to achieve such acumen, the DE leader must first understand DE pedagogy.  As Professor Dato’ Gajaraj Dhanarajan instructs us in Latchem and Hanna (2001), “judgements are based on knowledge; choice is exercised on the basis of knowledge” (p. 185).  Knowledge and understanding of technology is even more important in this recent era of DE because there is a constant flood of new technology. 

In all DE settings, DE leaders must carefully evaluate and choose only those technologies that are appropriate to enhance learning.  As Beaudoin (2004) instructs us, the DE leader must not be distracted by the newest technology.   Dr. Brian Talbott in Latchem and Hanna (2001) recommends that DE leaders recognize and support alternative learning approaches for students.  When evaluating the newest technology, the DE leader should also consider using older media such as print and video.  While technology may not be suitable for all DE settings, the decision making process must be the same across the board.  DE leaders should not choose technology simply for technology’s sake.

          Another important attribute of an effective DE leader is the ability to be a good change manager.  This attribute is even more important in this recent era of DE with the consistent influx of new technologies and demand for DE.  It is also universal to most DE settings since, as Beaudoin (2004) instructs us, we are in the midst of dramatic changes in DE.

          In Latchem and Hanna (2001), Sister Joel Read offers that in order to manage change, DE leaders must be able to tolerate ambiguity while being able to have a good understanding of the “changing reality of education” (p. 90).  DE leaders must be flexible and adaptable, accept that problems are the norm, and quickly find solutions that fit a particular context.  Sister Joel Read also suggests that DE leaders try to be serene amidst all the change.

          A third essential attribute of an effective DE leader is being goal oriented, yet participatory in management style.  Theory Y management, as described in Hersey, Blanchard, and Johnson (2008), is necessary for DE leaders.  They must involve appropriate individuals throughout the organization in the decision-making process.  Barbara Spronk’s advice in Latchem and Hanna (2001), that leaders must understand that power is earned and that the leaders must share power and responsibility for learning, is quite appropriate for DE leaders.  Sister Joel Read’s advice is also pertinent to DE leaders – to gather a group of advisers with a variety of perspectives who can provide the DE leader with knowledge of the culture and other characteristics of learners to be served.  The DE leader must have highly developed communication skills to facilitate participatory management. 

Perhaps most relevant to DE leaders is Sister Joel Read’s advice in Latchem and Hanna (2001) to keep decision-making as close as possible to the implementers.  This makes especially good sense when it comes to choosing learning technologies.  Those who would be implementing technologies with learners must be given the opportunity to participate in the choice of the technology.   While Sister Joel Read encourages DE leaders to be passionate, she also reminds us that leaders sometimes have to let go if that is necessary for the success of an endeavor. 

Another crucial attribute of an effective DE leader is being a risk taker.  Like being adept as a change manager and given the flurry of change in DE, risk taking is an ever increasingly important attribute that would be universal to most DE settings.  Beaudoin (2004) suggests that DE leaders must have the courage to nudge followers to the outer boundaries of the box.  In Latchem and Hanna (2001) Sister Joel Read tells us that it is important for DE leaders to be able to wing-it.  She suggests that the courage to take risks somewhat comes from the ability to see opportunities within all challenges.  She and other leaders interviewed in Latchem and Hanna (2001) share the sentiment that DE leaders must develop the proverbial thick skin.     

The final key attribute of an effective DE leader is common sense.  In this writer’s opinion, common sense has always been an important attribute in DE.  With the forces of change, it continues to be important and is vital in all DE settings. 

Without common sense, the DE leader likely will not know when it is appropriate to take certain risks.  According to Dr. Brian Talbott in Latchem and Hanna (2001), common sense will also help DE leaders know when not to reinvent the wheel.  Dr. Talbott also advises that DE leaders should be “practical and not get hung up on theory” (p. 193).  Sister Joel Read also advises that DE leaders should not overthink issues.  She also suggests that DE leaders have good sense to wisely manage time. 

Crucial Issues

This writer agrees with Barbara Spronk in Latchem and Hanna (2001) that a crucial issue is to convince stakeholders in education “that effective learning . . . is not dependent upon face-to-face contact on a regular basis” (p. 219).   Spronk suggests that we cannot simply transport traditional face-to-face learning practices into the DE environment.  Namely, she advises us that academics must be convinced that producing learning materials is not about impressing colleagues, but about facilitating learning.

Those who doubt the quality of DE, both inside and outside of the institution are prevalent.  This writer believes that one trend that has fueled the doubt is the proliferation of online schools for profit, or diploma mills.  Even though DE is not new, concern over diploma mills is alive and well according to Schemo (2008).   States are trying to curb the mills.  However, oddly enough, technology is enabling diploma mills to flourish and evade the law.  Therefore, DE leaders of legitimate, quality programs likely will be facing doubters for the foreseeable future – especially if the leaders resist the temptation to simply replicate the reliable face-to-face format in the DE environment.

This writer witnessed DE leaders at UMUC incrementally convince stakeholders that DE is not inferior to face-to-face learning.  Leaders in the School of Undergraduate Studies established a separate department staffed with designers, editors, technical experts, and others who are tasked with assisting academic departments develop online courses.  There is an established set of online course development procedures and best practices to ensure quality in the DE courses.  In the graduate school, program directors were offered the advice and assistance of personnel who were well versed in DE.  Consequently, many of UMUC’s online programs and courses have been recognized by organizations that uphold quality in distance learning, including Quality Matters (http://www.qualitymatters.org/), EFMD  (http://www.efmd.org/index.php/component/efmd/?cmsid=home) , UCEA (http://www.umuc.edu/departments/omde/awards/uceaAward.shtml), and Sloan-C (http://www.umuc.edu/departments/omde/awards/sloanAward.shtml).   

This writer agrees with Sister Joel Read in Latchem and Hanna (2001) that another fundamental issue is to fight consumerism that is evidenced by the students’ attitude that “education has become ‘quick, cheap, and easy’” (p. 87).  Sir John Daniel in Latchem and Hanna reminds us that DE institutions must distinguish between treating students as customers or part of an academic community. 

In this writer’s opinion, the technology that allows students to take DE courses anywhere and at any time can lead students to think that DE is easier than face-to-face learning.  This writer has encountered students who are annoyed with the amount of work in a DE course, expecting that it would be easier than an in-person course.

Sister Joel Read in Latchem and Hanna (2001) describes how she has effectively dealt with challenge of consumerism growing out of DE.  At Alverno College, she adapted some curricula to serve students’ perceived quick need for education in the professions, while maintaining a broad liberal arts base, put in place processes to assess students’ prior learning for possible course credit, offered flexible DE choices for adult learners, and integrated technologies across all curricula to facilitate DE delivery.

A final crucial issue, also put forth by Sister Joel Read in Latchem and Hanna (2001), is the need for “continuous staff development in ICT” (p. 87).  With all of the change occurring in DE, staff development will continue to demand more and more attention of DE leaders. 

The challenge is making time to train faculty and staff in the wake of rapid and continuous changing technologies.  Sister Joel Read notes that such training is necessary to change the minds of faculty and staff to adopt new technologies.  Beaudoin (2004) also advises us that training faculty in new technologies can facilitate their adoption.  He states that “as faculty acquire more experience with technology, they tend to be less skeptical about its uses and more creative with its possible applications” (p. 111).  Therefore, educating faculty about technology can assist DE leaders with managing change.       

One leader who stands out as effectively dealing with this challenge is Dr. Brian Talbott in Latchem and Hanna (2001).  He offered faculty access to training and professional development that could give them the opportunity for advancement and salary increases.  Therefore, the training mutually benefited both faculty and the institution in advancing its change initiatives. 

Conclusion