��� Jacqueline S. Scerbinski, Associate Professor and Director of Retail Merchandising, Kingsborough Community College, 2001 Oriental Boulevard, Brooklyn, NY 11235. Phone: (718) 368-5824. E-mail: JScerbinski@kingsborough.edu The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, Volume 10(3), 2009, pp. 295���298 ISSN 1528-3518 Copyright �� 2009 Information Age Publishing, Inc. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved. TIME AND PLACE UTILITY AND THE REQUIREMENT FOR SPONTANEITY Jacqueline S. Scerbinski Kingsborough Community College This research brief addresses the quandary that arises when distance learners require both time and place util- ity, and prefer live interface. The development of the hybrid course, which incorporates elements of time delayed and instantaneous interaction, is seen as a response to instructor and student scheduling conflicts. Fac- ulty and student preparation for a delivery format that utilizes electronic communication is addressed as well as instructional strategies and delivery methods. Equipment requirements are suggested. There are proposals for further research into the question of what subject matter is suitable for distance learning and the need to incorporate emerging technologies into the process. INTRODUCTION Distance education (DE) began as a response to the need for time and place utility. DE has evolved from the correspondence course and its mail delivery system to high tech, live inter- face delivery systems that involve state of the art electronic systems in the instructor���s studio electronically linked to the student���s class- room, home, or office. The trend appears to favor asynchronous offerings. Nebraska���s Coordinating Commission for Postsecondary Education (2007) reports, ���Synchronous and traditionally-delivered courses were once offered in the majority of Nebraska counties, but this number has declined as the popularity of asynchronous courses has increased��� (p. 2). Midkiff and DaSilva (2000) offer an explana- tion: ���Asynchronous distance learning effec- tively removes barriers of space and most barriers of time��� (para. 6). Throughout the evolution distance instruc- tors and students have grappled with the stu- dents��� preference for live interface as opposed to time-delayed interaction. Offir, Lev, and Bezalel (2008) recently found that when dis- tance education is offered, ���students prefer learning via a synchronous system rather than by an asynchronous system��� (p. 1181). While synchronous distance learning (SDL) addresses the need for place utility, SDL does not adequately respond to the need for time

296 The Quarterly Review of Distance Education Vol. 10, No. 3, 2009 utility. The response to this quandary appears to be, as Lorenzetti (2006) explains, ���a new product known as a hybrid course��� (para. 1), which incorporates live interface with the time delayed distance-learning models. RESPONSE The solution is found in a response to the need for time and place utility and the students��� preference for live interface. Technological advances are the enabling agent. As Beldarrain (2006) reports, ���The 21st century learner requires educational opportunities not bound by time or place, yet allow interaction with instructors and peers��� (p. 150). The necessary pre-condition for the formula to be imple- mented is institutional commitment for capital expenditures and culture change. Levy (2008) counsels institutions to seek an answer to this question: Do you want a distance-learning pro- gram? If the answer is yes, are you willing to make the commitment for the reallocation of resources and culture change.? FACULTY PREPARATION The instructor is the make-or-break element. As Keegan (1990) explains when referring to the distance instructor, ���needs the skills of a word process operator, of an instructional designer, graphic artist, and layout expert for print materials and extensive skills in the development and evaluation of audio, video, and computer-based materials��� (p. 155). Rockwell, Schauer, Fritz, and Marx (2000) found that ���faculty feel it is most important to obtain further education about, assistance with, or support for (a) developing interaction, (b) developing instructional materials, and (c) applying selected technologies��� (para. 16). The adage to walk in another person���s shoes in order to understand that person applies here. Many instructors offering distance courses have never taken a distance course. Steinbronn and Merideth (2008) offer common sense advice: ���The opportunity to participate in a course as an online student would benefit fac- ulty who are unfamiliar with an online envi- ronment��� (p. 275). STUDENT PREPARATION While faculty preparation for the distance learning experience is self-evident, student preparation is often overlooked. Bergman and Raleigh (1998) address the need for student preparation: ���A room filled with cameras, monitors, and microphones becomes immedi- ately intimidating��� (para. 2). For both synchronous and asynchronous delivery systems, the instructor needs to take time to brief the students on the use of hard- ware and software. Students should be alerted to the need for a computer with sufficient power to interface with the institution���s soft- ware, and the institution needs to provide tele- phone access to a help desk (D���Orsie & Day 2006). The need for an initial live interface session, particularly for those students who are first-time distance learners is evident. An addi- tional consideration is the student���s ability to use a computer and to write in a clear and con- cise form. As Galusha (1997) comments, ���dis- tance learning can inadvertently exclude students who lack computer or writing skills��� (para. 23). INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES Distance is a barrier to spontaneity, and stu- dents seek spontaneity. Park and Bonk (2007) found ���that learners valued spontaneous feed- back, meaningful interactions, multiple per- spectives, and instructors��� supports��� (p. 245). The course delivery strategy needs to enhance spontaneity. Fortunately, technological advances are enabling instructors to respond to this need. Ng (2007), in an attempt to enhance sponta- neity, suggests dividing students into tutorial groups that will meet, online, under the direc- tion of tutor every 2 or 3 weeks during the