The following article by Dr. Bothel, "Perspectives of a Wounded Veteran of Distance Learning," appeared in the journal, Planning for Higher Education, 28 (1), 57-65.
"My head is bloody, but unbowed."
Invictus--William
Ernest Henley
The above quote from William Ernest Henley's poem, Invictus, provides direction for directors of distance learning programs throughout the United States. Administrative confusion in the top echelons of colleges and universities reigns regarding the proper direction for distance learning programs in institutions of higher education. Directors of distance learning programs often have to "stand tall" and move forward with a vision that is not universally shared and goals that are not clearly understood.
I have been involved in distance learning in higher education for the past ten years. My experience prior to that time as a corporate manager and business owner has convinced me that using new technologies to implement new learning strategies is a necessity in delivering education programs that meet the needs of today's "continual-learning society." Because of this commitment, I have worked in recent years at a community college, two four-year institutions and a graduate school to develop distance learning programs and to implement the use of new technologies to support learning.
In the past 10 years, I feel that distance learning has come a long way, but I find myself more confused than I ever have been with the lack of commitment and direction from the leadership of higher education institutions. This feeling is echoed by Sir John Daniel (1999, May), Vice-Chancellor, The Open University when he says, "most use of technology in universities lacks clear institutional aims." I listen to university presidents, top leaders of institutions, and their controlling boards talk with diversity and uncertainty. It is frightening to listen to some predictors of doom saying that distance learning will bring the end to all traditional campus programs. Some administrators only see distance learning as undermining current enrollments in the traditional classroom or threatening advances in gaining a significant piece in the ever-growing non-traditional student population.
Most planning focus continues to be on the financial benefits that are "rumored" to be possible for an institution that is a major distance learning provider. Many feel "we cannot" have distance learning," but there are no real "learning" advantages established in the visions of distance learning in higher education. Discussions in board meetings focus on dollars and the status of developing a distance learning program with a major corporation or "how our institution might become a global provider" of education. In other words, talk centers around dollars or status for the institution.
Higher education's real purpose should be moving the focus to learning, rather than teaching (Daniel, 1999). There needs to be a focus on the real benefits possible from the development of a quality distance learning program. We must not just do "things" differently with a new financial or geographic structure. We must do truly different things in education to support new generations of learners.
In the final decade prior to the new millennium, we must recognize the importance of knowledge in establishing quality of life, the challenge of cultural diversity, the globalization of society, and the impact of advancing technologies. Skillful faculty continue to be the imperative in supporting successful student learning. Faculty become the designers of learning experiences and the environment for the learning process. Academic disciplines are shifting from the analysis of what has been to the creation of what never has existed. The role for the learning institution is moving away from just preserving and storing knowledge to that of an information navigator and facilitator of information retrieval (Duderstadt, 1997).
Learning from others
As we move forward in distance learning, I think it is important to benefit from the mistakes of others. The recent termination of the progress of the California Virtual University highlights some issues to be considered. After declining an offer to join the developing virtual Western Governors' University, California Governor Pete Wilson had high hopes to establish a California Virtual University. He launched an initiative in 1997 that asked the California-based accredited colleges and universities to draw upon their high-quality educational offerings and develop a model for a California Virtual University.
Consistent with the major problem proposed in this article, I have not been able to identify any specific vision that Governor Wilson personally articulated, nor was one established. The general concept was to harness the "power" of the 45+ California colleges and universities, but the needs remained vague (Berg, 1998). The Governor did issue Executive Order W-153-97: California Virtual Design Team (State of California, 1997) that created a Design Team to recommend to the Governor and the leaders of California's institutions of higher education a blueprint by which California-based institutions could serve the needs of California students and employers through emerging technology-enhanced educational programs, as well as reach national and global demand for such programs and content. In the 1998-99 budget, Governor Wilson requested a total of $14 million to encourage distance learning, with $6.1 million specifically earmarked for CVU. Wilson's plans included $1 million each for UC and CSU to develop online courses, and $3.9 million for the California Community Colleges (Coleman, 1998).
At the National Governors Association meeting in Milwaukee in 1998, the mission of the California Virtual University was presented:
The mission of the California Virtual University (CVU) is to bring the best of California's higher education to full-time and part-time students in California, the United States, and throughout the world, using the Internet and other advanced communications technologies. CVU is intended to expand access within California to post secondary education and assist the state in meeting the needs of the nearly 500,000 additional students projected to enter California's higher education institutions over the next decade. CVU will also provide California employers with the means to improve the productivity of their workforce through an extensive network of high-quality educational programs and services.
The CVU web site at www.california.edu provides students with a central location for online and technology-mediated distance learning. This single location contains every distance learning program offered through California's accredited colleges and universities, as well as a host of online services for students, faculty, and employers (California, 1998).
And then CVU progress comes to an end
It may be argued that Governor Wilson should have realized that using a committee (Virtual Design Team), although traditional in higher education, is not necessarily the best route to innovation. It is unfortunate that the California Virtual University (CVU) is considered a failure by critics even after potential partnerships with Fujitsu, GTE, Hughes Electronics and Microsoft offered to provide a potential of $300 million in funding for computers, networking gear and support services. But this was one of many problems as outside funding partners were felt to threaten control over university decisions (Wood, 1998). A form of the California Virtual University (CVU) continues on, but with a much narrower mission. But again, my suggestion is that we really never understood what the original mission of the CVU was and now we simply understand "whatever" it is going to do it will not have substantial funding.
From a CVU faculty point of view
It seems to me as if few administrators are willing to make the long-term investment and the patience necessary with growing the programs. We have been under a lot of pressure for increased class size and using the same "metrics" to evaluate the virtual classes. The major problem is that the Virtual University though it could be self-sustaining in a narrow time, is just not the "cash cow" the administration had hoped for.
Attributed to a Professor with California Virtual University,
(Downes, 1999)
The quotation above is typical of the thoughts of many faculty throughout the United States when they are asked to become involved with distance learning. It is inherent almost in the nature of higher education to be skeptical and question the motives of administrators. This is one of the reasons the "for-profit" institution has been a long time coming to the forefront in American education and will also be the reason that traditional residential educational programs with non-profit institutions will never completely disappear in the United States.
What is the lesson?
I do think that we can learn by ferreting out the real errors with the California Virtual University from much of the media hype with suggestions of inequities between "haves" and "have-not's," lack of faculty support, and lack of financing. The following ideas are not original but are largely my summary interpretation of some of the ideas in Stephen Downes's (1999) News Trolls column, "What Happened at California Virtual University":
I. Online learning will be negatively impacted by unrealistic and uninformed promises made by administrators expecting quick financial returns, monopolies of certain programs, and unrealistic assessment of demand for online instruction.
II. Corporate partnerships will nourish for-profit motives for educational programs and not necessarily the needs of students and society.
III. Joint ventures between educational entities are necessary, but short-term gain must sometimes be sacrificed for long-term advances. The "so-called" entrepreneurial approach of allowing individual departments or colleges to develop their own support staffs is not the right way to go to develop a centralized institutional approach to distance learning.
IV. We need to not look at online learning as a new way of doing what we
have always done. We need to look at doing totally new things. New
paradigms must be created that support our mission.
Education now has the ability to reach out to those in need and to expand beyond its traditional geographical boundaries. We must do this carefully and cautiously and not abandon the university traditions of research, teaching, and service.
It's a hard paradigm to enter. Instructors will have to surrender their traditional monopoly on what is taught and when it is taught. Students will have to surrender the comfortable cloak of dependence. Administrators will have to rethink institutional jurisdiction and protected territories. Each must give up something of each, if they follow that path, may gain so much more.
Stephen Downes, 14 April 1999.
Developing a plan
A key to moving forward in distance learning is to have a plan that has the commitment of all of the University administrators. There must be a centralized and "enforced" vision. A laissez-faire approach is likely to increase costs and create excessive differentiation that students will find burdensome (Daniel, 1999). Moving forward with a singular vision is the key challenge that I feel needs to be faced in the planning process. Creativity and innovation needs to be rewarded, but care must be given not to mortgage the future with short-term entrepreneurial gains of single entities in the present. There must be an explanation or directive committing to a singular approach to supporting institution-wide distance learning initiatives. The resources are simply not there to have diversity across academic entities in most schools.
Existing Models
There are four distance learning models prevalent today that can be used to help establish localized visions for institutions. I feel one of the problems with the California Virtual University and many institutions trying to advance distance learning programs is not having agreement as to what model the "virtual university" really is to follow. In effect, California hoped the model would evolve, yet varying visions never let it happen. Care must be given to not make the same mistake. We must say: there are "needs out there" that are consistent with our mission and that we really want to address. Schools then must decide on a model that will best move them forward.
Support Center
This seems to be the most prevalent model that I have been able to identify. These types of support groups that form a technology or learning "center" are often found under the umbrella of an individual department in a college despite the cries of inefficiencies from some top administrators. A small support staff works with interested or directed faculty to develop courses and also conduct faculty development sessions. The staff is usually geared to the development of a limited number of courses (perhaps 6-8 maximum) or a specific program. It may be typical in a major university to have the college of education with a support staff, the school of medicine with a support staff, and other academic entities with individual staffs supporting course design and the use of educational technologies supporting distance learning.
This model works with the parochial attitude of many academic departments, but from an administrative standpoint, this is a very inefficient way to utilize technology resources. Although I feel the support center model exists throughout many universities, it is often not identified as a stand-along unit. Many deans and department administrators feel it is important to have dedicated support for faculty advances in educational technologies, and they do not want to "share" their support with any type of centralized efforts. Their claim is that these support units are integral parts of their academic programs. I feel that the reality of the situation is that they are afraid of technology or distance learning centers that might "gain their own lives" and perpetuate themselves simply for their own distance learning or technology center/department gains and not even ask academic entities to identify their needs.
Administrative Center
This is one of the newest models and might also be referred to as a "broker" model. This model has an entity outside the typical university or college structure to administer or broker courses and degree programs. There are varying approaches to accreditation, but the essence of the model is that this entity administers courses/degree programs, but does not have large numbers of faculty of its own.
A limited staff maintains the "University," but extensive dollars are spent in advertising and promotion. Some type of infrastructure will be established to exhibit courses, but it does not necessarily include extensive hardware and networking infrastructure.
The best known example of this type of model is Western Governors University (WGU) and California Virtual University might also fall in this category. WGU is providing a limited inventory of what they call competency-based degree programs for which it is individually accredited. Other programs are offered directly through the participating universities. It is only fair to say that although WGU is further along in its development than CVU, critics are also saying that the Governors University is not successful. The June 1 CIO Magazine (1999) says that since its launch last fall, distance learning pioneer Western Governors University (WGU) has so far failed to live up to its promise. The school, which brokers virtual classes offered by colleges and companies, expected to have enrollments of 3,000 by the end of its first school year, but so far has only about 100 students.
Gary Berg (1998) provides a comparison of the Western Governors University (WGU) and the California Virtual University (CVU):
|
WGU |
CVU |
|
|
Competency-based credit |
Yes |
No |
|
Inter-state |
Yes |
No |
|
Learner-oriented |
Yes |
No |
|
Private Industry Involvement |
Yes |
Yes |
|
Separately Accredited |
Yes |
No |
|
Brokering function |
Yes |
Yes |
|
Financial Imperative |
Yes |
Yes |
|
Training Orientation |
Yes |
No |
|
Hardware Infrastructure |
No |
Yes |
SREC (Southern Regional Electronic Campus) is following this same model on a limited scale with minimal promotion of courses and programs. With each model, each course provider maintains its own quality practices, but subscribes to a central core of good practices/standards maintained by the central administrative entity. The SREC is currently providing purely administrative/information through its Web site.
Academic Center
The Academic Center is an independently accredited entity that delivers its own degree programs. Most, at least in their early stages of development, do not have extensive campuses and may have multiple small support sites throughout the United States. There is a core academic group of very few full-time faculty administrators that recruit, hire, develop curriculum and schedule faculty. This model differs from the Administrative or Broker model in that the Academic Center "owns" its own programs and faculty. Distance learning methodologies provide the predominant delivery of programs with a large number of part-time faculty delivering centrally "controlled" courses.
You might describe this model as truly a "stand-alone" distance learning university delivering distance learning courses potentially throughout the world. There are strong critics of this model that say this is "second-rate" learning and contend that they are simply the maligned degree-mills of the past. There are strong arguments for the quality of such programs, but the reality is that this model provides more of a challenge to gain credibility in the "academic community."
With over 61,000 currently enrolled students, the University of Phoenix is the largest example of this model. It is America's largest private accredited university and also provides Certificate Programs to more than 447,000 working professionals. There are also schools such as Walden, Union, and Nova, and others have used a similar model. As an aside, I do think it is interesting to note that a number of these universities have become established as "distance learning universities" and are now increasing their activities with a more traditional "bricks and mortar" approach by establishing growing residential campuses. The best example is this Nova Southeastern University that is establishing a major presence in Florida. Nova started its early advances using the "classroom without walls"concept. Now, Nova Southeastern University is currently the largest independent institution of higher education in the Southeast and it is among the 20 largest independent institutions nationally. NSU educated more than 18,000 Florida residents in calendar 1998 with an annual budget of approximately $220 million (NSU, 1999).
Training and Education Center
This model stems from the traditional Continuing Education or Professional Development Center model. These are profit centers that have their own faculty and staffs that have the main mission of producing revenue from continuing education and professional development. In some cases, they have existed in one form or another as auxiliary enterprises located adjacent to the school location. Sometimes Small Business or Economic Development groups are included in this type of organization. Nontraditional education in adult basic education or high school completion might also help finance these centers. Degree programs are developed and offered through the main University on a proposal/contract basis or they may do contract course development for outside entities.
I have to admit I "prejudiced"
I have to admit I'm prejudiced by my own current experience at my existing institution, Troy State University. But my opinion is that probably the best model for many traditional institutions at this time is the Training and Education Center model. This model provides the flexibility to develop its own programs and faculty, yet at the same time can partner with other academic units to provide distance learning programs. It also is a model that is most congruent with traditional academia and therefore can provide the most widely accepted foundation for innovation.
How does it work?
This model can only work within set parameters including a sufficient expense and manpower budget to develop new programs and support partners. The center should fall under the administrative control of a flexible academic unit that can develop the policies and procedures needed to provide a matrix management system over program delivery. This system enables colleges throughout the university to partner with the Center to develop and deliver distance learning programs. The center must have profit center flexibility to share revenues with other units and outside parties. Here are some scenarios as they exist at my institution. We have a Center for Continuing Education and Distance Learning:
Case I
In cases where a college dean simply wishes the development support and student services provided by the Center, tuition revenues will be split with a college within the university. All faculty expenses will be paid directly by the college and support materials will be maintained directly by the college. The Center in this situation would only receive a small portion of the revenues largely to support administrative support to students.
Distance learning students require different or additional support services over the traditional resident student. A college or department may feel that its faculty can develop distance learning courses and deliver them to students, but may not have the additional administrative staff to support distance learning students’ unique needs. Here is where the "Training and Education Center" model can step in and support the academic entity delivering the program. The processing of distance learning applications or registrations, unique billing, or other support services will be provided by the Center, and it would receive a simple overhead percentage of the tuition dollars collected.
Case II
In cases where the College Dean or other academic entity wishes to jointly develop a program with the Center, the Center will pay faculty development cost, provide student/faculty support: with possibly 80% going to the provider of faculty and 20% to the respective other entity.
Some colleges or departments may wish to develop distance learning programs, but do not have the technical resources or expertise in instructional design to develop courses without outside help. In this case, the Center would step in and partner with the department faculty to develop courses and provide administrative support to the student. Faculty are key in this process, and the majority of the revenue should go to the entity providing the faculty.
Case III
In cases where the Center independently develops a program, the Center will incur all development, teaching and maintenance costs and receives 100% of the revenue. Other entities wanting to promote and market the Center programs could be paid a small percentage for their support.
This concept is somewhat unique to the university and college setting, but is necessary if varying units within the institution are to support a centralized distance learning effort. Departments might say why should we help you recruit students for distance learning courses when we need students in the classroom? This case provides some incentive. An overhead percentage is established for varying degree programs through the school. At year end this percentage is distributed back to departments based on enrollments from that department. For example, the College of Arts and Sciences provides 200 enrollments in distance learning courses solely delivered by the Center during the year. That college would receive a proportionate percentage of that tuition revenue at year-end. The numbers and incentives here will vary greatly, so I have not included any detail in this regard. In fact, at Troy State University, one incentive is a laptop computer that is given to faculty for their use as a result of working with distance learning. The key is that distance learning advances should be a joint effort in the institution and there should be some incentives for everyone in the institution to support the effort.
Case IV
In cases where individuals or other entities wish to partner with the Center to develop and deliver continuing education/professional development programs, the Center will share tuition revenues. Individual negotiations would be conducted for special programs and situations.
When we discuss program possibilities, I like to say that we should talk about "anything" that makes sense. We must get away from just doing the things that we have done before. We must not just do old things in different ways. We must do some different things in higher education, and the Center should have the ability to negotiate doing "new things" with perhaps even "new entities" outside the university or college setting.
What are the needs "out there"?
I feel the model chosen is not as important as a decision that commits us to a specific direction. After you decide on your direction, you can then move forward to establish challenging goals and targets to be met. For a distance learning program to be successful, it must address needs that are real. The revenues for education in the United States is second only to health care and services in gross national revenues. There is no reason to duplicate or compete with services already being provided. There is plenty of room for those who identify their niches in the market to meet the needs of students.
Each institution has to answer this question for itself. What is the existing mission of the institution? What real needs can be fill that are unique to "us" and our existing programs? Distance learning cannot be everything to everyone. There are some programs that do not lend themselves to distance learning methodologies. The most important question is when we look at the level of resources our institution is willing to commit, what type of distance learning program can we delivery and still maintain quality curriculum and instruction? As you gain a reputation of providing quality programs, you will gain students.
Tomorrow is yesterday's today . . .
With the rising and falling of giants and dwarfs trying to enter the arena of distance learning, the time is now to gain position and move forward. My feeling is that quality programs will be the winners in the milieu of distance learning alternatives sprouting throughout the newly plowed fields of distributed and flexible learning methodologies. We do not want to sacrifice our future for short-term gain.
I have yet to find complete and uniform support for the implementation of distance learning in an institution. Perhaps it's out there, but I think it is rare. I think that the administration of distance learning program continues to be for strong-hearted individuals who want the challenge of bringing together institutional populations with diverse academic visions and do not mind a few "bloody" injuries as they beat the drum and carry the flag up the hill. We must not just do the "same things differently." The view from the top must be to look out and see new and different things being provided to support learners.
References
Berg, G.A. 1998. Public Policy on Distance Learning in Higher Education: California State and Western Governors Association Initiatives. Education Policy Analysis Archives 6 (11) (June 12, 1998) ISSN 1068-2341.
California. 1998. 1998 Annual Expo Proceedings, National Governors’ Association, Hall of States. Washington, D.C. [On-line] Available: http://www.nga.org/1998Annual/ExpoCA.htm.
Coleman, D. E. Wilson Pushes Cyber Education in Budget. The Fresno Bee, 9 January, 1998.
Daniel, J.D. 1999. Knowledge Media for the Mega-University: Scaling Up New Technology at the UK Open University. Syllabus 21 May 1999.
Downes, S. 1999. What Happened at California Virtual University. News Trolls, 14 April 1999.
Duderstadt. 1997. The future of the university in an age of knowledge. JALN, II, 2. August, 1997. [Online] Available: http://www.aln.org/alnweb/journal/issue2/diderstadt.htm
NSU. 1999. Institutional Description [On-line] Available: http://www.nova.edu/cwis/factbook/instdescription.html
Passing without distinction, Threads: Quick Hits and the Bottom
Line, CIO Magazine. 1 June, 1999, Sec. 2.
State of California. (1997). Executive Department. Executive Order W-153-97.
Wood, J.L. 1998. In California, a Dangerous Deal With Technology Companies. The Chronicle of Higher Education. 20 February 1998, Sec. Opinion: B6.