Destination 2000: Strategies for Managing Successful Distance Education Programs |
Don Olcott Jr.
VOL. 11, No. 2, 103-115
Distance education is at a crossroads. Despite the unprecedented growth of educational telecommunications, colleges and universities have yet to harness the full potential of technology to transform the teaching and learning process. This article examines some key lessons from distance education practice over the past ten years that must be addressed for developing viable distance and distributed learning systems for the 21st century. The author argues that current outreach and distance learning models will not be successful in the highly competitive, student-driven educational environment. Major changes in financing, accrediting, assessment, and faculty workload will be imperative for institutions to compete in this environment. Recommendations for practice and strategies for a renewed commitment to the distance learning enterprise are presented. The author concludes by advocating that higher education institutions must learn to function more like a business and provide responsive, timely, and cost effective programs in the home, the workplace, and the traditional classroom. "Education on demand" will dominate the marketplace and those institutions that can adapt to these changes will thrive. Conversely, those who fail to mobilize their institutions may find themselves out of business. The choice is ours.
L'éducation à distance est à une croisée des chemins. En dépit de la croissance sans précédent des télécommunications en éducation, les collèges et les universités n'exploitent pas encore le plein potentiel de la technologie pour transformer l'enseignement et le processus d'apprentissage. Cet article examine certaines des leçons clés issues de la pratique de l'éducation à distance au cours des dix dernières années, lesquelles doivent être prises en considération dans l'élaboration de systèmes d'apprentissage distribué et à distance qui puissent être rentables au XXIe siècle. L'auteur soutient que les modèles actuels d'apprentissage hors école et à distance ne réussiront pas dans les milieux éducatifs hautement concurrentiels et centrés sur les étudiants. Pour pouvoir rivaliser dans cet environnement, les établissements devront procéder à des modifications majeures au niveau du financement, de l'accréditation, de l'évaluation et de la charge de travail du corps professoral. On y présente des recommandations relativement à la pratique et aux stratégies requises pour assurer un engagement renouvelé à l'égard de l'apprentissage à distance. L'auteur conclut en affirmant que les établissements d'enseignement supérieur doivent apprendre à fonctionner davantage comme une entreprise et à offrir des programmes pertinents, ponctuels et financièrement efficaces dans les foyers, les milieux de travail et les salles de cours traditionnelles. « L'éducation à la demande » dominera le marché et les établissements qui sauront s'adapter à ces changements prospéreront. En revanche, les établissements qui ne parviendront pas à se mobiliser pourraient se voir éclipser du marché. Le choix nous appartient.
During the last decade, educational telecommunications have transformed the capacity of colleges and universities across the globe to deliver education and training programs to geographically isolated adult students (Duning, Van Kekerix, & Zaborowski, 1993). Moreover, a diverse range of distance learning applications has created multiple options for higher education institutions to serve their off-campus learners (Dillon & Walsh, 1992; Hardy & Olcott, 1995; Olcott, 1992).
At the same time, the field of distance learning has faced some major growing pains. Perhaps the most important of these is that the transformational capacity of technology to reshape the modern academy’s teaching and learning processes has fallen well short of its early promise. As well, while the geographical boundaries of educational access have been rendered obsolete by technology, the “real” boundaries of turf and traditional service regions remain. They are driven by political and economic factors rather than by educational priorities. Parochial self-interest remains the dominant mindset in most institutions (Olcott, 1997; Olcott & Wright, 1995).
This article reviews the issues that have dominated the field and examines key lessons that have evolved from distance education practice. It concludes with a summary of recommendations and strategies for improving the practice of distance education in the twenty-first century.
Empirical research has consistently shown that the academic achievement of distance learners is comparable to that of on-campus students taught face-to-face (Dillon & Walsh, 1992; Duning, Van Kekerix, & Zaborowski, 1993). Nevertheless, policymakers, academic leaders, government officials, school board members, corporate executives, and students and faculty continue to ask questions about the achievement of distance learners. Prudence suggests that distance education advocates must be able to address these questions and provide supporting data to key stakeholders.
A second issue that emerges from the literature is that the role of the teacher changes for the distance educator in that he or she is longer the locus of control for all aspects of instruction. For instance, distance education often uses a “team approach” to develop and deliver courses. This approach sees teachers working collaboratively with instructional designers, production technicians, administrative support personnel, and evaluation specialists. Another way the role of teacher changes for some distance education courses is that the teacher assumes the role of facilitator and adapts instructional goals and objectives to the delivering technology (Beaudoin, 1990; Catchpole, 1992; Dillon & Walsh, 1992; Duning, Van Kekerix, & Zaborowski, 1993; Grossman, 1987; Gunawardena, 1990; Olcott & Wright, 1995; Smith, 1991; Strain, 1987).
A review of the literature also tells us that technology intimidates some faculty. Moving from the regular classroom into a television production room or putting it on-line is not a natural transition for everyone. Interestingly, however, recent findings suggest that experienced and effective distance teachers often become better classroom teachers (Dillon & Walsh, 1992). A very important contribution that distance teaching has made to education in general, then, is the extent to which it encourages faculty to the revisit the question of what constitutes effective teaching and learning. (Olcott, 1997).
Another issue that emerges in the literature is the the cost effectiveness of delivering learning opportunities via distance education. Evidence suggests that distance education does not necessarily save money in the short term, particularly when major capital investments are involved (Gunawardena, 1990). Although the rhetoric of the 1980s insisted that distance education could serve more students at lower costs, in most cases it is extremely difficult to determine with any precision the costs of delivering technology enhanced distance courses. While high course enrolments suggest economic effectiveness, questions arise regarding the instructional quality of courses delivered to large groups of students who have little or no opportunity to interact with each other or with faculty members.
Elsewhere I have written about reframing our concept of cost effectiveness for distance education (1997):
If we view distance education, however, from a value-added perspective where intangibles such as increasing access, serving rural communities, and expanding student educational choices are considered, we elevate the aggregate “value” of distance education beyond projected fiscal benefits. The challenge for the future will be to balance access, quality, and costs in delivering courses and programs at a distance. (p. 4)
Perhaps the most pervasive barrier to the expansion of distance teaching has been the absence at most institutions of equitable incentive and compensation models for faculty (Dillon & Walsh, 1992; Olcott, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1997; Olcott & Wright, 1995). Among the common issues related to distance teaching compensation and incentives are applicability of distance teaching towards promotion and tenure, release time, instructional and administrative support, monetary compensation, teaching load and training (Clark, 1993; Dillon & Walsh, 1992; Koontz, 1989; Olcott, 1991, 1992, 1993; Olcott & Wright, 1995; Wolcott, 1993). The paradox, however, is that these issues are often overlooked. Olcott & Wright (1995, p. 7) wrote “as crucial as these issues are, they often become lost in the distance education administrative process, only to re-emerge as salient barriers to faculty participation.”
Paradoxically, the widely proclaimed ability for distance education to transcend geographical boundaries has faced considerable resistance. Why? Because boundaries that focus on “turf and traditional service regions” have constrained institutional vision and have limited their ability to harness the full potential of technology on regional, national, and international levels. Today, these artificial, institutionally or government imposed boundaries are paralysing distance education. In many respects, distance learning is still sitting on the sidelines of higher education.
Another lesson gleaned from the literature gleaned from the literature is tendency for institutions to focus on technology in and of itself rather than to identify program priorities first and then, based on sound pedagogical decision making, determine the optimum technology mix. Simply stated, the sequence of institutional decision making often appears to be: “we’ll buy the technology and then we’ll figure out what we’re going to do with it”. To be fair, institutions acquire technology from many sources, and, on occasion, opportunities to acquire technology arise before an institution has identified program priorities. The tendency to select technology before programs, however, makes neither financial nor pedagogical sense.
Another problem that some distance education units have experienced is a pervasive institutional belief that video-based systems provide a technological panacea that leads to economic efficiency, enhanced access, and quality academic experiences. It is true that video can be a very effective technology and can serve many educational purposes well. However, institutions are increasingly exploring other technologies that are less costly and reap instructional outcome commensurate with those obtained using video-based systems.
Today, many “low tech-high touch” technologies, such as audio teleconferencing, Internet, facsimile, voicemail, videotapes, and traditional print materials are being combined into effective synchronous and asynchronous distance teaching-learning systems (Hardy & Olcott, 1995). Whatever the viability of new video systems, such as desktop video and other digital technologies, the use of low-end technologies will increase rapidly as institutions recognize their economic and pedagogical effectiveness (Hardy & Olcott, 1995; Olcott, 1997; Olcott & Wright, 1995). They will also make possible new program opportunities for individual colleges and departments and challenge the centralized continuing and distance education organizational structures that currently exist on most campuses. In sum, colleges will do it by themselves for themselves.
Perhaps the most important lesson derived from the literature is that the capacity of technology to transform education by shaping traditional teaching and learning models has fallen well short of its earlier promise. This has been true for both campus and distance instruction. The tendency has been to “fit” technology into old patterns of teaching pedagogy rather than to assimilate technology into new teaching paradigms.
In summary, these issues, directly or by inference, suggest that we must make major changes to the distance learning enterprise. Moreover, we must renew our commitment to the potential of educational technology and create a viable and practical vision for distance learning in the next century. The renewal must begin with some fundamental changes in the way we approach technology and its educational applications. Where do we begin?
1. The concept of faculty participation in distance education must be expanded to encompass a broader role that includes instructional and scholarly leadership. Olcott & Wright (1995) addressed this concept:
Faculty participation in distance education, first and foremost, involves providing instructional leadership beyond the fundamental role of teacher. Instructional leadership suggest that faculty are intimately involved in the instructional design process, the design of student support services, in student advising, and in the rigorous evaluation of technologically-mediated instruction. Moreover, faculty participation includes engaging in discipline-based research that will be disseminated to the broader academic community and to professional colleagues regionally and nationally.
The distance teaching faculty must play a role in the development of technology training programs and serve as ambassadors to potential distance teaching faculty members. The faculty can also play an advocacy role for distance teaching to departmental chairpersons, deans, the executive administration, and, perhaps most importantly to students. In sum, participation in distance education offers faculty the opportunity to take unique leadership roles in technology-based instruction and in scholarship that can provide invaluable assistance to the institution in meeting its extended mission. (pp. 9-10)
Faculty Support Model Reprinted with permission from: Olcott, Jr., D., & Wright, S. J. (1995). An institutional support framework for increasing faculty participation in postsecondary distance education. The American Journal of Distance Education, 9(3), 5-17.
2. Equitable incentive structures must be created for participating distance teaching faculty. Distance teaching deserves equal weight in promotion and tenure, commensurate release time for course development, and departmental and college resources for course development.
3. Institutions must identify programmatic priorities first and then select the technology mix to deliver programs. Technology, in and of itself, is only a delivery system and not a panacea for resolving major institutional issues of access and cost efficiency. The future instructional arena will create courseware that combines high touch, low-tech systems that are inexpensive and easy to use as well as instructionally effective.
4. Institutional investments in human resource development must be elevated to levels to sustain training, course development, and the range of administrative and learner development services necessary to deliver a high quality program. High-tech, expensive technological systems are not synonymous with high quality teaching and learning. It has taken a long time for educational leaders to learn this lesson.
5. New models for learner development and student services are needed that are distinct from traditional on-campus services. Institutions have addressed this process with superficial alterations in providing services to adult students. The fact of the matter is that institutional student services, even today, are designed primarily to serve the on-campus, traditional 18 to 22 year old student. Graduate programs in student personnel administration need to integrate extended learning curriculum to prepare professionals for career choice in distance education.
6. Interinstitutional and interorganizational partnerships must become the norm rather than the exception for sharing human and fiscal resources, reducing program duplication, and designing shared curriculum for extended degree programs (Olcott, 1992-See Figure 2).
7. Institutions must abandon their “hereditary” turf rights and recognize that collaboration must dominate their programming agenda. “The world is our campus” view is replacing parochial ideas about educational service regions. Distance learning transcends geographical boundaries and creates unlimited opportunities for extending existing and new programs to new audiences . . . anywhere, anytime, and through a variety of media. Higher education will be available in the traditional classroom, the workplace, and the home at the convenience of the learners rather than at times that serve the interests of institutions.
8. Higher education will be highly competitive in the next century. A market-based educational environment will emerge, and higher education can either play or become obsolete. Corporate and virtual universities, publishing companies, and cable and telephone companies will compete for markets that were once the exclusive domain of higher education. And while we argue over obsolete policies, financing structures, and philosophical issues, our competitors will focus on providing new student markets with what they need, when they need it, at a fair price, through a variety of delivery options. Students will look to organizations that will respond to their needs. Higher education must learn to be a better at business in this highly competitive, student-centred educational market. Our survival depends on it!
9. The deployment of educational technology must refocus on how to enhance teaching and improve learning. This is the prerequisite question for all educators using technology. The bells and whistles of dazzling technology have fallen silent. Technology by itself will not transform the teaching-learning process. Technology has unequivocally failed to meet this challenge. We must recommit ourselves to this fundamental goal if we are to harness the full capacity of technology in education.
Figure 2: An Integrated Instructional Framework for Interinstitutional Extended Degree Programs Reprinted with permission from: Olcott, D. J. (1992). Policy issues in statewide delivery of university programs by telecommunications. The American Journal of Distance Education, 6(1), 14-26. Olcott2.jpg
Reprinted with permission from: Olcott, D. J. (1992). Policy issues in statewide delivery of university programs by telecommunications. The American Journal of Distance Education, 6(1), 14-26.
10. Accreditation must change to reflect the importance of student-clients in determining success. Competency-based assessment will replace traditional evaluation methods and the focus will be on performance-based minimum student competencies rather than on time-based standards of credit hours or clock hours.
Given the need to transform our institutional conception of distance learning for the next century, what steps will be essential for institutions? The following summarizes some of the key strategies for success. They are fundamental to this transformation and for resolving the aforementioned issues related to a renewed vision for educational technology and distance learning.
Distance education has made significant advances in institutional capacity to serve off-campus adult learners during the last decade. During this growth period, we have also learned a number of important lessons for modifying our programs for the future. First and foremost, educators must continually return to the question of how technology enhances teaching and improves learning. Bells and whistles are not an effective substitute for improving pedagogy. Second, faculty are our key resource and must remain at the apex of our distance education programs. The team approach to distance teaching, whereby faculty, instructional designers, production technicians, and administrative support personnel work in harmony will empower distance learning as faculty assume major instructional leadership roles. Institutional programs that make faculty subservient to technology will fail in the long run. Incentive structures must be improved, and resources for faculty development and course design must be elevated to levels commensurate with traditional faculty roles.
Institutions must also place programming priorities ahead of technology selection. Integrated technology system design (ITSD) will dominate the design agenda for the future. More institutions will mobilize high touch-low tech systems because of their cost and pedagogical effectiveness and instructional flexibility. Traditional service regions will grow extinct and multi-organizational partnerships will become the norm. New models for learner development and student services will emerge to replace the hybrid, piecemeal systems that have dominated the past. And finally, competency-based assessment will drive distance learning practice and will eliminate our adherence to learning measures based upon credit hours and clock hours. Student demonstration of minimum performance competencies will be the measure of learning rather than the time students spend on task. Moreover, these changes will require accreditation agencies to reassess their traditional standards and criteria for academic programs. We will likely see new credentialing for documenting learning to supplement traditional degree and certificate programs. Advocacy for these new systems will come from the private sector as well as from students.
The 21st century will bring many opportunities and challenges for higher education. Higher education’s capacity to harness the potential of educational technology will require institutions to reposition themselves to function in a highly competitive, market-driven educational environment. Moreover, it has become increasingly clear that the current financing, faculty workload, academic policy, and accrediting frameworks are not conducive to a market-based educational system nor do they provide institutional nor faculty incentives to participate in distance learning programs.
I described the role of technology in a market-driven educational environment (1997):
Within this environment, technology will be a tool for competitive advantage that can leverage new markets for institutions as well as redefining faculty time and workload. Low end technologies integrated into innovative instructional formats will dominate the design agenda for higher education courseware. Public and private partnerships will become reality rather than politically correct rhetoric to harness the collaborative potential of telecommunications. Education’s utilitarian application will define its quality and contribution to society. And finally, just as technology has already blurred the distinction between home and work via the Internet, the web, and remote access to the workplace, technology will transform the home into a learning community where students, parents, teachers and employers alike will participate in education as part of a vast distributed learning system. (p. 11)
Distance education has evolved into a viable and innovative delivery system for higher education. It will play a major role in university outreach and training in the next century. Paradoxically, as the field has developed, its distinguishing characteristic of “distance” has grown virtually obsolete. Education in the 21st century will simply be considered education, regardless of where, when, and how it is delivered.
Institutions that can adapt themselves to function in a market-driven educational environment will leverage technology and harness its full potential. Conversely, reliance on past structures that are obsolete will only benefit the competitors who are mobilizing to serve a student-centred clientele on an “education on demand” basis-students who want education and training when and where they need it, through a variety of delivery options, and at a fair price. Institutions who respond effectively will thrive . . . those who don’t will drive themselves out of the market. It is our choice.
Dr. Don Olcott, Jr.
Director, Institute for the Management of Distance Education (MDE)
and Manager for Institutional Services
Western Cooperative for Educational Telecommunications
Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education (WICHE)
P. O. Drawer P
Boulder, CO 80301-9752
303-541-0233
Email: <mailto:DonOlcott@wiche.edu>DonOlcott@wiche.edu
Beaudoin, M. (1990). The instructor’s changing role in distance education. The American Journal of Distance Education, 4(2), 21-29.
Catchpole, M. J. (1992). Classroom, open and distance teaching: A faculty view. The American Journal of Distance Education, 6(3), 34-44.
Clark, T. (1993). Attitudes of higher education faculty toward distance education: A national survey. The American Journal of Distance Education, 7(2), 1933.
Dillon, C., & Walsh, S. M. (1992). Faculty: The neglected resource in distance education. The American Journal of Distance Education, 6(3), 5-21.
Duning, B. S., Van Kekerix, J. M., & Zaborowski, L. M. (1993). Reaching learners through telecommunications. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Grossman, D. M. (1987). Hidden Perils: Instructional media and higher education (Occasional Paper 5). Washington, DC: National University Continuing Education Association.
Gunawardena, C. N. (1990). Integrating telecommunications systems to reach distance learners. The American Journal of Distance Education, 4(3), 38-46.
Guskin, A. E. (1994). Restructuring the role of faculty. Change (Sept./Oct.), 16-25.
Hardy, D. W., & Olcott, D. J. (1995). Audio teleconferencing and the adult learner: Strategies for effective practice. The American Journal of Distance Education, 9(1), 44-58.
Koontz, F. R. (1989). Critical barriers to the adoption of instructional television in higher education. Educational Technology, 45-48.
Olcott, D. J. (1991). Bridging the gap: Distance learning and academic policy. Continuing Higher Education Review, 55(1 & 2), 49-60.
Olcott, D. J. (1992). Policy issues in statewide delivery of university programs by telecommunications. The American Journal of Distance Education, 6(1), 14-26.
Olcott, D. J. (1993). Access to learning: Integrating telecommunications instruction in university extended degree programs. The Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 41(1), 16-24.
Olcott, D. J. (1997). Renewing the vision: Past perspectives and future imperatives for distance education. The Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 45(3), 2-13.
Olcott, D. J., & Wright, S. J. (1995). An institutional support framework for increasing faculty participation in postsecondary distance education. The American Journal of Distance Education, 9(3), 5-17.
Plater, W. M. (1995). Faculty work: Faculty time in the 21st century. Change (May/June), 23-33.
Smith, F. A. (1991). Interactive instructional strategies: Ways to enhance learning by technology. In Proceedings of the Seventh Annual Conference on Distance Teaching and Learning, 125-128. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin.
Strain, J. (1987). The role of the faculty member in distance education. The American Journal of Distance Education, 1(2), 61-65.
Western Governors’ Association. (1996). From vision to reality: A western virtual university. Denver, CO: Western Governors’ Association.
Wolcott, L. L. (1993). Faculty planning for distance education. The American Journal of Distance Education, 7(1), 26-36.
Dr. Don Olcott, Jr. is Director of the Institute for the Management of Distance Education (MDE) and Manager for Institutional Services with the Western Cooperative for Educational Telecommunications, Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education (WICHE). He is a past-Chair of the National University Continuing Education Association’s Division of Educational Telecommunications and the 1994 national recipient of NUCEA’s Adelle F. Robertson Professional Continuing Educator Award for outstanding leadership, scholarship, and contributions to the field of continuing and distance education. Dr. Olcott has consulted with colleges and universities across the United States and has published extensively in the field of continuing and distance education. He is a 1993 graduate of Harvard University’s Institute for the Management of Lifelong Learning, Chair of UCEA’s National Distance Learning Caucus, and serves on the editorial staff of The American Journal of Distance Education.
ISSN: 0830-0445