distance learning - usdla

i Distance Learning Volume 1, Issue 3

Contents

DISTANCE

LEARNING

COLUMNS

ENDS AND MEANS

E-learning Study Skills

and Strategies 32

—by Ryan Watkins

SUSTAINABILITY

Leveraging Knowledge

Assets: Do Less and

Accomplish More 35

—by Jonathon Levy

NEW MEDIA, NEW LEARNING

That’s Entrainment! 37

—by Craig Ullman

PEDAGOGY CORNER

Do You Chunk?

You Should 39

—by David Graf

AND FINALLY . . .

Distance Learning

Leaders: Who are They? 48

—by Michael Simonson

Reports from USDLA

USDLA Launches New

Distance Learning

Accreditation Board . . .

DLAB 41

—by John G. FloresUSDLA: The

Transformation 43

—by Darcy W. HardyWomen, Leadership, and

Distance Education: A

Brave New World or

Darker Shades of the

Glass Ceiling? 45

—by Don Olcott, Jr.

FEATURED ARTICLES

1 A TALE OF TWO STATE SYSTEMS: MODELS OF HIGH SCHOOL COURSE DELIVERYMark Hawkes and Jordan Terveen

7 AS THE USE OF VIDEOCONFERENCING TECHNOLOGY BOOMS, SO DOES THE NEED FOR CREATIVE TECHNICAL SUPPORTGary Brown

11 FIVE SMOOTH STONES: FIGHTING FOR THE SURVIVAL OF HIGHER EDUCATIONSteve Wheeler

18 VIDEOCONFERENCING: THE TELEVISION CONNECTIONRobert M. Starr

21 A DISTANT LEGACY: BLURRED VISIONS–RENEWED CHOICES FOR CAMPUS AND DISTANCE EDUCATIONDon Olcott, Jr.

24 THE DISTANCE LEARNING LEADER: WHAT YOU DON’T KNOW COULD HURT YOUTom Land and Tony Bright

DISTANCE LEARNING

EDITORMichael Simonson

Program Professor

Instructional Technology and Distance

Education

Fischler Graduate School of Education

and Human Services

Nova Southeastern University

1750 NE 167th

St.

North Miami Beach, FL 33162

(954) 262-8563

[email protected]

MANAGING EDITORCharles Schlosser

Program Professor


Education


and Human Services


1750 NE 167th

St.


(541) 301-4833

[email protected]

COPY EDITORMargaret Crawford

Information Specialist

John Adams Middle School

Mason City Public Schools

Mason City, IA 50401

[email protected]

EDITORIAL ASSISTANTAnymir Orellana, Graduate Fellow


Education


and Human Services


1750 NE 167th

St.


(954) 262-8396

[email protected]

ASSOCIATION EDITORSJohn G. Flores

Executive Director

United States Distance Learning

Association

8 Winter Street, Suite 508

Boston, MA 02108

800-275-5162

[email protected]

and

Denzil Edge

President/CEO

The Learning House, Inc.

Nolan Building

2100 Gardiner Lane, Suite 100C

Louisville , KY 40205

(502) 456-6705

[email protected]

PUBLISHERInformation Age Publishing

80 Mason Street

Greenwich, CT 06830

(203) 661-7602

www.infoagepub.com

PURPOSE

Distance Learning, an official

publication of the United States

Distance Learning Association

(USDLA), is sponsored by the

USDLA, by the Fischler Graduate

School of Education and Human

Services at Nova Southeastern

University, and by Information Age

Publishing. Distance Learning is

published six times a year for

leaders, practitioners, and

decision makers in the fields of

distance learning, e-learning,

telecommunications, and related

areas. It is a professional

magazine with information for

those who provide instruction to

all types of learners, of all ages,

using telecommunications

technologies of all types. Articles

are written by practitioners for

practitioners with the intent of

providing usable information and

ideas for readers. Articles are

accepted from authors with

interesting and important

information about the effective

practice of distance teaching and

learning.SPONSORSThe United States Distance Learning Association (USDLA) is the professional organization for

those involved in distance

teaching and learning. USDLA is

committed to being the leading

distance learning association in

the United States. USDLA serves

the needs of the distance learning

community by providing advocacy,

information, networking and

opportunity. www.usdla.org

Contact:

Kathleen Clemens

Director of Marketing

United States Distance Learning

Association

8 Winter Street, Suite 508

Boston, MA 02108

800-275-5162

(617) 399-1771 Fax

The Fischler Graduate School of Education and Human Services (FGSEHS) of Nova Southeastern

University is dedicated to the

enhancement and continuing

support of teachers,

administrators, trainers, and

others working in related helping

professions throughout the world.

The school fulfills its commitment

to the advancement of education

by serving as a resource for

practitioners and by supporting

them in their professional self

development. The school offers

alternative delivery systems that

are adaptable to practitioners’

work schedules and locations.

School programs anticipate and

reflect the needs of practitioners

to become more effective in their

current positions, to fill emerging

roles in education and related

fields, and to be prepared to

accept changing responsibilities

within their own organizations.

FGSEHS—NSU

1750 NE 167th

St.


800-986-3223

www.fgse.nova.edu

Information Age Publishing, 80 Mason Street

Greenwich, CT 06830

(203) 661-7602

(203) 661-7952 Fax

www.infoagepub.com

SUBSCRIPTIONSMembers of the United States

Distance Learning Association

receive Distance Learning as part

of their membership. Others may

subscribe to Distance Learning.

Individual Subscription: $60

Institutional Subscription: $150

Student Subscription: $40

DISTANCE LEARNING MAGAZINE RESOURCE INFORMATION: Visit http://www.usdla.org/html/

resources/dlmag/index.htm

ADVERTISING RATES AND INFORMATION:Contact K. Clemens at 800-275-

5162 x 11 [email protected]

SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION:Contact USDLA at 800-275-5162

[email protected]

ii Distance Learning Volume 1, Issue 3

PUBLICATION GUIDELINES

Articles are accepted from authors with

interesting and important information

about the effective practice of distance

teaching and learning. No page costs

are charged authors, nor are stipends

paid. Two copies of the issue with the

author’s article will be provided.

Reprints will also be available.

THE MANUSCRIPTTo ensure uniformity of the printed

proceedings, authors should follow

these guidelines when preparing

manuscripts for submission.

WORD PROCESSOR FORMATManuscripts should be written in

Microsoft Word for Windows. Do not

embed commands or unusual

formatting information in your paper.

Save it as a .doc file and also as an .rtf

file.

LENGTHThe maximum length of the body of the

paper should be about 3000 words.

LAYOUTMargins: 1 inch on all sides.

TEXTRegular text: 12 point Times New

Roman, left justified

Paper title: 14 point TNR, centered

Author listing: 12 point TNR, centered

Section headings: 12 point TNR,

centered

Section sub-heading: 12 point TNR, left

justified

Do not type section headings or titles in

all-caps; only capitalize the first letter

in each word. All type should be

single-spaced. Allow one line of space

before and after each heading. Indent,

! inch, the first sentence of each

paragraph.

FIGURES AND TABLESFigures and tables should fit width of

6! inches and be incorporated into

the document.

PAGE NUMBERINGDo not include or refer to any page

numbers in your manuscript. Distance

Learning will be page enumerated

when it is processed for printing.

GRAPHICSWe encourage you to use visuals—

pictures, graphics, and charts—to help

explain your article. Graphics images

(.jpg) should be included at the end of

your paper.

Include a cover sheet with the paper's

title and the names, affiliations, and

addresses of all authors.

Submit the paper on a clearly marked

CD or 3! inch floppy disk. The name

of the manuscript file should reference

the author. In addition, submit two

paper copies. Send the disk and a

printed copy to:

Michael Simonson, Editor

Distance LearningInstructional Technology and Distance

Education



1750 NE 167th Street


Volume 1, Issue 3 Distance Learning iii

IN UPCOMING ISSUES

A Model for Designing Online Collaborative Learning Anthony Artino, Jr.

A Sense of Place: The Role of Residency in Distance Education Michael Beaudoin, and Jaime Hylton

Electronic Portfolios Regina Bobak

Issues in Distance Learning Regina Bobak, Connie Cassarino, and Calvin Finley

Online & On-screen: Library Resources Come to the Desktop Marsha L. Burmeister

Motivating Students in Distance Education Todd A. Curless

Best Practices in Live Content Acquisitions by Distance Learning Organizations

Alan Greenberg and Russ Colbert

Teaching Online: Hints from the Trenches Pat Kelley and Nancy Maushak

Online Case-based Learning: Components, Applications, and Assessment

Hyeonjin Kim, Michael Hannafin, and Minchi Kim

Should Distance Education Constitute Different Rewards for Faculty?

Lisa O'Quinn and Michael Corry

We Need a Plan: An Instructional Design Approach for Distance Education Courses

Michael Simonson and Charles Schlosser

Selected Strategies for Instruction in a Web Based Course Annette Sherry and Shirley Yamashita

Volume 1, Issue 3 Distance Learning 1

A Tale of Two State SystemsModels of High School Course Delivery

Mark Hawkes and Jordan Terveen

issouri and SouthDakota, though some-what geographically

removed from each other, havemuch in common. The most notableof their commonalities is the greatMissouri River. The Missouri runsstraight down the center of SouthDakota, serving as the borderbetween Iowa and Nebraska beforeentering Missouri. For both statesthe river is a rich resource of energyand commerce. For South Dakota,the river attracts recreation andwildlife enthusiasts. For Missouri,

the river is a major transportationresource.

This recent year, managing theriver flow has put the two states atodds. Federal judicial activity hasthe Army Corp of Engineers—whomanages the flow of the river—scratching their heads. In 2002, afederal court in Nebraska ruled thatthe river must have enough waterfor barges to navigate and powerplants to operate. Last summer,however, a federal court in Washing-ton, D.C. ordered the low flows tocomply with the Endangered Species

Act, which means restoring the Mis-souri to more natural high springand low summer flows to encouragefish spawning and bird nesting bythreatened and endangered specieslike the least turn, piping plover andpallid sturgeon.

For South Dakotans, more waterupriver in the summer would benefitfish and wildlife and the lake recre-ation industry, but farmers and resi-dents along the lower reaches of theriver in Missouri worry a spring risewould flood homes and farmlandand low summer flows would cutinto barge company revenues andrequire consumers along the Rivermay pay more for power in the sum-mer. The events have all the makingsof an old fashioned, old west waterrights feud.

There is another contrast devel-oping between the Missouri andSouth Dakota. This time, the objectisn’t the river, it’s room-based inter-active video systems. The questionisn’t who gets them; it’s how the sys-tems are used. Fortunately, thesediverging approaches to I-TV usearen’t creating any hostilitiesbetween the states, but they aredefining what may be two veryinteresting models of interactivevideo application in K-12 schools.This article briefly profiles the I-TVsystems in the two states and ana-lyzes the policy and demographic

M

Mark Hawkes, Ph.D., Chair, Graduate

Studies in Educational Technology,

Dakota State University, 820 N. Wash-

ington, Ave., Madison, SD 57042. Tele-

phone: (605) 256-5274. E-mail:

[email protected]

Jordan Terveen, M.S., Dakota State

University, 820 N. Washington Ave.,

Madison, SD 57042.

Telephone: (605) 270-4218.

E-mail: [email protected]

2 Distance Learning Volume 1, Issue 3

environments that are encouragingtwo different approaches to thedelivery of high school instruction.

THE DIGITAL DAKOTA NETWORKThe Digital Dakota Network (DDN)is South Dakota’s statewide commu-nications network designed toincrease access to education andenhance learning throughout thestate. The DDN has 246 fully inter-active video sites, including all K-12school districts, technical institutes,state universities, and selectnon-educational sites. Through theuse of the DDN system, virtualclassrooms are created across thestate, enabling South Dakotaschools to connect with educationalinstitutions throughout the world.

South Dakota’s DDN started totake form in 1996 when T-1 connec-tions were placed in every public ele-mentary school and ATM T-1connections in every middle and highschool. In doing so, Janklow pro-vided a telecommunications back-bone to which schools couldconnect. In 1999, Qwest donated$17.1 million worth of two-wayvideo systems (V-TEL) to the state topave the way for the creation of thestatewide video network.

Every public high school andfree-standing middle school (notadjacent to or part of a high school)in South Dakota has its own DDNsystem. All six state-supported uni-versities are connected to the DDNthrough a federally-funded StarSchools grant. Both Education andState agencies have unlimited accessto the network, and the public isalso encouraged to use it.

Many South Dakota schools usetheir systems extensively, others donot. When it is used, the DDN sup-ports a variety of activities. Thoseinclude activities of a logistical kind,like seeding wrestling tournaments

and bracketing the state volleyballtournaments. Regional consortiameetings between school superinten-dents or project meetings for state orfederally funded projects (i.e. tech-nology challenge grants, state liter-acy program) also take place on theDDN. On occasion, the DDN isused by community members forlegislative cracker barrel sessions, orby other agencies like mental healthcare professionals. The DDN alsohosts a number of teacher profes-sional development events in theform of courses delivered to individ-uals or small groups of teachers dur-ing evening hours. These courses aredelivered by higher education insti-tutions in the state and involve cre-dentialing, certification, or theattainment of advanced degrees.

Some of the instructional uses ofthe DDN include a host of advancedplacement, college, and othercourses that are delivered remotelyto students. Enrichment experienceslike Dr. Seuss Day, or a symphonicband or other dramatic or musicalperformance, are bridged to elemen-tary students. School/agency collab-orations like the Earth ResourcesObservation Systems (EROS) DataCenter “Science to Kids” programsthat cover topics from spacecraftconstruction to the effects ofman-induced landscape alterationsto the earth like deforestation andurban sprawl. Nationally deliveredprograms like Aquatic ResearchInteractive’s “Diving into Physics,”which introduces the ABC’s of phys-ics and chemistry to upper elemen-tary students, are also instructional.Within the state, schools have col-laborated on projects like Span-ish-speaking language practice andculture studies between high schoolstudents. Fourth-graders in the stateregularly study Native Americanthemes and using the DDN andoften compare their lives with thelives and culture of Native Americantribes who reside in the state.

MISSOURI’S MORENETMissouri, like South Dakota, hasgathered state and federal funds tobuild its interactive video backbone.The Missouri I-TV infrastructure isdense but, unlike South Dakota’s,the system does not encompass allschool districts in the state. The Mis-souri Research and Education Net-work (MOREnet), provides Internetconnectivity, technical support, andvideoconferencing services to Mis-souri’s K-12 school, college and uni-versity I-TV resources.

MOREnet’s origin can be tracedto the mid 1980s. Its influence onMissouri’s education, library, andresearch community accelerated inthe mid 1990s as they began to seeincreased funding from the NationalScience Foundation (NSF) and theDepartment of Elementary and Sec-ondary Education (DESE). With thisincreased funding, MOREnet begandeveloping a statewide supportstructure to provide Internet connec-tivity to Missouri’s K-12 schools anduniversities. By 1999, the backbonehad been upgraded to speeds capa-ble of 155 Mbps, enabling full-scaleinteractive video services and addi-tional multimedia applications.

About three years ago, MOREnetbegan to encourage the use of thestatewide data infrastructure for vid-eoconferencing purposes. Whilenumbers have not been verified inthe last year, it is known that morethan half of_Missouri’s 524 schooldistricts have some form of video-conferencing capability. Of Mis-souri’s public and independenthigher education institutions, some90% receive data networkingthrough MOREnet. As in SouthDakota, Missouri I-TV use isdiverse, with both logistical andinstructional applications. For bothstates, however, the primary use ofinteractive video systems in terms ofhours logged is the delivery of highschool level courses.


COURSE DELIVERY MODELSFrom a high school administrator inSouth Dakota came a telling testa-ment of I-TV use: “a school is onlyas good as its curriculum.” A goodpercentage of schools, especiallythose in rural and small communi-ties, have embraced I-TV as aresource for enhancing the schoolcurriculum. In many circumstances,I-TV courses are delivered whenteaching positions cannot or will notbe filled due to budgetary con-straints or teacher attrition.

In both states, one by design andthe other by default, a statewideapproach to high school coursedelivery is in place. In South Dakota,one public university was designatedby then-Governor Janklow as an“E-learning Center.” The university,on the northern border of the state,received a significant amount of seedmoney for funding for equipmentand personnel to deliver high schoolcourses. In the 2003-2004 school

year, 17 courses are in delivery oneither a year-long or semester basis.Figure 1 illustrates the statewidedelivery model. The larger star rep-resents the state-designated coursedelivery center and the smaller starsrepresent instructional transmissionreceiving sites.

In Missouri, I-TV use centers onregional rather than statewide inter-action. These consortia of schoolsare groups of geographi-cally-bounded school districts thathave organized to address sharedneeds and promote common inter-ests. Not all Missouri schools withI-TV resources are consortia-affili-ated. These schools have indepen-dently purchased or written grantsto purchase I-TV equipment fortheir own use._ The difficulty withthose schools falling in the “inde-pendent” category is that there is nomechanism for organizationally oradministratively negotiating classesto send and/or receive. Enter Great-erNET.

GreaterNET is an independent,

member-based entity whose missionis to help K-12 schools all over thestate of Missouri effectively usetwo-way interactive television tech-nologies. How GreaterNET worksis, rather than publish a schedule ofcourses available, schools contactGreaterNET with their needs. Great-erNET then identifies I-TV enabledschools with compatible calendarsand bell schedules for a match. If amatch cannot be made, GreaterNETmakes every attempt to locate aqualified teacher for the class(es)requested.

In its first semester of operation(Fall, 2001), GreaterNET wasinvolved in the sharing of eight for-eign language courses involving 15class sites and eight schools._ Great-erNET is now beginning its thirdyear of operation, and continues tohelp match or broker I-TV classesacross the state for those schoolwithout a regional consortia tie thathave I-TV capabilities.

Figure 1


MOVING TO A REGIONAL MODEL OF COURSE DELIVERYWith South Dakota’s heavy invest-ments in a centralized, statewideI-TV content-delivery model, andMissouri’s independently organizedstate brokerage for I-TV courses, astatewide presence for I-TV applica-tion exists. However, schools inSouth Dakota are opting to developand deliver courses within regionalconsortia affiliations as an alterna-tive to the state system. As it is inMissouri, the largest proportion ofthese developing consortia in SouthDakota involves rural and smallschool districts (see Figures 2 and 3).

Why regional affiliation over astatewide connection? For starters,regionality allows groups of schoolsto determine course delivery timesthat are compatible with their bellschedules. Consortia also havegreater flexibility to use otherblended and distributed technologies(Web-based content, desktop video,etc.) with which to engage students.Also, schools in a consortium are

generally within adjoining areas,meaning students may already befamiliar with one another throughtheir involvement in inter-schoolactivities. Regionally produced I-TVcourses also allow teachers to occa-sionally travel to a bridging site tooriginate instruction. The locality ofI-TV delivered courses also makes iteasier to plan and work with remotesite supervisors.

Both states also have a long his-tory of inter-district cooperation.These cooperatives were built oncommon needs in educational ser-vices, insurance collectives, and/orvocational-technical education.With the infusion of interactivevideo technologies, new life isbreathed into inactive and some-times stagnant consortia. Joiningforces around new curricular oppor-tunities has strengthened inter-dis-trict ties and inter-faculty/classcollaborations.

In consideration of the issues rele-vant to regional I-TV course deliveryaffiliation, 11 key elements wereidentified. Of these elements, nineare applicable to Missouri and

South Dakota. This list is not meantto be comprehensive, but it includescontextual realities that encourage aregional I-TV content distributionapproach over a statewideapproach. These elements, and theirapplicability to each state, are listedin Table 1.

With two notable exceptions,Missouri and South Dakota areestablishing I-TV consortia based onsimilar interests. For Missouri, thatexception is a growing teacher short-age that shared interactive videocourse delivery will address. ForSouth Dakota, the exception is ashift in demographics for over 90%of the school districts in the state.The shift is caused by the migrationof families from rural area and smalltowns to larger communities. Whilelarger school district enrollmentscan sustain a varied curriculum pro-gram, small schools are turning toI-TV solutions.

An additional consideration thatspeaks to South Dakota’s capacity toquickly integrate I-TV is the stateoffice of education supported “Dis-tance Teaching and Learning”

Figure 2


Table 1: Issues supporting participation in regional affiliation for I-TV collaborations.

Element Supporting ITV Consortia Affiliation South Dakota Missouri

• Bell and school schedule compatibility ! !

• Flexibility of interaction technologies used ! !

• Long established consortia affiliations ! !

• Reasonable access to remote instructional sites ! !

• Teacher shortages !

• Demographic declines !

• Shared cost of operation (technical support, etc.) !

• Professional peer group collaborations (professional development, special education, conferences, etc.)

! !

• Coordinate extra-curricular interactions (athletics, administrative, etc.) ! !

• Existing I-TV operation expertise available !

• Ability to attract participation of community partners and support ! !

Figure 3


(DTL) professional developmentprograms. DTL is a fairly compre-hensive staff development academythat trains interested educators toappropriately use the statewidevideo conferencing capabilitieslocated in the school districts. DTL’smajor emphasis is on the creation ofhigh-quality interactive curricularcontent. This program has been thestarting base for the instructionaluse of the Digital Dakota Network.To date, some 400 South Dakotateachers have been through thetwo-week intensive program. Theseteachers have taken their new skillsand expertise back to their schoolsto apply and share with their peers.

A TWO-TIER DELIVERY MODELCan a statewide course deliverymodel be sustained in light of thepreferred and growing model ofregional I-TV consortia? Theanswers are varied. In Missouri,

where a statewide brokering servicefor I-TV courses emerged out of aneed for non-consortia affiliatedschools to know what was available,it appears that GreaterNET will con-tinue to have clientele. This is espe-cially true in a state with only partialaccess to interactive video systems,where belonging to regional I-TVconsortia might not be logisticallyand technically feasible.

In South Dakota, the state vendorhas been spotted with enoughmoney to service current clients tooffer courses. But, the state deliverysystem currently relies on supple-mental funding from the state publicuniversity regental system to supportI-TV course delivery. If that revenuestream ends or weakens, the currentstate model cannot be sustainedunless it becomes a fee-for-serviceoperation. The present climate ofstate budget deficits and reduced taxrevenue suggests sustainablestrength may be with I-TV regionalconsortia delivery of courses.

A final contextual consideration

supporting I-TV course regionaliza-tion focuses on community viability.Regionalizing I-TV courses keepsthe teachers in their communities.The current state model relocatesteachers to a central site. Rural com-munities, whose high schoolers areprimary clients for I-TV courses, arestruggling to remain alive. Rural res-idents believe keeping teachers andtheir families in their local schools isa key to community viability. Onthis basis alone, rural and smallcommunities will support regionalover state delivered courses when allother variables of delivery are equal.

If a state model of I-TV highschool course delivery successfullyoverlays the regional consortiamodel, it will likely be because state-wide services have evolved fromcourse delivery to course coordina-tion and brokerage, as is the case inMissouri. Where state-supportedcourse delivery does take place, itwill be limited to highly specializedcourses. It is an evolving issue thatpolicymakers should study closely.

CALL FOR PAPERS

PUBLISH IN DISTANCE LEARNING

THE EDITORS OF DISTANCE LEARNING WOULD LIKE TO PUBLISH YOUR PAPER. WE ARE

INTERESTED IN PAPERS DEALING WITH PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS OF DISTANCE EDUCATION

IN A VARIETY OF SETTINGS. CONTACT MICHAEL SIMONSON, EDITOR, IF YOU HAVE

QUESTIONS ABOUT YOUR IDEA (954-262-8563; [email protected]). GUIDELINES

FOR SUBMITTING YOUR PAPER CAN BE FOUND ON PAGE ii OF THIS ISSUE.


As the Use of Videoconferencing Technology Booms, so Does the Need for Creative Technical Support

Gary Brown

INTRODUCTIONideoconferencing providesfor the instantaneous, inter-active, and collaborative

sharing of information throughface-to-face conferencing technol-ogy. The information is transmittedand received through multiplehigh-speed phone lines via the PBX.The conferencing equipment pro-vides educational opportunities that

would not otherwise be availablebecause of cost, time, and/or dis-tance. The purpose of using video-conferencing is to provide greateravailability of learning opportunitiesto students over a broad geographi-cal area. Another application for thistechnology is to provide a collabora-tive forum for discussions betweenmany departments.

Videoconferencing encouragesthe transfer of information betweenparticipants locally, nationally, andinternationally. The customers thatuse distance-learning delivery meth-odologies in the Broward County(Florida) School District include, butare not limited to: the superinten-dent, department heads, area offices,principals, students, teachers, mediaspecialists, the magnet program,senior management, staff trainers,human resource department, budgetdepartment, Broward EducationCommunications Network(BECON), and collaborative col-leges and universities. BECON is themain content developer and user ofK-12 curriculum applications fordistance learning classes that incor-porate videoconferencing.

The Broward County School Dis-trict is the fifth largest public inde-pendent school district in the

country. Its 280,000 children fromover 164 countries communicate in54 languages. The district’s operat-ing budget is approximately $3.5billion with individual studentexpenditures around $4,750 per stu-dent. The district employs 28,000teachers, administrators, and sup-port staff in more than 235 schools,centers, and adult vocational facili-ties. Broward County is 1,196square miles and approximately 25miles north to south and 50 mileseast to west, with the bulk of thepopulation living within a 410square mile area in the east. Thewestern two-thirds, approximately621 square miles, is comprised ofthe Florida Everglades. The countyhas 29 municipalities that accountfor 88.4% of the population, withthe balance of the population resid-ing in unincorporated areas.Between 1988 and 1997, the K-12student population exploded,increasing 57% in just 9 years.

Videoconferencing technology inBroward County Schools has beenexpanding dramatically. The schooldistrict’s distance learning depart-ment (BECON) continues to growand develop state-of-the art distancelearning programs that requirehigh-end technical support. While

V

Gary Brown, Video Support Opera-

tions, Broward County School District,

7720 W. Oakland Park Blvd., Sunrise,

FL 33351.



distance education programs arevery much in demand in BrowardCounty, there are still many whohave not yet discovered these impor-tant educational or administrativebenefits of videoconferencing. Oneof many such benefits includes mini-mizing travel for meetings, whichoptimizes the workday’s productiv-ity time and money. However, adop-tion of videoconferencing has beenslowed by a number of issues suchas scheduling conflicts, time con-flicts, technology awareness, or areintimidated with technology.

In the future, this applicationcould also be used for disasters andother unforeseen emergencies. TheDepartment of Homeland Securityhas been rumored to be exploringand funding applications for possi-ble disaster scenarios. BrowardCounty Schools possibly has one ofthe most extensive videoconferenc-ing networks in the state and withsome creative research could yieldmany unexpected benefits.

TECHNICAL SUPPORTThe most important thing to knowabout videoconferencing is that it isa “system” that requires all of itscomponents to work seamlessly fora successful presentation. If there areproblems in network connectivity,software, hardware, wiring, or evenoperator error, the technology willfail. Therefore, it is essential todeliver fast, efficient technical sup-port to our customers. This is whythe equipment requires continuousand ongoing service via a preventivemaintenance program that incorpo-rates routine testing, proactive refor-matting where applicable, softwareupgrades, color-coding of intercon-nections, labeling of equipment andpatch panels to minimize serviceinterruption, continuity tests, andremote diagnostic applications.

Since its inception, the responsi-bility of managing the network hasincluded the provision of depend-

able, reliable technical support tothe district’s customers. I have beenthe sole district employee perform-ing this function for EducationalTechnology Support (ETS) for thepast six years. As little as four yearsago, the district’s distance educationprogram (BECON) had only 26 vid-eoconferencing systems, primarilyused to provide advanced placement(AP) classes for schools with low APenrollment, as well as special dis-tance learning programs. The use ofvideoconferencing as both an educa-tional and administrative tool hasgrown significantly. Many curricu-lum programs have incorporatedvideoconferencing into their weeklyclasses.

During the 2002-2003 schoolyear, videoconferencing was used inmore than 1,700 delivered pro-grams, affecting more than 60,000students. The district’s videoconfer-encing/ distance learning networkhas exploded to include approxi-mately 150 systems located atschool, administrative, and specialpurpose locations, and a 32-portLucent/Avaya videoconferencingbridge housed at ETS and scheduledthrough BECON. The bridge con-nects multiple sites for studentclasses, administrative meetings, andstaff training. It is important to notehere that the popularity and use ofthis technology is expanding, andclose to 90 additional schools are inthe midst of acquiring videoconfer-encing systems. In addition to man-aging the videoconferencingnetwork, I design the installations,schedule repairs, supervise BellSouthvideo and network technicians, andprovide assistance to principals anddistrict administrators. BECON andETS work in a close partnership pro-viding their customers top-level ser-vices in the distance educationarena.

Starting in 1997 and continuingthrough to the present, I developedthe program currently used forSBBC’s Videoconferencing Techni-

cal Support Network. The schooldistrict began by purchasing dis-tance education videoconferencingsystems consisting of 26 units thatcost approximately $30,000 each.Once installed, the videoconferenc-ing systems came with a one-yearwarranty. A simple installationrequired the scheduling of equip-ment installers and phone companyservices. Phone services were alsorequired to install high-speed ISDNline connections in order to connectvideoconferencing sites. Sometimesinstallations would require inordi-nate amounts of time to complete. Itbecame obvious early on that therewas a more efficient way of handlingthe support and installation pro-cess. The reason for some ineffi-ciency was that sometimes theequipment needed to be tweaked bythe equipment manufacturer and atother times the phone lines and/orPBX software required work by ourservice provider, BellSouth. In eithercase, it was not unusual for anequipment vendor/installer to pointto the phone company as the causeof a problem, and the phone com-pany would sometimes point to theequipment installer as the cause forsystem failure. While the fin-ger-pointing continued, it increasedcompletion time of the work order.Another problem that surfaced earlyon was that, once the videoconfer-encing system was working, equip-ment failures occurred, and this tookconsiderable time to diagnose andcorrect due to the involvement ofmore than one vendor.

The equipment repair tech personwould be dispatched. This requiredtime and coordination with the ven-dor company and the possibility of adifferent vendor dispatch if theproblem was traced to the phonelines. Additionally, waiting for partsto be shipped, received, and installedmeant more down time for the sys-tem. Meanwhile, the school wouldnot have access to instruction, andstudents and staff would be short-


changed as well as having to makeschedule adjustments. To make mat-ters even worse, after the first year,the warranties expired and each sys-tem required a costly service con-tract/warranty amounting tohundreds of thousands of dollars.Therefore, besides the support ser-vices being inefficient, the cost ofrepair was high.

Understanding the technical sup-port problems, I worked with theequipment vendors to develop moreefficient methods to handle supportissues. In the end, I was sent forintensive technical training, attain-ing the necessary expertise and certi-fications from the variousmanufacturers. Classes were held inAustin Texas, Philadelphia, Denver,San Jose California, and Reston,Virginia. After acquiring the neces-sary certifications and expertise, Iwas able to provide immediate ser-vice for district videoconferencingequipment, thereby closing the ser-vice time gap from equipment sys-tem failure to repair. The mostvaluable skills were developed overa six-year period of on-the-job train-ing consisting of installation anddiagnosis of multiple systems andplatforms. By gaining intimateknowledge of each system, location,contacts, and history, repair andsupport became extremely efficient.Remote diagnostics implementationwhile in the start-up stages hasalready demonstrated that it is avaluable technical support resource.It is important to note that, eventhough the district uses numerousvideoconferencing platforms, all ofthe systems are compatible and com-ply with industry-based standards.The district uses H.320 ISDN tele-phony via the PBX for connectivityfor videoconferencing services.While many of the district videocon-ferencing systems are capable ofusing H.323 (“video over IP”), mostdistrict locations currently do nothave sufficient bandwidth to sup-port one 384 connection, let alone

multiple connections over IP. Whenthe initial infrastructure wasdesigned, nobody had envisioned theuse of videoconferencing on such alarge district-wide level via sharednetwork bandwidth. The concept ofshared network access using a con-vergence of technologies is a currentand future mission-critical project.Additionally, the district owns 49V-Tel videoconferencing systemsthat use the Windows 95 operatingsystem and do not support theH.323/IP standard. Early plans torefresh some of the older, outdatedsystems are underway.

BRIDGINGVideoconferencing can be usedbetween two locations, which iscommonly called a point-to-pointcall. However, when three or morelocations are in the same videocon-ference, a special piece of hardwareis required to connect all the loca-tions simultaneously. This piece ofequipment is called a bridge. A keycomponent of the bridge is thescheduling software known asCRCS. With this scheduling soft-ware, the operator can pre-scheduleone or multiple events, edit thoseevents even while they are active,allow 3 to 24 locations to confer-ence simultaneously, and providereal-time conferencing monitoring.This application is a key componentof distance education because multi-ple classrooms are provided withsimultaneous live interactive instruc-tion. The CRCS scheduling compo-nent has been run from ETS, whileBECON’s distance learning center inDavie schedules all programmingand bridge scheduling with technicalsupport from its partner, ETS.

In the beginning, I was directed toproduce an analysis of distancelearning in Broward County Schoolsas well as an implementation plan.This report included an in-depthanalysis of the bridging technologyavailable on the market at that time.

As a result, the bridge was acquiredand later expanded. Additionally, aLucent/Avaya Technologies bridgewas acquired--at approximately$200,000 off the list price. A sched-uling system for the bridge housed atETS was implemented, and myresponsibilities include supervisionand maintenance of warranty andsupport services for the bridge. Itmust also be noted that, with expan-sion of videoconferencing locations,capacity of the bridge will soon bemaximized. Lucent/Avaya will nolonger provide support for thebridge within the next two years.The current bridge is also limited toH.320 technology. At the time ofpurchase, we knew the bridge wouldhave to be replaced due to expan-sion and possible use of IP videocon-ferencing in the future. Plans arealready in the works to replace andexpand the current bridging capacityas well as incorporate the IP andISDN bridging capabilities.

In addition, the district imple-mented a program to convert thephone lines from costly ISDN serviceto a more efficient technology.Working with our phone serviceprovider, BellSouth, we were shownhow to provide even greater depend-ability while providing the districthuge cost savings. If the districtmaintained dedicated ISDN serviceto all of the more than 140 video-conferencing systems, the cost forISDN service would have easilyexceeded $500,000 per year for ded-icated ISDN line connectivity. Byusing resources already available onschool sites via PRI/PBX digitalphone switches, the use of ISDNline-connected sites shrunk to a meredozen locations. Because of the hugeworkload, compounded with the useof BellSouth supported school phoneswitches, the district requested andprovided a BellSouth technician toprovide additional support services,thereby producing a team approachwith the phone company on a dis-trict-wide level.


While installing the more than150 videoconferencing systems,unique challenges surfaced and cre-ative solutions were developed. Onesuch challenge pertained to connec-tivity between the videoconferencingsystem and the PBX. When connec-tivity is attempted beyond the 1,000linear foot range, degradation of thevideo signal makes communicationimpossible. In addition, many cam-puses have limited capability of theirintra-building wiring. The solutionwas to incorporate fiber optic multi-plexers, which convert typical sig-nals traveling over copper lines tolight pulses. These signals are trans-lated back onto copper at the termi-nation point, thereby providingservice to areas on district campusesthat would not otherwise be practi-cal. It must be noted that thesedevices are not inexpensive, andtheir use must be justified.

This year the district is usinge-rate monies in a bid to acquireadditional videoconferencing sys-tems. If the district is successful,approximately 82 more TandbergScholar videoconferencing systemswill be added and supported. Addi-tional per-system savings of $3,000(Tandberg 880) to $9,000 (TandbergScholar System) are realized becauseI perform the warranty work andinstallations myself.

FUTURE VISIONWhile it has taken the better part ofsix years for numerous distance edu-cation models to finally take hold inthe district, the next few yearsshould be amazing. Videoconferenc-ing to the desktop is already beingtested through a variety of products.Wired or wireless videoconferenc-

ing products will provide instanta-neous live videoconferencing forroom systems, wall mounted flatscreens, desktop systems, laptops,and cell phones. Communicationinfrastructures will be enhancedwith a greater spectrum of wireless,wire, and fiber backbones to sup-port these key applications.

Integration of video, voice, anddata will provide the district and itscustomers with a greater variety ofdelivery methods, instruction, andcommunications, both synchro-nously and asynchronously. Whileall of these wonderful technologyenhancements are just a few stepsfrom our front door, none of thiscan be brought to fruition unless thestate’s Department of Educationprovides the school district withappropriate funding.


Five Smooth StonesFighting for the Survival of Higher

Education

Steve Wheeler

This paper argues that the influence of the traditional university is declining due to its inability toadapt quickly enough to the trenchant demands of the information society. Simultaneously, “newconcept” universities are flourishing because they can offer flexible, “any time, any place” learningopportunities in a global economy. Distributed approaches to learning, particularly distance educa-tion, workplace training, technology-supported learning, and on-campus flexible open learning arein the ascendancy. These methods are set to gain prominence in this new millennium because theyare best placed to meet the needs of both students and employers. This paper proposes a strategyfor adopting flexible, technology-supported learning approaches, underlining the need for collabo-ration, diversification, investment in technology and staff skills development in new educationalpractices, and gives warning of some of the barriers that exist. The paper offers five key strategiesthat will help higher education to come of age in this information-hungry, technocratic society.

FIVE SMOOTH STONES

Then he chose five smooth stonesout of the brook and [...] his slingwas in his hand and he drew nearthe Philistine. David [....] took astone and slung it, and it struckthe Philistine, sinking into hisforehead, and he fell on his face tothe earth. (1 Samuel 17: 40 & 49,Amplified Bible)

urrounded on all sides by apowerful enemy, the smallnation of Israel was in immi-

nent danger of annihilation. Whenthe young shepherd boy Davidwalked out to confront the giantwarrior Philistine Goliath, he tookjust one primitive weapon with him.The weapon was a sling; the ammu-nition—five smooth stones takenfrom a nearby stream. Few expected

the diminutive David to win againstthe huge and powerful Goliath, butprevail he did, winning a famousbattle that sealed the destiny of twoentire nations. The names David andGoliath have since been synonymouswith unexpected victory and thestruggle against all odds. In manyways, traditional universities facesimilar problems to the biblicalnation of Israel. They are now underthreat from a looming giant of obso-lescence. They are stagnating in theirivory towers whilst the worldaround them is moving forwards.Unless the giant of obsolescence ischallenged and defeated, this authorbelieves that the traditional univer-sity will simply not survive. Thispaper offers a strategy of five keypoints—the five smooth stones—with which to defeat the threat of

SSteve Wheeler, Senior Lecturer, Faculty

of Education, University of Plymouth,

Drake Circus, Plymouth PL4 8AA, U.K.

Telephone: +44 1752 232332.

E-mail: [email protected].

Web: http://www2.plymouth.ac.uk/

distancelearning/


obsolescence, enabling universitiesto change to meet the challenge anddemands of the information society.

A CLIMATE OF CHANGEWe live in an age of change unparal-leled in history. Technological, eco-nomic, and social upheavals haveimpacted upon us with regularityand increasing ferocity, radicallychanging the way we live, work, andlearn. These changes have beenall-pervasive in education, plungingthe traditional university system intocrisis (Daniel, 1996; Taylor, 1998).Increasing numbers of academicssuspect that traditional approachesare no longer adequate and newapproaches to pedagogy must befound and practiced. Laurillardhighlights this concern:

The academic system mustchange. It works to some extentbut not well enough. Teachersneed to know more than just theirsubject. They need to know theways it can come to be under-stood, the ways it can be misun-derstood, what counts asunderstanding: they need to knowhow individuals experience thesubject. But they are neitherrequired nor able to do thesethings. Moreover, our system ofmass lectures and examinationensures that they will never findthem out. (Laurillard, 1993, p. 3)

Clearly, the traditional universitycannot continue in its present for-mat, because global trends demandalternative methods. One key trend,technological advance, is alreadycontributing to the demise ofon-campus university education.Smith & Webster (1997) suggestthat new technologies may contrib-ute to decreased demands for resi-dential education.

There is also growing opinionthat the very fabric of traditionaleducation must change, purelybecause it is a system originally set

up to meet the needs of the indus-trial revolution, and is now hope-lessly outmoded. Sociologist AlvinToffler (1980), for example, arguedthat our current education systemwas established as a means to pre-pare children for work in factories.The industrial revolution demandedsynchronization of human behaviorwith machinery, and mass educa-tion was instrumental in preparinggenerations of regimented workers.New and diverse modes of workingrequire new types of learning inwhich active learners initiate, con-trol, and apply learning for them-selves (Knowles, 1975). More than20 years ago, Botkin, et al. high-lighted the outmoded nature of edu-cation provision in a searing attackon the traditional system of educa-tion:

Learning processes are laggingappallingly behind and are leavingboth individuals and societiesunprepared to meet the challengesposed by global issues. This failureof learning means that human pre-paredness remains underdevel-oped on a global scale. Learning isin this sense far more than justanother global problem: its fail-ure represents, in a fundamentalway, the issue of issues. (Botkin, etal., 1979, p. 9)

There are seven fundamental fac-tors contributing to the decline oftraditional university provision:

• technological innovation• adverse economic climate• mounting commercial competi-

tion• demands for greater flexibility• subject proliferation• erosion of academic staff base• globalization

TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATION

There can be no doubt that infor-mation and communication technol-ogies (ICT) have already made a

significant impact on higher educa-tion. Personal computers, for exam-ple, have changed the nature of theteaching process and provided a newfocus for curriculum development.Current debate now rightly focuseson the extent of this impact (Watson& Downes, 2000, p. 4).

Generally, ICT is already irrevo-cably changing the face of educationprovision. This process has beenslow but relentless, with technol-ogy-supported distance educationand open learning now seen as effec-tive alternatives. Academic journalsare replete with references to theimpact ICT is exerting on highereducation, in terms of educationalchange: “The introduction of Infor-mation and Communication Tech-nology into the educational systemhas been hailed as a major catalystof the long dreamed-about educa-tional revolution” (Katz, 2000). AsWisher and Priest (1998) noted,“The widespread availability of sat-ellite and terrestrial networks, aswell as the increased use of personalcomputers and the Internet has cata-pulted distance learning into theforefront of educational change.”

From the perspective of educa-tional trends and innovation, Wol-cott (1997) noted that “in this newera university teaching increasinglyrequires reaching across time anddistance through on-line courses and‘virtual universities.’”

And also regarding the foresee-able future of higher education,Dede (1996) wrote that “in a fewyears, high performance computingand communications will makeknowledge utilities, virtual commu-nities, shared synthetic environ-ments, and sensory immersion asroutine a part of everyday existenceas the telephone, television, radioand newspaper are today.”

A growing number of graduates,including this author, can claim tohave earned their first degree bystudying completely at a distance.Most distance learners will confirm


this is not an easy route to a degree,requiring great commitment,self-discipline and motivation. Nev-ertheless, distance education may bepoised to supplant much of the tra-ditional “set time, set place” educa-tion provision. At the very least, ifthe higher education system does notchange, it will be “partiallybypassed” in favor of other moreflexible methods (Jarvis, 2000),because it cannot respond quicklyenough to the rapacious demands ofthe information society.

AN ADVERSE ECONOMIC

CLIMATE

For some time there has been anunfavorable global economic cli-mate. Education has been particu-larly badly hit. The centralizedfunding universities once took forgranted has been gradually dissipat-ing. Generally, as governments with-draw grant arrangements,prospective students are forced toborrow substantial amounts ofmoney, and this creates a culture ofreluctance for many. This is reflectedin recent UK trends, with applica-tions for undergraduate places atuniversities down for the third con-secutive year (BBC Radio 4, April15, 2000).

This presents many traditionaluniversities with an intractableproblem: reduced student numbersmeans reduced government fund-ing. Furthermore, universities nowreceive the income they “deserve,”rather than the income they need.Whereas before, income was “col-lected” by universities, now it mustbe “earned” (King, 1995). At thesame time, universities must attemptto increase class sizes to compensatefor the general shortfall in income. Avicious cycle ensues, as fewer stu-dents are willing to attend residen-tial universities. There does notappear to be a light at the end of thetunnel of this present economicstringency, and the sustained assault

on the fabric of traditional universi-ties shows no signs of abating.

Universities are thus forced toseek other means of regular, guaran-teed income. For some, this willmean incorporating distance educa-tion approaches and technol-ogy-supported learning in order toincrease numbers. For those univer-sities that will not or cannot adaptto global trends and widespreadimplementation of new technologies,the future looks decidedly bleak.

COMMERCIAL COMPETITION

For the first time in the history ofeducation, universities can enrollstudents anywhere on the globe,regardless of the geographical loca-tion or time zone. Monash Univer-sity in Melbourne, SouthernAustralia, may be one of the firsttruly global distributed cam-pus-based universities. Alreadyboasting four campuses across thecontinent of Australasia, and part-nership campuses in Malaysia,Monash has now establishedanother major campus in Johannes-burg, South Africa. Similarly, by1996, half of all Australian universi-ties had established twinningarrangements with private collegesin Malaysia. The situation is similarin Singapore, where several UK uni-versities are represented (THES,March 31, 2000).

The mega-universities also havegreat impact. Mega-universities, asidentified by Daniel (1996), areinstitutes with more than 100,000students simultaneously enrolled inhigher education courses. One of thebetter known mega-universities, theUK Open University (UKOU), hasbeen a pioneer of modern distanceeducation, revolutionizing highereducation provision for learners.The UKOU enjoys an annual intakeof more than 30,000 founda-tion-level undergraduates. It hasachieved this impressive logisticalfeat by utilizing over 7000 part-time

academics and 250 local study cen-ters in the UK alone (Rickwood &Goodwin, 2000). Ten other nations,including Spain (UNED), France(CNED) and Germany (FernUniver-sitat), have established similarmega-university systems operatingon open distance education models.In much the same way as the cornershop met its demise with the adventof the supermarket, small cam-pus-based universities are in dangerof being squeezed by the global noncampus-based mega-universities.

Privately funded universities suchas the University of Phoenix are bigplayers in the huge part-time matureeducation market. Phoenix enjoys aquarterly profit averaging 12.8 mil-lion US dollars, earned exclusivelyfrom distance education activities. Itenrolls only fully-employedpart-time mature students. Theindustrial sector has also been quickto capitalise on the huge demand forflexible open learning. Cisco Sys-tems, for example, operating a net-work of bought-in locally-basedtutors and classroom resources,awards accelerated diplomas in net-work engineering, software design,and computer science. IBM hasrecently approached the NewZealand government for permissionto deliver degree level courses, againin direct competition to the estab-lished university system on theislands. Here are just a few otherexamples of recent commercialinterest in higher education in therun-up to the new millennium:

• 1997—UK Company NordAnglia acquires Christchurch Artand Design College, NewZealand.

• 1999—Sylvan Learning Systemspurchases a 54 percent holding ina private Spanish University.

• 1999—Commercial company DeVry takes over Denver TechnicalCollege and other higher educa-tion institutes in the UnitedStates.


• 1999—University of Phoenix(USA) opens a campus in Rotter-dam, Holland. The university isplanning to expand farther intoGermany, Spain, and Ireland.(THES, March 31, 2000)

These trends reflect the realiza-tion by commercial companies thathigher education is a lucrative andexpanding global market. Severalmedia companies, for example, haverecently invested large sums in thedevelopment of online learning.These include News International’sWorldWide Learning Ltd., PearsonGroup’s FT Knowledge, and Addi-son Wesley Longman Group (THES,March 31, 2000).

DEMANDS FOR GREATER

FLEXIBILITY

This sharing out of the globaleducation cake reflects growingdemands for greater flexibility fromboth students and employers. Stu-dents who have previously been dis-enfranchised due to remotegeographical location, lack of dis-posable resources, family commit-ments, or work schedules, arerecognizing that opportunities nowexist for part-time study. Employersare demanding highly skilled, flexi-ble, and responsive work forces.They are beginning to recognize thebenefits of “just-in-time” training,and are rejecting the “just in case”model. They are discovering thatflexible, part-time opportunities forstaff training are not as onerous assending them to universities toreceive professional updates andtraining. Costs are cut becauseemployees can learn at home or inthe workplace, using ICT andhigh-quality distributed learningmaterials. Smart universities aredeveloping differentiated learningcurricula to respond to these“just-in-time” demands, and arereformulating courses into modular,flexible pathways.

SUBJECT PROLIFERATION

The demand for more knowledgehas resulted in a major upturn inuniversity applications. Althoughuniversity applications will haverisen by 50% in 10 years, a highproportion of these are frompart-time mature students, repre-senting a down turn of full-timeenrollments in real terms (CBI,1994).

Comparison between a currentprospectus and a 1990 version fromthe same university will reveal thatthere are big increases in the numberof courses offered, indicating thediversity in range of subject mattercreated to meet demands.

Diversification, however, maycreate problems. Universities maydiscover there are either not enoughspecialized lecturers, or student/teacher ratios become too high to beeconomically viable. Furthermore,subjects may become so specialized,with limited appeal, that the econ-omy of scale disappears.

Universities must either focus onwhat they do best, delivering coursesthat are economically viable andhigh in quality, or they must diver-sify using a strategy based on dis-tributed learning. It is a well knowneconomic feature of online courses,for instance, that many more stu-dents can be tutored individuallythan in conventional face-to-faceenvironments (Bunker, 1998). Thecaveat to this strategy, however, isthat online course development canbe protracted.

EROSION OF FACULTY BASE

Universities are comprised not ofbuildings, or resources, but of peo-ple. The collective knowledge baseof specialists and experts is the mostvaluable asset of any institute. Yetthe practice of casualization bymany universities means that aca-demic staff are increasingly beingemployed on fixed-term contracts,usually three years or less. In the US,

tenured faculty are sparse, whilst inthe UK, permanent contracts forjunior academics are rare. There isuncertainty for the future of conven-tional university education, becausemany academics are uncertain oftheir own career futures.

Universities are also losing a greatdeal of talented academics to com-merce and industry (Shattock,2001). Academics are being luredaway from university life intoresearch, development, and consul-tancy, because these areas not onlypromise more lucrative remunera-tion, in many cases they also offermore permanency and thereforegreater security.

For universities to survive, tal-ented and innovative staff must beretained, and this may only beachieved by the offer of more secu-rity, higher rewards, and greater jobsatisfaction. It is ironic that the mostvaluable resource a university pos-sesses is also often the one that istreated most disdainfully.

GLOBALIZATION

The trend towards homogeneityof commercial products is a familiarphenomenon for regular interna-tional travelers. Hotel chains,national airlines and hire car compa-nies, the ubiquitous fast food out-lets, soft drink and convenienceproducts, and a multitude of otherglobally recognized commodities areencountered everywhere one goes.With the all-pervasive nature andrapid development of the Internet,educational products could alsobegin to trade as global commodi-ties. The “massification” of educa-tion provision will follow the sameroute taken by the global informa-tion and media companies, withinstitutions aggressively tapping themarket for new student populations,opportunities for investment, andexpansion. Borderless education willbecome a widespread reality and aninternational phenomenon, where


even the term “institution” may nolonger be an appropriate description(Scott, 1998).

Universities that do not partici-pate in this global market will be indanger of missing out on a hugepopulation of students and employ-ers demanding flexible “just-in-time” learning.

STRATEGIES FOR SURVIVALAlthough the evidence for the threatto traditional education may provedisturbing reading, there are survivalstrategies. However, they inevitablyinvolve radical change. An examina-tion of current trends and the mar-ket place suggests five key areas inwhich survival of the modern uni-versity lies. Unlike David, who onlyused one stone to kill Goliath, it willbe a mixture of these five keyapproaches that will enable universi-ties to survive and thrive:

• Collaboration• Investing in new technology• Investing in people• Widening access• Specialization

COLLABORATION

Collaboration has been a com-mon feature of university life for along time. Now, however, universi-ties are collaborating in a distributedmanner, networking to shareresources and expertise, to exploitthe growing part-time flexible learn-ing market. The University of Wis-consin was one of the first Americanuniversities to exploit the potentialof distance learning, offering onlinecourses tutored by academics hiredfrom other universities. Studentsenroll online from home, and areassigned a tutor and a “group” withwhom they correspond in electronicformat. Similarly, the lecturer“teaches” online from his base uni-versity. Collaboration of this natureovercomes many logistical problems.

INVESTING IN NEW

TECHNOLOGY

Technology on its own is not thesolution to the problems of highereducation (Ramsden, 1992) but itcan make a positive contribution.Furthermore, distance educationshould never be seen as a means ofcutting operational costs in learningdelivery, although inevitably, thiswill happen. Rather, it should beviewed as a means by which learningopportunities can be enhanced andaccess widened. Investment in neweducational technologies must beundertaken with these factors inmind. Wheeler & Vranch (2000)offer comprehensive guidelines forbenefits analysis of technology-sup-ported learning and strategies for thedeployment of telematics in distanceeducation.

Some commentators are predict-ing that distance education and, inparticular, technology-supportedlearning, will revolutionize the tradi-tional university. Peters suggests thatcommunications technologies, cou-pled with the demands for lifelonglearning, will cause “transformationof the traditional university into aninstitution of self-study and dis-tance teaching” (Peters, 2000).

University Websites are nowbecoming popular first ports of callfor many enquirers, and act as“shop windows” for higher educa-tion providers. Inevitably, new ser-vices will be offered by universitiesthrough the Internet, including:

• virtual campus tours• online enrolment and admission• specialist keynote lectures via

Webcasting• individualized course delivery• live links to special events

The above list is by no meansexhaustive.

INVESTING IN PEOPLE

Developing the skills and experi-

ence of academics should be a prior-ity for any higher educationinstitute. Without staff development,lecturers may be isolated in theirwork, and unaware of new methods,technologies, and applications. Somelecturers are particularly concernedabout the challenges of new technol-ogies on the traditional paradigm.The changes affect the very essenceof the teaching process, from courseconceptualization through to itsdelivery and evaluation. Teachingonline, for example, requires theteacher to relinquish the role of “lec-turer” and take the role of mentor orguide (Forsyth, 1996). Technologyinfluences the way teachers createand develop courses, how theydeliver, assess and evaluate, andmost fundamentally, how they thinkabout these processes.

All change brings uncertainty andanxiety, and the management of thischange must be sensitive. Withoutthese changes, education may be indanger of stagnation, but with thempractitioners and learners will beexpected to adapt quickly to newknowledge, skills, and modes ofworking. Understandably, thesechanges bring with them a culture ofuncertainty in which practitionersconstantly struggle to keep pacewith the seemingly break-neck speedof change. Staff developers have akey role to play in assuaging thesefears by providing timely and rele-vant information on new develop-ments and innovations, and howthese will impact on teaching andlearning.

WIDENING ACCESS

Instead of students going to uni-versity, the successful university ofthe future will go to the students.The mega-universities have alreadyachieved considerable success inoffering cost-effective access to allcomers (Daniel, 1996). Many tradi-tional universities have also startedthis process, investing in computer


networks, developing human infra-structures to support the process,and creating new materials in prepa-ration.

There are several existing guide-lines on how to set up virtual anddistributed learning environments.See, for example, Katholieke Univer-siteit Leuven’s Blueprint for theInteractive Classroom (BIC) Project(Vanbuel, 1998).

SPECIALIZATION

Institutional specialization willemerge as a prime survival tech-nique. Finding a market niche willoffer universities a more sustainableprofile in the general mélange ofhigher education.

In 1999, for example, the Univer-sity of Plymouth launched a newBachelor of Science (Honours)degree in Surf Science and Technol-ogy. The world-wide surfing indus-try is, of course, a multi-billiondollar concern, and workers withinit are in need of training. To meetthese needs, the course consists of aneclectic mix of manufacturing tech-nology (materials, design, and fabri-cation), ocean science (coastal zonemanagement, marine pollution), bio-logical science (human biology,sports performance), business man-agement (event management, admin-istration, and marketing) and studiesin “surf culture.” Due to its noveltyvalue, the course attracted highmedia exposure. Subsequently,worldwide applications werereceived, and it is now a successfulprogram, attracting substantialfunding for the university.

To survive in the increasingly cut-throat business of higher education,smaller universities must aim towork to their strengths, unique char-acteristics and local cultures, and“in-house” expertise. By gatheringintelligence on market trends anddemand, and then offering appropri-ate programs with unique sellingpoints, universities may be able to

provide themselves with a betterchance of survival in a volatile andhighly competitive market place.

CONCLUSIONThe survival of higher educationinto this next century is not in dis-pute. What is less clear is the formatin which it will survive, and exactlywho will be the winners and losersin the global classroom. Radicalchanges in practice, management,and research will drive universitiesin this new century. New ways ofteaching and learning must be devel-oped and nurtured to meet thedemands of a society that is in a con-stant state of change and upheaval.Universities will need to diversify,innovate, collaborate, and invest inhuman capital in order to survive.Scenario planning, careful economicmanagement, risk and benefits anal-ysis, and quality assurance evalua-tion will become essential activities.Doing nothing, however, will nolonger be an option.

REFERENCESBotkin, J., Elmandjra, M., & Malitza,

M. (1979). No limits to learning:Bridging the human gap: A report tothe club of Rome. Oxford: PergamonPress.

Bunker, E. L. (1998). Gaining perspec-tive for the future of distance educa-tion from early leaders. TheAmerican Journal of Distance Educa-tion, 12(2), 46-53.

CBI (1994). Thinking ahead: Ensuringthe expansion of higher educationinto the 21st century. London: CBI.

Daniel, J. S. (1996). Mega-universitiesand knowledge media: Technologystrategies for higher education. Lon-don: Kogan Page.

Dede, C. (1996). The evolution of dis-tance education: Emerging technolo-gies and distributed learning. TheAmerican Journal of Distance Educa-tion, 10(2), 4-36.

Forsyth, I. (1996). Teaching and learningmaterials and the Internet, London:Kogan Page.

Jarvis, P. (2000). The changing univer-sity: Meeting a need and needing tochange. Higher Education Quarterly,54(1), 43-67.

Katz, Y. J. (2000). The comparative suit-ability of three ICT distance learningmethodologies for college level. Edu-cational Media International, 37(1),25-30.

King, C. (1995). Pay as you learn? Stu-dents in the changing university. In T.Schuller (Ed.), The changing univer-sity? Buckingham: Open UniversityPress.

Knowles, M. (1975). Self-directed learn-ing: A guide for learners and teachers,New York: Association Press.

Laurillard, D. (1993). Rethinking uni-versity teaching. London: Routledge.

Peters, O. (2000). The transformation ofthe university into an institution ofindependent learning. In T. Evans &D. Nation (Eds.), Changing univer-sity teaching: Reflections on creatingeducational technologies, pp. 10-23.

Ramsden, P. (1992). Learning to teach inhigher education. London: Rout-ledge.

Rickwood, P. & Goodwin, V. (2000).Travellers’ tales: Reflections on theway to learner autonomy, OpenLearning, 15(1), 47-55.

Shattock, M. (2001). The academic pro-fession in Britain: A study in the fail-ure to adapt to change, HigherEducation, 41, 27-47.

Smith, A., & Webster, F. (1997). Thepostmodern university? Contestedvisions of higher education in society,Buckingham, UK: Open UniversityPress.

Taylor, P. G. (1998). InstitutionalChange in Uncertain Times: Loneranging is not enough, Studies inHigher Education, 23(3), 269-278.

The Times Higher Education Supple-ment (2000, March 31). Act now,these are borderless times, p. 9.

Toffler, A. (1980). The Third Wave. Lon-don: Pan Books.

Watson, D. M., & Downes, T. (2000).Communications and networking ineducation, Norwell, MA: Kluwer.

Vanbuel, M. (1998). Blueprint for theinteractive classroom. EducationalMedia International, 35(1), 18-20.


ganizations in both the public and private sectorsare realizing the effectiveness and financial bene-fits of distance learning technologies.The

Distance Learning Leader Certificate Program willprepare you to lead your organization through the chal-lenges and opportunities these new technologies willpresent, and you can even earn continuing educationunits for your participation.

Benefits of the program includeusing your cutting-edge distance-learning leadershipskills

communicating more effectively your vision andstrategy for distance learninginteracting with both business and higher educationleaders who have a wide range of perspectives andinsights making sure your learning technology dollars are invested wiselyoffered jointly by two of the most respected names in the industry

The need for distance learning leaders has never beengreater. Stay ahead of the curve by enrolling today.

Distance Learning LeaderCertificate ProgramOctober 8–9,2004Nova SoutheasternUniversity Fort Lauderdale, Florida

Your $995 fee includes regis-tration and course materials.

For more information and registration materials,call: 800-541-6682, ext. 8790,email: [email protected],or log on to www.fgse.nova.edu/tpd/certprog.htm.

O “The program wasextremely effective, andthe synergy among par-ticipants was particular-ly productive.”

“The mix of corporateand higher education content was extremelyvaluable.”

“The program wasgreat! I would highlyrecommend it to othersin the field.”

“The program was well-designed and appro-priate to leaders in allaspects of the distancelearning community.”

Nova Southeastern University admits students of any race, color, and national or ethnic origin. ! Nova SoutheasternUniversity is accredited by the Commission on Colleges of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (1866Southern Lane, Decatur, Georgia 30033-4097, Telephone number: 404-679-4501) to award associate’s, bachelor’s,master’s, educational specialist, and doctoral degrees. 05-222/04 gjl

Fort Lauderdale, Florida Boston, Massachusetts

Wheeler, S., & Vranch, A. T. (2001).Building for the future of educationaltelematics: Models, foundations andframeworks. International Journal ofEngineering Education, 17(2),145-152.

Wisher, R. A., & Priest, A. N. (1998).Cost-effectiveness of audio teletrain-ing for the U.S. Army NationalGuard. The American Journal of Dis-tance Education, 12(1), 38-51.

Wolcott, L. L. (1997). Tenure, promo-tion, and distance education: Exam-ining the culture of faculty rewards.The American Journal of DistanceEducation, 11(2), 3-18.


VideoconferencingThe Television Connection

Robert M. Starr

or most of my 33 years ineducation, I have beeninvolved in some aspect of

video production. From that firstencounter early in my career with areel-to-reel portable videotaperecorder and its hand-heldblack-and-white camera to my cur-rent familiarity with desktop videoediting systems and DV equipment, Ihave remained fascinated with allthings video. For a number of years Itaught classes in video production ata major university in Virginia andoperated my own production busi-ness on the side. Even with suchlong-term experience, I have always

considered myself to be a student ofthe art and craft of television, albeitan advanced student on occasion.Upon retirement from my universityteaching position, I entered govern-ment service with the NationalAeronautics and Space Administra-tion as a television producer andmultimedia specialist. It was in thiscapacity that I was introduced tovideoconferencing and, after yearsof creating television for passiveaudiences, the prospect of reachingviewers who could actually interactwith presenters renewed my long-standing fascination with video tech-nology.

It became evident early on in myexperience with interactive televisionthat the video production conven-tions and rules I tried hard to followboth in and out of the television stu-dio were not necessarily followedwhen it comes to videoconferencing.It was clear that many of the peoplewho were using interactive televisionwere not from the video side ofthings. There seems to be a newbreed of video practitioners whohave their roots firmly planted in thecomputer world. Although the videoand computer worlds have con-verged to a great extent, importantaspects of television productionseem to be left out of the equation.For example, headroom, framingconsiderations, and even placementof the camera to facilitate normaleye contact are often disregarded.Creative video craftsmanship is stan-dard television practice and can

improve interactive television.I recall a student making this

statement after receiving a low gradeon a commercial assignment in anadvanced video production classmany years ago: “You mean we arerequired to be creative in this televi-sion class?” I responded in the affir-mative. The student dropped thecourse shortly thereafter. It alsobecame clear to me after a few yearsof teaching media arts that justbecause people watch television formost of their lives, the grammar andsyntax of the video craft does notnecessarily register in long-termmemory. One of the metaphors Iused back in those early days toillustrate the need for video crafts-manship was cabinet making. Aftershowing a picture of a well-madechest of drawers, I asked beginningproduction students what it wouldtake for each of them to make such apiece of fine furniture. Responsesgenerally ranged from selection anduse of appropriate tools to years ofexperience. I tried to make the pointthat television was just as much acraft as cabinet making, and the bestscripts or storyboards were mean-ingless unless acceptable standardswere applied to the process of trans-forming ideas and words into effec-tive television presentations. Imaintain that any videoconferencingenvironment can be improved withthe application of a few simple rulesthat, in the end, may serve toenhance the communication processand thus provide a more meaningful

F

Robert M. Starr, Manager, Digital

Media Lab, NASA Langley Research

Center, Office of Education MS400,

Hampton, VA 23681. Telephone:

(757) 864-9492. Fax: (757) 864-

6521


exchange among the participants.

CAMERA PLACEMENTOf utmost importance is cameraplacement. Generally speaking, mostvideoconferencing systems provide asmall, remotely controlled camerawith pan and zoom capability. Typi-cally, the camera is either placed tothe side or above the television mon-itor that displays the other site(s). Instandard television, if a presenter isnot looking directly into the camera,the viewer notices an immediatebreak in eye contact. Unless a news-caster, for example, looks down athis or her script momentarily, eyesare pointed straight into the lens ofthe live camera. If the shot isswitched to another camera, awell-rehearsed shift to the new livecamera occurs immediately and eyecontact is reestablished. We are allfamiliar with the discomfort dis-played when a newsperson fails toturn when a new camera angle ispresented. We feel the embarrass-ment of the newscaster when he orshe realizes that the wrong camera isbeing addressed.

So why do we disregard eye con-tact in videoconferencing? If themain cameras at all sites are not asclose as possible to the center of theviewing monitors without obscur-ing the images on the screen, eyecontact is lost or jeopardized. Irecently observed a videoconferencein which the remote site camera wason a sidewall with a video projectordisplaying the presenter on the cen-ter wall. For almost an hour the pre-senter watched his class from theside. In Speech 101, we all learnedhow important eye contact is, andthose of us who are experiencedworkshop presenters or teachersknow that effective eye contact isimperative in our presentations. Sowhat is the best camera placement? Itypically use a tripod for the maincamera and place it in front of themonitor with the camera positioned

in the middle and slightly above thebottom of the monitor’s displayarea. This seems to give the closestapproximation of normal eye con-tact as the session participants lookat the people at other locations.Until technology development pro-vides us with a tiny camera embed-ded in the center of a monitor’sdisplay area without obscuringimages on the screen, we will have towork hard to place cameras in loca-tions that minimize eye contactproblems.

LONG SHOT, MEDIUM SHOT, CLOSE-UPHave you ever made a presentationin a videoconference when the light-ing was so poor that you could notsee the eyes of your audience? Undertypical classroom lighting and witha camera zoomed all the way out toshow the whole class, it is virtuallyimpossible to distinguish individualfaces. They become little ovals punc-tuated with three dark spots barelyrecognizable as two eyes and amouth. When making videoconfer-ence presentations, do you havetrouble reading audience body lan-guage? In normal face-to-face com-munication with students orworkshop participants, we are ableto see facial expressions, gestures,and other body language that helpus interact more effectively with ouraudiences. Unless attention is givento overcoming the inherent resolu-tion limitations of videoconferencingtechnology, we lose the ability toread our audiences. Systems thatemploy automatic voice-activatedcameras that zoom to the personwho uses the push-to-talk micro-phone button help us overcome thisproblem. In many cases, however—especially in K-12 environmentswhere automatic zooming capabili-ties do not always exist—operatorsat remote locations should providethe presenter with appropriate fields

of view so that facial expressionsand gestures can be seen and accu-rately interpreted. Or the presentercan also take the initiative to directoperators to provide appropriateshots for this purpose.

In standard television, a long shotis employed to establish the scene,then medium and close-up shots areused to add detail and clarity to theestablished environment. Televisionis a close-up medium that holds ourattention on what we want to seeand need to see during the course ofthe presentation. This time-honoredconvention of television should notbe ignored, especially in distancelearning situations where we are try-ing to explain, clarify, and guide thelearning process.

EFFECTIVE GRAPHICSA third problem that seems to beprevalent in videoconferencing dealswith the use of graphics. PowerPointhas become the standard presenta-tion program for distance learningsessions, even though there are manyother excellent programs availablefor displaying and controllinggraphics. I have seen excellentgraphics presentations using wordprocessor-generated documents. Thearrangement, clarity, and composi-tion of elements within the visualdisplay make the difference, not theprogram. We have become used topreparing computer graphics withtemplates and with default fonts forface-to-face sessions. With the use ofa video projector, it is possible tomake use of the computer’s highestresolution, which can be 1600 X1200 pixels or greater. A presentercan usually be confident that slideswill be seen by all in attendance.Typically, resolutions used for suchpresentations are either 800 X 600or 1024 X 768. It comes as no sur-prise, therefore, that when such res-olutions are squeezed down to thestandard 640 X 480 resolution thatmost closely approximates that


which is used in standard television,something is lost in the translation.Add to this the further reduction inresolution experienced as the televi-sion signal is reduced to fit the avail-able bandwidth allocated for thevideoconferencing connection, usu-ally 384kbs or less.

In preparing graphics for use invideoconferencing, it is helpful toattach a regular television monitorto the output of the computer to testthe graphics for videoconferencing.Many laptops these days have acomposite or s-video connector forthis purpose. In the absence of sucha built-in converter, the use of anexternal scan converter will allowfor display of the computer outputon a television monitor. By seeingthe display in this manner, it is easierto compensate for the reduced reso-lution that is a standard limitationof videoconferencing systems. Thereis no reason a presenter needs to say,

“I hope you can see the slides” dur-ing a session. If properly preparedahead of time, there will be no rea-son to doubt the legibility of elec-tronic visuals used invideoconferencing. It is inconceiv-able that a television news or com-mercial producer would allow thedisplay of graphics that the viewerhas difficulty seeing or reading. Andyet, all too often, graphics used forvideoconferencing contain excessivetext, fonts that are not easily read,and insufficient contrast betweenforeground and background.

CONCLUSIONI have now been involved in educa-tional videoconferencing (distanceeducation) for more than six years. Isuppose I have become a crusader ofsorts. I continually insist on usingacceptable television productionstandards in the sessions I present or

those that I produce. For the mostpart, when participants see theresults of simple applications of tele-vision standards, they get the point.I am sure, however, that there arethose who think otherwise, but nocrusader has emerged from the pur-suit of quality without some dents inhis or her armor.

If videoconferencing used foreducational purposes is to come ofage, we as practitioners in the fieldneed to observe standard televisionpractices. Our viewers are used tohigh-quality, well-composed videopresentations every time they relaxin front of their home television sets.It will only add to our credibility asinstructional technology and dis-tance education professionals if wefollow basic television productionconventions that have stood the testof time.

For videoconferening, the main camera should be placed so as to

maximize eye contact.

Use layering to achieve depth and interest.


A Distant LegacyBlurred Visions–Renewed Choices for

Campus and Distance Education

Don Olcott, Jr.

Where is the life we have lost in livingWhere is the wisdom we have lost in knowledgeWhere is the knowledge we have lost in information

—T. S. Eliot

INTRODUCTIONS. Eliot’s words ring truelong after his passing in1965. He spoke from his

own observations of the profoundtechnological advances that emergedduring and after WWII. And yet,neither he nor Orwell could have

foreseen the accelerated technologi-cal developments post-1984 thathave led the world into the 21st cen-tury. If we have indeed lost our wis-dom to knowledge and ourknowledge to information, then per-haps we have lost more to technol-ogy than we know. Where doesdistance education fit into this pic-ture of truth, knowledge, wisdom,and information?

Distance education has arrived ata crossroads. A decade ago it wasthe “new” technological panacea tosolve many critical issues facing edu-cation. Today, we have a continuingand misguided preoccupation withterminology such as distributedlearning, e-learning, blended learn-ing, and new variations soon tocome. Moreover, we have beenunwilling to take an objective lookat this evolution and acknowledgethat perhaps our focus, ourapproaches, and our philosophicalbases of distance education werewell intended, but misguided fromthe beginning. Is it a wonder ourcampus leaders and politicians areperplexed, given this level of internal

confusion across the field.Olcott (2004) wrote:

That eminent scholar, Yogi Berra,has summed up the primary prob-lem with this erratic, moving tar-get definition game succinctly . . .if you don’t know where you’regoing, you’ll wind up somewhereelse. In essence, this has been theendemic and ubiquitous problemfor distance education the pastdecade. Many passionate advo-cates argued that distance educa-tion, with a misguided emphasison technology, would increaseeducational quality, reduceexpenses, raise revenues, fostermore interaction, enhance access,lower your golf score, give facultytime for contemplation andresearch, and educate children onthe value of educational learningover video games.

And it is true, some people havelowered their golf scores withtechnology and educational accesshas been enhanced. Our otheraspirations, regrettably, havefallen well short of earlier advo-cacy and promises. (p. 1)

T.

Don Olcott, Jr., Executive Director,

Division of Extended Programs, West-

ern Oregon University, 345 N. Mon-

mouth Avenue, Monmouth, OR

97361. Telephone: (503) 838-8483.

Fax: (503) 838-8473.



Before we can suggest a new pathfor distance education, lets takeYogi’s advice and examine wheredistance education has been.

BLURRED VISIONSFirst, our strategy for advocacy wasblurred from the start. Distance edu-cation advocates argued simulta-neously how different these teachingand learning processes were and yethow important that they should bemainstreamed into the core aca-demic culture of the institution, a“separate but equal” philosophy(Olcott, 2004). Most institutionsopted for a different philosophy,“separate but different.” And whosold this to our campus leaders andfaculty? The advocates of distanceeducation.

Campuses today are embracingall aspects of technology and tech-nology infrastructure planning aspart of their core mission to serve allstudents of the institution. Paradoxi-cally, some distance learning advo-cates are resistant to having theirdomain (organizational entities)become a core function of the insti-tution. They have yet to realize thatdefending their distinctiveness wasmisguided from the beginning. Edu-cation is education is education,regardless of how, when, where, atwhat pace, and through whichmedium it is delivered (Olcott,2004).

A second blurred vision has beenthe definition debacle. In 1990, dis-tance education’s defining character-istic was “separation of teacher andstudent.” Today, students takecourses online two hundred yardsfrom the professor’s office on-cam-pus . . . fifteen thousand miles awayoff-campus. Campus smart class-rooms, in fact, utilize all the technol-ogies that are used in distancedelivery. Indeed, it seems the separa-tion of teacher and learner concepthas been altered forever. It may bemost prudent for us to finally accept

reality and remove the term “dis-tance” (and its definitional and dys-functional variations) from theannals of humankind.

Third, from a philosophical per-spective we not only missed theboat, the boat wasn’t even in thewater. As Will Rogers once said,“even if you’re on the right trackyour going to get run over if you justsit there.” And we sat there withtechnology. Our obsessive delusionswith the splendor of these innova-tions shifted our focus away fromthe primary focus of improvingteaching and learning. Yes, weincreased educational access but atexponential financial costs, dispro-portionate incentives for faculty, andunrealistic expectations for revenueenhancement that were neverachieved in most cases. We refusedto accept the fact that technology, inand of itself, is simply a tool, and inmost instances no better or worsethan any other teaching strategy orapproach. And amidst this evolu-tion, we are simply perplexed thatcampus leaders, legislators, and thepublic could actually demandaccountability, assessment data, andcost analyses from us. How darethey question our prodigiouness res-ervoir of knowledge, wisdom andinformation . . . or lack thereof?C’est la vie, Mr. Eliot.

And finally, the field embracedunrealistic and unnecessary goals.Distance education technologieswere going to make teaching andlearning “better” than at any time inhuman history, or so the story goes.Why didn’t we simply say that thediverse and innovative uses of tech-nology just make teaching and learn-ing more interesting, enjoyable, andfun with the same academic results.This is analogous to academicsdenying the fact that students are“consumers” of education and that“convenience” is indeed a powerfulmotivating force for students inchoosing alternative modes of learn-ing today. The academy sometimes

has a hard time with these subtletruths. Olcott (2004) sums up thereason for these unrealistic goals. Hewrites:

The inherent reason for advocat-ing these unattainable goals waseconomic investment, or moreprecisely, return on economicinvestment. If campuses mademajor capital expenditures fortechnology, then the results of theteaching and learning process bet-ter exceed all measures of aca-demic achievement, financialefficiencies, and instructionalquality than the old ways. Ofcourse, campuses built new foot-ball stadiums, remodeled gymnasi-ums, but never requiredundefeated seasons as the newmeasure of quality. Perhaps if wecould sell tickets to alumni toattend history, philosophy, art,dance, and music classes, wewould have avoided these contra-dictions. Distance learning advo-cates got trapped by their ownmisguided rhetoric rather thanarguing the merits of alternativeapproaches to teaching, learning,scheduling, and embracing thevariety of learning styles amongstudents [that can be served bytechnology] (p. 50)

Is it conceivable that the use of edu-cational technology must be definedby its value as a teaching and learn-ing tool first and foremost. Perhapsa plausible argument to consider.

RENEWED CHOICES FOR DISTANCE EDUCATIONBlurred visions are not necessarilyfatal, which is fortunate for the dis-tance education advocates of theworld. It does, however, underscorethe importance of a renewed visionand purpose for the field. Indeed, ifhindsight is 20/20, then we mustlearn from the past and apply theseto the future. It’s time to rock ’n’ rollinto the future.


• Philosophy—distance educationmust center its core values ondiversifying teaching and learningfor all students, campus and dis-tance. It must abandon its adher-ence to a “separate but equal”philosophy, dispense with its pastview of “distinctiveness,” andembrace education as educationas education.

• Leadership—campus and dis-tance are blurred concepts thathave lost their relevancy. Institu-tional leaders must build collabo-rative and seamless approaches totechnology planning and imple-mentation to serve all students.Today, nearly all services areavailable online to both campusand geographically dispersed stu-dents. Campuses are using alltechnologies for campus and dis-tance instruction, and differentia-tion for protecting “separate butdifferent” organizational entitiesis not only inefficient economi-cally, but is redundant stupidityfor serving our students.

• Terminology—we must respec-tively bury the enigmatic and con-fusing distance learningdictionary. We embrace a newdefinition or name when the oldones appear to deceivinglychange. This is not scholarly wis-dom, but rather our inability tofocus technology around the coreof teaching and learning.

• Academic Performance—educa-tional technologies should not beexpected to “increase” studentperformance any more than newstadiums will improve the recordof football teams. Technologydoes, and can, diversify the peda-gogical art and science of teach-ing and make it more fun,interesting, and enjoyable for

teachers and students alike.Attaining commensurate studentacademic performance using tech-nology is a realistic and worthygoal.

• Technology Planning—technol-ogy investments must be holisticrather than individualistic. In oth-erwords, campus leaders mustmake investments in technologythat create efficiencies for allinstitutional systems—adminis-trative, instructional, and finan-cial. Organizational entities suchas academic colleges or informa-tion technology centers going italone are self-serving, turf-driven,fiscally redundant, and devoid ofthe best interests of the institu-tion, its faculty, and its students.

• Access—the term “access” meansdifferent things to different peo-ple and institutions. To someinstitutions it means servingeveryone, to others it meansclearly defining what “access”parameters are most importantfor an institution to serve. Thelatter seems the most prudentchoice and campus leaders needto clarify “access” for their insti-tution with and without the useof technology.

• Governance and Change—thechange process for the academyhas been described as one ofdeliberation, consensus, andincrementalism. More precisely,this usually equates with a veryslow response to change andinnovation. Technology must beframed within the “mainstream”academic governance structures(policy, financial, administrative,instructional, etc.) if it is tobecome a seamless and integralpart of the institution’s arsenal inmeeting its mission.

SUMMARYAldous Huxley wrote that “experi-ence is not what happens to you, it iswhat you do with what happens toyou.” What will distance educationdo with what has happened in thepast decade? We have learned thatinformation is not knowledge any-more than knowledge is necessarilywisdom. Today, we have access toinfinite information that may or maynot result in greater wisdom andknowledge. The one thing thathasn’t changed is that we educatorscontinue to have choices.

Distance education, despite itsblurred visions of the past, has madeinvaluable contributions to educa-tional access, organizational efficien-cies, and teaching and learning thatis fun, challenging, and engaging.Moreover, it has challenged collegesand universities to define the role oftechnology in macro institutionalplanning processes, to re-think whatand how technology investmentsserve the greatest number of peoplemore effectively, and has opened thedoors of higher education to thosepreviously without access. We nowhave the information, the knowledgeand, hopefully, the wisdom toembrace education as education aseducation regardless of where,when, how, and via what medium itis delivered. The choice is ours.

REFERENCEOlcott, D. J. (2004). Revisiting distance

education’s symphonic legacy: Stillcrazy after all these years or gettingbetter (all the time). The Journal ofContinuing Higher Education, 52(1),49-50.


The Distance Learning Leader: What You Don’t Know Could Hurt You

Tom Land and Tony Bright

INTRODUCTIONn many ways, it is the best andworst of times for distancelearning (DL) programs. It is

estimated the e-learning sector willgrow to $83.1 billion by 2006, even-tually swelling to over $212 billionby 2011 (Greenspan, 2003). This is

evidenced by the meteoric rise ofsuch DL pioneers as the Universityof Phoenix, as the nation’s largestprivate university, with close to100,000 students scattered among134 satellite locations across 28states. Unfortunately, the increasedgrowth and popularity of DL pro-

grams is not without risks, asreflected by abandoned universityonline ventures such as E-Cornell,Virtual Temple, NYU Online,Fathom, E-MBA, and CaliforniaVirtual University. Despite theserisks, the growing widespread accep-tance of DL programs by the public,argues for the continued develop-ment of this facet of collegiate levelinstruction (Edelson, 2002).

In order to succeed in this newenvironment, organizations mustcontinually acquire new skills andnew ways of managing knowledgeand information; this requires DLleaders to be entrepreneurial whilenavigating the risks of new educa-tional technology. DL leaders mustgo beyond distance education (DE)technology to develop their vision,strategy, and business plan to guidetheir organization into the age of e-learning.

John Flores, Executive Directorof the United States Distance Learn-ing Association (USDLA), recog-nized the need for leadershipcapacity building in DL and engagedNova Southeastern University’s Fis-chler School of Education andHuman Services to create a compe-tency-based leadership program for

I

Tom Land, Dean, Training and Profes-

sional Development, Fischler School of

Education and Human Services, Nova

Southeastern University, 1750 NE

167th St., North Miami Beach, Florida

33162-3017.

Telephone: (954) 262-8513.

Fax: (954) 262-3906


Web: www.fgse.nova.edu/tpd

Tony D. Bright, Program Professor Child

and Youth Studies, Fischler School of

Education and Human Services, Nova

Southeastern University, 1750 NE

167th Street, North Miami Beach, FL

33162-3017.

Telephone: (954) 262-7810.



DL leaders. The purpose of this arti-cle is to describe a needs analysisdeveloped to identify the duties andresponsibilities of DL leaders and aDistance Learning Leadership Cer-tificate Program developed toaddress these competencies.

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE It could be argued that the mostimportant ingredient for a successfulDL program is the vision andapproach developed by the DLleader and how well this approachaligns to the organizational strategy.Meister (2002) posited that one ofthe pillars of e-learning success is forcorporate learning practitioners toensure that their staffs have the nec-essary e-learning skills and compe-tencies. Edelson (2002) supportedthis notion when he suggested thatthe success of higher education insti-tutions in the e-learning world isbased on their infusion of DE leader-ship strategies such as creating avision and embracing an entrepre-neurial organizational spirit. Like-wise, the Commission onTechnology and Adult Learning(2001) recommended that, in orderto succeed in the e-learning arena,individuals and organizations mustcontinually acquire new skills andways of managing knowledge andinformation. Despite this, Thach

(1994) recognized the scant atten-tion given to research on DL compe-tencies, let alone research targeted toDL leaders. It is surprising then,given the importance of leadershipto the success of DL programs, howlittle research and programs exists tobuild leadership capacity. Williams(2003) noted institutions implement-ing DE programs would benefitfrom research defining necessaryroles and competencies. Limiting hisresearch to higher education, Will-iams utilized a Delphi study to iden-tify 13 distinct roles andcompetencies to manage DE. In hisstudy, the role of the leader/changeagent emerged separate from theadministrative manager role. Build-ing on the foundation established byWilliams, the rationale for the cur-rent study was based on the need tofurther identify skills and competen-cies of DL leaders in higher educa-tion.

METHODOLOGYThis study used the DACUM pro-cess, a quick, cost-efficient job anal-ysis method used to identify DLleader competencies that “expertworkers” believe are essential forperforming a specific job or occupa-tion. Initially, a focus group wasconducted with six DL leaders repre-senting both corporate and highereducation settings. The criteria for

expert workers included a self-ratingof level of expertise as a DL leader,five or more years of experience, andcurrent employment (in some capac-ity) as a DL leader. The groupdefined a DL leader as “responsiblefor leading the distance learning/e-learning initiative in their organiza-tion.” The DL Leader Job Modelwas then validated by 27 DL leaderswho were members of the UnitedStates Distance Learning Association(USDLA) representing a cross sec-tion of K-12, higher education, andcorporate settings.

The DL Leader Job Model OnlineValidation Survey contained 91questions divided into three sections.Section one asked about demo-graphics and backgrounds of therespondents. Section two included ascale requiring respondents to ratejob task importance of a DL leaderas well as value of training in majorduties and tasks. Similarly, in sectionthree respondents rated specific skilland knowledge competencies of aDL leader.

RESULTS

SECTION ONE: BACKGROUND

OF THE RESPONDENTS

Of the 27 respondents, 50% haddoctorates, 42% had master’sdegrees, and 8% had bachelors

Table 1Table Major Duties and Competencies of a Distance Learning Leader

DUTIES SKILLS/KNOWLEDGE COMPETENCIES

Develop DL Business Strategy Foundations of DLProvide DL Leadership DL TechnologiesManage DL Organization DL Tools and TechnologiesManage DL Budget DL Curriculum and InstructionPromote DL DL LeadershipProvide DL Technology LeadershipOversee DL CurriculumManage Development of Student/Learner DL Services


Table 2Table Major Tasks of a Distance Learning Leader

DEVELOP DL BUSINESS STRATEGY1. Complete environmental scan to assess DL Pro-

gram needs 2. Develop the business case for DL 3. Identify DL key success factors 4. Develop long/short term operational plan 5. Implement plan 6. Manage DL projects 7. Communicate DL strategy to stakeholders 8. Update stakeholders on DL implementation

progress and issues PROVIDE DL LEADERSHIP1. Develop a DL vision for organization2. Assess the readiness of organization for DL3. Implement change management plan to transition

organization to DL4. Establish and promote internal and external DL

collaborators5. Benchmark best practices in DL6. Promote innovative DL methodologies 7. Model ethical behavior and comply with copyright

lawsMANAGE DL ORGANIZATION1. Develop DL organization structure2. Determine DL staffing requirements3. Recruit Staff4. Hire DL staff5. Manage team6. Project manage and monitor DL suppliers and part-

ners7. Develop staffMANAGE DL BUDGET1. Develop DL financial model2. Identify DL capital requirements3. Monitor and revenue performance to budget plan4. Adjust financial plans to meet budget goals5. Demonstrate return on investment PROMOTE DL1. Develop marketing plan2. Promote DL concept to administrators and faculty/

instructors3. Inform leaders on DL access and technical compe-

tence requirements4. Develop DL Web site marketing strategy5. Develop DL promotional materials

PROVIDE DL TECHNOLOGY LEADERSHIP1. Identify DL infrastructure system requirements2. Develop a systems integration plan for required DL

hardware, software, multimedia, and collaborative technologies

3. Inform leasers on DL access and technical compe-tence requirements

4. Develop DL Web site marketing strategy 5. Develop promotional materials6. Explain DL systems functionality to stakeholders7. Maintain liaison with internal (IT and Media) and

External (Vendors) on DL8. Integrate DL with organization’s knowledge man-

agement strategy 9. Explore new DL delivery methods10. Maintain system requirements documentation 11. Comply with DL industry standards12. Create plan to keep technology infrastructure cur-

rent OVERSEE DL CURRICULUM1. Develop plan to infuse technology across curricu-

lum2. Implement DL course design process3. Provide technical, design, and production support

to faculty/instructors in DL course design and deliv-ery

4. Integrate blending DL technologies with conven-tional learning

5. Program manage DL course design projectsMANAGE DEVELOPMENT OF STUDENT/LEARNER DL SERVICES1. Identify DL student/learner service requirements

(e.g. advising, registering, library, financial aid, bookstore services)

2. Develop DL service plan3. Coordinate with student service providers to ensure

that DL students are aware of and receive same level of services as traditional students

4. Provide resources to develop services5. Assess student/learner services


degrees. Most respondents describedtheir expertise as a DL leader as highor very high. The respondents wereemployed in Fortune 500 compa-nies, federal government, K-12,financial services, health care, andhigher education. Most of therespondents had more than fiveyears experience with ten yearsexperience as the average.

SECTION TWO: DISTANCE

LEARNING LEADER JOB MODEL

AND RELATED SKILLS/

KNOWLEDGE COMPETENCIES.

Three questions were addressedin this section:

Question 1: What are the majorduties and responsibilities of theDL leader?

Question 2: How do DL leaderexperts rank the most importanttasks and the value of training?

Question 3: How do the DL leaderexperts rank the most importantknowledge and skills?

QUESTION 1: WHAT ARE THE

MAJOR DUTIES AND

RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE DL

LEADER?

The DACUM panel identifiedeight major duties and five skill/knowledge competency areas for theDL leader (see Table 1). The eightmajor duties are a combination ofleadership and managerial dutiesincluding: leading and developingthe business, technology, and curric-ulum strategies, managing the orga-nization, budget, marketing/promot-ing and managing support services.The five skill/knowledge competen-cies included the foundationalknowledge of DL, learning deliverytechnologies, tools and learningmanagement technologies, and reit-erated DL leadership.

For each of the eight duties,

respondents identified from 5 to 12major tasks (see Table 2).

For each of the skills/knowledgecompetencies there were three to sixdomains identified by respondents(See Table 3)

Quantitative methods wereemployed for questions two andthree. For question two, respon-dents were asked to rank the impor-tance of specific job tasks andtraining value as related to their roleas a DL leader. Similarly, in questionthree, the importance of specificcompetencies and training valuerelated to job performance wereranked. Importance levels and train-ing values were ranked on a four-point scale that included, 4 = Criti-cal, 3 = High, 2 = Moderate, and 1 =Low. To clarify terminology, the fol-lowing definitions were provided torespondents prior to ranking thecompetencies:

• Competency is an underlyingcharacteristic (knowledge, skills,and traits) of an individual that iscausally related to effective per-formance in a job.

• Knowledge is data, information,or concepts that you have in yourhead in order to perform the task.This knowledge may be usedactively in carrying out the tasks,or could be background informa-tion that helps you get started.

• Skills are abilities that you haveto be able to demonstrate in per-forming the task. These differfrom knowledge items mainly inthat they usually involve doingrather than just knowing.

• Tasks are underlying parts ofyour personality that are consis-tent responses to situations andinformation that task perfor-mance relies on (Spencer & Spen-cer, 1993).

To identify which task and com-petencies were deemed most impor-tant and had the highest training

value, Means and Standard Devia-tions were calculated; resultsrevealed a Mean of 3.1 and Stan-dard Deviation of .3. A task wasrated as “most important” if theoverall ranking was 3.4 or higher forboth importance and value of train-ing.

QUESTION 2: HOW DO DL

LEADER EXPERTS RANK THE MOST

IMPORTANT TASKS AND THE

VALUE OF TRAINING?

DL leaders ranked those tasksaligned to executing their DL strat-egy as the highest and most impor-tant tasks (see Table 4), including:implementing DL plans, managingprojects, managing the team, andmonitoring costs. Leadership behav-iors, including ethical modeling,visioning, and innovation, were alsoranked high, but lower than “hands-on make it happen” approach. Sup-port and technology integrationplans, though critically important tothe success of DL programs, wereranked lower. Interestingly, severalDL programs have been derailedbecause of shortcomings in theseareas.

QUESTION 3: HOW DO THE DL

LEADER EXPERTS RANK THE MOST

IMPORTANT KNOWLEDGE AND

SKILLS?

The highest-ranked skills andknowledge competencies of DL lead-ers were related to content, andincluded: copyright, design, andlearner differences. Ranked slightlylower, leadership competencies ofdeveloping a vision and champion-ing DL in the organization are alsohighly valued. The highest-rankedskills and knowledge competenciesand training values are presented inTable 5.


THE DISTANCE LEARNING

LEADER CERTIFICATE PROGRAM

(DLLCP)

With the initial step of definingand validating the Distance LearningLeader Job Model as well as identi-fying the most important tasks andduties and their associated compe-tencies, Dr. Michael Simonson, Pro-gram Professor of InstructionalTechnology and Distance Education,led a design team to develop aninstructional strategy for certifica-

tion of DL leaders. The team devel-oped the K-D-M-L-V DistanceLearning Leader Model to addressspecific tasks and competencies.This model includes the followingfive competencies: (1) Knowing, (2)Designing, (3) Managing, (4) Lead-ing, and (5) Visioning. Competen-cies and outcomes are presented inTable 6.

The DLLCP is designed for pro-fessionals in a wide range of posi-tions including chief learning

officers, higher education/universityDE directors, training directors andmanagers, educational technologydirectors, and teachers who are cur-rently leading or interested in beinga leader of DL program.

INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES

The program combines two fulldays of face-to-face instruction andsix weeks of part-time distanceinstruction. Distance instruction

Table 3Table DL Leader Major Skills and Competencies

FOUNDATIONS OF DL

1. Definitions of DE

2. History of DE

3. Theories of DE

4. Research in DE

DL LEARNING TECHNOLOGIES

1. Self-directed Web-based training

2. Facilitated Web-based training

3. Web-conducted classroom course

4. Discussion group seminars

5. Telementoring and e-coaching

6. Videoconferencing

DL TOOLS AND TECHNOLOGIES

1. DE software knowledge (e.g. Dreamweaver, Flash)

2. Understanding of video, audio, and post-production

3. Understanding of Learning Management Systems (LMS) (e.g. Docent, Pathlore)

4. Understanding of Content Management Systems (CMS)

5. Course authoring programs

6. Webpage authoring programs

DL CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTION

1. Instructional and curriculum differences for distance and traditional education

2. Unique learning requirements of the distant learner

3. Copyright and fair use guidelines in DE

4. Effective design of DL materials

DL LEADERSHIP

1. Develop a DL vision

2. Champion DE

3. Partner and form alliances with other DE businesses and educators


Table 4Table Most Important DL Leader Tasks

DL Leader Tasks Importance / Training Value

1. Manage DL projects 3.7/3.6

2. Implement plan 3.7/3.5

3. Develop DL vision 3.6/3.4

4. Develop organizational structure 3.7/3.3

5. Manage DL team 3.7/3.3

6. Develop long/short term operational DL plan 3.6/3.6

7. Role model ethical behavior and comply with copyright laws 3.6/3.3

8. Monitor cost and revenue performance 3.6/3.3

9. Promote innovative DL methodologies 3.5/3.4

10. Identify DL key success factors 3.4/3.5

11. Provide instructor/faculty support 3.5/3.4

12. Develop DL financial model 3.5/3.4

13. Implement DL course design process 3.5/3.3

14. Develop technology systems integration plan 3.5/3.2

Table 5Table Most Important DL Leader Skills and Knowledge Competencies

DL Leader Skills and Knowledge Competencies Importance / Training Value

1. Copyright and fair use guidelines in DE 3.8/3.6

2. Effective design of distant learning materials 3.8/3.6

3. Unique learning requirements of the distant learner 3.7/3.7

4. Instructional and curriculum differences for distance and tradi-tional education

3.6/3.5

5. Develop a DL vision 3.6/3.2

6. Champion DE 3.5/3.2


includes a six week follow-up deliv-ery to on-site instruction includingthreaded discussion to review busi-ness plans, discussion with DE lead-ers, audio conferencing, andrespondent-led presentations oforganization vision and businessplans.

RESULTS OF PILOT

In February 2004, 27 USDLAmember DL leaders attended the ini-

tial pilot in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida.One of the key design considerationsfor the program was to offer ahybrid design of on-site instructionwith online follow-up. This affordedthe leaders with an opportunity tonetwork and share ideas across cor-porate, higher education, and K-12boundaries. Program benefits of theDL leader certification program rec-ognized by respondents included:cutting-edge DL leadership skillsyou can use today; ability to com-

municate DL vision and strategymore effectively; interaction withbusinesses and higher educationleaders with a wide range of per-spectives and insights; and ensuringlearning technology dollars areinvested wisely.

CONCLUSIONThis article described how the DL

Leader Certificate Program was

Table 6Table KDMLV Model

DL Leader Competencies and Learning Outcomes

Knowing DE

Define and trace the chronology of DE definitions.

Understand the terminology used by distance educators.

Explain the technologies used for DE—synchronous and asynchronous.

Apply appropriate copyright regulations to the practice of DE.

Understand and apply the KDMLV model for DE leaders.

Designing DE

Explain the U-M-T Approach for designing DE.

Name several important instructional design models used in DE.

Understand the design structure of DE courses.

Managing DE

Explain important activities of the manager of a design team.

Discuss the process of managing a distance learning project.

Explain the components of a DE policy document.

Understand the process of producing a DE policy statement.

Discuss the process of working with clients and vendors.

Leading DE

Discuss the process of managing people through change.

Understand and explain examples of leaders implementing a DE project.

Discuss a business view with case studies for leading a DE/training organization.

Visioning DE

Understand an approach for and explain case studies of visioning for DE.

Discuss distance learning today and tomorrow from a corporate perspective.

Explain the characteristics of and a process of developing a vision statement.

Write a vision statement for DE.


developed by identifying the mostimportant competencies leaders ofDL need for their programs to besuccessful. Leading DL programs isnot for the faint of heart. We are inthe early stages of fully realizing thedramatic paradigm shift DL willhave on the way education andtraining programs are delivered. Asof yet, there are no standards forleaders of DL programs, yet it is per-haps the most important success fac-tor. More research needs to beconducted in the important area ofidentifying duties and responsibili-ties of DL leaders.

REFERENCESCommission on Technology and Adult

Learning. (2001). A vision of e-learn-ing for America’s workforce.Retrieved May 18, 2004 from, http://www.nga.org/center/divisions/1,1188,C_ISSUE_BRIEF^D_2128,00.html

Edelson, P. J. (2002, June). Strategy for-mation in virtual education: The caseof dynamic incrementalism. Paperpresented at the Virtual Educa 2002conference, Valencia, Spain.

Greenspan, R. (2003). Reading, writing,pointing-and-clicking. Retrieved June22, 2004, from http://www.clickz.com/stats/markets/educa-tion/article.php/2237481

Spencer, L. M., & Spencer, S. M. (1993).Competence at work: Models forsuperior performance. New York:Wiley.

Thach, E. (1994). Perceptions of dis-tance education experts regarding theroles, outputs, and competenciesneeded in the field of distance educa-tion. Unpublished doctoral disserta-tion, Texas A&M University, CollegeStation.

Williams, P. (2003) Roles and competen-cies for distance education programsin higher education Institutions.American Journal of Distance Educa-tion, 17(1), 45-57.

Meister, J. (Ed.). (2002). Corporate Uni-versity’s pillars of e-learning success.New York: Corporate UniversityXchange.

WHAT IS A DISTANCE LEARNING LEADER?

A LEADER IS A VISIONARY CAPABLE OF ACTION WHO GUIDES AN ORGANIZATION’S FUTURE, ITS

VISION, MISSION, GOALS, AND OBJECTIVES. THE LEADER GUIDES THE ORGANIZATION AND ITS

PEOPLE WHO HAVE FAITH IN THE LEADER, AND HAVE A CLEAR UNDERSTANDING AND

ACCEPTANCE OF THE ORGANIZATION’S WORTHWHILE AND SHARED VISION AND GOALS. A

DISTANCE LEARNING LEADER HAS COMPETENCE IN KNOWING, DESIGNING, MANAGING,

LEADING AND VISIONING DISTANCE EDUCATION.


Ends and Means

E-learning Study Skills and Strategies

Ryan Watkins

he study skills and learn-ing strategies that most ofus have developed

throughout our educational experi-ences are our most valuableresource as we transition from thetraditional classroom to thee-learning online classroom. Yet,for instructors and learners alike,success in traditional courses doesnot always translate into success inonline courses. Often, the samestudy skills and learning strategies

that have been the foundation ofour success in the past must beupdated or modified in order tohave the same positive impact onour learning when we move into avirtual environment.

As a result, for both instructorsand learners, two fundamentalskills that a necessary for success ine-learning are: (a) the ability toadapt traditional study skills intoonline success strategies, and (b)the capacity to adopt new tech-niques for learning and communi-cating effectively in the onlineenvironment.

For most of us, online successdoes not come from applying theskills and strategies that we havedeveloped through our previousexperiences that were rooted in thetraditional high school, college, ortraining classroom. The newe-learning environment requiresthat we reexamine the strategies weuse to achieve success.

For example, through our previ-ous experiences, most of us haveformed many useful techniques fordeveloping positive working rela-tionships with our fellow learnersin the classroom, which typicallytranslate to success when we areasked to work together as teams orwhen study groups are formed.From making a good first impres-

sion to staying organized, we habit-ually strive to exemplify the skillsthat lead to success when workingwith others.

Yet, when the environmentmoves to online discussion boardsand chat rooms, many of thesestrategies we have developed forthe face-to-face environment musteither be adapted for the technolo-gies or new tactics must beadopted. To make a good firstimpression online, learners (andinstructors) should:

• Take a few extra minutes tocheck, and recheck, the gram-mar and spelling in their initiale-mails. Proper grammar andspelling can go a long waytoward making a good impres-sion.

• Take time to personalize theire-mails. Making a good firstimpression typically requires apersonal touch.

• Provide fellow learners withtheir contact information (i.e.,the e-mail account you wantthem use, your instant messen-ger name, or even your phonenumbers if want them to callyou). Being able to contact eachother is a first step in developingpositive relations.

T

Ryan Watkins, Assistant Professor, Edu-

cational Technology Leadership Pro-

gram, George Washington University,

2134 G Street, NW, Washington, DC

20052. Telephone: (202) 994-1701.

Web: www.ryanwatkins.com


• Make a conscious effort to substi-tute for the non-verbal cues thatthey regularly rely on for buildingsuccessful relationships in the tra-ditional classroom, by using com-mon emoticons, abbreviations,and other online communicationtechniques.

• Include specific informationregarding what should happennext (for example, indicatingwhen they will respond to anemail, proposing next steps to betaken, asking questions theywould like to have answered inthe next communication). Byillustrating their organization andplanning, they can develop posi-tive relationships with theironline peers.

As you can see from this limitedexample, the strategies and skills foronline success are often a combina-tion of adapting habits from the tra-ditional classroom, along withadopting some new talents.

The secret to our success, and thesuccess of our learners, is thereforebeing able to develop effective studyskills and learning strategies for thisnew learning environment. For eachnew technology that we use to com-municate online, there are a varietyof study skill and learning strategyconsiderations that instructors andlearners should consider in prepar-ing for success. Below are 10 essen-tial study tips and learning strategiesthat can be used effectively by onlinelearners when participating in onlinediscussions:

ONLINE REAL-TIME CHATSSynchronous or real-time chats pro-vide learners with one of the fewonline experiences in which they canreceive immediate replies to theirquestions or comments, therebyallowing for a conversation todevelop with the spontaneity of thetraditional classroom. For that rea-

son, learners will want to use theseunique opportunities to take advan-tage of the matchless benefits of thetechnology.

4. Access the chat software theday before the synchronousdiscussion to verify thateverything is working prop-erly. Often, chat features inonline courses will requireadditional software (calledplug-ins). If you do not haveaccess, by checking the daybefore you will have time tocontact technical support.

5. Before the chat discussion,prepare a list of questionsthat you would like to askduring the chat, as well asany comments that you wantto make in the discussion.Write these in a word pro-cessing program first so youcan cut-and-paste from thedocument during the discus-sion. For long contributions,this will especially save youthe time of typing and editingthe comment before sendingit. In addition, this techniquewill also help you avoidgrammatical and spellingerrors.

6. Create a good studying envi-ronment for the chat (forexample, turn off the televi-sion, ask your family orco-workers not to interruptyou, turn off any instant mes-saging programs, turn offyour e-mail, etc.)

7. Review any rules, agenda,and/or etiquette guides pro-vided by the instructor.

8. Each of the comments andquestions posted in the dis-cussion do not require yourresponse. Respond only tothose that address you specif-ically or when your responsewill make a valuable contri-bution to the discussion.

ONLINE DISCUSSION BOARDSAsynchronous discussions (nor-mally in online bulletin or discussionboards) offer the opportunity forlearners and instructors to carry ona conversation at convenient times.Because each participant in the dis-cussion may select a time to reply tothe latest addition to the conversa-tion, the flexibility in pace andlength of the conversation can varygreatly. Learners can, however, usethis additional time to respond tomessages to clarify their commentsor questions to ensure that there areno miscommunications.

1. Determine how formal orinformal your contributionsto the discussion should be.While informal postings (likethose that you would write toa friend) are common, mostoften the clarity and precisionof formal communicationswill be desired in order toavoid miscommunications, asmany of the non-verbal skillsyou rely on in the traditionalclassroom are not present inonline discussion boards.

2. Create a schedule for eachday (or week, depending onthe length of the e-learningcourse) to participate in theasynchronous discussions.Include in this schedule howmuch time you will spendreading the postings of oth-ers, as well as time forresponding to those postings.

3. Use the writing techniques(for example, paragraphsshould have an introduction,supporting facts, and conclu-sion; correct spelling andgrammar; etc.) you have beentaught since primary school,and at the same time don’twrite a book when a short,well-written paragraph ortwo will do.


4. Try not to read too much intocomments made by otherlearners; miscommunicationsare common in online discus-sions. In addition, stay awayfrom the use of sarcasm, idi-oms, jargon, slang or othercommunication techniquesthat can easily result in mis-communication.

5. Cut-and-paste links to Websites into your postings inorder to reduce the numberof inverted letters or missingperiods in links.

Developing effective study skillsand learning strategies for onlinecourses is essential to the success oflearners. These are just a few ofmany techniques that we shouldhelp learners develop on their pathto success in e-learning. Study skillsin time management, technical trou-ble-shooting, e-research, onlinegroup dynamics, taking onlineexams, as well as effective communi-cations using email, listserves, andonline whiteboards are all critical tothe success of online learners.

STUDY AND TECHNOLOGY TIPS

ARE TAKEN FROM:

Watkins, R., & Corry, M. (2004).E-learning companion: A student’sguide to online success. New York:Houghton Mifflin. <http://www.e-learningcompanion.com>

Watkins, R. (2004). 20 essential studytips for E-learners. In Biech, E. (Ed.)The 2004 Pfeiffer annual: Training.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass-Pfeiffer.


Sustainability

Leveraging Knowledge AssetsDo Less and Accomplish More

Jonathon Levy

The illiterate of the 21st Century will not be those who cannot read and write, but those who can-not learn, unlearn, and relearn.

or many years I have usedthat quotation from AlvinToffler’s Future Shock in

most of my public speeches. Nomatter what the theme, I would tryto find a way to work it in, becausethe quote is so powerful and appro-priate.

In the late 1960s, the prevailingparadigm was “go to school, get a

degree, go to work.” The knowl-edge you acquired on-campus waspretty much all you needed foryour entire career. Or so wethought. Toffler was one of the fewfuturists at the time who pointed tocontinuous immersion in the fieldof knowledge as a way to cope withthe unprecedented rate of changeinitiated by new technologies. Heplayed a major role in shaping mylifelong quest to locate the sparkwhere technology, knowledge, andawareness converge.

What prescience he must havehad back then, to redefine literacynot in terms of what you know anddo, but rather in terms of what youcan know and may do, in terms ofpure potentiality. Dynamic learningand just-in-time knowledge areonly now becoming widely recog-nized as requirements for corporatelearning in an age of rapid change.Today, “sustainability” meansmore than just providing informa-tion and training; increasingly, itmeans developing a company’sknowledge workers’ collectivepotential to learn and relearn, todevelop their intuition and their

conscious capacity to know. Tofflerknew that in the late ’60s.

Recently I had the honor topresent a lecture in Sao Paolo in thesame venue where Toffler, now 76,delivered an inspiring keynote to3000 Latin American managers.His focus, as before, was on thetransformational need of our time,but now described in much finerdetail within the context of TheThird Wave, which clarifies theoriginal concept. According to Tof-fler, the First Wave of change waslaunched by the agricultural revolu-tion. The Second Wave—the Indus-trial Revolution—gave rise to a newfactory-centered civilization that isstill spreading in China, Mexico,and other parts of the world. “Buteven as the Second Wave plays itselfout on the global stage,” Tofflerexplained, “America and othercountries are already feeling theimpact of a gigantic Third Wavepartly based on the substitution ofmental power for muscle power inthe economy.” The Third Wave ismore than just technology and eco-nomics, more than just being “digi-tal” and “networked.” It marks our

F

Jonathon Levy, Senior Learning Strate-

gist, The Monitor Group, Two Canal

Park, Cambridge, MA 02141. Tele-

phone: (617) 252-2201. E-mail:

Jonathon_Levy@Monitor. com.

Web: www.jonathonlevy.com


transition from a brute force to a“brain force” economy.

The Third Wave suggests a nextstage in two evolving themes ofhuman history: leverage (doing lessbut accomplishing more) and net-working (employing the collectivevalue of what we know). In the firstinstance, leverage and networkingwere played out thousands of yearsago with the advent of the first toolsand the first villages. The tools lever-aged our physical power and the vil-lages functioned as hubs ofknowledge networks that gatheredand redistributed new information.In the 1900s labor-based economy,businesses developed power tools toleverage the muscle power of theirworkers and assembly lines thatrelied not on a single worker but onthe collective efforts of many. Theevolution of that theme has givenrise to today’s knowledge-basedeconomy in which state-of-the-artknowledge systems converge bothtools and networks into a singlepowerful system that leverages themental power and collective wisdomof knowledge workers.

It is the same evolutionary ten-dency displayed first with machines,then with electronic technology, nowwith ideas. At each stage, the intro-duction of a subtler level of influencehas resulted in a more powerful levelof solution. Tools such as faster com-puters and “smart,” portable tech-nology are now wirelessly linked torobust networked databases tobroaden the scope of what theknowledge worker can see in a singleinstant. New technologies link theknowledge workers with a field ofcollective knowledge and leveragetheir mental processes through intel-ligent filtering, recognizing patterns,and accessing required knowledge inreal time.

This new wave of technology, awave that was described in the last“Sustainability” column in DistanceLearning, will begin to define theouter limits of digital technologyknowledge systems. Once that

boundary has been reached, it islikely that the next major wave inhuman capital development willinvolve the teaching of techniques toexpand the conscious capacity of themind itself, enlivening the potentialand thereby increasing the efficacy ofknowledge workers. Even now, weare starting to see companies intro-duce mental technologies such asmeditation in the workplace, to fur-ther empower knowledge workers bydecreasing stress and enhancing thesignal-to-noise ratio in human con-sciousness.

The focus of these mental technol-ogies, the technologies of expandedawareness, is on the extension of thecontainer of knowledge—the humanmind—as the other side of the coinof human potentiality. Investment inthe knowledge workforce is extend-ing beyond the knowledge systems tothe users of those systems, theknowledge workers themselves. This“next step” seems to yield very prac-tical results. For example, one of theworld’s leading pharmaceutical com-panies, AstraZeneca, has institutedthe practice of group meditation fora few minutes before important exec-utive meetings get underway, the the-ory being that decision-makerswhose minds are clear and free fromstress will make better decisions.

In a rapidly-changing field, it iseasier to “skate to where the puckwill be” if the trajectory of thechange cycle can be seen clearly.Once we see the principles of doingless and accomplishing more, of thecollective value of the network, thenwe are able to predict the next stepof human resource developmentwhen the technologies of knowledgehave taken us as far as they can go.In ancient times, great masters likeAristotle and Plato facilitated theexpanded awareness of their disci-ples, focusing less on what theyknew and more on their ownself-knowledge. We may be comingfull cycle; ancient technologies fromancient bodies of knowledge such asthe Transcendental Meditation (TM)

program are now available toaddress companies’ very contempo-rary need to develop the full poten-tial of knowledge workers.

This may well prove to be theavant-garde in human resourcedevelopment. The lawyers in a Buf-falo, New York, law firm begin theirweekly meeting by meditating. “It’sour universal experience here thatmuch more can be accomplished inthe practice of law if we are doing itin a thoughtful and quiet mannerrather than in a frantic manner,”says David Pfalzgraf, a partner at thefirm. Business Week reports that“There are no hard numbers on howmany companies have added medita-tion benefits, but the anecdotal evi-dence is mounting . . . (at) AOL TimeWarner Inc., where the sales andmarketing group was reduced from850 to 500 people three years ago,meditation classes were incorporatedto help employees deal with the new12-hour days.”

Corporate blue-bloods such asMcKinsey, Deutsche Bank, andHughes Aircraft are joining tech out-fits like Apple Computer, Yahoo!,and Google in offering meditation totheir employees. “Companiesincreasingly are falling for the allureof meditation . . . offering free,on-site classes,” adds the BusinessWeek report. “They’re being wonover, in part, by findings at theNational Institutes of Health, theUniversity of Massachusetts, and theMind/Body Medical Institute at Har-vard University, that meditationenhances the qualities companiesneed most from their knowledgeworkers: increased brain-wave activ-ity, enhanced intuition, better con-centration.”

Twenty-three years ago IBM’sthen Sr. VP for Human Resources,Walton Burdick, suggested that, inthe future, the best companies in theworld would be differentiated by thedegree to which they relate to theiremployees holistically, as wholehuman beings. It seems that Walt’sprediction may be coming of age.


New Media, New Learning

That’s Entrainment!Craig Ullman

here’s a handy little neolo-gism making the roundsthese days, and I think it’s

key to understanding instructionaldesign for interactive media:entrainment.

Based on the Old Frenchentrainer, which meant “to drag,”entrain has been used for some timein English as a rather obscure verbmeaning “to pull or draw alongafter itself.” The meaning of theword was extended into chemistry:“to carry along in a current.”

It’s one of the pesky complica-tions of civilization that wordsmorph (like morph, for instance);they change meanings, they drop

meanings, and sometimes they endup meaning completely the oppo-site of what they originally meant.This previously obscure word hastaken on an exciting new obscuremeaning: entrainment, for interac-tive media, has come to mean “theinternal rhythm of an experience.”

Perhaps the purest example ofentrainment I’ve seen is the oldvideo game, Pac-man. As youmight recall, Pac-man was atwo-dimensional maze. A yellowcircle the user controlled had to gothrough the entire maze, appearingto eat all the dots that line themaze. The ravenous little circle waschased by brightly colored gum-drops called ghosts. If the gumdropreached the yellow circle, the circlewithered and died to a sad soundeffect. However, there were fourlarge dots near each corner of themaze called power pills. If the yel-low circle ran over a power pill, theghosts would turn blue, and theyellow circle could then chase andeat them. The object of the gamewas to survive long enough to clearthe maze and go to the next identi-cal one.

The anthropomorphism wasvague at best; while brightly col-ored, there was no suggestion ofdepth, and no real purpose.Pac-man was an inordinately trivialgame. And yet, a legion of fansplayed the game to the point of ten-dinitis (they called it “Pac-man

elbow,” and no, I’m not bitter.)So why, you ask, would some-

one spending a fortune of someoneelse’s money going to grad schoolruin a perfectly valid arm just toplay with circles and gumdrops?

Pac-man was an Uber-exercise inentrainment. You got a jolt of anxi-ety as you ran from the ghosts,barely making it to a power pill,and then the table is brieflyturned—relief—and you chasethem. The ebb and flow of tension,the entrainment of the game, madeit utterly hypnotic.

Perhaps the interchange betweenrelief and anxiety reaches somepre-historic memories locked in ourDNA: stalk the mastodon...stalkthe mastodon...run away from themastodon!.. RUN AWAY FROMTHE MASTODON!

Perhaps that’s why a twitchgame like Pac-man and its manydescendants are played mainly byboys (or grad students). Whatever.

Or perhaps not.In any case, Pac-man holds a key

to our conceptualization of interac-tive educational content: notbecause it’s a game, but because ithews so well to its entrainment.The structure of any interactivecontent needs to have a similarflow of tension (answering ques-tions and other kinds of useractions) and relief (more passivetransfer of knowledge). Too muchtension causes frustration, too

T

Craig Ullman, Partner, Networked

Politics, 49 West 27th St., Suite 901,

New York, NY 12401. Telephone:

(212) 658-9929. Fax: (212) 504-

3091. E-mail:

[email protected]


much relief causes enervation. Thetrick is to find a balance that’sappropriate to the affordances of themedium you’re using. Just as impor-tantly, the end of the experience—what’s required to get there andwhat it is—needs to be clear fromthe start.

Interactive educational contentrequires a more complicated entrain-ment than a video game. Mere repe-tition is not a sufficient motivationfor an educational experience.Rather, the ebb and flow of tensionneeds to have a direction, to mount,until a culminating experience is

achieved. So, for educational con-tent, there are really two levels ofentrainment: the moment tomoment flow and, just as in any nar-rative, the overall flow of beginning,middle, and end.

One distance learning leader had this collection of books about the field on his bookshelf.

Bates, A. (2000). Managing technological change. SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass.

Boar, B. (2001). The art of strategic planning for instruc-tional technology. New York: Wiley.

Chute, A., Thompson, M., & Hancock B. (1999). TheMcGraw-Hill handbook of distance learning. NewYork: McGraw-Hill.

Clark, R. (Ed.). (2001). Learning from media: Arguments,analysis and evidence. Greenwich, CT: Information AgePublishing.

Corry, M., & Tu, C. (Eds.). (2003). Distance education:What works well. New York: Haworth Press.

Cyrs. T. (1999). Engaging students in distance learning.Las Cruces, NM: Center for Educational Development,New Mexico State University.

Cyrs. T. (1997). Teaching at a distance with the mergingtechnologies. Las Cruces, NM: Center for EducationalDevelopment, New Mexico State University.

Dick, W., Carey, L., & Carey, J. (2001). The systematicdesign of instruction, (5th ed.). New York: Addison-Wesley.

Holmberg B. (1986). Growth and structure of distanceeducation. London: Croom Helm.

Keegan, D. (1996). Foundations of distance education,(3rd ed.). London: Routledge.

Knowles, M. (1990). The adult learner: A neglected spe-cies (4th ed.). Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing Co.

Ko, S., & Rossen, S. (2004). Teaching online: A practicalguide (2nd ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Lynch, M. (2002). The online educator: A guide to creat-ing the virtual classroom. London: Routledge.

Moore, M. (Ed.). The American Journal of Distance Edu-cation.

Moore, M. G., & Anderson, W. G. (Eds.) (2003). Hand-book of distance education. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Nistor, N., English, S., Wheeler, S., & Jalobeanu, M.(2003). Toward the virtual university. Greenwich, CT:Information Age.

Palloff, R., & Pratt, K. (1999). Building learning commu-nities in cyberspace. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Picciano, A. (2001). Distance learning: Making connec-tions across virtual space and time. Upper Saddle River,NJ: Prentice Hall.

Reisman, S., Flores, J., & Edge, D. (2003). Electroniclearning communities: Issues and practices. Greenwich,CT: Information Age.

Rogers, E. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). NewYork: Free Press.

Schlosser, L., & Simonson, M. (2002). Distance education:Definition and glossary of terms. Bloomington, IN:Association for Educational Communications andTechnology.

Schreiber, D., & Berge, Z. (Eds.). (1998). Distance train-ing. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Seels, B. B., & Richey, R. C. (1994). Instructional technol-ogy: The definition and domains of the field. Blooming-ton, IN: Association for Educational Communicationsand Technology.

Simonson, M. (Ed.). (2004). Distance learning: A maga-zine for leaders. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Pub-lishing.

Simonson, M., Smaldino, S., Albright, M., & Zvacek, S.(2003). Teaching and learning at a distance: Founda-tions of distance education (2nd ed.). Upper SaddleRiver, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Simonson, M., & Schlosser, C. (Eds.). (2002). QuarterlyReview of Distance Education. Greenwich, CT: Infor-mation Age.

Vrasidas, C. & Glass, G. (2002). Distance education anddistributed learning. Greenwich, CT. Information Age.

Watkins, B., & Wright, S. (1991) Foundations of Ameri-can distance education. Dubuque, IA: Kendall-Hunt.

Watkins, R., & Corry, M. (2005). E-learning companion:A student’s guide to online success. Boston: HoughtonMifflin.

Wedemeyer, C. (1981). Learning at the back door: Reflec-tions on non-traditional learning in the lifespan. Madi-son, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.


Pedagogy Corner

Do You Chunk? You ShouldDavid Graf

et’s face it, the problemwith many online courses isthat we ask students to

read page after page of electroni-cally generated text. Faculty whotake the step of transitioning aface-to-face course to an onlineenvironment tend to take existingcontent and convert it into an elec-tronic version of what they havebeen doing in their classrooms. Forthe most part, that simply does notwork. We need to move beyondfeeding students page after page oftext. And to do that, we need tofind ways to change the delivery of50 minutes worth of primarily ver-

bal content into easily absorbed“bits” of information.

One way to begin is to look athow the content of your onlinecourse is structured. One of themore accepted structures follows aunit-module-topic approach. Eachunit of the course would be theequivalent of one semester hour ofcontent. And each unit would con-tain 3-5 modules. Each of the mod-ules would have 3-5 topics, witheach topic having a single learningoutcome. Using this approach, atypical three credit-hour coursemight have 3 units, 12 modules(approximately one per week), 48topics, and 48 learning outcomes.

This type of structure bothassures and enables a designer and/or faculty member to chunk coursecontent. The concept of chunking isnot new and has been applied toinstructional situations for quitesome time. Simply put, the conceptof chunking refers to breakinginformation down into chewablesegments. Recent literature suggeststhat a chunk is no more than 2 or 3“screens” of paged text. Given thatthe smallest item in our coursestructure is a “topic,” this wouldmean that each topic in the coursemight be considered to be a chunk.One rule of thumb is to limit yourchunk to things students can assim-ilate in no more than 15 minutes.

There is much you can do tochunk course content. Let’s begin

with the task of transitioning anexisting face-to-face course to anonline environment. Begin byclosely analyzing the content of thecourse. Break it down (roughly atfirst) into manageable segmentsthat approach the module conceptdescribed above. Next, take a close,critical look at each of the resulting“modules” with the express pur-pose of breaking the informationdown even further, where possible.Then begin the process of “build-ing” the course in your onlinelearning environment. As you dothis, ask yourself a series of ques-tions:

• If your course has a textbook,how will you make it a resourcefor students, as opposed to reit-erating its content?

• What portions of the course con-tent can best be delivered elec-tronically in text format?

• What portions of the contentmight better be delivered usingvarious forms of multimedia?

• What is it that you are askingstudents to do—and how doesthis affect the design and struc-ture of course assignments?

• What Web-based resources areavailable to supplement the con-tent you are making availablewithin your online course?

With conceptual answers tothese questions in hand, you can

L

David Graf, Fischler Graduate School

of Education and Human Services,

Nova Southeastern University, 1750

N. E. 167th St., North Miami Beach,

FL, 33162 Telephone: (954) 262-

8786. Fax: (954) 262-2713.



turn your attention to the actualstructure of the course. While thereare many course structure modelsavailable, you might find my “5 A’s”model useful:

• Aims: the learning outcome(s) forthe topic.

• Advance Organizer: a preambleof sorts, that provides studentswith information about whatthey are about to study.

• Activities: your content plusthings students will do as theynavigate their way through thecontent. These are your“chunks.”

• Assignment(s): those things yourstudents will do to earn points inyour course.

• Assessment: quizzes and tests.

My suggestions are merely start-ing points. All I have written here—and everything you do as you transi-tion your course to an online learn-ing environment—has been with onethought in mind: what is best for thestudents who will take this course?

SELECTED REFERENCESInstructional Design Jargon Explained:

Chunking. Florida Community Col-lege at Jacksonville, Applied Center

for Instructional Design: http://www1.fccj.edu/ngardner/acid/acid/ID/chunking.htm

Content. Southern Cross University,Teaching and Learning Centre: http://www.scu.edu.au/services/tl/sd_online/content2.html

Chunking a Distance Learning Course.Northeast Texas Consortium: http://www.netnet.org/instructors/coursedev/chunking/

Course Outline and Production Form.University of North Texas Center forDistributed Learning: http://www.unt.edu/cdl/services/prod_form.htm (Note: the produc-tion form found at this link may behelpful to you in conceptualizing the“chunks” of your course.)

Reports from USDLA . . .


. . . Executive Director

USDLA Launches New Distance Learning Accreditation Board . . . DLAB

John Flores

or many years, those of us inthe distance learning industrystruggled for respect among

our more traditionally-based col-leagues. During that time, we werecompelled to offer numbers and sta-tistics to illustrate that technol-

ogy-driven distance learning was asound alternative to the physicalclassroom. I’m not sure how manyconverts we won, but the figures atleast kept the critics at bay and pre-vented us from being relegated tothe backwaters of academia.

All of that has changed now. Nolonger are numbers or justificationsrequired. Distance learning hascome from the fringe to the fore-front of education. Indeed, distancelearning has become almost as com-mon among colleges as are emailaccounts among our friends. Rarelydo you have to ask . . . it’s just there!As a result, vast and untapped newconstituencies are now accessible tothe knowledge industry.

Certainly the early pioneers wel-come this growth—vindication is sosweet! At the same time, though,these visionaries recognize that realgrowth not only consists of gettingbigger, but also of becoming better,more focused . . . more effective. Weknow that change is inevitable andthat is especially true when one isbound to a technical platform—theshifts in technology drive a certain

level of change. At any rate, somechanges are good and some merelymask endemic flaws in our pro-grams; hence, the need for a system-atic approach to improvement.

Probably the strongest impetusfor improvement comes when thereis a system of accountability. In thiscontext, I’m obviously not alludingto surface questions recited from aclipboard. Rather, I speak of aninsightful process designed by aninternational group of experts in thefield of distance learning. The criti-cal element is having an understand-ing of both technology and learningprocesses—and knowing how thetwo can best combine to effect stu-dent achievement. There is not asimple formula for doing this. It var-ies with the subject and varies withthe students. Yet, with all of the dif-ferences, our experience shows thatcertain broad principles apply.

The United States DistanceLearning Association, founded in1987, was the first nonprofit dis-tance learning association in theUnited States to support research,development, and praxis across the

F

John G. Flores, Executive Director,

USDLA, 8 Winter Street, Suite 508,

Boston, MA 02108.

Telephone: 800 275-5162.



entire spectrum of education andtraining. Our consistent focus hasbeen on quality approaches and pro-fessional growth. We have served asa focal point and clearinghouse forsome of the great innovations in ourfield. It is fitting, then, that the Asso-ciation should now engage its seg-ment of the education industry inthe quality improvement process.

The globalization of learning isan inescapable trend that under-scores the need for standards ofquality at the international level.Just as we saw in the US that dis-tance learning allowed schools anatural expansion across state lines,we now see a similar dynamic withprograms extending across nationalborders. And, just as the first surgeof expansion raised issues of qualityand equivalence, so does the sec-ond—but in ways perhaps morechallenging. Thus, USDLA’s growinginterest in connecting with its inter-national counterparts to facilitatequality assurance in the global learn-ing community.

The USDLA Board considered theissue of accreditation and certifica-tion several times in the past. Wewere reticent to become directly

involved because we recognized themagnitude and importance of thisjob. Yet, the need is great. Thus, inthe last year we have begun a pro-gram to credential individual dis-tance learning practitioners.

As we take this step, it is impor-tant to acknowledge the support wehave received from friends with anaffinity in this area. Chief amongthese is Glenn R. Jones of JonesInternational, Ltd., who had under-written the development of interna-tional quality standards for distancelearning under GATE, the GlobalAlliance for Transnational Educa-tion. His generous gift of thiswell-developed material to ournon-profit association came at astrategic moment and madeUSDLA’s task far more manageable.The Association owes Glenn Jonesits deep gratitude for his vision andsupport. Moreover, Jim Vautrot,CEO and President of BAF Satelliteand Technology Corporation, hascontributed his company’s man-power in helping USDLA move thisopportunity forward. A debt ofappreciation is due him, too, fromall USDLA members.

Melding the GATE standards

with our own insights and practicalexperience has led to a strong pro-gram, one that addresses particularneeds in the academic and corporateareas of distance learning. Not onlyshould this approach provide a basisfor recognizing equivalence betweenprograms, but also should fostercommunication and improvementthroughout the industry. To thatend, we are quick to recognize thatour standards and procedures can-not be rigidly fixed but are them-selves merely a strand within alarger, dynamic process.

If you are a member of a learningorganization—pre-college, college,or corporate—we invite you to con-tact us about how we can help youfurther develop your program. Theend product of a process such as thisis not a certificate hung on the wall.That is only an artifact. Rather, ourend product is students and institu-tions: better prepared, stronger, andmore vibrant in their mission.

If a call to excellence resonateswith you, then I hope you will be intouch with us. Together we willmake a difference!

Reports from USDLA . . .


. . . President

USDLAThe Transformation

Darcy W. Hardy

his month I want to talkabout USDLA. As the cur-rent president, and someone

who has been aware of the organiza-tion for about 15 years, I’ll start bybeing honest with you. At the time Iwas elected to be a member of theUSDLA Board of Directors, I was aformer state chapter president whohad wanted to defect from USDLAduring my presidency. Not just me,but my whole state chapter. Let metell you why I felt that way, why I

changed my mind, and why I’m nowglad I did.

For many years (from my perspec-tive as someone involved in highereducation), the USDLA representedcorporate partners, particularlyvideoteleconferencing partners. Itwasn’t that this was a bad thing, butit didn’t seem to fit my reasons forjoining the organization. And, at thetime (as it does now), the Texas Dis-tance Learning Association (TxDLA)had a large number of members fromhigher education and we were work-ing to build a strong K-12 member-ship as well. I felt that USDLArepresented the “training” side ofdistance learning, but not the “edu-cation” side as much as I would haveliked. One could argue that trainingand educating are the same thing, butmost people know there is a differ-ence.

When I was elected to the Board,I was hesitant to serve based on mypast perspective and experiences.But I accepted the position and havebeen amazed at how much the orga-nization has to offer—and howmuch it has changed. There has beennew leadership at the national levelsince 1999. Members of the Boardwho have been part of the organiza-tion for many years have led a revi-

talization effort, and new membershave provided fresh and innovativeideas. I have seen a true transforma-tion. We now have a much moreequal distribution of corporate,higher education, K-12, and mili-tary/government members, both onthe Board and within our generalmembership. And what a wonderfulset of new ideas and processes havecome about as a result of that mem-bership.

I truly believe that USDLA is thepremier organization for distancelearning professionals—regardless ofyour job or career choice. Voices areheard from across our membership,members are invited to be part ofcommittees usually reserved forBoard members only, and we areseeing continued growth instate-affiliated chapters as well asspecial interest groups, such as theAmerican Council for Virtual Edu-cation, spearheaded by Mary BethSusman. The change is phenomenal.Our colleagues in higher educationand particularly K-12 now look toUSDLA more than they have in thepast. Corporate sponsorships con-tinue to grow. Our military and gov-ernment representation is also on therise. People are noticing a difference.USDLA is the one organization that

T

Darcy W. Hardy, University of Texas

System, 210 W. Sixth St. Ste. 2.100,

Austin, TX 78701. Telephone: (512)

499-4204. Fax: (512) 499-4735.



embraces the various “silos” we findin the field and brings them all to thesame table.

I know that there are manynational organizations that addressdistance learning in some way (andwe all seem to belong to several). Ihave my own personal favorite orga-nizations and conferences that dealwith distance learning. I’m sure eachof you has yours as well. But, Iwould venture that whatever theorganization or conference, it isfocused on your type of organiza-tion (corporate or public), your mis-sion (training or education), or yourtechnology (online, broadcast, vid-eoconferenceing, print-based, etc.).

Okay, so what has USDLA donelately? Well, for starters, we’velaunched this great new practitio-ners’ magazine, and you’re reading itnow. Spread the word. This is one ofthe first magazines/journals aboutdistance learning that I can and willactually read cover to cover. Let’sface it folks, while many of us tendto think of ourselves as researchersor “academics,” how many of usreally have time to read heavyresearch-based articles? Don’t get

me wrong, I believe that solidresearch is what leads us tore-design, re-create, and evolve ourfield. But realistically, I also wantand need to know what’s going on inthe real world today—while it’s hap-pening. I want to hear about newmodels that are being created and,probably more importantly, whatmodels my colleagues are copying.Who are the people taking risks andtrying new things? What are welearning from practical applicationsin distance learning? I believe thatUSDLA, through this new publica-tion, hits that niche.

There are other things happeningwithin USDLA that show forwardthinking, such as the InternationalForum for Women in E-Learning(IFWE) that will be held September13-15, 2004. The forum targetswomen who are leaders in distancelearning as well as those womenwho are up-and-coming leaders inthe field. But IFWE is not going tobe exclusively for women only. Iencourage men who are interested inwomen’s issues in distance learningand their leadership roles to attend.There have been many articles about

the “glass ceiling” over the years—this conference will address howwomen have risen above that glassceiling in our field and why. It willalso involve a great deal of mentor-ing and networking, and an oppor-tunity to share experiences. Thespeakers are outstanding! Space islimited to 200 participants, so regis-ter early. This event will be unlikeanything you’ve experienced. Seewww.usdla.org for details, and regis-ter NOW!

So, as president of USDLA, this ismy pitch for you to become a fullprofessional member if you aren’talready. I’m a practitioner and I cantell you this is a “new” organization,and it’s based on effecting change inthe field, helping and mentoringeach other across the various areaswe represent, and then bringingtogether under one roof all the silosthat exist in distance learning. If youaren’t a member of USDLA now,think about joining. If you are, tellyour friends. We are a for-ward-thinking organization. To-gether, we can be the future of thisever-changing field.


USDLA Viewpoint

Women, Leadership, and Distance EducationA Brave New World or Darker Shades

of the Glass Ceiling?

Don Olcott, Jr.

he information revolutionhas precipitated one trans-formation after another

across colleges and universities.One emerging development is theincreasing number of women intechnology-related positions. And,

while this emerging trend cannot beattributed solely to distance educa-tion, one can make a convincingargument that distance educationhas been a catalyst for attractingmore and more women into thetechnology-related professions.What is less apparent is whetherthis trend has resulted in morewomen assuming high-level leader-ship positions or whether we areseeing new manifestations of theglass ceiling. Perhaps both perspec-tives are valid, with the latter beingsomewhat perplexing.

Today, on nearly every univer-sity and college campus, you willsee more women in positions thatdirectly or indirectly support theapplication of information technol-ogy in teaching and learning. Thereare more women serving as instruc-tional designers, evaluation special-ists, online program developers,distance education marketing spe-cialists, directors of technologypartnerships and campus centers,and certainly many more womenteaching with the vast arsenal of

modern educational technologies.At first glance, it appears that abrave new world has evolved forwomen in distance education andinformation technology profes-sions. Or has it? As Mark Twainonce remarked, “of course truth isstranger than fiction . . . fiction hasto make sense.”

The contemporary truth thatdoesn’t make sense is this: there isstill a disproportionate number ofmen in engineering, business, andscience faculties and even fewerfemale deans, vice presidents,CIO’s, provosts, and presidents onthe majority of campuses. Thesedisturbing facts are accentuatedfurther when one considers the gapbetween white males in top leader-ship positions and their minoritymale and female counterparts. Thisbrave new world isn’t quite asbrave and things are not all-white(all right) in the hallowed halls ofthe academy.

Given we cannot fix the aggre-gate socio-ethnic-gender disparityin American colleges and universi-

T

Don Olcott, Jr., Executive Director,

Division of Extended Programs, West-

ern Oregon University, 345 N. Mon-

mouth Avenue, Monmouth, OR

97361. Telephone: (503) 838-8483.

Fax: (503) 838-8473.



ties with one silver bullet solution,lets focus on distance education andinformation technology. Let’s startwith some guiding assumptions forwomen to consider in opening theleadership doors for themselves:

• American higher education’s his-toric culture, governance, andpolicy infrastructure was created,reinforced, and sustained bymales. Given that women arecommonly labeled as the emo-tional gender, it is ironic that thepersistent dysfunctions of theacademy historically are the cre-ations of males.

• Males make the rules and whenthe rules don’t work, men breakthe rules or create short-term sta-tus quo protection strategies thatdon’t work either. Why? Becausethe system that has sustainedtheir careers and rewarded themis broken; severely broken, as amatter of fact, and the onlyanswers they have are embeddedin the past. Boys will be boys andthere is not one male on theplanet who doesn’t hope that hisdaughter will be given everyopportunity to shine in her careerand personal life.

• The only thing more fragile thanquicksand is the male ego, andwhen men don’t have the rightanswers, fear sets in and aca-demic paralysis is pervasiveacross the academy. Retrench-ment replaces leadership.

• None of these have anything todo with visionary and empower-ing leadership. The primary rea-son that there is a leadership voidin higher education, and societyin general, is that our male lead-ers still believe the art of leader-ship lies in the past. Women havefigured out that visionary leader-ship lies in the future.

So, ladies, for those of you in dis-tance education, engineering, sci-ence, business, and the informationtechnology professions, here’s whatyou need to do. Send your malecounterparts shopping and try theseon for size:

• Recognize first and foremost, thatthe female attributes of empower-ment, collaboration, and relation-ship-building are invaluableattributes for creating distanceeducation and information tech-nology partnerships. Colleges anduniversities with viable and thriv-ing technology programs arecharacteristically build aroundpartnerships.

• Network, network, and networksome more. Women in the acad-emy across all professions need tobuild professional networksamong themselves. Professionalassociations provide periodicrenewal and opportunities to net-work with other women, but col-lective influence and leadershipmust emerge and solidify at the

institutional level to make realchange.

• Scope out professional develop-ment opportunities that focus onwomen and leadership (USDLA2004 IFWE Conference in Phoe-nix). The traditional male modelsare obsolete, so all of us, men andwomen, must create new modelsof leadership that work in aninformation society.

• If you work in the distance educa-tion profession, use this as aspringboard to discuss all careerpossibilities with young women,your daughters and, yes, the menin your life. In an age in which weare in desperate need of new rolemodels, you can begin being arole model for those in your life.

So it’s up to you to create newleadership opportunities for womenin distance education and the tech-nology-related professions. Are yougoing to wait for males to do this foryou? If we are to relegate the glassceiling into the history books, thenyour choices, your networks, andyour visions have to be heard.Silence is only golden for protectingthe status quo, no matter how anti-quated and obsolete the status quomay be. Remember, history doesnot, in fact, repeat itself: foolish peo-ple repeat history. A brave newworld is waiting for you. The choiceis yours.


And Finally . . .

Distance Learning Leaders— Who Are They?

ecently, a program ofstudy leading to a certifi-cate as a distance learning

leader was held at Nova Southeast-ern University. At the core of thesix week long program was the def-inition offered of a leader.

A distance learning leader is avisionary capable of action whoguides an organization’s future,its vision, mission, goals, andobjectives. The leader guides theorganization and its people whohave faith in the leader, and havea clear understanding and accep-tance of the organization’sworthwhile and shared vision

and goals. A distance learningleader has competence in know-ing, designing, managing, leadingand visioning distance education.

The whole idea of training todevelop leaders is an interestingone. The military trains its officersto be leaders during intensive ses-sions such as the U.S. MarineCorps’ Basic School, a six monthimmersion in all that one couldimagine for the new junior MarineOfficer. The Navy has the SurfaceWarfare Officers School in New-port, RI, which is a series ofschools for officers of various rankswho attend several times duringtheir naval careers. Without excep-tion these schools are months long,and totally dominate the time andthe of those in attendance. Then,we have West Point, Annapolis,and the Air Force Academy—cer-tainly colleges, but also designed toproduce military leaders.

Are we naïve to think we canprepare leaders of distance educa-tion organizations in two days andsix weeks of online follow up? Or,are there a common core of skills,competencies, and ideas that can betaught, shared, and learned that

will produce a new leader. Cer-tainly the idea of certification pro-grams to prepare leaders isbecoming wide spread, and if themarketplace decides, then thesemany and varied programs must bedoing something right. We at theDistance Learning Magazine wouldlove to hear from our subscribersand readers about his topic—areleaders trained or do they emerge?Let us know your thoughts, and ifyou have specific insights or experi-ences, write an article.

AND FINALLY, as Walter Lipp-mann said “the final test of a leaderis that [the leader leaves behind] inothers the conviction and the willto carry on…the genius of a goodleader is to leave behind a situationwhich common sense, without thegrace of genius, can deal with suc-cessfully.” If distance education –distance teaching and distancelearning—is to become main-stream, then many leaders in a mul-titude of locations will be needed.Informed leaders who believe inhigh quality and in the rigorousapplication of sound teaching prin-ciples to the learning process.

R

Michael Simonson, Editor, Distance

Learning, and Program Professor, Pro-

grams in Instructional Technology and

Distance Education, Fischler Graduate

School of Education, Nova Southeast-

ern University, 1750 NE 167 St., North

Miami Beach, FL 33162.

Telephone: (954) 262-8563.

Fax: (954) 262-3905.


distance learning - usdla

Documents