Considerations for Distance Learning Program Development

1. Considerations for Distance Learning Program Development In PartialFulfillment of theRequirements for EDUI 6705 By Patrick Murphy Reardon June , 2007

2. Vital Elements and Considerations - Culture and Stakeholders Identification - Clearly Defined Goals of Distance Learning Program and Planning - Organizational Resource Planning - Stakeholder Barriers and Solutions - Evaluation of Current Programs - Future Implementation Possibilities 2

3. Culture and Stakeholders Identification Equal distribution of information is a right of every human. Distance Learning, (DL) via online delivery, can eventually be the greatest vehicle toward a more equal distribution of education throughout the world. This can be achieved through development of quality organizational infrastructures which clearly recognize the needs of all stakeholders with an emphasis on the student through a learner centered Constructivist approach. 3

4. Culture and Stakeholders Identification Each organization has a unique culture to it and, as such, has its own set of of barriers (Judd, 2007). It is necessary to recognize the culture of the DL organization in order to properly address all stakeholder group needs. Identification of all stakeholder groups is imperative. By including administration, any faculty, staff, an students in this process, it will be easier to obtain a campus-wide consensus on the vision (Bloomfield, 1993; Hughes, 2001). 4

5. Clearly Defined Goals of Distance Learning Program and Planning The 2001 Campus Computing Survey (Green, 2001) found that 11.8% of the nation’s colleges and universities included e-commerce, such as bookstores and online tuition payments, in their strategic plan. Colleges have done little, if any, planning as they implement online programs (Buchanan, 2000). 5

6. Clearly Defined Goals of Distance Learning Program and PlanningAlignment with the Institution The purpose of planning is to develop methods to align an institution with the environment (Rowley & Sherman, 2001). Planning helps a college to grow and change in an organized, meaningful process (Rogers, 2001). 6

7. Clearly Defined Goals of Distance Learning Program and Planning Planning as Central Focus Planning an online distance learning program needs to become a central focus of a college’s strategic planning process because student expectations regarding ODL programs will continue to grow (Boettcher & Kumar, 2000). 7

8. Clearly Defined Goals of Distance Learning Program and PlanningAnticipate Change Colleges need to be prepared to react to the internal and external changes caused by technological advances while maintaining the mission of their college (Hache, 2000). 8

9. Clearly Defined Goals of Distance Learning Program and Planning Generate a Mission Statement Distance education programs must have their own mission statements. Those programs without specific mission statements claimed to follow their parent institution's overall mission statement. Program will continue to meet the needs of students while being open to new technologies (Compra, 2003). 9

10. Organizational Resource PlanningThe Issue In many distance education operations that I have examined, significant elements of successful systems are missing. Therefore , contrary to what was believed a few years ago, distance education has not brought down the cost of education, let alone turn a profit (Saba, 2007). 10

11. Organizational Resource PlanningThe Question How will we support the growing number of higher education age students within our current infrastructure and maintain the quality of our education system without losing students to corporate courseware vendors?(Callahan, 2003) 11

12. Organizational Resource PlanningThe Answer In addition to Clearly Defined Goals of DL Programs and Planning, is Maintenance and Acquisition of Resources thru Advanced Financial Planning. 12

13. Organizational Resource Planning In order for a distance education program to be successful a yearly budget must be established. The most developed and strongest programs involved in the study had their own budgets. The weakest programs were those that relied solely on startup money and grants (Willis,1994). 13

14. Organizational Resource Planning Advanced planning and policy development are the key to a well-run distance learning program. This planning will allow money to be spent more efficiently such as buying one software package to serve multiple purposes, rather than several packages over several years (Levy, 2003). 14

15. Stakeholder Barriers and SolutionsThe Corporate Threat "... the juggernaut of online education appears to have stalled" (Noble). For evidence, he points his finger at countless failed efforts, including: rejection of the California Educational Technology Initiative (CETI); …….The striking thing that all these failures have in common is that they are all top-down initiatives (Werry, 2001). 15

16. Stakeholder Barriers and SolutionsBalance Between Stakeholders Organizational balance can be achieved through: -Acknowledgment of all stakeholders -Stakeholder group needs -Perceived threats The Major Stakeholder Groups: Student Faculty and Staff Administration Outsources (possible) 16

17. Stakeholder Barriers and SolutionsThe Student Many students are just now engaging in every day emailing between themselves, faculty, and staff as part of campus life and navigating through new online DL modalities can be frustrating (Boettcher, 2000). 17

18. Stakeholder Barriersand SolutionsThe Student Support must be provided and the most successful avenues have been: call-in help desks, structured and evaluated workbooks, and informed technical tutor support (Rowley, 1997). 18

19. Stakeholder Barriers and SolutionsFaculty and Staff Lack of effective technical support and troubleshooting, when a teacher experiences difficulty with an online staff development program, adds to the frustration of participating teachers. Lack of resources due to a declining economy, and in turn decreased budgets, is preventing some states from fully developing their technology infrastructures in the schools ( Mayen & Yang). 19

20. Stakeholder Barriers and SolutionsFaculty and Staff Getting schools to choose online activities as a required or optional developmental activity is often difficult.  Many districts are still employing only traditional forms of staff development. Lack of attention to connecting staff development with student outcomes may contribute to the devaluing of staff development (Mayen & Yang). 20

21. Stakeholder Barriers and SolutionsFaculty and Staff Even if specific faculty members do not teach distance education courses, their content expertise and knowledge of the institution's programs make them a key component in establishing learning outcomes and objectives Clay (1999). 21

22. Stakeholder Barriers and SolutionsFaculty and Staff Faculty involvement and training is ultimately aimed toward meeting the needs of the student via focuses such as: -group sessions; -one-on-one lab sessions; -web-based tutorials; -printed materials; (Compora, 2003) 22

23. Stakeholder Barriers and SolutionsFaculty and Staff -listservs -mentorship -monthly discussion sessions among peers; -observation of other distance courses. (Compora, 2003) 23

24. Stakeholder Barriers and SolutionsAdministration In contrast, administrators perceived the greatest threat as stemming from competition from private and public institutions (Dooley and Murphrey, 2000). 24

25. Stakeholder Barriers and SolutionsAdministration However interviews with local resident experts; Dr. Nan Chico of CSUEB, and Dr. Farhad Saba of SDSU, it is apparent that successful DL programs can be developed completely within the campus system. 25

26. Stakeholder Barriers and SolutionsAdministration Some administrators at the level of our director of media services are involved in distance education. However, in general, SDSU administration does not play a major role in distance teaching and learning in the university. (Reardon & Saba, 2007) 26

27. Stakeholder Barriers and SolutionsAdministration Administrators have the potential to greatly impact the overall effectiveness and quality of an ODL program (Husmann & Miller, 2001), yet they are often unaware of the opportunities afforded to their colleges through ODL (Garrison, 1989; Moore & Kearsley, 1996). 27

28. Stakeholder Barriers and SolutionsAdministration The more policies and procedures that are cross-institutionalized, the more competitive and quality driven a college or universities online programs will be. This factor must be recognized as a major function of administration. 28

29. Stakeholder Barriers and SolutionsCommon Experience Participants’ confidence in the planning process is increased when it is known that all participants have had a common experience in completing online instruction rather than merely sharing perspectives or beliefs and assumptions (Meyen & Yang, 2002). 29

30. Stakeholder Barriers and Solutions Common Experience Review of the Venn diagrams revealed that the majority of the categories were shared among administrators, faculty and support units. The predominant category was found to be identical among the groups in relation to strengths, opportunities, and weaknesses while each group expressed a unique prominent category in relation to threats (Dooley & Murphrey, 2000). 30

31. Stakeholder Barriers and Solutions Common Experience (Dooley & Murphrey, 2000) 31

32. Evaluation of Current Programs "Evaluation should provide feedback to improve the implementation process (formative evaluation) and should give a final assessment of the instruction's effectiveness (summative evaluation). Based upon these findings, instruction should be revised" (Willis, 1994). 32

33. Evaluation of Current ProgramsBalancing Quality and Access Overall program effectiveness is determined by such measures as:
 The extent to which student learning matches intended outcomes, including, for degree programs, both the goals of general education and the objectives of the major (Balancing Quality & Access, 1995). 33

34. Evaluation of Current Programs Additionally- Student retention rates, including variations over time Student satisfaction, as measured by regular surveys (Balancing Quality & Access, 1995). 34

35. Evaluation of Current Programs Faculty satisfaction, as measured by regular surveys and by formal and informal peer review processes. The extent to which access is provided to students not previously served (Balancing Quality & Access, 1995). 35

36. Evaluation of Current Programs Measures of the extent to which library and learning resources are used appropriately by the program’s students. Measures of student competence in fundamental skills such as communication, comprehension, and analysis. Cost effectiveness of the program to its students, as compared to campus-based alternatives (Balancing Quality & Access, 1995). 36

37. Future Implementation Possibilities Masters in Online Instruction Instruction Students as Faculty an Staff Advisors Students accepted into the CSUEB Masters Program, after completing EDUI 6701-6704, act as faculty and staff support for the implimentation of hybrid and online classes. 37

38. Future Implementation Possibilities Pilot year, students receiving their certificate in Online Teaching and Learning would assume this role as an elective. After pre- & post-evaluations and the implementation of revisions this program could become a model for campus DL and hybrid class implementation (Reardon, 2006). 38

39. Future Implementation Possibilities "The way to proceed in online learning is ironically, given the nature of the Internet, slow and cautious. The introduction of new technology must be, as David Jones says, “a product of evolution.” Pilot delivery and evaluation should be conducted before the announcements and promises are made. Staff should be acclimated and trained in new technologies and methodologies” (Jones, 2003). 39

40. Bibliography Anderson, S. K., & Middleton, V. (2002). You want me to do what? The cultural and psychological struggle of putting a course online. . The Technology Source, from http://ts.mivu.org/defualt.asp?show=article&id=917. Aoki, K., & Pogroszewski, D. (1998). Virtual university reference model: A guide to delivering education and support services to the distance learner . Online journal of distance learning administration, 1(3), Retrieved 1988, from http://www.westga.edu/~distance/aoki13.html.. Bates, W.A. (1997).Restructuring the university for technological change.. Carnegie Foundation. Bloomfield, S.D. (1993).Facilitating decisions under Scarcity. Managing with Scare Resources. 79, 59-72. Boettcher, J. V., & Kumar, M. S. V. (2000). The other infrastructure: Distance education's digital plant. Syllabus: New Directions in Education Technology, 13(10),14-22, Retrieved 2000 Brooks, Lori (2003). How the Attitudes of Instructors, Students, Course Administrators and Course Designers Affect the Quality of an Online Learning Enviroment . http://www.westga.edu/%7Edistance/ojdla/winter2003/brooks64.htm Bryson, H., & Bryson, J. M. (1990). Strategic planning for public and nonprofit organizations. .San Francisco, CA.: Jossey-Bass Inc.

41. Buchanan, E. A. (2000).Going the extra mile: Serving distance education student with resources and services. Syllabus: New Directions in Education Technology. 13(9), 44-47. Callahan, P.M. (2003, March 28-30). Thirty-two Trends Affecting Distance Education. from www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/fall63/howell63.html Compora, Daniel (2003). Current Trends in Distance Education: An Administrative Model . from http://www.westga.edu/%7Edistance/ojdla/summer2003/compora62.html Dooley, Kim, & Murphrey, Theresa (2000). How the Perspectives of Administrators, Faculty and Support Units Impact the Rate of Distance Education Adoption . Retrieved 2000, from http://www.westga.edu/%7Edistance/ojdla/winter2000/dooley34.html. Garrison, D. R. (1989). Understanding distance education: A framework for the future. New York: Routledge. Gellman-Danley, B., & Fetzner, M. J. (1988). Asking the really tough questions: Policy issues for distance learning. The Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 1(1), Retrieved June 23, 2007, from http://www.westga.edu/~distance/jmainsp98.html. Grenn, K. C. (2001). eCommerce comes slowly to the campus. The Campus Computing Project, Retrieved November 1, 2001, from http://www.campuscomputing.net/summaries/2001/index.html Hache, D. (2000). ). Strategic planning of distance education in the age of teleinformatics. . The Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 1(2), Retrieved April, 2000, from http://www.westga.edu/~distance/Hache12.html Hughes, T. P. (2001). Through a glass darkly: Anticipating the future of technology-enabled education. Educause Review, 36(4), Retrieved July 27, 2001, from http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/erm0140.pdf Husmann, D. E., & Miller, M. T. (2001). Improving distance education: Perceptions of program administrators. . The Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 4(1). , 4(1), Retrieved June 23, 2007, from http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/spring41/husmann41.html. Jones, R. (2003). A recommendation for managing the predicted growth in college enrollment at a time of adverse economic conditions. . Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration , 6(1), Retrieved June 2003, from http://www.westga.edu/%7Edistance/ojdla/spring61/jones61.htm Levy, Suzanne (2003). Six Factors to Consider when Planning Online Distance Learning Programs. ONline Journal of Distance Learning Adminstration, Retrieved 2003, http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/spring61/levy61.htm Marrus, S. K. (1989). Building the strategic plan: Find, analyze, and present the right information. . New York: Jhon Wiley and Sons.

42. Meyen, E. L., Aust, R.J., Bui, Y. N., Ramp, E., & Smith, S. J. (2002). The online academy formative evaluation approach to evaluating online instruction. . The Internet and Higher Education, 5, , 89-108, Retrieved 2002,from file:///Documents/6705/6705.3/6705.3eBarriers%20to%20Implementing%20Large . Noble, D. (2007). Digital Diploma Mills. Retrieved April 4, 2007http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue3_1/n, from http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue3_1/noble/index.html Reardon, P. M. (2007) Inteview with Farhad Saba Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations. 4th Edition, New York, . New York: The Free Press. Rowley, D. J., & Sherman, H. (2001). From strategy to change: Implementing the plan in higher education..San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Tam, Maureen (2007, April, 4). Constructivism, Instructional Design and Technology: Implications for Transforming Distance Learning http://ifets.ieee.org/periodical/vol_2_2000/tam.html Werry, C. (2007, March 2). The Work of Education in the Age of E-College. http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue6_5/werry/ Willis, B. (1994). ). Distance education: strategies and tools. . Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: : Educational Technology Publications.