sandra k woodley funding educational technology n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Sandra K. Woodley Funding Educational Technology PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Sandra K. Woodley Funding Educational Technology

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 30

Sandra K. Woodley Funding Educational Technology - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 93 Views
  • Uploaded on

Sandra K. Woodley Funding Educational Technology. SHEEO Professional Development Conference August 11-14, 2004. Best of Intentions. Increasing Access Cost Assumptions & Cost Drivers Flexible Instruction & Institutions Kentucky Thinking. Instruction on the Internet.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Sandra K. Woodley Funding Educational Technology' - ulla


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
sandra k woodley funding educational technology
Sandra K. WoodleyFunding Educational Technology

SHEEO Professional Development ConferenceAugust 11-14, 2004

slide2

Best of Intentions

  • Increasing Access
  • Cost Assumptions & Cost Drivers
  • Flexible Instruction & Institutions
  • Kentucky Thinking
slide4

Instruction on the Internet

“Virtual College & University Consortia: A National Study” Epper and Garn (2003)

slide5

Growth of Virtual Universities

“Virtual College & University Consortia: A National Study” Epper and Garn (2003)

slide6

Assumption

“Convenience in education is like location in real estate…”

Graves, 2001

slide7

any-Time

any-Place

any-Pace

any-Path

any-Person

slide8

Conclusions on Access

  • Access is expected
  • Accessibility is required
  • Service is Convenience
  • New capabilities must be developed
slide9

Assumptions of Cost

  • Online learning is less expensive than classroom learning.
  • Online learning is more expensive than classroom learning.
slide10

Both are right!

Online learning is more expensive

Mediated

Cost

Classroom

Number of Students

Online learning is less expensive

Jewett model, WCET, 2003

slide11

Cost Drivers

  • Faculty compensation
  • Faculty workload
  • Overhead
  • Enrollment/Credit Hours
  • Office Space
  • Development (Personnel)
  • Development (OTPS)
  • Classroom space
  • Computing equipment & software

Milam, Comparing Costs

slide12

Slow Drivers

  • Overhead
  • Classroom space
  • Office space
slide13

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

Supplemental

Pure Remote

Faculty

Students

Change Changes Drivers

Computing equipment & software:

Increasing faculty & student use of eLearning

Gartner, 2003

slide14

Effective Development

  • Development (Personnel)
  • Development (OTPS)

Efficient Delivery

  • Faculty compensation
  • Faculty workload
  • Enrollment/Credit hours

Drivers of Innovation

slide15

Effective Development

  • Program Grants
  • Release Time (courses)
  • Program Loans
  • Funding Consistency
  • Peer Review
slide16

New Development Models

  • Shared Courses
  • Sharable Content
  • Content Cartridges
  • Instructional Packages
  • Add-on Services
slide17

Efficient Delivery

  • Size matters.
    • “There is a benefit to offering online courses in divisions that already generate extensive course sections,” (Milam).
  • Teaching more students requires more faculty.
  • Full-time faculty ensure quality and increase cost. (Milam)
  • Maintenance Kills.
slide18

Improving Learning and Reducing Costs: New Models for Online Learning

  • Large enrollment, introductory courses
  • 30 institutions nationwide (Research, Comprehensive Universities, Private Colleges, Community Colleges)
  • Over 50,000 students annually
  • Significant Learning – 20 of 30 showed increased learning, 10 showed no significant difference
  • Significant Savings – over $3.6 million dollars in one year, average 40% measured in cost-per-student

Twigg, 2003

slide19

K-CORE

The Kentucky Collaborative Online general education coRE

New Models

K-12

Lower Division

Upper Division

slide20

K-CORE

Phase One:

  • Develop common course objectives and competencies.
  • Define a single, common course content and pedagogical structure.
  • Utilize Instructional Tutors.
  • Use full-time faculty to ensure the integrity of the curriculum.
slide21

K-CORE

Phase X:

  • Multi-sector tuition rates
  • Open-entry/Open-exit registration
  • Competency-based completion
  • Other dangerous notions.
slide22

Conclusions on Cost

  • We want distance education technology to reduce the cost (not the quality) of instructional delivery.
  • Technology makes implicit costs explicit.
  • Optimization of current models, while necessary, will not yield needed cost-reducing efficiency.
  • Rigorous design and implementation of new models will be required to realize cost savings earlier in the cost model.
slide24

KYVU Goals (1999):

  • Enhance and expand educational access and increase educational attainment across Kentucky.
  • Upgrade workforce skills and expand professional development through basic and continuing education.
  • Increase collaboration and foster efficiency and effectiveness in delivering courses and programs.
  • Enhance educational quality.
  • Increase global competitiveness of Kentucky’s educational resources.
kentucky capability
Kentucky Capability

Kentucky’s

Postsecondary Distance

Education Community

expectations emphasis
Expectations & Emphasis

Survey of Kentucky Chief Academic Officers – May 2003

slide28

DLAC Goals (2004):

  • Develop the POLICIES AND RELATIONSHIPS which fully utilize statewide institutional and agency resources.
  • Encourage and effectively support COLLABORATION and COORDINATION of distance education across the Commonwealth.
  • Ensure that Kentucky’s teachers, faculty and learners have MEANINGFUL ACCESS AND SUPPORT which enables success in learning and teaching across a multi-level, multi-course, multi-institution, multi-agency, multi-site system of distance education.
  • Support the identification, development and delivery of HIGH QUALITY distance education programs.
changing goals
Changing Goals

KYVU Goals (1999)

DLAC Goals (2004)

slide30

Kentucky Observations

  • Increasing access requires increasing capability and capacity.
  • Optimizing traditional models increases capability not capacity.
  • New capacity-building models that reduce the cost of instructional development and delivery need to be tested and expanded.
  • Transformation initiatives require driving leadership.