Online Course Delivery at 50 Accredited Institutions: The Critical Issues. Robert M. Colley Associate Dean, Continuing Education Syracuse University

Transcription

1 For more resources click here -> Online Course Delivery at 50 Accredited Institutions: The Critical Issues Robert M. Colley Associate Dean, Continuing Education Syracuse University Shelly Blowers Graduate Research Assistant Syracuse University Introduction This study began with my attempting to list all the questions and issues confronting me as an administrator charged with creating the first series of courses offered entirely online at Syracuse University. While Syracuse has a rich history of offering distance degree programs, dating back to the 1960s, our signature has always been the blended or limited residency model, and many of our programs have not made consistent use of the Internet as a vehicle for delivery of the distance portion of the experience. The initiative for development of purely online courses came from the leadership of University College, the University s Continuing Education Division, which has historically taken the lead in distance programming at SU. The purpose of this newest initiative was two-fold: first, to extend the reach of our offerings to new audiences outside of the region, and therefore expand part-time enrollment in the face of a shrinking local market; second, to offer an alternative for both local part-time and campus students whose schedules or life situations precluded them from enrolling in traditional day or evening classes. The idea was to begin with a selection of individual online course options that would allow students to fulfill at least some of their degree requirements, or to study a subject of particular intrinsic interest, and then eventually add certificates or full degree programs. We began with two courses in the fall of 1997, and have now expanded our online offerings in the summer of 2003 to 26 courses with 448 enrollments an average class size of 17. The majority of online enrollments have so far turned out to be local, though we do have some students from distant parts of the U.S. and abroad. We are in the process of devising strategies to attract a greater percentage of geographically distant students, and are continuously working to increase the diversity and quality of offerings, as well as improve student support. In striving to provide our online learners with a satisfying educational experience, we have been guided by the best practice recommendations as outlined in the New York State Department of Education Institutional Capability Statement For Distance Education The operation criteria identified by the state are organized into five broad subdivisions: organizational commitment, learning design, learner support, outcomes and assessment, and evaluation. These categories are extremely broad, however, and specific strategies for successfully addressing them have often been elusive, either for want of experience, data, resources, or as a result of cultural limitations of the institution. 1

2 For more resources click here -> One of the obvious things administrators faced with new challenges can do is to call upon the experience of colleagues facing similar challenges at other institutions. This is something we who belong to professional organizations tend to do as a matter of course. What this study represents, however, is a more formalized approach to the gathering of information about what others have learned about offering online courses at their institutions, and how they address the challenge of developing and offering courses of quality, given the particular issues they face in their own milieu. The Survey The survey has been sent to key administrators at 50 regionally accredited institutions of higher learning, ranging from community colleges to graduate research universities in the U.S. and Canada, and asks 29 sequenced questions about administrative practices, policies, and data collection related to online course offerings at each institution. An attempt has been made, through a combination of professional networking and Internet research, to identify institutions that were known to have initiated some significant online effort, and to also identify administrators at these institutions who are in a position to speak authoritatively about that effort. The respondents range from vice-presidents and deans to line administrators and tech support managers, depending upon who at each school consented to be interviewed, or was delegated to do so. All have been screened in advance to secure their cooperation with the project. As incentive, we have guaranteed anonymity, unless express permission to quote sources has been granted, and also have offered to share the aggregate results with all participants. They have the option of responding by telephone or . As of this writing, 25 have completed the survey (mostly by ), and many have provided supplemental materials from their institution, such as intellectual property policies or evaluation instruments. It is expected that all or most of the remaining surveys will be completed within the next two months. While our audience is undoubtedly familiar with many surveys published on distance and online education, this particular survey is unique in scope, in that it touches on such a broad range of related topics important to administrators engaged in management of online courses: broad administrative support, strategic planning, governance, budgeting, pedagogical integrity, curriculum development, academic policy, faculty incentives, contractual issues, marketing, pricing, enrollment management, student access, technical support and delivery of services, stance on diversity and integrity, and assessment and evaluation strategies. The survey concludes with an open-ended invitation to identify the most significant challenges respondents have encountered in offering online courses. Findings to Date What is striking about the initial data is both the differences in approach in terms of institutional mission, administrative priorities and preferences, and specific products offered and the commonality of problems, despite institutional differences. All respondents were concerned about the quality of their offerings, and open about sharing barriers and limitations as well as successes. The following are selected findings from the interviews to date. 2 Sixteen institutions offer full degree programs online: five offer masters, four baccalaureate, three both master s and baccalaureate, and four offer certificate programs as well. One offers

3 For more resources click here -> certificate programs only. Three offer noncredit as well as credit courses, and one offers noncredit exclusively. All but two institutions interviewed plan to expand their online offerings in the future. In the sample so far, there was great variation in the mix of students served by online courses. Ten institutions cater exclusively to the part-time adult student, eight have a majority of parttime adults but some full-time student enrollment, three have an equal percentage of enrollments are from both groups, and five have a majority of full-time campus students. As for geographic distribution, eleven have a majority of local students as opposed to those more geographically dispersed, two have equal numbers of each, five have a lower percentage of local students, six have no local students, and two have no data. As for choices of platform or LMS for delivery of courses, none interviewed so far have relied on an internally developed product. Four use a full-service turnkey partner, ecollege, while the majority opt for a standard commercial LMS as follows: twelve use Blackboard, seven WebCT, two Prometheus, one a combination of Prometheus and FirstClass, one LearningSpace, and one Angel. Six used a mix of locally developed software and one of the above commercial packages, depending upon the offering. In the area of enrollment management and screening, only six institutions offer an online tutorial or short how to course for prospective students, three of these being mandatory. One institution mandates an introductory course for selected master s programs. Two more institutions have such courses in development, and two also offer self-assessment surveys. Some who did not offer such tutorials acknowledged their value, and often cited lack of resources as the reason for not doing so. Only six institutions have special enrollment restrictions for online courses. Three place limitations on numbers of online courses taken, one requires proof of technical capabilities, and one requires a personal interview with faculty. Sixteen institutions mandate limits on online class size, usually in the range, with smaller numbers for specialized classes. Five let individual departments or faculty determine class size, and others have no set policy on size. In the area of intellectual property policy, sixteen of the twenty-five interviewed have written policy statements specifically addressing online courses, with the majority of these guaranteeing that faculty own course content. Three stipulated joint ownership, depending upon use of institutional resources, and two interpreted current copyright law as supporting full institutional ownership of online courses. Four other institutions recognize the need for a written policy, and have one in various stages of development. A surprising number of institutions among the initial pool have collected little or no data on relative retention or grading patterns for online courses. Fifteen had no retention data at all, seven had only anecdotal information, and only three had actual statistics. Not so surprisingly, in all cases but three, attrition was higher for online students from slightly higher to 30% higher; two respondents said it was almost the same, and one had no comparative data, but reported that online attrition was very low 2 percent! Among the reasons cited for higher online attrition was that students often initially misunderstood the nature of the online 3

4 For more resources click here -> environment, and dropped after discovering they didn t like it. Two reported improved retention after increased departmental involvement and student support. As for comparative grading patterns, only two respondents had any information at all. One said grades for online courses were comparatively higher, but that was because of the courses self-paced format. The other respondent introduced letter grading just this year, having formerly used a satisfactory/unsatisfactory system, but noted that graduation rates had gone up recently as a result of more structure and more faculty interaction. Responses to the open-ended question about challenging issues have fallen into four broad categories. By far, the largest number of issues cited was faculty-related (incentives, intellectual property, tension between adjuncts and tenured faculty, the learning curve, workload). Others cited fiscal concerns (lack of funding, lack of resources, challenges of cost containment, marketing resources, pricing), technical concerns (lack of adequate tech support for students or faculty, learning management system stability or capability, incompatibility of local data systems and commercial software, coordination of registration and payment procedures, bandwidth of users) and concerns related to general institutional support and awareness. On this last issue, one respondent said, our campus departments, including registrar, bursar operations, student tutoring services, and the bookstore, are still not well set up for online. While the themes sounded were relatively predictable, some of the specific issues raised, such as incompatibility of registration procedures and LMS capabilities, were helpful in suggesting additional questions for future surveys on online administrative practices. Implications for Further Research On one level, the survey results are useful in giving a broad overview of current online administrative policies and priorities at a cross-section of institutions. Admittedly, while some interviewers were more expansive in their responses than others, there was really no opportunity for in-depth probing of any particular topic, given the scope of the instrument. On a deeper level, however, the survey is revelatory in that it points the way to opportunities for fruitful follow-up research on many of the topics touched on here. For example, on the issue of platform or LMS choice, one would like to know more about why in some cases institutions chose to develop their own software rather than going with a commercial product, why single or multiple commercial platforms were chosen, and what the administrators experiences have been with their choices. A deeper probing of the issues related to intellectual property and how they bear upon faculty involvement in online course development and delivery at the responding institutions would be an important study in itself. Why don t certain institutions have such a policy? Of those who do, what problems do the current policies create, if any? Another useful study would be a closer examination of institutional incentives for involving the best faculty in online endeavors, and the comparative success of each. A fourth would be a further comparative analysis of retention patterns at schools offering traditional and online courses, and of attempts to improve online retention at those institutions. All administrators are presumably interested in retention, yet it is notable that almost none of those interviewed here have collected any data on the subject. A series of follow-up in-depth interviews on any of these topics would be extremely helpful in furthering an understanding of sound administrative policy in the offering of online courses. 4

5 For more resources click here -> Despite relative successes reported (all of the interviewees run viable programs), the consistent note sounded at least in those academic institutions (unlike Phoenix, for example) with a more traditional history was the frustration over lack of institutional paradigms and cultural frameworks that afforded broad support for online initiatives. This, however, was mixed, with optimism for the future of online learning, and recognition that its more widespread acceptance within the institution would come at least in part as a result of additional research on how knowledgeable practitioners have addressed the technical, pedagogical, fiscal and political challenges posed by this revolutionary medium. Biographical Sketches Robert M. Colley is currently Associate Dean for Marketing and Distance Education in Syracuse University s Continuing Education Division. He served as director of Syracuse University s Independent Study Degree Programs from , and began the institution s first series of online courses in Mr. Colley has a bachelor s degree from Hamilton College, a master s from Syracuse, and is currently completing a dissertation on Academic Freedom and Distance Education for a Ph.D. in philosophy of education at Syracuse. He also attended Harvard s MLE program and WICHE s Advanced Institute for Distance Education. He has served on distance education program review teams for the state education departments of New York and Kansas, and has presented numerous papers on the topics of distance education and professional ethics. Address: 700 University Avenue Syracuse, New York rmcolley@syr.edu Phone: Fax: Shelly Blowers holds a B.A. from Wells College and is currently completing a master s degree in Instructional Design, Development and Evaluation in Syracuse University s School of Education. Her graduate assistantship has involved supporting Mr. Colley with this research project, including doing a significant portion of the interviews. sablower@syr.edu 5