Distance Learning Disruptions: Implications for Practice and Policy

Distance Learning Disruptions: Implications for Practice and Policy Paper presented in track 6 at the EAIR 37 th Annual Forum in Krems, Austria 30 August till 2 September 2015 Maureen Snow Andrade Contact Details Maureen Snow Andrade Utah Valley University 800 W. University Parkway MS 194 Orem, Utah, 84058 U.S.A. E-mail: maureen.andrade@uvu.edu Key words Distance education, higher education, online learning, disruptions in higher education, planning framework for distance learning 1 Distance Learning Disruptions: Implications for Practice and Policy

Abstract Distance Learning Disruptions: Implications for Practice and Policy Traditional higher education structures and practices are being outpaced by demand as individuals claim more education as a human right and as a pathway out of poverty (Kamenetz, 2010, p. vii). Educators must determine how to address projected global shortfalls of 38-40 million college-educated workers by the year 2020 (Dobbs et al., 2012). Increasing demand and demonstrated need require a disruption of current practice. Distance education is a viable response. Launching or expanding distance learning programs involves examining external and internal factors. This paper introduces a framework for identifying and addressing key issues in distance education to inform strategic planning. 2 Distance Learning Disruptions: Implications for Practice and Policy

Presentation Distance Learning Disruptions: Implications for Practice and Policy We must fundamentally change the way higher education is delivered, or resign ourselves to never having enough of it (Kamenetz, 2010, p. ix). Consistent increases in global higher education enrollments (5% per year) and the number of globally mobile students (2% per year) (British Council, 2012) support this ultimatum. Education is a major contributor to national wealth and economic development (British Council, 2012, p. 1); consequently, its growth is resulting in more intense and complex competition (Choudaha, Chang, & Kono, 2013, p. 6.), characterized by international branch campuses, partnerships with home country institutions, international student recruitment, and online degree expansion (Altbach, Reisberg, & Rumbley, 2009; Choudaha et al., 2013). Due to the increasing demand for higher education and efforts to expand access, distance education is becoming a widespread and practical option. Indeed, the need to meet demand and be competitive with a variety of providers has resulted in the rapid scaling of online programs (Anderson, Boyles, & Rainey, 2012). The European Commission s strategic framework for education and training consists of four goals with a target completion date of 2020. The goals include lifelong learning and mobility; quality and efficiency; equity to ensure that education is available to all; and innovation and creativity (European Commission, 2014). These goals require cooperation across institutions and borders, and policies and practices that encourage internationalization and mobility. The goals also require consideration of how to deliver educational opportunities, provide access and support to diverse learners, and address issues of scalability to meet demand. Distance learning can address a variety of institutional needs. These include space constraints, enrollment expansion within an existing physical campus infrastructure, revenue generation, access for diverse student populations, international outreach, and global competitiveness. Institutions may use online learning to support degree completion by requiring a specific number of online course credits (Complete College America, 2011). Distance learning also offers access to non-traditional learners (e.g., those who are older, work full-time, or have family responsibilities). The latter participate at higher rates than traditional students (Radford, 2011). Fewer than 10% of chief academic officers surveyed indicate that online learning is not critical to institutional long-term planning (Allen & Seaman, 2014). As such, institutions must consider the potential impact of current developments and trends in their own contexts and across higher education. Approach to the Opportunity To address the higher education developments described, institutions must anticipate and embrace potentially disruptive innovations in technology and the delivery of education as opposed to simply reacting to them. Such an approach involves systematically and scientifically [exploring] whether [institutions] have good reasons to create [or expand] a distance education program (Watkins et al., 2013, p. 453). This exploration is a necessary first step to identifying, implementing, and sustaining innovations that will result in long-term change in order to meet global education demands. The framework in Figure 1 defines a process for examining future directions and engaging in strategic planning related to distance learning. The framework consists of three steps: determine rationale, explore feasibility, and establish a plan. These steps involve multiple stakeholders at various stages of the process. They necessitate collaboration among chief academic officers, deans, department chairs, and faculty representatives. Support staff such as institutional researchers, budget officers, instructional designers and technologists, marketing staff, faculty development center staff, student support personnel, policy experts, and assessment directors also play a role. These individuals will be involved at different stages in the process as is relevant to their expertise and responsibilities. This section introduces and explicates the parts of the framework. 3 Distance Learning Disruptions: Implications for Practice and Policy

Figure 1. Framework for distance learning innovations. Determine Rationale Institutions should first determine the impetus for distance learning development and its relationship to their mission and planning. As such, the first component of the framework involves determining rationale. Why is the institution considering a change in terms of distance learning? Is it due to new opportunities, competition from other providers, targets for increasing enrollment, inadequate physical space, workforce demand for specific programs, the needs of a target population (e.g., adult learners) who can best be served through online delivery, the desire to provide greater access, the need to reach beyond the confines of geographical location, or goals to increase scheduling flexibility to support degree completion? Institutions that are unable to expand physically may turn to online programs to meet demand or increase revenues. Those that are decreasing in enrollments or unable to compete with other institutions may determine to increase access and vigorously recruit students through online course offerings. Others may want to increase degree completion rates. Various motivations for considering change exist and must be clearly identified. A study of 311 institutions identified the following as benefits of distance learning: growth, retention, flexibility, enhanced reputation, improved pedagogy, student success, lower infrastructure costs, and additional revenue (Bichsel, 2013). Answers to the questions posed should be guided by the institution s mission and strategic planning processes. Is the direction being considered a good fit for the institution? Why or why not? Is it possible or desirable to modify the mission? What strategic goals are currently in place? How were they established? Do they need to change? For example, an institution that targets international students may determine to better prepare those students by offering online English language courses prior to the students coming to campus. This could be fiscally wise and also support student success. Students could complete a degree in a timelier manner and at less expense, and they would be better prepared for their studies. Such a change could address space issues for the institution and accommodate increased enrollments due to expedited completion times. Offering such courses could also increase interest in the institution and attract additional enrollments. The courses could be extended to students wanting to study at any English-speaking institution or improve their language skills for employment purposes. Such an initiative demonstrates how an institution can utilize distance learning to address contextual issues space, time to completion, student preparation as well as be competitive and potentially disruptive to current practice by determining and addressing the global education demand. The ability to offer low-cost, scalable degree programs with needed pre-university preparation in terms of English, study, and perhaps math skills is an example. Rationale for developing or expanding distance learning may be identified through an analysis of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats. Determining rationale and possible new directions for distance learning encourages innovative thinking that benefits both students and the institution. As part of this phase, institutional leaders will want to examine qualitative and quantitative data about markets and needs as well as historical factors. Examining the past can help shape the future as long as it does not inhibit change. 4 Distance Learning Disruptions: Implications for Practice and Policy

Explore Feasibility The second step for considering possible disruptions to current practice consists of examining the environment to determine the feasibility of launching or modifying a distance education program. Will it work? Can it be done? What is required to implement it? Information can be collected from a variety of sources. For example, before launching new programs, regardless of delivery method, many institutions conduct a formal market analysis to determine demand, job placement possibilities, salary, and other factors. This can be a significant investment but one which pays for itself when appropriate programs are identified in terms of the job market, competition from other schools, current number of graduates in the area, student interest, and the ability to target and recruit specific populations for the degree. A gap analysis demonstrating available and estimated employment needs compared to available workers can be extremely valuable. A different approach may be needed if institutions want to expand globally (Andrade, 2013). Data regarding global workforce needs, workforce needs of countries with high percentages of globally mobile students, and highly enrolled majors for these students should be considered. Then institutions can determine a distinctive approach that meets needs, attracts students, and ensures their success. Programs might be developed that involve a combination of host country residency, online coursework, or even instructional components in the country of origin either through a host institution branch campus or in partnership with home country institutions. Course design could include embedded learning and technology support to encourage learner skill development needed for achievement not only in the current course but in future courses. Data is critical to sound decision-making and serves as the foundation for disruptive innovations in distance learning. The biggest areas of concern in adopting distance learning are instructor familiarity with technology, adequate staffing, competition with other providers, affordability, instructor skepticism, and technology in general (Bichsel, 2013). Instructor skepticism may be a major challenge. In 10 years of tracking online education, instructor acceptance of this delivery method remains conservative, hovering at about 25% who find it valuable and legitimate (Allen & Seaman, 2013). It is advisable to examine these factors in the context of institutional culture and determine the likelihood of new directions being embraced. How much resistance is anticipated and how will it be addressed? Is the culture supportive of change? What are the fears and concerns of stakeholders and how can they be overcome? The current institutional infrastructure must also be examined to determine if systems and expertise are in place, and if they are not, what resources are needed? Systems that support on-campus students may not fit the needs of online programs. For example, how will students be admitted and register, particularly if the institution develops an off-site or true distance program available only to students not on the main campus? How are online students supported in terms of learning assistance, technology, or library resources? Do they pay the same amount or have specialized fees to off-set costs? How will faculty be trained, supported, or compensated? Are sufficient instructional designers and technology experts available? Are new policies or policy revisions needed? Institutions much also estimate cost, scalability, and return on investment (Jun & Lee, 2013). Exploring external and internal feasibility is particularly vital in the case of distance learning since a substantial investment in fiscal and human resources may be needed. Establish a Plan Establishing a strategic plan for distance learning entails collaboration and coordination among stakeholders. Institutional leaders identify the rationale, or need, explore feasibility, and determine the general direction and vision. Their planning includes why, what, by whom, and when on a broad level. It also accounts for items discovered in the feasibility stage such as the needed resources, new structures and staffing, and support systems for learners and faculty. Leaders set the vision and provide the resources, and then charge those with specific skill sets to implement the plan; this entails further planning, goal setting, and specific course or program development plans in order to realize the vision. Program development in distance education involves three components: demand, fiscal and human resources, and ownership (Worthen, 2013). Demand is addressed in the rationale stage and resources in the 5 Distance Learning Disruptions: Implications for Practice and Policy

feasibility stage. These aspects are largely the responsibility of administrators. Ownership is created by widespread discussion among stakeholders at all stages, and by devolving an agreed-upon plan to those who will further develop and implement it. This includes those directly responsible for distance learning such as directors or managers, instructional designers, technology/media experts, instructors, and support or service staff across campus (e.g., learning assistance, technology help desk, the library). These individuals will collaborate to develop a detailed plan that involves specifics such as learning models that encourage achievement and retention (e.g., self-regulated learning; see Andrade, 2012), delivery modes (e.g., online, hybrid, asynchronous, synchronous), instructor development, and technology training and support. Development involves more than simply designing courses and programs. It entails pedagogy, technology, training, workload considerations, and compensation (Gunawardena, 2013), some which will need to be addressed by administrators, particularly when resources are involved, and others which will be determined by those responsible for program development. Although the terminology and various parts of a strategic plan can vary as can the actual template used to draft and track the plan, components typically include goals, action steps, responsible parties, resources, and timelines. Strategic plans and their results must also be evaluated to determine if goals have been met and if not, what adjustments are needed. One element of evaluation is course quality. This is critical in all learning programs and perhaps more so in distance education as many are skeptical of its outcomes. Confidence in online education has been increasing among some (though not university instructors, as indicated earlier). Indeed, 74.1% of academic leaders rated learning outcomes for online courses the same or better than those in face-to-face instruction (Allen & Seaman, 2015). This is an increase from 57.2% in 2003 (although slightly lower than the finding of 77% in 2012). Factors that must be considered in discussions of quality are student preparation, academic standards, and student learning outcomes. The means of determining quality might include setting benchmarks, collecting data, using internal and external evaluators, and implementing instructor and course evaluations. Instructional designers can use standardized measures of quality such as those set by Quality Matters (2014). These consist of 8 standards: course overview and introduction, learning objectives, assessment and measurement, instructional materials, learner interaction and engagement, course technology, learner support, and accessibility; and a total of 41 specific standards across these areas. Courses are externally reviewed by trained peer evaluators for quality design elements, and courses meeting the requirements are nationally recognized. Another option is to have an internal peer review process in which instructors or unit heads within the relevant disciplinary area on campus are asked to review courses. Questions might focus on the following: Courses reflect established student learning objectives o Each lesson addresses one or more of these objectives o Activities and assignments are aligned with lesson objectives o Media/technology supports achievement of course and lesson objectives Content represents currency in the field Pacing and sequencing of information is appropriate Rigor is evident in terms of higher order thinking (e.g., synthesis, problem-solving, application); this is reflected in assessments Meaningful communication opportunities and processes between the instructor and students and among students is accounted for Opportunities for student self-reflection on learning are included Content and formatting are error-free, consistent, and professional These processes increase the likelihood that courses will be viewed as quality and will be accepted by instructors other than the one who developed the course. This is particularly important if multiple instructors will be teaching a course. If this is the case, then these instructors should all be involved in course design decisions. Additionally, learners are typically asked about their experiences in a course. These evaluations may entail 6 Distance Learning Disruptions: Implications for Practice and Policy

separate instructor evaluations, which are reviewed by the instructor s direct supervisor, and evaluations of the course itself. The latter would parallel the peer instructor evaluation and might include topics such as: Number of hours per week spent on the course Degree to which course meets student expectations Instructor expectations are clear The means to achieving stated learning outcomes is evident Activities, assessments, and learning objectives are aligned Structure of the course (e.g., logical sequencing of information) is appropriate Course reflects high academic standards (e.g., grading, workload) Course content is current Opportunities for interaction with the instructor and other students are provided Responses to such surveys will assist course designers in revising courses as needed to provide clear pathways, and to instructors in terms of making needed adjustments related to students investment of time, expectations, and academic standards, in particular. On the institutional level, an elearning maturity index might be part of the evaluation process. The index can be used for multiple purposes: as part of a needs analysis by institutional leaders to determine strengths and weaknesses and create a strategic plan (step 1 of the framework; see Figure 1), to determine progress across the institution in terms of goals and desired results, and to conduct comparisons with other institutions (Bichsel, 2013). The maturity index developed by the EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research consists of seven components as illustrated in Table 1. Data regarding the components was collected as part of an EDUCAUSE study of its institutional members (Bichsel, 2013). These results are valuable for comparison purposes. Table 1. elearning Maturity Index Dimension Synergy Priority Readiness Ongoing Evaluation/Training Policies/Governance Investment in Faculty/Staff Outcomes Assessment Description A coming together (Bichsel, 2013, p. 30) of elearning systems - centralized technology services, fundamental importance of instructional technology to mission, reliable technology delivery systems elearning viewed as a priority and investment; management position dedicated to elearning Faculty interest, faculty voice in technology selection; scalable & adaptable services, programs, and technologies Faculty, staff, student training; process for evaluating new technology Policies for intellectual property of course materials, governance/decision-making, identification verification, accessibility for learners with disabilities Impact of support on instructional technology resources and staff, faculty rewards and incentives for development and delivery Analytics to measure effectiveness of courses, impact of initiatives on strategic goals Results and Reflection Online programs provide global higher education opportunity (Altbach et al., 2009). The framework presented assists institutions in systematically considering the impact of relevant factors. Although institutions have 7 Distance Learning Disruptions: Implications for Practice and Policy

various reasons for implementing distance learning programs, those that adopt a long-term plan with regular review to anticipate and respond to technology developments, diverse student needs, student mobility and competition, and other factors will be positioned to create the future rather than reacting to the innovations of institutions with greater foresight (Watkins et al., 2013). For some, survival may depend on the ability to become more responsive and relevant to new demands from a clientele reflecting an evolving demographic profile (Beaudoin, in press). This is a key consideration in strategic planning. Will those who resist transformative change, which may include both early adopters of distance learning who fail to continue exploration of new opportunities presented by innovative technologies, and those who are risk-adverse and entrenched in a legacy that has persevered for a millennium, (Beaudoin, in press) be overcome by sweeping technological change and competition? Will change-resistant institutional cultures present barriers to needed innovations for teaching and learning? Institutions must be willing to embrace disruptive technologies (Christensen, 2007; Christensen & Eyring, 2011) to avoid such outcomes. The framework and considerations for each of its three steps provides a guide for institutions in determining context-specific approaches that benefit the institution and its learners those currently enrolled and new populations demanding education credentials in order to improve their lives and contribute to the greater good of their communities and nations. Innovative thinking regarding educational delivery and use of technology will help address workforce and government-identified needs for educated and skilled employees. A thorough examination of demand, opportunity, concerns, and return on investment is critical for institutions to evolve and create new pathways to learning. Conclusions Higher education institutions are at various stages in the development and dissemination of distance learning programs, some at the forefront and others characterized by a more measured approach. In both cases, institutions must consider the issues identified to determine current and future needs and directions. Global trends related to the democratization of higher education and its impact on demand and learner diversity are causing unprecedented growth of distance learning and the need for innovation. Although distance education remains a divisive issue, with some who view it with disdain, and others who anticipate great advances in knowledge-sharing tools (Anderson, Boyles, & Rainey, 2012, p. 6), institutions must carefully consider how they will respond to current forces that have the potential to drastically disrupt traditional higher education practices for teaching and learning. References Allen, E., & Seaman, J. (2015). Grade change: Tracking online education in the United States. Babson Park, MA: Babson Survey Research Group and Quahog Research Group. Retrieved from http://www.onlinelearningsurvey.com/reports/gradelevel.pdf Allen, E., & Seaman, J. (2014). Grade change: Tracking online education in the United States. Babson Park, MA: Babson Survey Research Group and Quahog Research Group. Retrieved from http://www.onlinelearningsurvey.com/reports/gradechange.pdf Altbach, P, G., Reisberg, L., & Rumbley, L. E. (2010). Trends in global higher education: Tracking an academic revolution. Paris: UNESCO. Retrieved from http://www.uis.unesco.org/library/documents/trendsglobal-higher-education-2009-world-conference-en.pdf Anderson, J. Boyles, J. L., & Rainey, L. (2012, July). Imagining the internet. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/files/oldmedia/files/reports/2012/pip_future_of_higher_ed.pdf Andrade, M. S. (2012). Self-regulated learning activities: Supporting success in online courses. In J. S. Moore (Ed.), Distance learning (pp. 111-132). Rijeka, Croatia: InTech. Retrieved from http://www.intechopen.com/articles/show/title/self-regulated-learning-activities-supporting-success- in-online-courses- Andrade, M. S. (2013). Global learning by distance: Principles and practicalities for learner support. 8 Distance Learning Disruptions: Implications for Practice and Policy

International Journal of Online Pedagogy and Course Design, 3(1), 66-81. Beaudoin, M. (in press). Issues in distance education: A primer for higher education decision-makers. In M. S. Andrade (Ed.) New Directions in Higher Education. Special Issue on Distance Education. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Bichsel, J. (2013, June). The state of e-learning in higher education: An eye toward growth and increased access (Research Report). Louisville, CO: EDUCAUSE Center for Analysis and Research (ECAR). Retrieved from educause.edu/library/resources/state-e-learning-higher- education-eye-towardgrowth-and-increased-access British Council. (2012). The shape of things to come: Higher education global trends and emerging opportunities to 2020. Retrieved from http://www.britishcouncil.org/education/ihe/knowledgecentre/global-landscape/report-shape-of-things-to-come-1 Choudaha, R., Chang, L., & Kono, Y. (2013, March). International student mobility trends 2013: Towards responsive recruitment strategies. World Education News & Review, 26(2). Retrieved from http://www.wes.org/ewenr/13mar/feature.htm Christensen, C. & Eyring, H. (2011). The innovative university: Changing the DNA of higher education from the inside out. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Christensen, C. (1997). The innovator s dilemma: When new technologies cause great firms to fail. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Complete College America. (2011, September). Time is the enemy. Retrieved from http://completecollege.org/docs/time_is_the_enemy.pdf Dobbs, R, Madgavkar, A., Barton, D., Labaye, E., Manyika, J., Roxburgh, C., Lund, S., & Madhav, S. (2012). The world at work: Jobs, pay, and skills for 3.5 billion people. Retrieved from file:///c:/users/10546677/downloads/mgi-global_labor_full_report_june_2012.pdf European Commission. (2014). Strategic framework: Education and training. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/education/policy/strategic-framework/index_en.htm Gunawardena, C. N. (2013). Culture and online distance language learning. In M. G. Moore (Ed.), Handbook of distance education (3rd ed., pp. 185-200). New York: Routledge. Jun I., & Lee, S. (2013). Cost-effectiveness of online education. In M. G. Moore (Ed.), Handbook of distance education (3rd ed., pp. 521-532). New York: Routledge. Kamenetz, A. (2008). DIY U: Edupunks, edupreneurs, and the coming transformation of higher education. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green Publishing Company. Quality Matters. (2014). Higher education program rubric. Retrieved from https://www.qualitymatters.org/rubric Radford, A. W. (2011, October). Learning at a distance. Undergraduate enrollment in distance education courses and degree programs. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2012154 Watkins, R., Kaufman, R, & Odunlami, B. (2013). Strategic planning and needs assessment in distance education. In M. G. Moore (Ed.), Handbook of distance education (3rd ed., pp. 452-466). New York: Routledge. Worthen, H. (2013). How the working conditions of online teaching affect the work lives of online faculty: Report from the COCAL/UALE working group on online learning survey, October-December 2012. Retrieved from https://www.google.com/search?q=teachers+are+glorified+graders&rlz=1c1chfx_enus501us501&o q=teachers+are+glorified+graders&aqs=chrome..69i57.4711j0 9 Distance Learning Disruptions: Implications for Practice and Policy