Distributed Education 1: Overview · with an overview of distance education, e-learning, or what we prefer to call distributed learning. We prefer the term distributed learning over

FIRST IN A SERIES

Distributed Education and Its Challenges:An Overview

Diana G. Oblinger

Carole A. Barone

Brian L. Hawkins

American Council on EducationCenter for Policy Analysis

Copyright © 2001American Council on Education

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means elec-tronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system,without permission in writing from the publisher.

Distributed Education: Challenges, Choices, and a Ne w Environment

For t he American Council on Education:

Managing EditorPatricia A. Maloney

Senior Vice President, Programs & AnalysisMichael A. Baer

Director, Center for Policy AnalysisJacqueline E. King

Program ManagerNorie Flowers

For EDUCAUSE:

PresidentBrian L. Hawkins

Vice PresidentCarole A. Barone

We are grateful to the AT&T Foundation, Accenture, and Compaq Corporation

for their generous support of this series on distributed education.

American Council on EducationOne Dupont Circle NWWashington, DC 20036Fax: (202) 785-2990

Additional copies of this publication are available bysending a check or money order for $15 to the following address:

ACE Fulfillment ServiceDepartment 191Washington, DC 20055-0191Phone: (301) 604-9073Fax: (301) 604-0158

A free electronic version of this report is available through www.acenet.edu/bookstore

Abstract v

Foreword vii

Introduction 1

Challenging Assumptions 3

Student Learning 5

Strategic Goals 7

Intended Audiences 9

Market Size and Growth of Distance Education 11

Governance and Organization 13

Partnerships 17

Quality 19

Policies 21

Barriers 25

Leadership Challenges 27

Conclusion 29

Appendix 1:Comparison of Target Markets Among Selected Educational Providers 31

Appendix 2: Guidelines for Distance Education 33

Appendix 3:Council for Higher Education Accreditation Competency Standards Project 35

Appendix 4: Measures of Quality in Internet-Based Distance Learning 39

Appendix 5: Resources for Distributed Learning 41

Appendix 6: Twelve Conditions for Change 43

Notes 45

About the Authors 47

Table of Contents

Distance or distributed education is one of the most complex issues facing higher educa-tion institutions today. This paper is designed to provide college and university presidentswith an overview of distance education, e-learning, or what we prefer to call distributed

learning. We prefer the term distributed learning over distance education because “distance” istoo restrictive a concept.

Few institutions will be untouched by the discussion and debate surrounding distributed edu-cation. As a result, institutional leaders will need to understand its implications for themselves andtheir institutions. This first paper in the ACE/EDUCAUSE series, Distributed Education and ItsChallenges: An Overview, provides a general framework for understanding the key questions thatdistributed education poses to the higher education community.

This overview paper identifies significant issues associated with distributed education and sug-gests a series of questions to help institutional leaders establish and validate their options. We en-courage institutions to use this paper as a primer and hope that it will catalyze in-depth, strategicdiscussions. In addition to framing the issues for various stakeholders, the paper outlines topicsthat will be addressed thoroughly in future monographs in the series, including issues of qualitycontrol and leadership.

Abstract

A m e r i c a n C o u n c i l o n E d u c a t i o n / E D U C A U S E V

Distributed Education and Its Challenges: An Overview is the first monograph in a series ofinvited papers on distributed education commissioned by the American Council onEducation (ACE) and EDUCAUSE. The purpose of the series is to provide presidents,

provosts, and other senior decision-makers with a sense of the landscape of technologically medi-ated education and a means to make wise strategic choices.

This paper describes the “big picture” and frames issues facing college and university leadersconfronting rapid change in both the forms and frameworks for delivering learning. Some of thechallenges of the new learning environments discussed in this paper include market size andgrowth, governance and organization, partnerships, quality, barriers, and leadership challenges.Future papers in the series will develop these themes in greater detail.

The genesis for this series evolved from a design meeting held at ACE in spring 1999.Extensive discussion and exploration of major issues led to a partnership with EDUCAUSE and aclose working relationship with its president, Brian L. Hawkins, and vice president, Carole A.Barone.

This series, Distributed Education: Challenges, Choices, and a New Environment, has been sustained with generous support from the AT&T Foundation, Accenture, and the CompaqCorporation.

“Distance” or “distributed” learning raises a strategic and financial challenge for every type ofhigher education institution. Advancements in technology and expansion of markets for distrib-uted learning pose questions for college and university presidents, regardless of their institutionalmission. Our goal in this series is to provide leaders with tools that help them ask the right ques-tions about technology and higher education.

Michael A. Baer Senior Vice President, Programs & AnalysisAmerican Council on Education

Foreword

A m e r i c a n C o u n c i l o n E d u c a t i o n / E D U C A U S E V I I

Technology is having a dramatic effecton colleges and universities, producingwhat may be the most challenging per-

iod in the history of higher education. Onemanifestation of the convergence of technologyand education is distributed learning.

The World Wide Web provides alternativemeans for the delivery of courses and services,providing learners with an extraordinary rangeof options. In fact, the web is affecting how stu-dents learn. It has altered the competitive land-scape in higher education and is a catalyst in thecreation of new business models whose impactis being felt at the core of our institutions.

What do we mean by “distance education,”“e-learning,” or “distributed learning”? Doesit occur at a distance? Is it synchronous?Asynchronous? Is it an extension of the class-room or a replacement of it? Is it really location-independent learning, distance-lesseducation, or time-enhanced learning?

Distance learning is a subset of distributedlearning, focusing on students who may beseparated in time and space from their peersand the instructor. Distributed learning canoccur either on or off campus, providing stu-dents with greater flexibility and eliminatingtime as a barrier to learning. A common fea-ture of both distance and distributed learningis technology. Regardless of whether studentsare on campus or online, there are many impli-cations of integrating technology into educa-tion, i.e., in making learning distributed. As aresult, much of our discussion focuses on thebroader issue of distributed learning.

Distance education and on-campus instruc-tion are converging, with online delivery sys-tems and approaches being employed fordistant, commuting, and residential students.This convergence of “clicks and mortar” inthe form of technology-mediated education isdistributed learning.

Distributed learning is much more than anonline substitute for lectures. Distributedlearning extends the opportunities for inter-action between faculty and student, incorpo-rating simulations and visualizations, as wellas collaborative learning. In fact, the “any-time, anyplace” nature of this new set of elec-tronic educational opportunities may wellhave its greatest impact on residential educa-tion. Not only does distributed learning occuranywhere and at any time, but these condi-tions can be modified along a number ofdimensions.

Customization may hinge on differences inlearner backgrounds or variation in basic aca-demic preparation. The learning experiencealso may be tailored to accommodate thosewith learning disabilities or alternative learn-ing styles. Distributed learning environmentsmay augment traditional instruction throughreinforcement—by providing the opportunityto explore a subject in much greater depth,allowing learners to study the material ontheir own time, or to gain additional experi-ence outside of the defined classroom times orhomework assignments. In distributed learn-ing, the learning experience is no longerbounded by the length of the class session.

Introduction

A m e r i c a n C o u n c i l o n E d u c a t i o n / E D U C A U S E 1

2 D i s t r i b u t e d E d u c a t i o n a n d I t s C h a l l e n g e s

With learning material available 24 hours aday, 7 days a week, time is no longer a limita-tion to learning.

Distributed learning, rather than distanceeducation, will become the dominant para-digm for higher education—although, in theshort term, institutions are confronted with amultitude of challenges associated with the“distance” component.

The future of distributed learning—and ofhigher education—will not be a one-size-fits-allapproach. Far from spelling the demise of tra-ditional classroom education, online learning(i.e., learning environments that use theInternet and/or the web) allows for differentia-tion of institutions, learning styles, and peda-gogy. The variations provided by onlinelearning environments will not only rival—butare likely to surpass—the diversity of types ofinstitutions that currently characterizesAmerican higher education.

There are three axioms that illustrate thisnexus of technology and education:• New technology affords exciting opportuni-

ties for more effective learning. • New technology offers the prospect of

reaching more learners. • New technology will transform higher edu-

cation as we know it today.1

Certainly one could argue that all of thesestatements are true, but how they will actuallymanifest themselves is difficult to predict.What is clear is that distributed education,and specifically technology-enhanced learningenvironments, are challenging our historicalassumptions about how postsecondary institu-tions will educate students and deliver services—even what our roles as institutions will be.

The question, What are you doing aboutdistance education? often seems to come withthe assumption that everyone should be doingsomething. But is “doing something” synony-mous with “doing the right thing”? What

issues are of critical importance? How shouldinstitutions decide?

As Internet start-ups move into the tradi-tional higher education realm, concern ismounting. If the pressure to move to distrib-uted learning is not coming from externalforces, there are plenty of internal onesdemanding attention. In an era when manystudents have never known life without theInternet, when time is constrained for adultlearners seeking additional education, andwhen worldwide demand for education is at anall-time high, the classroom no longer boundsthe learning environment.

The possibilities represented by distributedlearning are great, as are the challenges itbrings. Focusing on a series of challenges andissues is not intended to dissuade institutionsfrom becoming actively involved in distributedlearning but to highlight the organizational,policy, and cultural challenges that should beconsidered. This paper spans issues such as• Student learning.• Strategic goals and intended audiences.• Market dynamics.• Organization and governance. • Partnerships. • Quality.• Policy.• Barriers. • Leadership challenges.

There are few clear answers to the chal-lenges raised by distributed learning. Theenvironment is in a state of constant churn.However, few institutions have the luxury ofwaiting until the future becomes obvious.Each institution needs to determine the mixof objectives and actions that best fits itsunique mission, history, culture, and values.We hope this paper will clarify the optionsassociated with distributed learning, helpleaders engage their constituencies in a dia-logue, and chart a path through higher edu-cation’s most dynamic era.

When most of us think about highereducation, we automatically makedozens of assumptions. For learn-

ing, the course is often the basic unit of mea-sure that we presume. Program length ismeasured in semesters or quarters. Teaching ishandled by faculty. Students pay tuition.Courses originate from within, rather thanoutside, the institution.

Some other common assumptions abouthigher education include• We know the student profile and learner

preferences for learning and service delivery.• Student credit hours (SCH) and full-time

equivalents (FTE) are relevant units ofmeasure in distributed education.

• Completion of the curriculum is the mea-sure of competency.

• Traditional institutional models (e.g., forclassroom instruction, governance, andfinancing) will be successful in an e-learningworld.

• Higher education must provide all compo-nents of the educational process (e.g., con-tent, curriculum, services, andcredentialing).

• External providers of educational services(e.g., courses or tutoring from an Internetstart-up) are inherently bad or of lowerquality than educational institutions.

• Quality is better in a not-for-profit organi-zation than in a for-profit one.

• High quality will drive out low quality.• The market will continue to support 3,700

postsecondary institutions.• Distributed learning is a viable option for

all postsecondary education institutions.• The faculty member is the focal point of the

learning process.• All higher education institutions must

develop their own distributed learning pro-grams.

Although these assumptions characterizeour current system, they may not apply to dis-tributed learning. Many of our current poli-cies, organizations, and definitions are eitherinadequate or inappropriate for distributedlearning. The notion of credit for seat time hassustained our current model of higher educa-tion, but will it suffice for a future representedby distributed learning?

Challenging Assumptions


An increasing body of evidence suggeststhat the Internet changes the way thatpeople work and learn. In fact, the web

is seen by many as a transformative technologyfor learning. It has already “transformed”many of today’s youth.

For example, the web is the first mediumthat honors the notion of multiple intelli-

gences—abstract, textual, visual, musical, social,and kinesthetic. Educators can now constructlearning environments that enable students tobecome engaged in learning any way the stu-dent chooses. The anytime, anyplace nature ofthe web allows students to spend as much timeas they need searching for information, runningsimulations, or collaborating with peers.2

Student Learning


The Information-Age Mindset

Most students entering our colleges and universities today are younger than the microcomputer, are more com-fortable working on a keyboard than writing in a spiral notebook, and are happier reading from a computerscreen than from paper in hand. For them, constant connectivity—being in touch with friends and family at anytime and from any place—is of utmost importance.

The many new attributes of student behavior will have a profound impact on our educational institutions. Frandhas identified 10 attributes reflecting values and behaviors that make up “the information age mindset.” Theyare

• Computers aren’t technology.

• The Internet is better than TV.

• Reality is no longer real.

• Doing is more important than knowing.

• Nintendo (trial-and-error; experimentation) is preferable to logic.

• Multitasking is a way of life.

• Typing is preferable to handwriting.

• Staying connected is essential.

• There is zero tolerance for delays.

• The lines between consumer and creator are blurring.

Frand concludes that the outlook of those we teach has changed and thus the way in which we teach mustchange. The world in which we all live has changed and thus the content we teach must change. The IndustrialAge has become the Information Age and thus the way we organize our institutions must change, as must themeaning we attach to the terms “student,” “teacher,” and “alumnus.” The challenge will be for educators andhigher education institutions to incorporate the information-age mindset of today’s learners into our programsso as to create communities of lifelong learners.3


Beyond the fundamentally different char-acteristics of the web, those who have grownup “digital” actually work and think different-ly. It is no longer safe to assume that theylearn as we do. For instance, today’s youngpeople multiprocess—they do several thingssimultaneously (e.g., listen to music, talk onthe cell phone, and use the computer, all atthe same time). Adults tend to think thatyoung people who are multiprocessing mustnot be concentrating. This may not be true.The attention span of teens often is between30 seconds and five minutes—a figure that par-allels that of top managers who operate in aworld of tight deadlines, executive summaries,and rapid decisions.4

Whether or not one grew up digital, today’sliteracy (referred to by some as “postdigital lit-eracy”) involves not only text but also imageand screen literacy. This new literacy is one ofinformation navigation. Students today navi-gate the Internet, assembling knowledge fromfragments of information as opposed to visitinga library. This new form of informationretrieval enables students to be their own per-sonal reference librarians who know how tonavigate through confusing, complex informa-tion spaces and feel comfortable doing so.Information navigation may be the main formof literacy for the 21st century.5 However, stu-dents need guidance in developing taste anddiscrimination in the selection of informationon the Internet.

Another shift deals specifically with learn-ing. Most of us experienced formal learning inan authority-based, lecture-oriented environ-ment. Now, with incredible amounts of infor-mation available on the web, learning through

discovery is becoming preeminent. Our gener-ation tends not to want to try things unless weknow how to use them. Today’s learners wantto “turn the thing on, get in there, muckaround, and see what works. Today’s kids geton the web and link, lurk, and then try it them-selves.”6

The web holds a number of implications forlearning environments as well as for the type ofstudents we are educating.• Exploration: E-learners use the web as an

exploratory tool to access a plethora ofinformation and resources.

• Experience: The web offers e-learners acomprehensive learning experience, fromsynchronous learning to threaded discus-sions to self-paced study.

• Engagement: The web captivates learnersby enabling creative approaches to learningthat foster collaboration and a sense ofcommunity.

• Ease of use: The web is easy to use not onlyfor learners, but for learning providers aswell. Content can be made immediatelyavailable to learners across all technicalplatforms (e.g., Windows and Unix).

• Empowerment: The web puts learners inthe driver’s seat with a set of tools thatenables personalization of content andallows learners to choose the way in whichthey best learn.7

• Effectiveness: There is a growing body ofevidence that, owing to the ability to createcustomized learning environments on theweb, distributed education is more effectivethan the classroom lecture and the tradi-tional relationship between student andfaculty member.8,9,10

Questions to Ask:• What kind of support

do faculty need todevelop engaging andempowering onlineenvironments?

• Are we using theunique capabilities ofthe web to makelearning environmentsengaging and effec-tive?

• Do we know whichstudents will learn bestat a distance andthose for whom it is apoor choice?

Distributed learning represents amajor institutional commitment. Assuch, it should align with institutional

goals and resource allocations. However, fortoo many institutions, the motivation is bestexpressed as the sense that everyone else isdoing it. Does distributed learning support aspecific strategic goal for the institution or isthe rationale muddled? To gain the commit-ment of all those who must support a majorinitiative (board, executive cabinet, faculty,staff, etc.) it is important to articulate clearlythe strategic goals behind the institution’sinterest in distributed learning. For example,what is the institution’s commitment to edu-cational access? Would distributed educationenhance the fulfillment of that goal? Will itseem inconsistent with policies on selectivityand/or the importance of the residential expe-rience? Does distributed education comple-ment the institution’s mission, culture, andhistoric strengths or does it create discord?An institution may have multiple, and poten-tially conflicting, motivations for distributededucation. Even conflicting motivations canbe legitimate. The challenge to institutionalleaders is to sort out the motivations andrationales.

The institutional motivation(s) driving dis-tributed learning often fall into one of fourbroad categories:

Expand access. Most states need to expandaccess to meet the education and trainingneeds of state residents and businesses, as

well as to provide education to underservedpopulations.

Alleviate capacity constraints. Many institu-tions are expecting more college students thantheir facilities can accommodate in the nextdecade. Some colleges and universities hope toleverage the scalability of distributed learning toavoid their existing bricks-and-mortar capacityconstraints.

Strategic Goals


Readiness Topology

To help institutions better assess their readiness tomove into distributed education, EDUCAUSE’sNational Learning Infrastructure Initiative (NLII) isdeveloping the Readiness Topology. The “READY”project is a web-based decision tool organizedaround the concept of institutional readiness forseveral transformative goals—including distributededucation. The tool guides users through a seriesof considerations to help them understand theirinstitution’s current situation as well as to developa meaningful plan to improve their readiness.

This decision support tool provides both a con-ceptual framework for distributed education aswell as some practical advice on programs andpolicies that institutions will likely want to have inplace as they begin a distributed learning pro-gram. The self-assessments should empowerinstitutions to apply scarce resources strategically.

To view the pilot site, go to http://www.educause.edu/ready. Although thesite is under construction, it is a valuable tool foruse by individuals as well as groups.


Generate new revenue. The quest for lifelonglearning has increased the demand for highereducation across all age groups. Many institu-tions hope to generate new revenue from dis-tance education by targeting emergingsegments such as international education orworking adults.

Serve as a catalyst for institutional trans-formation. Institutions are being challengedto adapt rapidly in a more competitive envi-ronment. Many are using information tech-nology (IT) as the impetus to rethink contentand pedagogy. Others are finding it the besttool for addressing information age learning

styles. Whether focusing on the learningenvironment, student services, or even back-office operations (e.g., student recordsystems), IT and distributed learning are beingused as catalysts to stimulate institutionaltransformation.11

In fact, most institutions are motivated by more than one of these goals. However, itis doubtful that any institution will be able tomeet all four goals with a single model of distributed education. The organizationalstructure, governance, programmatic empha-sis, and/or financial model required may bedifferent, depending on the strategic goal.

Questions to Ask:• Does the institution

have a clear rationalefor distributed educa-tion?

• How does this ratio-nale align with existingprograms and theinstitutional mission?

• How broadly has therationale been com-municated?

In addition to the rationale, it is importantto know who distributed education isintended to serve. Adult learners can be

quite different from 18-year-old freshmen—from their learning styles, to the support theyrequire, to their programs of interest.

The intended audience for distributed edu-cation can be segmented into numerous cate-gories, ranging from traditional studentsseeking additional flexibility to “recreationallearners” engaged in expanding their personalknowledge. Segment definitions may dependon factors such as the goals of the learner, theindividual’s maturity level, and who makes thepurchasing decision.

The following is a sample set of learnersegments:• Corporate learners work for corporations

and are seeking education to maintain orupgrade their skills. The purchasing deci-sion is made by the employing corporationand not by the individual acting alone.

• Professional enhancement learners areseeking to advance their careers or shiftcareers. They are working adults who makethe educational purchasing decision ontheir own.

• Degree-completion adult learners areworking to complete a degree at an olderage. They frequently are working adultswho must balance work and family needswith their educational goals.

• College experience learners are preparingfor life (a.k.a. the traditional student). Thissegment includes many of the 18- to

24-year-old residential college students forwhom the coming of age process is almostas important as academic achievement.

• Pre-college (K–12) learners are interested indoing baccalaureate-level work prior to thecompletion of high school. This segmentmay be interested in getting a jump start oncollege.

• Remediation and test preparation learnersare focused on learning as a prerequisite toan examination or enrollment in anotherprogram.

• Recreational learners are interested in edu-cation for its own sake. They enjoy learningand view additional education as a hobby oras a source of personal enjoyment.12

Some segments, such as corporate learnersand professional enhancement learners, arebeing targeted by for-profit companies as wellas traditional educational providers (seeAppendix 1 for a comparison of segments andsample providers). Many of these “competi-tors” represent multi-institutional partner-ships that allow a company to leverage contentfrom educational providers who have expertisein serving specific segments.

Note that the features of these target audi-ences are different. These characteristics drivespecific distributed education componentssuch as courses/curricula, pedagogy, or mar-keting. The types of programs that are likely tobe successful with K–12 learners (e.g.,advanced placement) are distinct from thosefor corporate learners. Services may vary, as

Intended Audiences


1 0 D i s t r i b u t e d E d u c a t i o n a n d I t s C h a l l e n g e s

well. Test preparation learners may valuetutoring services; recreational learners are lesslikely to do so. The type of instructional sup-port required by faculty members also will varydepending upon the modality of instructionappropriate for the intended audience.

In the case of actual distance education,how the institution markets its offerings willvary. Selling a distance education program toa multinational corporation with thousandsof learners differs from marketing remedialcourses to individual learners. Other factorsmay vary as well, such as the strength of aparticular institution’s image and the capitalrequired to be successful in a specific seg-ment.

Questions to Ask:• Who are the intended

audiences for distrib-uted education?

• Is the institution pre-pared to allocate theresources required tosupport the instructionmodality appropriatefor the intended audi-ence?

• Does the choice ofintended audiencecomplement existingcampus-based pro-gram(s)?

One reason that distance education hasattracted so much attention in thepast few years is the recognition that

the higher education market is large and grow-ing. The United States currently spends $740billion a year on education (at all levels), morethan is spent on national defense and morethan the gross domestic products of Spain,Brazil, or Canada.13 Distance education isexpected to grow at a compound annualgrowth rate of 33 percent, according toInternational Data Corporation. Analysts pre-dict that distance education demand willincrease from 5 percent of all higher educationstudents in 1998 to 15 percent by 2002.14

Unfortunately, it is all too easy to get car-ried away with such projections. Before initiat-ing a distance education program, aninstitution must consider whether it is in astrong competitive position relative to otherhigher education institutions or to e-learningstart-ups. How much can an institution affordto invest (and for how long) in an effort to cap-ture that demand? While it is attractive tothink about replicating a single course to hun-dreds of thousands of learners around theworld, this represents a massive assumption.Can any course, offered from a single culturalperspective and by a sole institution, be suc-cessful? Although there is great potential fordistance education, there is also a great deal ofhype and hyperbole.

Among some U.S. colleges and universi-ties that have developed aggressive distance

learning programs, the reported growth rates(from 1999–2000 to 2000–2001) range from200 percent (Pennsylvania State University’sWorld Campus) to over 1,000 percent(University of Maryland’s UniversityCollege).15 While the success of these institu-tions should be applauded, it would be unwiseto assume that these growth rates can beemulated without considerable time, invest-ment, expertise, and development of soundstrategies.

Many successful distance education pro-grams are based on years of experimentationwith pedagogy and delivery systems.Establishing technical infrastructure and sup-port programs may require millions of dollarsand take years to develop. Investments canexceed $1 million per course. Will lateentrants find themselves inexperienced andundercapitalized? Will they enter a marketthat already has been picked clean of the lucra-tive and high-demand courses and programsthat are most in demand?

Despite such concerns, optimism continuesto permeate the market. Those in U.S. highereducation have not only come to believe thatthe distance education market is large, grow-ing, and profitable, but that the appeal of a U.S.degree in the international market is great. Thesheer numbers of potential worldwide learnershas encouraged some to speculate that e-learn-ing from U.S. institutions can capture a portionof the ever-increasing global audience.

Market Size and Growth ofDistance Education*

A m e r i c a n C o u n c i l o n E d u c a t i o n / E D U C A U S E 1 1

* Here we are referring specifically to programs targeted at learners geographically removed from the traditional campus.


Before U.S. higher education succumbs tothe market allure of millions of potential learn-ers, some assumptions should be questioned.While a U.S. degree is highly prized, it is stillopen to debate whether large numbers oflearners will gravitate to American distanceeducation offerings. First, many cannot accessInternet-based education. Second, some maynot be able to take advantage of instructionprovided in English. Third, internationallearners may be expecting different contentfrom Americans taking the same course.Finally, there are competitors for these learners.

Questions to Ask:• If we choose to offer

distance educationprograms, can weinvest sufficiently innew ventures withoutundercutting existingprograms?

• How much risk is theinstitution willing toassume by moving intodistance education?

• Who are the competi-tors in each chosensegment of distanceeducation? How strongis the institution com-pared to the competition(e.g., quality of offer-ings, name-recognition,and financing)?

Success in the emerging distributedlearning environment is likely torequire different organizational struc-

tures from those that currently exist in tradi-tional institutions. The characteristics oftenidentified as critical for success in this newworld of e-business and e-learning include• Speed: How quickly can the organization

respond to change?• Money: How much funding is available for

new projects? Who controls the money?• Talent: Do we have the best people to get

the job done?• Alignment: How well aligned is e-learning

with the rest of the institution?

Although higher education strives to beresponsive to learners’ needs, many of ourprocesses and traditional timetables make usanything but nimble. How long does it take toapprove a new course? What is the averagetimeline for endorsing and launching a newdegree program? Can a textbook be written andprinted before its information half-life haspassed? Internet time has had little impact onmany of our processes. To be competitive andsuccessful, distributed education will require agovernance model with a level of dynamism andflexibility dramatically different from traditionalfaculty governance models. It is highly unlikelythat “bolting on” a distributed learning modelto our existing structures will achieve the need-ed flexibility, nimbleness, and responsiveness.16

Governance and organization choices canhave a major impact on funding strategies, as

well. Will legislatures and boards allocate newfunds for distance education? Will those “new”funds come at the expense of traditional pro-grams? If new dollars cannot be allocated, is itpossible for the institution to attract venturecapital? What impact would such a move haveon the institution’s culture?

Some issues extend beyond the dollarsthemselves and relate to controlling fund allo-cation. If the modus operandi of the campus isto distribute funds to individual departments,it may be difficult for a cohesive e-learningprogram to develop across the institution.Holding funds at the institution or system levelmay make it possible to mount a major initia-tive, but the process could be at odds with adecentralized culture.

Attracting and motivating a new breed ofentrepreneurial faculty is likely to be an impor-tant challenge, as well. Some faculty may bewilling to trade security (i.e., tenure) for greatereconomic opportunities and payoffs. If they donot find these options within the academy, willthey seek them in the dot-com world? Althoughnew models for faculty recruitment and reten-tion may be required, such approaches will bedifficult, if not impossible, within the confinesof traditional faculty governance and the exist-ing employment rules in higher education.17

Perhaps the most challenging talent issueinvolves finding—and retaining—the neces-sary instructional support personnel (e.g.,web designers, database managers, graphicdesigners, or instructional designers).Qualified individuals with these skills are in

Governance andOrganization



short supply. Even when our institutions suc-ceed in recruiting them, they are often hiredaway by competing businesses. If the instruc-tional support organization is housed withinthe traditional academic structure, will therebe the necessary latitude to attract and com-pensate the best talent? Or will state-mandatedsalary schedules, college/university benefitpackages, and intellectual property policies benoncompetitive compared to other employers?

Selection of an organization and governancemodel that works for distributed education maynot align with the existing culture of the institu-tion. In some instances, distributed educationmay represent a logical extension of the historicmission. In others, online learning appears tobe anathema to the ideal of close, personal rela-tionships between students and faculty.

Distance education poses serious challengesto the alignment of these programs with exist-ing academic, financial, and technology plans.If distance education is central to fulfilling theinstitution’s mission, should it be organizedand governed within the institution? Or do theneeds for independence, speed, and agilityoverride those concerns and argue for it beingstructured outside the traditional institution?

In the case of distance education, the gov-ernance issues are even more daunting.*Across the United States, colleges and univer-sities have taken different approaches toestablishing distance education organizations.Although the categories below do not describeall the detail or nuances possible, thesegeneral groupings describe most models.

Extensions of the traditional institution.A number of universities have created unitsthat are extensions of the current college oruniversity organization. These entities gener-ally are located within the central administra-tive unit and tend to be funded throughfoundation or university monies. Colleges anduniversities using this approach include the

University of Illinois, University of California-Berkeley, UCLA, the University of Texas, andthe State University of New York (SUNY).

Not-for-profit subsidiaries. Several universi-ties have established distance education pro-grams in not-for-profit organizations that areseparate from the university. These entities areessentially new businesses with a mission andculture distinct from the traditional university.Institutions using this model includePennsylvania State University’s World Campusand the University of Wisconsin’s LearningInnovation Center.

For-profit subsidiaries. In an effort to im-prove organizational responsiveness andattract capital, a growing number of tradi-tional institutions, both public and private,are creating for-profit spin-offs. Institutionsusing this approach include the University ofNebraska, Temple University, New YorkUniversity, Columbia University, theUniversity of Maryland, Stanford University,and Cornell University.

Virtual universities. More than a dozenstates have launched virtual universities in aneffort to address statewide policy issues such asworkforce development. Aggregating contentfrom state higher education institutions, virtu-al universities market courses to learners bydeveloping and maintaining a single e-learn-ing portal and course catalog. In some states,learners can even register for courses throughthe virtual university portal. States with virtualuniversities include South Dakota, Tennessee,Minnesota, Michigan, Kentucky, Florida,Georgia, and Arizona.18

In identifying the most appropriate gover-nance structure, the institution should considerwhat degree of centralization/decentralizationbest meets its strategic goals. Should the gov-

* Here we are referring specifically to programs targeted at learners geographically removed from the traditional campus.


ernance be more ad hoc or is a centralizedmodel better? Is the tradition for divisions anddeans to have a great deal of autonomy, or isthere an institution-wide approval processthat is intended to provide coordination andavoid duplication and waste of resources?Considering the resource base of most institu-tions, it may be difficult or impossible to sup-port and sustain multiple distance educationprograms on a single campus.

Another key question is whether the orga-nization managing distance education shouldreside within or outside of the existing institu-tion. If managed inside the existing institu-tion, will long-established rules and processeslimit success? If the organization lies outsideof the existing institution, are facultyinvolved? If so, how? Who is responsible foreducational quality and curricular issues?Should the entity be not-for-profit or for-profit?If the institution is for-profit, will institutionalfunds be used as start-up capital? If profits aremade, will they be returned to the institution?If no profits are made, how does the institutionjustify the funds it initially invested? Althoughthe flexibility associated with an independent501(c)3 or a for-profit venture may be prefer-able (e.g., attracting venture capital), it maynot be politically viable.

An important role of governance is to iden-tify those who are decision makers. Creating amatrix of responsibilities and agreeing on whomakes what decisions speeds the decision-making process and reduces the divisiveness ofissues ranging from program planning to tech-nology delivery. Although the right mix ofresponsibilities will vary from campus to cam-pus, the following groups may be appropriatedecision makers for the issues listed below.

Note that although many distributed educa-tion discussions seem focused on the technolo-gy, most of the issues and those responsiblerepresent the traditional academic groups.Distributed education is fundamentally an aca-demic issue, not a technological one. AlthoughIT may be the stimulus or change agent, theessential matters are complex and will be thepurview of academics.

In a growing number of cases, a separatedistance education organization is establishedto provide marketing and services as a com-plement to the traditional academic enter-prise. Because distributed learning is oftenthought of as being driven by technology andtechnologists, it is important that we not con-fuse academic prerogatives with marketing ortechnology functions. Drawing clear distinc-tions between academic and nonacademicactivities helps.

Issue Responsible Group

Marketing and market evaluation System office, president, program leaders

Program planning Academic affairs

Technology delivery IT organization

Professional development Academic affairs, teaching & learning (T&L) centers

Student support Student affairs, academic affairs

Content development Faculty, T&L centers

Teaching/mentoring Faculty

Library Library, academic affairs

Licensing Library, legal staff

Questions to Ask:• Can our current faculty

governance modelwork in an environ-ment that operates atInternet speed?

• What degree of inde-pendence does a dis-tance learningorganization need tobe successful? Is thispolitically acceptableto faculty? to theBoard of Trustees?

• Is there an organiza-tional or governancestructure that will help ensure that dis-tance learning is well-integrated with therest of the institution?

W ith distributed education, partner-ships are essential. Although inprior years there was no alterna-

tive but for educational institutions to provideall “learner services,” now a plethora of alter-native providers exist (e.g., Embark.com foronline recruiting, Tutor.com for tutoring, andedu.com for purchasing goods). In addition toservices, distributed education calls for aunique blend of technology, entrepreneurism,capital, and market savvy. Few institutionshave all of these skills in house. Partnershipscan provide higher education institutions theservices they require and can allow them tomanage the risk inherent in this fast-pacedenvironment. These services may range fromonline admissions to textbook sales to careerservices. The table below highlights severalcategories of services and offers examples offirms that provide them.19

In the past year, over a hundred e-learningfirms entered the education space.20 New ven-tures are constantly surfacing and existingones are merging, being bought out, or quietlydisappearing. The churn in this market is stag-gering. Monitoring these alternative providersis challenging; knowing with whom to partneris an even more daunting task.

Collaboration with other entities also canhelp educational institutions round out theirdistributed education programs. It is not justwith whom the institution has a relationship,but the nature of that relationship, that isimportant. Although the term “partnership”is used often, many relationships between sup-

pliers and educational institutions focus onobtaining the lowest cost for goods or services.Others involve performance contracts, such asoutsourcing web hosting or tailoring standardproducts for specific institutions (e.g., a

Partnerships


Service Providers

Online applications Embark.comCollege.netXAP

Campus-based portals Campus PipelineJenzabarStudentonline.com

Online procurement AribaCommerceOneFreemarkets

Online course delivery Web CTBlackboardEdupriseeCollege

Supplemental PinkMonkey.comcontent providers CliffNotes.com

Thinkwell.comInstantKnowledge.comVersity.com

Online libraries Questia.comNetLibrary.comebrary.com

Online textbook VarsityBooks.comdistributors Textbooks.com

Advising and tutoring SmartThinking.comTutor.comDegreeNavigator


PeopleSoft implementation). Strategicalliances, in which both parties bring uniqueexpertise to a relationship, increasingly arenecessary.

Partnerships are a way for organizations toshare risk and leverage each other’s expertise.Many Internet start-ups are being providedwith content through partnerships with educa-tional institutions. In these cases, the struc-ture, marketing, and new business models maycome from the start-ups and the content fromstable, highly reputable academic institutions.Unext.com provides online business educationfor corporate clients through a virtual commu-nity known as Cardean University. Cardean’sacademic partners include ColumbiaUniversity, the University of Chicago, StanfordUniversity, the London School of Economicsand Political Science, and Carnegie MellonUniversity. Quisic (formerly University Access)works with the London Business School, theAnderson School of Management (UCLA), theMarshall School of Business (University ofSouthern California), and the Kelley School ofBusiness (Indiana University).

Partnerships may form between a highereducation institution and a vendor, or amongacademic institutions. By entering into part-nerships or consortia, educational institutionscan leverage their collective market size andstrength, reducing risk and sharing resources.There are many examples of consortia, one ofthe largest being the Electronic Campus of theSouthern Regional Education Board (SREB).

The concept behind the Electronic Campus isto use the “connectedness” of SREB and theregion’s colleges and universities to establish aregional marketplace, which reduces barriersto learning, increases access, and encouragesthe sharing of resources. Today, more than 260colleges and universities are involved with theElectronic Campus. More than 3,000 coursesare offered across 100-plus degree programs.

Other consortia focus on specific disci-plines, a particular set of institutions, or a geo-graphical area. The Associated Colleges of theSouth has, for example, formed a consortiumto offer a comprehensive classics major via theInternet to students in residence on its membercampuses.

Can higher education learn to partnereffectively with other not-for-profit and for-profit ventures? Its track record has not beengood. Although there are a growing number ofpartnerships, how well the goals of academicinstitutions and for-profit ventures align isopen to question. How smooth are the workingrelationships between 20-somethings fromstart-ups and senior faculty? Can higher educa-tion manage relationships in a business envi-ronment? Effective online learning models willrely heavily on the ability to collaborate andcoordinate with external entities. If highereducation develops that ability, new opportu-nities and leveraging will result, increasing thelikelihood of success. The jury is still out onwhether our institutions can develop theseskills.21

Questions to Ask:• What do we really

mean when we talkabout partnerships?

• Does our institutionhave a good trackrecord with partner-ships? How might weimprove?

• What value do webring to potential part-ners? Is there suffi-cient value to sustainthe relationship overtime?

When considering distributed learn-ing, quality can become a sensitivetopic. Some institutions’ concerns

are due to a lack of experience with the web.Others worry that the ease of distribution mightallow less reputable organizations to lure learn-ers to a potentially low-quality product.

In a recent National Education Association(NEA) poll of instructors who teach distancelearning courses, three-quarters were positiveabout distance learning. One common reasoncited was that technology can extend educa-tional opportunities to students who cannottake courses in a traditional, onsite setting.The most significant finding was that qualityand access are central considerations that dic-tate how faculty members feel about teachingand learning, regardless of whether the forumis a traditional classroom or an online environ-ment. Faculty surveyed believed web-basedcourses do a better job of giving students accessto information, helping them master the sub-ject, and addressing a variety of learning styles.However, they believed traditional courses doa better job of strengthening group problem-solving skills, verbal skills, and oral presenta-tion abilities.22

Measures of learning—and of quality—areelusive and often controversial in higher edu-cation. For example, attempts to measure thevalue that has been added by a course or adegree program typically are received withskepticism. The quality of the student body isconsidered a prime determinant of the qualityof education a student receives. However,

there are few answers for questions such aswhether this cohort effect is stronger or weakerin a distributed learning environment. Yet, inall fairness, there are few studies that measurethe effectiveness of textbooks and lectures asan educational delivery system.

Providing adequate academic and studentservices to distance learners is a critical qualityissue. The needs of students enrolled in dis-tance learning programs carry implications forexisting library, academic advising, careercounseling, financial aid, registration, andother operations. Do distance learning stu-dents need the same services as on-campusstudents? How do we ensure that online stu-dents receive the level and quality of servicesnecessary to meet their needs? What feedbackmechanisms can be incorporated into deliverysystems to facilitate maintaining a focus on thestudent, as opposed to the institution?

Quality assurance has been the responsi-bility of regional accreditation agencies.Appendix 2 summarizes the distance educa-tion guidelines used by regional accreditingassociations which are based on the Principlesof Good Practice developed by the WesternInterstate Commission on Higher Education.However, their definitions of quality are basedon an environment in which institutions have aphysical presence and geographic service areasminimize competition. What new metrics willbe needed to assess the quality of distributedlearning programs? Should we evaluate theinstitution, the course, or the instructor?Could the assessment of quality become a

Quality



source of academic transformation? In aneffort to focus more directly on student learningoutcomes, the Council of Higher EducationAccreditation (CHEA) recently recommendeda new set of guidelines23 (see Appendix 3).

There are many more questions thananswers about quality associated with distrib-uted education. However, a study conducted bythe Institute for Higher Education Policy iden-tified 24 characteristics that were associatedwith effective distributed learning. The bench-marks fall into categories such as institutionalsupport, course development, student sup-port, and assessment24 (see Appendix 4).

Although many conversations about qualityare internal, there is a public dimension as well.What responsibility do our institutions have toapprise students of the quality of the onlinecourse in which they are enrolling? In theInformation Age, does the institution have theresponsibility to inform the student when acourse does not take advantage of Internetcapabilities and resources? Higher educationmay have the first—but not the only—opportunityto provide the kind of “consumer information”that should be made available to potentiallearners so they are better able to select amongthe bewildering array of options before them.

Questions to Ask:• What kinds of quality

measures will be mostimportant for learners?for accreditors? forinstitutional self-improvement?

• Do our definitions ofquality replicate theexisting bricks-and-mortar model, or arewe taking into accountthe unique strengths(and weaknesses) ofdistributed education?

• As we better definequality in distributededucation, how do weensure those defini-tions are used byaccrediting agencies?

Predicated on a world of site-based pro-grams and print-on-paper resources,many of higher education’s current

policies may not be viable in an online environ-ment. A multitude of policy issues associatedwith distributed education exists—ownershipof intellectual property, conflict of interest,workload, accessibility, and appropriate use, toname a few—ranging from department-basedpolicies to national ones.

Intellectual property. Of many policyissues, intellectual property has drawn themost attention. Intellectual property issuesassociated with distributed education mayinvolve patent, copyright, and softwareinfringement; for some institutions, theirtrademark, multimedia, and videotaping poli-cies may be affected as well.25

The American Association of UniversityProfessors (AAUP) recommends that the copy-right of materials produced by faculty shouldbelong to them, except in specific instances,such as when it is a work for hire.26 Certain cir-cumstances, such as when faculty use technicaland/or design experts employed by the institu-tion, may affect faculty ownership of intellectu-al property. Some institutions are developingconflict of commitment and conflict of interestpolicies that may transcend intellectual prop-erty policy issues. (For a synopsis of intellectu-al property, conflict of commitment, andconflict of interest policies, see Thompson inEducom Review, March/April 1999. Detailscan be found in Appendix 5.)

Fair use. Educators often have incorporat-ed the copyrightable works of third parties in

Policies


When reviewing intellectual property policies, institutions should

• Make clear what is intellectual property and the circumstances under which the institution will assume thecosts of protecting intellectual property.

• Define inventor and author rights including rights of revision and adaptation, reproduction, display, and ownership.

• Spell out the role and rights of professional staff in the creative/technical process of course design anddevelopment.27

• Identify when and how the institution can use intellectual property generated by faculty.

• Explain how faculty will be compensated for the development and preparation of distributed learning coursesand how the parties will share in any royalties generated.

• Identify who will administer the institution’s intellectual property policies.

• Clarify how the inventor or author can use the institution’s trademarks (e.g., name and logos) when commer-cializing a work.28


their courses, relying on the Fair Use Act toavoid copyright violation. However, deter-mining what constitutes fair use has becomemore difficult in the era of distributed educa-tion. For example, an online course that willbe marketed to other institutions may bedeemed commercial, making a claim of fairuse unviable.29 Significantly, the 2000Digital Millennium Copyright Act does notallow fair use of electronic materials.

Faculty issues. There is an assortment offaculty policies associated with distance educa-tion. These include policies related to work-load, compensation, and support. Commonquestions include• Will teaching load credit be given for dis-

tributed education course development?• How much credit for online development

will be given during the promotion andtenure process?

• Will the institution recognize that work-load may increase with online courses?

• How will class size be affected by onlineinstruction?

• What type of technical support and trainingwill be provided?30

A key issue for faculty is their role in thedevelopment and delivery of courses. In 1999,an AAUP committee proposed that policiesassociated with distance education state thatthe faculty role in distance education coursesshould be the same as in traditional classes,with the faculty retaining their usual responsi-bilities for choosing and presenting material.31

Student issues. Distributed learning alsoraises a series of student issues. Althoughmany faculty and policy makers have advocatedfor distributed education as a way to increaseaccess to educational opportunities, will pooror less educated students have access to com-puters and online services, allowing them toparticipate in online programs? Will these stu-dents need academic support? Will it be avail-able to them at a distance just as readily as ifthey were on campus? What is the institution’s

responsibility for ensuring that all students canaccess distributed learning opportunitiesequally? Fairleigh Dickinson University andsome Canadian institutions are beginning torequire students to take one course each yearonline. The rationale is that students need tomaster online learning because much of theirfuture professional education will be in thisformat.

Disability issues. The Americans withDisabilities Act (ADA) guidelines must beadhered to for distance education courses.32

Specific guidelines are available—for example,not using graphics that cannot be seen bythose who are visually challenged or substitut-ing text for sound to accommodate those whoare deaf or hard of hearing. Most material isnow being designed to comply with ADAguidelines. However, no one knows what thecosts might be of modifying the thousands ofinstructional applications and hundreds ofthousands of web pages already in existence.

Financial aid. Financing for individualstudents can be a problem with distributededucation. Federal financial aid does notextend yet to many distance education courses.To qualify for federal aid, students must beenrolled in accredited programs. Will this constrain students who are considering theplethora of new providers in the market, or is it a legitimate form of quality control? Federalfinancial aid is only available at institutionsthat offer at least half of their courses onsite. Is such a rule still relevant? Some institutionsfear that we will soon face even greater problemswith financial aid as technology releases studentsfrom a specified amount of “seat time.”33

Privacy and security. Issues of privacyprotection and Internet security are worrisomefor those offering distributed education courses.The practice of some for-profit companies totrack student interests through “cookies” illus-trates one stimulus for unease. “Cookies”allow web managers to develop a profile of auser’s Internet activities; this informationcan then become the basis for customized


advertising solicitations. Privacy concerns nowhave expanded to many previously innocuousareas such as what students purchase or whatbooks they check out of the library.

With the advent of online admissions, reg-istration and payment systems, privacy andsecurity have taken on additional significance.As a result, many institutions encrypt datawhile in transit to protect privacy and the con-fidentiality and integrity of data.

The National Education Association hasdeveloped guidelines for security and privacypolicies, designed to protect both an institu-tion’s records and individual students. In fact,all institutions should adopt privacy policiesthat include an Acceptable Use Policy (e.g., notusing institutional resources for commercialgain or private profit) for computingresources, as well as “rights and responsibili-ties” statements that define accountability andresponsibility practices for both providers andconsumers of computing resources.34

Accreditation. Policy issues go well beyondthe campus to include state regulations andregional accreditation. For example, an insti-tution that is considering offering distanceeducation courses in another state or countrymust determine whether it needs approvalfrom accrediting organizations or higher edu-cation boards in the areas they are targeting.Accrediting bodies are considering alternativeguidelines to accommodate distance learninginstitutions. Already some for-profit onlineprograms have received accreditation (e.g.,Jones International University and HarcourtLearning Direct).

Financing. Perhaps as complex as the aca-demic policy issues are those involving finance.Distributed learning requires a significant up-front investment in technology. Withoutrobust networks, scalable applications, and

adequate user support, an institution might bewell-advised not to begin. Certainly, the tech-nology components alone raise a series offinancial questions. Beyond funding the start-upcost, should distance learning students becharged the same tuition/fees as those for anon-campus course? If student location is irrele-vant, can the institution attract more learnersby eliminating tuition differentials between in-and out-of-state students? Should students berequired to pay fees for services they are notever likely to use (e.g., athletic facilities orparking)? We are beginning to see theunbundling of some services from tuition/feesand the emergence of third-party providers ofcertain student services.

There are major policy issues as well asmore tactical decisions that carry budgetaryimplications. For example, should a campusrequire laptop computers for all students? Ifso, is it at the student’s expense or that of theinstitution? Whether or not computers arerequired, should the institution standardizehardware and software in an effort to limit thecost of providing faculty and student support?

Even if an institution decides to foregoentry into distance education or distributedlearning, few parts of the institution will beuntouched by technology-related policy ques-tions. Although all policy issues cannot bedetailed here, many others will be described ina later paper in this series. For example, whatrelevance do residency requirements and geo-graphic service areas have in an anytime, any-place world? Should faculty be expected toteach in an online environment? Can they berequired to do so if not hired under thatpremise? In an environment in which cyberlaw is not yet clear, it is difficult for our institu-tions to make well-informed choices.

Questions to Ask:• What policies need to

be rethought in a digitalversus print environ-ment?

• Are we looking at both“big” policy issues(e.g., ownership ofintellectual property)as well as tactical poli-cies (e.g., technologystandardization) acrossthe institution?

• How might studentfinancing change toaccommodate distrib-uted learning?

There are numerous barriers to distrib-uted education. Many stem from facultyconcerns; others are artifacts of an

organizational and financial structure that wasdesigned in a former era. It is a challenge toknow which barriers derive from resistance tochange and should be set aside, as opposed tothose that represent serious concerns requiringthoughtful deliberation. Some barriers willneed to be addressed whether or not the institu-tion moves forward with distributed education.

Faculty concerns. Faculty express manyapprehensions about distributed education.For example, depersonalization of education issometimes cited as a concern, particularlywhen faculty perceive that online dialogue willreplace face-to-face interaction. Others fearthat they themselves might be replaced. Therealso is suspicion that distributed learning willbe mandated, rather than put forward as anoption for faculty and students. In consensus-based institutions, the inability to address fac-ulty concerns or the lack of faculty buy-incannot only stall a distributed education initia-tive but also can be career-threatening to theadministrator who promotes them.

Articulation. A major barrier to the wide-spread use of web-based education is theabsence of articulation policies within andamong states. Broad articulation agreementsare rare and their absence creates a high barrierto expanded student participation. Concernsabout reduction of revenue or loss of academicquality control often inhibit the adoption ofsuch agreements. For distributed education to

attain its full potential, states and institutionswill need to remove policy barriers to the freeexchange of credits; this includes both creditacceptance and tuition policy.

Financing. Distributed education can bean expensive proposition. Although institu-tions are creating digital infrastructures, sig-nificant investment is required to establishsuccessful and scalable distributed educationprograms. When campus resources are alreadystretched, being able to finance what may seemto be a secondary enterprise is problematic.Beyond base funding, how the costs and rev-enues of distributed education programs aredivided is a topic of significant debate. In addi-tion, what are the appropriate financial incen-tives for faculty, if any?

Human resources. Distributed learningorganizations often seek to develop an entre-preneurial culture as well as to attract techni-cal talent. What might we change to make ourinstitutions more desirable places of employ-ment? A second critical issue entails recruitingand retaining the necessary human resources.At some institutions, salaries and benefits arelower than in local private sector jobs.Compounding the compensation issue is a ten-dency for salary scales to be based on seniority,while some of the most talented technologystaff may be under 30. With many companiesoffering stock options and hiring bonuses,educational institutions are at an even greaterdisadvantage than in previous years.

Digital libraries. Contrary to popularmyth, no comprehensive digital library currently

Barriers



exists, nor is it likely to develop on the web inthe foreseeable future. Perhaps the greatestobstacle to creating a complex and comprehen-sive set of distributed learning offerings lies inmeeting the information needs of students inan electronic medium. While many campuseshave defined initial approaches to offeringcourses over the Internet, few, if any, havedefined a scalable and viable strategy for mak-ing information resources available to thesedistant learners. Current copyright limitationsmake electronic access extremely difficult.

Political barriers. Particularly for state-supported institutions, political barriers to dis-tributed education can arise. In some cases,resistance to an alternative form of learningdevelops. In other cases, governors, legisla-tors, or other influencers may impose solu-tions on academic institutions. New funds fore-learning programs are oftentimes accompa-nied by demands for accountability. If institu-tions must be accountable, what are therelevant measures of success? What is a rea-sonable timeframe for producing results? Thedifficulty of managing campus expectations fordistributed learning may be magnified manytimes when dealing with a board of trustees orwith state legislators.

Process. Distributed learning can be ahighly emotional topic for both supporters andcritics. As a result, the process by which thesediscussions are introduced to various groups(e.g., faculty, board members, or legislators)must be crafted thoughtfully. In manyrespects, the buy-in process appears to be a“pay now or pay later” approach. Institutions

can engage in discussion and buy-in on thefront end of announcing a distributed learninginitiative or they can announce a program andspend the next several months (or years!)dealing with the resistance generated by notinvolving the appropriate groups.

Transformation. Until the educationalprocess becomes learner-centered, in the class-room and at the institutional level, we may notrealize the full value of distributed education.Distributed learning challenges our institu-tions not only to look at new ways of doingwhat we have always done, but also to look atdoing new things. Should we use fewer lecturesand invest more in collaborative learning?Would learning be more effective if we alteredthe lecture-laboratory-recitation model to ahands-on integrated approach? Students withan Information-Age mindset expect educationto emphasize the learning process more than acanon of knowledge. They want to be part oflearning communities, rejecting the broadcastparadigm of television (or the note-taker in thelecture hall). We will be challenged to trans-form many of our underlying processes (e.g.,registration and residency), as well.35

Values/culture. One of the fundamentalchallenges with distributed learning may be amatter of values. Today’s higher educationleaders have a particular definition of educa-tion and a set of values that derive from ourexperiences in the 1950s, ’60s, and ’70s. Weare now dealing with the first generation ofstudents who have never known life withoutPCs (created in the ’70s) or the Internet (large-ly a ’90s phenomenon).

Questions to Ask:• Which of the barriers

to distributed educa-tion can be addressedthrough our currenteducational struc-tures? Which wouldbenefit from externalassistance?

• What kinds of processeswill enable us mosteffectively to addressspecific barriers?

• What is the potentialliability if a barrier isnot addressed?

For presidents and chancellors, distrib-uted learning brings multiple leader-ship challenges. These range from

traditional academic issues to change manage-ment to financing information technology.

One of the first challenges facing institu-tional leaders is how to find the time to under-stand distributed learning in sufficient detailto lead their institutions. Although the presi-dent or chancellor need not be an expert onthe subject, it will be important to haveenough background—and time for reflection—to be comfortable with the subject and associ-ated issues. In an environment rife with hypeand hyperbole, to whom does one listen? And,perhaps more difficult, how does one find timefor education and reflection? (See resource listin Appendix 5.)

It is not just the president who may need aprimer on distributed learning. What aboutboard members, legislators, or influentialalumni? It is all too common for those outsidethe institution to believe that easy answers todistributed learning challenges can be found.Those who believe that a professor can bereplaced by a web site or a CD-ROM misunder-stand the fundamentals of education.

The assumptions we make about educationand distributed learning often blind us to newopportunities. How does the president help hisor her faculty, administrators, and staff seebeyond the status quo? In many situations,good ideas are squelched because thoseinvolved in task forces or committees fear howthey will be regarded by their colleagues (or

administrators). By what process can weempower individuals to propose creative, out-of-the-box solutions?

Leaders must take responsibility for design-ing a process that will allow individuals to feelthat they have had a role in crafting the institu-tion’s solution to distributed learning. Whomust be involved? How does one engage a widerange of constituencies without paralyzing theprocess? What is the appropriate balance ofdiscussion, deliberation, and decision making?

Of course, making any decision can be dan-gerous for institutional leaders. Although wemay strive for consensus, it rarely exists. Howmany leaders are paralyzed at the thought ofannouncing a distributed learning strategy? Isannouncing a plan—no matter how thoroughlydiscussed—tantamount to putting a target onyour back? As many have learned, even openingdiscussions about distributed learning can beunsettling.

Institutional leaders will be called upon tomaintain a balance among their different con-stituencies. Should the enthusiasm of theboard, for example, outweigh the concerns ofthe faculty? If the governor seeks to pursue anagenda including distributed education, howcan this be blended with the desires of parentsor alumni? Distance education can be a polariz-ing issue: the challenge—maintaining balance—is very real.

Consistency and communication likely willevolve as leadership challenges for distributededucation. For example, it is atypical for allgroups to have the same definition—much less

Leadership Challenges



expectation—of distributed learning. Insti-tutional leaders will find that consistency ofmessage and repeated communication can help.

Cultural change is one of the most signifi-cant challenges that institutional leaders willface. How does one take a group that is often-times averse to risk and unleash an entrepre-neurial, nimble, and responsive organization?For faculty who are most comfortable withautonomy, what is the process for forming (andsustaining) teams or even partnerships withvendors or other institutions?

It is important that institutional leaders raisetroublesome issues to the national level, as well.Some of the challenges associated with distanceeducation (e.g., financial aid, accreditation, andarticulation) may require regional or nationalaction. The collective action of higher educationleaders can focus attention on these challengesand move distributed education forward.

Questions to Ask:• Whose assistance and

support will institution-al leaders need toeffect cultural change?

• Is the risk involvedwith distributed educa-tion worth the potentialgain? Is there achoice?

• How can leaders inhigher education joinforces to addressthese challenges?

The educational opportunities that dis-tributed learning affords are exciting,but institutions face significant obsta-

cles that need to be addressed before suchprospects can be made real. Among the chal-lenges are the development of• Viable organizational, governance, and

business strategies. • Appropriate definitions of intellectual

property rules with faculty and other developers.

• Teaching modalities that recognize newstyles of learning.

• Suitable online student services and sup-port structures.

• Adequate faculty support structures.• Meaningful assessment metrics.• Articulation agreements defining what and

how many courses will be accepted andtransferable for a degree.

• Policies regarding administration of finan-cial aid.

While there may be responses to each ofthese challenges, not all answers are likely tobe compatible within the traditional cultures,structures, and processes of our colleges anduniversities. How do higher education institu-tions develop a proactive direction that harmo-

nizes with the existing culture and values? TheNational Learning Infrastructure Initiative’s(NLII’s) 12 conditions for change found inAppendix 6 express the conviction that theentire institutional “system” must adapt forthe venture to succeed.36

Although culture and technical readinessfor distributed education are not trivial issues,policy issues—and the resulting legislation—may be as difficult. Policies designed to removethe barriers to widespread adoption of distrib-uted education must come from all levels—federal and state governments, policy agree-ments among the states, and state universitysystems—as well as from the institutions them-selves.

Distributed education can bring many ben-efits to higher education, such as• Enhanced learning experiences.• Improved access to education.• Greater learner flexibility.• Expansion of education to new groups.• Increased interaction and collaboration.

Distributed education will be part of highereducation’s future. With careful planning,judicious choices, and resolute execution, thatfuture will be a positive one for our institu-tions, as well as for those we serve.

Conclusion


Educational Enterprise Corporate Professional Degree- College Pre-college Remediation Recreationallearners enhancement completion experience (K–12) and test prep learners

learners adult learners learners learners learners

Education Companies

Caliber X X

Pensare X

Unext X

Smart Force X

Quisic X X

Headlight X X

OnlineLearning.net X

Higher Education Institutions*

University of Maryland University College X X

New York University X X

Pennsylvania State University X X

University of Wisconsin X X

University of Nebraska X X

University of Texas X X

University of California, Berkeley X X

UCLA X X

University of Illinois X X X

Columbia University X X X

Carnegie Mellon University X X X

University of Phoenix X X

* Some ventures are for-profit; others are not-for-profit.

Appendix 1Comparison of Target Markets AmongSelected Educational Providers


To facilitate the evaluation of distanceeducation throughout the United States,regional accrediting associations have

agreed upon the following guidelines. Any insti-tution offering distance education is expected tomeet requirements of its own regional accred-iting body and be guided by the WesternInterstate Commission for Higher Education(WICHE) Principles. In addition, an institutionis expected to address, in its self-studies and/orproposals for institutional change, the followingexpectations, which will be reviewed by itsregional accrediting commission.

Evaluation and Assessment

• The institution assesses student capabilityto succeed in distance education programsand applies this information to admissionand recruiting policies and decisions.

• The institution evaluates the educationaleffectiveness of its distance education pro-grams (including assessments of studentlearning outcomes, student retention, andstudent satisfaction) to ensure comparabili-ty to campus-based programs.

• The institution ensures the integrity of stu-dent work and the credibility of the degreesand credits it awards.

Curriculum and Instruction

• Programs provide for timely and appropri-ate interaction between students and facul-ty, and among students.

• The institution’s faculty assumes respon-sibility for and exercises oversight overdistance education, ensuring both therigor of programs and the quality ofinstruction.

• The institution’s faculty ensures the currency of materials, programs, andcourses.

• The institution’s distance education poli-cies are clear concerning ownership ofmaterials, faculty compensation, copyrightissues, and the utilization of revenuederived from the creation and productionof software, telecourses, or other mediaproducts.

• The institution provides adequate andappropriate training for faculty supportservices specifically related to distanceeducation.

• The institution provides appropriate training for faculty who teach in distanceeducation programs.

Appendix 2Guidelines for Distance Education


Adapted from Statement of Commitment by the regional accrediting commissions for the evaluation of elec-tronically offered degree and certificate programs, http://www.wiche.edu/telecom/article1.htm.


Library and Learning Resources

• The institution ensures that students haveaccess to and can effectively use appropriatelibrary resources.

• The institution provides laboratories, facil-ities, and equipment appropriate to thecourses or programs.

Student Services

• The institution provides an adequatemeans for resolving student complaints.

• The institution provides advising, recruiting,and admissions information that adequatelyand accurately represents the programs,requirements, and services available.

• The institution ensures that studentsadmitted possess the knowledge and equip-ment necessary to use the technologyemployed in the program and provides aidto students who are experiencing difficultyusing the required technology.

Facilities and Finances

• The institution possesses the equipmentand technical expertise required for dis-tance education.

• The institution’s long-range planning, bud-geting, and policy development processesreflect the facilities, staffing, equipment,and other resources essential to the viabilityand effectiveness of the distance educationprograms.

The Council for Higher EducationAccreditation (CHEA) and the NationalCenter for Higher Education

Management Systems (NCHEMS) havedesigned and tested an alternative approach toaccreditation standards and review.37 Thismodel places significant emphasis on studentoutcomes and delivery via distance education.The competency standards were organized inthree main areas of institutional performance:• Student outcomes and attainment.• Responsiveness to students.• Organizational alignment and support.

Below is a summary of these areas and spe-cific standards under each.

Student Outcomes and Attainment

The institution’s graduates meet clear stan-dards of achievement that are demonstrablethrough explicit assessments of performance.Student outcomes and attainment is a criticalaspect of institutional performance andembraces (a) how standards of achievement areestablished and their rigor; (b) how studentachievement is assessed and therefore certi-fied; and (c) how well students actually per-form against established standards.

Specific standards include• Each degree or credential is defined in

terms of an identifiable, discrete set of spe-cific outcomes with clear, acceptable stan-dards of achievement.

• Each degree or credential requires suc-cessful student completion of a definedassessment or set of assessments that cov-ers the learning outcomes identified.

• All assessment methods and instrumentsused to determine student achievementstrive toward being valid, reliable, anddemonstrably linked to the learning out-comes that they purport to cover.

• Criteria for evaluating student perfor-mance on assessments are clearly estab-lished, are stated in the institution’spublications, and are generally understoodby students and staff.

• Students meet established academic stan-dards as evidenced by their performance onassessments.

• The institution ensures the portability of itsdegrees, certificates, or other means of cre-dentialing achievement through articula-tion with other institutions and, whereappropriate, through linkages with theworkplace.

• Each field of study (e.g., sociology or elec-trical engineering) has been thoroughlyanalyzed by acknowledged experts drawnfrom the academy and/or associated prac-tical applied fields in order to identify therequisite knowledge and skills that defineeffective performance in the institution’sprograms in that field (e.g., through a jobanalysis or skills inventory).

Appendix 3Council for Higher Education AccreditationCompetency Standards Project


Adapted from Council for Higher Education Accreditation. (2000, August). The competency standards pro-ject: Another approach to accreditation review. (Occasional Paper). Washington, DC: Author.


• Acknowledged experts in assessment, inpartnership with subject matter experts,are responsible for setting achievementstandards and for the selection or design ofall assessments.

• Assessments are reviewed and updatedperiodically to ensure they are current withchanges in the field and in relevant assess-ment technology.

• The institution regularly benchmarks itslearning experiences and assessment out-comes against those of other institutions,as well as against industry and professionalstandards.

• Internal pass rates on assessments are regu-larly analyzed and results are used toimprove learning processes, the assessmentprocess, and associated achievement stan-dards.

Responsiveness to Students

The institution offers an appropriate and effec-tive range of structures and services thataccommodate and support self-paced studentlearning.

Specific standards include• The institution ensures that students fully

understand what specific areas of knowl-edge and skills are required by the variousprograms of study.

• Students are regularly assessed to determinewhether gaps in their current learning exist.

• Students are successful in locating appro-priate learning experiences consistent withthe competencies they wish to master—either from the institution itself or fromanother learning provider.

• The institution ensures that students areproperly prepared for assessments by peri-odically evaluating their readiness throughan appropriate mentorship process.

• Learning opportunities actively promotestudent success by accommodating indi-vidual learning needs and contexts.

• Learning opportunities allow students toappropriately embody prior experience,with certifications of attainment based inpart on demonstrable past achievement.

• Students have access to “learning-to-learn”strategies—either provided by the institutionor available through third parties—and theseare effective in raising student success rates.

• Students are satisfied with their experi-ences with the institution. The essence ofthis standard is the degree to which theinstitution has established methods for “lis-tening to its customers” and that its stu-dents are in fact satisfied.

• Learning opportunities clearly identify thesubject matter to be covered, the skills orknowledge to be acquired, and the learningmethods used.

• The process used within learning opportu-nities emphasizes mentorship as well as“transmission of knowledge.”

• Learning opportunities relate to a clearindividual learning trajectory by reinforc-ing important concepts, promoting activelearning, and accommodating differencesin student characteristics and abilities.

• Learning opportunities are systematicallyreviewed in order to ensure their qualityand continuing relevance.

• Clear policies and practices delineate theinstitution’s obligations to its students.

• The institution identifies, communicates,and regularly assesses standards for satis-factory academic progress.

• The institution has clear procedures foraddressing student grievances.


Organizational Alignment and Support

The institution ensures that high levels of stu-dent achievement and student learning can besustained on a continuing basis through appro-priate organization, energetic leadership, andconsistent action.

Specific standards include• The institution’s mission clearly articulates a

commitment to responsiveness to studentsand outcomes-based instructional approachesthat clearly distinguish it from traditionalseat-time, credit-hour-based institutions.

• The institution’s leaders ensure that its corefunctions and decision-making processesare demonstrably aligned with its missionand core values, and with one another.

• The institution’s budgetary and organiza-tional structures are clearly aligned withand are configured to support appropriatelevels of student achievement and respon-siveness to students.

• The institution identifies clear standardsfor evaluating key staff that are based ontheir effectiveness (including student satis-faction) and regularly assesses their perfor-mance on this basis.

• A process for assessing student and stake-holder satisfaction and performance is inplace, such as tracking students who moveinto the workplace or subsequent educa-tional endeavors.

• The institution has mechanisms for gather-ing and analyzing information about its ownoperations and effectiveness and uses thisinformation to continuously improve itself.

With the worldwide growth of distrib-uted learning, attention is beingpaid to the nature and quality of

online higher education. Twenty-four bench-marks were identified in a study conducted bythe Institute for Higher Education Policy. Toformulate the benchmarks, the report identi-fied first-hand, practical strategies being usedby U.S. colleges and universities considered tobe leaders in online distributed learning. Thebenchmarks were divided into seven categoriesof quality measures.

Institutional Support Benchmarks

1. A documented technology plan includeselectronic security measures to ensureboth quality standards and the integrityand validity of information.

2. The reliability of the technology deliverysystem is as close to fail-safe as possible.

3. A centralized system provides support forbuilding and maintaining the distance edu-cation infrastructure.

Course Development Benchmarks

4. Guidelines regarding minimum standardsare used for course development, design,and delivery, while learning outcomes—notthe availability of existing technology—determine the technology being used todeliver course content.

5. Instructional materials are reviewed periodi-cally to ensure that they meet program stan-dards.

6. Courses are designed to require students toengage themselves in analysis, synthesis, and evaluation as part of their course and program requirements.

Teaching/Learning Benchmarks

7. Student interaction with faculty and other students is essential and is facilitated througha variety of ways, including voice mail and/ore-mail.

8. Feedback to student assignments and questionsis constructive and provided in a timely manner.

9. Students are instructed in the proper meth-ods of effective research, including assess-ment of the validity of resources.

Course Structure Benchmarks

10. Before starting an online program, studentsare advised about the program to determine if they possess the self-motivation and com-mitment to learn at a distance and if theyhave access to the minimal technologyrequired by the course design.

11. Students are provided with supplementalinformation that outlines course objectives,concepts, and ideas, and learning outcomesfor each course are summarized in a clearlywritten, straightforward statement.

Appendix 4Measures of Quality in Internet-BasedDistance Learning


Adapted from Institute for Higher Education Policy. (2000, April). Quality on the line: Benchmarks for suc-cess in Internet-based distance education. Washington, DC: Author.


12. Students have access to sufficient libraryresources that may include a “virtuallibrary” accessible through the web.

13. Faculty and students agree on an accept-able length of time for student assignmentcompletion and faculty response.

Student Support Benchmarks

14. Students receive information about pro-grams, including admission requirements,tuition and fees, books and supplies, tech-nical and proctoring requirements, andstudent support services.

15. Students are provided with hands-ontraining and information to aid them insecuring material through electronicdatabases, inter-library loans, govern-ment archives, news services, and othersources.

16. Throughout the duration of thecourse/program, students have access totechnical assistance, including detailedinstructions regarding the electronicmedia used, practice sessions prior to thebeginning of the course, and convenientaccess to technical support staff.

17. Questions directed to student service per-sonnel are answered accurately and quick-ly, with a structured system in place toaddress student complaints.

Faculty Support Benchmarks

18. Technical assistance in course developmentis available to faculty, who are encouragedto use it.

19. Faculty members are assisted in the transi-tion from classroom teaching to onlineinstruction and are assessed during theprocess.

20. Instructor training and assistance, includ-ing peer mentoring, continues through theprogression of the online course.

21. Faculty members are provided with writtenresources to deal with issues arising fromstudent use of electronically accessed data.

Evaluation and Assessment Benchmarks

22. The program’s educational effectivenessand teaching/learning process is assessedthrough an evaluation process that uses sev-eral methods and applies specific standards.

23. Data on enrollment, costs, andsuccessful/innovative uses of technologyare used to evaluate program effectiveness.

24. Intended learning outcomes are regularlyreviewed to ensure clarity, utility, andappropriateness.

Barone, C.A., & Luker, M.A. (2000). The roleof advanced networks in the education of thefuture. In M.A. Luker, (Ed.). Preparing yourcampus for a networked future. (pp. 1–14). SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass.

Bates, A.W. (2000). Managing technologicalchange: Strategies for college and universityleaders. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Brown, J.S. (2000, March/April). Growing updigital: How the web changes work, educationand the ways people learn. Change, 32 (2),10–20.

Brown, J.S. & Duguid, P. (1996). Universitiesin the digital age. Change, 28 (4), 11–19.

Collis, D. (In Press). New business models forhigher education. Forum Futures: 2000Papers. EDUCAUSE: Boulder, CO.

Council for Higher Education Accreditation.(2000). Distance learning in higher education(Update #3). Washington, DC: Author.

Council for Higher Education Accreditation.(2000, August). The competency standardsproject: Another approach to accreditationreview (Occasional Paper). Washington, DC:Author.

Frand, J. ( 2000, September/October). Theinformation age mindset: Changes in studentsand implications for higher education. EDUCAUSE Review, 35 (5), 15–24.

Hawkins, B. L. (1999). Distributed learningand institutional restructuring. EDUCOMReview, 34 (4), 42–44.

Hawkins, B. L. (2000). A very foggy crystalball. EDUCAUSE Review, 35 (6), 64–73.

Hawkins, B. L. (2000, July 14). Testimony sub-mitted to the Congressional Commission onWeb-Based Education. Washington, DC.

Institute for Higher Education Policy. (2000,April). Quality on the line: Benchmarks forsuccess in Internet-based distance education.Washington, DC: Author.

Katz, R. (Ed.). (1998). Dancing with the Devil.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Kumar, V. (2000, May/June). Choosing theright track for IT’s transformation of teachingand learning. EDUCAUSE Review, 35 (3),62–63.

Merisotis, J. P., & Phipps, R. A. (1999). What’sthe difference? Change, 31 (3), 12–17.

Moe, M. (2000). The knowledge web. SanFrancisco: Merrill Lynch.

National Education Association. (2000).Faculty weigh in on distance education. EDUCAUSE Quarterly, 23 (3), 45.

Oblinger, D. (1999). Putting students at thecenter: A planning guide to distributed learn-ing. (EDUCAUSE monograph #1). Boulder,CO: EDUCAUSE.

Oblinger, D., & Kidwell, J. (2000). Distancelearning: Are we being realistic? EDUCAUSEReview, 35 (3), 30–39.

Appendix 5Resources for Distributed Learning



Phipps, R. A., Wellman, J. V., & Merisotis, J. P.(1998, April). Assuring quality in distancelearning: A preliminary review. Washington,DC: Council for Higher EducationAccreditation.

Twigg, C. A. (2000). Who owns online coursesand course materials? Intellectual propertypolicies for a new learning environment. Troy,NY: Center for Academic Transformation.

Stein, S. (2001). The media production model:An alternative approach to intellectual proper-ty rights in distributed education. EDUCAUSEReview, 36 (1), 27–37.

Steinbach, S. (2000). Developing a distanceeducation policy for 21st century learning.Washington, DC: American Council onEducation.

Thompson, D. (1999, March/April).Intellectual property meets information tech-nology. Educom Review, 34 (2), 14–21.

The following 12 conditions are indica-tive of the institutional characteristicsthat are essential to effective action in

the knowledge-based economy in which highereducation now operates:

Choices—Identifying a strategic direction andselecting a path to get there based on a clearsense of institutional mission.

Commitment—Allocating resources to enablethe institution to adjust its course and to followthe path selected.

Courage—Energetic and focused leadershipfrom the very highest level of administration.

Communication—Building a climate of trustby including the entire campus community inthe transformation process through a carefullyconceived and well-executed strategy for dis-semination of information about extant andemerging services, plans, decisions, etc.

Cooperation—Collaborating across functionsand throughout levels and constituencies toachieve a consistent and integrated set of sup-port services for teaching and learning.

Community—Complementing the communityof support nurtured through cross-functionalcollaboration with an equally cohesive commu-nity of faculty across disciplines.

Curriculum—Reconceptualizing the curricu-lum to reflect its distributed, interdisciplinary,and outcomes-oriented nature.

Consistency—Reflecting institutional commit-ment to transformation through consistentaction and recognizing the importance of stan-dards, within both the technology industry andthe institution.

Capacity—Developing the teaching and learn-ing capacity of the institution (e.g., curriculumand faculty) to serve student achievement andoutcomes.

Culture/Context—Understanding the culture,values, and sensitivities of a given campus cli-mate.

Complexity/Confusion—Overcoming the con-fusion associated with coping with transforma-tion by adapting to the inherent complexity ofthe decision-making process by adopting moreagile and responsive governance processes.

Creativity—Developing strategies and tacticsthat harmonize with the campus culture andcontext and recognizing that this is a creative,not just a political, process.38

Appendix 6Twelve Conditions for Change


Adapted from Barone, C.A. (2001, May/June). Conditions for transformation: Infrastructure is not theissue. Educause Review, 36 (3), 40–47.

Introduction1 Hawkins, B. L. (2000). A very foggy crystalball. EDUCAUSE Review, 35 (6), 64–73.

Student Learning2 Brown, J.S. (2000, March/April). Growing updigital: How the web changes work, educationand the ways people learn. Change, 32 (2), 10–20.3 Frand, J. (2000, September/October). Theinformation age mindset: Changes in studentsand implications for higher education. EDUCAUSE Review, 35 (5), 15–24.4 Ibid. 5 Ibid.6 Ibid.7 Peterson, R. W., Marostica, M. A., &Callahan, L. M. (1999, November). E-learning:Helping investors climb the e-learning curve.Minneapolis, MN: US Bancorp Piper Jaffray.8 Truman-Davis, B., Futch, L., Thompson, K.,& Yonekura, F. (2000). Support for onlineteaching and learning. EDUCAUSE Quarterly,23 (2): 44–51.9 (1999) Virginia Tech’s Math Emporium: Amodel of academic transformation. NLII Notes.http://www.educause.edu/nlii/meetings/orleans99/10 Chaffee, E. (2001, January/February).Keeping our eyes on the target: The ‘other’ useof technology in education. Technology Source.http://horizon.unc.edu/TS/commentary/2001-01b.asp

Strategic Goals11 Oblinger, D., & Kidwell, J. (2000). Distancelearning: Are we being realistic? EDUCAUSEReview, 35 (3), 30–39.

Intended Audiences12 Ibid.

Market Size and Growth of Distance Education13 Moe, M. (2000). The knowledge web. SanFrancisco: Merrill Lynch.14 International Data Corporation. (1999).Online distance learning in higher education,1998–2002.15 PricewaterhouseCoopers and University ofNorth Carolina. (2000). E-learning study.Unpublished.

Governance and Organization16 Hawkins, B. L. (2000). A very foggy crystalball. EDUCAUSE Review, 35 (6), 64–7317 Ibid.18 PricewaterhouseCoopers and University ofNorth Carolina. (2000). E-learning study.Unpublished.

Partnerships19 Kidwell, J., Mattie, J., & Sousa, M. (2000).Preparing your campus for E-business. In TheE is for Everything, R. Katz and D. Oblinger,(Eds.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Notes



20 WR Hambrecht & Co. (2000, March).Corporate e-Learning: Exploring a new fron-tier. http://www.openipo.com/research/coverage/elearning/ir/ir_explore_c.pdf21 Hawkins, B. L. (2000). A very foggy crystalball. EDUCAUSE Review, 35 (6), 64–73.

Quality22 National Education Association. (2000,November). Faculty weigh in on distance edu-cation. EDUCAUSE Quarterly, 23 (3), 45.23 Council for Higher Education Accreditation.(2000, August). The competency standards pro-ject: Another approach to accreditation review(Occasional Paper). Washington, DC: author.24 Institute for Higher Education Policy.(2000, April). Quality on the line: Benchmarksfor success in Internet-based distance educa-tion. Washington, DC: author.

Policies25 Steinbach, S. (2000). Developing a distanceeducation policy for 21st century learning.Washington, DC: American Council onEducation. 26 Council for Higher Education Accreditation.(2000). Distance learning in higher education(Update #3). Washington, DC: author.27 Stein, S. (2001, January/February). Themedia production model: An alternativeapproach to intellectual property rights in dis-tributed education. EDUCAUSE Review, 36(1): 27–37.28 Ibid.29 Steinbach, S. (2000). Developing a distanceeducation policy for 21st century learning.Washington, DC: American Council onEducation.

30 Ibid.31 Ibid.32 Ibid.33 Baer, M. (September 27, 2000).Presentation delivered to Compaq CIO Forum.Unpublished.34 Ibid.

Barriers35 Brown, J.S. (2000, March/April). Growingup digital: How the web changes work, educa-tion and the ways people learn. Change, 32 (2),10–20.

Conclusion36 National Learning Infrastructure Initiative(2001). NLII Focus Session Notes.Unpublished.

Appendix 337 Council for Higher Education Accreditation.(2000, August). The competency standardsproject: Another approach to accreditationreview (Occasional Paper). Washington, DC:author.

Appendix 638 Barone, C.A. (2001, May/June). Conditionsfor transformation: Infrastructure is not theissue. Educause Review, 36 (3), 40–47.

Diana G. Oblinger is senior fellow, EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research, and Professor,Kenan-Flagler Business School, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Carole A. Barone is vice president of EDUCAUSE and heads the National Learning InfrastructureInitiative and other teaching and learning programs.

Brian L. Hawkins is president of EDUCAUSE.

About the Authors


Documents

Distributed Education 1: Overview · with an overview of distance education, e-learning, or what we prefer to call distributed learning. We prefer the term distributed learning over