Docstoc

The Virtual Classroom

Document Sample
The Virtual Classroom Powered By Docstoc
					The Summer ALN Workshop:
A Research Workshop about Online Learning
July 13-15, 2005, Victoria, B.C.
Policy, Institutional Change, Collaboration, Access improvements (Growth Paradigms) and
Blending”




   Quality, Breadth and Scale in
         Online Education
                             Outline of activities

 Commenced work               Online draft papers
  Jan, 2005.                   Face-to-face meeting
 40 invitees                   July 13-15, 2005,
 Five challenges               Victoria, BC
     Policy                   Completed papers
     Institutional change     Publish papers in
     Collaboration             JALN and create
     Access/Growth             books
     Blending                   major review papers
                                 wisdom papers
                         The Challenges:

Policy                 What are important policy areas that
                        need to be investigated?
Institutional Change   » Tuition/pricing » Financial aid »
                        Credit recognition/ transfer and
Collaboration          articulation » Faculty roles/issues »
                        Transnational learning » Increasing
Access and Growth      minority participation in ALN.


Blending               Which policies are likely to influence
                        the future of online education?
                        Which issues are important in
                        institutions, national and international
                        venues? How do we influence
                        leadership (Presidents, for example)
                        in their policy determinations?
                  Challenge # 1 Policy




Quality, Breadth and Scale in
      Online Education
                                      The Premise

The continued growth and development of ALN
   and online learning will not happen without
   changes in the current policy construct for:
     Student and Student Services
     Faculty
     Quality and the Global Market
     Minority Participation
     Tuition/Online Pricing:
     Financial Aid
     Credit transfer/articulation
                           AND
            A Role for Sloan C


An expanded role for Sloan
 C taking a lead in framing
 the policy discussion (and
    maybe in promoting
  policy in selected areas)
                  Policy Challenge Team

Team Leaders: Bruce Chaloux & Jan Poley
   Student Issues: Claudine SchWeber
   Faculty Issues: Murray Turoff
   Transnational Issues: Rick Skinner
   Minority Participation Issues: Jan Poley
   Tuition/Pricing Issues: Karen Paulson
   Financial Aid: Bruce Chaloux
   Credit Issues: Bruce Chaloux
           What Policies? Who? When?

 Framework of policy challenges
  Targeting levels of policy
      Federal, national, regional, state, institutional
  Sloan C role in promoting policy discourse
  ―Wrapping‖ policy around the pillars
  Using Sloan C institutions as ―test bed‖
  Supporting specific policy discussion through
   online and in-person activities and workshops
  Establish baselines against which to measure
   progress
             Student Learning & Services

 With the Online Learner Population Expanding
  Can (should?) Policies Be Applied to All Learners
   and Services?
 Academic Program Issues
  Maximum loads for online students
  Evaluation strategies
  Expectations of students skills
  Communication Issues
  Multi-campus Issues—‖Swirling‖
      Credit transfer/articulation/recognition
                              Faculty Issues

 Decline in American PhD Students
  Particularly in science, engineering and technology
 Decline in international students
 Service to student, industry or discipline?
 Increased competition from private sector
 Growing use of ―different‖ faculty
  Adjuncts, part-time and non-tenure track
 Evaluation and compensation of online faculty
 Changing role of faculty in online environment
                     Transnational Issues

 Borderless education gives rise to differences
  in quality assurance standards
  OECD-UNESCO agreement on transnational
   education is voluntary, non-binding and un-
   enforced.
 Developing country universities and faculty
  are skeptical about online learning
 New international providers of online learning
  are emerging – new challenge
                                    Tuition/Pricing
 ―Unbundle‖ costs to determine real costs of
  instruction
 Existing Differential Tuition Rate Model
  In-state
  Out-of-State On Campus
  Out-of-State Off Campus
      Still differentiates based on geography
 Consider ―single‖ or ―electronic‖ rate
  Fair/equitable in new online environment
  Does it penalizes in-state students?
                                        Financial Aid
 Federal financial aid system designed for and
  targeted at traditional student population
   E-learners, part-time learners and other non-traditional
    learners can’t get support
   Changing current federal system in any significant way won’t
    happen (in large part because of institutions)
 Target state policy in financial aid as a means
  to open up aid for e-learners
   Altering state programs to support part-time and e-learners
   Create tax incentive programs for both employers/employees
   Establish direct aid to students
                   Minority Participation/
                      Learners and MSIs
 Moving from monoculture framework to
  multicultural organizational framework
 Increasingly policy choices will involve
  decisions about:
     Equity
     Quality
     Cost
     Impact on National Economic Performance
     International Global Relationships
                              College for All

 Attendance rates going up – 90% high school
  student plan to attend college
 Minorities are 28% of all College Students
 MSIs 295,000 students- educate 35% of all U.S.
  minorities:
   105 HBCUS – 40% students in Black land grants-
   eight offer PhDs
   23 TCUs – American Indians most disadvantaged
   335 HSIs – 68% community colleges – in 14 state
   (82.4% of students) – 59 in P.R.
               Online Distance Education

 All MSIs offer at least one Distance Education
  Course – the larger, public ones offer the most
 Barriers to more online learning
  limitations of federal funding for infrastructure
  lack of scholarships for learners
  ill prepared faculty
 Offer online classes to improve access for
  students off-campus and meet needs of
  employed learners
 More Proprietary for-profit in this space –
  more expensive – scholarship money goes
  less far
       Policy Question Key to Minority
         Participation: Getting It Right

 90/10 rule – should it be repealed?
 50% rule – would it help or hinder
 Should current definition of HSI be changed?
 Should more funding be targeted to minority
  students and/or MSIs and for what: technological
  infrastructure, human resource development
 Complexity of student financial assistance?
 Improve swamp of quality/outcome assessments
                                  DOE Study

 Cost: For-Profit – Proprietary Institutions – easy
  to gain enrollment – twice as expensive as
  public four year MSI and four times as
  expensive as community college – Impact on
  numbers that can receive assistance?
 UMUC demonstrated performance – is this a
  model of adequate scale, scope, reasonable
  price, quality – standards increasingly
  important
             Alliance for Equity in Higher
                       Education Agenda

 Enact ―Digital and Wireless Network Technology
  Program Act‖
 Create New sections of HEA (Titles III & V)
 Increase access for MSIs to new and existing
  federal programs assisting in development of
  science and technology
 Ensure that MSI can full participate in NSF
  Shared Cyberinfrastructure Program
 Expand funding from DOE to prepare teachers
  to teach using technology
                              Continued…

 Create an HIS program in NSF similar to TCUP
  and HBCU-UP to build information technology
  capacity in STEM
 Target state funds to support MSIs to expand
  information technology capacity (match
  issues)
 Expand industry contributions to MSIs for
  information technology capacity and
  innovation
                     Actions for Sloan C

 Participate in consortium support for
  enabling legislation – (U.S. Senate for MSIs)
 Educate policy-makers –public education
  and leadership education (smart –
  understand the politics)
 Collaborate with appropriate other consortia
  and organizations to promote change and
  development
                         Proposed Institute

 Integrate policy challenges with Institutional
  Change in a leadership/politics of higher
  education face-to-face institute
  Institutionally focused policy
  Problem-setting and solving
  Less of a focus on what action to take but how to
   take it and make it happen
 Numerous follow-up online workshop
  possibilities for Sloan C

				
DOCUMENT INFO