Dianne Rahm B.J. Reed |
Findings from the surveys indicated a growing number of programs actually use distance learning approaches with most using fiber optics and computer technologies. Adopters of distance learning technologies are driven to do so largely by external stakeholders. Adopters are also more likely to report that powerful external actors are interested in promoting the use of distance learning technologies and are more likely to perceive increased competition from other programs.
The case study findings indicate that line responsibility for program delivery resides in the departments housing public affairs programs while much of the operational and management responsibilities lie outside these departments. This provides some relief of administrative burden but at the cost of considerable duplication and overlap. Also, while fiber and satellite systems still dominate, Internet based delivery is increasing rapidly and, as noted in the surveys, external pressure by administrators and policy officials drive much distance learning growth.
These findings raise questions about appropriate levels of program control, organizational barriers to effective delivery of educational programming and the rapid change in use of Internet as a delivery systems.
The rapid growth of distance learning modalities to deliver educational programs is having a major influence on higher education in the 1990’s (Trachtenberg, 1993). As the 21st century approaches, public affairs programs will increasingly face the "push" and "pull" of technology to deliver its curriculum. By push we mean pressure from elected officials, governing boards, coordinating commissions and higher education administrators to institute distance education programs. By pull we refer to the rapidly changing capacity of technology to allow for the delivery of alternative methods of course instruction.
While much has been written about the opportunities presented by the growth of technological capacity to deliver educational programming, little discussion has occurred over how public affairs programs and higher education institutions organize themselves to provide instructional support and capacity to deliver these courses and programs.
This article examines the changes occurring in the delivery of curriculum and the use of technology to restructure course offerings. We discuss management and organizational issues that surround distance learning initiatives. Survey results from questionnaires administered in 1995 and 1996 along with detailed case studies of several of the most active public affairs programs pursuing distance learning programs are presented. Lessons to be learned from their experiences are drawn.
The announcement by the Western Governor’s Association in July 1996 of a "virtual university" was a recognition that traditional approaches to the delivery of higher education learning are likely to change forever (Blumenstyk, 1996). Consultant Michael Dolence refers to the transformation of technology and learning as "waves". Higher education institutions can either ride these waves as they move into the 21st century or be swallowed by them. The first wave is the "squeeze" of fiscal restraint, with competition and changes in the global economy forcing universities to do more with less more rapidly that ever before. The second wave is the move to digital on-line course offerings and degree programs that did not exist even five years ago. The third wave is to virtual universities. By Dolence’s count over 35 such universities now exist with completely computer mediated instruction ranging from limited course offerings by a core group of faculty to institutions with no core faculty where learning occurs in a total digital environment (Dolence, 1997).
Technology expands the ability of higher education institutions to move away from place based, face to face learning to asynchronous learning that is neither time nor place dependent. As a result, demands placed on faculty and administrators to respond to these changes will quicken and intensify. The Western Governor’s Virtual University is one response but many others are underway. For example, twelve large higher education institutions in Pennsylvania have established a consortium to deliver distance learning courses (DeLoughry, 1995). IBM and New York University have established an alliance that allows IBM and other information technology professionals to undertake training over "the global virtual college" program. The New School for Social Research has announced that 90 on-line courses are available barely three years after delivering its first course via computer (DeLoughry, 1996).
Increasing amounts of research are being done on the impact of synchronous and asynchronous instructional delivery in higher education (Eastmond, 1995, Harasim, et. Al., 1995). Still, little has been written on organizational and management issues facing higher education administrators as they move toward on-line delivery of educational programs.
Management and organizational issues abound in delivering distance learning programs. For example, if faculty instruction is the "line" activity within the university, where does the ultimate responsibility for delivery lie within the organization? If it is outside the academic units, how does an institution organize to assist in the delivery of this activity? What are the perceived benefits and drawbacks of various approaches to organize distance learning delivery?
Delivery of distance learning has both internal and external dimensions. Internal involvement must come from myriad sources:
- vice chancellor or provost for academic affairs
- continuing studies and extension
- library
- campus computing
- faculty development or improvement of instruction offices
- bookstore
- deans and chairs
- television, radio or others responsible for direct delivery of video and audio to remote sites
External support must derive from remote sites that have the capacity to deliver computer mediated or traditional audio/video based instruction. This can include those who handle the technology at the remote site and those who provide logistical support (facilities, library resources, computer support and advising).
Actual structure of the technology will have substantial impact on organization of distance education. Use of older technologies such as audio and video dependent on phone lines and satellite transmission are labor intensive and limit the times and locations where coursework can be delivered. Computer mediated instruction, on the other hand, allows almost unlimited opportunities to "schedule" access and is neither time nor place dependent. Control also becomes an issue with distance education when it is dependent on centralized technical support and equipment.
As noted earlier, push and pull concerns are also important organizational issues. Where support and leadership comes from the top of the organization, organizational issues may be quite different when interest and initiative derives from the academic department and faculty themselves.
Finally, the more actors and organizational units that are required to delivery distance education programming, the more complex that delivery may be. The need for coordination and cooperation in such complex systems may be critical to success.
This discussion is drawn from surveys administered in the spring of 1995 and the fall of 1996. The first survey (Survey95) was sent to 222 principal representatives of NASPAA member schools. One hundred and fifty seven survey responses were received, yielding a 71 percent response rate. The second survey (Survey96) was sent to 349 graduate schools or programs of public affairs and administration. Of these, 230 were drawn from the NASPAA members directory. The rest of the study population included 119 schools identified by a search through Petersons guide to graduate schools. In total, 180 surveys were returned for an overall response rate of 52 percent.
Survey results indicate that a growing number of programs actually use distance learning approaches. For Survey95, just over 12 percent of the respondents indicated offering any distance learning classes. For Survey96 respondents, 24 percent indicate that they deliver distance education courses or programs. Of Survey95 respondents, an additional 9 percent said they had plans to implement distance learning programs in the next 12 to 24 months. For Survey96 respondents, another 14 percent indicated adoption plans. If actual and planned adopters are considered together, the data show considerable growth rates and diffusion of distance learning among programs over the last few years. Survey95 reveals that 21 percent of the respondents are adopters while Survey96 shows that 38 percent of these respondents are adopters. This rapid adoption rate is in line with what is predicted by the diffusion of innovation literature (Abernathy and Utterback, 1982; Abernathy, Clark, and Kantrow, 1983; Denison ,1962; Mansfield, 1961; Marquis, 1972; Rogers, 1983; Schmookler, 1966; Utterback, 1974).
The most common technologies utilized are fiber optics and computer technologies. Delivery by fiber optic systems is reported by half of those engaged in distance learning. Computers are also heavily relied upon and their use includes multi-person computer interactions such as chat rooms or listservs (20 percent of respondents reporting this activity), e-mail interaction with remote students (53 percent), as well as use of the Internet and the World Wide Web for class or program delivery (43 percent). Use of other technologies for delivery is minimal with 20 percent reporting the use of satellites and 16 percent the use of public television.
Adopters of distance learning technologies are driven to do so largely by external stakeholders. Of the respondents to Survey95, 60 percent indicated upper level administrators were influencing the decision to adopt distance learning. This compared with only 40 percent that said faculty were playing an influential role. Survey96 revealed the same pattern. Directors tend to think that the main factors driving the move toward distance education within higher education include cost effectiveness needs (with 80 percent of respondents indicating this factor is important or very important), the desire for increased enrollment (88 percent), revenue enhancement (83 percent), and the need to deliver courses via distance learning technologies so as to remain competitive (90 percent). This external orientation is reinforced as Survey95 respondents say that only 31 percent of faculty indicate high or very high interest in offering programs or courses through distance learning, while 49 percent of deans and directors and 60 percent of university administrators express high levels of interest in distance learning programs. Survey96 respondents reinforce these findings by reporting that the external actors they consider very important in promoting distance learning include state legislators (18 percent), governors (27 percent), higher education coordinating committees (33 percent), boards of regents (27 percent), provosts and vice chancellors (40 percent), chancellors and presidents (46 percent), deans and directors (33 percent). In contrast, faculty are seen by only 7 percent of respondents as very important in the promotion of distance education. Adopters of distance learning technologies differ from non-adopters in that adopters are statistically more likely to report that powerful external actors are interested in promoting the use of distance learning technologies. The statistically significant differences revealed by Survey96 respondents show that non-adopters are more likely to reply that external actors have no interest or slight interest in promoting the use of distance education while adopters are more likely to report high interest on the part of external actors.
We turn now to a series of case studies of MPA programs which will expand the discussion. These programs were identified by Survey96 as being the most active in their distance education efforts as measured by the number of distance learning courses offered. Brief case studies of the University of Nebraska at Omaha, Iowa State University, the University of North Dakota, the University of Baltimore, the Naval Postgraduate School, the University of Texas at Tyler, Georgia Southern University, and the University of South Dakota follow. The case studies include a review of the technologies used and the organizational design issues facing each program. In addition we point to how the individual case is perhaps reflective of the wider issues. The case reports are based on phone interviews conducted with MPA directors or department chairs. The authors report on their own institutions, the University of Nebraska at Omaha and Iowa State University.
The University of Nebraska at Omaha.
The case of the Department of Public Administration at the University of Nebraska at Omaha (UNO) illustrates well the dilemmas faced by an educational institution trying to implement innovative teaching systems within an established and outmoded organizational structure. UNO began delivering distance education courses via both satellite/fiber optic systems and computer mediated instruction in 1996. Since that time three or four courses have been scheduled each semester at multiple sites throughout Nebraska. The University of Nebraska (NU) has several delivery systems that are used by four individual campuses to provide course offerings. Its delivery has been done through NEB*SAT, a satellite based system with both analog and digital capability. A second delivery system is a state supported and operated fiber optic two way video and audio system. All systems operated within NU are centralized at the Lincoln campus (UN-L) and then routed to other campuses. Scheduling for UNO is handled by the UNO Television.
Courses considered "off-campus" are coordinated by the College of Continuing Studies (CCS) and their Assistant Dean for Distance Learning. This person has responsibility for coordinating technicians responsible for distance learning. The Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs also has an Assistant Vice Chancellor responsible for Technology and Instruction who is the point person for Academic Affairs on Distance issues. This person also supervises The Center for Faculty Development, The Library, and The Audio-Visual Department. The Campus Computing Office reports to the Chancellor for UNO. The Bookstore, Registrar and Admissions are under the direction of the Vice Chancellor for Student Services.
UNO delivers the Masters of Public Administration (MPA) courses to four remote sites in Lincoln, Kearney, Norfolk and Scottsbluff. While the courses originate at UNO, the primary site responsibility for distance in each of these locations varies among many different higher education institutions. In Lincoln primary responsibility resides within UN-L’s offices of computing, facilities, and university television. In Kearney primary responsibility resides with The University of Nebraska at Kearney (UNK) and includes their graduate office, political science department, campus computing, library and the dean for natural and social sciences. In Scottsbluff the lead unit is the cooperative extension office which reports to UN-L’s Institute for Agriculture. In Norfolk, Southeast Community College provides support for facilities and technical assistance.
The Chair of the Department of Public Administration is the case manager for distance learning in this system. The chair’s tasks include faculty distance-based course teaching recruitment; scheduling courses in cooperation with the Registrar, the College of Continuing Studies and those in UNO Television responsible for coordinating the satellite or fiber optic systems; soliciting support for faculty training in distance learning with both the Assistant Dean for Distance Learning, the Center for Faculty Development, and the Assistant Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs; and assuring adequate library access and computer resources to support the instructional activity. Finally, the chair coordinates local efforts with distance site locations and various remote academic and support services. In Lincoln these include coordinating access to distance education classrooms, access to UN-L library resources, computer laboratories and audio-visual services. In Norfolk the key is coordinating with the Director and staff of the Learning Center at Northeast Community College. In Scottsbluff the key linkage is with the Director of the Panhandle Resource Center, a division of the Cooperative Extension Program at UN-L. At Kearney individuals and organizations key to the distance programs include the Political Science Department that advises and supports student needs, the Graduate Office that facilitates admissions applications, and the Library and Computer Centers at UNK who provide access to UNO students.
How does a public institution move beyond outmoded organizational models to adjust to the new delivery systems needed to meet student demands? For example, for an instructor at UNO to use either of the synchronous interactive two-way audio/video systems, the "signal" must originate in Lincoln on the UN-L campus. It must then be "patched" through to the University of Nebraska Medical Center (UNMC) and then on to the UNO distance education classroom. Since most of the classes in the MPA program are taught at night or on weekends, the "hookups" and "delivery" must occur at times with UN-L does not have staff available. In addition, the UN-L staff report to individuals who have no direct line responsibility to the line and support staff that operate the distance learning facilities at UNO or at UNMC.
Working within a system designed for the conventional delivery of on-campus classes presents other dilemmas for remote delivery. UNO students at a distance find that the traditional services are often ill prepared to meet their needs, even though they are willing and committed to do so. For example, the NU Graduate College requires that classes meet the requirement of "45 contact hours" for every three credit hour course. What is a "contact hour" in a computer mediated course delivery system? How does one decide how to measure such a requirement? How do students get access to institutional support service that require a student identification card with their picture on it when the students live 450 miles away? How does the department and faculty coordinate with the bookstore to ensure students receive their material quickly with a minimum of confusion and delay? How do materials for class get delivered to distance sites? How are tests administered at distant locations? How do faculty and administrators explain differential tuition rates with fees requirements that demonstrate little benefit received for the fee charged? How do departments offer cross-listed courses across three separate campuses of the University when tuition for each campus is substantially different? As UNO’s experience indicates, there are challenges associated with implementing an innovative distance education component within a traditional organizational structure that clearly was not designed for this purpose.
Iowa State University.
At Iowa State University (ISU) moving past antiquated approaches is slow. The ISU case study well illustrates a managerial imperative: need to develop one-stop-shopping to facilitate the scheduling, administration, and offering of off-campus classes. ISU’s case also shows the important role politics plays in sorting out important public policy issues such as maintaining equity within the system.
The Public Administration graduate program at ISU began delivering distance education courses via the ICN in early 1996. In subsequent summer semesters, two courses have been provided statewide via the ICN and three classes are offered in both fall and spring semesters. In summer 1996 the public administration program announced a Certificate of Public Management (CPM) Program to be delivered entirely over the ICN.
The ICN is a statewide, synchronous, full-motion, interactive, video and audio teleconferencing system that was begun in 1987. At that time, Iowa decided to be the first state in the nation to develop a statewide telecommunications fiber optic backbone. The ICN provides access to educational classrooms and state agencies. The statewide telecommunications network system is still in construction but when complete will consist of thousands of miles of fiber optic cable and will reach each of the state’s 99 counties. The network is being developed in three phases. In phase 1 the networks control center was established at the Iowa National Guard Armory in Johnston (located outside Des Moines, the state capitol). Also in phase 1, links to Iowa’s three state regents universities (the University of Iowa, Iowa State University, and the University of Northern Iowa) were established as well as access provided to 15 community colleges, certain participating private colleges, the State Capitol Complex, and Iowa Public Television (IPTV) which was established by state law as the coordinating agency for the network. Phase 2 involved linking the 15 community colleges to end points in the remaining 84 counties not yet directly connected. Phase 3, consists of expanding the network to authorized users such as schools, libraries, hospitals, and public and private governmental users. The effort is not trivial as the revenue outlays show. The total construction costs for phase 1 and 2 were estimated at $96.2 million (Johnson, 1993). Iowa State University has multiple ICN classrooms available for teaching. Each classroom consists of a traditional professorial lectern and student seating but with high-tech additions that make remote access possible. Typically classrooms seat 25 to 60 on-campus students and remote access is provided via an assembly of cameras, microphones for audio interaction, and large screen monitors. In turn, students at remote sites view the on-campus students, professor, and students at other remote sites, via large screen monitors.
Within Iowa State University, courses considered off-campus are coordinated by Extended and Continuing Education while the on-campus students are coordinated through the normal on-campus registration process. This dual process is followed in all aspects of class scheduling and control including registration, textbook ordering, delivery of syllabus and initial class materials, billing, and assigning grades. Extended and Continuing Education has a Director who serves on most college and university committees with jurisdiction over distance education or the ICN. Adding to the complexity is the fact that Iowa State, a land grant institution, has a large Extension Division. The leadership of Extension considers the ICN and promotion of distance learning a core mission of Extension.
ISU currently delivers MPA and CPM courses to remote sites across the state. Receiving sites are scheduled on demand as determined by student enrollment and as coordinated between ISU’s Extended and Continuing Education group and IPTV, which has ultimate scheduling authority. The Director of Public Administration manages the internal process by recruiting faculty to teach distance education courses and to coordinate with ISU’s Extended and Continuing Education group, which in turn coordinates with IPTV. Faculty volunteer to teach classes over the ICN but to encourage such involvement, faculty agreeing to teach courses receive an additional stipend of $2,000 per course. The funding for these stipends comes from central university administration which (as predicted by Survey96) strongly drives the university-wide distance education effort and which realizes the importance of providing such incentives. The MPA Director also supports faculty training for distance education efforts both by personally providing training sessions and by arranging for them to be provided through Extended and Continuing Education. As one of only two programs within the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences to offer a full graduate program over the ICN, the MPA Director serves on college and university distance education policy and planning committees.
The question of equal access to computer resources is not a trivial one for those delivering distance education programs at ISU. How do students at distant locations gain access to the Internet when no local dial-up access exists in the community? If the library resources are on-line, if the class assignments are completed via e-mail, web or listserv systems, how do students receive equitable treatment when they lack equal access to the technology necessary to participate? Even if these students are willing to drive to a remote location to use a computer lab, they have to depend on the university’s ability to work through approvals by these remote sites to use their facilities at times that are available and convenient to the student. This continues to be a rancorous political debate in Iowa. Students currently are able to access the Internet via the Iowa Communications Network (ICN), which is described in detail in the case study, but there is increasing market-based opposition to this free access. During the last legislative session a bill was passed, although vetoed by the Governor, denying free student access to the Internet via the ICN. For awhile longer, public access will be maintained, but the future is uncertain.
The University of Baltimore.
The case of the University of Baltimore (UB)reveals again the importance of interorganizational cooperation and coordination in a distance education delivery effort. UB is a commuter campus with a student population of approximately 5,000, delivers distance learning programs predominantly through compressed video and two way fiber optic video. Use of the Internet, particularly e-mail and World Wide Web components, are increasingly important parts of off-campus course delivery.
Unlike the prior two cases discussed, where the state itself owns the technology which is used to deliver the distance education component, the University of Baltimore has implemented a private sector model. UB contracts with Atlantic Bell to manage its distance education technology. This arrangement clearly has certain advantages. The university or state does not have to commit large up-front monetary resources to technology. Aside from saving the institution or state the initial expense, contracting out also provides UB flexibility. If the contractor is not performing, a renewed contract can be negotiated with a competing organization. But perhaps the greatest flexibility is that UB is not tied by investment to a particular technology. Should another better technology appear, UB would find itself in a position to become a ready adopter of the superior technology as opposed to a state or institution that has enormous sunk costs in a particular technology.
UB’s MPA program is new in teaching via distance education technologies. There is a range of interest among individual faculty in teaching such courses; however, at this point only two of the 12 faculty have actually taught a distance learning course. At UB, teaching a distance learning course is considered a part of the normal teaching load, but due to the size of the rooms, the student load may actually be slightly less than an on-campus course.
Day-to-day administration is technically located in the Provost’s office, however, the process of management is scattered and decentralized as a result of high turnover in the Provost’s Office. With a lack of stability in this office, individuals at the staff level (e.g. technicians, librarians, audio-visual) must function in an environment that requires more consistent central coordination.
At the University of Baltimore, facilities for distance learning are limited with only two rooms designated for this use. One room is provided by Atlantic Bell and the other by UB itself. For this reason, scheduling classroom space is difficult and requires MPA faculty to adjust nights and times to fit classroom availability. The bookstore mails texts to students who can pay by credit card. Registration is handled by e-mail and other support services are provided by mail or e-mail.
The University of North Dakota.
The case of the University of North Dakota (UND) reveals again the difficulties associated with both geographic and organizational decentralization of oversight and management. UND delivers distance education courses over a interactive video network with support by the Internet to a site in Bismarck (Kweit, 1997). The MPA courses are offered through the Department of Political Science and Public Administration while the logistics and coordination are handled through the Department of Continuing Education. The Department of Political Science and Public Administration handles content and materials related to the class and the Continuing Education Department handles registration, delivery of course materials and coordination with other support services such as the library and bookstore. A staff person in Bismarck is assigned to support the program. The negative element of this dual jurisdiction is duplication and confusion for both faculty and students off-campus who are not sure where to go for support (such as grade reports, advising, other problem issues). Students register separately, have grades recorded separately and so forth depending on their off-campus or on-campus status, even though they are in the same class with the same instructor over the same period of time and are subject to the same content and evaluation mechanisms. The separate handling of off-campus students creates a level of bureaucracy that can cause delays, confusion, and increased costs without adding value to the learning experience.
As with other institutions, access to fiber optic systems has been a problem for UND since there are distinct time slots and there is considerable competition for them. Two rooms on the campus are dedicated for distance education coursework and are limited to 23 on-campus students.
Naval Postgraduate School.
The Naval Postgraduate School (NPS) case demonstrates quite clearly how distance learning technology can span vast distances, providing a cost efficient and effective training infrastructure for large complex organizations. NPS uses video conferencing through ISDN dedicated telephone lines to deliver courses to remote sites. NPS delivers public management courses outside California to sites throughout the United States. Their audience includes active duty military and non-officer civilian professionals. Email and internet are used for advising and by students to turn in papers.
Primary responsibility for managing the distance education program is lodged with an Associate Chair for Instruction who utilizes a central clearinghouse scheduling, delivery systems and support services (e.g. library, computer and teaching support). Distance programs are operated by a support unit that takes responsibility for technology issues including telecommunication lines, billing for phone lines, maintaining equipment, and scheduling classroom space. NPS does not offer a full degree program at this point, however, were they to do so issues such as residency requirements might become barriers to carrying out their efforts. Registration is currently handled in the same manner as on-campus courses but scheduling is done by the distance education staff rather than through the Registrar.
The NPS reflects survey96 findings that suggest distance education efforts are largely pushed by external actors rather than being driven by the site’s faculty. As with many of the programs discussed, the NPS faculty are less enthusiastic about distance learning initiatives than those higher up the administrative ladder.
University of Texas at Tyler.
The university of Texas at Tyler (UT-T) case underscores the complexity of interorganizational management issues and the needs to provide faculty with incentives to deliver distance education courses. The UT-T case also illustrates the importance of the features of the technology selected to implement distance education.
UT-T specializes in interactive video narrow casted to sites in their geographic region (Dolan, 1997). They have six regional locations emanating from Tyler and include Longview, Kilgore, Palistines, Corsicana, and Athens. Two programs at UT Tyler, nursing and public administration, heavily use the video system. There is some use of the system by other programs including education, criminal justice and engineering. The system is interactive with two way video and audio for communication and fax machines for paper transmittal.
Technology issues are a problem at times. At UT Tyler these are associated with a lag time of about 5 seconds between transmission and reception. This lag makes it difficult for students to interject without being disruptive to the flow of communication. The program director found this technology problem generates a reluctance on the part of students at remote locations to engage in the class to the extent they otherwise would.
Faculty voluntarily teach courses, although there is no requirement to do so. If they do teach, they are compensated $500 per class. In the event they commute to a distant location, the compensation level is increased to $1,300. Little faculty training is available. The technicians at the sites walk the instructors through the use of technology but basically the faculty members are on their own.
Operating issues are complicated. The Media Center, which is located within the library, is staffed with technical assistants responsible for the day-to-day administration of the campus distance education programs. Students are responsible for gaining access to library materials and may be required to commute to Tyler to take exams. Such arrangement are made on a course-by-course basis with little standardization. The Office of Information Services deals with computer issues that arise; however, some coordination is needed between that office and the colleges, each of which maintains its own center of academic computing. Student registration for "off campus" classes is handled through the same office that does "on-campus" enrollments which facilitates ease of registration. The bulletin of classes clearly identifies classes that are offered via the video system and so both on and off campus students are aware of the location and student environment. Course scheduling, however, can be problematic when two programs compete for both on or off campus locations.
Georgia Southern University.
The case of Georgia Southern (GSU) points to the importance of an internal advocate and champion for the success of distance education efforts. Like the other cases discussed thus far, GSU’s effort is driven by high level external actors. In the case of GSU, these are the Chancellor and the Board of Regents while the campus upper level administrators do not seem to share the commitment. As a consequence, the distance education effort survives because of the personal determination and advocacy of a the MPA Director and the Director of the Office of Distance Education.
GSU delivers its public administration courses via an interactive fiber optics based systems with some additional supplemental assistance from the Internet and the World Wide Web (Tracy, 1997). GSU broadcasts to several locations including Statesboro, Savanna, Burnswick, and Augusta. Each site has a facilitator at the time of the broadcast, and there is additional backup support made possible by a 24 hour beeper. The day-to-day administration of GSU’s distance education program is done by the Office of Distance Education which handled registration and scheduling and advertising.
The MPA director at GSU has an excellent relationship with the director of the Office of Distance Education and cooperates with the scheduling effort and delivery of books to remote students by voluntarily driving to the remote sites, collecting money and paperwork, and returning these materials back to the mail campus. While registration is still handled in this fashion, the bookstore cooperates by mailing texts to remote students.
The MPA director is an advocate and champion of distance education learning. There is no institutional support provided by the administration in terms of reducing teaching loads or additional faculty stipends or other incentives offered for teaching distance education courses. The university’s higher level administration is "begrudgingly" supportive of the effort but reportedly only because of the Board of Regents and Chancellor pushing distance education. The effort is supported internally by the MPA faculty and director willingly and without additional resources or institutional support. They literally make it work.
The University of South Dakota.
The case of the University of South Dakota (USD) illustrates again several of the phenomenon previously discussed including the importance of the characteristics of the technology used, the role an internal champion can play, and the need for providing some additional incentives to encourage faculty to undertake distance education teaching.
USD primarily uses two way interactive audio and video for distance education learning (Zuercher, 1997). USD is located in the extreme southeastern part of a large geographical state and uses distance learning to span the state. A primary remote site is Rapid City, in the Black Hills nearly 400 miles to the west.
Administration of the programs is shared by the chair of Political Science and the Dean of Continuing Education. This situation results in complexity and lacks a single point of authority. Scheduling, library, computer and teaching support are decentralized with administrators and instructors utilizing different sources for each of those items. Registration for distance learning courses is done separately through the Division of Continuing Education.
While supportive of distance learning technologies, the University is hesitant about how such educational programming should proceed. The Dean of Continuing Education does not want to deliver an entire degree program by distance learning technologies. Technological problems have also been encountered. The primary one is due to open microphone technology that results in even a whisper at remote sites being disruptive in the on-campus environment. Support for distance learning rests mostly in its ability to serve an audience not otherwise served . That is, South Dakota has six public institutions located on the periphery of the state. Distance learning makes education accessible to those who live in the geographic center of the state. Nevertheless, there are no champions or enthusiastic supporters for distance education. The general feeling is that it is second best with the traditional classroom being a superior environment.
Faculty willing to undertake distance education classes receive overload payments. The Department Chair has tried to facilitate the process by assigning the faculty member the same class to be taught on campus so as to reduce the number of preparations. Institutional support for distance learning in the form of improving technology or technical capacity has not been forthcoming. At USD, distance learning is seen as necessary and perhaps even the wave of the future, but it is clearly viewed with some reservation.
The cases have a number of commonalties. First, line responsibility for the delivery of courses resides with the departments housing those programs. In three of the five institutions, however, continuing studies departments or colleges have responsibility for logistics and support of these efforts. At NPS a separate office handles these arrangements. The benefits appear to remove some administrative burdens from line departments. The drawbacks include the creation of duplication and overlap in responsibilities. UND, ISU and UNO all have parallel registration, grade reports, textbook ordering and billing systems for off-campus versus on-campus students. The NPS has a mixture of systems. Several schools also experience differential tuition rates for off and on campus courses. From the point of view of the student as customer, this can cause confusion about who has authority, responsibility and accountability to deal with issues that arise as that student matriculates through the institution.
Second, all programs use fiber or satellite based two-way audio/video systems as the predominant method of delivery of distance education coursework, with the Internet (e.g. e-mail, web sites, listservs) as a secondary form of delivery. This form of delivery has caused numerous problems for each program, particularly in scheduling and in the failure of the technology at various points. In the cases of UNO and ISU, it has also resulted in problems of responsiveness since "control" of the technology is located at a geographically separate campus or organization. Still, this may be changing. Both UNO and UB are moving toward full "on-line" Internet based course delivery. Use of such technology would eliminate issues of scheduling since Internet allows almost unlimited use of the technology at any time.
The cases confirm an important finding revealed by the surveys. In nearly every case the "push" factors were extremely important. At ISU, UND, and UB the Governors were major cheerleaders for the use of distance learning. At UNO, the state coordinating commission and President of the University of Nebraska were strong advocates of moving toward distance delivery of courses. A NPS high level support within the Pentagon was a key factor for moving toward distance education. At ISU the President is a strong advocate, seeing distance learning technologies as a logical extension of the land grant mission of the university. Faculty at most of the institutions were being "led" by the directors of the PA programs who were often taking the initiative in directly offering courses or programs. It is clear that not all faculty have accepted the distance delivery as a seamless responsibility of their jobs but this may be due to the relative newness of distance education in most programs.
Finally, in every case examined the complexity of organization is a key factor in the delivery of distance course offerings. Many actors and organizational units are involved and necessary in the delivery of courses. Coordination may be problematic depending upon the issue the organization faces. At UB and UNO no one has been assigned the responsibility to coordinate distance programs. At ISU and UND the extension and continuing education divisions share responsibility and have overlapping jurisdiction. At the NPS the distance office worked along with the School of Management to operate the various elements.
The confusing lines of authority and responsibility make it extremely difficult to implement distance education programs of any magnitude. Organizational structure, reporting systems, financing mechanisms that were established for a traditional "on campus seat time" based delivery system are ill equipped to meet the needs and delivery requirements of asynchronous distance based courses. Yet, the response is often to "tinker" with these structures rather than redesign them to fit the new realities of distance learning.
The question facing many higher education institutions is how best to organize the resources to meet the needs of students at a distance. Should the system be programmatically decentralized but administratively centralized? In such a model faculty would control content and pedagogical decisions while support services (e.g. registration, admission, library, bookstore) would have a centralized point of contact for distance delivery. If such a model is adopted, how will resources be allocated? Who will make key decisions about access to support services? How will those services be prioritized among competing academic programs?
As course offerings move away from synchronous systems to asynchronous ones, how will that change the management of support systems? For example, the Western Governor’s model is competency based. This means that students will be evaluated based on their ability to master material whether that mastery takes two weeks or twenty weeks. Typical models based on contact hours, semester or quarter time lines will have little meaning.
The challenge for public affairs programs is to work within the broader institutional context of higher education to ensure that quality, accessible learning will take place in their programs. This will require assertive leadership and a willingness of faculty to take on the challenges created by distant education.
The authors wish to thank the National Association of Schools of Public Affairs and Administration for funding these surveys.
Abernathy, W.J. and J.M. Utterback (1982). Patterns of Industrial Innovation. Readings In The Management of Innovation. edt by M.L. Tushman and W.L. Moore. Cambridge: Ballinger Publishing Company, pp. 97-108.
Abernathy, W.J., K.B. Clark and A.M. Kantrow (1983). Industrial Renaissance: Producing a Competitive Future for America. New York: Basic Books, Inc.
Blumenstyk, G. (1996). Western Governors Continue to Plan Virtual College. The Chronicle of Higher Education 42 (June): A30.
Deloughry, T.J. (1995). Colleges Join Forces to Create Distance Learning Programs. The Chronicle of Higher Education 41 (December): A21.
Deloughry, T.J. (1997). New School for Social Research Offers 90 On-Line Courses. The Chronicle of Higher Education 43 (September 20): A27
Denison, E.F. (1962). The Sources of Economic Growth in the United States and the Alternatives Before Us. New York: Committee for Economic Development.
Dolence, M., Presentation at the University of Nebraska at Omaha, March 3, 1997.
Eastmond, Daniel (1995). Alone But Together: Adult Distance Study Through Computer Conferencing. Hampton Press, Inc.
Johnson, R.D. (November 30, 1993). Special Report on the Iowa Communications Network. State of Iowa. Office of the Auditor of State.
Harasim, Linda, et.al. (1995). Learning Networks: A Field Guide to Teaching Online. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Mansfield, E. (1961). Technical Change and the Rate of Imitation. Econometrica 29 (4): pp. 741-766.
Marquis, D.G. (1972). The anatomy of Successful Innovations. Managing Advancing Technology. I: pp. 35-48.
Rogers, W.M. (1983). The Diffusion of Innovations. New York: Free Press.
Schmookler, J. (1966). Invention and Economic Growth. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Trachtenberg, S. (1993). Universities Must Learn to Face the Challenges of Distance Learning. Ed Journal 93: pp. 1-3.
Utterback, J.M. (1974). Innovation in Industry and the Diffusion of Technology. Science 183: pp. 658-662.