Quality, Breadth and Scale in Online Education

1. The Summer ALN Workshop:A Research Workshop about Online LearningJuly 13-15, 2005, Victoria, B.C.Policy, Institutional Change, Collaboration, Access improvements (Growth Paradigms) and Blending” Quality, Breadth and Scale in Online Education

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

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

4. Challenge # 1 Policy Quality, Breadth and Scale in Online Education

5. 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

6. 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)

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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?

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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.

16. 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

17. 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

18. 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

19. 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

20. 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

21. 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

22. 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