Distance Learning in Higher Education BY GARY A. BERG Distance Learning Best Practices Deba

In evaluating and understanding administrative practices in higher edu-cation in connection with distance learning, it is useful to look at the vari-ous attempts recently to construct a best practices model. In response to these concerns about the administration of distance learning programs in higher education, a number of organizations have adopted guidelines. American Council on Education (ACE) guidelines are entitled “Guiding Principles for Distance Learning in a Learning Society.” The Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges Western Association of Schools and Colleges (1999) issued a Distance Education Handbook focusing on the issues of motivation, partnerships, mis-sion, faculty, students, special need stu-dents, library access, student outcomes,planning, facilities, marketing, and intellectual property rights. The Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education’s “Good Practices in Distance Education” (WICHE, 1997)has been one of the most influential attempts to date at providing guidelines for distance learning and provides a good framework for examining distance learning implementation. This document is a product of a three-year project support-ed by the Fund for the Improvement of Post-Secondary Education (FIPSE) called “Balancing Quality and Access: Reducing State Policy Barriers to ElectronicallyDelivered Higher Education Programs.”The principles have been endorsed by a number of higher education associations and accrediting agencies. The preamble to the principles claims that in recognizing the changing context for learning, the authors tried not to tie them to traditional campus structures. Nevertheless, the guidelines seem to be very traditional in focusing on accreditation bodies, cur-riculum, faculty oversight, resources,student services, and assessment. It is particularly telling that rather than addressing pedagogical questions, the principles call for “appropriate” faculty and student interaction.Probably the most important aspect of WICHE’s standards in relation-ship to implementation is the call for new distance learning programs to be “consistent with the institution’s role and mission” (WICHE, 1997, p. 7).While this is a standard question asked by accrediting agencies in look-ing at new program development, it has special meaning in regard to dis-tance learning. Since distance learn-ing has been identified with revenue generation and raises questions about teaching methods, traditional university roles and missions often are a problematic fit. While WICHE’s standards are useful as a beginning step for many institutions, a more detailed understanding of how they are applied in specific settings is nec-essary . To this end, WICHE includes short case studies and examples of how various institutions are practic-ing distance learning in an affective manner.The most important standards under development for distance learning practice are those of the regional accrediting agencies.Regional accrediting agencies are recognized by the U.S. Department of Education as entities whose accreditation enables its member institutions to seek eligibility to par-ticipate in Title IV programs. Pressure from various sources seems to be pushing the accrediting agencies to focus on the issue of quality in dis-tance education through revising standards. The purpose of this new effort is to assure that quality stan-dards are upheld during a period of rapid growth in the use of technolo-gy in higher education. In September, 2000, the eight regional accrediting commissions issued a draft “Statement of the Regional Accrediting Commissions on the Evaluation of Electronically Offered Degree and Certificate Programs.” In this document, the Council of Regional Accrediting Commissions (C-RAC) explains that it contracted with the Western Cooperative for Educational Telecommunications (WCET) to create “Guidelines for the Evaluation of Electronically Offered Degree and Certificate Programs.”The regional accrediting commissions recognize the problem of the whole notion of regional accreditation when educational programs are no longer tied to location in distance learning programs. Thus, they felt a need to outline joint standards. The guide-lines are not a departure from region-al standards, but rather an attempt to apply traditional standards of institu-tional quality to new forms of learn-ing. Most importantly , the guidelines specifically require that all “big deci-sions” are to be made by faculty .BEST PRACTICESRECOMMENDATIONSWhile it is undoubtedly somewhat dangerous given the newness and controversial nature of distance learning, I want to sketch out someB Y G ARY A. B ERGApril-June 2001 •WebNet Journal 5G ARY A. B ERG , P H D IS D IRECTOR OF E XTENDED E DUCATION AT C HAPMAN U NIVERSITY E-MAIL : gberg@ Distance Learning Best Practices Debatebest practices strategies for institu-tions venturing into the use of dis-tance learning.Understand Why Distance Learning is Used at Specific InstitutionsThe first lesson is that it is important for institutions to be clear on why they are using distance learning. It has been repeatedly seen recently that institutions develop distance learning in a haphazard fashion without incorporating it into overall institutional planning. While cer-tainly it is important to test whether the aims of distance learning use fits well with the institutional mission, a more specific understanding of how classroom use of technology fits in with strategic planning is crucial. Enter into Agreements withFor-Profit Entities withGreat CautionSome institutions begun their use of distance learning by forming part-nerships with for-profit entities, but eventually grow out of such agree-ments. While certainly this is char-acteristic of a type of organizational learning that needed to take place at institutions, it is important that institutions understand the specific competencies acquired through such relationships, and use these outside relationships for very spe-cific and limited uses.If New Revenue Generation is a Clear Institutional Motivation, Understand the Economics While I see that many institutions claim that they have developed rev-enue-generating programs, it is clear to practitioners that distance learning in American higher educa-tion is not the cash cow often adver-tised. Institutions with clear and explicit institutional motivations to generate revenue need to under-stand this, and appreciate the specif-ic economics that make this so. A key reason for the under-perform-ing of many distance learning pro-grams is because they are modeled too closely on traditional classroom courses. Using regular faculty to teach their usual courses in a similarfashion can only lead to a more, notless, expensive program.If New Revenue Generation is aClear Institutional Motivation,Watch the QualityAlthough there may be no signifi-cant difference between distancelearning and traditional education inacademic oversight practices, thereis reason to suspect that institutionalrevenue motivations might lead tosacrifices in pedagogical quality inindividual cases. While certainly asimple profit motive does not auto-matically lead to a sacrifice in quali-ty, it might. Administrators ventur-ing down the road are advised to putsafeguards in place that ensure qual-ity and ethical behavior.Try for More Than Automationof the Traditional ClassroomThe single greatest problem withdistance learning in higher educa-tion in America today is that it isusually too tied to traditional mod-els of higher education both admin-istratively and pedagogically. Onthe administrative end, most pro-grams have developed using usualuniversity administrative structuresincluding formats, academic over-sight, faculty agreements, assess-ment, outcomes and requirementsfor students. On the pedagogicallevel the situation is even worse. Insurveying higher education today,the lack of inventiveness or desire toexplore new ways of learning exhib-ited by many of the institutionsusing distance learning is striking.What could be less pedagogicallyinnovative than simply audiotapingor videotaping classroom lectures?Even in the computer environment,simply digitizing lectures andautomating passive learning experi-ences is hardly a pedagogical revo-lution. Administrators and facultyneed to take the opportunity thatnew technology offers to re-thinkhow we organize higher educationadministratively, and how best toserve the growing and diverse pop-ulation of learners.Faculty Compensation andIntellectual Property – ShortAgreements, Understand theEconomicsFaculty compensation issues areprobably the most controversialaspect of the whole topic of distancelearning, so I venture an opinionwith more than a little reluctance.There are two main problems withthis discussion. The first problem isthe desire to keep compensation inline with current structures, while atthe same time taking advantage ofthe savings that can come from somedistance learning models. Second,both administrators and faculty tendto exaggerate the potential value ofboth their distance learning coursesand intellectual property, respective-ly. Consequently, a recommendedgood practice at this point needs toaddress these clear problems.Given the exaggerated expecta-tions regarding long-term revenuefrom faculty intellectual property,short-term agreements make sense.Although in practice, particularly inthe early development stages, theyare the same, one needs to separatethe course developers from theinstructor or specific classes. If thegoal is to reduce the expense ofinstruction, then distance learningmust be used to reduce facultyexpenses through the developmentof materials that are substituted forvariable faculty costs. Less facultytime per course, and/or lower paidtutors need to be used instead of reg-ular faculty for this to work econom-ically. Administrators need to beclear here on what their motivation isfor utilizing distance learning. If theyexpect to generate more revenue,they need to key in on the economicsof how faculty are used. If offeringwhat is likely to be more expensivecourses through distance learningmethods makes sense for that institu-tion, then using regular faculty in tra-ditional ways is a clear path.What I have described aboveregarding the faculty represents thepractical administrative aspects, butdoes not deal with the larger philo-6WebNet Journal•April-June 2001Continued on Page 17Distance Learning in Higher Education Continued from Page 6sophical issues. My own perspec-tive is that one needs to be very con-scious of the different types of high-er education institutions, missions, and populations served. For a selec-tive traditional undergraduate pro-gram, I would be very hesitant to attempt changing the roles of facul-ty in order to increase revenue through the use of distance learn-ing. However, in continuing educa-tion or adult degree programs, Ithink that it makes sense to consid-er changes in faculty roles to makeeducation more affordable. ➪REFERENCESAccrediting Commission for Community and JuniorColleges Western Association of Schools andColleges.(1999).1999 distance education hand-book.Retrieved February 19,2001from the WorldWide Web:/dislearn.htmWestern Cooperative forEducationalTelecommunications.(1997).Good practices indistance education.Boulder,CO:WesternInterstate Commission on Higher Education.groups grow along with an increase in the complexity of group transactions and decision-making.Finally, if we view communication as transactional, then it follows that both the sender(s) and receiver(s) are responsible for the effectiveness of any particular communication. “The sender is responsible for being as clear as possible and the receiver is respon-sible for attending to the sender, trying to understand the sender as he or she wants to be understood, and asking questions to help the sender clarify the message” (Barnland 1962). When communicating online this should be remembered because of the height-ened ambiguity of meaning caused by the deficiency in nonverbal communi-cation that accounts for over 50% of meanings in messages that include emotional content.THE FUTURE OF IMMEDIACY & INSTRUCTIONAL RESEARCH Historically, immediacy research has been conducted by exploring the communication phenomena that occur in the traditional face-to-face classroom. The creation of more online learning communities provides scholars with exciting opportunities to test and explore the implications of interacting online including communication and leadership. Studies on leader-ship by Johannesen (1990) and Hackman and Johnson (1996) both concluded, “extraordinary leader-ship is the product of extraordinary communication” (Hackman and Johnsen). Considering that leader-ship is a function of communicating proficiently and that everyone is responsible for communication effectiveness, then leadership is notthe responsibility of one individual,but everyone. J. McCann andMargerison (1996) add to this factthat, “today’s business environ-ment is so complex and in such acontinual state of change that suc-cess often depends on the outputsof teams or work groups ratherthan the efforts of a single person.”Johannesen reported that thecommunication of the most effectiveleaders is dialogical. This meansthey relate to others in a special way,“interpersonally,” wherein they dia-logue by “talking with” people,instead of “talking at” people in amonologue. To clarify, monologueoccurs when an individual sender’scommunication is self-centered andfocuses on him or herself as theprovider but not the recipient ofideas. Monologue is closed-minded,one-way and does not acknowledgethe reciprocal influence of communi-cation between people. Conversely,dialogue is reciprocal and is charac-terized by communication that iscooperative, flexible, and We-orient-ed. Hallmark to dialogue is mutualcaring and respect between andamong individuals. The communi-cation behavior of people in dia-logue is supportive, authentic, andencouraging. When we dialogue wetake responsibility for our commu-nicative behavior as well as theresponsibility for clearly expressingour ides and feelings. Dialoguingshould also claim responsibility forinfluence for the influence on others.However this does not mean thateveryone is agreeable and that dia-logue is void of conflict. Tannen(1998) explains: “In dialogue, thereis opposition, yes, but no head-oncollision. Smashing of heads doesnot open minds…Even cooperation,after all is not the absence of conflictbut a means of managing conflict.”In addition to exploring strategiesto enhance perceptions of closenessat a distance, other issues are raised.How much is “too much” in terms ofcreating an immediate environ-ment? What issues associated withclassroom management need to beconsidered in establishing close rela-tionships in an online class? Thetransformation of learning environ-ments creates innovative and chal-lenging issues for exploration.➪REFERENCESAndersen,P.A.,& Andersen,J.F.(1982).Nonverbal immediacy in instruction.In L.L.Barker(E d.),Communication in the classroom:Originalessays.Englewood Cliffs,NH:Prentice-Hall.Barnlund,Dean C.(1962),Toward a Meaning-Centered Philosophy of Communication.Journalof Communication 11,198-202.Hackman,M.Z.,& Johnson, C..(1991).Leadership: A Communication Perspective.Prospect Heights,IL:Waveland.Johannsen,R.(1990).Ethics in HumanCommunication.Prospect Heights,IL:Waveland.McCann,Dick,& Margerson,Charles (1989).High-performance Teams.Training andDevelopment Journal.McCroskey,J.C.(1992).An introduction to com-munication in the classroom.E dina,Minnesota:Burgess International.Mehrabian,A.(1971).Silent messages.Belmont,CA:Wadsworth.Richmond,V.P.,McCroskey,J.C.,& Payne,S.(1987).Nonverbal behavior in interpersonal rela-tions.Englewood Cliffs,NJ:Prentice-Hall.Stewart,John,& Carole Logan (1998).Together:Communicating Interpersonally.Boston,MA:McGraw-Hill.Tannen,Deborah (1990).You Just Don’tUnderstand:Women and Men in Conversations.New York:Ballantine.April-June 2001 •WebNet Journal17。