Editorial
Regulators, Providers, and Vendors: The Fingers in
the Dyke
Michael G. Moore
Articles (for abstracts,
click here)
International Computer Conferencing for Professional Development: The
Bangkok Project
Terry Anderson and Robin Mason
Attitudes of Higher Education Faculty toward Distance
Education: A National Survey
Tom Clark
The House of Quality: Using QFD for Instructional
Design in Distance Education
Stephen Murgatroyd
Distance Education Course Sequencing: An Application
of Probabilistic Pert with Cycles
Raymond G. Taylor and William M. Reid
Computer Conferencing and the Electronic White Board
in the United Kingdom: A Comparative Analysis
Catherine J. Tuckey
Interview
Speaking Personally with Barbara White
Connie Dillon
Book Review
Going the Distance: A Handbook for Developing Distance Degree Programs
Toby Levine Communications, Inc.
Robert M. Threldeld
Media Review
Integrated Media
Farhad Saba
EDITORIAL
Regulators, Providers, and Vendors: The Fingers in the Dyke
Michael G. Moore
The tradition of the "amateurs and tough guys" so memorably documented by Von Pittman in his description of the sleazy side of the correspondence course industry (Pittman 1992) lives on in the electronic age. It is the responsibility of officials in state departments of higher education to monitor higher education offerings and to protect consumers against fraudulent and low-quality providers of distance education programs.
There seem to be at least two problems. One is presented by the predatory for-profit organization that seeks to exploit a demand that is more common than many educators would like to admit, that is, the demand for credentials and certification that can be bought in the shortest time and with the least effort. Of course, consumers need help in recognizing such institutions, but these organizations are relatively few and state regulators are attempting to control them. What might be a more difficult problem is whether and how to regulate the growth that can be expected in offerings by reputable institutions that want to use electronic media to transmit their programs across state borders.
If a professor who offers technologically-mediated courses at a nationally recognized, fully accredited state university receives a request from a student in an adjacent state to join a conference, should the professor refuse or should the professor submit a formal application to the regulators of that state requesting permission to teach? In fact, it is up to the institution, not the professor, to submit an application (but how many of us know this?). What if there is one student in each of five or ten or fifty states? And what if the professor's colleagues in the department are also offering courses to distant locations? Are there to be multiple sets of applications? How can regulators hope to control the quality of such offerings, or to influence the individual who wants to purchase them, when the program is received through telephone, modem, and personal computer by the student at home? With the accelerating development of fiber optic and ISDN technologies (as discussed by Farhad Saba in this issue's Media Review), the extent and frequency of in-home interactive information delivery services will increase to a degree that will confound any attempts at control.
Yet what guarantee of quality can be given? What standards and evaluation criteria are to be applied, and who is to pass judgement? Few faculty have the training to design and develop good distance education, and few have the time or resources to do so. There is no doubt that many programs, even from reputable institutions, will be amateurish until new structures for systematically designing and delivering programs on a large scale replace the craft forms of teaching we now have.
Two articles in this journal that have addressed these issues in considerable depth are Olcott's "Policy Issues in Statewide Delivery of University Programs by Telecommunications" (Olcott 1992) and Reilly and Gulliver's "Interstate Authorization of Distance Higher Education via Telecommunications: The Developing National Consensus in Policy and Practice" (Reilly and Gulliver 1992). Olcott addresses the need for traditional universities to develop new course-review and approval mechanisms suitable for controlling the quality of telecommunications-based distance education programs. While his article focuses primarily on issues surrounding the approval of external degrees by telecommunications, rather than on specific courses as discussed above, his conclusion is one I would agree with: the first and primary review of quality should lie with the university faculty, and, for the faculty to do this work, administration must provide adequate structures and procedures for the systematic review of distance education course proposals. Olcott introduces the idea of "lead institutions" to advocate the idea of integrating the offerings of several institutions into a total system. He states, "The success of this approach is based on one apparently simple and yet complex premise: system institutions must function as a system rather than as a group of autonomous entities." The lead institution in such a total system has responsibility for program quality and academic standards in the limited area in which that particular institution specializes (Olcott 1992, 22-23).
Reilly and Gulliver began their discussion with reference to project ALLTELL (the Project on Assessing Long Distance Learning via Telecommunications), which recommended, in 1985, that states and accrediting bodies should coordinate reviews of distance education by telecommunications. The ALLTELL strategy places primary responsibility for ensuring the quality of a course on the home state's authorizing agency. This principle of reciprocity has not been widely effected so far, but Reilly and Gulliver report progress as a result of the 1990 symposium "Emerging Critical Issues in Distance Higher Education" [see the report on this symposium in The American Journal of Distance Education 5 (1)]. According to these authors, "The meeting resulted in a number of recommendations ranging from ensuring that quality in all education be measured on outcomes rather than inputs, to developing a set of principles of good practice for distance education" (Reilly and Gulliver 1992, 13).
It appears that the movement toward establishing reciprocity of standards and towards establishing a set of principles of good practice is making progress. In September 1992 the states of Connecticut, Kentucky, Illinois, New York, Texas, Pennsylvania, and Virginia agreed on a common form of information to be required for approving telecommunicated degree-level instruction in all the states. A number of other states have since joined or are considering joining this interstate agreement. A draft statement of Principles of Good Practice for Distance Higher Education has been prepared by a Steering Group convened by the University of the State of New York. This draft contains criteria that could be used to guide discussion, planning, and evaluation of a distance education program. The Principles of Good Practice are organized under the following headings: Mission Statement, Personnel, Learning Outcomes, Learning Experiences, Assessment of Student Learning, Student Services, Program Administration, and Program Evaluation.
Dan Granger of Empire State College is Chair of the committee that is working on the statement of principles. Readers are invited to submit comments and suggestions to him at Empire State College, Center for Distance Learning, 2 Union Avenue, Saratoga Springs, NY, 12866 (Tel. (518) 587-2100).
Everyone concerned with the orderly expansion of good-quality distance education will watch the development of both the reciprocity of program approval and the establishment of principles of good practice with much interest. We all wish well to those who are working on these endeavors.
References
Olcott, D. J., Jr. 1992. Policy issues in statewide delivery of university
programs by telecommunications. The American Journal of Distance Education
6 (1): 14-26.
Pittman., V. V. 1992. Amateurs, tough guys, and a dubious pursuit: Crime and correspondence study in popular culture. The American Journal of Distance Education 6 (1): 40-50.
Reilly, K. P., and K. M. Gulliver. 1992. Interstate
authorization of distance higher education via telecommunications: The
developing national consensus in policy and practice. The American
Journal of Distance Education 6 (2): 3-16.
International Computer Conferencing for Professional
Development: The Bangkok Project
Terry Anderson and Robin Mason
The Bangkok Project, which recently linked educational
computer networks world wide, was a successful application of the new
international electronic mail and computer conferencing networks to support
professional development and reflection by members of the distance education
community. This article discusses the Project's rationale and operational
details. The authors conclude that this medium offers an exceptionally
cost- and learning-effective means of providing in-service support to
distance educators on a global scale.
Attitudes of Higher Education Faculty toward
Distance Education: A National Survey
Tom Clark
Although distance education is growing in importance
in the United States, little research has focused on the attitudes of
American college and university teachers toward college-level distance
education and toward the use of specific media in distance education provision.
The attitudes of both participating and nonparticipating faculty toward
distance education need further examination, since teaching innovations
cannot succeed without their support. This study examines the receptivity
to college-credit distance education of faculty members in two- and four-year
higher education institutions. The research questions focused on general
receptivity to distance education, the relationship between professional
characteristics and attitude toward distance education, the connection
between previous distance education experiences/familiarity and receptivity,
and on attitudes toward different distance education media and methods.
The House of Quality: Using QFD for Instructional
Design in Distance Education
Stephen Murgatroyd
This paper examines the use of Quality Function Deployment
(QFD) methods for the design, development, and delivery of courses and
programs through distance education. QFD is a methodology for ensuring
that the needs of students provide the design basis for activity in organizations
and that the assessment of quality is constantly related to student needs.
Distance Education Course Sequencing: An
Application of Probabilistic Pert with Cycles
Raymond G. Taylor and William M. Reid
A probabilistic Program Evaluation and Review Technique
(PERT) was used to evaluate the policy requirement that two distance education
courses in health care administration at Saint Joseph's College should
be taken sequentially. "Optimistic," "likely," and
"pessimistic" times for completion of various activities from
student enrollment to completion of the two-course sequence were used
in computing the estimated time and variance and in constructing the PERT
model. The analysis indicated that these activities would require more
time to complete than current institutional policy allows. As a result,
changes in policy and course structure were made.
Computer Conferencing and the Electronic
White Board in the United Kingdom: A Comparative Analysis
Catherine J. Tuckey
This paper compares the educational attributes of two forms of communication currently in use in distance education in the United Kingdom. Although these forms do not cover the spectrum of technology available, they do represent very different modes. The first of these is the Electronic White Board, a form of audio conferencing combined with a visual display. The second is asynchronous computer conferencing, or computer-mediated communication, a text-based means of communication.
