Benchmarking St. Petersburg Junior College:
A Report to Leadership
How Do SPJC Administrative and Support Systems and Procedures
Need to Change In Order to
Overcome Organizational Obstacles to E-Learning Access?
Submitted by Joyce Burkhart
Coordinator, Research, Evaluation and Dissemination
Project Eagle
May 31, 2001
Introduction
To
formulate an evaluation process of e-learning practices at St. Petersburg
Junior College (SPJC) for Project
Eagle, external evaluator Dr. Gordon "Spud" Van de Water,
Education Commission of the States, suggested that the college first identify
critical issues. Dr. James Olliver, Project Eagle director, with the help of
the Project Eagle Work Group, formulated six questions, which were then worked
into a project eagle evaluation plan by Dr. Van de Water and Joyce Burkhart,
Coordinator of Research, Evaluation and Dissemination.
The
decision was made to consider one question per quarter for the next 18 months,
taking the following steps:
1. First, examine best e-learning practices related to that question, both
nationwide and worldwide, using the Web as the primary source of information.
The results of this external evaluation would be published in an issue of
Project Eagle's monthly newsletter, Best Educational E-Practices (BEEP).
2. Next, compile a list of all practices related to the question currently in
use at SPJC, using a variety of appropriate techniques and strategies.
3. Compare the best external practices with those offered at SPJC.
4. Benchmark SPJC and submit a report to the college leadership on the
college's performance in the area under consideration.
5. Finally, disseminate the results nationally, using the Project Eagle Web
site and other forms of information distribution.
This
report represents Step 4, incorporating the results of Steps 1-3.
Background
The
second question to be evaluated was related to overcoming organizational obstacles to e-learning access.
In January 2001, research was completed to compile a list of such obstacles as
identified by institutions nationwide and worldwide. In February 2001, the
results were published in Best Educational E-Practices (BEEP), Issue 5, Overcoming Organizational Obstacles to E-Learning Access.
The obstacles included these:
A. Administrative Issues
1. Accreditation
2. Course content
3. Assessment and evaluation
4. Academic calendar/flexible scheduling
5. Governance
6. Student support services
7. Student business issues
8. Technical and technological issues
9. Staffing
10. Institutional resistance to
change
B. Cost
Issues
C. Regulatory Issues -
Federal, State and Local
D.
Issues of Access for People with Disabilities
E. Instructional Issues
From February to the end of April 2001, steps were taken to identify the organizational
obstacles to effective e-learning access at SPJC. These steps included the following:
1. Examination
of existing access-related administrative/support/systems procedures.
2.
Written and/or verbal communication with key administrators and staff members
about perceived obstacles with subsequent discussion at a Project Eagle Work
Group meeting about the results of that communication.
3. An attempt to determine College and University Center policies
(individually and collectively) regarding degree access.
In
May 2001 external and internal services were compared, and the results compiled
in this report. An executive summary appeared in Best Educational E-Practices (BEEP),
Issue 9, June 1, 2001.
Results
A.
Administrative Issues
1. Accreditation
Nationwide/worldwide. In the early days of e-learning, it was seen by
many institutions as a source of easy revenue. By organizing it as a separate
administration unit, "the usual department and faculty quality controls could
be avoided or minimized." (Turoff). This
raised concern among administrators and accrediting bodies about quality
assurance in these programs.
In
the past few years, however, more and more accrediting agencies, regional and
national, have prepared principles and guidelines. Many are listed in Best
Educational E-Practices (BEEP) #3, Issue 3, December 1, 2001, Quality Assurance and Evaluation in E-Learning. The
difficulty at this time seems to be in the universal application of these
principles to existing courses.
SPJC. The issue of accreditation has not been an obstacle at the
college. Because the development and delivery of eCampus courses must adhere to
the same standards as traditional courses, all SPJC programs are fully
accredited by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS).
To
further insure quality, in 1997, two years before the ten-year SACS review that
took place, the college formed the EDGE - Exploring Digital and Global Education -
committees. These groups were tasked with performing an
alternative self-study of the institution in all subject areas that focused on
the impact of new technologies in the delivery of education at SPJC.
2. Curriculum
and course content
Nationwide/worldwide. Like accreditation, "an important
academic issue is the overall integrity of the course," measured not only by
the accrediting agencies, but also by "curricular committees...learners and other
educational institutions..." (Gellman-Danley and Fetzer)."
In
their haste to develop their distance learning programs, some institutions
bypassed the traditional process of course development and management, with the
resulting products being strongly criticized by students and outside observers
in the field of higher education.
SPJC. The college insures the quality of every course delivered in an
e-format. It has devised procedures and
forms for the creation and review of distance courses.
The forms must be submitted to and approved by a Flexible Access Committee
named by the Senior Vice President for Academic and Student Services. This must
be done for every new e-course before it can be offered, even if the same course
already exists in a traditional format.
3. Assessment
and evaluation
Nationwide/worldwide. One of the most commonly identified areas of
weakness in e-learning is that of assessment and evaluation. Articles too
numerous to count have appeared within the last two years decrying the lack of
serious research in this area.
The
question is one of how best to determine the effectiveness of e-courses,
whether as individual offerings or within the entire area of distance delivery.
While awaiting the returns on the research that has begun on this subject, most
observers agree that there must be some way to measure outcomes, starting with
the students' own perceptions of e-courses they have taken. These include
evaluation of both the learner and the instructor.
SPJC. For the past several years, the college has had a separate student
evaluation document for the telecourses it offers. In the fall of 2000, the
college's Instructional Technology Advisory Group approved a prototype of a student
survey for online instruction. The survey was used for both the
fall and spring sessions, with the results carefully analyzed by eCampus
administrators for improvement of delivery.
4.
Academic calendar/flexible scheduling
Nationwide/worldwide. A relatively recent obstacle has been that of
flexible access to e-courses. Traditional college calendars and schedules, as
well as certain regulations that must be followed in matters like financial aid
and student enrollment periods, make concepts like open entry/open exit
offerings difficult, if not impossible, for many institutions to offer.
The
relatively small number of traditional colleges and universities that have
adopted options for flexible access have solved the problem in unique and
individual ways. One school that has put its suggested solutions on the Internet is
the University of South Queensland, Australia (McLendon). These include two
interesting alternatives:
a. Maintain the institution's set enrollment periods, but allow online students
to enroll at any time and provide limited access to their courses immediately.
Students officially commence study, gain full access to study materials and
complete assessment items only in the next full semester.
b. Online degrees have either continuous enrollments with students permitted to
commence study as soon as they enroll or have more frequent set enrollment
periods, as many as once a month, with full access to study materials at the
start of the next minimally delayed enrollment period.
SPJC. In the summer of 2000, selected representatives from various
departments and campuses held a meeting to discuss the issues related to open
flexible scheduling. Although there was no immediate follow-up to that meeting,
it did yield a list of concerns of those attending. In the fall, the Project
Eagle staff combined that list with other issues that were not already included
and submitted them to the Senior Vice President for Academic and Student
Services. In early 2001, activity on the subject began again. Work on the
resolution of this obstacle is presently underway.
The
list that was submitted from the Project Eagle Work Group in November 2000
included these concerns:
Flexible Scheduling Questions/Issues
+ How often can courses begin -- every Monday? ...every other Monday?
+ What, if any time parameters will be put on the courses? For example,
will there be a maximum amount length of time a student must be "enrolled"
in any given class? ...a minimum time?
+ Should flexible delivery be limited to certain courses, certain departments,
or certain sites?
+ How and when will instructors be paid?
+ When will instructors have opportunities to take vacation?
+ When do you "count" the student for state reporting purposes?
+ How will flexible scheduling impact finance and financial aid issues
(e.g., federal grants, loans, scholarships, veterans' benefits, and payment
of fees?
+ What changes will need to be made in REGIS to accommodate flexible scheduling?
What needs to be done to insure that this component is build into PeopleSoft?
+ How will we determine the maximum enrollment for each course?
5. Governance
Nationwide/worldwide. There are two distinct government-related
issues:
a. Intra-institutional. In the early development of e-learning programs, there
were multiple answers to where they belonged within an institution. In some
organizational models, e-programs fell into the traditional structure of a
college. In others, new departments or divisions were formed to handle the
program.
Experience
from these early days has shown that well-run programs need to develop and
assess solid governance infrastructures before courses are offered:
"...advance deliberation and development is extremely important" (Gellman-Danley and Fetzer). Even as late as 2000, in
a study by Zane Berge on barriers to
e-learning as perceived by managers and administrators, the issue of "lack
of strategic planning for distance education" was ranked as #6 of 64.
Up-to-date
statistics on the subject appeared in January 2001, when the Primary Research
Group issued the results of a survey of 85 colleges. It found that
more than 80% of all distance learning courses offered at the institutions
surveyed fell under the purview of a main distance learning program, and almost
60% of those programs directed all distance learning efforts at their schools.
b. Inter-institutional. This is an issue of governance when consortia are
formed between or among institutions. In some cases, existing structures are
reconfigured or new governance structures, like the Western
Governors University, are formed to oversee new models of
delivery (Gellman-Danley and Fetzer).
SPJC.
a. Intra-institutional. In 1999, the college made the decision to centralize
management of all e-courses - telecourses, online courses, and teleweb courses
- under the Distance Learning program, known today as the eCampus.
The program has a director, whose scope and level of responsibility is
the same as that of traditional campus or collegewide program directors in various
subject areas. The position reports to the provost of the Seminole campus,
where eCampus offices are located.
b. Intra-institutional. In addition to offering community-college level courses through
the eCampus, SPJC has formed a College and University Center (CUC), through
which the college partners with private and public higher education
institutions in Florida to coordinate upper levels and even graduate offerings.
To date, three courses are under development, one for the University of Central
Florida and two for the University of South Florida. A form has been developed
for use in contracting with partner universities for this kind of work.
6.
Student support services
Nationwide/worldwide. Most institutions agree that student support services
to e-learners must be at least equal to that offered to on-campus students if
the e-program is to succeed. These services should include "student
advisement, counseling, the library, marketing, materials delivery, textbooks,
training and proctoring" (Gellman-Danley and Fetzer).
SPJC. The
first Project Evaluation question, "What Are the Appropriate Models for
Development and Redevelopment of Student Support Services?" dealt with
the assessment of the college's student support services to e-students. The
results of that report were summarized in Best
Educational E-Practices (BEEP), Issue 8, March 1, 2001. In
general, the college was found to be doing an exemplary job in its services to
non-traditional learners.
However,
in a more recent survey for the preparation of this report, the issue of the
school's online bookstore was mentioned by several as an obstacle to the
successful delivery of e-learning. It was described as inconvenient and
difficult for students to use, with procedures that were "awkward" and
"complex." Bookstore services in general have been a subject of
expressed concern.
7. Student business issues
Nationwide/worldwide. Under this heading fall
the issues of procedures for registration, record-keeping, student progress,
transfer, and the like. In its Course Administration Principles for Distance Learning,
the University of Massachusetts established a principle that "Students
should see no administrative difference when electing distance learning
courses."
The
university
identified unresolved obstacles like determining eligibility for financial
awards or policies for intercampus records transfer. The question of handling
grades and course outcomes from non-conventional instructional delivery methods
by conventional institutions is another example of this type of problem (Gellman-Danley and Fetzer).
SPJC. At the present time,
this is an area of some concern. The college has volumes of written policies
and procedures for all matters related to student business issues. However,
they sometimes are not appropriate and/or followed for e-courses. A survey of administrators
in student business areas revealed examples of specific problems:
a. Deadlines. Because of the timing of the notification of eCampus withdrawals,
campus records' offices collegewide are frustrated by the additional workload
arriving at their busiest time. Since eCampus instructors are not part of a
regular "bricks and mortar" site process, their "W's" often arrive at the very
end of, rather than throughout, the semester.
b. Registration/College catalog. A few campus administrators have expressed
dissatisfaction with the display of online courses in the college schedule book,
finding it confusing to non-online students, making it possible for students
to sometimes register for the wrong classes.
c. Online applications. Many are submitted incorrectly or are not completed.
d. Integration
of eCampus. Because of the structure of eCampus, where support is provided
throughout the college at all the campus and center sites, the idiosyncrasies
of how each site manages its operations are magnified. Also, eCampus staff is
not aware of the procedures and changes that physical campus coordinators are
advised of by the college registrar. With only three and one half employees in
the eCampus program, it is difficult for them to attend events that would give
this information or otherwise keep them abreast of changes.
8. Technical and technological issues
Nationwide/worldwide. The 2000 Berge survey of managers
and administrators ranked technical/technological issues as three of the major
eleven obstacles:
a. Lack of technical support
b. Difficulty keeping up with technological changes
c. Lack of technology-enhanced classrooms, labs or infrastucture
SPJC. Like other institutions,
SPJC faces the same technical and technological challenges. However, the
infusion of funds from the Project Eagle grant has alleviated these
considerably. To make the college the national model the project envisions,
excellent technical and technological support is vital.
With
Eagle funds, SPJC has added the equivalent of five full-time instructional
technicians, two television control center technicians, one assistant
television engineer, one analyst programmer, three technology call center
specialists, and two part-time help desk technicians. The project also pays for
a percentage of the salaries of the six campus-based instructional
technologists.
In
addition, Eagle has made possible the equipping of open access lab areas at the
campuses, upgrading of faculty development centers, and purchasing of video
distribution and control equipment to support interactive classrooms and a
collegewide video distribution system.
Because this a potential area of concern after the Eagle grant ends, preliminary
discussions have already begun on the sources of funding needed to continue
these services.
9. Staffing
Nationwide/worldwide. Externally, there are a number of issues related to staffing
and optimal delivery of e-learning:
a. Lack of support staff to help course development (Berge).
b. Need for a well-developed infrastructure that addresses increased staffing
needs before courses are offered (Gellman-Danley and Fetzer).
SPJC. The issue of staffing from a faculty perspective will be addressed when
Project Eagle Evaluation Question #3 (August 31, 2001), which will deal entirely
with instructional issues. Organizationally, there have been two identified
problems by administrators, both related to faculty staffing:
a. A few campus program directors have expressed dissatisfaction with the faculty
scheduling process for e-courses. Differences in the way program directors manage
their departments lead to different expectations, attitudes and opinions of
how the eCampus should be run. Some program directors would prefer a more decentralized
approach with e-courses in their subject area under their direction. Meetings
to resolve such issues, short of decentralization, have been held at the campuses
to address individual differences.
b. Similarly, load management issues are a concerns, with the feeling that a
few faculty are teaching too many courses by college standards.
Both fall into the nationally identified category of the need for addressing
increased staffing needs before courses are offered and programs developed.
Another staffing concern that was expressed internally was the need for more
online advising, counseling and tutoring, as well as a contact person for
eCampus students exclusively. This concern was also previously voiced when
faculty and staff were polled in February 2001 for their opinions of e-student
services in preparation for the Project Eagle Evaluation Question #1 report
related to student support services.
10. Institutional resistance to change
Nationwide/worldwide. Externally, this obstacle is sometimes referred
to as a "cultural" one within an institution. It encompasses
attitudes toward innovation, acceptance of online teaching and learning as
legitimate, understanding of what works at a distance, and the values of an
organization (King).
In the (Berge) study, four
of the eleven strongest barriers to optimal e-learning were related to institutional
resistance, including a lack of shared vision for distance education in organization,
a slow pace of implementation, and a lack of money budgeted to implement distance
education programs.
This is a subtle and pervasive problem area, often unstated, that underlies
other surface issues schools find difficult to resolve in developing e-learning
programs. It is probably one of the greatest organizational obstacles to
e-learning access.
SPJC. Thanks to the support
for e-learning by its top administrators, the college has managed to overcome
the kinds of institutional resistance to change that have been major obstacles
in other place. That SPJC received a multi-million dollar federal grant to
build a national e-learning program reflects the positive image the school
enjoys as a leader in the field.
Nevertheless,
just as eCampus is sometimes accused of failing to follow traditional college
policies and procedures, those involved in the planning and delivery of
e-learning have expressed frustration with the lack of administrative methods
that are practical and appropriate for the new forms of education. They would
readily agree with the external obstacles that King and Berge have identified, and
would welcome a revision of existing policies and procedures to deal with the
needs of a new learning population.
B. Cost
issues
Nationwide/worldwide. For many institutions
considering to what extent an e-learning program should be developed and
expanded, the cost of creating and maintaining e-courses is a major issue.
While there has been much debate about the relative cost/return ratio
e-courses, there have been few definitive answers.
However,
in the past few years, several serious studies have been undertaken to
determine an effective methodology for calculating costs. Various models have
been developed, but none more researched and tested than that recently completed
by the Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education's Technology Costing Methodology Project.
Its
2001 Handbook presents a methodology that helps an institution "define
delivery modes, identify the full range of costs for those delivery modes and
develop analytical data for cost comparisons." It also proposes
"a set of procedures by which data from multiple institutions can be
placed in a reasonably common framework and exchanged or compiled."
The
accompanying Casebook looks at the results of 12 pilot sites, and the Tabulator
is a set of electronic spreadsheets to assist the user in performing the actual
cost calculations. It is expected that the results of the TCM project will
provide a definitive solution to the issues of costing.
SPJC. These kinds of ost
issues have not been identified as major obstacles at the college. Three years
ago, the school entered into an arrangement with WebCT to use and assist in the
development of their products. Online courses are created in WebCT exclusively,
with instructional technology personnel and faculty well-trained in its use.
This consistency in new course development, plus the successful growth of the
eCampus, has not made cost a major issue.
With
the exception of additional instructional technology and technical staff,
funded at least in part by Project Eagle, other administrative matters related
to e-courses have been handled by existing staff. Because SPJC has long
encouraged the use of computers throughout the college for business and
instruction, the college has been less likely to feel overwhelmed by the
hardware costs that pose major obstacles for other schools entering the e-learning
market.
Project
Eagle funds are also supporting the development of more than 160 new online
courses over a four-year period. By the time that money is no longer available,
the efforts of projects like TCM should have solved the dilemma of accurate cost
analysis.
C. Regulatory
Issues - Federal, State and Local
Nationwide/worldwide. In its recently released
report The Power of the Internet for Learning,
the federal Web-Based Education Commission (WBEC) stated that "The legacy
of the one-room schoolhouse is holding back the potential of the one-world
classroom." It further states that regulations governing much of education
today are focused on supporting the welfare of the educational institution, not
the individual learner, and are written for an earlier model of education that
is time-fixed, place-based and no longer realistic.
The
report calls for "wholesale rethinking of the regulatory foundations
governing our educational institutions," an obstacle and challenge because
each state establishes its own regulatory structure. It identifies three major
barriers at the federal level that affect all Title IV-eligible higher
education institutions with e-learning programs:
a. The "12-hour rule." In 1994 the U.S. Department of Education defined
a week of instructional time to mean 12 hours of regularly scheduled instruction,
examinations, or preparation for examination for courses not offered in standard
terms.
b. The "50% rule." Institutions must offer 50% of their instruction
in a classroom-based environment, to assure that a student is physically participating
in an academic course of study for which he or she is receiving federal student
financial assistance.
c. Ban on incentive compensation plans. Schools may not pay third party
entities for helping them secure enrollment, including Web portals that might
otherwise provide information to prospective students.
The
federal government has already begun work on those issues identified above, but
the greater difficulty of resolution will be at the lower levels of government.
At
state and local levels, there are a myriad of statutes and regulations, some of
which are mutually exclusive. This sometimes makes it almost impossible to
create Web-based programs that can meet all states' requirements. The diversity
of the regulations includes establishment of new online programs, transfer of credit,
acceptance of credentials obtained outside a state, and limitations of a
school's geographic service area.
Within
its own 15 member states, the Southern Regional Education Board discovered
"an array of different formats" when in late 1996 it conducted a survey of state regulations as they
apply to distance learning. However, it felt none was a barrier significant
enough "to thwart a concerted and cooperative effort to develop an
Electronic Common market in the region" and has since worked vigorously to
create its
own regional electronic campus.
SPJC. Like every other Title
IV-eligible institution, the college's eCampus is faced with the restrictions
of the federal government's regulations. At the state and local level, there
were two areas of concern identified as obstacles:
a. Testing. Students must attend a testing center in Florida to take the College
Level Assessment Skills Test (CLAST).
b. Geographic restrictions. Florida's community
colleges are each designated to serve a specific geographic area, in SPJC's
case, Pinellas County. Through discussions with the Florida Community Colleges
Presidents' Council and Distance Learning Consortium, e-courses have been
viewed as being within the service area, since the students have to "drive" to
the server in the college's home county, just as they might drive across a
"service area" line to attend a class in another area.
The
general agreement is that it is appropriate to offer online classes, but
inappropriate to advertise for those classes in another college's service area.
The issue is always a sensitive one, however, and efforts are underway in the
consortium to share courseware and services, so that no institution feels it is
adversely impacting another.
D. Issues of Access for People with Disabilities
Nationwide/worldwide. The issue of access to
e-courses is in reality one of access specifically to online courses. It is
generally agreed that the advent of Web-based education has given people with
disabilities unprecedented access to pursuing higher education, but only if materials
are produced in a way that makes them fully accessible. While the issue of
access is easier to overcome for the hearing or mobility impaired, it has
proved a challenge for those with significant visual disabilities.
The
federal government has already mandated the inclusion of alt-text tags on Web
pages that contain graphical content, but there is still a lack of information
about the kind of overall page design that is best accessed by assistive
technology devices like screen readers. Presently, there are basic design
guidelines on the Web, provided by the Web Accessibility Initiative of the World Wide Web
Consortium. An additional support for developers is Bobby,
a free service that helps them identify and repair significant barriers to
access by individuals with disabilities.
SPJC. The challenges of providing full access to persons with
disabilities have been identified at the college, which has been and continues
to be addressing them. For the hearing impaired, there is captioning equipment,
with the hiring of a captionist in process. For the visually impaired,
instructional technologists are aware of the problems of both the regulations
and the resources available for optimal Web site production.
There
is one unresolved issue of access to those with mobility limitations. Students must come to a
campus or proctored site to take telecourse and some online tests. Often these are students
who are taking eCampus classes precisely because they cannot physically come to
a campus.
E. Instructional Issues.
The subject
of faculty concerns, including those related to perceived organizational
obstacles, will be addressed thoroughly and exclusively in Project Eagle
Evaluation Question #3. The external evaluation has already been completed and
published in Best Educational E-Practices (BEEP), Issue 8, May 2001, Faculty Issues in An E-Learning Environment.
Review and Recommendations
SPJC
has dealt effectively with most of the major obstacles faced by other
institutions. From the beginning of its e-learning efforts, the college has
generally planned ahead, carefully following existing regulations, performing
self-evaluations and needs assessments, and responding to input from its staff
to avoid potential problem areas.
The
school has long been proactive toward the development of non-traditional
courses and programs; it completely online Veterinary Technology degree was one
of the first of its kind in the country. Priority has been given to
technological innovation and improvements, and both faculty and staff
encouraged and given the opportunity to improve professional technical skills.
Some
of the obstacles it faces, like the current federal, state and local regulatory
restrictions, are not within its power to change. Administrative support for
any proposals to improve rules governing e-learning access seem the most
practical means at the college's disposal to help effect the needed statutory
changes.
The
organizational obstacles that are perceived to exist at SPJC are specific and
capable of being remedied within the institution:
1. Flexible
scheduling (Section A4). ECampus is interested in offering courses in an
open entry/open exit environment. To accomplish this would certainly improve
the access to e-learning that Project Eagle is tasked to accomplish. In order to do this, a number of policy and procedure questions
must be answered.
Although
previous attempts to resolve difficult issues have not been successful, the
matter is under active study again. Many of the technical barriers are expected
to be resolved when the college migrates to a new student system (PeopleSoft)
within a few years, and the others will need to be dealt with one by one.
2. Online bookstore
services (Section A6). Just one of a number of issues that face the
Follett bookstores at SPJC, this one was singled out in the informal survey of administrators
and staff that preceded this report. Although college and university bookstores
nationally are challenged with adapting to the changes brought about largely by
courses with an online component, Follett's has had a particularly difficult time.
The complaint of procedures that are "awkward" and
"complex," hence discouraging to those trying to make their purchases
online, poses an extra barrier to the potential e-student.
3. Policies and
procedures for handling student business issues (Section A7). The
perception is that the eCampus' implementation of the college's written
policies and procedures regarding deadlines, registration, and online
applications is not always synchronized with those dealing with business issues
related to non-traditional courses. The resolution of these issues and others
of a similar nature that might arise will not only smooth the flow of
e-learning, but will improve the general image and integration of eCampus
within the college.
4. Technological
challenges (Section A8). Although priority has long been given to keeping
abreast of technological changes and Project Eagle has supplied needed funds to
assist the college in doing so, thought needs (and has already begun) to be
given to sources of funding to continue this after the grant ends in 2003.
5. Faculty scheduling
for e-courses (Section A9).College administrators have noted perceived lack
of cooperation among some departments and directors in the scheduling of
faculty for e-courses. Accommodations are being worked out, short of a return
to total e-program decentralization. The meetings that have been held on the
campuses to address the differences in how individual program directors want to
be informed and involved in the scheduling process will help alleviate this
issue.
6. Online student
assistance (Section A9). This concern was mentioned by online faculty in
the report on Project Eagle Evaluation Question #1 regarding student services
in February 2001. It surfaced again when administrators were queried for this
report. There is a perceived need for advising, counseling and tutoring, as
well as a full-time contact person assigned to eCampus students. Although the
college has taken steps to increase the tutoring options with Smarthinking, an
outside online source, and the creation of an internal bulletin board for
students, the half-time position of CyberAdvisor is apparently not sufficient
to fill the personnel needs for this growing mode of educational delivery. A
request to increase this position to full-time was included in the 2001-2002
eCampus unit plan.
7. Out-of-date
administrative methods (Section A10). This concern is closely related to
the third one listed here on policies and procedures for handling student
business issues. Those who work with the eCampus program must sometimes deal
with traditional methods for handling matters like deadlines, withdrawals, etc.
that are not practical for optimal delivery of e-learning. There is a
need for a review and possible revision of the issues that are causing the most
friction.
8. Regulatory issues
(Section C). Although there are many statutory restrictions that apply to all
Florida institutions offering non-traditional course, the requirements that (a)
students must physically attend a testing center in Florida to take the College
Level Academic Skills Test (CLAST) and (b) the college must be conscious of its
geographic service area within the state, are two that were specifically
mentioned as obstacles to optimal access.
9. Access for those
with mobility disabilities (Section D). The improvement of
e-learning access for individuals is an ongoing process, but the need for
students to come to a campus or a proctored site to take telecourse and some
online tests was singled out as an unresolved one. As other instruments like
the placement test and mandatory new student orientation become available
online, this barrier should be the next one to fall.
Overall,
when measured against the efforts of other institutions, SPJC is once again far
ahead. The examination of organizational obstacles has demonstrated that the
college has tried to plan ahead and is responsive to needs for change as they
arise. The issues listed here should offer a concise starting point for the
school to address and eliminate present barriers to a seamless delivery of
services in a new educational environment.
Online References
Berge, Z. L. and Muilenburg, L. Y. (2000). Barriers to Distance Education As
Perceived by Managers and Administrators: Results of a Survey. In Melanie Clay
(Ed.) Distance Learning Administration Annual 2000. [Online]
http://userpages.umbc.edu/~berge/man_admin.html
Gellman-Danley, B. & Fetzner, M. J. (1998). Asking the Really Tough Questions:
Policy Issues for Distance Learning. Online Journal of Distance Learning. 1(1).
[Online]
http://www.westga.edu/~distance/danley11.html
King, James E., et al. (2000). Policy Frameworks for Distance Education: Implications
for Decision Makers. Online Journal of Distance Learning. 3(2). [Online]
http://www.westga.edu/~distance/king32.html
McLendon, Emory and Cronk, Peter (1999). Rethinking Academic Management Practices:
A Case of Meeting New Challenges in Online Delivery. Online Journal of Distance
Learning. 2(1). [Online]
http://www.westga.edu/~distance/mclendon21.html
The Power of the Internet for Learning (2001). Regulations. Report of the Web-based
Education Commission to the President and the Congress of the United States.
[Online]
http://interact.hpcnet.org/webcommission/Regulations.htm
Saint Petersburg Junior College (2001). Project Eagle Evaluation Question #1:
What Are the Appropriate Models for Development and Redevelopment of Student
Support Services? [Online]
http://www.spcollege.edu/eagle/research/evaluation/peeq1.htm
Turoff, Murray (1998). Alternative Futures for Distance Learning: The Force
and the Darkside. Online Journal of Distance Learning. 1(1). [Online]
http://www.westga.edu/~distance/turoff11.html
University of Massachusetts (1997). Course Administration Principles for Distance
Learning. [Online]
http://www.umassp.edu/distance_learning/pages/cadmin.html
Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education, Western Cooperative for
Educational Telecommunications (2001). Technology Costing Methodology Project.
[Online]
http://www.wiche.edu/telecom/Projects/tcm/index.htm
|
.
.
