James Pappas
Vice Provost, College of Continuing Education
University of Oklahoma
Creating Multiple Futures for Education and Technology
Students of the future represent a new challenge, according to James Pappas of the University of Oklahoma. Both first-time and experienced learners have instantaneous access to information via advancing technologies which offer the student increased control over learning experiences and expand the availability of learning beyond the restrictions of a formal educational structure. Universities must continue to shape instructional outreach to recognize and take advantage of emerging technologies.
The UO Model: Entrepreneurial Incrementalism
The University of Oklahoma's response to this challenge can best be described as an effort based on "entrepreneurial incrementalism." Multiple pressures converged to make it happen. Among these were the external forces within the state which demanded increased access to learning opportunities, the pressures which existed within the university and the College of Continuing Education to develop new revenue streams, and the efforts of individual staff who championed movement in a new direction. Although some early efforts seemed "enlightened" at the time, they may not have been strategic. "Just do it" could aptly describe at least the early efforts within the institution in developing its technological structure. Delivery systems now include satellite programs to 121 downlink sites around the state; videotape and interactive compressed video programs which are distributed to engineers around the country; and CD-ROM interactive software. Even the more traditional correspondence courses are now often accompanied by video and audio programs.Many of these developments have been built from the grassroots and not top down from the institution administration. User fees have been the primary funding source for the development of these systems.
Education in the Year 2000
A videotape produced by the University of Oklahoma demonstrated a variety of ways in which education might be delivered in the year 2000. Although classroom instructors continue to be the most widely used mode of delivery, branch campuses as well as distance technology can readily extend the institutional resources of the university to multiple student audiences. Demonstrated technologies included satellite videoconferencing, compressed video, audio and audio graphics, textbooks enhanced with CD-ROM, interactive computer programs including two-way audio and video (desktop videoconferencing), simulated learning activities (using the example of an air traffic control tower), and new uses of the Internet. With the variety of outreach modes and technologies, more people can be reached than was ever thought possible.This nearly limitless potential for instructional outreach can be overwhelming, and often distorts and frustrates as much as it helps to create a vision for the future. Because of its complexity, sometimes administrators and faculty find themselves in an approach-avoidance dilemma.
Many social scientists have suggested that organizations go through two phases of development: 1) extended periods of growth and controlled evolution; or 2) periods of substantial turmoil and true paradigm shifts that can be labeled as revolutions. Is the changing of instructional outreach evolutionary or revolutionary? How this question is answered has an impact on organizational structures, allocation of resources, response to students, faculty development, etc.
Even those who recognize the importance of increasing access to underserved learners and disseminating information to new audiences often ask whether this actually enhances an institution's prestige. "How will this help in increasing my department's ranking in U.S. News and World Report and other rankings?"
Creating the Scenarios: Issues to Consider
Discussions on the adoption of new telecommunications delivery systems for increasing instructional outreach assumes the activity is approached as a rational process, e.g., conducting a needs assessment, planning strategically, and promoting the organizational change. Instead, recognizing the reality that outreach is often driven by technical capabilities, pressures from constituencies, or campus politics, argues for an incremental change approach with dispersed usage rather than an institutionwide response. Pappas raised a number of concerns to crystallize the issues in institutional adaptations of technology. They are as follows.The demands for instructional outreach and the use of electronic technologies are increasing - especially from external groups such as state governments which see it as an economic panacea. They think, "We no longer need to invest in bricks and mortar. We can now make our faculty more productive or provide an impetus for state development." Yet, in reality, our internal systems, (e.g., faculty, departments, registrars' offices) feel few of these pressures. How can we strengthen or create the connection between these external forces and internal structures?
Recent popular and professional literature suggests that the new outreach technologies will break the regulated monopoly that institutions of higher education have enjoyed. For example, major communication providers are creating alliances with other institutions to deliver educational programs nationwide. Educationally oriented broadcasters are even creating their own "institutions" to provide degrees. Large entertainment companies are considering the creation of colleges as "new lines of business." Given the marginality of past attempts to develop education offerings without traditional institutions, the renewed interest in face-to-face undergraduate education, and the sustained status of traditional institutions, are these threats overblown?
If we look critically at instructional outreach and electronic delivery, much of what is being done is "gee whiz" technology that simply varies the traditional classroom presentation. Seldom are these new opportunities used to alter the fundamental epistemology of the learning situation. Many of the systems exist primarily to impress trustees, or are "me too" responses which are expensive ways of providing learning. Sometimes having a professor drive across town or a student read from a well-written text might be the most cost-effective means of delivery. Are there not instances in which the institution would be better served by funding faculty development or doing research on outreach pedagogy before building elaborate systems for outreach?
Although many have written about the self-directed learner, and most of the literature in instructional outreach suggests the learner will control the future, isn't learner-controlled education still largely a myth? With either learner-controlled or institutionally managed learning, has progress been made in assessing quality? Should standards for outreach be created? If so, what about issues of academic freedom? Although some faculty believe they "own" a specific course, should courses from other institutions be purchased or created through consortial arrangements to enrich or replace existing ones in our curricula?
Leadership Needed
Instructional outreach - especially that which is telecommunications based - implies the need for special institutional leadership. Three different approaches can typically be found. One is the extension of the academic role. The second is technical management which emphasizes both hard and soft technological expertise. The third is advocacy/marketing-based in which nontraditional student needs are championed and/or programs are "sold" to new audiences. Is any one of these approaches the most appropriate in most cases? If not, is there some combination which should be considered?Can changes in outreach and technology developments be used to deal with issues that have not been addressed within the academy (e.g., elimination of old courses or encouraging interdisciplinary efforts)? Accrediting groups that have done little to recognize or develop strategies for evaluating instructional outreach or electronically delivered programs need to address these issues. Perhaps institutions should become more assertive in demanding accreditation changes that will accommodate the demands of new outreach modes.
Even supporters of outreach recognize their high cost. At many institutions each department wants to "own" the necessary equipment. Where centralized systems exist, there is often a concentration of technologists who are always hoping to acquire the latest, newest technology. Should the use of private vendors for some of the technology and support services be considered? Recognizing the increased costs of outreach activities, especially when a technology infrastructure is required, is it equitable to ask for higher user fees for instructional outreach? Can new technologies be used to expand economically our educational offerings to new markets, including international ones where the demand for an American degree continues to be high?
James Hall writes:
Distance administrators can also be a moral force in promoting the uses of technology to support the values of the university, rather than allowing technology to dictate its values. Workers in distance education know what is needed by students who are working on their own, away from the support structures of the campus. There will be lots of opportunity ahead to use this expertise, especially if the university is to prevent opportunists from commandeering the world of the virtual university....[The] significance [of instructional outreach] will be assured by maintaining the central values of the university; viz., helping students to learn and grow intellectually, creating a climate within which scholars can create and test knowledge, and reaching out to enlighten a civilized community.
Postscript
One respondent from the audience suggested that much more positive work is occurring in this country than this presentation suggested, including some quite creative, learner-driven activities. However, sometimes distance education strategies are developed that require a huge investment in technology that the institution cannot then afford to operate. Because of the need to find solutions that do not "bankrupt the institution," technocrats should not take the lead in program development.Another said that much of what is done is dependent on public policy issues, e.g., "Who is going to pay for the installation of the telecommunication access points throughout the state of Missouri?" Pappas responded that what occurs is not a serious policy discussion, but rather short-term decision making, for example, the installation of phone lines by a local vender.
An audience member noted that too often our discussions are teaching-centered. Thinking should begin with learning, not teaching, and consider how best to make that learning happen. Another audience member agreed that, while we are beginning to see some real change in teaching and learning because of the technology which is available (e.g., the use of e-mail), these changes often overwhelm the faculty. Perhaps new ways of involving the student in learning need to be explored. For example, if the faculty member cannot answer every e-mail question, perhaps other students in the class can do so. A third suggested that issues of academic work loads need immediate attention. While the institution is willing, even anxious to serve new populations, the work load of many faculty already seems overwhelming. The immediate challenge is how to move from serving relatively small numbers of on-campus students to the many off campus, who have limited access.
A final audience respondent suggested that these changes will result in the learners being able to choose what they want to do and that there will be ever more competition among institutions. As a result, some of our institutions may cease to exist. On that note, the session ended with much pondering by the audience as it filed out.