Aaron H. Konstam Iris Molotsky

Trinity University AAUP National Staff

Introduction

In his book, ``The Technological Society'' , Jacques Ellul [Ref 1.] defines technology as ``the totality of methods rationally arrived at and having absolute efficiency (for a given stage of development) in every field of human activity'' . In suggesting this definition Ellul was making several assertions. First, technology focuses on methods of doing things.

Second, although technology includes the machinery that makes doing things possible, it also includes the methods for using that machinery in accomplishing human goals. Therefore, we have technologies of education (that is pedagogical methodologies) as well as the mechanical and electronic technologies that are used to carry out our pedagogical methodologies. Therefore, when studying any type of suggested innovation in our educational methodologies it is essential that all of the forms of technology being used are properly evaluated.

Third, Ellul wants to limit our discussion of technology to those methodologies that were rationally arrived at. That is to say there is some rational reason for believing that the technology being suggested to accomplish a task actually can accomplish the task.

However, Ellul presents us with our biggest challenge in his description of a fourth characteristic of technology. He suggests that one of the ways that technology is identified as the currently most appropriate technology for accomplishing a task is that it has been determined in some way to be the most efficient methodology for accomplishing the task at that moment of time. Often we change our technology not because of any obvious defect in the old technology but because is some sense we believe that a newer technology accomplishes the same task with greater efficiency.

Distance Learning

It is with this general introduction to the nature of technology that we can start our investigation of the educational technology that is referred to as distance learning. In their report, ``Guiding Principles for Distance Learning in a Learning Society'' the American Council on Education (ACE) [Ref. 2] gives the following definition:

``Distance Learning is a system and a process that connects learners with distributed learning resources. While distance learning takes a variety of forms, all distance learning is characterized by:

Separation of place and/or time between the instructor and learner, among learners, and/or between learners and learning resources.

Interaction between the learner and the instructor, among learners, and/or between learners and learning resources are conducted through one or more media; use of electronic media is not necessarily required.''

If we exclude electronic media from consideration, distance learning has been a viable educational technique for more than a century. English universities have been awarding degrees through correspondence courses since the latter part of the 19^th century. For a long time using the normal mail system as the communication media between students and instructor was the technology of highest efficiency. Distance learning worked and worked well during that period where there was a need to deliver an education to a student body located far from the world's centers of learning. No one ever suggested that correspondence courses were the way to educate on-campus students who could access classroom instruction directly. But times have changed and the media of highest efficiency for distance learning has changed, so we are now facing a different world with its associated different set of questions concerning the education of students who are separated either positionally or temporally from their instructors.

With the advent of the Internet, the Web, video technology and other forms of electronic technologies the opportunities for launching distance learning programs has increased but so have the associated problems. Currently when people refer to distance learning they are talking about, at least, seven different types of activities:

The virtual classroom - The system by which class lectures are pre-recorded and played during the class period in place of a live lecturer.

Interactive video - A system where the instructor presents the course material to a live class in the room of instruction and at the same time transmits this presentation via wire or satellite to remote sites. Everyone can talk with everyone, thus it really is interactive.

Distribution of class resources - The distribution of reading lists, syllabi, test documents, etc. through the Web. Students access these materials at different times as the need arises.

List-servers, news-servers, MOOs - These and other technologies allow students communicate with each other to create a kind of community for exchanging thoughts and ideas about course content.

University On-Line - Such services that produce Web based courses that can be bought and then used by universities to supplement their course offerings.

Main-line distance learning programs- Programs such as those at the University of Maine where courses can be offered to students in remote locations who are not able to attend classes on campus. These programs are usually supplemented by regional learning centers where tutors meet with students to help them with the course materials and to administer tests.

Degree Granting Bodies (DGB)- Organizations such as the Western Governors University (WGU) that create curriculum out of courses taught at colleges, universities and companies (as well as other facilities).

Evaluating the efficiency, effectiveness and rationality of all these disparate activities tied together under the umbrella-term distance learning takes a good deal of thought and effort. It should also be pointed out that this evaluation must be done from the points of view of three distinct groups involved in as well as affected by distance learning activities: the administrators , the faculty and the students of the learning facilities. All three have a stake in the success and effectiveness of such activities and all possibly have much to lose if these activities do not meet their individual purposes and goals. To evaluate the efficiency of distance learning in relation to these groups, we need to analyze both the added value of using these techniques and anything that is lost by using them.

The Administration

First, let us look at distance learning from the administrators' point of view. Massey and Zemsky in their report, ``Using Information Technology to Enhance Academic Productivity'' , state the administrators' case as well as their predicament vis-a-vi information technology (IT) very succinctly [Ref 3]. ``IT offers economies of scale: After a (sometimes large) front-end investment, the cost of usage per incremental student is apt to be low. Moreover, access to very large amounts of information can be obtained at low incremental cost ''. Since tuition rates for the technologically educated student would be the same as for the resident student, there would be a net increase in revenue per student; certainly a plus for cost conscious administrations.

However, Massey and Zemsky provide a caution to this rosy scenario. Somehow these greater initial IT costs will have to be financed. `` Will institutions have to reduce faculty size in order to finance information technology investments or can these investments be funded from the revenues associated with penetration of new markets or, in the case of public institutions in some states, incremental appropriations from government? ''. We have yet to resolve the first part of this question but by looking at the design of the Western Governors University the answer to the second part might well turn out as follows.

In June 1996 governors from 13 Western states, excluding California and Texas ( this numbe, the two most populous states, agreed to establish the Western Governors University now scheduled to open in spring 1998. The WGU will not offer its own courses but will draw upon those developed by existing institutions and other providers. WGU proposes to have a Smart Catalog/Advisor, only accessible on-line, that will weave these gathered courses into credentialed courses of study. The goal is eventually to award baccalaureate degrees, although initially WGU plans to concentrate on two-year associate degrees and job-related skill certificates. Degree granting bodies such as the WGU have not resolved the issues of accreditation ¾they must be accredited if work done there is to be transferable to other institutions and if students are to be eligible for financial assistance ¾ nor have they solved the problem posed by the myriad of conflicting state education laws.

The governors of these Western states have decided that the problem with higher education is that it is too bound to the physical facilities and educational goals of the established universities. They want to change the emphasis of higher education to the credentialing of students in skills more oriented to the current job market and to skills whose mastery could be definitively measured. The governors would like to develop and administer a new type of university, one that would emphasize not what universities want to teach but what the ``people'' want to learn (or at least be credentialed in). Its implementation as a virtual university (or DGB) is an administrators dream. No large information technology costs will have to mounted since the production and distribution technology will be owned by the universities, companies and students who create and enroll in the courses.

To some extent the WGU is the antithesis of what a high quality distance learning program should be. Nowhere in its plan is found a commitment to the consistent follow-through on the degree (or credentialing) programs that are created. Programs are developed out of courses provided by the universities and companies participating in the program. There is no assurance that the student when he/she starts a program that the participating organizations will be offering the courses he or she will need four or five years later when graduation time approaches. It is easier to see how WGU could mount programs for credentialing students in various specific skills than true university degree programs. However, the WGU decides to deal with this problem the ACE report (REF 2) correctly points out that a student must receive certain programmatic support from the institution in order for any educational program to work. ``Distance learning opportunities are effectively supported for learners through fully accessible modes of delivery and resources.'' It also is important that `` support systems for each learning opportunity be reviewed regularly to ensure their currency and effectiveness. Distance learning initiatives must be backed by an organizational commitment to quality and effectiveness in all aspects of the learning environment.''

Another fallacy in the originally stated concept of distance learning is the assumption that the high cost is restricted to the front end of the process. We are now living in a world where the lifetime of cutting-edge technology is measured in weeks or months rather than years. At the current rate of obsolescence, one typically has to replace technology on a 3-5 year cycle. One trick to balance budgeting and efficiency constraints is to replace 20-33 percent of the technology each year. Thereby at any given time the institution has available the latest in information technology. But no matter how distance learning is implemented the ongoing cost of remaining current in its technology will be sizable.

In summary, distance learning is attractive to administrations as a vehicle for lowering the incremental cost of educating students but they must be willing to provide for the quality and stability of the distance learning programs that they offer. In addition, it is of some concern to faculty if the lower incremental cost of educating a student is augmented by a reduction of faculty size.

The Faculty

The second group involved in distance learning activities are the faculty. The technology of distance learning allow faculty the power and freedom to do things that they have never been able to do before. They can reach students that previously could not be educated because of lack of proximity. They can create learning experiences that are truly multi-media and pedagogically more effective. Visits can be made to virtual worlds where things can be shown to students and students can experience things that were never possible to do or experience previously. But like all other good thing there are costs associated with their attainment.

Putting together such a virtual experience takes a great deal of time and effort. In their paper, ``Teaming Up With Technology: How Unions Can Harness the Technology Revolution on Campus'' the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) [Ref 4] advises faculty to `` keep four questions front and center in all dealings with management about technology issues.

Does the technology make sense educationally? Will it really advance student learning and scholarship?

Does the technology make sense financially? Will all students and faculty members have access to the new technology and know how to use it?

Will students and faculty all have access to the new technology and know how to use it?

Are faculty and staff rights protected? ''

In focusing on the last question one needs to ask who owns or at least has control over the distance learning course materials once they are produced. In a letter to the Chronicle of Higher Education last year, Bradley Chilton, a faculty member at the University of Toledo pointed out how he was trapped in a virtual library [Ref 5]. Despite the fact that he had resigned as a tenured professor at Washington State University in 1993 that university was still transmitting to students his class lectures. He pointed out that, `` hundreds of students on their main campus and by distance learning have received three semesters hours credit for this course without my supervision ''. One might expect that a faculty member whose persona was being stolen in this way would at least get residuals on the money brought in to the university by the teaching of his course. But even more important it seems improper under normal circumstances for the pedagogical creation of a faculty member to be used without his control or supervision. These issues are being worked on at various campuses but they have not yet been resolved to everyone's satisfaction.

Since a great deal of work goes in to a distance learning experience we must ask the question; if this development activity is deemed to be in the interest of the university does the faculty member doing the development receive any compensatory release time? We can take as a given that all faculty want to improve the presentations they make to students, but not all faculty have equal access to the technology and expertise. An associated question is who pays for any staff support necessary to produce the lessons?

The first question that AFT posed in their report is the most difficult to answer. To what extent are we adopting technology in distributing education because it genuinely more effective and to what extent is it a illusion of effectiveness (or efficiency) that is driving the adoption? As Ellul pointed out we often adopt a technology because it is new or novel and we equate new and novel with effectiveness and efficiency. True efficiency is measured by relating the effectiveness of the outcome to the amount of effort expended to bring about the outcome. If it turns out that technologically based distance learning in some disciplinary area requires a tremendous additional expenditure of effort for the same or only marginally greater educational outcome this technology should probably be abandoned. One would want to know whether faculty are free to choose their method of delivery for the courses they teach or is the method mandated by some higher authority. It is extremely important that in all implementations of distance learning the ultimate control of the content and presentation methods be kept firmly in the hands of the faculty.

One final question concerning faculty involvement in distance learning need also to be considered. That is, how will continued faculty employment fare in the cost benefit analysis that will certainly be done by administrations relative to distance learning technologies. If these technologies will allow fewer faculty to teach a greater number of students will faculty attrition be the result? Will natural attrition or forced attrition be used? Will administrations who are looking forward to doing more with the same financial resources turn to part time faculty to balance the additional cost of the IT purchases? How will such part time faculty be brought up-to-speed on the use of the distance learning technology is still another question? The National Education Association in a recent meeting [Ref 6] expressed this concern in the following way. ``... part time instructors, who have struggled to get office space in the past are now given little of no access to new instructional and office technologies. This ... may create situations in which instructors are required to incorporate access to computer bulletin boards in their courses even though they may have ``dinosaur '' computers and no Internet access themselves. In addition ... part time instructors often are granted even less time then full-time professors to learn how to use new technology.''

As we can see the questions that arise from distance learning in relation to faculty are educational as well as financial. Massey and Zemsky [Ref 2] point out ``that when given a choice of additional money for information technology or another faculty member most faculty would choose an additional faculty member¾ and almost none would opt for additional expenditures on information technology if the result would be a smaller faculty.'' This puts faculty to some extend at odds with the administration in the distance learning arena. In defense of the faculty position it should be pointed out that this attitude identified by Massey and Zemsky does not result from a innate hatred of IT by the faculty. Rather it expresses the widespread belief that the primary tool for the the delivery of high quality education to the students is the faculty itself. IT is an instrument for aiding in this delivery not an adequate substitute tool in its own right.

The Students

Despite the importance of analyzing the pros and cons of distance learning technology from the points of view of administrators and faculty it is the analysis of the effects of this technology on the third group the students that is really of greatest importance. After all the primary focus of higher education is to teach. So our final and most critical question has to be whether distance learning technology make the learning process both more effective and more efficient? Can we gain something through the use of distance learning from the student point of view that we can not gain without it?

On the positive side we would probably agree with Massey and Zemsky [Ref 2] that distance learning offers the possibility for mass customization of the learning process. Using it ``faculty can accommodate individual differences in student goals, learning styles and abilities while providing improved convenience for both students and faculty on an any time any place basis''. As it has for the last 100 years distance learning can deliver educational services to students who find it impossible to regularly appear in a classroom at a central campus. Students can choose programs that fit their vocational needs and goals and schedule the lessons to fit their schedules. Millions of students have been processed through credentialing or degreeing processes using this technology.

One might expect that the subject areas most able to profit from IT-based strategies are those that have a high volume of students and standardized curriculum. But in fact the variety of disciplines that offer courses to students through IT-based distance learning is surprisingly large. Vickey Phillips in , ``Earn a Masters Virtually'' [Ref 7] includes a list of 27 organizations that are currently offering everything from high school degrees to graduate degrees on-line. These include traditional universities like Georgia Tech and the University of Maryland as well as organizations designed around the distance learning concept such as the Open University in England, SUNY Empire State College in New York State and Athabasca University in Alberta, Canada.

One difficulty of these approaches to education was pointed out by J. S. Brown and P. Duguid in ``University in the Digital Age ''[Ref 8]. They assert that a university education is more than a process through which facts are transmitted from faculty to students. A major goal of the educational process is to introduce the students into a community of practice. We are interested that students know more than just the facts about chemistry or sociology. They also need to be introduced to and involved in the activities done by chemists and sociologists. That is what the science lab and the term project is supposed to do. Not only should students do what these practitioners do but do those things in concert and in direct contact with other practitioners of the same discipline. These are hard things to do when a student is acquiring his or her education remotely through distance learning.

Similar statements can be made about introducing students to a community of learning where their learning process is entwined with the socialization process of learning in proximity to and in concert with other students like themselves. It is often argued that at least half the learning that occurs at the university occurs outside of class through the interactions between students. How is it possible to provide this learning experience to the students who are being educated in remote locations through distance learning?

Attempts have been made to solve these interaction problems in various ways. One traditional solution is to have regional learning centers where students go to meet with tutors and on occasion to attend actual classes where the students and teachers meet face to face. A more technological solution is for groups of students and the faculty member to interact through chat rooms and MOO's. Brown and Duguid posit that although, it may be possible for graduate students to develop a community of practitioners through electronic means this is much harder to do with undergraduate students who are still more or less neophytes in their disciplines.

No matter how effective the experiences of the regional centers or the electronic conversation environments they are hardly an adequate substitute for the experiences gathered by the resident student. The conclusion seems inescapable that the learning experiences gathered through remote distance learning should in general be combined with extensive resident learning experiences. Virtual universities in the form of universities that awarded degrees through correspondence courses have been around for quite a while but there seems to be general agreement among educators that the education garnered completely through remote communication is missing the essential elements of communities of learning and practice. If one agrees with that point is seems inescapable that the launching of educational programs based solely on remote distance learning should be discouraged.

On the other end of the scale we have the form of distance learning represented by the virtual classroom where large groups of students are educated at the same time through video technology. Here we might say that students are suffering from a community of learning that is much to large and somewhat ever present. But to some extent one aspect of this form of distance learning is the same as in the previous remote learning case. That is, the faculty member and the students have no opportunity to have direct contact with each other. In the extreme one could visualize the case of one faculty member being able to lecture to all the students of, let us say, first year chemistry at the same time if one could find enough classroom space to seat them all. Class sizes in the thousands could be scheduled. The possibility seems very small that students and/or their parents will be willing to pay ever increasing tuition rates so that the educational process would occur in classrooms the size of the Astrodome.

In these situations we have a clashing of goals. Video technology allows the production of more polished lectures with more illustrative examples and fewer gaffes. But often it is not perfection students need or want but the opportunity to have an active part in the interactive activity that the learning process should be. There is nothing wrong with using the technology of Stephen Speilberg to produce a lecture but it is mistake to think that education is more effective in Dolby sound and THX. Just as it was not in the faculty interest to substitute IT for faculty it is not in the students interest either. IT when properly used can increase the interaction that occurs in the classroom between faculty and students and students with each other. When incorrectly used IT generates the assembly line model of education which good educators and good universities should avoid.

Recommendations

It is not possible to stem the advance of instructional technology and, as academics, we would not seek to do so even if it were possible. We recognize the variety of benefits that this new pedagogy can offer to students and we resist Luddite attempts to impede its implementation. At the same time, we acknowledge the thorny complexities of issues raised by adoption of technological advances, and we believe it is vital to address these concerns before the evolving process overwhelms or precludes development of a systematic approach. We are also concerned about the perspective implicit in much of existing literature, which assumes that faculty should adapt to the demands of technology rather than developing technology responsive to pedagogical needs.

While instructional technology requires new pedagogical perspectives, AAUP believes the standards developed by the Association to ensure academic freedom, promote shared governance, and promote due process and peer evaluation remain the essential foundation from which to develop new policies. In tackling these complex issues, the subcommittee's thinking was shaped by its belief in the primacy of academic freedom and the integrity of the academic process as defined in AAUP policy documents and reports.

The amount of literature on the goods and evils of IT is staggering, given its relatively brief life. Most of this work, however, is focused on benefits or detriments, with little attention to how it impacts on the mission of higher education¾the free search for truth and its free exposition¾ and academic freedom, which provides the means to pursue these objectives. How can free speech and academic freedom be reconciled with digital material? Students and colleagues routinely access materials and information through campus computer systems. It is still too soon to know how the legal system will respond to challenges to freely access information, but several developments warrant concern. One aspect particularly troubling is the possibility of widespread institutional limitation of computer access to materials relevant to faculty and student research.

The 1940 Statement of Principles of Academic Freedom and Tenure states that ``Teachers are entitled to full freedom in research and in the publication of the results, subject to the adequate performance of their other academic duties....'' In the recommendations below, the subcommittee was guided by this essential principle in raising issues of who determines which courses should be offered, who develops these courses, and who determines the distribution and revision of existing courses.

Many of the concerns generated by distance learning focus curricular

selection and evaluation. Several AAUP policy statements provide guidelines

for establishing procedures governing these processes. The 1960 Statement

on Government of Colleges and Universities posits a joint effort between the

major institutional constituencies¾ the governing board, the president, and

the faculty. The description of faculty responsibilities include:

The faculty has primary responsibility for such fundamental areas as curriculum, subject matter and methods of instruction, research, faculty status, and those aspects of student life which relate to the educational process.

The faculty sets the requirements for the degrees offered in courses, determines when the requirements have been met, and authorizes the president and board to grant the degree thus achieved.

Faculty status and related matters are primarily a faculty responsibility; this area includes appointments, reappointments, decisions not to reappoint, promotions, the granting of tenure, and dismissal.

These basic tenets are integral to the creation and implementation of distant learning programs and if followed, provide a basis for resolving many of the concerns involving technology- delivered instruction.

After surveying the literature and conducting discussions with colleagues, we have identified four areas of faculty concern: academic and pedagogical considerations; intellectual property; technological and infrastructural support; and compensation issues. The following recommendations attempt to provide guidance to faculty members who are involved in developing campus or system distance learning procedures and practices.

1. Pedagogical Considerations

Issues subsumed in this section include course development, use of materials in courses, maintaining control of workload, and faculty responsibility to students.

a. Faculty and librarians should be included in the technological decision-making process. This includes involvement in budgetary as well as instructional decisions.

b. All materials should be subject to established institutional guidelines.

Faculty should maintain control of course materials, including syllabi, bibliographies, text books. Faculty should administer examinations and have oversight responsibilities for review sessions.

c. Faculty should retain responsibility for determining how credits are awarded and who receives them, including institutional and transfer credits awarded to students.

d. Faculty developing and teaching distant learning courses should be appointed and evaluated through traditional consultative and peer review processes which involve faculty and departmental input.

e. Distant learning courses should include a component that provides for face-to-face meetings with students and faculty. This can be accomplished by on-site visits or by arranging campus visits for students. Institutions or systems should pay for these meetings.

f. Not for credit courses should conform to the same principles as degree courses.

2. Intellectual Property

At this point unequivocal answers don't exist to this incredibly complex issue. The traditional understanding of copyright law (people who create original work are entitled to control who uses their work and to receive compensation) just doesn't work with the new distribution and circulation capabilities of computers. While the development of a distance learning course involves the creation of intellectual property it is difficult to determine who owns the copyright and how it can be monitored. Some systems and/or institutions have adapted established policies to conform to distance learning course creation while others have found it unsatisfactory. The problem is complicated further by the fact that faculty members are both creators and consumers of instructional materials. Although there is general agreement that the intellectual property rights of faculty must be protected, there is no consensus about how this is to be accomplished.

3. Technological and Infrastructure Support

Everyone involved with distance learning agrees that it will not work without institutional commitment to provide instruction and support to faculty engaged in course development and implementation. The institution or system must be willing to invest in faculty development and faculty must be trained at institutional expense.

a. Institutions should provide release time for technical training and preparation time.

b. All members of the academic community should have access to the new information technology and be afforded the opportunity to be trained in its use.

c. Technical support on-site should be available at all times.

4. Compensation and Evaluation

Enhancement of teaching and the quality of education are two issues that have dominated the public debate over higher education in recent years. As we extend the ways in which students receive their education, we need to pay attention to how we evaluate the quality of teaching provided to students and how we can reward faculty for developing the pedagogical skills required for distance learning programs.

The AAUP Statement on Teaching Evaluation provides guidelines for institutions attempting to create effective evaluative procedures for faculty involved in distance learning courses. Calling upon institutions to clearly state expectations, criteria, and procedures used for evaluation of teaching and enhancement of instruction, the Statement says ``Making clear the expectations the institution places upon the teacher and providing the conditions and support necessary to excellent teaching are primary institutional obligations.'' It is even more important for faculty involved in new or experimental pedagogy to know in advance institutional expectations regarding evaluation of teaching.

A second area of concern is how to assess workloads. The AAUP Statement on Faculty Workload provides preferred and maximum teaching loads for undergraduate and graduate levels, a description of procedures to be followed in establishing, administering, and revising workload policies, and identification of most common sources of inequity in the distribution of workloads. These can guidelines can apply equally to courses taught through technology.

a. Faculty engaging in distance learning should have workloads commensurate with campus based workloads.

b. Class size should also correspond to established institutional criteria.

c. Institutions, with involvement of faculty and departments, should develop procedures for evaluating teaching and research generated by distance learning courses. This should include tenure and promotion criteria as well.

References

1. J. Ellul, ``Technological Society'' , Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 1964.

2. ``Guiding Principles for Distance Learning in a Learning Society'', American Council of Education, Washington, DC, 1996.

3. W. F. Massy and R. Zemsky, ``Using Information Technology to Enhance

Academic Productivity'', [http://www.educom.edu/program/nlii/keydocs/massy.html], November 28, 1996. (also see: W. F. Massy and R. Zemsky, ``Information and Academic Productivity'', Educom Review, Jan/Feb 1996, pp. 12-14.)

4. ``Teaming Up With Technology: How Unions Can Harness the Technology

Revolution on Campus'', American Federation of Teachers, Washington, DC,1996, Item No. 608.

5. B. Chilton, Letter to the Editor, Chronicle of Higher Education, September 13, 1996, p. B9.

6. P. Monahan, ``Union Leaders Raise Concerns about Technology for Teaching'', Chronicle of Higher Education, March 15, 1996, p. A26.

7. V. Phillips, ``Earn a Masters Virtually'' , Internet World, September 1996, pp. 67-70.

8. J. S. Brown and P. Dugid, ``Universities in the Digital Age'', Change, July/August 1996, pp. 11-19.