Status and Future of Distance and Distributed Learning at California State University, Fresno

At the beginning of the Fall 1999 semester the Provost and Deans Council asked me to provide a report of the current status and possible directions for technology-mediated learning on the CSUF campus. During the past several months I gathered information from a variety of sources and delivered this document to the Academic Council on 1/25/00. The report looks first at the recent history, status, and future of distance learning at Fresno State, and then examines the same issues for distributed learning. The report ends with a general proposal for an organizational structure to maximize the University’s involvement in distributed learning.

The campus is currently using two different models: "distance learning" (live, synchronous video instruction) which has a fourteen-year history at Fresno State and is the predominant model on the campus at the moment, and "distributed learning" (asynchronous online education using the World Wide Web) which is much more recent in origin but growing rapidly. While the structure, design, and delivery of education through these two models is quite separate at the moment, there will be a gradual melding of the two approaches over the next few years.

Distance Learning and the Academic Innovation Center

Prior to assuming my current position I was hired as a consultant by the Macias group to "suggest ways in which the organization and operation of distance learning might be improved." In December 1994, exactly five years ago, I concluded my report with the following recommendations:

• Expand the concept of "distance learning." At that point, faculty and administrators assumed distance learning was live, video-based instruction. The campus was using the technologies of the time: ITFS microwave video and two-way compressed video. In the past five years, there has been substantial growth in computer-based education, particularly in asynchronous instruction. I think the campus has made progress here.
• Create a centralized integrated unit for mediated learning. The recommendation that an "Academic Innovation Center" be created was strongly supported in my 1994 report.
• Assess learner needs, locations, and technical capabilities before purchasing additional hardware. This was not done. CSUF had a tradition of compressed video distance learning. Through a series of grants and work with partner institutions, the University has built an enviable Valley Education Network, although my original report noted "expanding live compressed video transmissions is often costly, plus this technology doesn’t permit instruction to be time independent."
• Develop new multimedia facilities. This has largely been accomplished. The faculty multimedia lab in McKee Fisk provides facilities "to a) train faculty, b) encourage faculty to experiment with and develop multimedia applications for classroom instruction, and c) create advanced multimedia products to use as central components in distance learning, i.e. simulations." The latter function has yet to be fully realized.
• Identify one or two program areas to act as a crucible for educational redesign. This has not been done. Although we have identified high demand programs and built an admirable stable of distance learning degree programs, the AIC has not acted as the hub for technology-based redesign of academic programs. This is largely due to the number and skill sets of the AIC’s professional staff.
• Upgrade video production facilities and expand video production staff. This has been accomplished. Through an influx of talented staff and high-end equipment, the campus has the finest video production facilities in Central California. Newly renamed the Digital Production Group, this unit will be totally self-supporting by September, 2002.
• Require that the quality of any distance learning experience be equal or superior to classroom instruction. This was a very tall order; one only a consultant who wasn’t planning to be involved in implementation would give! In fact, our video-based instruction tends to be good because of the quality of the instructors who volunteer to teach and the support provided by our technical staff. But by definition, Fresno State’s distance learning can never be better than classroom instruction because it is classroom instruction--just moved. In future scenarios suggested toward the end of this document, there is a good chance that teaching and learning can be improved with the assistance of technology.

Current Status of Distance Learning

Distance learning has been a smashing success at Fresno State. During the fall 1999 semester, nearly 500 students enrolled in individual courses, leading to a three-year total of some 2,200 enrollments. While most enrollments are at the COS Center in Visalia, three smaller centers in Oakhurst, Madera, and Lemoore generated 61 enrollments last spring. Although the CSU’s annual distance learning report will not be published until spring, it is very likely that Fresno State will be the campus with the most enrollments using this technology. This is a tribute to hard working and aggressive AIC staff and enthusiastic faculty.

In addition, the campus now delivers programs via 4CNet to other CSU campuses including Bakersfield, Stanislaus, San Francisco, Humboldt, and Chico. A related effort includes the creative administrative memoranda of understanding with Bakersfield, Northridge, and Stanislaus whereby Fresno State retains the FTE of courses taught by Fresno State faculty while the receiving campuses retain the State University Fee for ancillary support services to students in the degree programs. The combination of programming and administration for distance learning is vital to the ongoing growth and success of Fresno State’s distance learning initiatives.

The campus has four main studio-classrooms which are used to broadcast courses to students off the campus. These have very high utilization rates and it is becoming increasingly difficult to schedule new courses.

Attitudes toward distance learning

In order to gauge reactions to our distance learning programs I gathered information from three sources: 17 students in Visalia with various levels of experience in taking courses via compressed video, six faculty who have taught between one and five semesters with the technology, and the recent faculty technology survey produced by Professor Ed Nelson and the Social Science Research Center.

Distance Learning Student Attitudes

All 17 of the Visalia students interviewed were liberal studies majors. All had taken multiple distance learning courses. Most lived within a ten mile radius of COS. Students said they liked the courses because they didn’t have to go to Fresno, had easy access to parking in Visalia, and could keep their jobs. All had high marks for AIC support staff.

Some complaints dealt with the academic program: the absence of a complete liberal studies degree and the lack of certain classes offered at certain semesters.

Many complained about particular faculty. Distance students are particularly susceptible to being considered outsiders to the "real" class. Faculty who failed to acknowledge these students or worse, acted as though they were a burden, angered this group of Visalia students.

The most consistent complaint, however, had to do with the technology. Much of this is inherent with this form of distance learning -- live two-way distance learning attempts to simulate the classroom. It isn’t a very good simulation and students and faculty become frustrated. The microphones are hard to use and distant students can’t hear students in the Fresno classroom. In-class presentations from Visalia are difficult because of the equipment configuration and camera placement. These complaints simply are a result of live video technology. I have heard them for two decades and there doesn’t seem to be a cost-effective solution.

Distance Learning Faculty Attitudes

In early December, I held a focus group with four faculty who had taught over Fresno State’s distance learning network. All but one had taught multiple courses for several years. All enjoyed the distance learning experience, found it gratifying, and would do it again.

Much of our discussion focused on problems and areas for improvement. In some sense, their concerns were mirror images of those of the students. Some felt that there were technical difficulties in interacting with students. There was a general feeling that distant students had grown rowdier over the years, and talking among distant students led to inattention on their part. Communication between the teaching faculty and the distant students seemed to be a problem. There was a split of opinion by these faculty on the topic of student achievement. One thought his distant students were the worse he had ever had, but another thought they were the best.

Although supportive of the program, these faculty were unhappy with some aspects of distance learning. They were dissatisfied with the mail service between the campus and the off campus centers. Also, they wanted some minor modifications of classroom equipment. The faculty gave mixed reviews of their student operators (the persons in the control rooms operating the technology). In the best of situations the instructor and operator become a team, working together well. In other instances, the operator seemed to lack attention and caused problems in camera operation.

Only one faculty member had taught both via the compressed video network and the AIC’s online WebCT technology. The others suggested that persons who gravitate toward televised instruction are often less interested in teaching asynchronously via computer. In a similar focus group with faculty offering web-based instruction, I got a similar view: television teachers and online teachers may be two different groups.

In sum, these faculty were generally happy with distance learning and felt they were making a real contribution to serving distant students. All made an effort to visit the distant students at their receive sites at least once per semester. Beyond a few suggestions for improvement, they were satisfied.

What follows is a summary of attitudes of the broader academic community toward distance learning.

General Faculty Attitudes Toward Distance Learning

In November, 1999, Ed Nelson and the Social Research Laboratory conducted a faculty technology survey. Some 612 faculty were queried by mail, phone, and the Internet. Two questions were asked about "traditional" distance learning. Although the results did not discriminate between those faculty who had taught via distance learning from those who had not, his results are instructive concerning general faculty attitudes toward teaching via this method.

Roughly 30% (30.5%) of tenure track faculty had either somewhat or very favorable attitudes about distance learning. However, nearly 50% (47.7%) had somewhat or very unfavorable feelings toward distance learning. About half the campus dislikes this approach to education. From comments, it appears that only a few who disliked distance learning had experienced teaching this way first hand. These negative attitudes appear to be more related to a general lack of support for this form of teaching rather than specific bad experiences.

This question asked for a narrative response for the reasons for the rating. While there were a good number of positive comments ("this is great for students who can’t come to campus"), the vast majority of comments were from faculty with negative feelings toward distance learning. Some respondents mentioned workload ("takes too much to prepare"), pedagogy ("not an effective way to teach"), frustrations with technology and support ("logistics are difficult"), and student dislike ("students I talked to don’t like it"). However, the bulk of negative comments concerned issues of contact and interaction. Comments along the lines of "I need to see the student to make sure he or she is learning," and "no real interaction," dwarfed others in any other category. Given that compressed video is the most interactive of live electronic teaching mediums, these findings should give one pause for thought. Again, these were faculty who probably hadn’t taught distance learning courses.

Distance Learning Costs

The current distance learning model links classrooms on the CSU campus with similarly outfitted classrooms in five centers around the Valley, plus classrooms on other CSU campuses. There is a complex and expensive technology/human intermediary between faculty and students.

In order to run Fresno State’s distance learning program, the AIC has sophisticated equipment in both the four wired classrooms and transmission hardware. In addition, a significant number of people and related operating expenses are involved. The AIC’s chief engineer recently did a costing study for this report. The complete expense report for both operating expenses and a model classroom facility are available.

The AIC estimates that it spends some $387,554 to operate its current two-way video distance learning program each year. This includes four fulltime staff members plus a portion of both the AIC Director’s and Associate Director’s time. Personnel and associated costs make up $253,000 of the above figure. In addition, the AIC pays $49,600 per year for technology maintenance and lease contracts for the Fujitsu and PictureTel compressed video contracts. We estimate roughly $40,000 for equipment upgrades each year. In addition, the Provost’s Office pays a $500 departmental stipend for each course taught. Fifty one courses were taught during the last academic year, leading to an additional $25,500 expense

During the 1998-99 academic year there were 421 individual enrollments in classes in the fall and 475 in the spring. Assuming most of these classes were three units in value, the total number of distance learning student credit hours was 2688. Dividing this number by 30 produces a total of 89.6 annualized FTES. Dividing this number by the operating budget plus stipends ($413,054) yields a cost for distance learning courses of $4,610 per FTE. This figure does not include actual instructional costs of the faculty member teaching on campus.

This figure also does not include costs to build, maintain, or replace infrastructure at receive sites. Costs to replace sub-standard classrooms in Visalia alone exceeded $500,000 in the 1998-1999 academic year. Replacement of the administrative facilities in Visalia will have to be addressed in 1999-2000. New facilities costs will emerge in 2000-2001 as the new Kings County Campus in Lemoore is built. While the Visalia facilities serves many students with live instructors as well as distant students, a portion of these capital expenses apply to the distance learning program.

Clearly, even though distance learning generates additional FTES for the University, it does so at significant expense.

Expansion of Distance Learning

Although it isn’t inexpensive, distance learning provides some very important non-monetary benefits to students and to the University. First, when computing distance learning costs one rarely looks at what students spend to come to campus. Providing courses at off campus centers saves students time and travel to Fresno and probably serves students who would otherwise not come to Fresno State. Second, it improves linkages to communities in the Valley and helps increase the rate of college attendance. Most distance learning students are involved in liberal studies, preparing to be teachers. This helps meet a pressing need in California.

Fresno State’s distance learning has shown dramatic growth over the past four years. In 1996, only a handful of courses were broadcast via live video. In those days the technology was mostly one-way microwave-based transmissions. The program has grown significantly to 5 degree programs within the Valley plus a number of programs to other CSU campuses. With aggressive marketing and faculty support, there is no reason to assume that this growth cannot continue. However, there are some realistic limitations for growth using the current distance learning model.

Assuming that the ultimate goal is to reach and serve more students with distance learning, one can increase the number of courses, increase the number of students per course, or both.

Increasing the number of courses would demand the creation of new studio classrooms, beyond the AIC’s current four facilities. We estimate that a new studio classroom would be $162,000 in equipment and $64,000 in installation. This $226,000 total would create a studio classroom similar in design and function to those already in operation. Fresno State has developed a distance learning culture in which faculty have a wide range of technical equipment in the classroom and a fulltime student operator. The operator frees the instructor from having to worry about technology and allows him or her to focus on students and teaching. It would be possible to create somewhat cheaper faculty-operated facilities, but these would probably be less acceptable to faculty.

In addition to studio classrooms at Fresno State, it would be necessary to expand the number of receiving locations at the various centers throughout the Valley. Herein is a more serious limitation. The COS Center has three rooms that permit three courses to be transmitted simultaneously. The Center also has three regular classroom on the site. If another transmitting classroom could be added on the Fresno State campus, it would be possible to add a fourth receiving facility by renovating one of the regular classrooms for an estimated $100,000. However, centers at Madera, Lemoore, Coalinga, and Oakhurst are more problematic. These locations have 1-2 viewing classrooms and can only handle one or two programs at once. Scheduling these facilities has already become a problem. Expanding the number of receiving classrooms would be extremely difficult, as AIC is using space at local community colleges who themselves are experiencing space shortages.

The second way to serve additional students is to increase enrollments per course. Aside from course caps established by faculty and departments, there are technical challenges, as well. Compressed video doesn’t scale well. Most current receive sites have a limited number of student seats. Adding new receiving locations requires complex negotiations with other institutions, additional hardware and support costs, often leading to only a limited number of new students. In addition, it becomes increasingly technically complex to go beyond three receiving locations using compressed video. Electronic switching is problematic and adding receiving locations begins to diminish the quality of the live class.

Summary and Recommendations

Reviewing the previous material, it is possible to draw a number of general conclusions:

• Fresno State has built an enviable distance learning program using compressed video as a technology. The three-year growth of distance learning has been dramatic. With 896 enrollments last year, Fresno State is the largest compressed video distance learning program in the state. These numbers do not include the small but growing number of students on other CSU campuses who are taking coursework in communicative sciences and disorders, nursing, and a fledgling engineering program.
• Fresno State has made a substantial commitment to this technological solution. In building four studio classrooms, purchasing or leasing telephone switches, compressed video equipment, and other technology, the campus is heavily invested in this approach to distance education. In addition, through its partnership with the Central Valley Technology Center, it is linked in a large Valley-wide network with other institutions and the K-12 community.
• Faculty who have taught distance learning courses are generally pleased, but many faculty who haven’t used distance learning have serious doubts about this approach to learning and are not supportive of it. A focus group and formal survey has demonstrated these results.
• Students at off campus sites are grateful for distance learning. Even though they have to be on the COS campus at a specific time for class, they are enthusiastic that they don’t have to drive to Fresno. Most work and have families and without distance learning, higher education would be impossible. Because of this, they tolerate the inherent limitations of the technology.
• Compressed video distance learning is expensive. In general, throughout the country, distance learning has not shown itself to save money. The marriage of new technology to old classroom pedagogy is financially awkward. Expanding this technology would be both costly and difficult.
• Compressed video distance learning does not scale well. I am aware of only a single distance learning model that consistently provides very high quality education at a very competitive price: The Open University of the United Kingdom. Costs per student are less than 60% of other traditional British universities. The reason for this lower cost is that OU courses are designed to scale up well beyond 1,000 students. Courses are intricately designed for a high volume of students. Effective support services and assessment are a key part to the educational process.

Distance learning, using compressed video technology, becomes more complex and less acceptable to students and faculty as student numbers grow.

Given these findings, I suggest the following actions:

1. Continue to provide distance learning using current technologies but avoid major expansion. The current system serves its students well. Most of the complaints by both students and faculty are consistent in similar programs around the country. Students feel isolated and can’t hear. Faculty miss personal contact. However, distance learning still provides a valuable service to students throughout the region and the state. But physical limitations both on and off the campus would make any major expansion difficult and costly. Expansion should probably come through growth in the distributed learning model discussed in the next section.
2. Reexamine the concept of centers. The idea of requiring students to come to an off campus center at a particular time to participate in technology-mediated instruction is rapidly fading. The COS center is a special case because in addition to its distance learning courses, a substantial number of students are served by faculty that travel from the campus. However, adding more technology-only centers (such as in Oakhurst and Coalinga) may not be productive. Camping on "loaned" facilities at community colleges often creates room scheduling problems. And students must still travel to some location, even if it is only 5-10 miles from their home or work.
3. Begin to shift away from distance and toward distributed learning. Live, synchronous distance learning has always required the use of some form of learning centers. As noted in the last section, centers are often a complex and costly solution. Although there will continue to be a place for live, video-based distance learning, the real growth area for technology-mediated learning is with asynchronous distributed learning that reaches students wherever an Internet-capable computer is available.

Top of Document

 

Distributed Learning at Fresno State

The advent of the Internet for a course delivery medium is changing Fresno State’s distance learning culture. Live, two-way distance learning is characterized by substantial technological investment in physical teaching facilities, the need for faculty and students to be "some place" for teaching and learning to occur, and scarcity of access. This latter quality, access, may be the most significant change. With Fresno State’s current compressed video structure the number of simultaneous courses is limited by available studio classrooms and receiving classrooms. As noted previously, no more than four classes can be transmitted at any one time. Given the current model, there is a very limited potential for growth. The new online distributed model does not involve scarcity of access. With appropriate technology and pedagogical design, a much larger number of courses can be provided to a greater number of students.

Another significant cultural shift is the potential to move away from the classroom model, if faculty so desire. The current compressed video distance learning model attempts to replicate the on-campus classroom. Since it mimics what currently exists, by definition it can never be better than the classroom approach, only worse, because of physical separation and technological intrusions.

Internet technology has reached the point where viable educational programs can and are being created on the Fresno State campus. The remainder of this paper provides information on the development of distributed learning on the Fresno State campus, describes the activities of three universities which are leaders in this area, and suggests one possible model: The Fresno State Digital Campus.

 The AIC’s web-based teaching program

When the AIC was created in 1995, it was provided with funding and renovation money to create a faculty multimedia facility in McKee Fisk. Dan Surrey, doctoral level instructional technologist, was transferred to the AIC, but left soon thereafter for a faculty job at the University of Alabama. Because AIC had no computing technical support, Terry Garvin, ITS (then CCMS) network technologist, was hired to replace Surrey. The AIC also was given an instructional designer position that was filled briefly. When the person left, the position became the second technology trainer in the AIC’s training unit. In 1997, Dr. Sam Wilkerson, who developed Fresno State’s first online course, was given ¾ release time to assist the AIC in helping faculty to use the Web as an instructional tool. The AIC was given no support funding for operation of the faculty lab, no funding for equipment, and none for student assistants. Since that time, the lab and distributed learning activities have been steadily supported by BATS funding as well as money from the Provost for faculty stipends.

During 1996, while consulting with faculty, the AIC began to see the need for adopting campus-wide web-based software which would combine the ability to store course content, provide tools such as grading and examinations, and promote various forms of computer-mediated communication. The type of software has now come to be called a "course management system." AIC’s first experience was with IBM’s Learning Space. This software package seemed to have the promise of meeting the list of criteria adopted through faculty input and the potential of a partnership with IBM. Unfortunately, after a series of trials by faculty, it proved to be inadequate for campus needs. WebCT, a Canadian product, was piloted and later adopted.

WebCT has proven to be very popular with faculty. It allows faculty with no experience in creating web pages to easily create an entire course presence on the Web. Realizing that the success of WebCT would not happen by itself, the AIC secured BATS funding to provide student assistants to work with faculty to make the learning process as smooth as possible. Additionally, BATS funding was used to secure hardware and software to help provide a stable delivery platform. With a limited staff and with BATS funding, the AIC has been able to provide a learning management system that has been used by over 60 faculty members and more than 3000 students. Current classes on WebCT are primarily "course augmentation", meaning they are used to enhance current traditional classes. There have been four classes that are totally web based and there are also currently Math and English Extended Education courses being offered to Japan and Korea. WebCT’s future for class augmentation is bright. It is unclear whether it could meet the campus needs for a virtual university delivery platform.

 Attitudes toward distributed education

Because the Internet is more pervasive and known than the more rarified world of compressed video, one can assume that general attitudes about the computer-based technology are probably somewhat more grounded in experience. Attitudes were assessed from the three sources described previously: an interview with students, a focus group of faculty who are experienced users of distributed learning, and Ed Nelson’s faculty technology survey.

Distance Learning Student Attitudes

Although no focus group was held with students using WebCT, the campus-supported distributed learning software, 17 distance learning students were asked whether they would prefer computer based education to their homes or workplaces over center-based distance learning. Fifteen of the 17 had home Internet access. There was a very high level of enthusiasm for distributed learning. These students were excited by the possibility that distributed learning would entirely eliminate commuting for education and would allow them to study whenever it was convenient. Several students wanted to know how soon such a program could be in place.

Distributed Learning Faculty Attitudes

In mid-December, I held a focus group with eight Fresno State faculty who had experience with the production and delivery of distributed learning courses. Each was using the campus-supported course management software, WebCT. All were currently teaching with it, and two faculty were using WebCT in two courses. All were enthusiastic users of the technology and believed students were more motivated and intrigued with the new delivery mode.

Two of the eight faculty had their entire course on the web. The others used the web to enhance traditional classroom instruction. There was mixed interest among the other six faculty in producing courses that were totally online. Several faculty did not feel that courses within their disciplines could be done totally via distributed learning.

Much of the discussion was spent on additional faculty support needed to expand distributed learning. The major need appeared to be staff and student support for faculty in the course redesign process. Faculty comments included "need for a design team throughout the entire process", "assistance from a graphic artist and someone to create simulations", "identify web development team." Fresno State’s current distributed learning development process is a "do it yourself" model in which faculty receive training in the use of WebCT and limited student support. Clearly, these faculty believe that much more is needed if quality coursework is to be produced. All agreed that without additional staff, the program would not succeed and expand.

The second need expressed was the need for financial support or release time for faculty to create web-based courses. Both the Provost’s Office and BATS funding have provided limited funding for faculty support over the past three years. The faculty valued this support and said it was instrumental in course development efforts.

Other comments related to the need for some sort of quality control of distributed learning courseware, some form of "web police," to insure that the technical, not content, elements of distributed learning were consistent. These faculty also wanted to have the Fresno State student evaluation form linked to WebCT so that this process could be automated.

In sum, faculty providing distributed education using WebCT like both the product and online elements it provides. They support distributed learning but have mixed feelings about totally online instruction. They believe that both staff and financial support is essential for the program to grow significantly.

General Faculty Attitudes toward Distributed Learning

As noted in the first portion of this paper, in November, 1999, Ed Nelson and the Social Research Laboratory conducted a faculty technology survey. Some 612 faculty were queried by mail, phone, and the Internet. Four hundred and one completed surveys were returned, yielding a very respectable 65.5% response rate.

Of tenure track faculty, about 40% (38.2%) answered either very or somewhat favorable to the question "how do you feel about computer-based distance learning?" A nearly equal number (37.8%) answered either somewhat or very unfavorable.

Respondents were asked to provide a narrative as well as a numeric response to the above question. Positive comments related to increased student convenience, ability to reach new and distant students, and a sense that this was the way of the future. Most written comments were negative. As with the question on distance learning, the negative comments related to a lack of interaction and a loss of personal contact. The comments paint a collective picture of a large segment of the faculty that deeply believes that real education and learning requires the physical presence of students together with a faculty member.

In a related question, "do you plan to teach a class where the entire class would be online?" less than 10% (8.6%) said yes and about the same number were unsure. However, the vast majority of faculty (82.3%) had no plans to produce a totally online course.

In summary, students, particularly students who are off campus, have positive attitudes toward distributed learning. The main reason they are enthusiastic is because this form of learning would be more convenient for them. Faculty experienced with distributed learning like it, but are only lukewarm toward putting entire courses online. Their interest was more toward the use of the Internet to enhance and supplement traditional classroom instruction. The general faculty attitudes at Fresno State are more positive toward distributed learning than toward the current distance learning model. There appears to be about an even split between those with positive and those with negative attitudes. Negative reactions centered on the lack of interaction and personal (face-to-face) contact.

Three University distributed learning programs

This section of the report examines distributed learning at three university campuses. All three have made distributed learning a priority, and two have used the "virtual campus" concept to organize their efforts. The first is Weber State Online, a very successful program that serves FTE-generating students through the university’s self-support continuing education program. The second is a very large and well-funded program at the University of Central Florida, operated jointly by Academic Affairs and Information Technology. The final example is at California State University, Chico, where because of technical and financial reasons, the campus is changing its highly successful distance learning program to a distributed learning model within a twelve-month period. The following are summaries of elements of each of the programs.

WSU Online (http://wsuonline.weber.edu/)
Weber State University
Ogden, Utah

WSU Online: WSU Online is Weber State’s virtual campus. It currently provides 90 totally online courses to some 2,000 students per semester. Students can apply, register, pay fees, and order textbooks online. The program began operation in fall, 1997.

The University: Weber State is one of the nine campuses of the State University system. Located about thirty minutes from Salt Lake City, the campus has some 15,000 students, most of whom commute. It is primarily an undergraduate institution, with a limited number of masters degrees.

Originating Conditions: WSU Online emerged because of a variety of conditions. First, the campus experienced significant enrollment decreases during the early and mid 1990’s. This enrollment drop led to a reduction in state support. WSU saw an online program as helping to increase enrollments.

Second, Weber State’s continuing education program had an active independent study program that gave the campus experience with distance learners. In addition, continuing education had built up a significant reserve to help fund the program.

Academic programs: WSU Online acts as a service to the university and will assist any faculty wanting to put a program online. Each faculty member receives $900/credit convert the program to an online format. Faculty receive overload pay when teaching the course. The amount is significantly higher than regular course payment. WSU Online courses are part of the regular university offerings and they generate FTES for the campus.

In the future, WSU Online will begin to target degree programs rather than individual courses. At the moment, only one complete program is online.

Organizational Structure: WSU Online is a unit of continuing education. The director (who also heads several other programs) reports to the dean of continuing education, who in turn reports to the Vice President for University Relations. This unique reporting structure is a result of a particular culture and personalities at Weber State. The vice president, who is considered exceptionally talented, was the former associate dean of continuing education. When she accepted the vice presidency, continuing education was bundled into this unit

In addition to the director, WSU Online has six staff members that operate within a team structure. Three of these persons are instructional technologists or programmers. Everyone on the team has strong computing skills. WSU Online is unusual in that its entire software system has been locally designed and maintained. It contains sophisticated course portfolio structures, communication facilities, and testing processes. Weber State is very proud of this software and has considered selling it commercially.

WSU Online uses Microsoft Front Page software to construct course web pages.

Two members of the staff provide help desk functions to students experiencing difficulty. Both felt that there was a rush at the beginning of each semester but calls dropped rapidly after the first three weeks. Technology questions are referred to the campus computing center’s help desk.

The WSU Online server is managed by the campus computing center. WSU Online is integrated directly into the student administration software, permitting students to apply and register through the Web directly into the University.

Faculty Support: Each semester faculty receive a one-hour orientation to WSU Online and a six-hour training program in the use of Front Page. After that, WSU Online designers work with faculty one on one. Depending on the needs of the course, assistance will be as simple as advice on good instructional strategies or as complex as the creation of a simulation for a physics class. Several of the WSU Online staff have degrees in instructional technology.

Student characteristics: The vast majority of the students who participate in WSU Online also attend classes on campus. This was not the intent of the program and it took administrators by surprise. Convenience is the major reason students are involved in WSU Online. They are slightly older than their on-campus colleagues and often have fulltime jobs.

Funding mechanism: Continuing education, a self-support organization, has been funding WSU Online from the beginning. CE pays for all the staff, space, and other expenses related to the program. In addition, they pay for initial course development costs as well as the overload salaries when faculty teach the course. All tuition and state support funding goes directly into general university coffers. CE provides an accounting of expenses during the year and are reimbursed at the end of the academic year. Last year, the campus provided continuing education with some $500,000. The recently retired CE dean estimates that the program will cost $ 1 million at the end of the the 99-00 academic year.

Marketing and recruiting: Since students who participate in WSU Online must first be admitted to the campus, the program depends heavily on the regular marketing processes of the University.

Evaluation: WSU Online doesn’t do any special evaluation of distant students, although it does gather some specialized information at the beginning of each course. Faculty members are given advice on good assessment strategies but no formal evaluation mechanism has been established.

Learnings for Fresno State:

WSU Online exemplifies how a specific need (declining enrollment), the availability of resources, and an open political structure can come together in a creative and effective way. I was struck by the high level of support for the program from everyone I met. Another significant element was the high level of commitment of the director and program staff. They are all high energy people who share a common goal: to make WSU Online the best program around.

Here are thoughts directly for Fresno State:

• To be effective, a virtual campus needs to provide faculty with financial, pedagogical, and technical support. Teaching faculty need release time for course development, an instructional technologist for advice and assistance, plus a student assistant to help in course development and technical matters.

• WSU Online started small in 1997 with two fulltime continuing education professionals, 19 courses, and 100 students. They were happy to pilot test the program for a couple of semesters to work out the bugs.
• Virtual campuses seem to work best when they are integrated into the regular campus structure, using various campus services.
• A virtual campus is strongly affected by the level of other online services. If students already have good online library access, can apply and register online, and can get advising and bookstore materials online, the creation of a virtual campus is relatively simple.
• A virtual campus costs money and a source of funds is essential. Without supporting faculty and online students, the virtual campus will probably be unused, frustrating, or fail.

The UCF Virtual Campus (http://pegasus.cc.ucf.edu/~ucfdist/)
The University of Central Florida
Orlando, Florida

The Virtual Campus: The Virtual Campus is the University of Central Florida’s online educational organization. During Fall semester 1999, the campus enrolled nearly 2,000 students in totally online courses and another 5,000 in web-supported classes that reduced student contact hours.

The University: The University of Central Florida is part of the Florida University System and is about to become a Research I campus. It is a metropolitan campus with approximately 30,000 students of which 3,000 live on campus. Average student age is 26. Enrollment is projected to increase to 52,000 by 2010.

Originating Conditions: The Virtual Campus is the direct outgrowth of work done by a vocational education professor and his graduate student in 1996. Professor Steve Sorg and Barbara Truman developed an online vocational education program based on the WWW and strong pedagogical models. Both are now significant administrators in UCF’s online efforts. At the same time, UCF became aware of its enormous growth projections (nearly an 80% increase). The campus had limited physical growth potential. In addition, the University managed to establish a new funding formula with the Florida legislature and began to receive significant additional funding per FTE, amounting to between $15-25 million additional per year over a four-year period. Clearly, the campus had significant new funding.

Academic Programs: The Virtual campus is one part of UCF’s massive use of online approaches to instruction. The campus identifies three models. "E" courses make significant use of the Internet to enhance traditional classroom courses. "M" courses (Media-Enhanced) are designed to significantly reduce the seat time a student needs to spend in a traditional classroom. This is an active response to the lack of facilities. "W" courses are totally online. During the Fall 1999 semester, 55 online courses were available through the Virtual Campus. UCF offers five degree programs online.

Organization Structure: The entire online effort reports to the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs. The program is organizationally split along technical and academic lines, with the academic and faculty related elements reporting to the Vice Provost for Academic Programs and technology elements reporting to the Vice Provost for Information Technologies. There appears to be a good working relationship between both sides of the organization.

All course and program selection and scheduling are done on the academic side of the organization. This is operated through a Center for Distributed Learning, managed by Steve Sorg, the originator of the early distributed learning program. In addition, UCF has an internally funded Institute for Research on Teaching Effectiveness, which was created originally to do studies on the impact of distributed learning. For the past three years this group has conducted a series of studies as part of UCF’s Distributed Learning Impact Evaluation. Recently, the Institute has branched out to serve traditional education, as well.

It appears that most visible online activity happens within Information Technology. Joel Hartman is an energetic, broad-thinking CIO who has pushed the campus to achieve some of its technological excellence. In addition to managing the library, computer services, and the Office of Instructional Resources, he oversees the hub of the Virtual Campus, Course Development and Web Services (CD&WS). This 18-person unit’s sole activity is to assist faculty in the design and support of online and web-enhanced courses. Barbara Truman-Davis directs this effort. She was Dr. Sorg’s graduate assistant who assisted in the development of UCF’s first online course.

The UCF course development model:

Faculty development: UCF has developed a sophisticated faculty development model for online teaching. Fifty or sixty faculty each year attend a formal course "Interactive Distributed Learning for Technology-Mediated Course Delivery" (IDL6543). In either a self-paced or eight-week format, faculty learn how to develop and deliver classes that use the World Wide Web. The course models the online environment through its use of interactivity, facilitation, media, outside experts and multimedia content. The course requires 63 hours to complete.

IDL6543 received the 1998 Faculty Development Award for Teaching with Technology from APQC-SHEEO.

Once trained, faculty begin the developmental process with CD&WS staff. The unit consists of six fulltime instructional designers, two digital media designers (graphics professionals), two software engineers, and a small army of persons with the intriguing title of "tech rangers." Working with two fulltime tech ranger programmers, this group of technology skilled students works intensely with instructional designers to assist faculty in course design.

Early in the design process, a faculty member will work with a team of specialists in the above categories. Later one or more instructional designers works with the instructor.

This approach to the development of online instruction shows what careful planning, high level support, and substantial funding can achieve.

Technology Model: Like Fresno State, UCF has adopted WebCT as its course management system. As with our campus, they support only a single system.

Student characteristics The average age of online students is late twenties. As with Weber State, 75% of participants in the Virtual Campus are regular on campus students. A large portion work at least part time.

Funding Mechanism: In its early phases, UCF received an $800,000 grant to fund a distributed learning demonstration project as part of the Central Florida Consortium for Higher Education. Now, all functions are funded with regular state dollars.

Learning for Fresno State: UCF’s Virtual Campus is an example of a wise campus administration supporting the germ of a good idea in the mid-1990’s. Innovation springs up from unusual places; in this case a department of vocational education. Coupled with a growing need and increased funding, this idea has expanded to a large and growing operation that melds together good pedagogy, technology, and support to serve students in new ways.

Here are some specific thoughts for Fresno State:

• To build a significant program requires significant investment. Virtual campuses aren’t initially self-supporting.
• It is possible to have a successful distributed learning program that has some traditional academic functions (faculty development) within the Information Technology unit. Functional placement is idiosyncratic to a specific campus.
• UCF has adopted a strong, team-based model for course development. While, for economic reasons, most campuses train faculty in course development tools and have them develop courses on their own, UCF has chosen to support the faculty with significant professional assistance. This has led to high quality courseware of which the University can be proud.
• UCF has created a significant amount of print and informational information for both internal and external distribution. This has helped to market the program and generate outside funds.

The Chico Distributed Campus (http://www.csuchico.edu/cdc/online.shtml)
California State University, Chico
Chico, California

Background and Originating Conditions: A sister CSU campus is included in this document both because of its commitment to web-based learning and some special circumstances that bear some similarity to Fresno State’s situation. CSU Chico’s distance learning program has been a national model for years. Operated through the Office of Regional and Continuing Education, the program has operated successfully for 25 years. It was the earliest campus in the system to create live, televised instruction, using ITFS microwave broadcasts to regional sites throughout its large, rural service area. Chico was the prototype for most CSU television-based distance learning programs.

In 1996, Chico spearheaded the creation of CSUSAT, a Chancellor’s Office supported satellite network that provided Chico and other campuses with free satellite time for statewide delivery of programs. Chico eliminated its microwave network and moved its entire program to satellite transmission. As of January 1, 2001, the CSU will no longer subsidize the satellite fees and the Chico campus has decided to discontinue the live televised broadcasts to some 40 sites around the state.

This decision means that within twelve months of this writing, Chico will need to transform its entire stable of heretofore live, televised courses to an online environment. Since more than 800 students are involved in Chico’s live, satellite-televised program, the campus needs to continue its commitment to them. Fortunately, to do this the campus has already built a strong support and training structure for online course development and delivery. Because of Chico’s long tradition in televised distance learning, the Distributed Campus will make extensive use of videostreaming of classes from studio classrooms.

Organizational Structure: Although it is clearly the product of a great deal of collaborative work, the bulk of the activities related to Chico’s Distributed Campus are within Information Resources. Information Resources is the parent organization for the library, computing resources, and the instructional media center. Within Information Resources, a unit known as "Academic Resources" (which includes both the library and academic computing the program has grown significantly over the past two years. Academic Resources director, Bill Post, an information technology professional who is also a librarian, has engineered the development of a large and effective support structure for faculty..

Regional and Continuing Education continues to act as the coordinating mechanism between students and the faculty. This supportive role is expected to continue for the foreseeable future.

Within the Academic Resources structure is the real courseware development engine for the campus. Separate and distinct from the traditional faculty development program is a unit called the "Technology and Learning Program." The TLP began with one full-time staff member and one part-time student. Since that time the unit has grown to six fulltime professionals and 8-12 student assistants. TLP provides an enviable array of services to the campus:

• Last year, in support of an interorganizational team of continuing education, enrollment management, and Information Resources, the TLP created "a unifying concept for all Chico’s courses that could be taken by students not residing in the Chico area." This became the Chico Distributed Campus portal page.
• The TLP created a 30-40 hour WebCT training program for faculty, along with a set of five WebCT workshops for faculty, and a 40-hour boot camp for faculty during the summer. In addition, the campus held 30 WebCT workshops for 680 students.
• Chico’s student computing unit offers a 24-hour help desk on WebCT.

Learning for Fresno State:

• In relation to resources for web-based course development, Fresno State is where Chico was five years ago. On the other hand, Fresno State has made significant progress with distributed learning through one-time external funding from BATS and the Provost’s Office.
• Chico has integrated a variety of elements: the Distributed Campus is organizationally linked to the campus’ "smart classroom" effort (twelve new smart classrooms this year)., and they are both linked to the library and other campus technology efforts.
• The campus is realizing the value of Continuing Education’s 25-year experience in dealing with distant students. Even though this unit will no longer be closely associated with the technology, it will continue to play the coordinating role between the University proper and off-campus students.
• Once again, the quality and growth of distributed learning is related to financial commitment from the campus. The course development and training group has six full-time professionals and approximately a dozen well trained student assistants.

Top of Document

The Fresno State Digital Campus

From the above examples, it is possible to abstract several common themes. First, virtual campus programs seem to be successful. Enrollments grow rapidly and the numbers contribute to filling specific campus needs. Second, programs are using a systematic approach for the educational process, from faculty development to student and program assessment. The complex series of processes in education and student support all seem to be synchronized for success. Third, these programs require resources, both in terms of staff and direct financial investment. Each of these institutions has invested heavily in their virtual campuses. Finally, the most common characteristic is that all programs have strong collaborative relationships with multiple campus units; the library, information resources, faculty development, academic departments, and student services. The three universities have recognized that no single organization can create these new services in isolation.

It appears that now is the right time for Fresno State to consider the creation of a structure to assist the campus in making a bold step into the world of distributed learning. Many of our sister campuses have already done so. Many of our competitors within the state and around the country have virtual campuses already in place. Some are forming partnerships with corporations. Others are entering into consortial relationships with each other to create large national programs. Most importantly, students are more and more coming to expect that courses and programs will be available online.

However, the campus needs to first answer a number of questions.

1. What would be the purpose of the Digital Campus? Fresno State, through the AIC and other campus units, is making progress with distributed education. Faculty are steadily, if slowly, using web-based tools in their classes. To continue at this rate, the campus need do no more than modestly increase some of the support funding. The diffusion of technology in education is inevitable although the pace can be influenced. Money will simply speed up the process and make it more consistent.

The campus needs to determine among all of its competing priorities, whether a more marked expansion in web-based learning is desired. The outcome would likely be more students spending less time in classrooms on the campus and a growing number of students who aren’t on the campus at all. A Digital Campus would most definitely bring prestige to the University and demonstrate a commitment to the nontraditional distant student in the region, state, and globe.

What seems clear is that given the current educational model of one faculty member to around 30 students, neither distance nor distributed learning will reduce the costs of instruction. We saw this in the previous material concerning distance learning. And although no cost study was done of distributed learning, one can assume that no cost reductions will come from this model either. I believe we will only see true instructional costs reductions when we adopt a teaching model which is akin to that of the British Open University: high up-front investment for course development by faculty, instruction provided by academically qualified "tutor" type individuals, and serving very large numbers of students. Given the current educational culture at Fresno State and within the CSU, this model in unlikely to be adopted.

2. Who will be the students? All three of the benchmark institutions described earlier assumed that their target audience for online instruction would be off campus students, those who found it inconvenient or impossible to come to the campus. In fact, all three universities have found that about ¾ of online students come from the regular student body. A typical student may take two classroom-based courses and one course that is in part or in whole online. Fresno State’s experience is similar. With more than 100 courses resident on our WebCT server, to date only four are fully online. The rest are web enhancements to regular classroom based courses. These sorts of ratios are consistent around the country.

If the campus is interested in creating presence for courses and programs which are totally online, the need for the creation of online support services is essential. Online admission, registration, advising, library and bookstore services are some of the major elements. As noted previously, there is no great general enthusiasm among the faculty to create totally online education.

Is the campus interested primarily in self-support students, FTE-generating students or a mixture? These sorts of questions have a bearing on organizational structure and funding.

1. What level of support will be provided? The three institutions profiled previously provide higher levels of assistance to faculty in course redesign than here at Fresno State. Faculty get as much or as little help as they need, including instructional design, graphics development, and even programming of specific Java applets for courses. In addition, each has a program specific help desk that assists both students and faculty. Two of the three institutions provide course management software training for students as well as faculty.

At the moment, the AIC provides a more basic "do it yourself" model in which faculty are provided basic instruction in the use of WebCT, given some assistance, and access to a multimedia lab. The Fresno State faculty are responsible for the creation of their own online courses. This is neither good nor bad, but has an impact on the number of faculty who choose to make this extra effort.

No "center" for online courses currently exists at Fresno State, beyond the technical advice at the AIC multimedia lab. There is no place for faculty or students to call with the myriad of questions that arise.

All of the three institutions reviewed have very organized training programs. Two (University of Central Florida, and Chico) have established WebCT academies. Fresno State, through Sam Wilkerson as an AIC Fellow, has run occasional programs with very good attendance, but these have not had the formality and permanence of the other campuses.

2. Who would own the digital campus? While the AIC is the most visible unit, a number of units on the campus have an interest and involvement with the outcome of a digital campus. The library now provides services to distant students and would also serve students using the Digital Campus. Extended Education would and should use the digital campus because of its off-campus mandate and mechanism for registration. Student Services are a large and complex portion of a digital campus. CETL is responsible for faculty development for those who would be involved with the Digital Campus. ITS provides the network infrastructure and help desk. International Programs is creating courses for international delivery. The organization location and the ownership question is critical and should be answered early.
3. Where would additional funding come from? If Fresno State elects to establish a digital campus, it will require new resources. The three case studies make clear that virtual campuses require staff, facilities and faculty support dollars in addition to coordination. Weber State gets its money from a well-off continuing education program. Central Florida gets enhanced state dollars that are used for its virtual campus. Chico has dedicated money from Academic Affairs for its Technology and Learning Program. There is no easy answer to this question, but funding is critical to any hoped-for expansion.

The previous three questions are important precursors to any detailed planning.

Recommendations

The following recommendations are based on my past experience and the research I did in gathering information for this paper. They assume that the University has considered its options and has decided that increased attention to distributed learning is a priority. It is certainly just one approach to dealing with the future of technology and education here at Fresno State.

Establish a new temporary entity with the working title, "Fresno State Digital Campus." Because of the future importance of distributed learning and the fact that its functions would relate to many current on-campus organizations, a new unit is important. An interesting option, one that would reflect the current organizational reality, would be to create the Digital Campus as a time-limited two-year project with shared responsibility among all the organizations that might provide resources or expertise, in essence, a boundary-less organization. In this model, each of the above organizations would participate on a governing council, provide appropriate existing resources, and advocate as a group for additional resources, where necessary. The project would be run by a director who would have administrative ties to the Provost, but work as an executive director to the council, implementing council decisions. Although difficult to implement, this model would assure a campuswide effort with support from all the existing units.

Having the director administratively report to the Provost would permit the project to be "shielded" from common political difficulties during its incubation period. By calling the Digital Campus a project and providing a workplan for a fixed period, perhaps two years, one would avoid institutionalizing a new unit. This model would minimize campus concerns about the creation of a new bureaucracy. At the end of the two years, the Digital Campus could be modified, eliminated, continued as is, or transferred to a permanent organizational home.

The director should have the following qualifications:

• A solid understanding of academic technology including distributed learning
• Ability to translate jargon to non-technical people
• Faculty rank and a terminal degree
• Experience in managing and working in a team environment
• Skills and experience in working with private sector information providers
• The demonstrated ability to manage projects successfully

Within the Digital Campus, the following actions should be taken:

Increase the level of support for faculty to create and teach distributed learning courses. As seen in the previous material, Fresno State provides comparatively little support for faculty who are interested in doing distributed learning. Particularly given campus uneasiness with distributed learning, support is essential for attracting new users of these educational technologies.

The three benchmark institutions described previously all have large professional and student staffs that provide a wide assortment of services to faculty. As part of the Digital Campus effort, the campus should acquire two instructional designers and one web designer. A larger, more permanent amount of student assistant funding should be provided, as well.

The campus also should expand and formalize its faculty training for distributed learning. No formal regularly scheduled workshops exist for instruction about WebCT, graphics, or online instruction. The University of Central Florida has a lengthy award-winning faculty course on distributed learning. One community college campus in Oregon has a four-hour course on "e-mail management," so that faculty learn ways to avoid being buried by student emails. Another course might focus on pedagogy in the distributed world. We need to strengthen our training effort.

In addition to staff support, the campus should formalize and expand financial support for faculty involved in the course development process. Fresno State’s current $2,500 per course figure is fairly consistent nationally but the funding has not been consistent and therefore no routine process for faculty and course selection has been created. This is an important element.

Create a smaller courseware development unit for a select group of design projects. From discussions with publishers and online organizations, there appear to be opportunities for faculty and programs to produce modules and entire courses for a wider audience. These media projects would be more labor intensive than course adaptations and would require significant amounts of faculty and professional staff time. The Open University of the UK has a similar organization--the Knowledge Media Institute. After initial investment, such a unit should be self-supporting. Because of the production synergy, this courseware development team should work closely with the AIC’s Digital Production Group. The Digital Campus director should be responsible for forming partnerships with publishers and other media businesses to generate contracts with Fresno State faculty and academic programs.

Create an academic materials acquisition function. Clearly, Fresno State faculty won’t create all distributed learning materials internally. Just as faculty now buy textbooks, it is very likely that they will increasingly buy web-based media materials, modules, and entire courses. No central facility for finding, testing, and publicizing materials now exists on the campus. The Digital Campus should provide this service.

Create a single Digital Campus portal. Fresno State needs a single distributed learning portal through which students, both on and off campus, could access courseware and all support services: advising, transcripts, bookstore, admission, registration, library, and others. International students, extended education students, and regular students both on and off the campus, could access it. Successful virtual campuses have such a portal and it is usually accessible from the campus initial home page. It is very likely that such a portal page and related other services could be developed in conjunction with a major vendor.

Create a two-year research and evaluation study of distributed learning. One of the strongest elements of the University of Central Florida’s Virtual Campus is its Distributed Learning Impact Evaluation. It has produced a series of very useful studies and has helped keep the course development process sound pedagogically. This could be a project of the School of Education and Human Development.

This is the beginning of a new age for education. As with nearly everything else at the present, it is difficult to forecast the future. We need to remain true to our core beliefs and values for higher education but we also need to recognize that technology, properly used in a way that leads to redesigned instruction, can ultimately increase access, improve educational quality, and contain costs.

Top of Document