R626 Jennifer Maddrell Framegame Recap Final - Upload a Document to Scribd

Read this document on Scribd: R626 Jennifer Maddrell Framegame Recap Final

Framegame: Take Five Conducted: April 12, 2007 Submitted: April 13, 2007 To: Prof. Honebein / Indiana University / R626 Audience: The audience for the session included a group of educators who meet online Thursday nights to discuss and share ideas about various topics in the field of education during an informal peer learning session. On the night of the Framegame, 7 participants played in the game and a few others lurked in the virtual “corner”. While many of the weekly attendees are k-12 teachers, some are educational technology specialists in college or corporate settings. Nearly all of the participants are using Internet based technologies to support learning activities. A growing concern is how to foster appropriate participant interactions within the online learning environment. Topic - Tactics to promote positive online interactions: While most would agree that the goal is to create and support positive interactions (free of “flame wars” or "cyber bullying"), many are unsure how to go about it. Is it a matter of just setting strict online codes of conduct? Is it about modeling good behavior? Is it about discussion moderation and tossing out the bad apples? Framegame – Take Five: I selected the Take Five Framegame to generate possible tactics which educators could use to create and support positive interactions in their online environments. Online Communication: This group is made up of technology geeks who love new online learning challenges, so I was not too concerned about running this online versus f2f. While I ran into a few glitches, the following online communications tools provided and effective and efficient means of facilitating the game: Instant Message: http://edtechtalk.com/chat This chat room was used to facilitate text based chat. Skype: http://skype.com was used to facilitate the voice discussions. Whiteboard: http://www.skrbl.com/ – Skrble is a free VERY user friendly web based whiteboard used to document the brainstorming topics and to facilitate the “voting” (see below). See actual skrble from the game here http://www.skrbl.com/badgerjen01 Note: if you scribble, you will be amending the document – so skrble with care  Snag It: http://www.techsmith.com/snagit.asp To capture screen shots of the online interactions. Audio Recording: http://edtechtalk.com/ The audio from the entire session was recorded which will soon be uploaded and stored at the EdTechTalk web site. Game Play: The following outlines the planned script (talking points and actions) for the session. The “Notes” sections in italics below highlight deviations from either the basic Framegame or the script. Brief players: The topic for this brainstorm is tactics to use as educators to foster positive interactions within online learning environments. In the next half hour, we will explore this topic by coming up with a list of effective tactics to take back to the classroom to both foster appropriate participant interactions and address inappropriate conduct should it arise. Individual brainstorm: For the next few minutes, please reflect on the topic and come up with a short list of effective techniques that you would use to foster appropriate and positive participant interactions in an online learning environment. Try to keep your list of solutions short and to the point as we will be discussing them in more detail in the next step. Page |1 Submitted by: Jennifer Maddrell Framegame: Take Five Conducted: April 12, 2007 Submitted: April 13, 2007 To: Prof. Honebein / Indiana University / R626 [Note: Given 7 attendees joined the session, I ran this version of Take Five as an individual version (per the suggestion on p. 261 in Framegames). However, if I had been faced with a group of 10 or more, my plan was to ask for volunteers to pair up and use the private text chat function to communicate with a partner.] Group Brainstorm on Whiteboard: Let us now move over to the whiteboard and begin forming a combined list of possible techniques. Using the text tool, take turns typing in your list of suggested techniques in the left hand column. Try to keep an eye on the list to avoid adding an item already offered by another player. Duplicate entries will be combined before we move to the next step. Let's try to get a combined list of 10 to 12 good possible tactics on the whiteboard. Also, please speak up if you would like clarification about a possible solution. [Note: This process prompted participants to share lengthy descriptions about each of the tactics (“Here is what I do with my students …” , which ate into the time previously allocated for the final debrief. However, it didn’t seem to make any sense to stifle the brainstorming conversation (the point of the game) just to stick to the game script.] Voting - Round 1: We will now begin the process of voting for the most effective approach. Using the pen tool, select the blue color and place a check mark next to the recommendation that you feel is the most effective tactic. Scoring - Round 1: Now that we have all made our top choices, we will score this round. The most popular response for this round was "**". Therefore, those who selected this response should score 1 points. As “**” suggested this tactic, s/he should score 5 points. As a friendly reminder, all scoring is on the honor system. Therefore, as I read out the score for each round, please keep a running tally of your points. Voting - Round 2 - 5: Consider this list again (minus any item that is crossed out) and use the pen tool (with the red color) and place a check mark next to the recommendation that you feel is the most effective tactic. It can be the same item you selected in a previous round, as long as that item is not already in our top choices. [Repeat through round 5] Scoring - Round 2 - 5: Now that we have all made our top choices, we will score this round. The most popular response for this round was "**". Therefore, those who selected this response should score 1 points and “**” who suggested the tactic should score 5 points. [Note regarding scoring: For ease of facilitation in this online environment, I made slight adjustments to the scoring scheme from the original Framegame model.] Conclusion of the Game: We now have a list of the top 5 techniques. Please add up your personal score and share it with the group. Congratulations to our winner! Debrief: Let's more fully consider the list and discuss the merits of not only our top 5 choices, but how we arrived at this list. Do you think through this method we arrived at a good working list of 5 effective techniques? What surprises you about the list? Would you like to make a case for or against items that were selected or any that were not selected in the top 5? Page |2 Submitted by: Jennifer Maddrell Framegame: Take Five Conducted: April 12, 2007 Submitted: April 13, 2007 To: Prof. Honebein / Indiana University / R626 [Note: Given the time we spent discussing the recommended tactics during the brainstorm, we did not have time for a full debrief. Instead, I offered to compile the list form the session so that the group can pick up their discussion next time.] Critique / Reflection: Time: We spent about 40 minutes playing the game. As noted above, we spent more time than I had originally allocated for the brainstorm portion, which left us out of time for a full debrief. If I had more time, I would like to have heard more from the group about what they thought about the process (effectiveness, efficiency, etc). Scoring / Voting: The participants were not that interested in the scoring and voting aspects. They were far more interested in discussing the topic than coming up with the most “popular” vote. Therefore, I’m not sure if the scoring or voting is a crucial element when you have highly motivated participants. However, I can see how it could add interest with less motivated participants and when you have enough participants to make it a team based game. Quality of Participant Recommendations: The list of participant recommendations, as well as the ensuing discussion was great. I think this was due to the participants’ interest in the topic, as well as the participatory nature of the brainstorm on the whiteboard. Each recommendation seemed to build on another until it seemed the group fleshed out the key tactics. Interest / Engagement: Participant interest level and engagement was great! However, I purposely chose a topic that I knew the group would find interesting. Coincidently, this group had been criticized in a discussion board comment about some dialog that a listener found less than positive the week before. We were able to kick off our discussion by using that as an example of how difficult it can be to keep online interactions positive for all participants. This clearly helped to gain participant interest. In addition, the process does encourage participation from all players, both in posting recommendations as well as in voting. The participants indicated that they liked the game and felt it helped to bring out a good discussion and a list of tactics to use in the future. However, as usual, I INTERJECTED TOO MUCH! Online Facilitation: The communication tools made this an easy game to facilitate online. See the screen captures from the session below. However, that being said, I had a group of self-described “tech geeks” who love to play with new technology. I can see how the whiteboard could become a free-for-all disaster in the hands of kids (but they would probably have a blast in the process!) However, I also see how this could be facilitated asynchronously using a discussion board and an online polling / voting mechanism, such as in a content management system. My Key Take Always: I now appreciate how games can raise interest level and engage a group. In addition, the planning process and structure of the game helped me as the facilitator organize and prepare my thoughts. However, I can also guess that some audiences would not be as interested in the “game play” (competitive scoring) aspect – especially when discussing serious or heavy topics. I think if I would have pushed to stick to the voting / scoring scheme I would have definitely taken away from the flow of the discussion. In the end, I found Take Five to be a very effective format to get the group brainstorming to come up with recommended tactics. I will definitely attempt this format again in the future! Page |3 Submitted by: Jennifer Maddrell Framegame: Take Five Conducted: April 12, 2007 Submitted: April 13, 2007 To: Prof. Honebein / Indiana University / R626 Screen Shots of Game Play Screenshots of text chat window with 7 participants (plus host). While the Skype chat was my primary means of communicating with the group, we shared web site links and sidebar communication in the text chat room. Also, 2 participants (Lee and Linda J) chose not to speak, but rather opted to listen to the audio and make their votes on the whiteboard. Not too surprisingly, a couple of people lurked about logging in and out of the text chat (see “rendy” at left) and listening to the audio, but ultimately did not choose to participate in the actual game– such is life in an open online community  Page |4 Submitted by: Jennifer Maddrell Framegame: Take Five Conducted: April 12, 2007 Submitted: April 13, 2007 To: Prof. Honebein / Indiana University / R626 Snapshot of Skype window at end of debrief. Two additional players did not join in the Skype call, but participated via the text chat (see above). While the call duration was an hour, the game didn’t begin until 20 minutes into the call. This is a cropped image of the draft game board which was transferred to the white board. The objective was to get the players to type their recommended tactics in the left column and place check marks in the boxes for each round. As shown below, the actual outcome was a bit “messier”. Page |5 Submitted by: Jennifer Maddrell Framegame: Take Five Conducted: April 12, 2007 Submitted: April 13, 2007 To: Prof. Honebein / Indiana University / R626 These are cropped screenshots of whiteboard. Note that colors were used to signify the different rounds of “votes”. The whiteboard got quite messy, but the participants seemed to like the “roll up your sleeves” collaborative spirit of the process. Note how one participant started out as a “lurker”, but then joined in to vote! See the actual whiteboard here: http://www.skrbl.com/badgerjen01 I know it is tempting, but try to just look and not touch  The top responses were: 1. Scaffold / model 2. Welcome / be tolerant of differing opinions 3. Sense of humor 4. Respond in civil manner (say sorry) (to avoid flame wars) 5. Work to create a “culture” Additional responses were: Transparency Keep students interested Cross your fingers / hope for the best Responsive / openness Peer pressure / policing themselves Formal discussion moderator Stick with it / continue the conversations even when tough Explicit code of conduct (no one liked) Page |6 Submitted by: Jennifer Maddrell

Facilitating Group Written Projects - Upload a Document to Scribd

Read this document on Scribd: Facilitating Group Written Projects

Facilitating Group Written Projects 1 Running head: FACILITATING GROUP WRITTEN PROJECTS Facilitating Group Written Projects with Distance Learners Jennifer Maddrell Old Dominion University Facilitating Group Written Projects 2 Best Practice Facilitation of group written projects is a challenge for instructional designers working within a distance education setting. How will learners collaborate at a distance? How will they add new written contributions? How will they share their work? How will they view the work of others? How will edits be made and revisions tracked among participants? A recommended best practice is to facilitate a distance learning group’s written projects using web based collaborative writing technologies. The following provides specific suggested practices for facilitating such projects. Select Appropriate Media Web based collaborative writing technologies fall into two general categories, including wikis or online tools which mimic desktop word processors. Wikis are collaboratively produced web pages which allow all participants to add and edit content. In contrast, online word processors offer similar document creation features as desktop word processors, but allow online collaboration from those participants established as content creators and editors. While an evaluation of specific technologies is beyond the scope of this article, the most commonly used wiki platforms and online word processors are highlighted in the Resources section below. However, given the multitude of web based collaborative writing technologies, it is important to carefully review and match the features of the available products with the requirements of the given instructional activity. Further, as some organizations and educational institutions filter or block web sites including some of the most popular web based collaboration platforms, it is necessary to ensure the media will be accessible to learners and will integrate with existing technologies. Facilitating Group Written Projects 3 Teach the Technology While web based collaborative technologies are becoming increasingly popular, many learners will not know how to use the specific technology prior to participating on the collaborative writing project. Therefore, it is necessary to ensure that learners know how to perform basic tasks, including how to access the chosen tool, sign in under the appropriate login, create new content, edit content created by others, view the revision history, save the work, and print the document. Establish Expectations for Participants In addition to teaching about how to use the technology, it is important to address the unique aspects of having multiple participants collaborate on a single document by establishing clear expectations for participants, including their roles, rights, and responsibilities. While the specific provisions will vary based upon the nature of the instructional project and the characteristics of the learners, expectations should be established and communicated to all participants. These expectations should address the learner’s own contribution, including the assessment criteria regarding the quantity and quality of posted content, as well as the roles, rights, and responsibilities of the learners as members of the group, such as the editing protocols and the copyright provision established for the collectively produced document. Depending upon the nature of the instructional project, opening the collaborative project to participants outside of the learning group is an exciting possibility when using a web based collaborative writing technology. It expands the learning environment to new voices outside the virtual walls of the distance education classroom. However, that openness comes with potential pitfalls, including the possibility for vandalism and unsocial behavior, which must be considered when developing the online environment. Therefore, a decision must be made on whether to set Facilitating Group Written Projects 4 access rights as either (a) no access, (b) limited read-only access, or (c) full read-write access for outside participants. Rationale Distance education is characterized by the separation of the learner from the teacher and other learners (Moore, 2007). Unfortunately, the physical and time separation can make collaboration among learners difficult. Written collaborative projects can become more cooperative than collaborative meaning that the group members may work on separate pieces and bring the individual contributions together to create the final document (Lamb & Johnson, 2007). When the decision is made to assign collaborative written projects to distance learners, contemplating media to facilitate written collaboration and to help overcome the physical and time separation becomes an important instructional design consideration. While relatively little quantitative research is available to assess the effectiveness of wikis and online web processors within an instructional setting, these new and promising technologies are being adopted to support learner collaboration in group writing projects (Carr, Morrison, Cox & Deacon, 2007). Instructors and designers are turning to these technologies as a means of providing learners with the ability to jointly contribute on the same document, see real time edits made by others, track revision histories, efficiently publish the document to the Internet, download the file to the desktop, and print the current version of the document (Carr et al., 2007). However, until participants become familiar with the features and unique aspects of working with these new tools, they can become frustrated by the collaborative content creation process and feel uncomfortable editing the work of others or having their own words and thoughts altered (Ebersbach & Glaser, 2004). Further, learners may be uncertain how their Facilitating Group Written Projects 5 individual contributions will be assessed within the collaboratively produced project (Carr et al, 2007). Therefore, teaching learners about the chosen technology and establishing expectations regarding the roles, rights, and responsibilities of participants, including the task description and writing strategy, will help overcome these challenges within the collaborative process (Posner and Baecker as cited in Passig & Schwartz, 2007). Resources As noted, it is beyond the scope of this article to suggest specific web based collaborative writing technologies. However, Mashable.com recently published a list of the most popular online word processing tools – see http://mashable.com/2008/02/11/13-word-processors/. In addition, a comprehensive list of wikis is available on the Wiki Farms web site - see http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?WikiFarms - which includes many of the wikis evaluated by Athabasca University for use in distance education settings, such as EditMe, MediaWiki, seedwiki, Socialtext, Swiki.net, and WikkiTikkiTavi (Challborn, & Reimann, 2005). Facilitating Group Written Projects 6 References Carr, T., Morrison, A., Cox, G., & Deacon, A. (2007). Weathering wikis: Net-Based Learning Meets Political Science in a South African University, Computers and Composition, 24(3), 266-284. Challborn, C., & Reimann, T. (2005). Wiki products: a comparison., International Review of Research in Open & Distance Learning, 6(2), 1-4. Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/229/859 Ebersbach, A., & Glaser, M. (2004). Towards emancipatory use of a medium. the wiki, International Journal of Information Ethics, 2(11). Retrieved from http://www.i-r-ie.net/inhalt/002/ijie_002_09_ebersbach.pdf Lamb, A., & Johnson, L. (2007). An Information Skills Workout: Wikis and Collaborative Writing. Teacher Librarian, 34(5), 57-9. Retrieved from Education Full Text database. Moore, M. G. (2007). Handbook of Distance Education (2nd ed.). Routledge. Retrieved from http://books.google.com/books?id=MA9-Q73SeesC Passig, D., & Schwartz, G. (2007). Collaborative writing: Online versus Frontal., International Journal on E-Learning, 6(3), 395-412. Retrieved from Education Full Text database.

Policy Issues in Distance Education - Upload a Document to Scribd

Read this document on Scribd: Policy Issues in Distance Education

Policy Issues 1 Running head: POLICY ISSUES IN DISTANCE EDUCATION Policy Issues in Distance Education Jennifer Maddrell Old Dominion University Policy Issues 2 Policy Issues in Distance Education Institutions providing distance education face unique policy issues which impact students, instructors, and the institution. This report assesses six issues that are of particular importance to distance educators, including 1) student copyright and privacy protections, 2) tuition and fee structures, 3) library resources and services, 4) copyright and ownership of course material, 5) instructor compensation and support, and 6) Internet access and connection support. This assessment highlights examples of how various institutions address these issues within their formal policy statements and provides an analysis of each policy issue. Issue 1: Students Copyright and Privacy Protections Policy Issue and Examples There are numerous reasons why an instructor would want to share a student’s work with other current or future students or to capture and share a recording of students engaged in a course sessions. The recorded sessions can be replayed for future classes and a student’s work can offer an exemplary example to other students. However, there are important copyright, confidentiality, and privacy implications associated with using a student’s work or image in either distance or on-campus instruction. The following highlights examples of policies established by the University of Michigan, the University of California system, Buffalo State College, and Western Governors University to address these issues. Student’s Copyright Protections: Within its copyright policy, the University of Michigan outlines the copyright protections afforded to students and clarifies that a student holds the copyright to the academic works he or she creates, including papers, projects, theses, and dissertations. Similarly, the University of California Policy on Copyright states that the copyright to a student’s works resides with the student and clarifies that a “student’s work” is Policy Issues 3 considered to be work produced a) by a registered student, b) outside of University employment, and c) without the use of University funds other than Student Financial Aid. Student’s Confidentiality and Privacy Protections: Beyond copyright, there are also confidentiality and privacy concerns related to the release of a student’s work, the recording and replay of his or her image within either a face-to-face or virtual classroom, or the release of any identifying information about the student. Buffalo State College, part of the State University of New York (SUNY) system, clarifies in its policy that “all course-related materials, including but not limited to computer files, data, disks, electronic mail, and local area network communication, for distance education classes should be as confidential as the medium allows consistent with appropriate student access and SUNY and state policy.” Similarly, Western Governors University (WGU) includes in both its policy and agreements with instructors, that the privacy of WGU students to be maintained. Policy Analysis The policies described are designed to ensure compliance with protections afforded students within applicable state and federal copyright and privacy laws, including those found within the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) which restricts disclosure of non-directory student record information. It is understandable why an institution would chose to clarify and restate these provisions as copyright and privacy laws are not well known by the general public and the interpretation of specific legal provisions can be confusing. Further, adherence to copyright, privacy, and confidentiality laws can be more difficult within an online learning environment where dissemination of electronic material is easy and rapid, yet where it is difficult for students to engage with other students without sharing some degree of personal information, such as e-mail addresses. Therefore, it is recommended that the institution’s Policy Issues 4 copyright and privacy policies address activities specific to the delivery of distance education, such as creation and publication of student work on the Internet, and mandate that the student’s permission must be obtained prior to any release or distribution of his or her work or image. In addition, it is important to clarify within copyright policy when a student could be considered an employee as the copyright protections and provisions granted to employees may be different (see below) depending upon the student’s capacity. Issue 2: Tuition and Fees Structures Policy Issue and Examples In most public institutions and in many private institutions, tuition schedules for oncampus programs are based on the student’s residency status. In general, students without residency status within a traditional on-campus program pay higher tuition rates than students with residency status. However, tuition schemes become more complex when distance delivery modes are introduced. A review of tuition policies at five major university systems reveals a range of tuition and fee structures. Tuition Based on Delivery Mode and Residency Status: Within Penn State University’s World Campus, tuition rates in the fully online programs are the same regardless of the student’s residency status. However, within any other Penn State campus, students pay different rates based on residency states. For example, at current rates, a graduate student with Pennsylvania residency status taking a three credit Instructional Technology course on Penn State’s University Park campus pays $1,815 in tuition and fees, plus an additional campus activity fee, which is identical to the tuition and fees a graduate student in a three credit Instructional Technology course within the World Campus pays, less the activity fee, regardless of residency status. In contrast, a non-resident student attending the University Park campus Policy Issues 5 pays $3,237, 76% more than if the course was taken by a resident of Pennsylvania or if the same student took the course online in the World Campus. The State University of New York (SUNY) tuition policies are similar. Using SUNY’s Empire State College campus as an example, New York residents pay $181 per credit which is the same rate paid by all students in a distance learning course, regardless of residency status. However, like the Penn State model, non-residents pay $442 per credit, 144% more than New York residents, for an on-campus course. Unlike Penn State students, SUNY distance learning students also pay the same College Fee of $0.85 per credit and the Student Activity Fee of $6.25 per credit as the on-campus students in addition to a Telecommunications Support and Development fee of $75 per term. Tuition Based on Residency Status: Ball State University students who are Ohio residents pay $226 per credit for undergraduate courses and $246 per credit for graduate level courses for all online, on-campus, and web conferencing classes. Unlike within either the Penn State or SUNY tuition structure, Ball State University non-resident students pay 70% more in tuition and fees than Ohio residents, even within distance education delivery formats. An identical tuition and fee structure based on residency status, but not delivery mode, is in place within the University of Nebraska system. Tuition Based on Delivery Mode, Residency Status and Location: Public universities in Texas have a complex tuition and fee matrix based on not only the student’s residency status or the delivery mode, but also on where the student is living at the time the course is delivered. Across the board, Texas residents pay the same residential tuition regardless of delivery mode or where they are living at the time they are taking the course. In contrast, non-residents pay non-resident tuition in on-campus or electronic courses, if the student is living in Texas. The Policy Issues 6 non-resident student taking an electronic course while living out of state pays a different tuition rate that is termed “equivalent to Texas resident tuition and fees”, but that is adjusted to cover cost of instruction which results in a tuition rate that is almost identical to tuition assessed to non-residents, living in Texas, and taking classes on-campus. In a 1999 memorandum, Don Brown, Commissioner of the Texas Higher Education Board, outlined this complex tuition policy and the rationale for charging a higher fee to non-Texas residents living outside of the state. Brown noted that if non-Texas residents living outside of Texas pay the same rate as Texas residents, “Texas taxpayers would be subsidizing the education of non-Texans who, unlike non-residents on-campus are not living in Texas, not paying sales and other taxes and supporting the TX economy.” Policy Analysis As noted, there is no standard tuition and fee structure policy across higher education institutions. In general, a school makes tuition allocation decisions based on three variables: 1) the delivery mode of instruction, either on-campus or via distance learning, 2) the residency status of the student, and 3) where the learner resides at the time of the course. While some schools, such as Penn State and SUNY, maintain a relatively simple tuition and fee structure based on one or two factors, such as the delivery mode or the residency status, other schools incorporate additional variables which result in a far more complex tuition and fee structure. In the end, a school must collect sufficient revenue to cover expense costs and achieve profitability targets. As shown, there are various means to adjust tuition schedules to allocate costs among various student types. While the Texas system is devised to contemplate tax payer status and address subsidy equity, market conditions also play a role. As noted within a 2003 University of Nebraska distance education tuition policy memo, campus are “free to charge Policy Issues 7 non-resident tuition at any price the market will bear and will retain as a campus resource the difference between the resident tuition and what is collected.” Therefore, regardless of how and why the allocation structure is established, the tuition policy must ensure that the revenue collected through tuition and fees covers the costs of providing educational services and achieves the institution’s profitability goals. Issue 3: Library Resources and Services Policy Issue and Examples Obtaining library resources and services are a significant obstacle for distance education students. Some institutions, such as Penn State’s World Campus, offer comprehensive library access policies with a vast array of library services for distance education students. Any student enrolled in a World Campus course may borrow resources from the library, including books owned by any Penn State campus location, articles from journals owned by Penn State, as well as books and journals not owned by Penn State and retrieved through inter-loan library agreements. Books owned by Penn State may be kept for a semester loan with two renewals. Books not owned by Penn State may be kept for four to eight weeks. Hardcopy materials are sent by US Mail to the student’s address on file. Students are only responsible for the cost of the return postage, but they can return the book to any Penn State campus library. However, all books are subject to recall and reference, rare books, microfilm, or special collections will not be delivered to students. Indiana University (IU) offers distance students similar library resources and services. However, only books owned by the IU library system will be mailed to students. The loan period is 120 days for graduate students and 45 days for undergraduate students. Books may be renewed only if another person has not requested the book. Hard copy materials are mailed at Policy Issues 8 no charge to the student via US Mail with an estimated ten day delivery period. As with the Penn State policy, the student is responsible for the return mailing fees. Policy Analysis In general, the reviewed policies tend to track with the policy guidelines for distance learning library services approved by the Board of Directors within the Association of College & Research Libraries (ACRL) which holds as its guiding principle that, “Library resources and services in institutions of higher education must meet the needs of all their faculty, students and academic support personnel, regardless of where they are located.” The ACRL guidelines acknowledge that services may differ from the campus library, but that the focus should be on equivalency. To overcome the distance obstacle, they stress establishment of a) “virtual” access to library personnel for reference assistance, consultation, and access to non-print media, b) linkage to electronic resources, and c) the creation of agreements with unaffiliated university and local libraries to provide learners with resources. These guidelines seem reasonable and attainable for most university systems and track with the library privileges granted to distance learners at the reviewed institutions which provide access to vast databases of electronic resources, grant access to campus based librarians, and mail their hard copy resources to distance learners. Issue 4: Copyright and Ownership of Course Material Policy Issue and Examples Policies relating to the copyright and ownership of course material impact the future reuse of course material by the university, as well as the re-use by the instructor as creator of the material. A review of the copyright and intellectual property policies of several institutions reveals a common perspective, namely that copyright and ownership of faculty work created as Policy Issues 9 a specific requirement of employment should reside with the university, unless otherwise stated in the policy or addressed in contractual agreements between the faculty and the university. This perspective is held within the University of California Policy on Copyright Ownership which states, “Except as noted elsewhere, the University shall own all copyrights to works made by University employees in the course and scope of their employment and shall own all copyrights to works made with the use of University resources.” Similarly, Fayetteville State University’s policy maintains that the University owns the materials and retains the right of use, but notes that the instructor and the university may enter into a written agreement to “protect the interest of both parties." Buffalo State College adopted a detailed policy to address copyright and ownership based on the type and scope of work created by faculty highlighting the distinction between works created expressly at the direction of the University and other types of academic work. The policy clarifies that the University is the sole owner of intellectual property when the University, “expressly directs a faculty member or professional employee to create a specified work, or the work is created as a specific requirement of employment, such as might be included in a written job description.” Further, the college and the faculty member are “joint owners of intellectual property when the college has contributed support beyond what is traditionally provided”. However, for all other academic work, the policy states that “intellectual property created by a faculty member … will remain the property of the faculty member … for perpetuity or so long as the law allows. As such, permission is required from the faculty member to use, revise, record, rebroadcast or redistribute such materials.” In contrast, San Diego State University’s policy does not explicitly address copyright and ownership, but defers to the contractual agreement between the University and the faculty Policy Issues 10 member, stating that, "Ownership of materials, faculty compensation, copyright issues, and the utilization of revenue derived from the creation and production of software, telecourses, or other media products shall be agreed upon by the faculty and the University (in accordance with the Intellectual Property Policy) prior to the initial offering of the course or program.” Policy Analysis Springer (2005) provides an overview of the tangle of copyright, ownership, and other contractual issues involved with the production of academic materials. Springer notes that while copyright law itself is straightforward, with copyright belonging to the author at creation, it can be transferred contractually. However, she argues that copyright cannot be unilaterally imposed within institutional policy. In addition, Springer describes how the scope of employment and the nature of the academic work can impact copyright. If the work is deemed “work-for-hire”, the institution (as employer) may be considered the author. While academic work produced by faculty has traditionally not been considered to fall within the scope of “work-for-hire”, distance learning projects, which may be interpreted as outside the ordinary scope of traditional academic work performed by faculty, complicate matters. This is especially true for distance learning projects completed by part time or adjunct faculty. Therefore, it is not sufficient to clarify positions regarding copyright, ownership, and reuse of materials within institutional policy statements. Provisions must be contained within contractual agreements with faculty prior to employment. Further, it is necessary to qualify the scope of the academic work, especially for distance learning projects which may be considered “work-for-hire”. Policy Issues 11 Issue 5: Instructor Compensation and Support Policy Issue and Examples Development of new online courses raises many policy challenges relating to faculty selection, compensation, and support. What faculty should be involved in the development and delivery of the courses? What is the appropriate compensation? What support should be provided? Instructor Compensation: To address rapidly increasing distance education enrollments at the University of Nevada Las Vegas (UNLV), a special distance educational instructional salary and incentives policy was adopted in 2004. As part of the program, faculty members are provided $1,500 per course as “incentive” pay to develop new distance education course offerings. Further, part-time instructor (PTI) per credit salary is paid for teaching a distance education course and is paid to either a part time instructor or a full time faculty member teaching “off-load”. In addition, a faculty member teaching “on-load” receives incentive pay the first time a course is offered. In contrast, at the College of Southern Nevada, either full or part-time faculty receives “one-time compensation” for the development of a distance education course approximating the pay rate of an adjunct instructor. That person does not have to teach the course to receive course development compensation. Instructor Support: Southeastern Louisiana University’s distance education policy affords faculty development support through the Center for Faculty Excellence. Faculty members engaged in distance learning are to receive “priority consideration” in new technology purchases and updates and in technical support in the design and maintenance of the courseware. Similarly, Buffalo State College provides instructors with needed instructional technologies for distance education classes. Further, its policy provides faculty with clerical, Policy Issues 12 technical, instructional design, computing, multimedia, and library support services, as well as opportunities to learn how to use instructional technologies. Policy Analysis The American Association of University Professors (AAUP) has established sample distance education policy and contract language addressing the workload responsibilities and support needs of distance education faculty. The AAUP policy guidelines provide a good outline of important policy considerations relating to instructor compensation and support. Regarding compensation, the AAUP argues that faculty should expect to be compensated a) financially, b) in time to prepare, or c) in the form of credit toward load assignment for the “extra time” required to prepare a distance education course. In addition, courses taught via distance education should be either part of the faculty member’s regular load or as an overload. In terms of support, the AACP maintains that faculty should receive adequate preparation and training, technical equipment and assistance, as well as any needed clerical and library support. Issue 6: Internet Access and Connection Support Policy Issue and Examples Within an online course, it is essential that the learners have Internet access and the necessary hardware and software to connect to the course materials. However, clarification of who is responsible for ensuring access for that connection is an important policy consideration. Buffalo State College’s Internet access policy states that students enrolled in a distance education course while residing on campus will be provided Internet access through campus Internet. However, all other students must secure their own access. Harvard University maintains a similar stance regarding Internet access and includes within its policy that the student must secure the necessary hardware and software, including any course specific Policy Issues 13 software needed to complete course assignments. While San Diego State University’s policy clarifies that it is a student’s right to know the modes of delivery and technological requirements of each course, it is the student’s responsibility to have access prior to course enrollment. Further, prior to registration, students are required to have specific basic technology skills and access to a personal computer. Ball State University assumes added responsibility for providing connection support by offering registered distance students an array of software products for free via download on the University’s website, including Symantec Antivirus, iConnect, iLocker, iWeb, Web Mail, Microsoft Office, and Microsoft Windows. Policy Analysis As noted, Internet access and connection support is critical to the delivery of web based distance education. The American Distance Education Consortium (ADEC), a non-profit distance education consortium of approximately 65 state universities and land-grant colleges, has four guiding principles. The third guiding principles relates specifically to technological infrastructure and support and recommends that distance education institutions provide orientation to the process of learning at a distance, including the use of technologies for learning, and technology, as well as human support for learners and learning facilitators in their use of the technologies. However, nowhere within this guideline is a provision for distance educators to provide access. As within San Diego State University’s policy, a reasonable policy approach is to confirm both the institution’s responsibility to inform students about the modes of delivery and technological requirements of each course, as well as the student’s responsibility to have access prior to course enrollment. Policy Issues 14 References American Distance Education Consortium (ADEC) Guiding Principles for Distance Learning. Retrieved from http://www.adec.edu/admin/papers/distance-learning_principles.html. Association of College & Research Libraries (ACRL) - Guidelines for Distance Learning Library Services. Retrieved from http://www.ala.org/ala/acrl/acrlstandards/ guidelinesdistancelearning.cfm. American Association of University Professors (AAUP): Sample Distance Education Policy & Contract Language. Retrieved from http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/issues/DE/ sampleDE.htm. Ball State University - Software Available to Students. Retrieved from http://www.bsu.edu/distance/article/0,,7521--,00.html. Ball State University - Tuition, Distance Education Program. Retrieved from http://www.bsu.edu/distance/tuition/. Brown, D. (1999, December 20). State Funding and Tuition Policies for Distance Education and Off-Campus Courses - Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board. . Retrieved from http://www.thecb.state.tx.us/reports/pdf/0197.pdf. Copyright at the University of Michigan: Using copyrighted material. Retrieved from http://www.copyright.umich.edu/using_copyrighted_material.html#a8. Distance Education Policies: Harvard University. Retrieved from http://www.summer.harvard.edu/2008/DistanceEd/policy.jsp;jsessionid=PIDJ... MG. Empire State College - State University of New York Undergraduate Tuition and Fees. Retrieved from http://www.esc.edu/esconline/online2.nsf/html/basictuitionandfees.html Policy Issues 15 Fayetteville State University. Fayetteville State University - Continuing/Distance Education Policy. Retrieved from http://www.uncfsu.edu/conted/Distance_Learning_ Policy_2.htm. Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/fpco/ferpa/index.html. Indiana University Distance Education Document and Book Delivery. Retrieved from http://www.libraries.iub.edu/index.php?pageId=5705. Office of Extended Education & Outreach. (2003, September 9). University of Nebraska Distance Education Tuition Policy. Retrieved from http://extended.unl.edu/faculty/policies/distance_education_tuition.pdf. Office of the President. (1992, August 19). University of California Policy on Copyright Ownership. . Retrieved from http://www.ucop.edu/ucophome/coordrev/policy/8-1992att.html. Office of the Executive Vice President and Provost University of Nevada Las Vegas. (2004, November 17). UNLV Distance Education Instructional Salary and Incentives Policy. . Retrieved from http://provost.unlv.edu/files/DIST_ED_INST_SAL_12.2.04.doc. Penn State Libraries - Library Distance Learning Delivery - Policies. Retrieved from http://www.libraries.psu.edu/tas/ill/policies.htm. Penn State Tuition Calculator. Retrieved from http://collegecostestimate.ais.psu.edu/isapi/CollegeCostEstimate.dll/submit. Penn State | Tuition Calculator for Online Degrees, Online Courses, and Online Certificates. Retrieved from http://www.worldcampus.psu.edu/TuitionTable.shtml. Policy Issues 16 San Diego State University Center for Distance Learning. Retrieved from http://interwork.sdsu.edu/cdl/stu_area.html. San Diego State University - Curriculum Committee Checklist for Developing Distance Learning Courses. Retrieved from http://wwwrohan.sdsu.edu/~dl/resources/course_cklst.html. San Diego State University Distance Education Policy - Academic Policy and Planning Committee. Retrieved from http://www.rohan.sdsu.edu/faculty/feenberg/sdsudisted.html. Southeastern Louisiana University - Distance Education Policies. Retrieved from http://www2.selu.edu/documents/policies/distedustandards.pdf. Springer A. (2005, March 18). American Association of University Professors (AAUP): Intellectual Property Legal Issues For Faculty and Faculty Unions (2005). Retrieved from http://www.aaup.org/NR/exeres/517C85B6-CC13-4A47-AE3E5C1763713B02.htm. State University College of New York at Buffalo - Electronic Learning Policy. (2001, December 4). Retrieved from http://www.buffalostate.edu/offices/ir/ELearning/elearningpolicy.htm. University of Nebraska eCampus - Tuition and Fees | Online Degree | Online College Degree | Distance Learning | Distance Education | University of Nebraska at Kearney. Retrieved from http://www.unk.edu/acad/ecampus/index.php?id=6205.

Interaction in Distance Education - Upload a Document to Scribd

Read this document on Scribd: Interaction in Distance Education

Interaction in Distance Education 1 Running head: INTERACTION IN DISTANCE EDUCATION Interaction in Computer Mediated Distance Education Jennifer Maddrell Old Dominion University IDT 846 Distance Learning - Dr. Morrison April 21, 2008 Interaction in Distance Education 2 Interaction Interaction is a well documented construct within distance education literature. A recent search of the Education Resource Information Center (ERIC) database using the keyword “interaction” returned over 46,000 articles. When additional “interaction” descriptors within the ERIC database thesaurus are considered and filtered, as shown in Figure 1, the number of articles balloons to over 71,000. Figure 1. Interaction - ERIC database search. Within these articles are various prescriptions of how to incorporate interaction into the design of instruction, including within the design of distance education. However, a closer review of the literature reveals a range of conceptions of what interaction is and, in turn, how it should be fostered within an instructional setting. Moore (1989) recognized this diversity and observed that the term “interaction” carries so many meanings it is almost useless as a descriptive construct. This prompted a call from Moore for consensus on the distinctions among three types of interaction which he labeled as 1) learnercontent interaction, 2) learner-instructor interaction, and 3) learner-learner interaction. Interaction in Distance Education 3 This paper provides a brief review of how interaction is considered within current distance education literature since Moore’s 1989 call for clarity. The following summarizes how human and non-human interaction types have been considered within the context of computer mediated distant education and examines both the Student-to-Content Interaction Strategies Taxonomy and the Community of Inquiry Model as frameworks for future examination of computer mediated interaction within a distance education setting. Computer Mediated Interaction in Distance Education Literature Of the 71,000 articles about interaction noted above in the ERIC database, just over 4,100 are tagged as “peer reviewed”. Within those, 91 were linked with a “distance education” descriptor. A review of the article abstracts reveals a clear emphasis on human to human interaction, either what Moore terms as learner-learner or learner-instructor interaction. Bannan-Ritland (2002) reports the same finding in a comprehensive literature review of interactivity in relation to synchronous and asynchronous computer mediated communication. Her review yielded a total of 132 articles of which 83 were deemed primary research and 49 were viewed as conceptual. Echoing Moore, Bannan-Ritland describes the challenge of conducting such a review given the lack of common operational definitions and interpretation of interaction in the educational and distance education literature. While Bannan-Ritland’s review revealed multiple definitions and interpretations of interaction, she did find commonalities across what she terms “learner-human level interactions”, such as patterns and amounts of communication, instructor activities and feedback, and other social exchanges. She grouped the research based on how interactivity was defined within the study, including interaction defined by: a) active involvement by the learner, b) patterns of communication among learners and the instructor, c) instructor-learner communication, d) social, Interaction in Distance Education 4 cooperative, or collaborative exchange, and e) instructional activities or technology. Unfortunately, Bannan-Ritland (2002) reports finding no studies during the time period of her review which focused on learner-content interactions in synchronous and asynchronous computer mediated communication and suggests that prior literature reviews focused on the technology as a delivery medium rather than the construct of interactivity. A current search of the ERIC database using “content interaction” as a keyword phrase supports Bannan-Ritland’s findings. 20 articles were returned and only one study is tagged as a peer reviewed research article. Interestingly, within that article, Thorpe and Goodwin (2006) highlight Moore’s conception of learner-content interaction within distance education, as well as Bannan-Ritland’s previously mentioned observation of the lack of learner-content interaction research. Unfortunately, Thorpe and Goodwin’s survey findings from a sample of 4,512 students at the Open University in the United Kingdom provide little insight beyond a snapshot of the instructional content delivery preferences of the surveyed distance learners. Toward an Integrated Framework for Research and Design Given the emphasis on human interaction within recent research on computer mediated communication, it is of little surprise to find a like emphasis on strategies to overcome the physical and time separation to facilitate social interactions during distance instruction. There is pervasive call within the literature for computer mediated social interaction and “community building” within the distance education setting to foster a greater sense of social membership, presence and learner commitment (Rovai, 2002). However, while human interaction (learner to learner and learner to instructor) is often stated as a desired instructional goal within distance education, social interaction in and of itself not a guarantee of cognitive engagement or of meaningful learning (Garrison & Cleveland-Innes, 2005). Interaction in Distance Education 5 Dunlap, Sobel, and Sands (2007) refer to an “ideal of balanced interaction”; one in which learner to content, learner to learner, and learner to instructor interaction are considered. They offer a “Student-to-Content Interaction Strategies Taxonomy” for the contemplation of learnercontent interaction within a distance education setting in which ten content specific interaction category types are mapped to Bloom’s lower level (remember, understand, and apply) and higher level (analyze, evaluate, and create) cognitive process dimensions, as shown in Table 1. Table 1. Student-to-Content Interaction Strategies Taxonomy. Cognitive Process Dimensions Appl Content Interaction Type Remember Understand Analyze Evaluate Create y Enriching       Supportive       Conveyance    Constructive   Triggering    Exploration    Integration    Resolution   Reflective Inquiry   Metacognitive   The content interaction types are a synthesis of the categories presented by Stouppe (1998) and Garrison, Anderson, and Archer (2000) within the Community of Inquiry Model, discussed in greater detail below. Stouppe focuses on four content interactions, including enriching interactions (which allow access to information), supportive interactions (which assist the learner to understand material), conveyance interactions (which demonstrate the concept), and constructive interactions (which require the learner to organize or map knowledge and understanding). In addition, Garrison et al. emphasize interactions which support critical thinking, including triggering interactions(which lead to recognition of a problem), exploration Interaction in Distance Education 6 interactions (which encourage learners to further explore), integration interactions (which facilitate connection of ideas to create solutions), and resolution interactions (which foster application and assessment of solutions). Dunlap et al. included two additional interactions focused on reflective inquiry (requiring deliberation and action) and metacognition (encouraging self-reflection on the learner’s own cognitive process). Dunlap et al. suggest that these content interaction types help to support various cognitive process dimensions. Given Bloom’s established framework which helps designers map learning objectives to cognitive process dimensions, Dunlap et al. propose that their taxonomy of strategies is a means of supporting learning objectives with specific content-interaction strategies. In addition to Moore’s learner-content, learner-learner, and learner-instructor interaction. Anderson (2003) suggests that addition interaction types must be considered and adds three “learner-environment” dimensions of teacher-teacher, teacher-content, and content-content. These six types of interactions are incorporated within the Community of Inquiry Model by Garrison et al. (2000) which recommends an integration of cognitive, social, and teaching presence within a computer mediated distance education setting. According to Garrison et al. (2001), cognitive presence is the ability for learners to construct and confirm meaning most often associated with critical thinking and is linked to the categories of learner-content interaction highlighted previously within Table 1. Social presence is considered the ability of learners to project their own personalities within the distance learning environment as measured in terms of emotion expression, open communication, and group cohesion (Rourke, Anderson, Garrison, and Archer, 2001). In contrast, teaching presence Interaction in Distance Education 7 considers instructional management, including both the design and delivery of instruction (Garrison et al., 2001). The foundation of the Community of Inquiry Model is that neither social interaction alone nor an exchange of information are sufficient, but rather, “quality interaction and discourse for deep and meaningful learning must consider the confluence of social, cognitive, and teaching presence – that is, interaction among ideas, students, and the teacher.” (Garrison and ClevelandInnes, 2005, p. 144). When paired with the Student-to-Content Interaction Strategies Taxonomy proposed by Dunlap et al., a comprehensive framework for future examination of computer mediated interaction within a distance education setting emerges which contemplates multiple levels of both human and non-human interaction. Interaction in Distance Education 8 References Anderson, T. (2003). Modes of Interaction in Distance Education: Recent Developments and Research Questions. In M. Moore and G. Anderson (Eds.), Handbook of Distance Education. (pp. 129-144) NJ: Erlbaum. Bannan-Ritland, B. (2002). Computer-Mediated Communication, E-learning, And Interactivity. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 3(2), 161. Dunlap, J. C., Sobel, D., & Sands, D. I. (2007). Designing for Deep and Meaningful Student-toContent Interactions. TechTrends: Linking Research & Practice to Improve Learning, 51(4), 20-31. Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2-3), 87-105 Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2001). Critical Thinking and Computer Conferencing: A Model and Tool to Assess Cognitive Presence. American Journal of Distance Education. Garrison, D. R., & Cleveland-Innes, M. (2005). Facilitating Cognitive Presence in Online Learning: Interaction is Not Enough. American Journal of Distance Education, 19(3), 133. Moore, M. (1989). Three types of interaction [Electronic version]. The American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2). Retrieved from http://www.ajde.com/Contents/vol3_2.htm#editorial. Interaction in Distance Education 9 Rourke, L., Anderson, T. Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing social presence in asynchronous, text-based computer conferencing. Journal of Distance Education, 14(3), 51-70. Retrieved from http://cade.icaap.org/vol14.2/rourke_et_al.html . Rovai , A. (2002). Building Sense of Community at a Distance. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/viewFile/79/153 Stouppe, J. R. (1998). Measuring Interactivity. Performance Improvement, 37(9), 19-23. Thorpe, M., & Godwin, S. (2006). Interaction and e-Learning: The Student Experience. Studies in Continuing Education, 28(Nov), 203.

Athabasca University System Analysis - Upload a Document to Scribd

Read this document on Scribd: Athabasca University System Analysis

System Analysis 1 Running head: SYSTEM ANALYSIS OF ATHABASCA UNIVERSITY System Analysis of Athabasca University Jennifer Maddrell Old Dominion University System Analysis 2 Focus and Purpose Institution Typology Athabasca University was formed as a distance education university by the Government of Alberta Canada in 1970. While Athabasca provides distance education course offerings for colleges and universities throughout Canada through inter-institution course transfer credit, it continues to operate as an autonomous degree granting distance learning university. With liberal transfer of credit options within the Canadian college and university system, credit for prior learning, rolling enrollment, and admission provisions that allow undergraduate admission to anyone over 16 years of age without regard to prior academic achievement, Athabasca classifies itself as an Open University. The government remains a major force behind Athabasca. In 2007, the Province of Alberta provided $31,064,000 (CAD) in grant funding which represented over 30% of the university’s operating revenue. Further, the university’s governance is dictated by Alberta Regulation 50/204, the Post-secondary Learning Act, which establishes the powers and duties of the university’s administration by the Athabasca University Governing Council. As of March 31, 2007, the Governing Council, headed by an Executive Officer (also the President of Athabasca University), included one nonacademic staff member, one tutor member, two academic staff members, two student members, nine appointed public members, and one alumni member. Mission and Mandate Since its inception, Athabasca University’s stated mission has been to offer distance education to residents of Alberta, the rest of Canada, and the world. As presented within the 2007Annual Report, the university’s mission is to 1) remove barriers that restrict access to university level studies, 2) increase equality of educational opportunities for adult learners System Analysis 3 worldwide, 3) commit to excellence in teaching, research, scholarship, and public service, and 4) focus on distance education and the associated learning technologies. Athabasca’s mandate is restated in the 2007 Annual Report and calls for the publicly funded university to offer undergraduate degree programs in natural and pure sciences, humanities, social sciences, interdisciplinary studies, administrative studies, commerce, nursing, and allied professional fields, as well as graduate degree programs in distance education, health studies, and business administration. Strategic University Plan for 2006 – 2011. A new strategic plan was drafted in 2006 and is presented as an appendix to the 2007 Annual Report. The plan outlines specific goals intended to achieve Athabasca’s continued commitment to open access and the delivery of high quality distance education, as well as a renewed focus on research. Features Open Admissions and Enrollment As noted, edibility for admissions to undergraduate courses at Athabasca is liberal compared to other degree granting universities in North America. Students age 16 or older are admitted throughout the year regardless of their previous educational experience or achievement. From 1997 to 2007, total course enrollment increased a dramatic 415%. Currently, 34,000 students are enrolled in undergraduate courses and 3,000 are enrolled in graduate level courses which Athabasca reports as a full load equivalent of 5,930 undergraduate students and 1,263 graduate students. Of the total number of students enrolled, 35% are residents of Alberta. System Analysis 4 As is common in other distance education programs, nearly all enrolled students work while attending classes. During a recent survey conducted by the university and cited in the 2006 Annual Report, 94% of graduates reported working while completing their coursework. Course and Degrees During the 2006 - 2007 fiscal year, 68,284 individual courses were taken representing an increase of 6.4% over the prior year. Over that same time period, 780 undergraduate degrees and 208 graduate degrees were conferred. Athabasca currently offers 11 undergraduate degrees, 20 certificate programs, and 8 graduate degrees. In the fall of 2008, Athabasca will begin a new doctoral program which will grant a Doctor in Distance Education (EdD). The undergraduate degree programs with the highest current enrollment include Bachelor of Arts with 2,413 enrolled, Bachelor of Nursing with 2,122 enrolled, Bachelor of Commerce with 1,760 enrolled, and Bachelor of Professional Arts with 1,614 enrolled. The graduate degree programs with the highest current enrollment include Master of Arts with 632 enrolled, Master of Business Administration with 835 enrolled, Master of Distance Education with 369 enrolled, Master of Health Studies with 465 enrolled, Master of Nursing with 529 enrolled. Despite the growing admission figures and the increasing number of degree programs, graduation rates are low compared to other Canadian universities. Powell and Keen (2006) report that while hundreds of thousands of students have enrolled at the undergraduate level, only several thousand undergraduate degrees have been conferred. While these figures could imply poor student satisfaction with the courses, biennial Government of Alberta Graduate Satisfaction and Labour Market Experience surveys consistently report high perceived quality ratings from Athabasca University students. Most students attending courses at Athabasca do not intend to System Analysis 5 complete a degree at Athabasca, but are interested in taking courses to fulfill requirements within other degree programs (about half the enrollment) or for other personal and professional reasons. Tuition Tuition rates for the degree programs are reasonable compared to most public or private universities in North America. Based on current tuition rates, the approximate tuition range for an undergraduate degree is $5,900 - $6,890 CAD for Canadian residents and $10,500 - $11,970 CAD for those residing outside of Canada. Tuition for graduate degree programs currently range from $10,250 – 13,000 CAD for Canadian residents and $12,250 – $15,500 CAD for those residing outside of Canada. During the 2006 – 2007 fiscal year, Athabasca collected $33,485,000 CAD in undergraduate tuition and $12,282,000 CAD in graduate tuition, representing 35% and 13% of revenue, respectively. Instruction Method of Study. Athabasca offers instruction in either grouped or individual study. Grouped study typically begins at a set date, either in September and January, and continues for either 13 weeks, for a 3 credit course, or 26 weeks, for a 6 credit course. Grouped study courses represent only about 20% of total course enrollments (Davis, 2001). The courses are generally facilitated by an instructor and instruction is delivered in either a print based or online format. However, some group study is offered in traditional classrooms at designated Athabasca learning sites or at partner institutions with collaboration agreements with Athabasca. Individual study, the far more common method of study, begins on the first day of any month. Students must simply register by the 10th day of the preceding month. Instructional materials are delivered in either a print based or online format. The course term, known as the “contract period”, lasts 6 months for a 4 credit or less course and 12 months for a 6 credit course. System Analysis 6 While the individualized study courses are self-paced, the learners are offered a tutor. Upon registration in a course, the student is introduced to the assigned tutor via letter or e-mail. The tutor’s role is to provide subject matter assistance, feedback on assignments, exam preparation, and grade assignment. Tutors generally provide assistance via e-mail or phone. Within the School of Business, Athabasca has also begun the use of tutor support call centers as an alternative to traditional tutors. Learners call a toll free number and work with the tutor on duty at the time the call is placed to the call center. Faculty. As of March 31, 2007, Athabasca employed 1,226 people, including 152 in academic full time positions, 168 in academic part time positions, and 322 tutors. The balance comprised management, professional, and support staff. Over the three year period from 2004 – 2006, the annual average number of referred articles, books, and conference presentations by faculty was 146, 53 and 281, respectively. Design and Delivery of Instruction. Athabasca employs a team approach to course design. A typical course design team includes a subject matter expert, visual designer, digital media technologist, copyright officer, and editor. Course materials are delivered via fax, regular mail, or the Internet. Print and digital course materials are delivered to students as part of a course package of resources distributed from the Materials Management Office which, depending upon the course, may include student manuals, study guides, and text books. While print and digital media, including CDs and DVDs, have historically been mailed to students, instruction via the Internet is rapidly becoming a primary means of instructional delivery. As outlined in the 2006 – 2007 Annual Report, Athabasca has budgeted $21 million for information technology hardware and software upgrades between 2006 and 2011 in order to accommodate this shift in instructional delivery. Along with e-mail delivery of content, other System Analysis 7 forms of Internet based instructional delivery are also employed. In 2005, Athabasca began facilitating online courses using Moodle, the open source learning management system. In addition, live instruction is often delivered via streaming audio and video and some live class sessions are being held using web conferencing tools, such as Elluminate. Other technology. In addition to the learning technologies noted above, Athabasca maintains an online student web portal, myAU, based on the open source uPortal software (Guohua & Bonk, 2007). This online web portal offers students and faculty a single sign-on to university services, including the campus administrative systems, the learning management system, as well as the library information systems. Student Services Financial Assistance. Students at Athabasca are eligible for financial assistance. Full time students may apply for grants, loans, and scholarships while part time students (those enrolled in less than 9 credits in a 4 month period) are only eligible for grants and loans. Learning Services. Athabasca offers students a host of learning services, including academic advising, access for students with disabilities, admission and registration services, and exam supervision. In addition, all actively registered students have library borrowing privileges. The library information desk is manned 24 hours a day via e-mail, fax, mail, or phone to provide instructions on how to access information or to provide research assistance. The Athabasca library website provides online access to the entire library catalogue, thousands of electronic books and reference websites, and over 32,000 journal articles contained within 200 full text subscription journal databases. Athabasca also has inter-loan library agreements through the Alberta library system and the Canadian University Reciprocal Borrowing Agreement (CURBA). System Analysis 8 Student Interaction. Students have the option of participating in established school clubs, peer support groups, online discussion forums, or social groups. Athabasca also publishes a quarterly online magazine (the au.world e-zine) which highlights current information of interest to Athabasca students. Open Access Publishing. Athabasca is committed to providing open access and online dissemination of publications produced by the university. This includes open online access to The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, a refereed journal published by Athabasca. Evaluation and Accreditation Athabasca’s internal review protocols are contained within a comprehensive Program Review Policy document. Under the terms of the review policy, all programs must be reviewed by internal and external assessors at least every six years. The material assessed during the review includes such items as the current course syllabi and related course materials, feedback from partner institutions, program financial statements and budges, surveys of students and graduates, and opinions of tutors and instructors. As in the United States, the Canadian central government does not accredit universities. However, Athabasca was accredited by the United States’ Middle States Commission on Higher Education (MSCHE) in June 2005. In addition, the recently established Campus Alberta Quality Council, formed as a quality assurance agency as part of the 2004 Post-secondary Learning Act and the Approval of Programs of Study Regulation (51/2004), has reviewed and recommended several new programs within the university, including the new Distance Education EdD program. According to the mandates under the Act, all new degree programs must be reviewed and recommended by the Council. System Analysis 9 Strengths and Weaknesses Strengths As a pioneer in the delivery of university level distance education, Athabasca offers distance learners a flexible, affordable, and accredited education with a comprehensive roster of student services. Enrollments are growing and the university has seen an increase in research funding ($2,117,000 CAD for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2007 representing a 14% increase from the prior year). Further, with backing and oversight from the Alberta government, Athabasca is financial secure and is operating at a net profit ($1,446,000 CAD for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2007). Weaknesses Athabasca’s rapid growth over the past decade is straining the university’s infrastructure. As noted in the 2006 – 2007 Annual Report, Athabasca’s infrastructure was designed for 10,000 students and the rapid growth over the past decade has caused a critical need for additional space. While space is not needed to support classrooms, physical space is needed to house curriculum development, learner support services, and research functions. Further, Athabasca is struggling to recruit and retain faculty to accommodate the growing enrollment; a difficult task given the limited pool of doctoral level candidates within the university, the location of the main campus in Athabasca, and the limited research opportunities outside of distance education. However, there are threats to Athabasca’s continued growth. Once one of only a few distance education universities, Athabasca now faces increased competition from both stand alone online universities and distance education arms of traditional universities. In addition, while the Alberta government subsidy to Athabasca covers a substantial portion of the operating System Analysis 10 budget, currently over 30% of annual revenue, Athabasca’s operations would be at risk should the government decide to alter the amount or provisions of the operating grant. Further, graduation rates are low. While this does not point to a problem in overall quality or learner satisfaction, it does suggest that most students are merely pursuing individual courses or taking transfer credits back to a home institution. As such, it becomes difficult for Athabasca to make a mark as a standalone degree granting intuition when the majority of students are taking individual courses for transfer credit to receive a degree from a traditional (bricks and mortar) institution. System Analysis 11 References Athabasca University - about Athabasca University. Retrieved from http://www.athabascau.ca/ Alan Davis. (2001). Athabasca university: conversion from traditional distance education to online courses, programs and services, The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning; Vol 1, No 2 (2001). Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/19/358. Alberta Government. (2004). Alberta Post Secondary Learning Act. Retrieved from http://www.qp.gov.ab.ca/documents/Acts/P19P5.cfm. Athabasca University, Office of the President. (2003). Athabasca University Policy - Program Review Policy. Retrieved March 13, 2008, from http://www.athabascau.ca/policy/academic/programreviewpolicy.htm. Athabasca University. (2007). Athabasca university annual report 2006 - 2007, 30. Athabasca, Alberta Canada: Athabasca University. Retrieved from http://www.athabascau.ca/report2007/ Athabasca University. (2006). Athabasca university annual report 2005 - 2006, 30. Athabasca, Alberta Canada: Athabasca University. Retrieved from http://www.athabascau.ca/report2006/. Campus Alberta Quality Control Council (CAQC) - Program Assessment Standards, Campus Alberta Quality Council. Retrieved from http://www.caqc.gov.ab.ca/default.asp. Guohua Pan & Curtis J. Bonk. (2007). The emergence of open-source software in north America, The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning; Vol 8, No 3 (2007). Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/496/938. Powell, R., & Keen, C. (2006). The axiomatic trap: stultifying myths in distance education, Higher Education, 52(2), 283-301. doi: 10.1007/s10734-004-4501-2.