College of Extended Learning New Mexico State University
College of Extended Learning New Mexico State University
Strategic Planning Report NMSU Distance Education -Designing the
Future
January 2009 2013
1
Planning Group:
Agricultural, Consumer and Environmental Priscilla Bloomquist [email protected]
Sciences Ann Bock [email protected]
Chris Cramer [email protected]
Sonja Serna [email protected]
Arts and Sciences Marija Divitrijevic [email protected]
Lee Hamilton [email protected]
Pat Hoffman [email protected]
Business Kathy Brook [email protected]
Chris Erickson [email protected] Richard Oliver [email protected] Pookie Sautter [email protected] Education Juanita Hannan [email protected]
Michael Morehead [email protected]
David Rutledge [email protected]
Eileen Van Wie [email protected] Michael Waldo [email protected]
Engineering Ed Pines [email protected]
Hansuk Sohn [email protected]
Extended Learning Kitty Berver [email protected]
Bobbie Derlin [email protected]
Carmen Gonzales [email protected] Jeanette Jones [email protected]
Melody Munson‐McGee [email protected]
Wenona Nutima [email protected]
Julia Parra [email protected]
Kathleen Yeppa [email protected]
Health and Social Services Mohammed Hussain [email protected]
Library Norice Lee [email protected] Cindy Pierard [email protected]
Theresa Westbrock [email protected]
Public Education Department Tim Snyder [email protected] Support & Infrastructure Teresa Burgin [email protected]
Jean Conway [email protected]
Denise Welsh [email protected]
Designed and Managed by:
Rossana Alvarez-Diemer
Table of Contents 1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 3
1.1 Purpose .................................................................................................................................. 4
1.2 Scope ..................................................................................................................................... 4
2 The Strategic Planning Process .................................................................................................... 5
2.1 Theoretical Grounding ........................................................................................................... 5
2.2 The Tacit Characteristics of the Process ................................................................................ 5
2.3 Report Disclaimer .................................................................................................................. 5
3 The Outcomes ............................................................................................................................... 7
3.1 Participants’ Expectations ..................................................................................................... 7
3.2 External Assessment .............................................................................................................. 9
3.2.1 Future Scenarios ........................................................................................................... 10
3.3 Internal Assessment ............................................................................................................. 12
3.3.1 History of DE ................................................................................................................. 12
3.3.2 Analysis of Internal Situation, Part I ............................................................................. 13
3.3.3 Analysis of Internal Situation, Part II ............................................................................ 14
4 Designing NMSU’s DE Future .................................................................................................. 15
4.1 Barriers and Strategies ........................................................................................................ 16
4.2 Strategic Goals ..................................................................................................................... 19
4 Preliminary Action Plans ............................................................................................................ 21
8 Concluding Remarks .................................................................................................................. 25
9 References .................................................................................................................................. 27
10 Appendix A .............................................................................................................................. 30
2
1 Introduction
For the purpose of distance education strategic planning, decision makers of educational institutions often rely on long‐term demographic and economic projections. They base their decisions on current trends and foreseeable influences. While demographic and economic predictions are essential in planning distance learning, they alone are not sufficient. Other major influences make the strategic planning task more complex. Among such influences are rapid advancements of technology, shifts in higher education audiences and learner profiles, faculty members’ reactions, adapting campus cultures, and unsettled tensions between administrators, faculty members, and distance learning leaders (Howell, Williams & Lindsay, 2003).
The many distance learning factors can compound one another in ways difficult to predict. Students, for example, can now set the higher education agenda. What Levine (2000) speculated about eight years ago has become a reality. Coming from diverse backgrounds, having a widening variety of educational needs, and enabled with new technologies students can now receive their education at any time and any place—on a campus, in the office, at home, in the car, on vacation. Students are now able to choose from a multitude of knowledge providers the form of instruction and courses most consistent with how they want to learn. Higher education has become more individualized. Students rather than institutions set the educational agenda.
What then does the future hold for the next wage of changes in distance education? In a purely speculative prediction, and by highlighting the mistakes of the present, Baggaley (2008: 49) offers “a dose of fictional future‐gazing” as follows:
With luck, the historian will note that, following the excessively teacher‐centered approaches of 1970s DE delivery and the equally excessively learner‐centered rationales of the early twenty‐first century, a sensible middle ground was reached, by which technologies were used to encourage students in an active style of learning, with live assistance from the teacher when needed. The record will show that, as conventional educational institutions embraced these methods, DE faded into the mainstream and the World Wide Web failed to provide worldwide learning as had been hoped–a particularly sad loss of opportunity for the developing world. If only educators had learned from the lessons of the past, the historian will lament, the Web would not have been rejected as a reliable DE medium sometime around 2010, and the powerful and pervasive cell phone technology that took its place would not have met the same fate approximately five years later. Who knows, the commentator will venture, what will come next in the age‐old succession of one educational medium after another?
3
The point is that, even if the identification of trends does not offer solutions to distance‐education challenges, decision makers will benefit by carefully considering such trends as they have an effect, positively or negatively, on the institution and its goals. When it comes to strategic planning for distance education, it cannot be overemphasize that decision makers of educational institutions need to be “informed and enlightened enough to ask fundamental questions that could well influence their institution’s future viability.” Some of such questions are: Will the notion of classrooms survive? Is the present structure of the institution viable? Can the organization’s decision makers respond to new competitors? (Beaudoin, 2003: 1). Strategic planning efforts must be addressed from an informed perspective.
1.1 Purpose The purpose of the January 6‐7, 2009 strategic planning workshop was to collectively define the end state of distance education for New Mexico State University (NMSU) in the year 2013. The overall strategic planning question was:
What do we want distance education to look like in NMSU by the year 2013, what is the most desirable future?
1.2 Scope Distance education at NMSU is characterized by a variety of programs at the level of the College of Extended Learning (CEL) and other colleges. A network of faculty, academic deans and distance education directors, as well as technical staff, participates in the delivery of the distance program. To cover the scope, planning participants from all levels of the network were invited to participate in the January 6‐7, 2009 strategic planning workshop.
4
2 The Strategic Planning Process
2.1 Theoretical Grounding The process adopted was the Search Conference (SC) model for strategic planning. The SC model is the direct translation of open systems theories, the socio‐ecological perspective (OSTE) into the practice of strategic planning. The SC was specifically developed to deal with the high levels of uncertainty (discontinuities) produced by global, turbulent environments. The basic presupposition of the model is that organizations and their environments are mutually determining. It is not possible to describe the features of the one without characterizing the other (see Emery F. 1977; Emery, M., 1999; 2000; Alvarez & Emery, M., 2000 for more information on the concepts, theories and applications of OSTE and the SC). In today’s world, organizations cannot create effective, competitive strategies without characterizing the environment within which those strategies will be implemented
2.2 The Tacit Characteristics of the Process At the root of the SC model is Michael Polanyi’s (1964) concept of tacit knowledge—knowledge acquired from experience that has not been made explicit. Planning participant’s tacit knowledge—of both the organization and its external environment, along with their values and beliefs are the foundations of the SC process and its outcomes. Only recently, with the emergence of the Resource Based View (RBV) of competitive advantage paradigm, the strategic management field has taken interest in Polanyi’s concept of tacit knowledge (Bennett, 1998; Kogut & Sander, 1992; Nonaka, 1991; Spender, 1993; Spender & Grant, 1996; Sternberg, 1993). Tacit knowledge has become the focus of considerable theory building and research in the development of organizational competitive advantage (Lubit, 2001; Nonaka, 1991; Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995).
Tacit knowledge is the most important asset an organization possesses. Only resources that are valuable, imperfectly imitable, and non‐substitutable represent a source of competitive advantage (Barney, 1991; Porter Liebeskind, 1996; Rumelt, 1991; Spender & Grant, 1996; Wernerfelt, 1984). As an asset, it is the knowledge of people in an organization that has the potential for generating sustained competitive advantage (Barney, 1991: 117). People’s tacit knowledge is the primary construct to explain core competence and competitive advantage in rapid, global environmental changes that make explicit information inaccurate, unavailable, or quickly obsolete (Hittt, Bierman, Shimizu & Kochhar, 2001; Johnson & Hoppe, 2003; Knottt, 2003; Lubit, 2001; Rouse & Daellenbach, 1999).
2.3 Report Disclaimer This report describes the process and outcomes of the strategic planning workshop held on January 6 and 7, 2009. All the material included in this document is based on data/information gathered from various sources, the direct knowledge of the planning participants, and their learning during the planning process. Learning was based on interdependent tasks whereby
5
participants negotiated shared meanings with each other (Wertsch, 1985). In doing so, they developed intersubjectivity.
Learning was grounded on a group‐based dialectic principle. Individual participants provided their inputs in both plenary sessions and small group work. All work product was corroborated at the large group level thereby the end product here reported is group‐based rather than an aggregate of individual input. It was this high level of individual and small group interaction that produced what Stahl (2006: 291) referred to as “those brief, possibly rare episodes in which group discourse builds meanings, that can then be variously interpreted by the group members or sedimented in artifacts.” Artifact, in this context, refers to any product of the learning context, such as the transcript of the planning workshop outcomes presented here.
The explicit knowledge conveyed in this report is something that was co‐constructed on the basis of negotiated tacit meanings among planning participants. Not all the knowledge planning participants had was recorded. People know much more than they can tell (Polanyi, 1964). All their knowledge “cannot be made explicit or codified, and even the part that could be put on paper (explicit knowledge) may have many details missing that can be filled only by having face‐to‐face contact” (Mathur, 1999: 211). The content of this report should not, therefore, be taken out of context and should not be relied upon as the sole basis for judging the final outcomes.
6
3 The Outcomes The planning outcomes are reported following the planning process as programmed (see appendix A).
3.1 Participants’ Expectations Planning participants were asked to introduce each other and work in small groups to express their views of what they expected to discuss during the planning workshop. They were prompted with the question:
What do you expect to accomplish during this workshop?
Responses included:
• An idea of what NMSU’s DE plan is • How the components from NMSU fit in the PLAN, responsibilities, etc.
o The plan identifies the component • Identify some best practices internally to use as models • Identify existing and needed infrastructure and facilities • Identify current obstacles • Marketing concepts/discussion • Broad policy describing compensation and support for faculty
o Professional development • A broad policy describing the funding, facilities and equipment • An explanation of where DE fees are allocated/spent • Broad guidelines for development of departmental plans • A plan for indicating a campus wide discussion of facilities role in DE/discussion of
faculty job description • A consistent policy • Can consider competing bureaucracies • Incentive – revenue stream • Departmental learning
o Guidelines o Policies (direction for future of DE)
• Expectations of faculty related to DE • Standards outcome assessment • Support for proctor exam • Integrate DE face‐to‐face instruction • We don’t want DE to go away • Fiscal support and accountability for DE fee • Standards for DE
7
• Courses/assessments • Clearly defined roles and responsibilities for faculty who are involved with DE • Faculty peer‐to‐peer evaluations • Incentives for faculty who teach and develop DE courses • DE acknowledged for P&T • Need for DE course designers to assist faculty (i.e. internal designers support people) • More/better student support from day 1. • Single point of contact for student support (financial aid, admissions, bookstore, library) • Identify market trends that would benefit from DE course (i.e. post masters program) • Statement from students as to what their expectations are • Overcome scheduling obstacles for hybrid courses • Branding/content templates • Supporting
o Student expectations o Student support services prepared for faculty o Provides options for faculty not too constrictive/optional o Related to course organization, resources provided, assignments expected o Connected to overall picture of course assessment
• Direction for DE office o What do colleges already provide vs. what is needed (i.e. support for
instructional media development) • Clearly define what publicize/communicate what services are available on campus to DE
faculty – this could enrich/support goals for course “templates” • More clearly defined
o Student audiences targets o Who are we most prepared to serve
• Clarify expectations NMSU has of DE instructors and expectations DE instructors have of NMSU
• More direct correlation between funds generated and funds received for DE programs • Improve understanding of DE expectations vs. deliverables • Make the words “distance ed” go away • More transparency in distribution of funds • Establish a plan for opportunity for dialogue around DE • Are we in a growth mode or not personally • Idea about marketing • Explore innovative and current strategies to deliver DE • Ho to work with IDEAL‐NM • Develop a process and plan that will be easier for hiring other problems (broader sys of
staff development) • Communicate opportunities for professional development • Opportunity to present DE ideas • Become aware of DE resources • Learn about different programs at NMSU
8
3.2 External Assessment This stage included the identification of significant developments in the distance education global and U. S. business environment. The scanning of the external environment was prompted with the question:
In terms of distance education in higher education, what have you seen happen in the U. S. and the world in the last five to seven years that impressed you as novel and significant?
Responses included:
• Full blown institutions in library – DE, full support for students o More web institutions o Face‐t‐face interactions between students and faculty
• Proliferations of DE delivery programs • Acceptance of DE programs by the academic community • Movement towards more emphasis on quality • For profit vs. quality approaches • Integration of DE and workshop type approaches • Move from text to multimedia based learning • Online collaborative interaction tools (foot moving trend) • Constantly shifting technology • Increase in more disaggregated DE educational experiences • Advanced certificate programs • Demand from professional associations for virtual meetings • In business education industry brings virtual technology • Students using educational opportunities without necessarily getting a degree • DE consortiums providing DE courses, eventually one members grants degree • Faculty from different institutions teaching courses (sharing students) • DOD inverting money in DE – student soldiers taking DE courses • Deployments – DE needed for student soldiers • Students expect multimedia • Outside universities using advanced DE models • Online courses becoming the norm • Students retrieving university information in virtual environments • Middle schools teaching online courses • Emerging technologies • Younger generations less exposed to face‐to‐face learning • Reached a critical mass for technology to change face‐to‐face • Technology introducing new learning styles • I‐NACOL introduced, providing tech resources for support in quality and best practice • Now needing to define what we do best • A greater capacity for students performance to trump seat‐time • NMSU students are stealth (70%) • Research showing online learning better than face‐to‐face or no significant difference
9
• Increase international demand for DE (counseling field) • Global economy requires identification of market niche • WW technology is allowing students to stay home • DE not just for degree, but for higher education
3.2.1 Future Scenarios After the external scan participants were asked to carry out scenarios analysis for the year 2013. The analysis included most probable and most desirable future scenario development. Scenarios analysis has recently become a scientific instrument to explore and address the uncertainties that an ever changing global economy has brought about (Bell, 1992; Heilbroner, 1990; 1994; Masser, Wegener & Sviden, 1992). A scenario is a description or image of a future state, including considerations of major uncertainties encountered as a move towards the future is made. Scenarios thus “combine powerful analytical frameworks with highly personalized visions concerning the motives and behaviors of the actors within those frameworks” (Heilbroner, 1993, p. 122). Scenarios inform decision makers about what can happen under certain circumstances. They provide insights into possible ways to deal with serious problems that might occur in the future (Bell, 1992, Masser, Wegener & Sviden, 1992). Scenarios analysis encourages people to rigorously explore alternative images of the future and to determine the most desirable future scenarios they can construct for themselves (Bell, 1992). Scenarios are an important analytical tool. While determinants of behavior can be found in social and cultural backgrounds they are more strongly found in future scenarios because people address their behavior in the future. Scenarios analysis aids in understanding and explaining people’s future behaviors. In helping people to build their most desirable future, social scientists aim to help them to become more competent, effective and responsible actors in both their personal lives and in their organizational and social roles (Bell, 1992).
In the SC, scenarios analysis combine elements traditionally viewed as either positive or normative. While combined together such elements can vary greatly (Ryan, et al., 1998), in the SC they take a particular form. On the one hand, the most probable future scenario embodies a mixture of prospective elements that are a descriptive of a possible future. This scenario aids in better understanding where learning about external events can potentially lead. The most desirable future, on the other hand, embodies normative elements; these being intended desired aspects of a situation. This scenario aids in recognizing the fact that what is acted on at the NMSU level does in fact have the potential to positively influence the external environment making it in turn a more beneficial co‐producer. The most probable and most desirable future scenarios for DE at the global and U.S. levels are:
10
Most Probable Future 2013
Prompting Question:
If things continue the way you have seen them happen in the last 5‐7 years, what will distance education look like in the year 2013? What is the most probable future?
Academic Issues • Academic integrity is a big issue—universities that practice it will be more successful. • Increase in flexibility, options, open source, and outreach • Education not differentiated as distance, online, face‐to‐face and expanded delivery
methods will reach more audiences. • Cross branding • Instructors = professionals 24/7 • Regulations defined by employers
Student Composition • Exponential increase in students • International and outsourcing of DE operations—online learning expands to different
cultures, niches, content areas, the digital divide decreases. • OL learning shifting toward the greater involvement of non‐traditional students in DE—
many more participants are online learners • Distinction among students gone • Students are informed consumers, competition reigns
Technology/Service Issues • Less dependence (standardizations) on a specific area platform and web 2.0 tools
influences content management systems • Virtual student services are more prevalent • Consortium model (Go Army Ed) will evolve to serve students across institutions and
reduce online barriers
Most Desirable Future 2013
Prompting Question:
If things could be the way you want them, what will distance education look like in the year 2013? What is the most desirable future?
Social/Ethical Issues • Transparency between institutions, and among disciplines and professions. • Access to education, technology, and university recourse and services.
The Nature of DE • Distance education is considered “business as usual” in the education industry and is
fully supported and recognized as such.
11
• A non‐traditional model becomes the norm—course start/end change; life‐long learning professional development/continued education meets market needs
• Highly interactive cross international programs • DE is key catalyst for greater cultural understanding
Academic/Administrative Issues • High quality programs—best practice driven addressing assessment and accreditation,
and supporting student and faculty retention. • Globalized educational quality standards • More personalized learning models • Uses agile infrastructures/administration which motivates excellence
3.3 Internal Assessment This stage started with a history session. Planning participants gave an account of the significant events that brought distance education at NMSU to its current state. Only significant events were captured and are reported next.
3.3.1 History of DE
Significant Events/Issues 1986 College of Engineering started to develop on videotape courses in Mexico 1988 San Juan Community College courses being taught by Education College Courses went to branches 1995 First online course taught by Carmen College of Business started DE program ITEL started LMS to support face‐to‐face classes DOE grant allowed for satellite 1998 Online curriculum BAMMEA graduated 40 MS students University in Brazil 2000 SENTRA, used in Ag College Online alternative started to be launched 2002 Sociology program starts EMD offered doctoral program though DE Only 4 programs existed, 32 currently present DE planning lead to having DE directors 2003 Teaching Academy, Media Tech, and ICT used together to support training and tech
development to support DE faculty 2004 HRTM started DE program Albuquerque center started EMD started Masters of Communications online DE becomes part of main campus – state formula changes to include DE 2005 Los Alamos MBA program started 2006 MBA face‐to‐face program started in White Sands Blended Certificate program started 2007 Blended certificate program started for online teaching and learning
12
MA higher education K‐12 teacher MAT started online Infrastructure/technology advances 2008 Go Army Ed started Master of Arts in Ag/Extended Ed became online MA Counseling (92% online) Sandia & Netherlands program 2009 Early Childhood individualized studies with El Paso Issues
• Budget news too late is problematic – determined by legislation • Funding going to different university programs • DE funding going from DE to college to develop DE programs at college level • DE fees are shared with DE directors; they decide how to use it • Change in budget funds vs. cash has been hard • DE fee instituted has become a problem (3 months ago). Classes that charge
fee do not get the fee back • DE College good for program development. Support for what has been
developed has been problematic. • DE is seeking funding until formula rails in, managed at college level • DE needs to become part of university growth rather than service to some
group of students
3.3.2 Analysis of Internal Situation, Part I This level of analysis involved a type of modified SWOT analysis where:
• Strengths (S) are identified as the things to continue to do (Keep) • Weaknesses (W) and internal threats (T) as things to stop doing (Discard list) • Opportunities (O) as things to start doing that for some reason or another have not yet
been done (Create list). Planning participants were prompted with the question—responses reported below:
What do you want to keep doing, stop doing, and create that you have not done or want to do?
DE’s Keeps, Discards and Creates
Keep Discard Create • Availability of ITEL, Teaching Academy and workshops
• Supplemental compensation for DE (overload development)
• Supplemental compensation for DE
• Scheduling system • Current DE fee distribution
• University‐wide brain trust that scans/shares knowledge and technologies that are available (adapting/creating)
13
14
Keep Discard Create • Support (centralized) from media technology
• Idea that DE courses have no need for student support
• DE tuition (separate)
• Graduate certificate for teaching and learning online
• Unfunded mandates • DE fee distribution where colleges/ department have access
• Budget for funding new program and growth
• Lack of accountability for reluctant DE faculty
• Distribution of newsletter from DE college
• System to manage DE students’ expectations and abilities
• Formula for compensation
• Instructional (integrated) support center
• Longer student support for DE students (advisors)
• Ability to identify who the DE students are to serve them, same for faculty
• DE support team at college level
• DE team par time college, part time central
• Funding for stable/continuing (sustainable) DE programs
3.3.3 Analysis of Internal Situation, Part II This level of analysis consisted of a projection of the current situation of DE into the year 2014. This is the business as usual type of scenario. It projects ongoing activities whether they are occurring to a small or large degree. The prompting question to develop the business as usual or no change scenario was:
If business as usual continues, what will DE at NMSU look like in the year 2014? What is the most probable future?
The scenario was developed by four small groups. After reports and questions for clarification and agreement as well as consolidation, DE’s no change future was described as follows:
NMSUDistance Education: Most Probable Future 2014 Funding Issues
• Under resourced (more severely)
• Reduced growth in DE occurs as a result of funding model
• Poor quality of DE education due to lack of resources.
• Funding formula continues to be an issue.
Student Dynamics
• Students go to competitions that are more supportive
• We lose students to other institutions who provide better support services, more flexible fee structure, registrations/admissions, and more flexible education options.
• Our continuing education (DE) students lose interest due to 5.1.
• Every NMSU student graduate will have taken a DE class despite lack of support
Status of DE
• Increased articulation issues.
• Continued demand for DE.
• Some amount of out sourcing courses.
• Due to inconsistent support of DE university‐wide, we are not able to keep up with marketing domain.
• Current system is not threatened by maintaining good status.
Work Dynamics
• Exponentially more difficult to keep up with work.
• Innovator bored (bored people happy).
• Failure of buy‐in of general faculty continued frustration by DE faculty.
• Faculty continues to use tools traditionally defined as DE tools even though they are not supported by their college or centrally.
4 Designing NMSU’s DE Future The next step in the planning process was the development of the most desirable future for DE in the year 2014. Four randomly selected groups worked in this task. Each group was asked to describe the most desirable state for DE in five to six concise statements. Group reports, questions for clarification and agreement, as well as consolidation of statements (a total of 25) followed. Barriers to achieving the most desirable future were then indentified in plenary session. Identified barriers were then grouped in categories. Self‐selected work groups developed strategies to overcome barriers. Identified barriers and strategies are as follows:
15
4.1 Barriers and Strategies A: Time/Priorities Barriers
• Fatigue • Lack of time to share information • Overworked faculty/staff • Competing priorities
Work Group: Theresa, Hansuk, Jean, Julia, Richard, and Maria Strategies:
Create a culture of online course sharing We commit to each sharing one exemplary course to figure out how this can
be done We develop a system/process to elicit sharing of others
Nomination/exemplary course awards/ DE teaching Stages of sharing – synch event, wiki, LOS, full courses
Develop course for IDEAL‐NM = course load Same process above
All student services should have a virtual counterpart Faculty, staff, and students need a one‐stop shop/clearing house to find all
help, resources, etc. For faculty, one‐stop would include
Workshops/webinars L.O.S. Tutoring Templates/branding Best practices Social networking Ranking Communication
B: Interpersonal
• Internal programs competition • Lack of communication/cooperation among community colleges at state and regional
levels • Budget interpersonal dynamics • Incongruity in administration projects • Poor communication between DE/college administration, students, and structural
support services • Lack of understanding Group Members: Norice, Juanita, Sonja Jo, Fred, Jeanette, Kathleen, Janilee Strategies:
Communication of Shared Vision
16
Broad – Open – Frequent Ombudsperson for DE students and faculty
Directory for point of contact (short term) with liaisons also used Improve access to resources on the web (short term) Develop leaders who are willing to adopt HPO (high performance organization)
(long term) and have the following qualities: Break down silos Attend training Model best practices
Develop interdisciplinary team comprised of “the right people” (all levels university‐wide) (intermediate)
Instructor/student training available and required (boot camp) (long term) “Secret shoppers” to remedy problems relating to communication of
information (intermediate) Continuous feedback/evaluations from CEL (short‐long term) Online “suggestion box” e.g. ethics point Collaborative newsletter, listserv, social networking (intermediate) Showcase of best practices, awards/incentives (at DE conference) (long term) Develop closer partnership with CCS (short‐long term) Student comments:
Poor communication from instructors Tutoring services for DE Frustrating because we don’t provide/offer what we say we’ll do Online textbook problematic
C: Bureaucracy/Change in Administration
• Frequent changes in faculty/administration • Academic/Administration bureaucracy • Deskilled DE administrators • Incongruence between DE and traditional academic programs Group Members: Teresa B., Ann, Kathy, Laura, Lee, Mohammed, and Kitty Strategies:
Provide documentation to Administration Set up a dialogue with administration through DE directors and meeting
with finance, registrar, etc. Make DE finial reports available on the web Define what we want DE to be – priorities Determining niches to develop areas of growth/make a structure that is
flexible Need for single DE coordinate in each college; familiar with programs within
the college, including GA’s, tech, and resources Utilize current resources can better define roles and responsibilities Annual to share best practices in DE Delivery and implementation Office of DE should become more informed about individual college DE
practices
17
D(E): Accreditation Programs (single item)
Group Members: Bobbie, Ed, Denise, Eileen, Holly, and Pookie Strategies: Utilize change request maximize?
Concern of international Consider more global request Identify responsible stakeholders of decision makers as related to international
DE programs at NMSU Develop course framework including justification of diverse and international
course population Track international teaching? Identify/make transparent processes for international programs for approval Identify responsible persons who will develop global policy for submission to
HLC covering Face‐to‐face delivery at international sites Recommend/include in assessment policies, statements, all OAC should reflect
and be applied in meaningful way, that all assessment tools/process will be capable of implementation in DE course
Accreditation DE
Educate faculty on accreditation standards and implications for DE Develop process to support NMSU’s efforts VSA – voluntary system of accountability as related to DE outcome assessment
E(F): Funding
• Academic Calendar • Lack of NMSU Budget • State Budget Problems • Legislative priorities vs. NMSU priorities Group Members: Chris, Carmen, Priscilla, Melody, Wenona, Pat, and Chris Strategies:
Raise fee for DE, out of state to $30 scheduled Equal to UNM or other peers – national average Repopulate face‐to‐face seats
Lobby HED to eliminate redundancies to reduce duplication of effort Focuses on issues we can affect (many we cannot) Current funds: tuition, state, grants, other
The desirable future was then assessed for achievability against developed strategies. The assessed desirable future statements became the strategic goals. Assessment outcomes are presented in table 1. Note that probability of achievement is given when the strategies developed do not provide enough confidence and the goal is perhaps achievable on a period time longer than four years or both.
18
Table 1. Certainty or probability of desirable future achievement
Statement Key Word
Barriers
Certainty or Probability of Achievement
Yes No Probability
A Develop/implement policy D(E), C
B DE community facilitates collaboration
A, C
C Personnel and other resources available
E(F), A F‐ 60% Given E(F) work
D Ensure quality and consistency courses
A, B
E Coordinated tech support services
E(F), C, B 50% Given funding
work F CEL function: DE academic
programming & coordination of DE tech
E(F), B, C
G Tenure track/college faculty teach DE courses
E(F), A 80% Given funding work
H DE program increases student diversity
B, E(F)
I Academic integrity
J Budgeting process not an issue
B, C
4.2 Strategic Goals
A: Policy mechanisms are developed and implemented to support flexible and personalized
degree/certificate programs
B: DE Community facilitates collaboration among departments, colleges, etc. to achieve a
dynamic learning environment for faculty, staff, and students.
C: Personnel and other resources are available to assist course development and design,
integration of innovative technology, communication of best practices for online teaching and
support for distance learning students.
D: There is a system in place to ensure quality and consistency of courses, regardless of delivery
mechanisms.
19
E: A coordinated tech support center, with ongoing funding, is available to faculty and students.
F: The office of Distance Education will shift from financial/administration to academic program
support and coordination of technology.
G: There is more reliance on tenure-track college faculty than on adjunct and temporary
instructors.
H: The Distance Education program has increased diversity by enabling access of underserved
groups, including rural, non-traditional financially challenged, bilingual, multilingual and
international students.
I: The Distance Education program maintains academic integrity.
J: The Distance Education office has addressed the following Distance Education budgeting
process issues:
• Model
• Transparency
• Transition
• Sustainability
20
4 Preliminary Action Plans Group 1 ‐ A & F Action Items Group Members: Lee, Melody, Pat H., Bobbie, Eileen, Denise, and Ed
1. F) ODE will shift from financial/administration to academic programs support, coordination and development
a. Actions: Focus directors meetings and communications on progressive actions vs. “reporting” (2009)
b. Clarify process for “funds” (starting fall 2009) c. Work with VP of finance to make a routine budget/fund allocation procedure
(Carmen‐ongoing) d. Implement at least 3 certificates, 5 undergraduate degree completion programs
and 5‐7 graduate degrees (starting fall 2010) i. Invite proposals ii. Review proposals (DE directors) iii. Establish priorities (DE directors) iv. Funded based on availability
2. A) Develop and implement policy a. Actions: DE faculty compensation (2009)
i. DE directors ii. ADC iii. HR iv. Faculty Senate v. President
b. Policy on inter‐institutional degree offerings (consortia) – check with HED NM (only Carmen)
c. Clarity role of DE teaching course development in p & t (fall 2012) d. Policy in OA/accreditation, DE and face‐to‐face (fall 2010) e. Course approval clarification procedure (fall 2010) f. Support and policies for faculty at a distance (fall 2011)
3. Tasks: Identify stakeholder workgroups with ODE and DE directors (fall 2011) a. Workgroups: identify best practices b. Identify accreditation issues c. Identify state policy d. Identify personal issues
4. Resources: Meeting room a. Refreshments b. GA support c. Dean’s approval critical
Group 2 – Goals D & I Action Items Group Members: Theresa W., Mohammed, Holly, Pookie, and Chris E., Jeanette
1. D) Ensure quality/consistency a. Action 1.) Create annual exemplary DE course award
21
i. Task 1.) TA will recruit qualified persons to create exemplary DE course (self assessment rubric) (Spring 2009)
ii. Task 2.) Develop rubric ((2009) iii. Task 3.) Disseminate rubric (Fall 2009 and ongoing) iv. Task 4.) Create award committee and annual process (Fall 2009) v. Give 1st annual award (university convocation) vi. Give rubric to one‐stop shop (university convocation)
b. Action 2.) Recommend inclusion of course development, tools, online course sharing, learning objects, and peer mentoring in online classes within one‐stop shop/repository (2009)
c. Action 3.) Create policy statements which support quality and consistency of DE courses
i. Task 1.) Develop student teaching evaluation policy which is common to all courses (Fall 2009) (CEL, faculty senate)
ii. Task 2.) Develop assessment policy statement which aligns assessment across all course formats/modalities (2010) (UOAC, OAC1, OAC2)
2. I) Maintain academic integrity a. Action 1.) Strengthen and equalize enforcement and consequences for
academic dishonesty i. Task 1.) Create policy statement to state uniform application of integrity
standard across course formats (Fall 2009) (CEL, DE, Faculty senate) ii. Task 2.) Explore use of Banner to formally track conformed incidents of
academic dishonesty (Spring 2010 – Fall 2011) (ICT, Student Judicial Services, ASNMSU)
iii. Task 3.) Create a committee to continuously monitor ethics and academic integrity in university (Spring 2011) (Upper administration)
b. Action 2.) Increase access to resources to decrease academic dishonesty in DE courses
i. Task 1.) Recommend/inclusion of integrity tools, resources, and strategies in one‐stop shop/repository (Spring 2009) (ICT, TA, DE)
ii. Task 2.) Office of DE/ICT will arrange/provide proctoring to DE courses as needed (Fall 2009 and ongoing) (GA’s, Office of De, ICT)
Group 3 – B & E Action Items Group Members: Norice, Juanita, Kitty, Jean, Sanja Jo, Julia, and Fred
1. B) DE community facilitates collaboration among departments to achieve a dynamic learning environment for faculty, staff and students
a. Action 1.) Develop interdisciplinary team to promote communication and collaboration (system‐wide team)
i. Task 1.) Identify right people (Kitty Berver) (Spring 2009) ii. Task 2.) Establish charge (Team) (2009) iii. Task 3.) Plan and participate in information sharing activities (Team and
DE community) (Spring 2010 – 2013) b. Action 2.) Create system‐wide one stop shop for faculty, staff and students
i. Task 1.) Identify what resources currently exist and where (needs assessment) (potential funding Primos? Student technology fees? ) (Spring 2009)
22
ii. Task 2.) Create a planning team to build and research it (e.g. OWL at Purdue) (Kitty, DE, ICT, HR) (Fall 2009‐2010)
iii. Task 3.) Build and test it (Spring 2010 ‐ 2013) iv. Task 4.) Marketing – promote resources (Fall 2010 – 2013) v. Task 5.) Evaluate/asses/adjust – continuously improve (Fall 2009 – fall
2010) (Fall 2011 – 2013) vi. Task 6.) Seek funding opportunities for sustainability (DE, CEL, others)
(Fall 2009 and continuing) 2. E) A coordinated tech support center with ongoing funding is available to faculty and
students a. Action 1.) Needs assessment
i. Task 1.) Identify existing tech help available for faculty and students (Spring 2009 – Spring 2010)
ii. Task 2.) Gather information from appropriate areas including FACT/STAC (survey) (Identify support gaps, gap analysis) (Fall 2009 – fall 2010)
b. Action 2.) Act upon needs assessment funding i. Task 1.) To be determined (Spring 2010 – Spring 2011)
Group 4 – G & H Action Items Group Members: David, Laura, Richard, Hansuk
1. Establish a DE faculty a. Action 1.) Establish membership requirements
i. Task 1.) Survey existing current DE skill sets (Spring 2009) ii. Task 2.) Define requirements and competencies (Fall 2009)
b. Action 2.) Invite/review existing faculty i. Task 1.) Evaluate faculty, Report (awareness, developing praxis) (Fall
2009) ii. Task 2.) Provide training, required (targeted) (Fall 2009 and continuing)
c. Action 3.) Define reward structure i. Task 1.) Determine reasonable percentage from DE fees (Spring 2009) ii. Task 2.) Define administration path to college/department/faculty
account (professional development, toys, travel) (Fall 2009) 2. Increase diversity
a. Action 1.) Expand mentoring program i. Task 1.) Seek funding for staff (Spring 2009 and continuing) ii. Task 2.) Professional development for staff (Spring 2009)
b. Action 2.) Expand personalized programs i. Task 1.) Define scope of personal program (Spring 2009 with continuing
PD) ii. Task 2.) Define delivery/pricing structure (Spring 2009)
c. Action 3.) Expand recruiting i. Task 1.) Define target markets (Fall 2009) ii. Task 2.) Increase visibility (Fall 2009)
23
Group 5 – C & J Action Items Group Members: Carmen, Ann B., Priscilla, Teresa B., Chris C, and Kathy
1. Discuss base budget allocations to colleges and DE with Jennifer Taylor a. Each college money would have its own index number and NOT going into
allocated funds 2. A portion of the DE fees goes into college index based on student credit hours and
formula. a. Names: Carmen G., DE directors, Bobbie D., Kitty B b. Resources: provide scenarios (funding) – end of February, directors meeting
3. Timeliness of fund allocation and HR hiring process a. Names: JT, DE directors, Carmen G., D’Anne Stuart, Anna Price, Vimal b. Scenarios/instances/examples of delayed fund allocations and hiring process
4. Work with provost/school to hire GA’s for distance ed faculty support
24
8 Concluding Remarks When it comes to distance education NMSU does have a choice. The choice is to continue with business as usual (most probable future scenario) or to build a most desirable future by implementing the 2014 strategic goals and actions. The outcomes of the strategic planning effort do support the argument that while demographic and economic predictions are essential in planning distance learning, they alone are not sufficient. Other major influences make DE a more complex aspect of education. At NMSU factors such as technology, faculty members’ reactions, and unsettled tensions between administrators, faculty members, and distance learning directors seem critical.
In terms of technological issues, even after developing strategies to overcome the identified barriers, planning participants did not feel confident in being able to achieve a desirable end state (50% probability). This is not surprising for it has been argued that the majority of factors that are barriers to teaching online are found in the areas of administrative and technical support (Maguire, 2005). Technical concerns include the lack of systems reliability and access to the online courseware as well as inadequate infrastructure, hardware, and software. Developing effective technology skills and lack of training is a deterrent to teaching online. The lack of knowledge regarding where to go for technical support while teaching in an online environment is problematic particularly when it comes to depending on technology developers and programmers to teach DE courses. Not to mention is the fact that, in appropriating technological innovations, politics take a centre‐stage (Hislop, et al., 2000; Knights & Murray, 1992; 1994; Pettigrew, 1985). Anything that has to do with the appropriation of IT‐based innovations will typically be highly political (Hislop, et al., 2000). A probable future scenario projecting NMSU “faculty using tools traditionally defined as DE tools even though they are not supported by their college or centrally” is not irrational.
The outcomes also present a clear choice as to what type of work dynamics should be developed at NMDU. Should the strategic goals dealing with personnel and other available resources (60%+ probability), as well as the issue of tenure track/college faculty teaching DE Courses (80% probability), be achieved a gloomy probable scenario can be neutralized. DE faculty does not need to feel that it is “exponentially more difficult to keep up with work.” They also need not to experience lack of innovation and a failure of buy‐in of general faculty. They have developed a desirable end state for themselves. In addition, even if they did not give a definite ‘yes’ for achievability to the goals dealing with such dynamics, they should feel a sense of satisfaction for they have a plan to deal with issues common to DE programs. A common DE deterrent noted repeatedly is the issue of faculty workload (Berge, 1998; Schifter, 2000). Also common is the lack of recognition from the administration and peers in the form of credit towards tenure and promotion (Betts, 1998).
The last but not least important issue to point out is students’ dynamics. Yes, when it comes to DE, students do have a wide variety of choice. Should NMSU not satisfy their expectations, they will indeed leave. What is important to students at NMSU may need to be researched. Research
25
evidence however point at nurturing as an important factor. According to Löfström and Nevgi (2006), what DE students perceive as main obstacles to learning is experiencing isolation, loneliness and the lack of practical ICT usability. Tehcnological issues aside, DE faculty should not have difficulties in contributing to retaining DE students.
When it comes DE, NMSU decision makers and faculty don’t only have a choice for the future, they are also well informed and enlightened enough as to what needs to be done to make DE a successful program. They have asked and answered fundamental questions that could well influence the program’s future viability.
26
9 References Alvarez, R. & Emery, M. 2000. From action research to system in environments: A method. Systemic Practice an Action Research, 13(5): 683‐703.
Baggaley, J. (2008). Where did distance education go wrong? Distance Education, 29 (1): 39–51.
Barney, J.B. 1991. The resource‐based model of the firm: Origins, implications, and prospects. Journal of Management, 17(1): 97‐98.
Beaudoin, M. F. (2003). Distance education leadership for the new century. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration 6 (2). Retrieved January, 2009: http://www.westga.edu/%7Edistance/ojdla/summer62/beaudoin62.html .
Bell, W. 1998. Making People Responsible. American Behavioral Scientist, 42(3): 323‐339.
Bennett III, R. H. 1998. The importance of tacit knowledge in strategic deliberations and decisions. Management Decision, 36(9): 589‐597.
Berge, Z.L. (1998). Barriers to online teaching in post‐secondary institutions: Can policy changes fix it? Retrieved on February, 2009 from http://www.westga.edu/~distance/Berge12.html .
Betts, K.S. (1998). An institutional overview: Factors influencing faculty participation in distance education in postsecondary education in the United States: An institutional study. Retrieved on February, 2009 from http://www.westga.edu/~distance/betts13.html .
Emery, F. 1977. Futures we are in. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff, Social Sciences Division.
Emery, M. 1999. Searching: The theory and practice of making cultural change. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Emery, M. 2000. The current version of Emery’s open systems theory. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 13(5): 623‐643.
Heilbroner, R. 1990. “Analysis and Vision in the History of Modern Economic Thought.”Journal of Economic Literature, 28 (3): 1097‐1114.
Heilbroner, R. 1993. 21st Century Capitalism. New York: W. W. Norton & Co.
Heilbroner, R. 1994. “Vision in Economic Thought.” Journal of Economic Issues, 28 (2): 325‐329.
Hislop, D., Newell,S., Scarbrough, H. & Swan, J. (2000). Networks, knowledge and power: Decision making, politics and the process of innovation. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 12(3): 399‐411.
Hitt, M. A., Bierman, L., Shimizu, K. & Kochhar, R. 2001. Direct and moderating effects of human capital on strategy and performance in professional services firms: A resourced‐based perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 44(1): 13‐28.
27
Howell, S. L., Williams, P. B., & Lindsay, N. K. (2003).Thirty‐two trends affecting distance education: An informed foundation for strategic planning. . Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration 6 (3). Retrieved January, 2009: http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/fall63/howell63.html
Johnson, D. R, & Hoppes, D. G. 2003. Managerial cognition, sunk costs, and the evolution of industry structure. Strategic Management Journal, 24: 1057‐1068.
Knights, D. & Murray, F. (1992). Politics and pain in managing information technology: A case study from insurance. Organization Studies, 13 (2): 211–228
Knights, D. & Murray, F. (1994). Managers divided: Organisational politics and information technology management. Chichester: John Wiley.
Knott, A. M. 2003. The organizational routines factor market paradox. Strategic Management Journal, 24: 929‐943.
Kogut, B., & Zander, U. 1992. Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology. Organization Studies, 3: 383‐397.
Levine, A. E. (2000). The future of colleges: 9 inevitable changes. The Chronicle of Higher Education, The Chronicle Review Vol. 4. Retrieved January, 2009: http://csbs331.drkissling.com/fall2008/files/Levine2000.pdf
Löfström, E. & Nevgi, A. (2006). From strategic planning to meaningful learning: diverse perspectives on the development of web‐based teaching and learning in higher education. British Journal of Educational Technology 38(2): 312 – 324.
Lubit, R. 2001. Tacit knowledge and knowledge management: The keys to sustainable competitive advantage. Organizational Dynamics, 29 (4): 164‐178.
Masser, I., Wegener, M. & Sviden, O. 1992. The geography of Europe’s future. London: Belhaven Press.
Mathur, V. K. (1999). Human capital‐based strategy for regional economic development. Economic Development Quarterly, 13(3): 203‐216.
Maguire, L. L. (2005). Literature review – faculty participation in online distance education: Barriers and motivators. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration 8 (1). Retrieved on January, 2009.
Nonaka. I. 1994. A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science, 5: 14‐37.
Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. 1995. The knowledge creating company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation. New York: Oxford University Press.
28
Pettigrew, A. (1985). The awakening giant: Continuity and change in ICI. Oxford: Blackwell.
Polanyi, M. 1964 [1958]. Personal knowledge: Towards a post‐critical philosophy. New York: Harper & Row Publishers.
Porter Liebeskind, J. 1996. Knowledge, strategy, and the theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17: 93‐107.
Rouse. M. J. & Daellenbach, S. (1999). Rethinking research methods for the resource‐based perspective: Isolating sources of sustainable competitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal,20: 487‐494.
Rumelt, R. 1991. How much does industry matter? Strategic Management Journal, 12(3): 167‐185
Stahl, G. (2006). Group cognition: Computer support for building collaborative knowledge. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Schifter, C.C. (2002). Perception differences about participating in distance education. Retrieved on February, 2009 from http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/spring51/schifter51.html .
Spender, J. C. 1993. Competitive advantage from tacit knowledge? Unpacking the concept its strategic implication. Best Paper Proceedings, Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, Atlanta, Georgia.
Spender, J. C. & Grant, R. M. (1996). Knowledge and the firm: Overview. Strategic Management Journal, 17(Winter Special Issue): 5‐9.
Tsoukas, H. 1994. Refining common sense: Types of knowledge in management studies. Journal of Management Studies, 31(6): 761 780.
Wernerfelt, B. 1984. “A resource‐based view of the firm’. Strategic Management Journal, 5: 171‐180
Wertsch, J. V. (1985). Vygotsky and the social formation of mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
29
30
10 Appendix A NMSU Distance Education 2013
Designing the Future Workshop January 6 & 7, 2009 (University Golf Clubhouse)
Program Time Activity (DAY 1)
7:30 AM BREAKFAST 8:00 AM Welcome/Workshop Overview 8:15 AM Expectations
EXTERNAL ASSESSMENT—The Global Distance Education Environment 8:40 AM Global Scan 8:55 AM Scenarios Analysis—small group work
INTERNAL ASSESSMENT—The NMSU Distance Education Environment 10:00 AM Program History 11:30 AM Program Analysis—Keep, Discard, and Create 12:00 PM LUNCH
NMSU Distance Education 2013 1:00 PM Building Most Desirable Future‐‐Small Group Work
Barriers to Most Desirable NMSU Distance Education 2013 2:30 PM Plenary Work—Identification of barriers to achieving 2013 desirable future
STRATEGIC PLANNING 2:45 PM Small Group Work—Action strategy/plans development
DAY 27:30 AM BREAKFAST 8:00 AM Progress reports and feedback 9:30 AM Action planning, continued 11:30 AM Progress reports and feedback 12:00 PM LUNCH 1:00 PM Progress reports and feedback, continued 1:30 PM Mission and vision statements development
What else for success? 3:00 PM What else is necessary to make the plan happen? 4:30 AM Final Reports 5:00 PM WORKSHOP ADJOURN
