The Self Reinforcing Characteristics of Teaching & Technology in Serving

the New Access Mission

Dynamics of Change

What’s at Stake

Case Study: ISU

Self Reinforcing Characteristics of Teaching & Technology

Time of Great Change

Anytime, Anyplace Learning Emergence of 4th H.E.Sector: Distance

Education Western Governors University and the

Like Drucker’s Prediction

Dynamics of Change

Instructional Technology

New Access Mission

New Access Mission: Amplitude & Magnitude of Change

D.E. Colleges in Peterson’s Guide

1993=93

1997=762

55% of 2215 4-year offer Distance Education Courses

D.E. Colleges in Peterson’s Guide

1993=93

1997=762

55% of 2215 4-year offer Distance Education Courses

New Access Mission: Amplitude & Magnitude of Change

Projected Enrollment Growth in Distance Education 1997-2000 = 3 - 4 million

1998-2008 =10+ million

Distance Education’s Proportions of H.E. Enrollments 1997 = 7%

2000 = 26%

2008 = 47%

New Access Mission: Cost Effectiveness

Worldwide: 11 open universities teaching 2.8 million at $350/student

Worldwide: 11 open universities teaching 2.8 million at $350/student

(Source: Sir John Daniel)

Change Leads to Uncertainty

What role for publics in the new access mission?

What effect will the new access mission have on current markets?

Change Leads to Uncertainty

What effect will new anytime, anyplace learning technologies have on the current markets?

How will states and their public institutions act to claim this market?

The Shape of the Postsecondary Market

Name BrandConvenience/User-Friendly

12

3

4 5

6

7Market Segments

Traditional Market

Residential

Full-time Faculty

Holistic Education

Prestige

Full-time

Rising Tide

Commuter/Anytime, Anyplace

Adjunct Faculty

Credentials

Access

Part-time

0

525

1050

1575

2100

2625

3150

3675

4200

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Number of Undergraduates Attending Public and Private Baccalaureate Institutions, by

Market Segment

Market Segments

Nu

mb

er o

f S

tud

ents

(in

th

ou

san

d)

Private Public

Name Brand Convenience/User-Friendly

Scenario 1: Status Quo in Serving the New Access Mission

Market Segments

0

525

1050

1575

2100

2625

3150

3675

4200

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Nu

mb

er o

f S

tud

ents

(in

th

ou

san

d) Private

Public

Scenario 2: Private, For-Profits Serve the New Access Mission

0

525

1050

1575

2100

2625

3150

3675

4200

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Nu

mb

er o

f S

tud

ents

(in

th

ou

san

d) Private

Public

Market Segments

What’s at Stake for Public Higher Education?

Relative Importance to the Enterprise

Influence on Public Decisions

Resources and Students

What are the Issues for the Institutions in the Middle?

Mission Focus: We Do Both

Resource Commitment

Faculty Interest and Effort = Adoption of IT

Institutions in the Middle: Faculty Adoption

12

3

4 5

6

7

Name BrandConvenience/User-Friendly

Traditional Market Rising TideHolistic Education CredentialsPrestige Access

Market Segments

Referential OrientationFaculty

Administration

Institutions in the Middle

Mission and Resources Access = New Resources

Experiences by Place: On Campus & Off Campus

Clear Strategies to Address Both Ends of the Continuum: Distinguish Holistic Education From Academic Achievement

Common Ground

Institutional Survival

Institutional/Departmental Success

Effects Yielding Positive Reputation State of the Art Pedagogy

Institutional Presence

Public Awareness

Student Learning & Success

Policy Acceptance Needed for New:

Faculty Reward Policies

RTP Policies

Letter of Employment Expectations

Faculty Load Policies

ISU’s Institutional Response

Degree Link Program

2 Innovative Ph. D. Programs

State Leadership for Learning Centers

Strategic Planning Process

Hybrid Service Model

Target Market: Placebound, Timebound, Adult Students

2+2 Articulation w/ 2-Year Partners

Degree and Degree Completion Programs at a Distance

On-Site Remote Learner Services

Course Transformation Academy

Continuing Critical Questions

For institutions in the middle, what mutual interests are served by embracing instructional technology and serving the new access markets?

Continuing Critical Questions

Why should we expect the faculty to think embracing this change is a good idea?

What is the vision for the on-campus enterprise

The Self Reinforcing Characteristics of Teaching and Technology

Common Ground: Student Success and Quality Teaching and Learning

Common Ground: Institutional Survival,Success, and Market Presence

Key Assumption: Competition for Residential Students

Reputational in Nature Quality, Student-Centered Education Market Perceptions of Good Pedagogy Mass Customization of Campus-

Based Education

Common Ground: Institutional Survival, Success, and Market Presence

Resources

Mission and Market Awareness

Early Markets and Partnering for Niche Protection and On Site Advantages

Resources

New Access Mission Resources Provide Dual Purpose Support

I.e. faculty, technology, and instructional support

Resources

Winning at the New Economics; or, to the Victors Go the Spoils Revenues streams with which to

compete

Mechanism for institutional learning and quality standards

Resources

Diminished Opportunity Costs

Claim Market Share in the Rising Tide

Command Interest From Resource Rich Partners

Mission and Market Awareness

Public Awareness Through Presence & Service

On Site Learning Services

Public Funding

Market Awareness

Mission and Market Awareness

Reinforcing Access & Service Missions Serving State Needs (Business &

Industry, Underserved) Capturing Public Attention

Mission and Market Awareness

Extended Contact with Core of the Enterprise

First Hand Experience with Our Faculty

Teach Parents at Home; Their Children On Campus

Early Markets and Partnering for Niche Protection & On-Site Advantages

Main Early Competition: 1% of Courses = 44% of FTE

Articulation with 2-Year Partners

Early Markets and Partnering for Niche Protection & on Site Advantages

Partners & Learning Centers Provide Place and Presence

Technical & Workforce-related Programs

Partners, Place, and Program Provide Semi-protected Market

New Tools: Instructional Technology

May inspire faculty to rethink teaching approaches

May result in improved on-campus pedagogy

Will necessitate faculty development Adoption issues connect faculty

community horizontally across the institution

Will Provide Flexibility to On-Campus Students and Faculty Regarding Time and Place Asynchronous Learning

Permits Individualized Instructional Approaches Mass Customization

Adoption of Instructional Technologies:

Should Free Faculty to Focus On Developing Higher Order Thinking in Their Students

Introduces Potential Gains in Learning Productivity Content / Credit Hour

Adoption of Instructional Technologies:

May Spawn a New Quality Standard for On Campus Pedagogy Flexibility,Learning Productivity, Individual

Approaches and Attention

Supplies Tangible Evidence about the Scholarship & Teaching Peer Evaluation Adoption by Peer

Adoption of Instructional Technologies:

Summary

Dynamics of Change: New Access Mission

What’s at Stake: Position and Place

Lessons Learned: Find Common Ground

Teaching and Technology Can Be Self-Reinforcing

The Self Reinforcing Characteristics of Teaching & Technology in Serving

the New Access Mission