|
There will be a new population of
students who are not campus oriented in the traditional sense. These
students will study primarily at their own pace and for the most part,
through interactive telecommunications and computers at a wide variety of
sites -- their workplace, home, community college, or other facility in
their vicinity. New educational strategies and capacities will need to be
developed to serve these students and to provide the social,
interpersonal, and developmental learning experiences appropriate to their
needs and situations.
Education Unbounded: A Vision of
Public Higher
Education Serving Oregon in the Year 2010
Oregon State System of Higher
Education
Office of Academic Affairs
P.O. Box 3175
Eugene, OR
97403
Contents
Executive Summary
A. Planning, Quality,
Programs/Courses
1. Statewide Plan
2. Needs Assessment
3. Program Priority
4. Lead Institutions
5. OSSHE University
Centers
6.
Quality Criteria
7. Review Process
8. Program/Course Support
Services
9.
Shared Courses
10. Residency
Requirements
11. Institutional
Evaluation
12.
System Evaluation
13. Transfer with Other
Institutions
14. Calendar
15. Infrastructure
Planning
B. Student Services
16. Student Services
17. Centers for
Services
18.
Admissions
19. Financial Aid
20. Advising
21. Library
22. Computer Literacy
Prerequisites
C. Faculty Issues
23. Compensation and
Recognition
24. Responsibility
25. Training
26. Intellectual Property Rights,
Copyright
27.
Copyright Clearinghouse
Function
D. Tuition/Fees and Student
Enrollments
28. Tuition
29. Business/Industry
Programs
30.
Delivery Cost Fees
31. Use of General Fund
Monies
32.
Infrastructure
Support
33.
Student Enrollments
34. Identification in
Databases
35.
Co-mingling of
Courses
E. Technical Standards
36. Technical Production Guidelies for
Courses
37.
OSSHE Media Council Role in Setting
Standards
38.
Send and Receive Site
Standards
Summary of Policy
Recommendations
Appendix - Contributors to
Document
DISTANCE
EDUCATION POLICY FRAMEWORK
Executive
Summary
Introduction
Distance Education extends the
process of teaching and learning from the campus to one or more locations
including classrooms on other campuses, worksites, community centers, and
homes. For example, an instructor may teach a class in a room with "live"
students, while simultaneously broadcasting the class session to students
in another city or town. Typically, these "remote" students have access to
the originating site via a two-way audio/video link and a computer
conferencing channel, and are able to interact with the instructor and
other class participants. A key strategy in OSSHE's vision of a
restructured higher education system is to expand the System's learning
opportunities on- and off- campus using multiple technologies. This
Executive Summary provides a brief synopsis of a proposed policy framework
to enact our distance education strategy.
The Process and Progress to
Date
In Education Unbounded: A Vision of
Public Higher Education Serving Oregon in the Year 2010, OSSHE committed to "develop new
educational strategies and capacities ... to serve students who are not
campus oriented in the traditional sense ..." and promised that the State
System would "provide the social, interpersonal, and developmental
learning experiences appropriate to their needs and situations." During
recent years, critical issues and opportunities in distance learning have
been identified, statewide planning in distance education regarding the
uses of technology has occurred, and a variety of councils and committees
have considered systemwide and institutional-level changes. The purpose of
comprehensive planning for distance education is to increase access to
higher education throughout the state, effectively utilize technologies to
enhance both faculty and student productivity, and better integrate
distance learning programs into the mainstream of OSSHE instructional
programs. The "Distance Education Policy Framework" is a report in
progress that focuses on work to be done.
At several recent
meetings (e.g., January 20, 1995, September 23, 1994) Board members have
received reports of campus and Chancellor's Office initiatives that
incorporate new technologies in telecommunications and computing into
teaching and learning. For example, OSSHE was a key partner in developing
Oregon ED-NET and continues to be its major user. In just four years,
OSSHE programming to off-campus sites has increased exponentially. For
1995-96, 237 courses are already scheduled for delivery using this mode of
transmission alone, and we anticipate that about 250 courses will have
been offered by the end of the academic year. In addition, OSSHE campuses
use in-person modes of distance education delivery and, in the Portland
area, Instructional Television Fixed Service (ITFS) systems to broadcast
courses directly into high technology businesses. Using these and other
mediums, the virtual public university is rapidly taking shape. However,
coherent planning and policy development to enable us to meet emerging
needs most effectively and efficiently has lagged.
The Policy Framework
Five major categories reflect
clusters of tasks that need to be addressed: Planning, Quality and
Program/Courses; Student Services; Faculty Issues; Tuition/Fees and
Student Enrollments; and Technical Standards.
| 1. |
Planning,
Quality, and Program/Courses
This area addresses
issues of the division of labor with other sectors, program
development, and maintenance of appropriate standards. It
includes: the development of a statewide intersector plan for
distance education; conducting local and regional needs
assessments; providing for OSSHE campuses to assume
lead-institution responsibilities to build from our strengths; the
development of shared university centers with other providers for
the delivery of programs and courses; meeting assurances of
program quality and establishing the evaluation processes that
undergird standards; and addressing issues of institutional
cooperation and articulation to reduce fragmentation from the
student's perspective. |
| 2. |
Student
Services
Planning principles in this category have been
developed to assure that part-time distance education students
have access to services comparable to residential and commuter
students. Issues of marketing and admissions, financial aid for
part-time students, advising, library resources, and computer
literacy (so that students can use the technologies) are
addressed. Further, maximum efficiency and convenience in serving
students is sought by proposing the development of shared services
at central sites. |
| 3. |
Faculty
Issues
Recommendations to encourage greater involvement of
faculty in distance education programs include areas of incentives
and rewards for the additional effort often required to
participate effectively in distance learning activities; training
opportunities to ensure command of the new technologies; the fair
determination of intellectual property rights (the "who owns what"
of technology products) of both faculty and institutions; and
consideration of a copyrighted materials clearinghouse function at
a central level. |
| 4. |
Tuition/Fees and Student
Enrollments
Recommendations in this area are intended to bring
distance education programs and courses into the mainstream of
campus business. They include: assessing fees for distance
education courses that are comparable to traditional means of
delivery; when justified, permitting general fund monies to
support delivery of instruction by technology versus
"self-support" funding; assisting campuses in building distance
education infrastructure; recording student enrollments
systematically regardless of location, time or sponsoring
department for purposes of planning and evaluating
programs. |
| 5. |
Technical
Standards
This area is concerned with establishing and
maintaining consistent high quality standards for distance
education throughout the State System. Needs include: the
development of compatible technologies (e.g., systems, hardware),
services and procedures across both send and receive sites; and
the establishment of quality guidelines for the production and
delivery of courses and programs that are the best that they can
be within the resources
available. |
The Priorities
The policy framework presents
an ambitious agenda for implementation. Some principles and policies are
already in practice or are readily implementable, and others are high
priority action items needing to be addressed in the very near future.
Among the latter are: needs assessments to determine where to direct new
initiatives, establishment of guidelines that permit sharing of courses
and programs among institutions, establishing systemwide plans for
infrastructure development regarding technology use, focusing attention on
issues of faculty concern such as intellectual property rights and
copyrights, further planning of student academic services such as advising
and library resources, and developing technical standards for consistently
high quality service delivery.
Feedback is sought from Board
members regarding proposed planning directions and the priority that
should be given to some planning issues over others. How "blended" should
on-campus teaching/learning be with off-campus? Is the "divide and
coordinate respon- sibility" strategy OSSHE has thus far pursued
preferable to considering a separate virtual university (e.g., The
Educational Network of Maine)? Shall we actively plan other centers (e.g.,
Central Oregon University Center) in partnership with entities such as
community colleges and seek resources to support these new models?
DISTANCE
EDUCATION POLICY FRAMEWORK:
RATIONALE/BACKGROUND AND IMPLEMENTATION
NOTES
Expanding distance
learning opportunities is a key strategy to OSSHE's realization of a
vision of a restructured higher education system. This vision increases
access to students throughout the state and uses technology to enhance
both faculty and student productivity. During the past two years, critical
issues and policies in distance learning both in Oregon and other states
have been identified, statewide planning in distance education regarding
the uses of technology in instruction has occurred, and a variety of OSSHE
councils and committees have considered policy changes, at both the system
and institution level, that will be needed to move distance learning
programs into the mainstream of OSSHE instructional programs. This
document provides policy recommendations, rationale/background, and
implementation notes for campus and system level consideration within the
Oregon State System of Higher Education. Policies have been organized into
five major categories: Planning, Quality, and Programs/Courses; Student
Services; Faculty Issues; Tuition/Fees and Student Enrollments; and
Technical Standards.
A. PLANNING, QUALITY, AND
PROGRAMS/COURSES
1. Statewide Plan
OSSHE in concert with other
partners should develop a statewide plan for the delivery of needed
college-level distance learning programs and services.
Rationale/Background: There is growing interest in
development of a statewide plan for programs and services using a variety
of instructional technologies. The Joint Boards of Education has called
for increased sharing of educational resources, between community colleges
and OSSHE campuses, to increase access to Oregonians. There is also
interest in making college-level courses available to college-ready high
school students as the educational sectors work toward a more "seamless"
educational system. Through the Joint Articulation Commission, the 1978
agreement between the community colleges and OSSHE institutions was
updated in 1994 to clarify the missions of public postsecondary
institutions. Further work will be needed in developing a statewide plan
for delivering postsecondary programs using the new
technologies.
Implementation Notes:
1.1 The Joint Boards of
Education should develop a policy to guide statewide intersector planning
for distance education programming.
1.2 The OSSHE Academic Council
should meet with the Community College Instructional Council of Deans to
develop a process for development of a statewide plan.
2. Needs Assessment
Working with the campuses, OSSHE
should collect local and regional needs assessments from multiple sources
in order to coordinate statewide needs assessments to be used in planning
for distance learning programs and services.
Rationale/Background: Local and regional needs
assessment should be conducted by OSSHE campuses in order to identify
college-level educational resources that are most needed throughout the
state. Needs assessments should be used to develop a statewide plan in
order to avoid duplication of efforts and take advantage of the successful
groundwork completed by regional councils and economic development groups.
OSSHE should play a central role in coordinating statewide needs
assessments. As the central coordinator, OSSHE should disseminate the
findings of regional assessments and undertake the study of needs not
addressed by regional or local efforts. Such needs assessments should
cover curricular needs (degrees, courses/content areas) as well as
preferred forms and delivery of programs (interactive television, short
courses, learning centers, computer-mediated instructions, etc.).
Assessment efforts should balance promoting existing programs, assessing
the need for new programs, and evaluating attitudes toward delivery
mechanisms. To remain innovative and responsive to changing educational
needs of the state, OSSHE must be aware of unmet needs and be prepared to
efficiently address new needs by creating programs, sharing programs, or
importing programs from outside sources.
Implementation
Notes:
2.1
OSSHE should develop guidelines for collection and facilitate sharing of
needs assessments. Data should be generated to determine unmet degree
program needs and curricular areas that are not degree programs.
2.2
OSSHE should assess the most efficient and effective method to address new
needs through program creation, sharing resources, or importing programs
from outside sources.
2.3 OSSHE should participate in national
planning efforts to identify programs that are unavailable in Oregon that
may be used to meet future needs (e.g., library sciences).
3. Program Priority
OSSHE should establish program
priority criteria that guide the scheduling of programs/courses to be
delivered to distance learning students.
Rationale/Background: Current technologies do not permit
OSSHE institutions to deliver all programs/courses that are needed,
creating a competitive environment for the scheduling of academic
programs. The potential recurring problem of limited transmission
resources demands a more sophisticated approach to scheduling of
telecommunications time slots. Programs with limited enrollments for
statewide distribution may be blocking more promising programs. The
problem requires an ongoing evaluation of the instructional programs for
both their instructional value and their ability to enroll students. OSSHE
should collect and maintain data on enrollments, costs, and student
success. Guidelines will then be needed to facilitate the selection of
programs/course schedules when conflicts arise. The current program
priority policy favors in the following order: (1) whole programs over
isolated courses, (2) programs which support licensing or continuation of
licensing over those which do not, (3) existing programs over new
programs, and (4) classes scheduled to end prior to 7:00 or begin after
7:00 over those which do not. Additional program priority policies should
be reviewed that take into consideration statewide and community needs,
enrollments, and costs. Mechanisms need to be in place that allow new
programs to be introduced during times of limited transmission
capability.
Implementation Notes:
3.1 The Chancellor's Office
with advice from the Academic Council should annually review the program
priority criteria to be used in scheduling programs/courses and make
revisions as necessary.
3.2 The Chancellor's Office should maintain
data on scheduling difficulties and regularly report this information to
the OSSHE Distance Learning Committee (renamed from the OSSHE ED-NET
Committee).
4. Lead Institutions
The Chancellor's Office should
provide opportunities for OSSHE campuses to assume lead institutional
responsibilities for providing selected and/or proposed distance
delivered-programs and services.
Rationale/Background: The "lead institution" concept
provides an effective method for future distance learning program
development. Strategically designating lead institutions is a method of
reducing inefficiencies, duplication, and wasteful competition.
Appropriately selected lead institutions will be able to leverage their
strengths to the benefit of the State and the System. The selection of
lead institutions should be conducted at the Chancellor's level. The
Chancellor's Office of Academic Affairs should provide opportunities for
OSSHE institutions to respond to program needs identified through
statewide assessments. Lead institution designation should encourage
development of cooperative programs by assigning responsibility for
coordination and leadership. A lead institution might not necessarily
create or originate the entire program, but might work with other assigned
institutions collaboratively to create high quality, complete, and
flexible programs.
Implementation Notes:
4.1 The Chancellor's Office
should develop guidelines for designating "lead institution"
responsibility to one or more OSSHE campuses.
4.2 Lead institution
designations should be approved by the Board of Higher
Education.
5. OSSHE University
Centers
OSSHE
should develop shared Centers for the delivery of distance learning
programs and courses in areas of the state in which there is identified
need for instructional programs delivered from multiple OSSHE
institutions.
Rationale/Background: Strategically located centers for
distance learning programs will provide an OSSHE presence in communities
in which there are identified needs for a range of higher education
programs. Centers available for the delivery of programs from multiple
OSSHE institutions should create cost efficiencies and strengthen program
offerings.
Implementation Notes:
5.1 Using the Central Oregon
University Center and the CAPITAL Center as examples, OSSHE should seek
other opportunities to establish higher education learning centers in
communities in which facilities are needed. Key avenues for identification
of sites should include needs assessments, and discussions with community
colleges, and business/industry, etc.
5.2 OSSHE campuses could submit
proposals regarding the establishment of a new Center when one or more
campus is seeking approval to offer programs in an area, to the
Chancellor's Office of Academic Affairs.
6. Quality Criteria
Distance learning programs should
result in learning outcomes appropriate to the rigor and breadth of the
degree/certificate awarded. Programs should be coherent, comprehensive,
and developed with appropriate discipline and pedagogical rationale. Each
program should provide for significant interaction, whether real time or
delayed interaction, between faculty and students and among
students.
Rationale/Background: Distance learning programs/courses
should meet comparable standards of educational quality as other OSSHE
programs/courses in their rigor and breadth. Integrity of programs should
be paramount for degree programs delivered at a distance so that students
are not simply provided a menu of disparate courses that are not well
connected thematically or in other ways developed with appropriate
discipline and pedagogical rationale. Institutions will need to follow
Accreditation Association and Board of Higher Education policies for the
review and approval of programs to be offered at new locations.
Institutions should offer programs via distance learning that are already
offered on campus. Institutions must ensure that existing programs when
exported to distant sites maintain coherence and integrity. Ensuring
integrity includes determining the appropriate- ness of the technology
used in delivering the course; attending to student services that are
critical to maintaining the quality of programs and must be considered in
the planning and delivery of all distance programs; and evaluating course
learning outcomes, and student and faculty
satisfaction.
Implementation Notes:
6.1 The responsibility of
educational quality should remain with the faculty and academic units.
6.2 OSSHE should continue its current program review process which
includes review of campus proposals to offer an existing program to a site
not now served.
6.3 OSSHE should monitor policies of the Northwest
Association of Colleges and Universities regarding the review of distance
learning programs.
7. Review Process
The program approval review process
should ensure the appropriateness of the delivery technology for meeting
the objectives of the program.
Rationale/Background: Different technologies inherently
bring advantages and disadvantages to the instructional process; some
curricular content can be adapted more effectively to some technologies
than to others. OSSHE has a current program review process that involves
submitting programs (for which institutions already have received Board
authorization) that are proposed to be offered at new off-campus sites to
the Chancellor's Office for review by the Vice Chancellor for Academic
Affairs and subsequently the Academic Council. The review requires
ensuring the appropriateness of the technology being recommended for
delivery of the program, as well as the adequacy of resources to provide
the program.
Implementation Notes:
7.1 Accreditation requirements
cover appropriateness of technology for programs delivered through new
modes.
7.2 OSSHE should continue its current program review process
which includes review of campus proposals to offer an existing program to
a site not now served.
8. Program/Course Support
Services
Institutions providing distance learning programs should have
appropriate faculty and student support services for teaching and learning
via electronic delivery.
Rationale/Background: The process of developing a
distance learning course using technology requires special skills and
knowledge and takes considerable time. The primary faculty role is to lead
the development and provide the content expertise, but high-quality,
technology-based instruction will require a team effort including academic
support, instructional design, etc. Institutions should develop support
services that will be needed for programs and
courses.
Implementation Notes:
8.1 Faculty should have access
to instructional development support including training for teaching over
distance learning systems, instructional design, graphics preparation,
video training support, multimedia construction support, etc. These might
come from instructional design staff assigned to campus media
centers.
9. Shared Courses
Institutions should establish
policies that permit the use of "shared courses" with the goal of making a
select number of complete programs more accessible for students, at the
same time making participation in these programs/courses by students
"seamless."
Rationale/Background: Technology increasingly blurs the
lines between academic institutions and between administrative units
within institutions. The task is to fulfill traditional academic
responsibilities for oversight and accreditation at the same time we use
to advantage the opportunities inherent in the technologies. Efficiencies
can be realized by sharing courses that might otherwise be duplicated. If
shared programs are to work successfully, OSSHE must appear to the
provider as a single system. The same principles of collaboration and
exchange within OSSHE must be encouraged between OSSHE and Oregon's
community colleges since "Oregon public higher education will increasingly
function as a partner with the community colleges ..." (Education
Unbounded, p. 11). Shared courses may need to be renumbered or double
numbered to be easily recognized by students and systems. A common course
numbering system will expedite shared courses.
Implementation
Notes:
9.1
OSSHE should develop guidelines for shared programs and courses including
residency policies and financial responsibility of the sending and
receiving institutions.
9.2 The Joint Articulation Commission should
work toward a common course numbering system, or renumbered or double
numbered courses for distance-delivered courses that can be easily
recognized by students and systems.
10. Residency Requirements
Institutions should adopt
flexible residency requirements that permit the sharing of programs and
courses among OSSHE institutions (and other distance delivery providers)
at both the undergraduate and graduate level.
Rationale/Background: To make best use of available
resources, institutions will need to share programs and courses using the
new technologies. This will include sharing programs and courses among
OSSHE institutions as well as other accredited providers of
distance-delivered programs/courses. Residency policies may need to be
revised to accommodate the use of shared courses. Institutions should
review residency requirements to assure that the original intent of those
requirements appropriately recognizes expanding technological
capabilities. Transfer policies should recognize academic work completed
from all appropriate sources including community colleges and other
accredited colleges/universities.
Implementation
Notes:
10.1
Campus residency policies should be reviewed and, if needed, revised to
accommodate distance-delivered courses/programs.
11. Institutional
Evaluation
The
institutions offering the program should evaluate the program's
educational effectiveness including assessments of learning outcomes and
student and faculty satisfaction.
Rationale/Background: Evaluation of program
effectiveness must be a component of off- campus programs as it is for
on-campus programs. Institutions should ensure that appropriate evaluation
procedures are in place, that faculty include distance-learning students
in regular course evaluations, and that data from evaluations are reviewed
and used to make program improvements.
Implementation
Notes:
11.1
Campuses should institute policies that require faculty to include
distance learning students in regular course evaluations.
11.2 Uses of
technology should be evaluated as a part of the evaluation process to
provide continuous input about effectiveness so quality related to
technology (technical evaluation) can be assessed and changes and
improvements can be applied as needed.
11.3 Distance learning
evaluation results should be compared with on-campus results to monitor
program effectiveness and provide a means for program
improvements.
12. System Evaluation
The Chancellor's Office should
collect and maintain data on enrollments in distance learning programs,
costs, and technical assessments in order to determine the needs for
increased capacity and provide for systemwide
accountability.
Rationale/Background: Data on enrollment, costs, and
successful uses of different technologies will provide needed information
for change and improvements. Trend data in the use of instructional
technologies will be needed for systemwide accountability reporting to a
variety of constituents.
Implementation
Notes:
12.1
The OSSHE Distance Learning Committee (renamed OSSHE ED-NET Steering
Committee) has been working on a technical evaluation form that can be
used at all institutions. Institutions should identify a method for having
faculty implement the technical evaluation when regular student
evaluations occur. Technical evaluation forms should be sent on to the
OSSHE Office of Distance Learning for aggregated processing.
12.2 Data
should be reviewed on an annual basis and shared widely throughout the
system to facilitate planning efforts.
13. Transfer With Other
Institutions
OSSHE institutions should remove barriers to transfer between
OSSHE institutions and Oregon community colleges and other accredited
postsecondary distance education providers, to facilitate
distance-delivered education.
Rationale/Background: Many OSSHE distance learning
programs rely on completion of lower division courses at community
colleges. Increasingly, students will have access to academic courses from
a range of accredited providers, both within and outside Oregon utilizing
a range of technologies. OSSHE institutions will need to acknowledge the
growing marketplace of courseware and institute policies that facilitate
accessible transfer for future OSSHE students.
Implementation
Notes:
13.1
OSSHE institutions should work with Oregon's community colleges to insure
requirements established by the institutions are articulated.
13.2
OSSHE's Distance Learning Committee (previously ED-NET Steering Committee)
should monitor policies of the relevant accrediting associations that
guide the approval of distance-delivered programs to inform campus
policies on transfer.
14. Calendar
To facilitate shared
programs/courses and better utilization of limited distance education
transmission and receive site facilities, OSSHE institutions should work
toward a common academic calendar of start and end dates, class start
times, and holidays.
Rationale/Background: OSSHE institutions cannot expand
interinstitutional sharing of programs/service via the new technologies
without moving to even more consistent calendars and start times; the need
to get the most efficient use from limited transport facilities and a
limited number of send and receive sites makes it imperative to work
toward a common academic calendar of terms, class times, and
holidays.
Implementation Notes:
14.1 The Academic Council
should develop common multi-year calendars.
14.2 OSSHE should initiate
discussions with Oregon community colleges regarding common objectives to
move to more consistent calendars, start times, etc.
15. Infrastructure
Planning
OSSHE
should conduct planning for and support the development and use of
appropriate technologies, including ED-NET, as a part of higher
education's distance learning plan and work toward successful integration
of multiple technologies to provide an electronic infrastructure that
meets the instructional requirements and reaches the citizens of Oregon
throughout the state.
Rationale/Background: Rapid changes in technology and
multiple instructional presentation needs makes it necessary to develop
and use multiple technologies. With the rapid changes in hardware and
telecommunication technologies, it will likely be impossible to commit to
single technologies. OSSHE should use all available resources to
understand and develop compatible systems to meet the needs of
institutions to develop and deliver programs and to address the needs of
citizens to receive education. Monitoring the use of existing capacity,
identifying unmet demands for capacity, and identifying unmet program
needs will enable the System to make appropriate judgements about when to
invest in additional capacity.
Implementation
Notes:
15.1
OSSHE should continue its acquisition of ITFS licenses throughout the
state.
15.2 OSSHE should continue to participate in ED-NET development
planning.
15.3 OSSHE should continue to explore new technologies that
offer increased capacity, particularly those that promise to hold down
costs.
15.4 The OSSHE Media Council should develop guidelines to assist
in the review of technologies. Guidelines should consider the following
principles: OSSHE should favor systems that employ open architecture over
proprietary systems; it should favor systems that are interactive over
systems that are not; it should favor technologies that expand existing
capacity over systems which compete with existing capacity; it should
favor multiple-use technologies over single use technologies.
B. STUDENT SERVICES
16.
Student Services
Enrolled on- and off-campus students should have comparable
access to the range of student services appropriate to support their
learning.
Rationale/Background: On- and off-campus students should
have comparable access to student services. Services should be supportive
of the part-time distance learner. Students should be provided with clear,
complete information about programs of study including curriculum, course
and degree requirements, the nature of faculty and student interaction,
assumptions about technical competence and skills, technical equipment
requirements, availability of academic support services, financial aid
resources, and costs and payment policies. Enrolled students should have
adequate access to the range of services appropriate to support their
learning including admission services; registration through telephone,
e-mail or fax; transcripting; financial aid -- including access to
Veteran's Assistance programs, scholarships, grants and loans; academic
advising; library services; methods of adding or dropping course;
bookstore services; and adequate communication about registration and
admission requirements. Generally, the receive site institution should be
responsible for the equipment, materials, or facilities necessary for the
student to receive instruction. Some services such as specialized academic
advising, may need to be provided by the sending institution. Institutions
involved should develop agreements which ensure the availability of
services. Provisions for students with disabilities need to be
developed.
Implementation Notes:
16.1 Institutions will need to
develop an appropriate array of student services for the distance learner
and clear agreements about who provides what services to ensure their
availability.
17. Centers for Services
Where OSSHE is working to
develop an OSSHE University Center (e.g., Bend, Beaverton), with multiple
institutions providing programs, effort should particularly be made to
centralize services at the University Center for use by students
participating in various programs.
Rationale/Background: Maximum efficiencies should be
sought at a central site through developing shared services. Services
could be contracted with a local provider, such as a community college, or
institutions sharing a "common" staff to provide services at the
University Center.
Implementation Notes:
17.1 The central site
administration should work closely with the institutions providing courses
to provide services that are needed.
18.
Admissions
Information and advice about requirements for admission to an
institution and admission to a specific program should be available to
distance learning students.
Rationale/Background: Knowledge about the institution's
requirements for admission is needed to avoid unnecessary problems and
costs. Distance learning students need clear, complete information about
the differences between admission to an institution, and admission to a
specific program.
Implementation Notes:
18.1A range of informational
and advising processes will be needed to serve a diverse student body,
both on- and off-campus (e.g., print, videotape, advisors, toll-free
advising numbers, etc.).
18.2More generic admission policies based
upon the number of credit hours required to be taken as a part-time
student before being admitted to OSSHE institutions need to be made
systemwide.
19. Financial Aid
To the extent that federal and
other financial aid policies can support the distance learner,
institutions should work toward comparability of aid programs for both on-
and off-campus students.
Rationale/Background: Financial aid should be equitably
made available to the distance learner. Financial aid policy in the past
has primarily served fulltime learners, providing less access for
part-time students. Since most distance learning students attend part-
time, and increasingly are expected to receive courses from among a number
of providers, policies must be developed that permit distance learning
students to access financial aid in this future context. Since financial
aid policy is guided both by federal and state policies, OSSHE Financial
Aid Officers will need to sort through the requirements of aid and assist
institutions, as feasible, to develop accessible provisions for serving
distance learning students.
Implementation
Notes:
19.1
Financial Aid Officers should be asked to advise the system as to how far
we can go in meeting the needs of distance learning students, and
accommodating "blended" programs (where students take courses from a
variety of sending institutions).
19.2 Campuses should work toward
consortial financial aid agreements among OSSHE institutions and between
OSSHE institutions and community colleges.
20.
Advising
Comparable advising services should be made available to both
on- and off- campus students.
Rationale/Background: Advice about academic programs is
critical to the success and productivity of the student. Distance learning
students will need to receive services in a range of modes, using the new
technologies.
Implementation Notes:
20.1 A range of advising
processes will be needed to serve a diverse student group, both on- and
off-campus (e.g., e-mail, telephone advising, information on GOPHERS,
toll-free numbers).
20.2 It will be important that institutions
determine who is responsible for advising and that information is readily
available to the distance learning student.
21.
Library
Appropriate library services must be made available to distance
learning students.
Rationale/Background: Quality programs demand adequate
library services for all students. Library staffs of both send and receive
institutions must be prepared to support interlibrary loan, courier
service, on-line access to catalogs and materials, and a growing array of
facsimile tools.
Implementation Notes:
21.1 Specific library/staff
resources need to be designated at campus libraries to adequately serve
distance learning students as well as support interlibrary loan policies,
courier services, and on-line access to catalogs and materials.
21.2
The Interinstitutional Library Council has developed Guidelines for Library Support for Distance
Education Programs
on OSSHE Libraries (March 10, 1995). This document will serve as a guide
for distance learning library services in the future.
22. Computer Literacy
Prerequisites
OSSHE should develop computer literacy programs for distance
learning students, or guide students to available computer literacy
programs, that provide the prerequisites students need to access distance
learning programs/courses.
Rationale/Background: With the growth of multimedia
instruction and networked technology, distance education will increasingly
use computers and computer networks to provide parts or all of the
instruction of a course or instructional module. It will be necessary that
students come to the course with the requisite knowledge enabling them to
use the technology. Because access to computers in homes and schools is
not uniform, students arrive in distance classrooms in all states of
readiness. OSSHE could address this problem by providing access to
computer training; establishing computer literacy standards for
enrollment; and clearly articulating computer prerequisites for courses.
Distance education faculty should not be expected to bear responsibility
for remediation in an area which may be entirely outside their expertise.
OSSHE should actively encourage student access to networked computers and
expect basic computer literacy for all students, regardless of where they
are located. At issue will be to what extent this should be an admission
expectation of students or whether OSSHE institutions should provide basic
computer training for students, both on- and off-campus. There is an
advantage to OSSHE to make networked computers readily available to
students at study centers. As OSSHE seeks to serve more students through
telecommunications instead of adding more bricks and mortar, it becomes
imperative to invest in the tools that are required by students to access
the new course delivery systems.
Implementation
Notes:
22.1
Distance learning programs/courses should identify computer literacy
prerequisites needed for students to participate successfully, so students
may be properly advised about skill level that is required.
22.2
Technology literacy instruction should be developed by OSSHE institutions,
in collaboration with community colleges, to provide distance learners
with the knowledge necessary to successfully participate in distance
learning courses. This instruction should be available in a live and
independent study mode (e.g., workbooks, videotapes, audiotapes,
self-paced computer materials, special short- courses).
C. FACULTY ISSUES
23. Compensation and
Recognition
Good teaching should be rewarded for both on- and off-campus
instruction, increased loads resulting from the use of distance learning
technologies, and for pioneering or significant efforts in the application
of technology.
Rationale/Background: As instruction for on- and
off-campus becomes increasingly blurred, common methodologies will be used
in both settings. It will be important to recognize and reward additional
effort needed to develop mediated instruction and higher student
enrollments potentially created using technology systems through
appropriate compensation, help, or relief from other duties. Institutions
should recognize excellence in distance learning teaching equally with
excellence in teaching on-campus; it should be a factor considered for
salary merit, promotion, and tenure.
Implementation
Notes:
23.1
The time and effort required to develop and deliver distance education
courses should be recognized, and support should be provided, to help
professors develop and deliver distance courses and other technology
delivered instruction.
23.2 Institutions should revise
compensation/recognition processes to ensure that excellence in distance
learning teaching is appropriately rewarded.
24. Responsibility
Increasingly, faculty will be
expected to have the ability to develop and deliver courses using
technology and distance learning systems and
methods.
Rationale/Background: Initially, some faculty will have
more responsibility in the development and teaching of distance education
courses than others because of their academic specialty, instructional
abilities, and their institutional responsibilities for distance learning
delivery. As we move closer to realizing the vision established in
"Education
Unbounded,"
more instructors will use distance learning technologies and
systems.
Implementation Notes:
24.1 Since there is a movement
to minimize the distinctions between off-campus and on-campus instruction,
more faculty will be hired with the expectation that they will be involved
in the process of developing and delivering technology-based distance
education.
25. Training
Faculty new to distance
education should attend training sessions or demonstrate competency to
effectively teach over distance learning systems.
Rationale/Background: There are different skill sets
needed to teach using technologies to students who are geographically
separated from the site of instructional delivery, and faculty should be
trained in how to use the new technologies to effectively teach off-site
students. There should be training available for all faculty and a
requirement to attend training or demonstrate their competencies before
they begin teaching over distance learning systems. Research and
information about distance education should be made readily available to
faculty who wish to find out more about what colleagues are doing.
Newsletters, informal discussion sessions, and so forth should be
encouraged in addition to formal, faculty development programs.
Implementation Notes:
25.1 OSSHE campuses should
provide training to faculty in the use of instructional technologies to
effectively teach distance learning students. Local training has the
advantage of providing familiarity with on-campus equipment and
facilities.
25.2 As appropriate, centralized training workshops and
training materials should be made available throughout the System.
25.3 Professional staff (e.g., instructional designer) should be
available to give support to faculty preparing to teach over distance
education systems.
26. Intellectual Property Rights,
Copyright
An
OSSHE committee should be established to draft guidelines for OSSHE policy
on intellectual property rights and copyright in the instructional
technology context.
Rationale/Background: As the use of technology in
instruction becomes more prominent in higher education, the issues
surrounding "who owns what" must be answered so fairness to the faculty
and to the institutions can be maintained. OSSHE's policy on intellectual
property rights and copyright needs to be reexamined (the current policy
determines that academic course materials are owned by the institution and
not the faculty except in specific instances where materials have a
commercial value and ownership rights are specially contracted between the
institution and faculty on a case-by-case basis). As a corollary to
determining ownership, the OSSHE system will benefit from assisting
faculty in refinement, commercialization, publishing, marketing, or
selling works to third party distributors.
Implementation
Notes:
26.1
The OSSHE Educational Technology Council should be given the
responsibility to oversee development of a draft on intellectual property
rights for review by the Academic Council and adoption by the State
Board.
26.2 OSSHE should collect other System policies on intellectual
property rights and copyright for use in OSSHE's review.
27. Copyright Clearinghouse
Function
A
strategy is needed for obtaining duplicated copyrighted materials to serve
distance learning students and teaching faculty.
Rationale/Background: All campuses participating in
sending courses electronically will be required to obtain permission for
the use of copyrighted material. Rather than have each campus handle this
at the faculty level, or even campus-wide, serious consideration of a
centralized clearinghouse as is being done in some other states is
warranted.
Implementation Notes:
27.1 Technical and legal
advice on the changing situation of copyrighted materials relative to
telecommunicated instruction and distance learning students should be
sought.
27.2 There should be a study of existing clearinghouses
strategies, or centrally purchased services to advise the OSSHE review
process.
D. TUITION/FEES AND STUDENT
ENROLLMENTS
28. Tuition
Distance education students
should generally be expected to pay the same tuition as regular on-campus
students.
Rationale/Background: Educational programs (content) are
expected to cost the same for students but delivery costs will vary
depending on the support and access costs. An important principle in
developing expanded distance learning programs is equity of access to
on-campus and off-campus learners. Financial equity and the likelihood
that some distance education students will be economically disadvantaged
suggest that students at a distance should not be asked to pay a higher
tuition than on-campus students. This is consistent with developing
tuition policies in many other states.
Implementation
Notes:
28.1 The
Board should state this expectation in its fee policies beginning with the
academic year 1995.
29. Business/Industry
Programs
Special programs developed by OSSHE institutions for
business/industry can be marketed at a rate consistent with industry
standards.
Rationale/Background: While retaining the principle of
equity of cost for most of OSSHE's distance education programs and
courses, institutions might choose to offer selected professional programs
at higher tuition rates pegged to the market. This concept recognizes that
specialty programs developed for business and industry make extra demand
on faculty and resources which must be recovered.
Implementation
Notes:
None.
30. Delivery Cost Fees
Delivery cost fees for distance
education students could be assessed where campuses identify costs
associated with distance learning courses and services; fees for on-campus
activities that distance education students would not be expected to use
should be waived.
Rationale/Background: Educational programs (content) are
expected to cost the same for students whether on- or off-campus, but
delivery costs will vary depending on the support and access costs. While
tuition itself should not be higher, delivery cost fees for distance
learning could offset some of the cost of making education more convenient
to learners. These might replace the building, incidental, and health fees
charged to on- campus students.
Implementation
Notes:
30.1 A
determination should be made by the Chancellor's Office as to whether
delivery fees should be approved by the Board (the Board must set all fees
for enrollment, however the Board can delegate optional fees, or fees for
services, to the campuses).
31. Use of General Fund
Monies
General
fund monies can be used by institutions, in line with campus missions, to
deliver instruction by technology to both on- and off-campus
students.
Rationale/Background: In order to realize the vision set
forth in Education
Unbounded for
the year 2010, higher education must begin to make technology use a
fundamental part of the teaching/learning process. OSSHE's policy in the
recent past has been to restrict general fund monies to regular on-campus
programs, requiring that continuing education and off-campus programs be
operated on a self-support basis. With student populations seeking
increased access to credit programs and courses throughout the state,
there is growing pressure to deliver needed instruction to both on- and
off-campus students. Institutions will need more flexibility in developing
budgets to provide such programs, utilizing general fund monies in line
with campus missions, to serve more students. Leveraging general fund
monies will be a necessary method for serving more Oregonians as the
demand for higher education services increases in the next
decade.
Implementation Notes:
32. Infrastructure Support
Centralized support should be
used to help build the distance education infrastructure and ongoing
infrastructure expenses.
Rationale/Background: Major investments (e.g.,
bandwidth, centers, classrooms) will be needed at all campuses to permit
significant expansion in the uses of technology for instruction,
particularly to link OSSHE campuses and off-campus centers, and homes.
Centralized support and coordination will enable efficient expansion of
technology for multiple sector and multiple institution use. Centralized
support will be needed to facilitate this expansion throughout the
System.
Implementation Notes:
32.1 Support is presently
being provided to the University Center in Bend, the CAPITAL Center and
the ITFS system.
32.2 This type support should be expanded to other
locations as feasible.
33. Student Enrollments
All OSSHE students should be
counted for credit enrollment purposes regardless of the location or time
of course enrollment, or the unit providing the course (continuing
education or regular college units).
Rationale/Background: There will be increasing blurring
of the lines between continuing education and regular college courses as
technology uses expand. Accurate data counting methods need to be
instituted at OSSHE institutions that account for all students, regardless
of the method of delivery of programs and services. These data will need
to be aggregated for accurate System reporting of students who are
participating in credit programs, whether they are on- or off-campus
students.
Implementation Notes:
33.1 Procedures are being
implemented for this change.
33.2 Improvements in data systems should
be ongoing.
34. Identification in
Databases
For
the foreseeable future, distance learning "credit" students should be
identifiable in institution and System level databases, to facilitate
planning, research, and evaluation of access to distance learning
students.
Rationale/Background: In order to move toward the vision
established in the Board's document, Education
Unbounded,
OSSHE needs to assure the quality of all courses and value them equally
regardless of whether they are taught on- or off-campus. Use of technology
will increasingly blur the lines between continuing education and regular
college courses. Accurate data counting methods need to be instituted to
account for all students regardless of the location or time of the course
enrollment, or the unit administering the course.
Implementation
Notes:
34.1
OSSHE Institutional Research Services should work with campuses to define
common data elements for distance learning students. At a minimum,
students should be identifiable by the following technology-delivery
mechanisms: interactive television, computer networks, (Internet, Oregon
COMPASS, etc.). The use of the Banner System for this purpose has to be
examined. Further discussion of noncredit students in the database will be
needed. Though OSSHE needs to be able to identify mode of delivery for
courses, this level of detail should disappear at the level of the
transcript.
35. Co-mingling of Courses
Institutions should develop
procedures that permit the commingling of students in credit
courses/programs from on- and off-campus units, regardless of the source
of registration.
Rationale/Background: Students should be able to
participate in campus offerings, regardless of unit of origination, in a
"seamless" registration. This will expand student access to courses, to
include day, evening, weekend, self-paced, and eventually "shared" courses
(with other institution) modes.
Implementation
Notes:
35.1
Institutions should develop registration procedures which are blind to
artificial barriers between types of courses ("regular on-campus,"
"continuing education," etc.) so that students may take advantage of all
offerings.
35.2 This could include the removal of the tuition plateau
at campuses where there are barriers to the co-mingling of students in
classes from on-campus and self-support units by virtue of the sponsoring
financial unit(s).
E. TECHNICAL STANDARDS
36. Technical Production Guidelines for
Courses
Campus
representatives should establish quality guidelines for technical
production and course instructional strategy methods, including a plan for
sharing evaluation findings from multiple users -- students, faculty,
technical support staff -- with institutions and
OSSHE.
Rationale/Background: Technical and production standards
are important for establishing and maintaining consistent quality
throughout OSSHE. Adherence to production standards will provide a
baseline for quality and appearance that will help facilitate students
learning. Also, in distance education, technology and production are added
to the traditional list of variables used to evaluate instructional
performance. Production guidelines for video and mixed technology
instruction should be developed to establish standards for quality.
Because faculty are not typically trained in production and presentation
technologies and because technology is rapidly changing, it is important
for institutions to provide support for developing the presentation.
Evaluation of production and course methods should be made on a regular
basis. Deans, department heads, peers, students, and media staff should be
involved in the process. The evaluation should include faculty, media
staff, production support, the technology used, the receive sites, and the
instructional methodology and content. Outcomes based upon this research
should be made available throughout OSSHE and changes made based upon the
findings.
Implementation Notes:
36.1 Guidelines should be
published throughout OSSHE with the OSSHE Media Council providing
leadership to develop consistent production and technical standards among
OSSHE campuses.
36.2 Issues of faculty participation, incentives, and
rewards need to be addressed by the academic deans and faculty
senates.
37. OSSHE Media Council Role in Setting
Standards
The
OSSHE Media Council should review and make recommendations on hardware,
telecommunications standards and production standards. Send and receive
site standards should be developed.
Rationale/Background: Compatible technologies are
necessary if campuses are to share courses and for efficiencies so that
multiple programs can share equipment and facilities at learning center
sites around the state.
Implementation
Notes:
37.1
The OSSHE Media Council will seek input from others in the OSSHE community
and the WICHE region (e.g., library, computers and telecommunications
councils) and make recommendations about technology, receive site
development, and production standards.
37.2 Joint purchases of
equipment are to be encouraged.
38. Send and Receive Site
Standards
OSSHE
should develop compatible and comparable resources, services, and
procedures across send and receive sites.
Rationale/Background: Having receive sites that are
dissimilar in the types of technology available, resources, and services
will disadvantage some sites and the students who receive their
instruction at those sites. OSSHE needs to have consistency in facility
design and engineering, production directing, and faculty support. Present
and future program quality and access hinge, in part, on availability,
facilitation, and quality of receive sites, and whether the site is at
community centers or within individuals' homes. There is a need to avoid
"technology creep" while simultaneously encouraging experimentation and
development of independent technology. There should be continued
development of shared OSSHE Centers in key population areas throughout the
state. Further, OSSHE should maintain a program of assessment and
evaluation of the uses of technology. The OSSHE Media Council should
review and make recommendations on hardware, telecommunication systems,
and equipment standards. The group should make recommendations and seek
compatibility and standards for OSSHE distance learning receive sites
while encouraging experimentation with advanced communication
systems.
Whereas compatibility of receive sites will assure the
best distribution of programs, financing of receive sites is a different
matter. Receive-site financing should be pursued through shared OSSHE
investment, partnerships with businesses, direct state support, community
development, private investment, and grants. This will encourage
continuing infrastructure development of receive sites in many different
locations and businesses across the state.
Knowledgeable
professionals should be involved in the design of the receive site
classrooms. The sites may be different depending upon the program(s) that
will be received. To the extent possible, OSSHE should have input into the
development of all receive sites where OSSHE institutions are involved.
Coordination and standardization of receive sites makes it possible for
OSSHE to deliver of shared programs to multiple sites. We should work
toward OSSHE-administered distance learning sites in order to increase
efficiencies for all participating institutions. Receive sites must be
adequately developed to include quality audio systems, user-friendly
monitors, fax machines, networked computers, and access to the OSSHE
libraries' on-line catalogs. Receive sites must be adequately staffed to
support both instruction and technology. Staff have responsibility for
setting up and operating the distance learning classrooms at each site.
Staff must assist the distance learning student, be able to work with a
number of faculty from different disciplines and institutions, and be
knowledgeable about all receive-site equipment.
Implementation
Notes:
38.1
Guidelines for the infrastructure development of the receive sites should
be developed by knowledgeable professionals within OSSHE. While the sites
may differ depending upon the program(s) being delivered, there should be
a basic set of equipment, and resources available.
38.2 Site
facilitators are essential for most sites that serve a community of
students and multiple
programs.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY OF POLICY
RECOMMENDATIONS
1.Statewide
Plan
OSSHE in
concert with other partners should develop a statewide plan for the
delivery of needed college-level distance learning programs and
services.
2.Needs
Assessment
Working with the campuses, OSSHE should collect local and
regional needs assessments from multiple sources in order to coordinate
statewide needs assessments to be used in planning for distance learning
programs and services.
3.Program Priority
OSSHE should establish program
priority criteria that guide the scheduling of programs/courses to be
delivered to distance learning students.
4.Lead Institution
The Chancellor's Office should
provide opportunities for OSSHE campuses to assume lead institutional
responsibilities for providing selected and/or proposed distance
delivered- programs and services.
5.OSSHE University Centers
OSSHE should develop shared
Centers for the delivery of distance learning programs and courses in
areas of the state in which there is identified need for instructional
programs delivered from multiple OSSHE
institutions.
6.Quality Criteria
Distance learning programs
should result in learning outcomes appropriate to the rigor and breadth of
the degree/certificate awarded. Programs should be coherent,
comprehensive, and developed with appropriate discipline and pedagogical
rationale. Each program should provide for significant interaction,
whether real time or delayed interaction, between faculty and students and
among students.
7.Review Process
The program approval review
process should ensure the appropriateness of the delivery technology for
meeting the objectives of the program.
8.Program/Course Support
Services
Institutions providing distance learning programs should have
appropriate faculty and student support services for teaching and learning
via electronic delivery.
9.Shared Courses
Institutions should establish
policies that permit the use of "shared courses" with the goal of making a
select number of complete programs more accessible for students, at the
same time making participation in these programs/courses by students
"seamless."
10.Residency Requirements
Institutions should adopt
flexible residency requirements that permit the sharing of programs and
courses among OSSHE institutions (and other distance delivery providers)
at both the undergraduate and graduate level.
11.Institutional
Evaluation
The
institutions offering the program should evaluate the program's
educational effectiveness including assessments of learning outcomes and
student and faculty satisfaction.
12.System Evaluation
The Chancellor's Office should
collect and maintain data on enrollments in distance learning programs,
costs, and technical assessments in order to determine the needs for
increased capacity and provide for systemwide
accountability.
13.Transfer With Other
Institutions
OSSHE institutions should remove barriers to transfer between
OSSHE institutions and Oregon community colleges and other accredited
post-secondary distance education providers, to facilitate
distance-delivered education.
14.Calendar
To facilitate shared
programs/courses and better utilization of limited distance education
transmission and receive site facilities, OSSHE institutions should work
toward a common academic calendar of start and end dates, class start
times, and holidays.
15.Infrastructure Planning
OSSHE should conduct planning
for and support the development and use of appropriate technologies,
including ED-NET, as a part of higher education's distance learning plan
and work toward successful integration of multiple technologies to provide
an electronic infrastructure that meets the instructional requirements and
reaches the citizens of Oregon throughout the
state.
16.Student
Services
Enrolled on- and off-campus students should have comparable
access to the range of student services appropriate to support their
learning.
17.Centers for Services
Where OSSHE is working to
develop an OSSHE University Center (e.g., Bend, Beaverton), with multiple
institutions providing programs, effort should particularly be made to
centralize services at the University Center for use by students
participating in various programs.
18.Admissions
Information and advice about
requirements for admission to an institution and admission to a specific
program should be available to distance learning
students.
19.Financial Aid
To the extent that federal and
other financial aid policies can support the distance learner,
institutions should work toward comparability of aid for both on- and
off-campus students.
20.Advising
Comparable advising services
should be made available to both on- and off-campus
students.
21.Library
Appropriate library services
must be made available to distance learning
students.
22.Computer Literacy
Prerequisites
OSSHE should develop computer literacy programs for distance
learning students, or guide students to available computer literacy
programs, that provide the prerequisites students need to access distance
learning programs/courses.
23.Compensation and
Recognition
Good teaching should be rewarded for both on- and off-campus
instruction, increased loads resulting from the use of distance learning
technologies, and for pioneering or significant efforts in the application
of technology.
24.Responsibility
Increasingly, faculty will be
expected to have the ability to develop and deliver courses using
technology and distance learning systems and
methods.
25.Training
Faculty new to distance
education should attend training sessions or demonstrate competency to
effectively teach over distance learning systems.
26.Intellectual Property Rights,
Copyright
An
OSSHE committee should be established to draft guidelines for OSSHE policy
on intellectual property rights and copyright in the instructional
technology context.
27.Copyright Clearinghouse
Function
A
strategy is needed for obtaining duplicated copyrighted materials to serve
distance learning students and teaching faculty.
28.Tuition
Distance education students
should generally be expected to pay the same tuition as regular on-campus
students.
29.Business/Industry
Programs
Special programs developed by OSSHE institutions for
business/industry can be marketed at a rate consistent with industry
standards.
30.Delivery Cost Fees
Delivery cost fees for distance
education students could be assessed where campuses identify costs
associated with distance learning courses and services; fees for on-campus
activities that distance education students would not be expected to use
should be waived.
31.Use of General Fund Monies
General fund monies can be used
by institutions, in line with campus missions, to deliver instruction by
technology to both on- and off-campus students.
32.Infrastructure Support
Centralized support should be
used to help build the distance education infrastructure and ongoing
infrastructure expenses.
33.Student Enrollments
All OSSHE students should be
counted for credit enrollment purposes regardless of the location or time
of course enrollment, or the unit providing the course (continuing
education or regular college units).
34.Identification in
Databases
For
the foreseeable future, distance learning "credit" students should be
identifiable in institution and System level databases, to facilitate
planning, research, and evaluation of access to distance learning
students.
35.Co-mingling of Courses
Institutions should develop
procedures that permit the commingling of students in credit
courses/programs from on- and off-campus units, regardless of the source
of registration.
36.Technical Production Guidelines for
Courses
Campus
representatives should establish quality guidelines for technical
production and course instructional strategy methods, including a plan for
sharing evaluation findings from multiple users -- students, faculty,
technical support staff -- with institutions and
OSSHE.
37.OSSHE
Media Council Role in Setting Standards
The OSSHE Media Council should
review and make recommendations on hardware, telecommunications standards
and production standards. Send and receive site standards should be
developed.
38.Send
and Receive Site Standards
OSSHE should develop compatible and comparable resources,
services, and procedures across send and receive sites.
Appendix
CONTRIBUTORS
The individuals listed
below representing the OSSHE ED-NET Steering Committee, the Council of
Continuing Higher Education Deans/Directors, the OSSHE Media Council, and
the OSSHE Interinstitutional Library Council, contributed to drafts of
this document. OSSHE Chancellor's Office Academic Affairs staff and OSSHE
Academic Council synthesized input in order to eliminate redundant
information among various sections.
Budget and Student Enrollment
Considerations
Kevin Talbert, Barbara Scott, SOSC; JoAnne Ogborn, OIT; Roger
Olsen, OCATE; Jim Williams, OHSU; Carl Hosticka,
UO.
Student
Considerations
Dixie Lund, Joe Hart, EOSC; Dori Beeks, WOSC; Barbara Moon,
OSU; Pamela Rogers, HMSC; JoAnne Trow, OSU; Gerard Moseley,
UO.
Academic
Programs/Service Development
Don Olcott, OSU; Carl Hosticka,
UO; Dixie Lund, EOSC; Tony Midson, PSU; Barbara Scott and Kevin Talbert,
SOSC.
Technology Development
Tony Midson, Bob Walker, Stan
Nufer, PSU; Jim Williams, OHSU; Jim Mahoney, Howard Lindstrom, UO; Alan
Heywood, WOSC; JoAnne Ogborn, OIT; Jon Root, Mark Kramer, Don Olcott, OSU;
Marvin Taylor, EOSC; John Greydanus, OSSHE.
Library Services
Sue Burkholder, SOSC; Karen
Chase, OIT; Patty Cutwright, EOSC; Melvin George, OSU; Gary Jensen, WOSC;
James Morgan, OHSU; Thomas Pfingsten, PSU; George Shipman, UO.
Academic
Affairs
OSSHE
Distance Learning Programs
john_greydanus@ous.edu
Last Updated: July 31,
1996
URL: http://www.osshe.edu/dist-learn/dist-pol.htm
|
