Date: February 8, 2000

To: Long Island University Faculty and Administrators

From: Michael Arons

Subject: Web-based academic programs

_______________________________________________________________________

There have been numerous inquiries from all sectors of the University about what we are doing, if anything, with regard to distance learning, in particular, Internet/web-based academic programming. This note is intended to address some of those questions as well as to provide information about some of the important issues involved and possible avenues for investigation and development in that arena.

I want first to emphasize that, although, at times, there may be a perception that a distance learning express train is about to leave the station without us, that is not the case. In fact, in certain areas, such as the Educational Technology program at C.W. Post and courses in the Respiratory Care program at Brooklyn, we are in the forefront of advanced instructional technology. What we should keep in mind is that the future direction of Internet-based distance learning academic programs is by no means certain. Although some institutions seem to be jumping vigorously on the “distance train,” the measure of their success, in either academic or financial terms, is yet to be determined and far from totally clear.

With that said, what is certain is that distance learning and computer-assisted instructional technologies cannot be ignored, and, in particular areas, may be very beneficial. Technologies which underlie distance learning may help solve some logistical problems particular to a multi-campus institution, such as Long Island University, that offers similar or identical programs and courses at more than one site. These technologies may open new markets for our current programs as well as allow us to enter markets with new programs that otherwise would be prohibitive. Furthermore, development and exploration in distance education programs helps us to keep current with new instructional technologies. Most positively, these new delivery modes compel us to re-look at and refresh our approaches to instruction, whether or not individual faculty ultimately choose to incorporate them.

I informally convened a small group of administrators to look into what is involved in distance learning in relation to academic programs and to make recommendations to me about how and in what academic areas we might proceed to invest our time and resources. Based on this group’s preliminary research and discussions, several important distinctions for consideration have emerged and a few tentative areas for development have been identified.

The Web vs. Other Technologies

For obvious reasons, including market, cost of delivery, and accessibility, there is strong consensus that we pursue distance delivery on the Internet and World Wide Web – rather than other technologies including video tape and bi-directional television.

Synchronous vs. Asynchronous Delivery Modes

Long Island University’s current and past experimentation with distance learning modes lead us to conclude that on-line synchronous modes are not advantageous ones for us to employ at this time. Synchronous modes require that students be on-line at the same time and may require groups of students to be in the same place at the same time, such as in a computer lab. Often they also require additional expensive equipment, such as computer audio and/or closed circuit video capabilities. We, therefore, expect to concentrate on asynchronous-distributive modes, those that allow students to participate in the Internet-based segment of a course or program at whatever times and places are convenient for them.

Total vs. Partial Internet Delivery

An issue related to the kind of delivery mode is the amount of a course or program to be offered in that mode. A total, asynchronous-distributive mode means that the students and faculty never meet each other face-to-face. While this mode might have some applications for individual students who are unable ever to attend a class because of physical or geographic limitations, in general, delivery modes that do not include some face-to-face student-faculty component will not be the focus of our efforts in this arena. The advantages of even a minimal amount of face-to-face interaction between student and faculty and among students are so significant in terms of improved quality of the learning experience, that they should not be eliminated. Further, our view is that Long Island University is unlikely to be competitive in terms of price on one side and prestige on the other without the “value-added” component of some face-to-face interactions. The optimal degree of the face-to-face component in a course or program depends on several factors, including, but not limited to, the type of content and student body being served. Both of these factors are discussed below.

Types of Program Content and Student Body Best Served

Most research and experience with Internet-based distance learning delivery modes have found that the maturity and motivation of the student and the type of content being offered often determines the degree to which face-to-face contact should be incorporated. Students who are mature and highly motivated do better in distance learning settings. The kinds of programs and courses that tend to have more success with a minimum amount of face-to-face contact are those whose content either relies heavily on the technology itself, such as computer science or information management; or lock-step type training programs that primarily involve standard informational materials and/or those programs whose content tends not to be context-sensitive and that is conducive to drill-based learning. Content which is immediately usable in a work setting provides strong motivation to mature students and is thus most successfully delivered in a distance mode. When programs tend to lean more heavily on what commonly is termed “educational” content, as opposed to training, more face-to-face contact is required for a satisfactory and satisfying learning experience.

Given these limitations, we will not be looking into the development of extensive Internet-based program offerings on the undergraduate level. This is not to say that many courses could not benefit from the resources now available on the Web. At this point almost every discipline and subspecialty has developed specialized Web sites containing instructional material, lively dialog on current research and database resources related to core questions. These materials bring depth to coursework at all levels and extend the boundaries of discourse beyond the classroom. While I encourage faculty to develop sensible instructional innovations for all their courses, including Internet-based and computer-assisted components in undergraduate courses, at the program level, we do not expect to be pursing extensive development of primarily Internet-based modes for undergraduates.

Targeted Programs for Development of Internet Delivery

The types of programs that have been identified as likely to reap the most benefit from the development of a primarily Internet-based curriculum, at this time, are:

· Programs offered by the School of Continuing Studies

· Graduate-level technology-based programs

· Graduate programs offered at multi-sites

· Graduate programs threatened by competition from other institutions’ Internet programs

· Graduate programs with an identifiable and ready market

At present, we are examining several candidates for targeted development of low residency Internet based curriculum development.

The School of Continuing Studies, which already has a number of Internet-based offerings, also will carry on in its development of web-based programs.

Who writes the courses and curricula?

Broadly speaking, there are three basic options for developing courses and programs for Internet delivery.

1. They may be developed “in-house” entirely by faculty who have the expertise or by faculty with the services of a consultant to help with the more technical aspects. In either case, the process is the same as it is for the development of any new course or program. Most of the web-based courses offered currently have been developed this way.

2. It is possible to buy or use an “already-made” Internet-based course. The School of Continuing Studies now is availing itself of pre-packaged Internet courses. In addition, more and more publishers are providing Internet-based curricula to accompany their text books.

3. The University may contract-out the writing of a course or program. With this option, we would furnish a company that provides this service with the content materials and the company would produce the course package based on given specifications. This option for many programs ultimately may be the most effective. It will allow faculty to concentrate on their expertise without overburdening them with technicalities and the courses may be designed so that each faculty member’s particular intervention into the development of course requirements and assignments is required.

I hope this has provided useful information. I encourage all who are interested in issues surrounding web-based academic programming, particularly instructional issues, to read the excellent report of “The Teaching at an Internet Distance Seminar” at the University of Illinois. You can read this report on-line or easily download it from: http://www.vpaa.uillinois.edu/tid/report.

What is clear from this report is that web-based academic programming is neither immediately cost-effective nor easy. It requires a significant investment of resources and is very labor-intensive. For these reasons, our stance towards Internet/web-based academic programming is a cautious one. The field is a rapidly moving one, and the University needs to be knowledgeable and flexible.

As many of you know, last year I appointed Dr. Susan Greenstein to the position of University Director for Instructional Technology. Dr. Greenstein has formed “Instructional Technology Roundtables” of faculty members at the three residential campuses. The Roundtables sponsor workshops and colloquia to support faculty members as they invest in using electronic technologies to enhance student learning. A growing number of faculty on all three campuses now are offering courses with web-based components in some degree. If you have any ideas about web-based offerings or questions about instructional technologies, I urge you to contact members of your campus’ Roundtable. (A list of members is provided below.)

In addition, the University has invested in WebCT – a course “container” for on-line instruction on the Web. The University implementation of WebCT is available at http://typhoon.liu.edu:8900/. More information is available on http://www.webct.com/.

Those interested in using WebCT should contact the Office of Information Technology on their campus.

I want to reiterate that sensible instructional innovations are most welcome and encouraged. The more people involved with and knowledgeable about web-based courses and programs the better positioned Long Island University will be.

Long Island University

1999 - 2000 Instructional Technology Roundtables

Southampton College

Steven Liebling, Natural Science Division

Paul Eastup, Arts and Media Division

Paul Forestell, Social Science Division

Charles Michael Drexel, Business Division

Donna Ferrara, Education Division

Jonathan Haynes, Humanities Division

Robert Battenfeld, Reference Librarian

Eileen McGurty, Friends World Program

Arvind Borde, ex officio, Webmaster and Island Room Director

Gene Tranchino, ex officio, Office of Information Technology

C.W. Post Campus

John Fekner, School of Visual and Performing Arts

Matthew Draud, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences

Michael Byrne, School of Education

Martha Smith, Palmer School of Library and Information Science

Vijaya Vemuri, College of Management

Ellen Duffy, School of Health Professions

Manju Prasad‑Rao, Instructional Media Center, B. Davis Schwartz Memorial Library

Anne Burns, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, ex officio, Webmaster

Ali Atieh, ex officio, Office of Information Technology

Brooklyn Campus

Anthony DePass, Richard L. Connolly College of Liberal Arts and Sciences (Chairman)

Amy Patraka Ginsberg, School of Education

Ellen Becker, School of Health Professions

Donna Dolinsky, Arnold & Marie Schwartz College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences

Esther Levine-Brill, School of Nursing

Mohammed Ghriga, School of Business, Public Administration and Information Sciences

Devabrata Mondal, Faculty Resource Center

Ronald White, Continuing Studies

Robert Barry, ex officio, Webmaster

Delicia Garnes, ex officio, Office of Information Technology