Institutional challenges-Budget and technology

According to an estimate, 3.2 million students are currently enrolled in online programs in the United States (Allen & Seaman, 2006). The numbers are still showing good annual growth and are expected to rise further in near future. But, ’there are extensive issues
within an institution that must be resolved for an innovative online programs to succeed’, as Karen Kaminski and William D. Milheim refer in the "Institutional Challenges in the Creation and Delivery of an Online Degree Program".   

Among many of those extensive issues, for me, two issues seem vital in the development of an online program. The first one is the budget issue and the second one is technology environment.

  

The given graph clearly shows budget is one of the factors, that impede institutional efforts to expand online program development and management. A successful online program needs good infrastructure support. The administrators know that going online may not be profitable and easy. This fact is very well highlighted in case of CSU. There were budget issues because of which the number of courses was brought down to 15 initially. The online courses require periodic upgrading, along with regular repair and maintenance cost of hardware and software.  To start with, the program developers persuade faculty and students that the online software programs will be beneficial in the long run and it will clearly outweigh the cost in future.

In case the online software program needs an upgrading or change, both faculty  instructional services and personnel, and student services and students will again have to be trained, if required. Getting the instructors trained can be an expensive affair. Sometimes, selected representatives from various academic departments are sent for an online technology conference for training and professional development. In order to inspect the  software and keep it updated, technology experts are often called.   The experts may also train the faculty and staff members. All these things put strain on already tight budget allocation. Additionally, intellectual-property rights is a delicate, messy and expensive issue if not handled well.

The second caveat of a technology program is keeping it updated. A central principle of good online course design is to focus on the development and research that takes place through continuous cycles of design, enactment, analysis, and redesign (Cobb, 2001; Collins, 1992). Cobb, P. (2001). In order to take an online course, students need to have some advanced understandings of computer skills and technologies. Students should be familiar with a variety of computer skills, including file management, e-mail use, and website navigation. Also, online courses require students to meet specific deadlines for posting course assignments to the discussion forums or electronically submitting assignments to instructors (Gould, 2003). Moreover, the course management system (CMS) used in higher online education in the United States make use of management of course information, assignments, grades, and student records, delivery of tests, posting Web-based references, and communication capabilities. Administrators must choose the appropriate computer hardware and software so that the online experience is smooth and easy for the learners. Zemsky and Massey (2004) state, "We see the success of course management systems and PowerPoint-software packages that focus on the distribution of materials rather than on teaching itself". This point is further supported by Herrington, Reeves, & Oliver (2005). "The ultimate technical goal for facilitators, according to Berge, is to "make the technology transparent." When this occurs, learners may concentrate on the academic task at hand. The more familiar facilitators are with the technology, the more they can focus on learners rather than technology"(Wearing Four Pairs of Shoes: The Roles of E-Learning Facilitators By Ed Hootstein).

Some institutions having inadequate technological support mechanisms are struggling with programmatic changes to meet the demands of online learners.In an incompatible technology environment faculty and students may experience frustration. Moreover, students usually do not have the patience and solution for unexpected technical difficulties arising because of slow Internet lag time, computer or browser related issues. This fact is very well established by looking at the high volume of phone calls on support desk, e-mails and voice-mail in the initial stages of the course. Online courses should use the technologies those are fully operational at homes, cyber café or the library(Berger, 1999).

Another very crucial aspect is that program website   needs to be updated regularly. The website must  explain admission process, deadlines, fee, curriculum, information about faculty, support services contact information, FAQs, troubleshooting, financing information and other such details explicitly. If the online support and the information is clear and  user-friendly, it will be  motivating for faculty and students. Thus, as Karen Kaminski and William D. Milheim, mention that, an institute or the university has to develop and maintain an up-to-date  website  about the program, various procedures, and specific deadlines. 

Conclusion: Online course design and development requires an updated, user friendly technology and often involve significant start-up costs.

References:

Allen, I. E., and Seaman, J. (2006), Making the Grade: Online Education in the United States. Needham, MA:The Sloan Consortium.

Berger, N.S. (1999). Pioneering experiences in distance learning: Lessons learned. Journal of Management Education, 23(6), 684-690.

Collins, A. (1992). Toward a design science of education. In E. Scanlon & T. O'Shea (Eds.), New directions in educational technology (pp. 15-22). New York: Springer-Verlag.

Diana Oblinger, "A Board's-Eye View of Online Education." September/ October 2007. "Technology in Context: 10 Considerations for Governing Boards of Colleges and Universities" (AGB Press, 2010). The Campus Computing Project, www. campuscomputing.net.

Gould, T. (2003). Hybrid classes: Maximizing institutional resources and student learning. Proceedings of the 2003 ASCUE Conference, June 8-12, 2003, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. Retrieved on July 4, 2009, from www.ascue.org

Herrington, J., Reeves, T., & Oliver, R. (2005). Online learning as information delivery: Digital myopia. Journal of Interactive Learning Research

Minielli, M. C., & Pixy Ferris, S. (2005). Electronic courseware in higher education. First Monday, 70(9). Retrieved July 5, 2007, from http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue 10_9/minielli/index.html

 Zemsky, R, & Massy, W. (2004) Thwarted Innovation: What happened to elearning and why? A Final Report for The Weatherstation Project of The Learning Alliance at the University of Pennsylvania. Retrieved July 3, 2007, from http:// www.thelearningalliance.info/WeatherStation.html).

Creating new work takes time. In modern era, time is money. The creation of new   work takes time which should equal money. Thus, proper compensation and rights over the work is need of the hour. The United States government is constitutionally committed to protect the property rights of its citizens in their creations.

"The primary objective of copyright is not to reward the labor of authors, but "[t]o promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts." To this end, copyright assures authors the right to their original expression, but encourages others to build freely upon the ideas and information conveyed by a work. This result is neither unfair nor unfortunate. It is the means by which copyright advances the progress of science and art." 

One of the issues you discussed was of convincing the’ fellow faculty members that this form of instruction will not destroy their job security as we lead the district to understand what online teaching and learning really is.’ I can totally understand the worries of teachers. Teachers are expected to do administrative work, organize meetings with school teachers and students, design procedures for using online environment in the classroom, and eventually improve and maintain that after their use in the classroom (Combes & Valli, 2007). Additionally, they have little control over technical issues( because of the absence of  professional developers and usability specialists to assist them). But, their pedagogical background in teacher education is clearly an advantage when it comes to pedagogical design. Thus, What I think is that we need to further simplify the technological environment for school children especially so that it is becomes easier for teachers and students to use it without apprehensions.

Reference:

Combes, B., & Valli, R. (2007). The future of learning objects in educational settings. In K. Harman & A. Koohang (Eds.), Learning objects: Applications, implications, & future directions (pp. 423-461). Santa Rosa, CA: Informing Science Press.