Distance Education

1
University of Maryland University
CollegeClimbing the Mountain (and finding a
range!)Nick Allen, Provost CAO
WCET Conference November 9, 2002
2
A Global University

• Founded in 1947
• One of 11 degree-granting institutions of the
  University System of Maryland
• Mission to serve primarily adult and part-time
  students
• More than 80,000 students and 2,300 faculty
  worldwide
• More than 160 on-site locations worldwide

3
UMUC Worldwide
4
A University of Many Doors

• 79 Undergraduate Graduate Certificates
• Degrees Associate through Doctorate
• 21 Bachelors Degree Programs
• 18 Masters Degree Programs
• The Doctor of Management (DM)

5
Many Doors, Many Formats

• Face-to-face
• Distance delivery
• Web-based
• Interactive Video Network (IVN)
• Interactive Televideo (ITV)
• Voice mail
• Executive Programs
• Short Residency Programs
• Mixed Formats

6
A Virtual University
http//www.umuc.edu

• Nearly 30 years in distance education (ITV, IVN,
  Voicemail, Online)
• 18 masters and 17 bachelors degree programs
  available fully online
• Nearly 500 courses available online
• 58 graduate and undergraduate certificate
  programs available online
• More than 87,000 online enrollments in FY02

7
University of Maryland University CollegeOnline
Course Enrollments
8
The Path up the Mountain

• Key Decision Points

9
Key Decisions
I. Level of academic quality II. Level of
academic support III. Approach to online
curriculum development IV. Choice of delivery
paradigm V. Selection of delivery platform
10
I. Level of Academic Quality

• Online must equal face-to-face
• Faculty Knowledge/Skills F2F? v DE? v
• Student Outcomes F2F? v DE?
  v
• Faculty/Student Interactions F2F? v DE?
  v
• Student Engagement in F2F? v
  DE? v
• Learning
• Curriculum F2F? v
  DE? v
• Technology Information F2F? v DE? v
  Resources
• Assessment/Feedback F2F? v DE?
  v

11
II. Level of Academic Support

• A full package of support services must surround
  the online classroom
• Technology
• Library
• Faculty
• Student

12
III. Choice of Development Approach

• Craft vs. Team-based
• Internal vs. out-sourced

13
Broadcast Model vs. Interactive Model
IV. Choice of Delivery Paradigm

• One-way
• Independent study
• High multimedia
• Large class size

• Two-way conferencing
• Faculty-led cohorts
• Modest multimedia
• Limited class size

14
V. Selection of Delivery Platform

• Stay with own or outsource?
• The delivery platform must be
• Invisible
• Seamless and friendly
• Reliable
• Scalable

15
Elements of the Online Classroom
16
Challenges and Opportunities

• A Whole New Range

17
Financing a new generation of technology. . .

• while keeping online education accessible,
  affordable, and of high quality

18

• COST DRIVERS
• Delivery Platform and EIS
• 24/7 Technology Service
• 24/7 Library Service
• Student Success Center
• Faculty Training Support
• Class Size Limits

19

• Building a strong learning community with a
  distributed faculty

20

• Designing the next generation faculty training
  system that
• fosters faculty creativity and consistency
  online.

21

• Finding the correct mix of electronic textbooks
  and soft peripherals that add real value to our
  students learning experience and faculty
  capabilities.

22
Remaining a University of Many Doors. . .

• when our students want to move online

23
UMUC Online/Distance VS Face to Face Growth
4
15
81
Stateside FY 1997
24
UMUC Online/Distance VS Face to Face Growth
9
13
78
Stateside FY 1998
25
UMUC Online/Distance VS Face to Face Growth
20
13
67
Stateside FY 1999
26
UMUC Online/Distance VS Face to Face Growth
39
52
9
Stateside FY 2000
27
UMUC Online/Distance VS Face to Face Growth
51
45
5
Stateside FY 2001
28
UMUC Online/Distance VS Face to Face Growth
63
34
3
Stateside FY 2002
29

• Finding a new exam proctoring system that
• Assesses learning effectively
• Preserves faculty judgment creativity
• Is secure
• Is cost effective

30

• Identifying the key factors related to student
  persistence and retention in online courses and
  programs designing the right interventions.

31

• Building relationships with other universities
  that strengthen each partner and enable us to do
  what each alone could not.

32
Current Global Partners
GERMANY
FINLAND
RUSSIA
CHINA
SPAIN
JAPAN
ISU
OU
ISRAEL
FESU
NPU
HONG KONG
MEXICO
EGYPT
BRAZIL
NSYSU
SINGAPORE
ESPM
ARGENTINA
33

• Delivering educational opportunities across
  borders while dealing with a host of
  international regulatory issues.