2011 Distance Education Survey Results by ITC

Trends in eLearning: Tracking The impacT of eLearning aT communiTy coLLeges

2011 DISTANCE EDUCATION SURVEY RESULTS

march 2012

ITC 2011 DISTANCE EDUCATION SURVEY RESULTS2 ITC 2011 DISTANCE EDUCATION SURVEY RESULTS

IN FOCUS: THE YEAR IN REVIEW 2011THE GREAT RECESSION CONTINUESMost states and campuses have adjusted to doing more with less as the effects of the Great Recession have lingered into 2011. The economic downturn has impacted higher education as a whole, and distance education programs have suffered, especially in the areas of budget and staffing. Colleges have lacked the funding to address the chronic problems of student retention, course quality, ADA compliance, faculty training, student preparedness and accreditation-based assessment.

Moving to the CloudAfter years of talking about cloud computing, the past year has seen an explosion in the actual deployment and usage of cloud-based solutions. Most importantly, cloud-based solutions have accelerated the shift toward the use of shared applications and mobile devices for accessing content. A growing number of learning management system platforms are now cloud-based, providing colleges with an alternative to corporate-based models.

Shifting to Mobile deviCeSCloud computing, enhanced wireless network capacities, and growing interest among students and staff have challenged distance educators to find ways to make higher education fit on increasingly smaller mobile devices. Courses that are available on smartphones and tablet computers can make higher educational opportunities more accessible and flexible. This trend has prompted educators to examine what constitutes educational content and student learning, and to find better ways to package and deliver these materials to students.

the future of the learning ManageMent SySteMA growing chorus has questioned the future of the learning management system (LMS), claiming it is a dated relic of the past. They express frustration with the corporate mentality many LMS owners have exhibited, which has resulted in mergers, consolidations and “end of life” decisions.

Cloud computing offers an alternative platform that can give educators greater control over their virtual learning environment. Many campuses are looking to save on licensing costs, especially during the recent economic downturn, and have switched to open source solutions like Moodle and Sakai.

On the other hand, the LMS offers educators a one-stop solution for offering online courses—a package that responds to myriad expectations, such as ADA compliance, financial aid, student assessment, reporting and tracking, student authentication and technical support.

regional aCCreditationIn the fall of 2011, the Council of Regional Accrediting Commissions (C-RAC) developed the Interregional Guidelines for the Evaluation of Distance Education (Online Learning). These guidelines are designed to help institutions plan for distance education programming and to provide an assessment framework for institutions already involved in distance education. All of the regional higher education accrediting

Trends in eLearning: Tracking The impacT of eLearning aT communiTy coLLeges 3

organizations in the United States have adopted and endorsed these guidelines, which are intended for use by accreditation evaluation teams. The interregional guidelines replace the C-RAC Statement of Best Practices for Electronically Offered Degree and Certificate Programs, which the Middle States Commission on Higher Education published in 2002, and are intended to be used in conjunction with the relevant standards and policies of each accreditor.

To view the guidelines, visit www.msche.org/publications/Guidelines-for-the-Evaluation-of-Distance-Education-Programs.pdf

open eduCational reSourCeS“Open Educational Resources (OER) are materials used to support education that may be freely accessed, reused, modified and shared by anyone,” writes Stephen Downes, senior researcher at the National Research University of Canada. The proliferation of smartphones, tablet computers, eBooks, other technology tools, and high-speed Internet access has given students the ability to access high-quality learning materials at no cost. Meanwhile, K-12 schools, states, and the federal government view OERs as a tool to help save precious financial resources, as students balk at the ever-increasing cost of textbooks.

The publishing community is looking for successful models that can make this trend toward OERs financially sustainable. Additional resources and information about OERs are available from the OpenCourseWare Consortium, Creative Commons, Community College Consortium for Open Educational Resources, Open Course Library, Saylor Foundation, Kaleidoscope Project, OpenLearn and SCORE.

inCreaSing federal engageMentNot surprisingly, the federal and state government’s interest in distance education has intensified, as student demand and enrollment in distance education has increased. Congress reauthorizes the Higher Education Act of 1965 every four to six years, so distance educators need to pay close attention to any new regulations Congress may attempt to put in place by 2014. Some key issues include:

• StateAuthorizationforInstitutionsOfferingDistanceEducationtoOut-of-StateStudents

If an institution is offering postsecondary education through distance or correspondence education to students in a State in which it is not physically located, the institution must meet any State requirements for it to be legally offering postsecondary distance or correspondence education in that State. We are further providing that an institution must be able to document upon request by the Department that it has the applicable State approval.

—Oct. 29, 2010 Amendments to the Higher Education Act Program Integrity Issues, State Authorization, Section §600.9.

The Department of Education proposed this regulation in accordance with Congress’ reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, also called the Higher Education Opportunities Act in 2008. However, on July 12, 2011, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia struck down this controversial part of the regulations, stating the Department did not follow proper procedures when it issued this rule in October 2010. The Department appealed the court decision on September 8, 2011. Unfortunately, the Senate is unlikely to follow the House of Representative’s February 28, 2012 vote to repeal the state authorization legislation, so distance educators must wait to see if the Department’s appeal will succeed.

ITC 2011 DISTANCE EDUCATION SURVEY RESULTS4

Regardless of the court’s action, the Department’s October 2010 proposal raised states’ awareness of their legal authority to require out-of-state higher education institutions to seek permission to teach their residents online. The proposal also prompted state governments to learn about the variety and scope of out-of-state distance education programs.

During the past year, many states have been scrambling to get their regulations in order—since they are beginning to be inundated with authorization requests from out-of-state distance learning institutions. States continue to require authorization for out-of-state colleges that have a “point of presence” within their borders, but they have different definitions for what constitutes “presence.” For example, presence could be triggered when an out-of-state institution has a recruitment office or advertises online courses within its borders; employs state residents as online instructors or offers online courses to more than one resident; or even if it contracts with a hospital to offer local clinical internships or library access to its online students.

To help institutions comply with state regulations, the State Higher Education Executive Officers (SHEEO) has created several invaluable directories, which they update regularly. These directories include state-by-state agency and contact information. They also include data on the types of educational providers they authorize, exemptions, physical presence policy (triggers), application processes, associated fees, interstate reciprocity agreements, contact information for consumer/student protection and student complaints, legislative or regulatory changes, and enforcement measures. Visit www.sheeo.org/stateauth/stateauth-home.htm to access these resourses.

The Council of State Governments is coordinating an effort to create a state compact, or reciprocity agreement, in which states would agree to recognize accredited, out-of state institutions. The participants hope to have a draft available in the summer of 2012, so each state could begin obtaining individual state legislative support for such an agreement.

• FinancialAidFraudRings

On September 26, 2011, the Office of the Inspector General released a report which alerted the Department of Education and higher education institutions to the presence of an increasing number of financial aid fraud rings that have targeted community colleges and other distance learning course providers. To learn more about the report, visit www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oig/invtreports/l42l0001.pdf.

The members of these rings have applied for, and obtained, student financial aid after enrolling to take courses which they never intended to complete from higher education institutions. Typically, a ringleader steals the social security numbers or other information he or she needs to fabricate a group of straw students, or individuals provide their personal information in exchange for a portion of the proceeds.

During the past year, the University of Phoenix has discovered 810 fraud rings made up of 18,000 individuals. Financial aid staff at American Public University received 68,000 harassing phone calls from “students” located in two Mississippi zip codes. The fraud rings have targeted community colleges due to their lower tuition rates, since a balance remains after tuition is paid to cover housing and other expenses. Rio Salado Community College helped convict and sentence 64 individuals who tried to defraud their institution of $538,000. Six individuals were indicted and pled guilty for enrolling 62 straw students in order to steal $200,000 from Los Rios Community College District.


On October 20, 2011, the Department of Education sent higher education institutions a “dear colleague” letter which stated that “detecting fraud before funds have been disbursed is the best way to combat this crime. We therefore seek the help of institutions and advise that you take... additional actions to identify and prevent the kind of student aid fraud identified in the IG’s report.”

Examples of measures institutions have instituted to combat these perpetrators have included:

• Creatinganinterdepartmental“fraudsquad”tomonitorpotentialillegalactivity,

• Creatinganinstitutionalpolicytodenyaidtosuspiciousindividual(s),

• Providingenhancedtrainingtostudentfinancialaidstaff—givingthemtheconfidencetodenyfinancial aid to suspicious students,

• Waitingtwoweeksbeforedispersingfinancialaid,

• Givingstudentspartialfinancialaidpaymentsthroughouttheterminsteadofonelumpsum,

• Recordingunsatisfactoryacademicperformance,

• Lookingtwiceatindividualswhohavemultipleaddresses,similarIPorhomeaddresses,orunusualstudent enrollment clusters,

• Creatingasystemsofacultycanreportsimilarstudentassignmentstoalertstaffabouttrends,

• Requiringstudentstoattendanorientationwhentheyenroll,

• Requiringstudentstoprovideacopyoftheirhigh-schooltranscriptwhentheyenroll.

Visit http://ifap.ed.gov/dpcletters/GEN1117.html for more steps institutions can take to deter these crimes.

• StudentAuthentication

When it reauthorized the Higher Education Act, also called the Higher Education Opportunities Act, in 2008, Congress required institutions offering distance education and correspondence education to “have processes in place through which the institution establishes that the student who registers in a distance education or correspondence education course or program is the same student who participates in and completes the course or program and receives the academic credit.”

In its rulemaking proceeding, the Department of Education clarified that accrediting bodies only need to require “institutions to verify the identity of a student who participates in class or coursework by using, at the option of the institution, methods such as—a secure login and pass code, proctored examinations, and new or other technologies and practices that are effective—in verifying student identification.” This allows institutions to continue using the process they typically use to authenticate their online students within their course management system—a login and password—rather than impose a more rigorous or costly method.

Attempts to reign in the financial aid fraud rings could result in changes to this regulation, when Congress reauthorizes the Higher Education Act in 2014. Visit www2.ed.gov/policy/highered/leg/hea08/index.html for more information.


itC Survey hiStoryThe Instructional Technology Council (ITC) created its annual distance education survey in the fall of 2004, to respond to the growing need for national data related to distance learning program creation and development and to track key issues for faculty and students. Distance education practitioners have used data from the U.S. Department of Education and the annual series of reports by Sloan-C, but the landscape lacked a reliable source of longitudinal data gathered on a regular basis. The ITC Survey is designed to fill that gap, particularly given the “newness” of online instruction. Core survey questions have remained unchanged, however, ITC added additional questions on the use of assisted, hybrid and live interactive video courses in 2008, questions pertaining to student authentication in 2009, and questions about state authorization in this survey.

The ITC board conducted its first survey in the spring of 2005. Since many institutions do not gather or report information in the same way, some respondents had difficulty answering certain key questions. The board refined the questions and reissued the survey in the fall of 2005. Since then, the survey window has fallen between late October and early November. In the fall of 2006, ITC distributed the survey to the full membership of the American Association of Community Colleges (AACC). Subsequent surveys have focused on ITC members in odd years and the combined ITC and AACC memberships in even years.

Survey Method

Distance education practitioners developed and reviewed the survey questions to ensure the data and information generated is of value to distance learning administrators and faculty. The authors divided the questions into four categories: general information, administrative, faculty, and student services.

ITC e-mailed the survey to all member representatives (usually the director of the distance learning program) at 375 member institutions of the ITC. ITC received 143 completed responses. The completed surveys were reviewed to ensure a representative sample of institutions participated. The review confirmed an acceptable response rate, and an acceptable distribution of completed surveys, from a range of institution sizes and locations. For all percentages included in this report, “no answer” responses are not listed—consequently, data will not always equal 100 percent.

Typically, the distance education administrator completed the survey on behalf of his or her institution. A longitudinal review established a strong continuity amongst completers—70 percent of the annual submissions have come from the same campuses during the seven years of the survey.

diStribution of reSultSFred Lokken, the survey’s author, past chair of ITC, and associate dean of the TMCC WebCollege at Truckee Meadows Community College, presented the preliminary results at ITC’s annual eLearning 2012 conference in Long Beach, California on Feb. 18, 2012. Fred Lokken will present highlights from the survey findings at ITC’s sponsored forum at the annual convention of the American Association of Community Colleges (AACC) in Orlando, Florida on April 23, 2012. ITC will mail a printed version of the survey to ITC members and to the community college presidents of all AACC-member institutions. ITC will also post an electronic version of the results on its Web site, at www.itcnetwork.org.


2011 SURVEY RESULTSgeneral inforMation

InstitutionsSurveyed. More than 89 percent of respondents identifi ed themselves as associate’s colleges (81.43 percent) or associate’s dominant colleges (7.86 percent). For information on institutional classifi cations, visit http://classifi cations.carnegiefoundation.org/descriptions/ugrad_program.php.

DistanceEducationEnrollmentGrowth. ITC asked respondents to report comparative enrollment trends in distance education from Fall 2010 to Fall 2011 (the most recent full year of available data). Campuses reported an 8.2 percent increase for distance education enrollments—substantially higher than the overall increase in national campus enrollments, which averaged less than one percent nationally (Going the Distance: Online Education in the United States 2011, p. 4). Distance enrollment increased nine percent in 2010.

The Sloan Consortium reported a ten percent growth in distance learning enrollments in its study, “Going the Distance, Online Education in the United States 2011.” Both surveys confi rm two major trends: (1) online enrollments have been the predominant source of enrollment increases in higher education for the last decade, far out-stripping traditional enrollments, and (2) the growth in online enrollments is slowing (from a high of more than 20 percent growth a few years ago, to a more modest eight to 10 percent growth last year).

ITC asked respondents to identify factors which contributed to the increased eLearning enrollments:

reasons Cited for increased elearning enrollments

Reason 2011 2010

Economic downturn 22 percent 37 percent

Typical distance education growth 28 percent 39 percent

New enrollment initiative 14 percent 12 percent

Don’t know 7 percent 5 percent

Other 13 percent 7 percent

DirectReportLine. In 2011, more than 72 percent of respondents indicated they reported to the vice president of academic affairs or an academic dean. This fi gure is up more than two percentage points over last year’s results and affi rms that the trend toward reporting to the academic, rather than the technological side of the institution, continues to increase. Three percent of respondents reported directly to the president (down from six percent last year). More than three percent reported to a vice president for technology and 7.5 percent reported to a non-academic dean.

Challenges for

Administrators

• Theprogramtothispointhasundergonevirtuallynooversightorcoordination.

• Now,asweattempttoofferacohesivedistanceedproduct,wehavetodomanytasksatonce—implement faculty training, course quality reviews and improved student services.

• Decentralizationtothispointismakingitdifficulttogainacceptanceforcentralizedresponsibility/authority needed to bring the program into line with our vision for a quality, student-centered distance education program.

—2011 ITC Survey Respondents


adMiniStrative QueStionS

Challenges. ITC asked respondents to rank the challenges their distance education program faces. For the past seven years, the number one challenge was the need for support staff for training and technical assistance. In 2011, the greatest challenge was providing adequate student services for distance education students. Many campuses have seen a significant reduction in student services staff due to budget cuts.

In 2009, ITC added two new challenges: adequate assessment of distance education classes and compliance with the student authentication requirements in the 2008 reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. Offering adequate assessment of distance education courses has emerged as a significant challenge, ranked consistently as one of the administrators’ top three concerns. In 2011, ITC added two more additional challenges: compliance with the new student financial aid attendance requirements and the new state authorization regulations.


Chart 1: greatest Challenges for distance education programs administrators

Range for responses—1 is the greatest challenge, 8 is the least challenging

ChallengeRank 2011

Rank 2010

Rank 2009

Rank 2008

Rank 2007

Rank 2006

Rank 2005

Rank 2004

Adequate student services for distance education students

1 3 2 2 2 3 5 2

Adequate assessment of distance education classes

2 2 3

Compliance with new financial aid attendance requirements

3

Operating and equipment budgets 4 4 4 3 3 2 2 3

Faculty acceptance 5 7 6 5 4 5 3 4

Organizational acceptance 6 8 8 7 7 7 6 6

Support staff needed for training and technical assistance

7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Adequate administrative authority 8 5 5 4 5 4 4 5

Adequate space for training and technical assistance

9 6 7 6 6 6 7 7

Student authentication 10

State authorization regulations 11

Student acceptance 12 10 10 8 8 8 8 8

LearningManagementSystemUsage. In 2011, 52 percent of respondents reported they used Blackboard/Angel learning management systems (LMS) (up from 50 percent in 2010, 51 percent in 2009, and down from 56 percent in 2008). Blackboard may have stemmed its steady decline in market share, which it experienced despite acquiring WebCT in 2005 and Angel Learning in 2009. Eight years ago, Blackboard and WebCT dominated with nearly 98 percent of the market. Clearly, other solutions from the changing LMS landscape, such as Desire2Learn and Moodle, have benefited.

In 2011, 36 percent of respondents indicated they were considering switching their LMS in the next few years. This one-third response rate has been consistent for the past six years. Fifty-six percent of this year’s participants reported they do not plan to switch their LMS.

Sixty-seven percent of responding institutions restrict the number of LMS platforms the campus will support. Table 1 provides the response pattern over the past five years. Variations in institutions participating in the survey from year to year can cloud the data and create anomalies.


• Assuring Quality.

• We are involved in using Quality Matters and the Maryland Online COAT project, but continue to develop faculty to assure quality is an ongoing pressure.

• We do not always meet our goals well due to time constraints and the heavy load we put on distance education faculty for other reasons.

—2011 ITC Survey Respondent

Challenges for

Administrators

40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%

Blackboard WebCT Angel Moodle Desire2Learn”

20082007 2009 2010 2011

table 1: lMS usage

Chart 1: greatest Challenges for distance education programs administrators


AccessibilityCompliance. ITC has tracked a steady decline in confi dence in Section 504 and Section 508 compliance since it began asking survey participants about the accessibility of their online classes four years ago.

Completelycompliantormostlycompliant

Somecompliant

2011 53% 39%

2010 43% 28%

2009 54% 21%

2008 73% 26%

OnlineDegrees. ITC defi ned an online degree program as one in which at least 70 percent of coursework need to complete the degree is available online. Seventy-eight percent of respondents reported they offer at least one online degree program. This is consistent with the 2010 data. Sixty-six percent of respondents reported they also offer complete certifi cate programs online. Table 2 offers a percentage breakdown by degree type.

50%

45%

40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%

AA Degree AS Degree AAS Degree AGS Degree BA Degree BS Degree

2009 2010 2011

table 2: online degrees offered by degree type


CourseEnrollmentCaps. Seventy-nine percent of respondents indicated they cap online class enrollments—a fi gure that has not changed substantially in the past fi ve years. The typical enrollment cap by class type also remained consistent. Most respondents used the following limits:

• Twenty-fivestudentsforanintroductorymathclass

• Twenty-fivestudentsforanintroductoryEnglishcomposition class

• Twenty-sevenstudentsforanintroductorypolitical science class

ClassHosting. ITC confi rmed that most colleges outsource the hosting services (i.e. servers) for their online classes to a third party, or use the services of a consortium. This trend could refl ect budget and staffi ng reductions at a growing number of institutions. In addition, LMS solutions increasingly stipulate that the college uses the company’s Web site to access their course materials. The survey found that:

• Thirty-sixpercentofrespondentsownandmaintained their own servers—down from 50 percent in 2008 and unchanged from 2010.

• Forty-fivepercentofrespondentsoutsourcedtheirserver needs to a third party, such as a learning management system provider, publisher or IT provider—up from 36 percent in 2010.

• Elevenpercentofrespondentssharedserverswith others, such as a state system, district or consortium—down from seven percent from 2010.

CourseContentDevelopment. Colleges have several options for online course content development. They can use their faculty, instructional designers and administrative staff to develop their online course content, use materials offered by a textbook publisher, or purchase content from a online

course content provider. Finding adequate staffi ng is a challenge for community college administrators, but fi nding staff who are experienced in instructional design is especially diffi cult.

Once again, ITC confi rmed that most colleges develop their own content:

• Seventy-ninepercentdeveloptheirowncontent.

• Nineteenpercentusecontentcreatedbythetextbook publisher.

• Twopercentcontractorlicensematerialsfromacontent provider.

MostDifficultClasses. Respondents identifi ed the most diffi cult courses to offer online, citing faculty resistance and/or pedagogical challenges. This list of results has not changed for the duration of the ITC survey.

The list of most diffi cult classes included:

Buy-in from student services personnel, providing Web-based information and services through traditional service areas with cross-trained staff.


Challenges for

Administrators

• Clinicalrequirements

• Computerhardware

• Finearts

• Foreignlanguage

• Industrialtechnology

• Lab-basedscience

• Math

• Nursing

• Speech

CourseEquivalency. Accreditation standards require that distance education courses are equivalent or better than those taught in a face-to-face environment, in terms of content and rigor. In 2011, nearly 80 percent of respondents indicated their online classes were “equivalent” or “superior” to traditional instruction at their campus. This percentage was a signifi cant drop from 2010’s 95 percent rating. Thirteen percent indicated their classes needed improvement. Time will tell whether these fi gures constitute an anomaly or indicate that distance educators have become more sophisticated appraisers of course quality.


ServicesandTechnologySupport. Regional accrediting agencies also require that institutions offer distance learning students support services equivalent to their face-to-face counterparts. As the number of online students has grown, most campuses have recognized the need to introduce or expand their virtual services and support. However, 2011 respondents reported a marked decrease in their online student support service offerings, despite the consistent increase shown in previous years. This could be due to budget cuts that reduced staff numbers and colleges’ ability to contract with outside vendors. Chart 2 details the participants’ responses to this section.

Chart 2: Status report—Student Services and technology Support

Service/Technology Currently offerPlan to offer in next year

Plan to offer in two or more years

No plan to offer

2011 2010 2005 2011 2010 2005 2011 2010 2011 2010

Audio/video streaming 68% 77% 46% 12% 9% 20% 4% 7% 8% 7%

Campus testing center for distance education students

68% 81% 69% 1% 5% 3% 11% 1% 9% 12%

Dedicated Web site for distance education program and students

65% 88% 80% 8% 4% 6% 4% 1% 12% 7%

Distance education-specific faculty training

85% 95% 92% 4% 4% 4% 1% 0 0% 1%

HelpDesk and technical support for distance education faculty

86% 94% 91% 2% 2% 5% 0% 2% 2% 1%

HelpDesk and technical support for distance education students

85%* 93% 86% 2% 2% 11% 0% 2% 3% 2%

24/7 HelpDesk and technical support for distance education faculty/students**

35% 6% 9% 38%

Online admission to institution 82% 94% 77% 4% 4% 14% 2% 1% 2% 1%

Online counseling and advising services

49% 60% 49% 16% 17% 27% 12% 14% 12% 9%

Online information and application for financial aid

82% 86% 80% 4% 6% 15% 4% 5% 1% 2%

Online library services and resources

88% 94% 98% 1% 4% 1% 2% 1% 0% 1%

Online payment of tuition and fees 85% 93% 77% 0% 5% 15% 5% 1% 1% 1%

Online plagiarism evaluation 56% 53% 40% 8% 23% 25% 10% 11% 13% 13%

Online registration for classes 86% 94% 86% 1% 2% 9% 2% 2% 1% 1%

Online student course evaluation 79% 85% 83% 7% 8% 11% 2% 4% 2% 4%

Online student organization, Web site and services

49% 54% 42% 9% 21% 20% 12% 13% 18% 13%

Online student orientation for distance education classes

63% 79% 75% 19% 16% 17% 5% 2% 2% 2%

Online textbook sales 79% 75% 70% 5% 8% 7% 2% 5% 3% 13%

Online tutoring assistance 75% 71% 44% 11% 17% 15% 2% 9% 4% 4%

Campus Web portal 62% 73% NA 8% 14% NA 12% 6% 8% 7%

Audio Podcasting 65% 69% NA 9% 20% NA 3% 4% 10% 8%

Vodcasting 58% 59% NA 13% 24% NA 5% 1% 13% 6%

Digital video repository** 44% 9% 10% 24%

** New question


DistanceEducationFees.Thirty-nine percent of the respondents charge students an additional per-credit fee to take distance education classes. This is consistent with past surveys. Respondents charged between four and 75 dollars, with a median average of 23 dollars. Some campuses have begun integrating related program costs into existing budgets, reducing the need for a separate fee, while others have shifted new costs onto students to make up for budget shortfalls.

The decision of whether to assess a separate student fee is tied closely to the institution’s culture, and the number of fees the college already charges students. Although some campuses have shifted their eLearning programs to self-supporting (or assisted) models, most programs continue to receive mainstream budget support. Community colleges are often sensitive to the issue of assessing additional fees, especially during these recessionary times.

CourSe forMatS in teChnology-Mediated inStruCtion

In 2008, ITC introduced several questions concerning blended/hybrid and Web-facilitated courses. The survey defi ned a “blended” or “hybrid” course as one that blends online with face-to-face delivery; 30 to 79 percent of content is delivered online, with online discussions and some face-to-face meetings. A “Web-facilitated” course (also known as “Web-enhanced” or “Web-assisted”) is a face-to-face program that incorporates the Web to facilitate activities; one to 29 percent of content is delivered online. Instructors often post the syllabus and assignments within a learning management system or on a Web page.

Certain faculty groups are resistant to online course development, particularly in the area of science labs and online testing (proctoring).


Challenges for

Administrators

Challenges for

Administrators

• Wehavemorestudentdemandfordistanceeducationcoursesthanwehavefacultytrained to build and teach them.

• WeoftenneedtohelpfacultyandstaffunderstandthatK-12studentshavehadtheirhands held all through school and fi rst-time college students have a diffi cult time transitioning.

• eLearningshouldfocusonprovidingstudentswithaneaseofstudy,notaconvenienceforfaculty.


TypeofCourseFormatsOffered

Respondents identifi ed the formats their technology-delivered credit courses use. The distribution of classes has remained mostly unchanged since 2008, except for completely online classes, which decreased 16 percent from 2008. Survey respondents could identify more than one format. Their responses are summarized below:

• Sixty-threepercentofrespondentsoffercompletely online classes

• Twenty-sevenpercentofrespondentsofferblended/hybrid courses

• Onepercentofrespondentsoffercable/telecoursecourses

• Onepercentofrespondentsofferotherformsoftelecourse classes

• Fivepercentofrespondentsofferliveinteractivevideo courses

Blended/HybridCourses

• Fifty-fivepercentcontinuetoincreasethenumberof blended/hybrid courses each term—up from 53 percent in 2009, but down from 75 percent in 2010.


Lack of data tools and staff resources to collect and report effectiveness in support of continuous improvement; time and decision-making challenges of a large and complex organization in a world that demands constant change and agile/adaptable operations.


Challenges for

Administrators

• Twenty-twopercentofferaboutthesamenumber

of blended/hybrid courses each term—up from 18

percent reported in 2010.

• Twopercentareofferingtheseblended/hybrid

classes for the fi rst time—down from 6 percent

reported in 2010.

• Twopercentdonotofferblended/hybridcourses.

Web-assisted/Web-enhanced/Web-facilitatedCourses

• Sixty-ninepercentcontinuetoincreasethe

number of these classes each term (as compared

with 77 percent in 2009 and 81 percent in 2010).

• Eightpercentofferaboutthesamenumberof

these classes each term, consistent with the past

several years of reporting.

InteractiveVideoCourses

Given the growth of and focus on online courses and degrees, many surveys have overlooked more established technologies, such as interactive video classrooms. Respondents described their use of live interactive video.

• Twenty-fivepercentofferthesamenumberofliveinteractive video courses each term—this is down slightly from 2010.

• Seventeenpercenthavereducedthenumberoflive interactive video courses each term—this is down slightly from 2010.

• Tenpercenthaveincreasedthenumberofliveinteractive video courses each term—this is down from 17 percent in 2010 and 26 percent in 2009.

• Twenty-fivepercenthavedeactivatedtheirnetwork or have never offered live interactive video courses—this is consistent with 2010 and down from 40 percent in 2009.


faCulty QueStionS

Challenges. Administrators ranked the greatest faculty-related challenges they face. Addressing faculty workload issues was their major challenge for the fi rst six years of the survey. Although training replaced this concern in 2010, workload issues emerged again as the key concern in 2011. Chart 3 shows which issues have been consistently ranked as areas of concern.

Chart 3: greatest Challenges administrators face regarding distance learning faculty


ChallengeRank 2011

Rank 2010

Rank 2009

Rank 2008

Rank 2007

Rank 2006

Rank 2005

Rank 2004

Workload issues 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1

Training 2 1 2 2 2 2 3 4

Technical support 3 4 6 4 5 5 6 5

Compensation 4 3 5 3 3 3 5 2

Buy-in to electronically-delivered instruction

5 5 4 5 4 4 4 3

Recruitment 7 6 3 6 6 6 2 6

Intellectual property/ownership issues

6 7 7 7 7 7 7 7

Challenges for

Administrators

• Havingthetimeandresourcestopilotinnovativeprograms.

• Havingenoughsupportstafftoaccomplishdepartmentgoals.



FacultyTraining. Faculty must take distance education training programs at 64 percent of the participating colleges, a number that has been consistent for the past four surveys. Administrators that hold faculty training programs also reported an increase in the number of hours of training required—most require more than eight hours. The survey found:

• Twenty-sixpercentrequirelessthaneighthoursoftraining

• Elevenpercentrequireeighthoursoftraining

• Fifty-ninepercentrequiremorethaneighthoursoftraining

TeachingRatiosforOnlineInstruction. Full-time faculty teach 61 percent of distance education classes. Five percent more part-time faculty are teaching online classes than in 2010. These results align with the historic full-time vs. part-time faculty ratio that face-to-face classes at most community colleges experience. Distance learning administrators continue to report that they have a hard time fi nding qualifi ed faculty to teach online.

FacultyLocation. In 2011, 30 percent of the responding institutions allow full-time faculty members to teach from out-of-city or out-of-state locations, a decrease from 40 percent in 2010. Few campuses look beyond their own instructors to teach online. However, since most campuses have saturated their use of existing full-time faculty members who want to teach online, more are recruiting statewide, regionally, or nationally to fi nd instructors who are already trained to teach virtually and have a proven track record.

LimitingtheNumberofClassesTaught. Thirty-four percent of respondents limit the number of online class sections a full-time faculty member can teach

during a given period. For campuses that imposed these restrictions, the normal limit is half of the overall teaching load each term.

CourseOwnership. Most institutions have established policies to address intellectual property rights for distance education faculty and instructional designers. Most have adopted “work for hire” contracts, but intellectual property ownership can be part of the staff person’s contract negotiations, especially for those colleges that have faculty unions. In the absence of such an agreement, the content usually remains under the control of the faculty member. Specifi cally, the ITC survey found:

• Elevenpercentreportedthatfacultyownthecourse content

• Thirty-fourpercentreportedthattheinstitutionowns the course content

• Forty-onepercentreportedthatboththefacultymember and the institution own the course content

• Fivepercentreportedthattheissueofownershiphas not been defi ned on their campus

Many campuses and college systems have also devised policies for intellectual property rights.

• Eightpercenthaveaninformalpolicyfordistanceeducation in particular

• Thirteenpercenthaveaformalpolicyfordistanceeducation in particular

• Forty-sixpercenthaveaformalpolicyforallcourses (that is not distance education-specifi c)

• Thirteenpercentfollowaformaldistrict-wideorstatewide policy ( that is not distance education-specifi c)

• Threepercenthavenoformalpolicy

Challenges for

Administrators

The ability to train faculty to quickly offer additional sections of courses when needed.



Student QueStionS

The ITC survey continues to affi rm what seems to be obvious—a seemingly endless number of students like online classes and want more of them. Administrators also report a chronic gap between student demand and the number of available courses. Recent budget cutbacks have exacerbated the situation by reducing, rather than increasing, the number of online class sections available.

Although increased enrollments and perpetual demand are generally good problems to have, administrators have also reported the apparent lack of student preparedness for online learning. They see a lack of basic computer skills, a misunderstanding of the online learning environment, and insuffi cient student study skills. These issues coincide with the national call to improve overall student retention and persistence rates.

For the past eight years, ITC has asked distance learning administrators about their greatest student-related challenges. The 2011 results mirrored the feedback from 2010, although the challenge of orientation and preparation returned to the number one position. Chart 4 details the trends the survey has documented since 2004.

Chart 4: greatest Challenges for Students enrolled in distance education Classes


ChallengeRank 2011

Rank 2010

Rank 2009

Rank 2008

Rank 2007

Rank 2006

Rank 2005

Rank 2004

Orientation/preparation for taking distance education classes

1 2 1 2 2 1 1 1

Assessing student learning and performance in distance education classes

2 1 2 1 3 2 2 2

Low student completion rate 3 3 6 4 6 5 4 6

Computer problems/technical support

4 4 3 3 4 3 6 3

Providing equivalent student services virtually

5 5 4 5 5 4 3 4

Completion of student evaluations

6 6 5 6 1 6 5 5

Cheating 7 7 7 7 7 7 - 7

Recruitment/interest in distance education by students

8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8

Challenges for

Administrators

• Need to increase number of online or hybrid sections to keep up with student demand.

• Distance Learning does not have “control” over the courses (the courses are scheduled and faculty assigned).



CompletionRates. Student retention and completion issues have plagued administrators since the inception of distance learning. During the early years, retention and completion rates could easily fall below 50 percent. However, despite continued misconceptions, studies consistently report that colleges have positively addressed this challenge—the gap between online retention and traditional enrollment retention now averages eight percent. In 2011, administrators reported the following information about distance education class retention rates.

• Fortypercentsaidretentioniscomparableforonline and traditional instruction at their college

• Fifty-threepercentsaidretentionislowerforonline classes than for traditional instruction at their college

• Fourpercentsaidretentionishigherforonlineclasses than for traditional instruction at their college

Across eight years of data, the trend in online retention continues to improve, but challenges remain, and addressing the gap is a major priority for many programs.

Traditionalvs.NontraditionalStudents. Although many expect the millennial generation to dominate online classes, given their reputation for being tech-savvy and technology-obsessed, ITC confi rmed that older students are just as likely to take online classes, especially since they value access and fl exibility. Older students might not be as comfortable using technology as their more youthful counterparts, but they are often more motivated to succeed and have higher GPA and completion rates than those just who just graduated from high school. The ITC survey respondents noted:

• Forty-eightpercentoftheirstudentsaretraditional—age 18-25

• Forty-sevenpercentoftheirstudentsarenon-traditional—age 26+

Gender. ITC has consistently confi rmed that more women than men take online classes. The ITC survey respondents reported that:

• Sixty-twopercentofstudentsarefemale

• Thirty-sevenpercentofstudentsaremale

StudentDemand. Most distance education programs have failed to meet student demand for online instruction, since ITC began asking this question in 2005.

• Sixty-twopercentofcollegesreportthatdemandexceeds their distance education class offerings

• Thirty-sevenpercentofcollegesreportthatdemand is being met

StudentAuthentication. The 2008 Higher Education Opportunities Act requires distance education administrators to create “processes that establish that the student who registers in a distance education course or program is the same student who participates in and completes the program and receives the academic credit.” The Department of Education’s corresponding regulations require accreditors to ensure that colleges authenticate students by using a secure login and pass code, proctored examinations, or “any new or other technologies and practices that are effective in verifying student identifi cation.”

• Ninty-ninepercentofsurveyrespondentsrequirestudent authentication

• Onepercentofsurveyrespondentsdonotrequireauthentication

Challenges for

Administrators

Distance learning is seen as an enrollment booster of late, but in the face of faculty union gridlock, tightening budgets and few resources, expansion is diffi cult. The federal regulations, while well-intended, are nightmarish. Attempting to administer compliance imposes an undue burden on top these other challenges.



obServationS and trendS

Since ITC began surveying its members in 2005, continuity in a number of response areas has emerged.

• Distanceeducationprograms—regardlessofgeographiclocation,enrollments,staffingandbudget—facemany of the same challenges with students, faculty and administration.

• Demandfordistanceeducationcoursesbycommunitycollegestudentscontinuestogrow—ataratemuch greater than demand for traditional courses. However, the unprecedented growth of the past decade is slowing on many campuses.

• Asonlineinstructioncontinuestomature,distanceeducationadministratorsseeapressingneedto address course quality and design, faculty training and preparation, course assessment, and improvements in student readiness and retention.

• Growthintheuseofblended/hybridandWeb-assisted,Web-enhanced,Web-facilitatedclassescontinues.This year, more respondents identified issues associated specifically with blended/hybrid courses.

• Thegapbetweendistancelearningandface-to-facestudentcompletionrateshassignificantlynarrowed.Half of the survey respondents indicated that they have achieved equivalency.

• Virtualstudentservicesandtechnologysupportservicesremainapriorityonmostcampuses.Itisunclearwhy a number of campuses have reduced these services in the past few years, but possible causes include budget cuts and increasing the bar for the level of effectiveness for these services.

• Thelearningmanagementsystem(LMS)marketremainsvolatile.Onethirdofcampusesintendtochangetheir LMS in the next two years.

• Onlineprogramadministrationhasshiftedsothatacademicadministrators,suchasdeansandtheacademicvice president, rather than the IT department or library services, are responsible for distance education.

• Manycampusescontinuetolackcompliancewiththeaccessibilityrequirementsforonlineinstruction,outlined in sections 504 and 508 of the Rehabilitation Act. For more information, visit www.hhs.gov/web/508/accenture_508/504_and_508_long.html.

• Nearlyeverydistanceeducationprogramauthenticatesstudentaccesstoonlinecourses.


iS your prograM typiCal?

Administrators always wonder how their program compares to those at other institutions. Is it typical or consistent with national trends? Highly successful individual programs do not always reflect these generalized characteristics—variances often result from the culture of the institution and the role the distance education program is expected to play.

For most of the survey participants, their online program:

1. Is the institution’s primary source for student enrollment growth.

2. Does not offer enough courses to meet student demand.

3. Enhances access to higher education, due to its increased flexibility and convenience.

4. Includes a nearly equal number of traditional and nontraditional students.

5. Enrolls more female than male students (a 60-40 split).

6. Staff reports to the academic side of the institution, and specifically to the dean or a higher ranked administrator.

7. Is under-staffed, working in cramped conditions, with an inadequate budget.

8. Offers approximately 160 online classes/class sections each semester.

9. Offers a growing percentage of Web-assisted and hybrid instruction.

10. Acts as a change-agent at the institution, prompting increased faculty training and professional development, rethinking teaching pedagogy, and providing a catalyst for integrating technology into instruction.

11. Often leads the institution in dealing with issues of innovative course design, rigor, course quality, and keeping up with new insights as to how students learn.

12. Struggles to attain understanding, acceptance and support from campus leaders, who often lack direct experience with this method of teaching and learning, and feel a generational disconnect.

13. Has little or no control over faculty recruitment, hiring, evaluation and retention.

14. Is overwhelmed by, and lacks the staff necessary to comply with, state and federal government regulations, and struggles to determine the best way to respond in the face of these obstacles.


ConCluSion

The ITC board of directors hopes this survey is valuable to distance education practitioners. With this data it strives to identify relevant data and ensure the information is tabulated and distributed in a timely fashion. The distance education landscape is constantly changing and the need for relevant and timely data and information is always important.

Distance education is new ground for most senior college administrators—who are often asked to support new staffing, space and budget requests with a fixed or shrinking budget. Many have little, if any, direct experience managing distance education programs. College administrators want to ensure they make the right decisions that will benefit their students, faculty, staff and greater community, and make the most of limited resources.

Each year, ITC engages in an aggressive campaign to get the survey into the hands of key administrators and distance education practitioners. This report is distributed to ITC members, community college presidents, attendees at the AACC annual convention, and is the subject of articles in relevant publications. The ITC board will continue to do its best to empower decision makers with the information they need.

I wish to thank all of the member institutions of the Instructional Technology Council (ITC) that participated in the 2011 survey. Special appreciation goes to the ITC board of directors, for their continued support of the project. Thanks also go to the members of the ITC survey committee, for their efforts to refine topic areas and help draft several new questions for each annual survey. I thank Travis Souza, WebCollege coordinator at Truckee Meadows Community College, for creating the online survey instrument and tabulating the data over the past seven years, and Christine Mullins, ITC’s executive director, for her thorough work editing the survey each and every year.

Fred Lokken

ITC Board of Directors

Associate Dean for WebCollege and Academic Support Center

Truckee Meadows Community College

Reno, Nevada

about the inStruCtional teChnology CounCil (itC)

The Instructional Technology Council (ITC) is celebrating 35 years of providing exceptional leadership and professional development to its network of eLearning experts by advocating, collaborating, researching, and sharing exemplary, innovative practices and potential in learning technologies. An affiliated council of the American Association of Community Colleges since 1977, ITC represents higher education institutions that use distance learning technologies in the United States and abroad internationally.

ITC members receive a subscription to the ITC list serv with information on what’s happening in distance education, an electronic newsletter, discounts to participate in ITC’s professional development Webinar series, distance learning grant information, updates on distance learning legislation, discounts to attend the annual eLearning Conference, and free access to ITC publications and research. Visit the ITC Web site at www.itcnetwork.org to learn more or to join the organization.


inStruCtional teChnology CounCil prograM aCtivitieS July 1, 2010 – June 30, 2011

State authorization for out-of-State distance education institutions

In 2010-11, ITC informed and advocated on behalf of ITC members on the Department of Education’s •Oct. 29, 2010 regulation regarding state authorization for institutions offering distance education to out-of-state students. This regulation would be extremely costly to ITC members, impede out-of-state student access to distance education opportunities and programs, and could stymie many distance learning operations.

ITC staff created a special section on the ITC Web site with articles and resources to inform ITC •members about federal and state requirements that “higher education institutions that offer distance or correspondence education to out-of-state students meet any state requirements to legally offer courses to the students in their state.”

elearning news

Throughout 2010-11, ITC staff regularly informed its members about distance learning issues and trends •via biweekly e-mail notices. The e-mails included short excerpts from articles on eLearning featured in Inside Higher Ed, The New York Times, the Chronicle of Higher Education, the blogosphere, among other news sources. ITC staff also sent members summaries and links to the latest eLearning research from the National Center for Educational Statistics and other Department of Education agencies, the Sloan Foundation, and other sources.

ITC archives past news updates on the member’s only section of its Web site.•

elearning 2011—feb. 19 – 22, 2011 in St. pete beach, florida

ITC’s annual professional development conference attracted 394 registrants and 15 exhibitors.•

eLearning 2011 featured nearly 60 professional development concurrent sessions, a day of pre-•conference workshops, inspiring general session speakers, and an exhibit hall.

Featured speakers at eLearning 2011 included: Cole Camplese, director of education technology •services at Penn State University; Alan Levine, vice president at the New Media Consortium; David Wiley, associate professor of instructional psychology and technology at Brigham Young University; and Maria Andersen, math faculty at Muskegon Community College.

eLearning 2011 attendees participated in the following pre-conference workshops:•

Designing High-Quality Online Courses for Student Success•

Evaluating Online Faculty Performance•

Life as Learning: The End of the Textbook and LMS•

Strategic Planning Today—To Meet the Challenges of Tomorrow•


Designing High-Quality Courses Blending Online and On-Campus Environments•

The First-Semester Experience for eLearners•

Seeing the ‘Virtual’ in Outdoor Field Trips•

Teaching and Learning in the Digital Age•

Tweet This—Social Networking in Higher Education•

itC professional development Webinars

In 2011-12, ITC offered 32 weekly professional development Webinar presentations, which featured •practical advice from distance learning experts for administrators, instructional designers, and faculty members.

Anne Arundel Community College provided ITC the use of its Blackboard Collaborate site for these •presentations,which enabled presenters to showcase their Web sites, and share program, video and audio materials.

itC 2011 leadership academy

ITC held the ITC 2011 Distance Learning Leadership Academy in Colorado Springs, Colorado on July 24-•26, 2011.

Twenty-nine participants worked with the academy faculty and members of the ITC board of directors to •understand their home institutions, create a sound leadership strategy for their environment, develop a leadership model to fit their institution, identify and acquire key tools for successful leadership in distance learning and gain a network of practitioners.

2010 distance education Survey results—trends in elearning: tracking the impact of elearning at Community Colleges

In the fall of 2010, ITC surveyed its members on the state of distance education at community colleges. •Members of the ITC board of directors created and reviewed the survey questions, to ensure it gathered the data and information useful to distance learning administrators and faculty.

In March 2011, ITC published and distributed the 24-page report to ITC members, every member of the •American Association of the Community Colleges, and to members of the press. This publication is also freely available on the ITC Web site.

itC newsletter

ITC published a quarterly online newsletter, featuring articles written by ITC staff, the ITC board of •directors, and by ITC members. Articles written by ITC members covered distance learning best practices, activities and events at their institutions and in their region.


itC awards for excellence in elearning

ITC recognized the recipients of ITC’s 2011 Awards for Excellence in eLearning at an awards luncheon on •Feb. 21, 2011 during the eLearning 2011 conference in St. Petersburg, Florida. ITC staff organized the nomination process and recruited judging panels which included members of the ITC board of directors, past award winners, and other ITC members, to review the candidates.

Award categories included lifetime achievement, outstanding eLearning program, outstanding eLearning •faculty, outstanding use of new technology and/or delivery system, outstanding student services, outstanding technical support and service, and outstanding eLearning student. You can view the award recipients at www.itcnetwork.org/about-itc/award-recipients.html.

new itC Web Site

During the fall of 2010, ITC reviewed proposals from vendors and selected a Web site designer to •redesign the ITC Web site.

ITC unveiled its new Web site in January 2011. The new Web site platform, Joomla, is a free, open-source •Linux-based system, which is easy for ITC staff to modify and update, and includes sections exclusive to ITC members.

The new Web site gives ITC greater visibility, since its public elements are searchable on Google and •other search engines, and visitors can search for topics within the ITC Web site. The site also includes a calendar and polling feature, and is trackable via Google Analytics.

increased visibility for itC

ITC staff mailed a promotional package to community college presidents and other non-members.•

In the spring of 2011, ITC surveyed its members to determine which ITC services they value and use •most, and the professional development services they would like ITC to provide.

ITC staff updated the ITC membership brochure.•

ITC regional representatives increased their contacts with the ITC members in their regions and •encouraged non-members to join ITC.

ITC staff increased the number of participants on its e-mail contact list, from one to five individuals per •ITC-member institution.

Supported WebaiM’s goalS project

ITC supported WebAim’s GOALS project, a program the Department of Education funded to motivate •college administrators to make their courses and student services accessible to all students, faculty and staff. ITC will help disseminate information about this project to its members, via its Webinar series and presentations at its eLearning conference.


broadband Connections for anchor institutions

In 2010-11, ITC served as an active participant on the Schools, Health and Libraries Broadband Coalition •in order represent its members, and inform them on how the Obama administration’s broadband stimulus program could benefit their distance learning program.

On September 1, 2010, ITC staff and board member Mickey Slimp met with the leaders of the US UCAN •project, to discuss how community colleges can be involved in this grant program. In July 2010, NTIA’s Broadband BTOP grant program awarded US UCAN $62.5 million to create a national advanced network infrastructure to help connect community anchor institutions “to support advanced applications not possible with today’s typical Internet service.”

On November 17, 2010, US UCAN’s Gary Bachula presented a special one-hour ITC professional •development Webinar to discuss their broadband grant program.

On July 13, 2011, ITC submitted comments to the FCC regarding the Connect America Fund, the •National Broadband Plan, and High-Cost Universal Service Support. These comments emphasized that ITC supports the transition of the high-cost program of the Universal Service Fund (USF) to support broadband services.

itC forum at aaCC annual Convention

ITC sponsored the forum, “Student Success: The First Semester Experience for eLearners,” at the AACC •2011 Convention in New Orleans, Louisiana on April 10, 2011.

Presenters included Jean Runyon, dean of the virtual campus at Anne Arundel Community College, Fred •Lokken, associate dean of TMCC WebCollege at Truckee Meadows Community College, Carol Spalding, president for Rowan Cabarrus Community College, and Rhonda Spells, executive director for eLearning Services at Prince George’s Community College.

PamelaQuinn, chief executive officer of the Dallas County Community College District’s R. Jan LeCroy Center for Educational Telecommunications, represented ITC on the American Association of Community Colleges (AACC) board of directors.

MickeySlimp, executive director, Northeast Texas Consortium of Colleges and Universities, served on AACC’s Commission on Academic, Student and Community Development.

CarolSpalding, president, Rowan-Cabarrus Community College, served on AACC’s Commission on Research, Technology and Emerging Trends.

ChristineMullins, ITC’s executive director, attended Maryland Distance Learning Association’s (MDLA) fall conference on November 9, 2010 and presented the session, “Recent Federal Legislation and Policy Initiatives for Distance Education” at MDLA’s spring conference on March 3, 2011.

Visit www.itcnetwork.org for more information about the Instructional Technology Council or to become a member of this national organization, whose mission is to provide exceptional leadership and professional development to its network of eLearning experts by advocating, collaborating, researching, and sharing exemplary, innovative practices and potential in learning technologies.


itC board of direCtorS 2011-2012

JeanRunyonChairDean, Virtual CampusAnne Arundel Community CollegeArnold, Maryland

AnneJohnsonChair-ElectNorth Central Regional RepresentativeDean, Humanities, Social Sciences and Online ProgrammingInver Hills Community CollegeInver Grove Heights, Minnesota

CarolSpaldingTreasurerPresidentRowan-Cabarrus Community CollegeSalisbury, North Carolina

ChristineMullinsExecutive DirectorInstructional Technology CouncilWashington, DC

HowardBeattieInternational RepresentativeEducation SpecialistHolland CollegeCharlottetown, Prince Edward Island, Canada

RondaEdwardsExecutive Director, MCCVLCMichigan Community College AssociationLansing, Michigan

DanJonesExecutive Dean, Center for Instructional Systems DevelopmentCoastline Community CollegeFountain Valley, California

FredLokkenAssociate Dean, TMCC WebCollegeTruckee Meadows Community CollegeReno, Nevada

LoraineSchmittWestern Regional RepresentativeDirector, Distance Education and Instructional SupportPortland Community CollegePortland, Oregon

MickeySlimpSouth Central Regional RepresentativeExecutive DirectorNortheast Texas Consortium of Colleges and Universities (NETnet)Tyler, Texas

RhondaSpellsNortheast Regional RepresentativeExecutive Director, eLearning ServicesPrince George’s Community CollegeLargo, Maryland

DianeThomasSoutheast Regional RepresentativeDirector, Distance EducationGreenville Technical CollegeGreenville, South Carolina

LyndaWomerAssociate ProvostSt. Petersburg CollegeSeminole, Florida

march 2012

instructional Technology councilone dupont circle, n.W., suite 360Washington, d.c. 20036202-293-3110www.itcnetwork.org

copyright 2012 by the instructional Technology council. all rights reserved.

2011 Distance Education Survey Results by ITC

Documents

higher education act

learning management system

community college presidents

distance education practitioners

itcs executive director

distance education classes

higher education institutions

distance education program