The Virtual University Educational Opportunity University.pdf · supports the Board’s mission of...

The Virtual University&

Issues of Equity and Access for the Next Generation

Educational Opportunity

Lawrence E. Gladieux &

Watson Scott Swail

P O L I C Y P E R S P E C T I V E S

This publication provided courtesy of

epiepi

Educational Policy Institute Washington, DC

Watson Scott Swail, Ed.D. President

www.educationalpolicy.org

Improving educational policy & practice through research

Washington Office • 25 Ludwell Lane • Stafford, VA 22554 • 1 (877) e-POLICY Los Angeles Office • Occidental College • 1600 Campus Road • Los Angeles, CA 90041 • 1 (877) e-POLICY

2 The College Board

The Virtual University and Educational Opportunity○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

The Washington Office of the College Board conducts policy analysis thatsupports the Board’s mission of educational equity and excellence for all stu-dents. Our aim is to spark constructive debate and produce accessible, reliableinformation and analysis for state and federal policymakers, College Boardconstituents, educators, the media, and the public. We do this by collectingreference data on key issues, conducting and publishing research, commis-sioning papers, sponsoring conferences, and presenting legislative testimony.

Copyright © 1999 College Entrance Examination Board. All rights reserved.College Board, College Board Online, and the acorn logo are registered trade-marks of the College Entrance Examination Board.

Copies of this report (item no. 209170) may be ordered for $12.00 eachplus $4.00 postage and handling from College Board Publications, Box886, New York, NY 10101-0886. Credit card orders may be placed bycalling (800) 323-7155 Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 11 p.m. (EST).Shipping and handling charges are additional. For additional informationcall College Board Publications Customer Service at (212) 713-8165 Mon-day through Friday, 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. (EST). Purchase orders over $25.00are accepted.

A free, downloadable .pdf version is available from College Board Online®.

www.collegeboard.org

Policy Analysis 3

Perspectives○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

Contents

Preface .................................................................................................................... 5

Introduction ........................................................................................................... 7

Build It and They Will Come ................................................................................. 9

Training Needs and Training Providers ................................................................. 11

Who Will Regulate a Global Market? ................................................................... 14

Will the New Technologies Save or Add to Educational Costs? ............................. 15

Who Will Benefit? ................................................................................................ 16

A New Set of Barriers for the Traditionally Underrepresentedin Higher Education? ............................................................................................ 17

The Public Policy Challenge ................................................................................. 22

Recommendations ................................................................................................ 23

Appendix A: Among the Leaders ........................................................................... 25

Appendix B: Web Site Listing ............................................................................... 27

References and Resources ...................................................................................... 34

4 The College Board


○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

Policy Analysis 5

Perspectives○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

Preface

This report grew out of a paper we pre-pared for the Conference on LifelongLearning sponsored by the Programme onInstitutional Management in Higher Edu-cation (IMHE) of the Organisation forEconomic Co-operation and Development(OECD) in Paris, France in September1998.

The world of the Internet is expanding andchanging so rapidly one worries in writingsuch a paper that it might be outdated be-fore anyone could read it! Our primaryfocus, however, is an abiding concern inAmerica: equity of educational access. Whatis the potential of the latest informationtechnologies for expanding opportunitiesfor postsecondary education? There is nodoubt that the World Wide Web shattersbarriers of time and space in the delivery ofinstruction. But its advent is also likely tocreate new barriers and inequities, simplybecause of the differential availability of therequired technology.

This report concludes, in fact, that the re-sult of the new technologies may be todeepen the divide between educationalhaves and have-nots, and that the market-place alone will not fix the problem. Publicpolicy must intervene to narrow the “digi-tal divide” between whites and minorities,the wealthy and less advantaged.

While we write primarily based on U.S.experience, the trends and issues are notfar different in Asia, Europe, and otherparts of the world, as the forces of eco-nomic and technological globalizationreshape tertiary education everywhere. Re-sponse to the paper at the OECDsuggested that the potential for greater in-equity exists not only betweensocioeconomic groups within societies butbetween the First World and Third World.

As Ernest J. Wilson, director of the Cen-ter for International Development andConflict Management at the University ofMaryland, asked recently at an interna-tional conference on informationtechnology, “Is the Internet becoming anew engine of global inequality?”

Ermelinda Carvajal provided research as-sistance for this report. William Lynch,executive director of the Center for Dis-tance and Mediated Learning at theGeorge Washington University, providedhelpful suggestions, as did CliffordAdelman of the U.S. Department of Edu-cation and Janine Farhat, John Deupree,and Natalie Nielsen of the College Board.Ginny Perrin provided editorial assistance.Scott Swail and Rich Koch designed andprepared the layout for printing.

Lawrence E. GladieuxExecutive Director for Policy Analysis

6 The College Board


○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

Policy Analysis 7

Perspectives○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

A burgeoning computer marketand the advent of the Internetand World Wide Web have

sparked a rapid increase in the electronicdelivery of higher education. Technology-based distance education has beenaround a long time, but its growth hassurged in the 1990s, resulting in an in-dustry that is growing by hundreds, ifnot thousands, of online courses eachmonth. Training through the Internetis becoming big business worldwide.The “virtual university” is edging itsway on to the wide screen of educators,policy-makers, and students. The visionof students collecting certificates or de-grees without ever setting foot in aclassroom has captured the imaginationof education entrepreneurs and WallStreet investors.

Management pundit Peter Drucker haspredicted that the residential universitycampus as we know it will be defunct

within 30 years. A better bet is that tra-ditional higher education will change,not disappear. The question is: How willit change? The fact is, computer and re-lated technologies are evolving soquickly—and new providers and brokersof higher education proliferating so rap-idly—no one knows.

A healthy skepticism is in order whenevaluating claims for the transformingpower of virtual instruction. A good dealof hype, from both commercial andnonprofit sponsors, accompanies its mar-keting. Also, history suggests that theimpact of cutting-edge technology con-sistently falls short of its proponents’expectations. Early in this century, Tho-mas Edison speculated that motionpictures would replace textbooks as theprincipal medium of instruction. Fiftyyears ago many heralded instructionaltelevision as the salvation of classroomteaching.

Introduction

If equality of educational opportunity can be established, democracy willbe real and justified. For this is the vital truth beneath its catchwords:that though men cannot be equal, their access to educational opportunitycan be made more nearly equal (Durant, 1968, p. 79).

Lighting a fire in the student’s heart, role modeling and nurturing maycontribute more to learning than the neatest hyper-linked courseware(Dertouzos, 1998, p. 20).

8 The College Board


○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

This said, however, today’s expanding,interactive computer networks possess apower, promise, and allure that institu-tions, governments, corporations, thenonprofit sector, and students are re-sponding to in unprecedented ways. Thispaper reviews recent developments in in-formation technology and distancelearning, and how—along with eco-nomic forces—they are fueling a globalmarket for higher education.

For the most part we raise questions.The computer-based technologies thatare driving the change are so new that

there is very little experience, much lesssystematic data, on which to assess thefuture.

We write primarily from a U.S. per-spective, but the trends and issues areincreasingly global. We focus especiallyon the question of access. Will the newtechnologies expand opportunities forthose who have been traditionallyunderrepresented in higher education?Or are these technologies liable todeepen the divide between the rich andpoor, the educational haves and have-nots in today’s society?

Policy Analysis 9

Perspectives○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

Twenty years ago, only 50,000 com-puters existed on the planet. Today,that many units are sold every 10 hoursaround the world. Internet expansion hasbeen even more dramatic. In 1985, about300,000 e-mail users were registeredworldwide. Ten years later, the U.S. aloneaccounted for over 80 million users(Jones, 1997).

The technological evolution from an in-dustrial society to one dependent oninformation and knowledge has foreveraltered how we learn and do things. Pro-viders of education and training areharnessing communications technologyto complement and sometimes supplantthe traditional classroom. Again, distanceeducation is not new. Today’s virtual in-struction has its roots in correspondenceschools. But it has the potential to tran-scend barriers of time and space in ways

unimagined only a few years ago. Almostanything—text, data, images, video, au-dio—can be delivered electronically,almost anywhere in the world, almost anytime and in real time, over the Internet.Imaging and Web-based technologies arealso constantly enhancing the potentialfor two-way communications betweenand among teachers and students in re-mote locations.

The development of this technologicalcapacity has resulted from a push–pullrelationship between providers and thepublic: technological advances have cre-ated awareness and appetite amongusers, while usage has pushed provid-ers to further develop the technologies.Dolence and Norris suggest a Darwin-ian element in this societal shift:

Society is undergoing a fundamentaltransformation from the Industrial Ageto the Information age... All people, or-ganizations, societies and nations areaffected, although not at the same paceor to the same degree. Those who re-align their practices most effectively tothe Information Age standards will reapsubstantial benefits. Those who do notwill be replaced or diminished by morenimble competitors. (Dolence & Norris,1995, p. 2).

Build It and They Will Come

In 1985 about 300,000e-mail users were

registered worldwide.

Ten years later, the U.S.alone accounted for over

80 million users.

10 The College Board


○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

From the student perspective, we mustrealize that today’s high school graduatesare already children of the “informationage,” and that tomorrow’s students willbe even more conditioned by electronicmedia. Today’s university students in-creasingly expect to learn with computersand the latest information technology,

not least because an increasingly competi-tive labor market demands no less. AsKenneth Green puts it, institutions en-gage in “a kind of educationalmalpractice” if they fail to provide stu-dents with technology training as part oftheir educational experience (Green,1997b, p. 9).

Distance Education and U.S. FDistance Education and U.S. FDistance Education and U.S. FDistance Education and U.S. FDistance Education and U.S. Financial Aid Pinancial Aid Pinancial Aid Pinancial Aid Pinancial Aid PolicyolicyolicyolicyolicyTo protect both students and taxpayers against potential fraud and abuse, the federalHigher Education Act has generally inhibited government aid to distance education.Among other constraints, postsecondary institutions that enroll more than 50 percentof their students in distance education courses are ineligible for student aid funds underTitle IV of the Act. In 1998, however, Congress authorized the Secretary of Educationto waive such regulations on a limited basis and test the quality and viability of distanceeducation using various technologies.

The new law defines distance education as an educational process that separates, in timeor place, the student and instructor and includes courses offered by computertransmission, television, electronic conferencing, videocassettes or discs, orcorrespondence. Up to 15 institutions may be funded in 1999 to take part in ademonstation program, and the statute specifies that the Western Governors Universityshall be one of the participants. An additional 35 institutions may participate in thethird year of the program.

The demonstration is intended to help determine: a) the most effective technologies fordelivering quality education via distance course offerings; b) statutory and regulatoryrequirements that should be altered to provide greater access to high-quality distanceeducation; and c) appropriate federal assistance for students enrolled in distanceeducation. The Secretary of Education is required to report back to Congress 18 monthsafter the program is launched and annually thereafter.

The complete Federal Register notice on the distance education pilot program may befound at http://ocfo.ed.gov/fedreg.htm.

Policy Analysis 11

Perspectives○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

Technological opportunity has con-verged with economic imperative toexpand the overall demand for highereducation and alter its delivery in timeand space. Knowledge-based economiesrequire increasing levels of educationand training. In the U.S., estimates ofthe proportion of future jobs requiringpostsecondary training range from 70to 90 percent. Skill and credential re-quirements in the job market show nosigns of leveling off.

Economic incentives and pressures arepushing U.S. higher education enroll-ments to record levels. Rates ofparticipation by 18- to 24-year-olds havenever been higher, and the market fortraining and retraining of working adultsis booming. Some estimates suggest thatalmost half of the adult U.S. populationengages in some type of part-time edu-cation or training, and part-timeenrollments are growing three timesfaster than full-time enrollments.

In fact, patterns of enrollment in U.S.postsecondary education are increasinglycomplex. The terms “traditional” and“nontraditional” are becoming less use-ful in describing today’s students. Manystudents are stretching out their educa-tion, attending part-time, balancing

study with work and family responsi-bilities, attending intermittently, andattending more than one institutionbefore graduating. For growing num-bers of students, the postsecondaryexperience is no longer a straight shot.

If students increasingly defy categori-zation, so do institutions. A range ofunconventional providers has entered thepostsecondary marketplace, offering in-struction and credentials in new settings,on flexible schedules—and increasinglyby way of the new distance-learning me-dia. A quick search of the Internet revealsscores of Web sites that offer some formof distance education, or informationabout such learning opportunities. Com-petition is intense, and lines blur betweenpublic and private, for-profit andnot-for-profit, and a variety of entrepre-neurial combinations in between. (SeeAppendices A and B at the end of thismonograph for a partial listing of theseWeb sites).

Many corporations have been trainingtheir employees for decades; they haveessentially brought postsecondary edu-cation in house, investing in their ownhuman capital. Some corporate univer-sities have gone further, taking theireducational services to the broader pub-

Training Needs and Training Providers



○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

lic. Motorola, for example, estimatesthat over 20 percent of its 100,000 stu-dents come from outside company ranks.

There is also a new breed of freestand-ing corporate enterprise that is tappinginto a growing market for career re-training and advanced degrees. TheUniversity of Phoenix, for example, isfar-flung, for-profit, and fully accred-ited. In just 20 years, it has become thelargest private university in the U.S.,delivering business and other applieddegree programs to 56,000 students at70-plus sites nationwide.

U.S. industry is estimated to have spent$60 billion on formal training in 1997.Most training in the corporate sector re-mains site-based and is delivered theold-fashioned way, by human instructors.But online and other modes of distanceeducation using information technologyare on the rise (Lakewood Publications,1997). Workplace-bound employees ofthe future may never have to leave theirdesks, much less enter a classroom, toreceive training.

Meanwhile, more and more traditionalinstitutions of higher education are ex-perimenting with virtual instruction. AU.S. Department of Education surveyfound that one-third of accredited insti-tutions offered distance education coursesin 1995, and a quarter of these institu-

tions offered degrees exclusively throughdistance education. Penn State (WorldCampus), the University of Minnesota(Virtual U Minnesota), UCLA (HomeEducation Network), Lansing Commu-nity College, and Florida’s Gulf CoastUniversity are taking a lead in the elec-tronic market.

Higher education institutions are alsoforming consortia and linking with theprivate sector to develop, catalog, anddisseminate courses and degree pro-grams. Nonprofit and for-profitcompanies provide software, hardware,and consulting services to support dis-tance education. Denver-based RealEducation, Inc., for example, helps in-stitutions that lack the technical capacityto develop state-of-the-art coursewareonline. On its Web site, Real Educationprovides an index of course offerings, or-ganized by subject, semester offered,and school from which the instructionoriginates. From the World Lecture Hall,a Web site organized by the Universityof Texas, students can download multi-

Workplace-boundemployees of the futuremay never have to leavetheir desks, much less

enter a classroom,to receive training.

Policy Analysis 13

Perspectives○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

media course materials from scores ofuniversities. The Globewide NetworkAcademy and The Internet University alsocoordinate thousands of online courses.

In late 1998, Western Governors Uni-versity (WGU) began operation as thenation’s first exclusively virtual university.WGU was formed by the governors of17 states (plus Guam), along with anumber of business partners includingMicrosoft, Sun Systems, IBM, andAT&T. It has no plans to hire faculty,but will procure its online academic ma-terials from businesses and institutions ofhigher education in the U.S. or othercountries. Students anywhere in theworld can enroll. WGU’s mission is to“expand educational opportunities forlearners everywhere” and provide accessto a “dispersed population of studentswho might not otherwise have access tohigher education and to those needingworkplace training” (Blumenstyk, 1998,p. A21).

States participating in WGU are look-ing for economies of scale in providinghigher education services. Some stateshope WGU will enable them to fendoff political pressures from some com-

munities to build or expand existingbrick-and-mortar campuses. The stateof California, however, opted out ofWGU because state leaders decidedthey had too much invested inCalifornia’s 301 colleges and universi-ties to share with other states. Instead,California has developed its own Cali-fornia Virtual University, whichrecently more than doubled its 700courses to 1,600.

If some U.S. institutions have ideas ofgoing transnational with their distancecourse offerings, so do many othersaround the world. Our search of theInternet (see Appendix B) turned up vir-tual-learning Web sites from Argentina,Australia, Belize, Brazil, Canada, CostaRica, Ghana, Israel, the Netherlands,New Zealand, South Africa, Spain, SriLanka, and the United Kingdom, amongother countries. The U.K.’s Open Uni-versity has been a world leader indistance education for a quarter century.Now it is entering the U.S. market inpartnership with WGU, Florida StateUniversity, and campuses of CaliforniaState University, and has established anOpen University of the United States(Marchese, 1998).



○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

Even a cursory tour of World WideWeb distance-learning sites is impres-sive. But there are many unansweredquestions about higher education’s re-cent online surge. Not least is how toprovide quality assurance.

The new information technologyknows no boundaries and opens a po-tential world of possibilities forstudents. Pronouncements on behalf ofvirtual instruction emphasize that it islearner-centered. It takes the classroomto the student rather than the otherway around. Students have more con-trol over where, how, and when theylearn. But how will students distin-guish among providers of virtualtraining? How will they assess the rela-tive quality and utility of educationalopportunities offered in cyberspace?Also, how will employers evaluate skillsand credentials acquired in the virtualmode? (Barley, 1997).

Issues of accreditation and credentialing areproblematic enough in the realm of tradi-tional higher education. But the wideopenness of the new technology invites edu-cators, entrepreneurs, and students alike tocross national and other borders, adding awhole new dimension of complexity. Pro-viders—traditional or nontraditional—havefew regulatory barriers to entry.

The Council for Higher EducationAccreditation (CHEA), a nongovernmentalvoluntary association concerned withstandards of institutional quality in U.S.higher education, is currently looking intothese issues of “gatekeeping” in the newworld of distance education. Anothervoluntary organization, the Washington,D.C.-based Global Alliance forTransnational Education (GATE), has alsobeen founded to grapple with these issueson an international level. Still, whoultimately will regulate a global marketremains an open question.

Who Will Regulate a Global Market?

How will students distinguishamong providers of virtual

training, and how will employersevaluate skills and credentialsacquired in the virtual mode?

Policy Analysis 15

Perspectives○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

Part of the promise of virtual technologyis to deliver instruction at reduced cost.But to do so it will have to break withhistory. Most educational technology in-troduced over the past 50 years hassupplemented and often enhanced—notsupplanted—traditional classroom in-struction, thus adding to its cost, notreducing it. Cutting-edge informationtechnology tends to be expensive andhave a short half-life, straining educationbudgets, not relieving them.

Nonetheless, the vision of packagingcourses with name instructors and massmarketing them around the worldthrough the Internet is a powerful lureto providers, especially those that alreadyhave substantial investment in the nec-essary infrastructure. To the extent thatstudents respond and enroll online, therewill be money to be made. Companies

may profit, and institutions of higher edu-cation may create new revenue streams.Some institutions, even if they do not havethe electronic infrastructure and techni-cal expertise to start with, want to positionthemselves in the potential market for dis-tance education and have sought externalgrants for courseware development. Theyare likely to find, however, that onlinecourses are works in progress, requiringongoing outlays for maintenance, re-vamping, upgrading, and staff training(Green, 1997a).

Whether online instruction will pro-duce savings for students is also unclear.Some institutions are actually chargingmore for online courses than for on-campus instruction. Students whoenroll online, however, may face lowernet costs because of savings in time andtravel expenses (Baer, 1998).

Will the New Technologies Save or Add toEducational Costs?

Most educational technologyintroduced over the past 50years has supplemented and

often enhanced – not supplanted– traditional classroom

instruction, thus adding to itscost, not reducing it.



○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

Are students in fact flocking to onlineeducational opportunities? The U.S.Department of Education reports thatthree quarters of a million U.S. studentsenrolled in more than 15,000 distanceeducation courses in 1995 (U.S. De-partment of Education, 1997b). Thisestimate, however, includes all forms ofdistance education, not just online learn-ing, and even such an inclusive estimatedoes not amount to a significant propor-tion of postsecondary enrollments.

In truth, we have very little informationon how many students or employees areactually making use of online course of-ferings, and we know less about theircharacteristics. As Barley (1997) sug-gests, without such information we haveno way of knowing whether virtual tech-nology is reaching those who might nototherwise have access to higher educa-tion, or simply accommodating thosewho already take advantage of other edu-cational opportunities.

Over the past couple of decades, therehave been wonderful examples of distanceeducation programs extending access toisolated populations. Contact North inOntario, Canada, reaches remote villagesand towns in the northern portion of theprovince. The British Open University

has a distinguished record of making edu-cation accessible for those who are home-and work-bound, using a variety of dis-tance learning technologies, recentlyincluding the Internet.

Internet-based technology can surelybuild on these earlier successes, but onlyif providers take care to build qualityprograms that include technical supportand individualized attention to students,mentoring, and faculty-student ex-changes. The Open University hasattached great importance to such inter-actions, including face-to-face tutorialswhere possible. Sir John Daniel, vicechancellor of the Open University,warns:

Much of the commercial hype andhope about distance learning is basedon a very unidirectional conception ofinstruction, where teaching is merelypresentation and learning is merelyabsorption. The Open University’s ex-perience with two million students over25 years suggests that such an impov-erished notion of distance educationwill fail—or at least have massivedrop-out problems (AAHE Bulletin,1998, p. 11).

Who Will Benefit?

Policy Analysis 17

Perspectives○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

A New Set of Barriers for the TraditionallyUnderrepresented in Higher Education?

Not all students haveequal access to computersand the Internet. In fact,

there is evidence thatstudents with the greatestneed get the least access.

The Web shatters geographical barriersto educational access, but it also may cre-ate new ones. Virtual universities willonly help those who have the necessaryequipment and experience to be com-fortable with the technologies.

While computers may seem ubiquitousin today’s society, their distribution ishighly stratified by socioeconomic class.Figures 1-3 illustrate, by income, race/ethnicity, and educa-tional attainment, thewide disparities in accessto computers as well asonline services in theU.S. as of 1997. Three-quarters of householdswith incomes over$75,000 have a com-puter, compared toone-third of householdswith incomes between

$25,000 and $35,000, and one-sixthwith incomes below $15,000.

Online access is similarly stratified by in-come. And white households are twice aslikely as black and Hispanic householdsto have access to computers and onlineservices. Those with a B.A. degree orhigher are about four times as likely asthose with only a high school educationto have online service.

While technology has widely penetratedelementary and secondary schools, not allstudents have equal access to computersand the Internet at school. In fact, thereis evidence that students with the great-est need get the least access. Accordingto a 1997 study by the Educational Test-ing Service, the ratio of students to

Source: Falling Through the Net II, National Telecommunications & Information Administration(NTIA), U.S. Department of Commerce, July 28, 1998.

Figure 1. Percentage of U.S. Households with a Computer andOnline Service, by Household Income, 1997.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

17

710

4

13

5

17

7

23

9

32

14

46

21

61

32

76

49Computer

Online Access

Under$5,000

5,000-9,999

75,000+50,000-74,999

35,000-49,999

25,000-34,999

20,000-24,999

15,000-19,999

10,000-14,999

Under

$5,000

5,000-

9,999

10,000-

14,999

15,000-

19,999

20,000-

24,999

25,000-

34,999

35,000-

49,999

50,000-

74,000

75,000+

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

17

710

4

13

5

17

7

23

9

32

14

46

21

61

32

76

49Computer

Online Access



○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

computers is highest in schools with thelargest proportions of poor and minor-ity students, and the availability ofInternet access goes down as the percent-age of such students increases (Coley,Cradler, & Engel, 1997).

More recent data from the National Cen-ter for Education Statistics indicateprogress in closing such gaps and meet-ing the Clinton administration’s goal ofconnecting every school to the Internetby the year 2000. Table 1 shows that 89percent of public schools had access tothe Internet in fall 1998, compared toonly 35 percent four years earlier. Butschool access is not a good indicator ofstudent access. In fact, one study suggeststhat half the schools that are linked to theInternet are connected only at the li-brary/media center or principal’s office(Quality Education Data, 1998).

A better indicator of pen-etration in the schools ispercentage of classroomsconnected to the Internet.Here the disparities re-main significant. Asindicated in Table 1,about 40 percent of class-rooms in schools with thehighest concentration ofpoor students (measuredby percentage of studentseligible for free or re-

duced-price lunch) have Internet access,compared to more than 60 percent ofclassrooms in schools with the lowestconcentration of poor students. Thereare similarly wide gaps by race/ethnicity.

Figure 4 shows the average number ofstudents per computer with Internet ac-cess in fall 1998. On average, there were17 students per computer in schools with

Source: Falling Through the Net II, National Telecommunications & InformationAdministration (NTIA), U.S. Department of Commerce, July 28, 1998.

Figure 2. Percentage of U.S. Households with a Computer andOnline Service, by Race/Ethnicity, 1997.

0

10

20

30

40

50

41

2119

8

19

9

47

25

Computer

Online Access

Source: Falling Through the Net II, National Telecommunications &Information Administration (NTIA), U.S. Department of Commerce, July 28,1998.

Figure 3. Percentage of U.S. Households with OnlineService, by Educational Attainment, 1997.

0

10

20

30

40

3.1

10

22

38

White Asian and OtherHispanicBlack

SomeHigh School

BA or HigherSomePostsecondary

Education

HS Diplomaor GED

Policy Analysis 19

Perspectives○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

Table 1. Percentage of Public Schools and Instructional Rooms With Internet Access, by Selected SchoolCharacteristics: Fall 1994-98.

Percentage of schools Percentage of instructional with Internet access rooms with Internet access1

School characteristics 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Total 35 50 65 78 89 3 8 14 27 51Level of school2

Elementary 30 46 61 75 88 3 8 13 24 51Secondary 49 65 77 89 94 4 8 16 32 52

Percentage of students eligiblefor free or reduced-price lunch

Less than 11 — 62 78 88 87 — 9 18 36 6211-30 — 59 72 83 94 — 10 16 32 5331-70 — 47 58 78 91 — 7 14 27 5271 or more — 31 53 63 80 — 3 7 14 39

Percentage of minoritystudents enrolled

Less than 6 — 52 65 84 91 — 9 18 37 576-20 — 58 72 87 93 — 10 18 35 5921-49 — 54 65 73 91 — 9 12 22 5250 or more — 40 56 63 82 — 3 5 13 37

— Indicates data not available.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education (1999). “Internet Access in Public Schools and Classrooms: 1994-98.” Issue Brief (NCES 1999-017).Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. “Internet Access in Public Schools.” Issue Brief (NCES 98-031). Washington, DC: NationalCenter for Education Statistics.1Based on the total number of instructional rooms in regular public schools.2Data for combined schools are not reported as a separate level of school because there are too few sample observations for reliable estimates.Data for combined schools are included in the totals.

the highest concentrations of poor stu-dents, compared to 10 in schools withthe lowest concentration of such stu-dents. The same gap exists betweenschools with the lowest and highestconcentrations of minority students.

Not surprisingly, differentials in experiencewith technology show up when studentsenter postsecondary education. UCLA’sHigher Education Research Institute con-cludes from its most recent annualfreshman survey: “Despite the overall highlevels of computer and Internet use, notall students enter college with Internetsavvy” (Higher Education Research Insti-

Source: U.S. Department of Education (1999). “Internet Access inPublic Schools and Classrooms: 1994-98.” Issue Brief (NCES 1999-017). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

Figure 4. Ratio of Students per InstructionalComputer with Internet Access, by School Character-istics, Fall 1998.

0 5 10 15 20

10

12

17

10

11

12

17

Percent minority enrollment

Students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch

6-20 percent

71 percent or more

31-70 percent

11-30 percent

Less than 11 percent

50 percent or more

20-49 percent



○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

Private

Universities

Private

Four-Year

Colleges

Public

Universities

Public

Four-Year

Colleges

Private

Two-Year

Colleges

Public

Two-Year

Colleges

Private

Historically

Black Colleges

Public

Historically

Black Colleges

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

8080

77

73

64 63

57

48

41

tute, 1999, p. 1). As illustrated in Figure5, the percentage of students using e-mailvaries widely by type of institution, withthe greatest use among students enrollingin private universities and the lowest ratesamong students atpublic black colleges.Such disparitiescould preclude sig-nificant numbers ofstudents from par-ticipating in thevirtual university.

In the final analysis,data probably cannot capture the full storyhere. While education is the great equal-izer, technology appears to be a newengine of inequality. Access to technologyis not only about hardware and software.

It is about effective use, teacher training,and careful integration of technology intothe curriculum. The most advantaged citi-zens—and schools—are most able tobenefit from cutting-edge technologies.

Advantage magnifiesadvantage. Those whouse computers on aregular basis are moreapt to use them rou-tinely in problemsolving and criticalthinking. They usecomputers as past gen-erations used pen and

paper. Those with limited computer ex-perience will be handicapped in theirability to access knowledge and availthemselves of the ever increasing variety oflearning experiences.

The most advantagedcitizens—and schools—are most able to benefit

from cutting-edgetechnologies. Advantagemagnifies advantage.

Figure 5. Percentage of Freshmen Using E-mail During the Last Year, by Institution Type, 1998.

Source: Higher Education Research Institute (1999). "Freshman Embrace the Internet as an Educational Tool." The American Freshman:National Norms for Fall 1998. Los Angeles, CA: UCLA.

Policy Analysis 21

Perspectives○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

Access to TAccess to TAccess to TAccess to TAccess to TechnoloechnoloechnoloechnoloechnologygygygygyUntil every child has a computer in the classroom and the skills touse it…until every student can tap the enormous resources of theInternet…until every high-tech company can find skilled workersto fill its high-wage jobs…America will miss the full promise of theInformation Age.

President ClintonJune 5, 1998

The Clinton Administration’s principal initiative to equalize access to technology is the“E-rate” program authorized by the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The act builds onfederal law of 60 years ago to guarantee all Americans affordable telephone service. In1996, Congress expanded this universal-service concept to ensure that all libraries andschools would be able to afford “advanced telecommunications and information services.”

In 1997, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) created the Schools and Li-brary Corporation to offer education-rate discounts on telecommunications services,including Internet access charges, with discounts ranging between 20 and 90 percentdepending on regional economic indicators. During the first round of applications, morethan 30,000 schools and libraries responded, and the first wave of grant notifications weremailed in the fall of 1998.

But the financing of the E-rate program has been contentious. To pay the cost, the FCClevied a universal-service fee on telecommunications companies. The industry has goneto court to fight the FCC’s action as an illegal tax, and last summer AT&T, MCI, andSprint announced that they would pass the cost on to the consumer. In the political firestormthat ensued, the FCC scaled back its commitment to the E-rate program, promising togive out $1.9 billion over an 18-month period, rather than the previously agreed upon$2.25 billion over 12 months. At the time of this printing, the E-rate program was receiv-ing a second round of applications.

Even when computers are available,technological problems—equipmentmalfunctioning, Internet congestionand delay—can interfere with onlinelearning and lead to frustration for stu-dents and teachers. Internet users knowthat ability to “surf ” the Web is tiedto the speed and reliability of the

Internet provider, CPU, and modemspeed, and ultimately to the costs ofthese services and equipment. Techni-cal difficulties can befall anyone incyberspace, and usually do at one timeor another, but they disproportionatelyaffect those who have the least abilityto pay.



○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

The Public Policy Challenge

The good news in the U.S. is that morepeople are attaining higher levels of edu-cation and filling millions of skilled,high-paying jobs in a strong economy.The bad news is that the least educatedand skilled are getting a smaller piece ofthe pie and wealth disparities havereached unprecedented extremes. Nar-rowing this gap is surely one of thegreatest challenges facing our country.

The virtual campus may widen oppor-tunities for some, but not by and largefor those at the low end of the socio-economic scale, who have traditionallybeen underrepresented in higher edu-cation. Virtual space is infinite, but itdoes not promise universality or equity,nor is it appropriate for many studentswhose experience with technology islimited—and who might benefit farmore from traditional delivery systems.

Computers and the Internet are none-theless changing the world as we speak.Fast and reliable access to technologyincreasingly drives our economy and iskey to individual opportunity intoday’s world. Special efforts must bemade to equalize technology’s availabil-ity and expand opportunity for all.

New sources of philanthropy, generatedin particular by the computer and related

industries, are beginning to focus on thisproblem. For example, Microsoft Chair-man Bill Gates and his wife Melinda haveendowed a foundation with over $1 bil-lion dollars dedicated to making “sureeveryone has the ability to have Internetaccess, regardless of where they live orhow much money they have” (Hafner,1999, p. 18). The foundation is donat-ing computers, along with technicaltraining and support, to libraries acrossthe country; schools and community cen-ters will be targeted next.

But private philanthropy alone—muchless the marketplace by itself—cannotfix the problem of access. Governmentmust play a part.

The Clinton administration has placed ahigh priority on educational technologyand narrowing the “digital divide” betweenwhites and minorities, the wealthy and theless advantaged. With Vice President Gorein the lead on this issue, the administra-tion has called for computers, qualitysoftware, well-trained teachers, and afford-able advanced telecommunications servicesin every classroom in the country (see page21). But the source of revenue to supportsuch an effort has divided the Congress,and the future of government intervention,like the future of these learning technolo-gies, remains unclear.

Policy Analysis 23

Perspectives○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

To cap this monograph, we do not pretend to offer grand solutions. The issuesare complex and the pace of technological change is overwhelming. With no claimto originality, we offer the following broad prescriptions to increase learning op-portunities for all.

For those who may be designing virtual campuses and programs:

Place access at the core of system design. Access and inclusion should be theprincipal values inspiring the use of new technologies to deliver or enhanceinstruction.

Keep the promise of technology in perspective. The allure of technology canbecome a drain on human and fiscal resources that can impede the mission ofinstitutions and their capacity to meet the needs of all students. Institutionsshould aim to strike a balance between traditional and technology-based deliv-ery, and be prepared to alter the balance over time as the expectations and needsof students change.

Learn from the distance-learning pioneers. Those aiming to “go virtual” canbenefit from the experience of others in the careful integration of technologyand traditional modes of instruction. It is no surprise, for example, that WGUand other recent ventures have chosen to team up with Britain’s Open Univer-sity, drawing on its quarter century of success in distance education.

For the communications industry, including both the makers and providers oftechnology:

Consider broad access in the development of products and the expansion of mar-kets. More lucrative, high-end products and users are the driving force behindthe Internet’s frenetic expansion. But the communications industry must stepup to the plate of social responsibility, which means at times looking beyondbottom line, short-term interests, and toward longer-term, societal interests.Over the long haul, increased access to technology for lower-income, less-advantaged citizens will benefit both society and industry.

Recommendations



○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

For public policymakers:

Take action to narrow the digital divide. The marketplace by itself will notensure access to technology. Government must intervene to ensure a level play-ing field via industry incentives and safety-net programs designed to broadenaccess. Postsecondary students will only benefit from virtual instruction if theyhave had the experience and exposure to technology earlier in their develop-ment.

Monitor progress toward equal access. The government must continue to gener-ate research and indicators on the social impact of the Internet. While currentdata illustrate gaps in ownership of computers and online access, tomorrow’sresearch should probe the actual use of technology and how it impacts learningopportunities for all citizens.

Virtual space is infinite, but itdoes not promise universality orequity, nor is it appropriate formany students whose experience

with technology is limited.

Policy Analysis 25

Perspectives○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

WESTERN GOVERNORS UNIVERSITY (www.wgu.edu)Western Governors University (WGU) currently provides three degree and certifi-cate programs, with 15 additional programs expected in 1999. WGU has establishedcollaborative agreements with the Open University in Great Britain; the Open Learn-ing Agency in British Columbia, Canada; the Tokai University Educational Systemin Japan; and the Universidad Virtual del Instituto Tecnologico y de EstudiosSuperiores de Monterrey (ITESM) in Mexico.

THE OPEN UNIVERSITY (www.open.ac.uk)Established by a Royal Charter in 1969, the Open University of Great Britain hasserved over two million people in England and around the world and awarded morethan 200,000 Bachelor’s degrees. In 1998 alone, OU enrolled over 200,000 students,10 percent of whom reside outside of the UK. The average age of undergraduates is37, with an average tuition cost of £3,500. OU employs approximately 3,750 full-time staff and 7,000 part-time associate lecturers. Most new courses have their owndedicated Web sites and online conferencing facilities, with trained tutors and staffassistance.

THE CALIFORNIA VIRTUAL UNIVERSITY (www.california.edu)The California Virtual University was established in 1996 shortly after Californiaopted out of the Western Governors University. That decision was predicated onthe fact that California has invested heavily in its own, highly respected public sys-tem of higher education. Planners hope that CVU will provide increased access forthe deluge of students—more than 500,000—expected to enroll in Californiapostsecondary education within the next decade. CVU is in essence a broker anddoes not grant degrees or certificates. Rather, it “serves as a gateway to technol-ogy-mediated distance learning courses and programs from Californiainstitutions.” CVU sponsors include Cisco Systems, International Thomson Pub-lishing, Oracle Corporation, Pacific Bell, Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, and SunMicrosystems, Inc.

Appendix A: Among the Leaders



○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

JONES EDUCATION COMPANY COLLEGE CONNECTION ONLINE (www.jec.edu/cc/map.html)Formerly the Mind Extension Network, JEC College Connection is a partnershipof colleges and universities from around the nation, including the George Wash-ington University, the University of Colorado, and the University of Delaware.Ten degree programs and two certificate programs are currently available in theareas of educational technology, business administration, communications, nurs-ing, and hotel management. Instruction is provided via videotape and satellitefeed, with Internet and email support.

THE UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX (www.uophx.edu)Accredited in 1978, the University of Phoenix now serves more than 56,000 stu-dents, almost all of whom earned degrees prior to admission. While UP has becomewidely identified with the “virtual” trend, in fact less than 5 percent of its enroll-ment is instructed online. The University of Phoenix system includes 74 campusesand learning centers in 13 states and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. “Ourapproach is based on openness and accessibility—not distance and isolation,” ac-cording to UP’s Web site.

REAL EDUCATION (rs.realeducation.com)Developing online, virtual instruction requires both technology and content. Whilethe former requires a major investment in campus infrastructure, the latter is, in ac-tuality, the most expensive and substantial barrier to institutions that consider“going virtual.” Real Education is one among several companies that now helpcampuses develop and deliver courseware. In 1998, Real Education signed morethan 60 colleges and universities, including the University of Pennsylvania, SetonHall University, and the University of Colorado. Microsoft, WebCT, Pearson Edu-cation, and SkillSoft are listed as strategic partners. In January 1999, RealEducation announced $15 million in private equity financing to support furtherdevelopment and growth.

BLACKBOARD, INC. (www.blackboardllc.com)Like its competitor Real Education, Blackboard Inc. supports teaching and learningover the Internet. Cornell University, Georgetown University, Tufts University, North-western University, the College of William and Mary, and the University of Tennesseeat Knoxville utilize Blackboard, Inc.’s services. Strategic Partners include KPMG PeatMarwick LLP, International Thomson Publishing, W.W. Norton Publishing Inc., Syl-van Learning Systems, EDUCAUSE IMS Project, GEO Interactive, and Microsoft.

Policy Analysis 27

Perspectives○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

TRADITIONAL INSTITUTIONS OFHIGHER EDUCATION

Argentina

Universidad Nacional de San Luishttp://inter2.unsl.edu.ar/~cead

Australia

Edith Cowan Universityhttp://www.echidna.stu.cowan.edu.au/VC/

Monash Universityhttp://www.dec.monash.edu.au/

University of Asiahttp://www.uniasia.edu

University of Southern Queenslandhttp://www.usq.edu.au/dec

Belize

Belize Institute of Technologyhttp://www.clarence.com/home/bit

Brazil

Faculdade Cariocahttp://www.carioca.br

Instituto Nacional de Educacão a Distânciahttp://www.intelecto.net/textos1.htm

Canada

Athabasca Universityhttp://www.athabascau.ca/

Queen’s Universityhttp://www.queensu.ca/pts

Simon Fraser Universityhttp://www.sfu.ca/cde

Université Laval - Alérionhttp://www.ulaval.ca/dgfc/distance/index.html

University of British Columbiahttp://det.cstudies.ubc.ca

University College Cape Bretonhttp://www.uccb.ns.ca/eca

University College of the Fraser Valleyhttp://www.ucfv.bc.ca/online

Costa RicaUniversity of San Joséhttp://www.usj.edu

Hong Kong

Center for Educational Developmenthttp://www.ced.com.hk

The Netherlands

Open University of the Netherlandshttp://www.ouh.nl

New Zealand

Massey Universityhttp://www.massey.ac.nz/~wwcues/about/about.htmhttp://its-www3.massey.ac.nz

Iceland

Reykjavik Institute of Educationhttp://www.rvik.edu

Web Sites Providing Coursewareor Information on Distance Learning

Appendix B: Web Site Listing



○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

Spain

Centro de Enseñanza a Distanciahttp://www.ceac.com

Universitat Oberta de Catalunyahttp://www.uoc.es/

South Africa

INTEC College – Southern Africahttp://www.intec.edu.za

Sri Lanka

Open University of Sri Lankahttp://www.ou.ac.lk

United Kingdom

The Open Universityhttp://www.open.ac.uk/

Sheffield Universityhttp://www.shef.ac.uk/uni/services/dlu/dluweb/dluhome.html

University of Londonhttp://www.lon.ac.uk/external

United States

Boston Universityhttp://bumetb.bu.edu/

Carnegie Mellon Universityhttp://www.cmu.edu/home/education/education_distance.html

Central Michigan Universityhttp://www.cel.cmich.edu

Chapman Universityhttp://www.chapman.edu/oei

Christopher Newport Universityhttp://www.cnuonline.edu/

Drexel Universityhttp://www.drexel.edu/distance

Florida Gulf Coast Universityhttp://itech.fgcu.edu/distance

Florida State Universityhttp://idl.fsu.edu/

The George Washington Universityhttp://www.gwu.edu/~distance

Golden Gate Universityhttp://cybercampus.ggu.edu

Idaho State Universityhttp://wapi.isu.edu/

Louisiana Collegehttp://lconline.lacollege.edu

Louisiana State Universityhttp://ls.lsu.edu

Michigan State Universityhttp://www.vu.msu.edu

Minnesota’s Virtual Universityhttp://www.mnvu.extension.umn.edu/

The New School Universityhttp://www.dialnsa.edu/

New York Universityhttp://www.sce.nyu.edu/virtual

Nova Southeastern Universityhttp://www.nova.edu

Old Dominion Universityhttp://web.odu.edu/webroot/FrontEnd.nsf/pages/distlrn

Penn State World Campushttp://www.worldcampus.psu.edu/

Purdue Universityhttp://info.aes.purdue.edu/acs/disted.html

Rochester Institute of Technologyhttp://distancelearning.rit.edu/

Stanford Universityhttp://stanford-online.stanford.edu/

Policy Analysis 29

Perspectives○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

SUNY Empire State Collegehttp://www.esc.edu/

University of California at Berkeleyhttp://www.unex.berkeley.edu:4243/

University of California at Los Angeleshttp://www.unex.ucla.edu/

University of Hawaiihttp://www.hawaii.edu/dlit/

University of Houstonhttp://www.uh.edu/uhdistance

University of Maryland, University Collegehttp://www.umuc.edu/distance/index.html

University of Massachusetts at Dartmouthhttp://www3.umassd.edu/

University of Missouri at Columbiahttp://indepstudy.ext.missouri.edu

University of Missouri at Kansas Cityhttp://vu.umkc.edu

University of Nebraska at Lincolnhttp://www.unl.edu/ExtendEd

University of Nebraska at Omahahttp://www.ccs.unomaha.edu

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hillhttp://www.unc.edu/cit

University of Texashttp://www.utsystem.edu

University of Wisconsinhttp://www.uwex.edu/

Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State Universityhttp://vto.vt.edu

Washington State Universityhttp://www.wsu.edu/vwsu

Webster Universityhttp://www.websteruniv.edu/

Western International Universityhttp://www.wintu.edu/

COMMUNITY COLLEGES

Canada

George Brown – The City Collegehttp://www.gbrownc.on.ca

United States

Bellevue Community Collegehttp://online.bcc.ctc.edu

Brevard Community Collegehttp://www.brevard.cc.fl.us/distlrn/

Chemetka Community Collegehttp://bbs.chemek.cc.or.us/public/default.htm

Clackamas Community Collegehttp://dl.clackamas.cc.or.us

Colorado Community Collegehttp://www.ccconline.org

Edmonds Community Collegehttp://web.cce.edcc.edu/cce/edol.htm

Fayetteville Technical Community Collegehttp://www.faytech.cc.nc.us/infodesk/vcampus/vcampus.html

Front Range Community Collegehttp://frcc.cc.co.us/distance/intro.html

Greenville Techhttp://www.college-online.com

Honolulu Community Collegehttp://www.hcc.hawaii.edu/distlearn

Iowa Central Community Collegehttp://ictn.iccc.cc.ia.us/distanceed

Ivy Tech State Collegehttp://207.115.178.3/distance-education



○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

Lansing Community Collegehttp://www.lansing.cc.mi.us/executive/extension

Laramie County Community Collegehttp://www.lcc.whecn.edu/disted/disted.html

NorthWest Arkansas Community Collegehttp://labs.nwacc.cc.ar.us/disted

Pikes Peak Community Collegehttp://www.ppcc.cccoes.edu/distanceed/default.html

Pima Community Collegehttp://community.cc.pima.edu/cc/webclass.html

Pitt Community Collegehttp://sphynx.pitt.cc.nc.us/des/des.htm

Rio Hondo Collegehttp://www.rh.cc.ca.us/online

Rio Salado Collegehttp://www.rio.maricopa.edu/

Seattle Central Community Collegehttp://seaccd.sccd.ctc.edu/sccde

Trinidad State Junior Collegehttp://www.tsjc.cccoes.edu/

Yavapai Collegehttp://www.yavapai.cc.az.us/ychome.nsf/?open

PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS

United States

ADEC Distance Education Consortiumhttp://www.adec.edu

Council for Higher Education Accreditationhttp://www.chea.org

The Distance Education and Training Councilhttp://www.detc.org

Global Alliance for Transnational Educationhttp://www.edugate.org/

United States Distance Learning Associationhttp://www.usdla.org/

CONSORTIA OR COOPERATIVES

Canada

Contact Southhttp://www.contactsouth.org

Ghana

Ghana Distance Education Projecthttp://www.projectscope.org

United States

Accredited College Degrees by Correspondencehttp://www.collegeathome.com

California Virtual Universityhttp://www.california.edu/

Michigan Virtual Automotive Collegehttp://www.mvac.org/

National Technological Universityhttp://www.ntu.edu/

National Universities Degree Consortiumhttp://www.sc.edu.deis/NUDC

Oregon Community College DistanceEducation Consortiumhttp://www.lbcc.cc.or.us/occdec/chart.html

PBS Adult Learning Service Onlinehttp://www.pbs.org/adultlearning/als/

Southern Regional Electronic Campushttp://www.srec.sreb.org/

University Alliancehttp://www.universityalliance.com

Western Governors Universityhttp://www.wgu.edu/wgu/index.html

Policy Analysis 31

Perspectives○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

CORPORATE COLLEGES ANDUNIVERSITIES

United States

IBM Corporationhttp://www.ibm.com/

Lotus Educationhttp://www.lotus.com/

Motorola, Inc.http://www.mot.com/

Multiservice Networks Divisionhttp://www.mot.com/networking

Oracle Corporationhttp://education.oracle.com

Sun Microsystemshttp://wwwseast2.vsec.sun.com/

FOR-PROFIT AND NOT-FOR-PROFITCOMPANIES

Africa

The African Virtual Universityhttp://www.worldbank.org

Australia

The VETTWeb Buildinghttp://www.vettweb.net.au/

Canada

TVOntariohttp://www.tvo.org/eng/default.html

Denmark

The Virtual Oresund Universityhttp://www.uni.oresund.org

Germany

Virtual University of Berlinhttp://wwwpc.prz.tu-berlin.de/prz/english/b/learning/indes4i.htm

Israel

Interactive Distance Education And Learning(IDEAL) System, Arel Communications andSoftware, Ltd.http://www.arel.co.il/

Mexico

Universidad Virtual del Sistema Tecnológico deMonterreyhttp://www.ruv.itesm.mx/

United States

Apollo Group, Inc.http://www.apollogrp.com/

College for Financial Planninghttp://www.fp.edu/

Institute for Professional Developmenthttp://www.ipd.org/

University of Phoenixhttp://www.uophx.edu/

Asymetrix Learning Systems, Inc.http://www.asymetrix.com/

Athena Universityhttp://www.athena.edu

Blackboard, Inc.http://www.blackboardllc.com

Caliber Learning Network: The DistanceLearning Solution for Working Professionalshttp://www.caliberlearning.com/

Cisco Connection Online by Cisco Systems, Inc.http://www.cisco.com/



○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

Coalition for Networked Informationhttp://www.cni.org/

College of the Menominee National VirtualUniversityhttp://www.menominee.com/cmn/programs/home.htm

Collegis, Inc.http://www.collegis.com/home/

Convene International, Inc.http://www.convene.com/

DeVry Inc.http://www.devry.com/

Keller Graduate School of Managementhttp://www.keller.edu/

Diversity Universityhttp://www.du.org

Durand Communications, Inc.http://www.durand.com/

Education Communications (EduCom)http://www.educom.com/welcome.html

Instructional Management Systems Projecthttp://imsproject.org/

Education Management Corporationhttp://www.edumgt.com/

ERASMUS Virtual Universityhttp://136.201.8.7/vuniv/ERAShome.htm

The Fielding Institutehttp://www.fielding.edu/

The Globewide Network Academyhttp://www.gnacademy.org/

Harcourt Brace & Companyhttp://www.harcourtbrace.com

California College for Health Scienceshttp://cchs.edu/

ICS Learning Systems (includes Businessand Industrial Training Division)http://www.icslearn.com/

The English Language Institute ofAmericahttp://www.ELILearn.com/contents.htm

Knowledge Online (Jones Education Company)http://www.jec.edu

Jones International Universityhttp://www.international.edu/

Lyceum: The Virtual Campushttp://www.interlabs.bradley.edu/lyceum2/

Magellan Universityhttp://www.magellan.edu

McGraw-Hill OnLine Learninghttp://www.mhonlinelearning.com/

National Computer Systems, Inc.http://www.ncs.com/

Virtual University Enterprisehttp://www.vue.com/

New Horizons Computer Learning Centershttp://www.newhorizons.com/

New Promisehttp://www.caso.com/

The Pangaea Networkhttp://www.pangaeanetwork.com/

PricewaterhouseCoopers Virtual Universityhttp://www.vu.pw.com/

Real Educationhttp://rs.realeducation.com/

Spacenethttp://www.ge.com/capital/spacenet/index2.htm

Spectrum Virtual Universityhttp://www.vu.org/campus.html

Policy Analysis 33

Perspectives○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

Sylvan Learning Systems, Inc.http://www.educate.com/

TeleVideo Global, Inc.http://www.televid.com/

Toner Cable Equipment, Inc.http://www.tonercable.com/

The University of the United Stateshttp://www.uus.edu

UOL Publishing, Inc.http://www.uol.com

The Virtual Classroom Listhttp://ull.chemistry.uakron.edu/classroom.html

Walden Universityhttp://www.waldenu.edu

The World Lecture Hallhttp://www.utexas.edu/world/lecture/index.html

Worldspacehttp://www.worldspace.com/homepage.htm

ZD Universityhttp://www.zdu.com/home.asp

MISCELLANEOUS

United States

Project SCOPEhttp://www.projectscope.org

General Distance Learning Informationhttp://www.yahoo.com/education/distance_learning

Lifelong Learning (database of institutionsoffering distance learning)http://www.lifelonglearning.com



○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

References and Resources

American Association for Higher Education(1998, May). AAHE Bulletin. Washington,DC: American Association for Higher Educa-tion.

Baer, Walter S. (1998). “Will the Internet Trans-form Higher Education?” Annual Review ofInstitute for Information Studies, pp. 81-108.

Barley, Stephen R. (1997). “Competence With-out Credentials: The Promise and PotentialProblems of Computer-Based Distance Edu-cation.” Paper presented at the workshop onCompetence Without Credentials held Sep-tember 19, 1997 in Washington, D.C.,sponsored by the U.S. Department of Educa-tion and The World Bank.

Blumenstyk, Goldie (1998, February). “WesternGovernors U. Takes Shape as a New Model forHigher Education.” The Chronicle of HigherEducation. (www.chronicle.com).

Coley, Richard J., John Cradler, and Penelope K.Engel (1997, May). “Computers and Class-rooms: The Status of Technology in U.S.Schools.” Policy Information Report.Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

Dertouzos, Michael (1998, September/October).“The People’s Computer.” Technology Review.

Deupree, John and Marjorie Peace Lenn, eds.(1997). Ambassadors of U.S. Higher Education:Quality Credit-Bearing Programs Abroad. NewYork, NY: College Entrance ExaminationBoard.

Dolence, Michael G., and Donald M. Norris(1995). Transforming Higher Education: A Vi-sion for Learning in the 21st Century. AnnArbor, MI: Society for College and UniversityPlanning (SCUP).

Durant, Will and Ariel (1968). The Lessons of His-tory. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.

Emmert, Mark A. (1997, Summer). “DistanceLearning Tests America’s Higher EducationDominance.” Connection. Boston, MA: NewEngland’s Journal of Higher Education andEconomic Development, pp. 20-22.

Green, Kenneth C. (1997a). “Drawn to the Light,Burned by the Flame? Money, Technology, andDistance Education.” ED Journal, Publicationof the United States Distance Learning Asso-ciation.

Green, Kenneth C. (1997b). “High Tech vs. HighTouch: The Potential Promise and ProbableLimits of Technology-Based Education andTraining in Higher Education.” Working pa-per prepared for the workshop on CompetenceWithout Credentials held September 19, 1997in Washington, D.C., sponsored by the U.S.Department of Education and The WorldBank.

Guernsey, Lisa (February 17, 1999). “ScholarsCall for Research on How Computers May beWidening the Global Economic Gap.” TheChronicle of Higher Education (www.chronicle.com).

Hafner, Katie (February 21, 1999). “Gifts FromGates, With Windows Attached.” New YorkTimes, pp. 1, 18.

Higher Education Research Institute (1999).“Freshmen Embrace the Internet as an Edu-cational Tool.” The American Freshman:National Norms for Fall 1998. Los Angeles,CA: UCLA.

Jones, Glenn (1997). Cyberschools. Englewood,CO: Jones Digital Century, Inc.

Policy Analysis 35

Perspectives○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

Lakewood Publications (1997, October). “Indus-try Report 1997: A statistical picture ofemployer-sponsored training in the UnitedStates.” Training. Minneapolis, MN: Lake-wood Publications.

Marchese, Ted (1998, May). “Not-So-DistantCompetitors: How New Providers Are Remak-ing the Postsecondary Marketplace.” AAHEBulletin. Washington, DC: American Associa-tion for Higher Education.

Owston, Ronald D. (1997, March). “The WorldWide Web: A Technology to Enhance Teach-ing and Learning?” Educational Researcher 26,pp. 27-33.

Phipps, Ronald A., Jane V. Wellman, and JamieP. Merisotis. (1998). “Assuring Quality in Dis-tance Learning: A Preliminary Review.”Summary Report. Washington, DC: Councilfor Higher Education Accreditation (http://www.chea.org/index.html/Perspective/assuring.html).

Quality Education Data (1998). Internet Usage inPublic Schools 1998, 3rd Edition. Denver, CO:Quality Education Data.

U.S. Department of Commerce (1998). FallingThrough the Net II: New Data on the DigitalDivide. Washington, DC: National Telecom-munications & Information Administration.

U.S. Department of Education (1997a). “Ad-vanced Telecommunications in U.S. PublicElementary and Secondary Schools, Fall1996.” Statistics in Brief (NCES 97-944).Washington, DC: National Center for Educa-tion Statistics.

U.S. Department of Education (1997b). DistanceEducation in Higher Education Institutions. APostsecondary Education Quick InformationSystem Report (NCES 98-062). Washington,DC: National Center for Education Statistics,OERI.

U.S. Department of Education (1999). “InternetAccess in Public Schools and Classrooms:1994-98.” Issue Brief (NCES 1999-017).Washington, DC: National Center for Educa-tion Statistics.

Data Addendum: July 1999

Figures 1, 2, and 3 from “The Virtual University and Educational Opportunity” have been updated with the latest U.S. National Telecommunications & Information Administration (NTIA) data available in the July 1999 publication, “Falling Through the Net: Defining the Digital Divide.” Copies of that report are available from the following website:

www.ntia.doc.gov

for more information contact:

Dr. Watson Scott Swail Senior Policy Analyst

SRI International [email protected]

(703) 247-8576

Figure 2. Percentage of U.S. Households with a Computer and Online Service, by Race/Ethnicity, 1998

47

2326

55

30

11 13

36

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

White Black Hispanic Asian and Other

Race/Ethnicity

Per

cent

age

Computer Online

Source: Falling Through the Net: Defining the Digital Divide.National Telecommunications & Information Administration (NTIA), U.S. Department of Commerce, July 1999.

Figure 3. Percentage of U.S. Households with Online Service, by Educational Attainment, 1998

16

31

49

69

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Some High School HS Diploma or GED Some Postsecondary BA or higher

Educational Attainment

Per

cent

age

Source: Falling Through the Net: Defining the Digital Divide.National Telecommunications & Information Administration (NTIA), U.S. Department of Commerce, July 1999.

Figure 1. Percentage of U.S. Households with a Computer and Online Service, by Income, 1998

1612

1621

26

36

50

66

80

8 6 7 1012

19

30

44

60

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Under$5,000

5,000-9,999

10,000-14,999

15,000-19,999

20,000-24,999

25,000-34,999

35,000-49,999

50,000-74,999

75,000+

Household Income

Per

cent

age

Computer Online

Source: Falling Through the Net: Defining the Digital Divide. National Telecommunications & Information Administration (NTIA), U.S. Department of Commerce, July 1999.

LawrLawrLawrLawrLawrence E. Gladieuxence E. Gladieuxence E. Gladieuxence E. Gladieuxence E. Gladieux is executive director for policy analysis of theCollege Board. Through his leadership, the College Board’s Washing-ton, D.C. office has gained a reputation for reliable, independent policyanalysis on issues of the high school-to-college transition, collegeaffordability, and equal opportunity for higher education. Gladieux haswritten articles appearing in the Chronicle of Higher Education, Academe,Change, Journal of Student Financial Aid, the College Board Review, theNew York Times, the Washington Post, and the Los Angeles Times, as wellas publications of the Academy of Political Science, American YouthPolicy Forum, and Phi Delta Kappa. A former congressional staffmember, Gladieux received his master’s in public affairs from PrincetonUniversity.

WWWWWatson Scott Swatson Scott Swatson Scott Swatson Scott Swatson Scott Swailailailailail is associate director for policy analysis of theCollege Board. Swail provides data and analysis on issues of academicpreparation, access to college, and postsecondary success, with particu-lar focus on educational opportunities for low income, disadvantagedstudents. His work has been published in the College Board Review,Technology Teacher, and Higher Education Management. In addition topolicy research, he directs and produces The College Board’s annualTrends reports on student aid, college pricing, and academic prepara-tion. Swail is a former technology teacher and received his doctorate ineducational policy from the George Washington University.

The Washington Office of the College Board1233 20th St. NW, Suite 600Washington, DC 20036-2304

(202) 822-5900

209170

The Virtual University Educational Opportunity University.pdf · supports the Board’s mission of...

Documents

Transcript of The Virtual University Educational Opportunity University.pdf · supports the Board’s mission of...