Illustration by Michael Gibbs

Distance education--also known as e-learning, to use terminology of the moment--is big business. The market for distance education is growing by leaps and bounds, with the "traditional" 18- to 22-year-old college student rapidly becoming the minority. Because the majority of today's students are older and more motivated, seeking training but needing flexibility, education has become "the next big killer application on the Internet," as Cisco Systems CEO John Chambers pithily pointed out last year.

Quite a few for-profit education businesses didn't need Chambers' help in discovering this ready market. Venture capitalists are pouring money into e-learning, realizing $1 billion in revenues last year alone. These profits will skyrocket to $11 billion in the next three years, according to the research firm International Data Corporation.

The non-profit higher education world is not waiting for an invitation to join the party. Distance education programs in higher ed grew by 72 percent between 1995 and 1998, the National Center for Education Statistics reported in a survey released at the end of last year, noting that growth in the past two years has probably been even more rapid.

The NCES data show that public twoyear and four-year colleges are moving into distance education more quickly than private institutions. In 1997, some 79 percent of the four-years and 72 percent of the two-years were offering the courses.

And, while video and interactive television transmissions were the popular vehide for distance education in the recent past, the Internet is the way to go today. From earlier modest efforts to design home pages and get their syllabi posted online, faculty have advanced to more sophisticated interactive modes of instructional design and evaluation. In 1995, NCES reported, only 22 percent of institutions that engaged in distance education were offering asynchronous courses (so-called anytime-anywhere learning) online. Just three years later, that percentage had jumped to 60.

US. Department of Education assistant secretary of postsecondary education Lee Fritschler has signaled the department's determination to do more to support institutions that provide distance education. Yet, when NCES released its report, officials expressed a continuing concern for quality control issues.

Quality is also of the utmost importance to the AFT, which last year released "What's the Difference: A Review of the Contemporary Research on the Effectiveness of Distance Learning in Higher Education," an analysis oonducted for the union by the Institute for Higher Education Policy. The report was the third major study of the effect of technology on faculty, students and higher education (the studies are available at www.aft.org). The AFT report, like the others, states its support for tapping the vast potential of technological innovation while at the same time urging faculty, in their role as academic stewards ofour institutions, to exercise caution.

This summer, the accrediting agencies finally announced their intention to take a different approach in evaluating distance education courses than the one they have historically used in assessing traditional classroom learning. The six regional associations said they were working on guidelines that would provide dear standards for distance education programs. Their emphasis would be more on outputs than inputs-i.e., more on student learning than on institutional resources.

This fall, the AFT is releasing a report and recommendations on standards for faculty and their unions to use in shaping distance education policies on their campuses. The report is the byproduct of (1) a survey of AFT faculty members who have taught distance education courses and (2) continuing discussion and analysis of the survey results among AFT leaders and members. The standards, which have been drafted and redrafted through the AFT's higher education program and policy council, were at the heart of the resolution on distance education that delegates passed at the AFT convention last summer (see September AFT On Campus).

It is heartening that the guidelines, which are the result of extended faculty union consideration, are based on premises that the accrediting agencies have also identified as being central. Accreditation of distance education programs will occur only when the programs are the responsibility of faculty, technical support is provided to faculty and students, and assessment and evaluation are well-developed components of the program, according to the Western Association of Schools and Colleges (www.wascweb.org).

The AFT guidelines, which are summarized below, have been created to assist faculty members who teach or are preparing to teach distance education courses, as well as higher education locals negotiating distance education issues with management. They also will be useful to college administrators and public officials who want to put quality at the center of their technology programs, as well as to other organizations that are attempting, as is the AFT, to shape new media of instruction in constructive ways.

The guidelines focus primarily on distance education in college credit-bearing degree programs: two-year, four-year and graduate. These standards apply equally to public, private, non-profit and for-profit education providers. In the view of the guidelines' framers, for-profit providers warrant a higher level of scrutiny because the commercial marketplace creates special incentives to cater to a consumer's desire for ease and convenience rather than academic rigor. However, for-profit enterprises that meet the guidelines of good practice deserve their place at the table.

Decisions about particular courses should be made at the departmental or interdepartmental level, including the decision to award credit for distance courses generated by transfer from another institution or provider.

Distance education courses for credit should be taught by faculty appointed and evaluated through the traditional hiring and tenure process, which involves the faculty and the department. Teaching and research faculty, not just "curriculum specialists," must be involved in developing the curriculum

Faculty who teach distance education courses must become proficient in the communications technology^, employed in these courses; faculty should be prepared to spend more time planning the course, and being available (electronically) to students on an extended basis. They also must provide feedback and grades promptly.

In order to handle these responsibilities effectively, faculty must be provided with: • adequate training and technical support-in terms of hardware, software and troubleshooting;

• additional compensation, in the form of credit toward workload assignments, to meet the extensive time commitments of distance education; and
• positive recognition through the institutional rewards process for the creative work of formulating distance programs.

Faculty members developing distance education courses should approach course design-curriculum planning, class projects, visual aids, library materials and student interaction-not in terms of replicating the traditional classroom, but in terms of maximizing the potential of the medium that will be employed.

Research shows that particular kinds of students perform better in distance education than other students. All first-time distance education students should be given a clear statement of course expectations in advance. This should include: (1) all course requirements, (2) the weekly time commitment and specific computer skills the course requires and (3) a presentation of the practical difficulties of working at a distance and what is needed to manage those challenges successfully.

Training in advance of the course must be provided to students who have the appropriate equipment but do not know how to use it properly; and advice should be offered to students who have trouble communicating in writing or who are undermotivated.

Students require reliable, extendedtime technical support throughout the course. In all course materials, institutions should specify the nature and extent of technical support to be provided. A telephone number to call for technical support is essential; and this support should be available for as many hours a day as possible.

Because distance education isn't suited to every student, states and localities must ensure that no one is offered distance education as his or her only option for obtaining a college education.

To maximize communication electronically; distance learning courses should, to the greatest extent possible, incorporate both:

• real-time electronic interchange through devices such as chat rooms and discussion groups and;
• asynchronous forms of communication such as e-mail and computer bulletin boards.

When feasible, opportunities for sametime same-place interchange between the teacher and student, or among students, should be built into credit courses taught at a distance. Exceptions are in order for homebound or truly isolated students, or in cases where students or professors are not within reasonable travel distance of one another.

This process will ensure that educational, rather than bureaucratic or financial considerations, drive the process. Class size should encourage a high degree of interactivity. Given the time commitment involved in teaching through distance education, smaller class size should be considered, particularly at the inception of a new course.

The amount of material covered in a distance education course, and the depth with which it is covered, should equal that of a classroom-based course.

There is insufficient evidence to conclude that distance education can be ruled out, a priori, for any particular kind of credit course. On the other hand, institutions should not continue to offer courses that have been unsuccessful. If attrition rates are high or test scores are low, or if the teacher reports disappointing results, the faculty should declare a "time out" during which a carefid evaluation is conducted, along with an exploration of successful learning techniques employed elsewhere. If the faculty determines that problems have been overcome, the course can be reinstituted.

Opportunities for distance education students to conduct independent courserelated research must be substantially the same as the opportunities provided to other students. Distance education students should have access to all possible electronic research material. For any course requiring independent research, distance education students should be expected, if feasible, to visit a campus or public library at least once in order to confer with professional librarians and employ the variety of materials and resources available there. If there is no accessible location where a student can obtain needed hard-copy research, and there is no online source, the college should arrange to get books and materials to students through overnight mail, either for sale or loan.

The level of achievement expected of students, and tested for in a distance education environment, should be as challenging as that in a classroom-based course. Differences in electronic and classroom educational techniques may^, dictate various forms of assessment, or different emphases, but the overall standard of student achievement should be equivalent. Prudent steps should also be taken to limit the possibility of fraud and abuse in a distance education environment.

Academic professionals must take care to offer students pursuing college degrees through distance education many opportunities for individual advising. Same-time same-place advisement should be made available, particularly at key junctures in the student's academic career, but telephone contact is an acceptable alternative.

The issue of intellectual property rights is broad, complicated and still unfolding-in state and federal legislatures, the courts and at the bargaining table. As u general standard, however, faculty^, member(s) developing a course should maintain creative control over the use and reuse of the course in subsequent years. Absent such control, students have no guarantee that a course will be of the same caliber as in previous years or that it has been updated to reflect changes in the subject area.

Each institution's faculty should assume responsibility^, for carefully considering how much coursework a student can appropriately obtain through distance education. The faculty should deliberate at the campus, department and interdepartment levels, allowing for differences among disciplines and an appropriate amount of experimentation. As a general rule, faculty should consider permitting up to 50 percent of a full undergraduate course of study to be offered at a distance.

Procedures should be established to ensure, on a case by case basis, that a full undergraduate distance education program is available to students truly unable to participate in classroom education at any time. after considering all other options.

A full program taught at a distance may be acceptable at the graduate level and for some certificate programs, as determined by the faculty.

All institutions offering distance education courses should become laboratories of program evaluation. Areas for evaluation should include the characteristics of successful and unsuccessful distance education students, variations among academic disciplines, faculty-student interaction, student performance, and the efficacy of offering large parts or all of an academic program by distance learning.

Regional and specialized accreditation agencies should establish high standards for distance education programs and ensure that these programs are always included in the evaluation of the institutions offering them. Evaluation of distance education should become a priority concern of the federal government, which immediately should take two steps:

• create a national clearinghouse to share information about successful and unsuccessful practices, and
• initiate a priority program of targeted research in distance education in the areas outlined above.