2. The Self Reinforcing Characteristics of Teaching & Technology in Serving the New Access Mission

3.  Dynamics of Change  What’s at Stake  Case Study: ISU  Self Reinforcing Characteristics of Teaching & Technology

4. Time of Great Change  Anytime, Anyplace Learning  Emergence of 4th H.E.Sector: Distance Education  Western Governors University and the Like  Drucker’s Prediction

5. Dynamics of Change  Instructional Technology  New Access Mission

6. New Access Mission: Amplitude & Magnitude of Change  D.E. Colleges in Peterson’s Guide 1993=93 1997=762  55% of 2215 4-year offer Distance Education Courses  D.E. Colleges in Peterson’s Guide 1993=93 1997=762  55% of 2215 4-year offer Distance Education Courses

7. New Access Mission: Amplitude & Magnitude of Change  Projected Enrollment Growth in Distance Education 1997-2000 = 3 - 4 million 1998-2008 =10+ million  Distance Education’s Proportions of H.E. Enrollments 1997 = 7% 2000 = 26% 2008 = 47%

8. New Access Mission: Cost Effectiveness  Worldwide: 11 open universities teaching 2.8 million at $350/student (Source: Sir John Daniel)

9. Change Leads to Uncertainty  What role for publics in the new access mission?  What effect will the new access mission have on current markets?

10. Change Leads to Uncertainty  What effect will new anytime, anyplace learning technologies have on the current markets?  How will states and their public institutions act to claim this market?

11. The Shape of the Postsecondary Market Name Brand Convenience/ User-Friendly 1 2 3 45 6 7 Market Segments Traditional Market Residential Full-time Faculty Holistic Education Prestige Full-time Rising Tide Commuter/Anytime, Anyplace Adjunct Faculty Credentials Access Part-time

12. Number of Undergraduates Attending Public and Private Baccalaureate Institutions, by Market Segment Market Segments Number of Students (in thousand) Private Public Name Brand Convenience/ User-Friendly

13. Scenario 1: Status Quo in Serving the New Access Mission Market Segments 0 525 1050 1575 2100 2625 3150 3675 4200 1234567 Number of Students (in thousand) Private Public

14. Scenario 2: Private, For-Profits Serve the New Access Mission 0 525 1050 1575 2100 2625 3150 3675 4200 1234567 Number of Students (in thousand) Private Public Market Segments

15. What’s at Stake for Public Higher Education?  Relative Importance to the Enterprise  Influence on Public Decisions  Resources and Students

16. What are the Issues for the Institutions in the Middle?  Mission Focus: We Do Both  Resource Commitment  Faculty Interest and Effort = Adoption of IT

17. Institutions in the Middle: Faculty Adoption 1 2 3 45 6 7 Name Brand Convenience/ User-Friendly Traditional Market Rising Tide Holistic Education Credentials Prestige Access Market Segments Referential Orientation Faculty Administration

18. Institutions in the Middle  Mission and Resources  Access = New Resources  Experiences by Place: On Campus & Off Campus  Clear Strategies to Address Both Ends of the Continuum: Distinguish Holistic Education From Academic Achievement

19. Common Ground  Institutional Survival  Institutional/Departmental Success  Effects Yielding Positive Reputation  State of the Art Pedagogy  Institutional Presence  Public Awareness  Student Learning & Success

20. Policy Acceptance Needed for New:  Faculty Reward Policies  RTP Policies  Letter of Employment Expectations  Faculty Load Policies

21. ISU’s Institutional Response  Degree Link Program  2 Innovative Ph. D. Programs  State Leadership for Learning Centers  Strategic Planning Process

22. Hybrid Service Model  Target Market: Placebound, Timebound, Adult Students  2+2 Articulation w/ 2-Year Partners  Degree and Degree Completion Programs at a Distance  On-Site Remote Learner Services  Course Transformation Academy

23. Continuing Critical Questions  For institutions in the middle, what mutual interests are served by embracing instructional technology and serving the new access markets?

24. Continuing Critical Questions  Why should we expect the faculty to think embracing this change is a good idea?  What is the vision for the on-campus enterprise

25. The Self Reinforcing Characteristics of Teaching and Technology  Common Ground: Student Success and Quality Teaching and Learning  Common Ground: Institutional Survival,Success, and Market Presence

26. Key Assumption: Competition for Residential Students  Reputational in Nature  Quality, Student-Centered Education  Market Perceptions of Good Pedagogy  Mass Customization of Campus- Based Education

27. Common Ground: Institutional Survival, Success, and Market Presence  Resources  Mission and Market Awareness  Early Markets and Partnering for Niche Protection and On Site Advantages

28. Resources  New Access Mission Resources Provide Dual Purpose Support  I.e. faculty, technology, and instructional support

29. Resources  Winning at the New Economics; or, to the Victors Go the Spoils  Revenues streams with which to compete  Mechanism for institutional learning and quality standards

30. Resources  Diminished Opportunity Costs  Claim Market Share in the Rising Tide  Command Interest From Resource Rich Partners

31. Mission and Market Awareness  Public Awareness Through Presence & Service  On Site Learning Services  Public Funding  Market Awareness

32. Mission and Market Awareness  Reinforcing Access & Service Missions  Serving State Needs (Business & Industry, Underserved)  Capturing Public Attention

33. Mission and Market Awareness  Extended Contact with Core of the Enterprise  First Hand Experience with Our Faculty  Teach Parents at Home; Their Children On Campus

34. Early Markets and Partnering for Niche Protection & On-Site Advantages  Main Early Competition: 1% of Courses = 44% of FTE  Articulation with 2-Year Partners

35. Early Markets and Partnering for Niche Protection & on Site Advantages  Partners & Learning Centers Provide Place and Presence  Technical & Workforce-related Programs  Partners, Place, and Program Provide Semi-protected Market

36. New Tools: Instructional Technology  May inspire faculty to rethink teaching approaches  May result in improved on-campus pedagogy  Will necessitate faculty development  Adoption issues connect faculty community horizontally across the institution

37.  Will Provide Flexibility to On-Campus Students and Faculty Regarding Time and Place  Asynchronous Learning  Permits Individualized Instructional Approaches  Mass Customization Adoption of Instructional Technologies:

38.  Should Free Faculty to Focus On Developing Higher Order Thinking in Their Students  Introduces Potential Gains in Learning Productivity  Content / Credit Hour Adoption of Instructional Technologies:

39.  May Spawn a New Quality Standard for On Campus Pedagogy  Flexibility,Learning Productivity, Individual Approaches and Attention  Supplies Tangible Evidence about the Scholarship & Teaching  Peer Evaluation  Adoption by Peer Adoption of Instructional Technologies:

40. Summary  Dynamics of Change: New Access Mission  What’s at Stake: Position and Place  Lessons Learned: Find Common Ground  Teaching and Technology Can Be Self- Reinforcing

41. The Self Reinforcing Characteristics of Teaching & Technology in Serving the New Access Mission