Asynchronous Learning Networks and Distance Education
An Interview with Frank Mayadas of the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation
by
Gary E. Miller
Associate Vice President
for Distance Education
The Pennsylvania State
University
Reprinted with permission of
The American Journal of Distance Education; the
interview appears in Vol. 11 No. 3., 1997
The American Journal
of Distance Education
The
Pennsylvania State University
110 Rackley Building
University Park, PA
16802
Dr. Frank Mayadas is a Program Officer for the Alfred P. Sloan
Foundation. Prior to joining the Foundation in 1993, Dr. Mayadas spent
twenty-seven years at the IBM Corporation, where he served as Vice President of
the Research Division, Technical Plans and Controls during his last years there.
He is a Fellow of the IEEE, a member of the American Physical Society, and a
past Director of the Society of Engineering Science. He also serves as a member
of the Advisory Board of the College of Engineering at the University of
Illinois and at Vanderbilt University. Dr. Mayadas was interviewed by Gary E.
Miller, Associate Vice President for Distance Education at The Pennsylvania
State University.
Gary Miller: For the past several years, the Alfred P. Sloan
Foundation has funded a large number of experiments and projects related to
Asynchronous Learning Networks. How do you define Asynchronous Learning Networks
(ALN),
and why is the Sloan Foundation interested in
ALN?
Frank Mayadas: For many, many years people have had
the opportunity to learn at places away from campuses and other centers of
learning. They have done this through the use of learning media such as books
and other print materials, and more recently they have also been able to use
videotapes, audiotapes, and various kinds of software such as learning software
built on rules-based or other systems. Learning software is often described as
multimedia, and is distributed on CD-ROM. All of these self-learning approaches
are asynchronous in that they do not require the learner to synchronize his or
her schedule with anyone else or with any other event. By this definition,
attending a class, either face-to-face or through interactive TV, would not
qualify as asynchronous learning. I usually do classify broadcast TV as
asynchronous because this can be video-taped and played back at the learner's
convenience with no loss in value. We at Sloan have felt for many years that the
relatively recent development of electronic asynchronous communication can have
a huge impact on learning in combination with the above-mentioned asynchronous
self-learning media. Probably the most common examples of asynchronous
electronic communications are e-mail and voice-response systems. Somewhat less
well-known are computer conferencing systems that allow groups to communicate,
discuss, and share information. So our vision is that a remote learner should be
able to learn through the use of self-learning media in much the same way that a
campus learner does. Being connected to a peer group or cohort and to an
instructor, and perhaps a tutor, the remote learner can also have the benefits
of the important people-to-people communications that campus learners have
always enjoyed, and which self-learning alone does not provide. We can think of
a group of geographically separated learners who use self-learning media and are
connected through an electronic communication network as an Asynchronous
Learning Network. The term "network" is used here to refer both to a computer
network and to the "people network" it enables. Learning alone is difficult. We
think that an Asynchronous Learning Network makes learning more accessible by
bringing the many benefits of cohort-style learning to remote learners without
regard to distance or time-synchronization constraints. It may bring to reality
the vision that anyone should be able to access education at anytime or
anyplace.
GM: What is the relationship of ALN to
distance education?
FM: I think of ALN as a sub-set of
the many delivery modes that make up the term "distance education," but in some
ways it is also a super-set. It is a sub-set because approaches such as
correspondence, interactive TV, and the various self-learning approaches that we
discussed earlier, including broadcast TV, are all a part of what is called
distance education. So ALN is a sub-set in that it is another entry, though one
that I think may eventually prove to be the most important. However,
elements of ALN can also be directly incorporated to benefit on-campus learners.
We have supported a few projects that explore ways in which on-campus learning
can be made more efficient through the introduction of ALN elements, without
sacrificing learning quality. With ALN, a large part of the on-campus learners'
communications with fellow students, tutors, and faculty would still be
face-to-face, but significant portions would be asynchronous. The distance
education term is usually not applied to on-campus learning.
My own view is
that eventually ALNs will stretch seamlessly from the campus to remote
environments, but with differences in the way they are implemented as the
distance from a campus increases.
GM: You mention that
ALN can be applied in many different environments-on campus and off-and that
there are differences between single courses and programs. Taking all that into
account, what criteria does the Sloan Foundation ask institutions to use to
measure the success of ALN initiatives?
FM: As you
note, we generally think of ALNs as falling into two basic varieties: On-Campus
ALNs and Off-Campus ALNs, although these latter ones can also be sub-divided
into Near-Campus and Far-from-Campus varieties. For On-Campus ALNs (i.e.
those that are integrated into other more conventional activities, such as
face-to-face classroom sessions), it is important to attempt to measure
outcomes, since the overall cost of instruction can increase if an ALN is
introduced. So, if improved learning quality is sought, it seems that this
should be demonstrated through measurement. Another goal might be to improve
student retention without sacrificing learning quality, but it should also be
measured. I also believe that On-Campus ALNs can be very active "laboratories"
of experimentation in ALN pedagogy, something that is hard to do when teaching
to off-campus students because of the increased complexity of the situation.
With on-campus students, most of the interaction will still be face-to-face, and
I can envision more experimental approaches being attempted in the ALN area, the
best of which can then be carried over to the off-campus environment (perhaps
with some modification). With respect to the Off-Campus environment, we
initially tried to encourage colleges and universities to just get into the
game. Now, of course, a large number of institutions are involved and some
experience is being gained, so it becomes relevant to inquire about assessment.
I think in terms of five assessment factors, all of which must show favorable
outcomes and favorable progress in order for ALNs to succeed.
The first is
access. I think the whole point of Off-Campus ALNs is to increase access to
education to a pool of learners who currently do not have this access, and so we
need to be able to assess whether increased access is, in fact, being provided.
We should keep in mind that access has never been completely absent. Over the
years, people have had the opportunity to learn on their own, by reading books
and other printed learning materials. All of us are familiar with stories of
historical figures who mastered entire disciplines through their own efforts.
That brings to mind the story of the impoverished postal clerk in India at the
turn of the century, Ramanujam, who taught himself mathematics, and
subsequently, lectured at Oxford, developed a number of new theorems in number
theory, and co-authored scholarly publications with the famous English
mathematician G. H. Hardy. So, access to education has, in some sense, always
been there. But the flip side is that people like Ramanujam are very few in
number, and for most people, access to self-learning materials is not really
access at all. Correspondence is a step forward. But the question remains on the
table: do ALNs improve access beyond self-learning and independent study through
correspondence? By how much? What can we do to further improve access? Surely a
part of the answer to the last question is to lower the cost of entry for
learners (the below $1000 computer and $20/month for Internet connections prices
are a step in the right direction) and to increase the number of courses and
disciplines available to remote learners. I think you get the idea that the
degree of access provided in a particular ALN, as compared to some theoretically
desirable figure, is a good thing to `measure.'
The second factor is learning
effectiveness. This one is rather obvious. We need to do enough in the way of
assessment to make sure that learning goals are being met. This does not
necessarily mean that comparisons with classroom learning through control groups
are necessary, only that learning mastery meets or exceed goals set by faculty
and the institution.
Third, it seems to me that in order to have widespread
adoption of ALNs and the increased access that I expect will follow, we need to
strive toward making ALN teaching a satisfying experience for faculty-as
satisfying as conventional classroom teaching, or even more so. This should be
true for most faculty, not just those that are sometimes called "early
adopters." There is some symmetry here with what I said earlier about learners
and access: just as we want to extend access to the learner, so, too, should we
seek to make ALN teaching attractive to the average faculty member. And, of
course, this becomes an assessment factor; for example, what do we know about
faculty satisfaction in a particular ALN implementation and, how do we go about
improving it?
Fourth is cost effectiveness. There is a cost associated with
any kind of education, and although most faculty strive first and foremost for
the highest quality, there is always the implied and real limitation imposed by
cost.
So I think the cost-effectiveness of various ALNs proposed for
Off-Campus education is something that should be consciously thought through and
measured.
There is a cost to the institution, such as ALN course creation,
on-going costs to maintain and provide courses and services for off-campus
delivery, cost of infrastructure, and so forth. There is a complementary cost to
the student, such as tuition and fees, cost of Internet connection, cost of
long-distance calls, and cost of computer and other equipment. And of course,
the cost to the student and the cost to the institution have a relationship. We
should think about these costs and begin to think about how to improve them
without sacrificing quality.
Finally-and this is certainly not the least
important-is student satisfaction. This is a broad category useful in thinking
through all the ways in which a remote learner interacts with the university,
ranging across academic matters from the full range of services to online social
interaction with faculty and other students. Universities and students in
traditional settings value the total "campus experience" which is a part of the
learning experience. I see this category as focused on the "online experience"
and its improvement. In the end, colleges and universities will want a loyal
group of online graduates. I've gone into some detail here because assessments
patterned on these five factors made no sense as the ALN efforts were just
starting. Now that many of these efforts are becoming established, it makes
sense to begin considering these kinds of measurements. Some have begun, and we
expect many more to get underway this year.
GM: What has
the Foundation learned about making ALN successful within an
institution?
FM: Success in ALN can come at many levels,
but the important ingredient is always "commitment," not factors of a
technological nature such as band-width.
Let me explain. A successful ALN
course can be mounted by a single faculty member. An ALN degree program,
however, requires more than the commitment of a single faculty member. A program
that features multiple ALN programs and courses, for instance, one that aspires
to resemble a university, requires very substantial institutional commitment.
Multiple faculty must be involved, with full support, financial and otherwise,
of the president, provost, deans, as well as marketing, computing, and other
support groups. We have many examples of successful courses and degrees, and we
are now seeing, in select cases, the necessary institutional commitment that can
result in real ALN universities. Of course, an important part of this
institutional commitment is to actively seek resources beyond the universities'
own with which to carry out the task, and also to consciously mount an effort to
learn from the work already underway at other
places.
GM: We've talked a lot about success factors.
However, we also learn from failures. What kinds of problems have you
seen?
FM: The issue of successes and failures is an
interesting one. I see it this way: where we see successes, we know we have
found one successful approach, but there may be many others. The field is in its
infancy, so there is no reason to believe that even successful approaches are
optimal. In some sense, that is why the measurements idea we discussed earlier
is so important. Whatever seems to be working should be seen as something that
might be improved. Similarly, where results are below expectations, we need to
make an effort to find more favorable outcomes, rather than simply label the
effort as a failure.
GM: In that case, where do you
feel we need to focus more effort?
FM: Two areas come to
mind where I think more efforts are needed. One is that I find enrollments are
never as high as initially expected. We need to understand why this is and try
to improve the numbers. It may be a matter of re-thinking how to enhance
awareness among the learner community and of marketing. It may be a matter of
cost to the student. It may be that acceptance of these kinds of approaches
among learners will be slow, just as acceptance has its own pace among faculty.
We don't know the answers, but we need to keep looking. A second area that
needs attention is that of faculty satisfaction. The way in which most, if not
all, ALN courses are designed and taught, is generally more work for a faculty
member than equivalent classroom courses. We need to stay focused on the area of
work level, and more importantly, satisfaction level, of faculty so that the
faculty effort is equivalent to or less than that of classroom teaching.
At this early stage in the ALN field, the faculty involved are the more
innovative and better ones, and I hear them saying that they have a high
satisfaction level, even though it seems to be more work for them. I worry about
this, however, when I look ahead and see that for ALNs to be established and
become large-scale, many more faculty, including those not presently
participating, will have to get involved. Institutional incentives for faculty
participation will help, but in the end, there will have to be high levels of
satisfaction. So, we haven't yet found all the right answers on pedagogy, the
design, and delivery of ALN courses.
GM: What do you
see as the next step for asynchronous learning networks?
FM:
An excellent question and a difficult one because there are so many
next steps that come to mind. One is to expand, as fast as possible, the number
of faculty involved and the number of disciplines covered. This way, much more
research will be done in areas like pedagogy, and better teaching strategies
will become more evident. However, I think the one step that captures
this and some other "next steps" is a move toward large-scale implementation of
ALN for off-campus learners. Higher education is a large-scale enterprise, and
if the ALN approach is to be viable, I believe that it, too, must achieve
large-scale implementation.
As an ALN evolves toward large-scale operations,
much will be learned in the process about pedagogy, student support, faculty
attitudes, and the other issues we have been discussing. An ALN that
enrolls 10,000 students or more attending a single university might be
considered large-scale, which isn't all that big in comparison to the campus
enrollments at large universities. Evolution toward large-scale will also force
attention on issues of accreditation and licensure across state and national
boundaries, and it will focus attention on issues of inter-institutional
cooperation, possibly resulting in new kinds of organizations. It seems to me
that a next step of "large-scale" includes progress in many of the issues vital
to the future of ALN in higher education.
Gary E.
Miller
|
