Task Force Members:

John Hollenbeck, Chair
Chris Marler
Scott Patterson
Michelle Rito
Val Sakovich
Genie Stowers

Executive Summary

Mission Statement

Definitions

This report details the findings of the Task Force on Distance Education at San Francisco State University. The report begins with an overview of the Task Force charge and a statement of the assumptions made by the Task Force at the beginning of their fact-finding. The next sections of the report provide conceptual definitions of terminology and concepts used in the Task Forceís discussion of distance education, a history of distance education projects at San Francisco State University, an examination of distance education efforts at San Francisco State University peer institutions, and a case study of an online education effort at a similar institution. These sections provide a common vocabulary from which to communicate, a grounding of distance education issues in the institutional history of San Francisco State University, and a contextualization of San Francisco State Universityís efforts in the broader arena of distance education in higher education in the United States. Key terms used in distance education are found in Appendix A.

The analysis, recommendation, and options sections of this report are based on the personal experiences of the Task Force members and consultations with a number of faculty and administrative staff involved in distance education at San Francisco State University. The faculty consisted of representatives from every college: Behavioral and Social Sciences, Business, Creative Arts, Education, Ethnic Studies, Extended Learning, Health and Human Services, Humanities, and Science and Engineering. The staff included representatives from AV/ITV, Computing Services, the Center for the Enhancement of Teaching, College of Extended Learning, Academic Resources, and the Graduate Division.

Four Key Action Areas

The Task Force identified four areas of concern that must be addressed in any effort to implement an organized distance education program at San Francisco State University:

1. Scope of Distance Education at San Francisco State University;
2. Faculty Support Issues;
3. Standardization of Software and Hardware; and,
4. Centralization of Resources.

1. Scope of Distance Education at San Francisco State University

A basic decision on the scope of distance education at San Francisco State University must be made. Should the University focus on providing more options and alternatives for our existing students, should the University focus upon reaching out to students not currently enrolled at San Francisco State University, or should some combination of these two be sought? These decisions could be seen as being a choice along a continuum that ranges from total outreach to total service to existing students. This decision must be made before other efforts can be undertaken. All other recommendations are contingent upon this decision.

 
2. Faculty Support Issues

The Task Force recommends the following action on crucial faculty support issues:

• Faculty Intellectual Property Rights. Adequate faculty intellectual property rights must be recognized. Control over reuse of all developed content material must be retained by the faculty member who develops online or video course materials. Faculty must be allowed to participate in any rewards that might come from the development of their intellectual property. Under no circumstances should the University develop any policy that would allow the University or any other party to take a faculty memberís intellectual property and use it to offer courses without the consent and/or knowledge of the faculty member. Faculty rights in this area should include control over both methodology and content.
• Recognition of Faculty Work. Faculty work in this new and innovative environment should be recognized throughout the retention, tenure, and promotion processes as equally legitimate to other teaching endeavors at the University. These efforts should also be recognized as what they areóexperimental efforts using new technologies and new modes of pedagogy. Faculty should receive recognition for the risks that they are taking in this innovative and new area and should be rewarded for taking initiative in this area.
• Workload. Distance learning courses should be considered as part of a faculty memberís normal workload. As such, each faculty member should receive the number of WTUs appropriate for each course taught via Internet or video-based learning.
• Faculty Encouragement and Support. Faculty should receive encouragement and support for the time-consuming process of developing new online or video-based courses. This support and encouragement should include, but not be limited to, release time to develop courses and mini-grants to help pay for graduate assistants, necessary equipment and software. This principle suggests that the current mini-grant system should be continued and enhanced.
• Job Security. Course materials developed by San Francisco State University faculty members should not be used to provide courses offerings without the express permission of the faculty member involved. This principle will help to ensure that video-taped or World Wide Web based course materials, once developed by faculty, will not be used by the University to replace faculty or lecturer time and so, ultimately replace faculty members.
• Evaluation of Distance Education Efforts. In order to ensure quality in our distance education efforts, specialized course evaluations by peer faculty experienced in distance education should be utilized.
• Class Size. Counter to many of the myths currently circulating about distance education, it is not a methodology suited for teaching endless numbers of students with the same or fewer faculty resources. In fact, like the more traditional classes, class size in both video-based and Internet-based distance education classes should be limited.

The Task Force recommends a standard for software support be established as rapidly as possible.

Standardization of hardware and software would benefit the development of distance education at San Francisco State University by improving access to online and video-mediated learning materials, allowing faculty to plan for certain levels of support in the design and execution of distance education projects, and streamlining user support services coordinated via computer services. The Task Force commends the standardization of the video-mediated learning aspects of distance education, and recommends the following:

• What to standardize. There should be a standard set of user interface software products supported by computer services and made freely available to all San Francisco State University students, staff, and faculty.
• Where to standardize. Computer labs on campus must have all of the software necessary to facilitate the standard. Also, a self-installing standard software bundle must be distributed to all off-campus students, for free. This self-installing bundle can be obtained from computer labs or Computer Services via disk exchange. The software bundle should be available on the three major personal computer operating systems: Windows, Macintosh, and UNIX.

All models presented in this Report call for the creation of some identified person to act as a Director of Distance Education. The primary function of this position will be to centralize the coordination of distance education efforts and resources at San Francisco State University. Depending on the decisions related to the scope of distance education at San Francisco State University, this position will be either part-time or full-time.

Our vision of this person is that he/she becomes the identified resource for any faculty member to go to in order for a course to be developed and delivered as distance education. This individual should possess experience as a faculty member and have demonstrable experience both as a teacher and distance educator. Further desirable skills include project management, marketing and technical skills. Given the nature of distance education on the San Francisco State University campus, it is preferable that this individual be drawn either from San Francisco State University or another CSU campus. This position will be a tenured administrative appointment. The report details the responsibilities and desired attributions of a Director of Distance Education at San Francisco State University.

In addition, the Task Force recommends that the Director of Distance Education be placed under the auspices of Academic Affairs, Associate Vice President for Academic Program Development.
 

Three Options for Distance Education at San Francisco State University

The strategic options drive three possible models for distance education at San Francisco State University. A Director of Distance Education is necessary under all of the possible models.

Model One: Utilization of Existing Resources

Under the first model, existing resources plus additional minimal resources are used to centralize distance education resources under a Director of Distance Education.

The minimum level of resources and activities required for Model 1 include:

• Existing mini-grant opportunities should be retained
• A committee must be created to receive input and decide upon appropriate distance education tools
• Proper and appropriate distance education tools must be provided
• Crucial infrastructure changes must be made. These include:

• Ongoing Class Schedule listings
• Online registration
• Online fee payment
• Online dropping and adding of courses
• Online admissions process
• Online bookstore services
• Online student and testing services
• Rooms for final examinations
• Rooms for occasional class meetings
• Online transcripts

• Centralized training must be provided
• Evaluation of courses must be conducted
• A modem pool dedicated to distance education must be provided
• Necessary video equipment must be provided
• The curricular web server must be reorganized under Academic Affairs and the Director of Distance Education

Other possible models, described below, represent greater efforts in distance education. They also represent the need for additional resources and changes in organizational structures. The models are additive and build upon one another, as seen in the graphic representation seen in Figure 2. Model 2 is Model 1 plus additional options; Model 3 adds even more resources and efforts to Model 1 and 2.

The Task Force feels that, at a minimum, Model 1 should be adopted by San Francisco State University. It is clear that our faculty are already engaging in interesting and innovative distance education efforts using both Internet- and video-based technologies. Further, the Task Force does not believe the University should discourage faculty from participating in distance education.

Under this first model, no costs would be recovered. Basic costs would include the costs of the resources seen below, the current $100,000 spent on mini-grants, and the costs of a half-time Director of Distance Education. The Task Force recommends that Model 1 be implemented by Fall 1998.

Model Two: Reorganization of Existing Resources and Additional Resources

As the models are additive, the second model is Model 1 plus additional resources. It would enable additional distance education efforts at San Francisco State University. Under this model, current San Francisco State University students could be served and a minimal level of outreach could be accomplished. This outreach would be a very targeted and focused one.

Partial recovery of the costs invested in distance education could be anticipated. Costs would include the resources discussed above, the original $100,000 mini-grant program (increased to $125,000), and the salary of the Director of Distance Education. Possible reimbursements for the time of production staff working on distance education courses would also be necessary.

Model Three: Creating an Academic Division of Distance Education

The third model incorporates all of the features from Models 1 and 2 plus the additional resources necessary to make a major effort to reach out to non-San Francisco State University students and take a portion of the existing distance education market.

In order to accomplish this ambitious goal, adequate hardware, software, staff, marketing, and other resources will be required. This model represents the other end of the continuum--under this model, distance education could definitely contribute additional FTES to San Francisco State University, an alternative that could produce new resources for the University.

Full cost recovery invested in distance education could be anticipated. Costs would include the resources discussed above in Model 1, the original $100,000 mini-grant program (increased to $150,000), the salary of the Director of Distance Education, the salaries of additional production team members, and the costs of some additional marketing capacity. Possible reimbursements for the time of current production staff working on distance education courses would also be necessary.
 

Outsourcing

Under any of these Models, outsourcing is an option. Outsourcing refers to contracting with an outside vendor to prepare and provide online courses to San Francisco State University students. Today, there are several prominent vendors who provide online education to universities. Real Education is one vendor who has recently (May 27, 1998) given a demonstration of their courses on campus (they were also the vendor who developed the CU Online system).

Like any system, there are advantages and disadvantages to utilizing outsourcing as an implementation scheme for distance education here at San Francisco State University. Outsourcing could be a more cost-effective approach, would address many of the security and organizational concerns that exist under the current system, would allow us to provide additional online courses more easily, and would provide access to course developers with a wide variety of experience and skills. Courses would not be owned by a vendor such Real Education but would be retained by the developers of the course. The vendor could also develop necessary graphics and assist with audio and video clips, as needed. This would eliminate the need for an extensive on-campus production staff. The courses would be physically housed on the vendorís server, reducing the need for technical assistance and server maintenance needs.

There are also disadvantages. No matter what assurances are provided, faculty could well be concerned that this is the beginning of a slippery slope towards losing control of their course content. Many faculty will also be concerned about contracting with a private firm to provide an educational environment to San Francisco State University students.

The issue and option of outsourcing is definitely one that should be discussed as decisions are made on how to implement distance education on campus. The advantages and disadvantages should be carefully weighed and as many administrators, faculty, and staff as possible should educate themselves, through the on-campus demonstrations, about the realities of this option.

Currently, there are discussions among Northern California campuses of the California State University system regarding the feasibility of contracting jointly with Real Education. Such an arrangement would have the advantage of both minimizing costs and setting thoughtful precedents for such contracting arrangements throughout the CSU.

Return to top

San Francisco State University has a full history of involvement in distance education. Efforts to use various video media dated back to 1977, and have always included two-way communications in whatever form was technologically available. This campus also has a rich history in the use of the Internet for course delivery and support. While this newer medium has only recently come to the forefront in distance education, there are examples throughout the campus community of individual professors and departments implementing innovative uses of online communications. This report will seek to identify new models that will build upon earlier work while taking into account the unique needs and opportunities of San Francisco State University.

The greatest liability to distance education efforts at San Francisco State University comes from the very de-centralized nature of this campus, and is reflected in the widely diversified approaches to the use of Internet supported education. As this report will show, many recent efforts in distance education have been the result of individual actions that involve enormous dedications of time and resources. While video-mediated learning has been centralized due to its costly nature, the relative ease of the computer, especially the World Wide Web, has led to a confusion of different efforts as individual faculty and department unilaterally move towards various forms of distance education. In this report the Task Force seeks to identify these efforts and provide different models for overcoming this confusion.

This report is organized in the following manner. After an initial Mission Statement, the definitions of distance education and the methodology of the report will be provided. Descriptions of distance education efforts at our peer institutions will be provided, along with a case study of a successful online education effort. Then, findings of the report will be presented.

Four basic issues have been identified:

• Scope of Distance Education at San Francisco State University
• Centralization of Resources
• Standardization of Software and Hardware
• Faculty Support Issues

The Task Force was constantly supported by the cooperation of all we contacted for information and interviewing. This report is the result of all participantsí honesty and willingness to give any information that would improve distance education at San Francisco State University. Finally, the Task Force would like to thank Gail Whitaker for her guidance, patience, and valuable voice in creating this report.

Return to top

• Increased student demands tax university resources, especially personnel, space, and equipment.
• There is a finite limit upon the physical space available on the main San Francisco State University campus.
• A diverse student body challenges San Francisco State University to provide flexible access to course materials, faculty, and university administrative services.
• Faculty expresses interest in exploring and demonstrating ways to expand the mission of San Francisco State University.

Advocacy of distance education as an option for San Francisco State University is based upon the following conditions:

• Not all faculty nor all classes are suited to distance education or cyber-assisted learning/teaching.
• There is a continuum of distance education methods, from the use of technology to supplement traditional models to the as yet unrealized models of "artificial instruction." All faculty interests within this continuum should be supported.
• Understanding that all members of the learning community served by San Francisco State University do not have equal access to the means of distance education.
• The development of distance education initiatives requires substantial coordination of academic and resource units across the university.
• University rules, policies, and procedures (organizational structures) should adapt to accommodate expended methods of education.

Distance Education

Distance Education broadly defines a condition of learning where instructor and student are physically separate for most, if not all, of the experience. Interaction is mediated by some media ñ currently audio, video, and computer technologies ñ that allows for students and instructor to engage in the business of education. These interactions may take place synchronously or asynchronously-- at the same time or within different time parameters.

Distance learning may be used interchangeably with distance education, though some use this term to refer more broadly to all educational media, including instructional books and videos that do not include interaction with an instructor. Another use refers to distance education as the result of distance education.

Sample Definitions of Distance Education

Distance Education is defined as a planned teaching/learning experience that uses a wide spectrum of technologies to reach learners at a distance and is designed to encourage learner interaction and certification of learning.

--defined by University of Wisconsin-Extension, Continuing Education Extension, Distance Education subgroup

At its most basic level, distance education takes place when a teacher and student(s) are separated by physical distance, and technology (i.e., voice, video, data, and print), often in concert with face-to-face communication, is used to bridge the instructional gap.

There are several different types of distance education available today. It is important to note that these technologies are constantly changing.

Computer Conferencing

The use of specialized computer software, most usually on the Internet, to create an interactive environment for education. Typically, computer conferencing is asynchronous, and consists of students posting messages to one another regarding course subjects. Messages may be organized into ëthreads,í which act to present sequentially message interactions on a given subject.

Distributed Learning

Learning that uses media, generally networked computers, to conduct distance education or to support the traditional classroom.

Videoconferencing

The use of synchronous two-way video and audio technologies that allow two or more sites to interact with one another.
 

Contextual Definitions for San Francisco State University

It is essential that common definitions of terms like distance education, online courses, and other terms used in this field are adopted by the University. We recommend that the definitions developed by Vicki Casella, Director of the Center for the Enhancement of Teaching (CET), be used in the University. These definitions have been developed, discussed, and revised by faculty and staff over a period of many months. These definitions are more honest and descriptive than those found at many other universities, which claim to have online courses (for example) but only have syllabi posted on the Web. The definitions and availability of materials on the San Francisco State University web site are listed below.

• Course descriptions. The San Francisco State University Bulletin is available online and a description of all courses offered at San Francisco State University can be accessed through the campus homepage [http://www.sfsu.edu]. Courses are listed alphabetically with a short description of course content.
• Course related materials are:

• Course syllabi. Course outline is available on the web.
• Class notes. Class related notes are published on the web.
• Course or discipline related web links. Instructor has linked web sites that support student learning for course content or that point to information in the discipline.
• Student projects. Instructor requires/recommends student projects be published on the web and attached to the homepage for wide distribution.
• Tutorials/Simulations related to a specific course or to the discipline. Instructor has developed or linked to training/ tutorial/ simulation modules that assist in the completion of a course or that can lead to a better understanding of the content of the discipline.

• Electronic Communication Tools: One or more electronic-based communication tools are used in the delivery and support of instruction.

• Instructor requires use of email to support student discussion and interaction.
• Instructor requires use of listservs to support interaction among students and instructors.
• Instructor requires use of conferencing regarding course content and/or assignments.

• Partially Online Course: Portions of the course are delivered electronically and the remainder of the course is delivered on campus. Students are required to meet one or more times during the semester and/or for quizzes or exams.
• Fully online courses: [http://online.sfsu.edu/classes] Instruction takes place off-campus on student demand. All course material is accessible through electronic media. These courses are delivered through access to the web.

San Francisco State has been participating in Distance Education for quite some time. Group communications and meetings have occurred via video-based communications since the late 1970s and via computer conferencing since the early 1990s.
 

The Beginnings of Video-Mediated Learning

Since the creation of the cable TV network on campus, events from a solar eclipse to San Francisco State University sporting events to law enforcement training have been viewed by video on campus networks. During the 1980s, this technology was used to enhance classes in fields ranging from philosophy (by Robin Assali) to mathematics (Susann Novalis). These achievements were made possible through the support and work of AV/ITV Director Dr. Frank Moakley and AV/ITV Associate Director Dr. Val Sakovich.

The initial entry into class-based distance education came in 1992 with an audio teleconference of a Clinical Science class in conjunction with George Washington University. See Table 1 for additional video-mediated events on the San Francisco State University campus.

Video-based teaching has a long history at San Francisco State. During the late 1950s, the University was one of the first campuses to deliver full video courses in several subjects supported by Ford Foundation dollars. Kinescopes were made of the classes and repeat showing continued on campus until the early 1960s.

Although the focus of this study seems to be on classes and programs, one should note that San Francisco State University uses video heavily for short non-credit programs, lectures between campuses, training using video delivered modules and an increasing number of lectures and faculty sharing between international sites. To narrowly define distance education in terms of only courses --one, two three or more units and degrees-- B.A., M.A., would overlook the short video segments within existing classes as well as certificate and short-term specific training--the greatest use of this technology to date.

Classes have been taught via the CODEC system since in 1994. Some of the classes taught with this system include the following:

• Library Science
• Kinesiology
• Instructional Technology
• Engineering
• Philosophy
• Math
• American Humanics

Computer-Mediated Learning at San Francisco State University

The early 1990s were a period of rapid technological change. The technology for group conversation through text-based computer conferencing was beginning to be used and was brought on campus by a group called SFSUNet. SFSUNet was an interdisciplinary group composed of Gib Robinson (English), Jerry Eisman (Computer Science), Debbie LeVeen (Urban Studies), and Genie Stowers (Public Administration), who joined the group in 1991, after its creation. It began as part of the Bay Area Homelessness Program (BAHP), itself a project that was funded by the Hewlett Foundation to network homelessness agencies and classes around the Bay Area. SFSUNet became independent of BAHP in 1992 and began to focus more upon utilizing computer conferencing in the classroom. This was the first computer-mediated communications or online distance education effort on campus.

In 1993, Art Chandler created BayMOO, one of the first and most long-lasting mixed educational and social interaction environments called MOOs (Multi User dimension Object Oriented). An online multi-user text-based environment, BayMOO now has over 1,800 registered users and can be used for class interactions as well as to create a broader Bay Area community. It was brought onto campus, receiving a San Francisco State University address, in the latter part of 1994.

The advent of Internet-mediated learning obviously did not occur until well after the creation of the Internet itself and then, the creation and popularization of the World Wide Web (judged by the invention of the Mosaic browser software which was used to view the graphics and text on the Web, this can be traced to 1993).

Soon after that, the World Wide Web began to be used by the San Francisco State University community. This was spearheaded by the SFSUNet group and by innovators such as Art Chandler from the Humanities Department and Elizabeth Sommers from the English Department. After using text-based conferencing for years, when the World Wide Web was created, SFSUNet and members of the Computer Science Department soon were using the new technology.

Eric Klavins, a graduate student from the Computer Science Department, enabled the jump from text-based to Web-based conferencing on campus by creating COW (Conferencing on the Web). This tool enabled SFSUNet to encourage computer-mediated communication in the classroom. They encouraged this by giving workshops on the technology and its use in the classroom.

COW was hosted by Computer Science and SFSUNet on a new server on campus, thecity.sfsu.edu (housed in and administered through the Department of Computer Science). This server was the host for computer conferencing on campus and was also dedicated to improving the connection between the campus and the Bay Area community.

The College of Extended Learning then hosted the first effort to create a fully online course implemented on the World Wide Web-- through their highly popular Multimedia Studies Program.
 

San Francisco State University Multimedia Studies Program

During the spring semester of 1995, the San Francisco State University Multimedia Studies Program (MSP) in the College of Extended Learning began development of its first online courseóDemystifying Multimedia Technologyóunder the leadership of Robert Todd.

Robert Toddís Demystifying Multimedia Technology had been taught as an on-site course at the Downtown Center, and in the fall of 1995 was made into printed courseware for Trans Cosmos Incorporated, a Japanese Computer Training and support company. Because of this, much of the content necessary to create an online course was readily available.

Robert and his team built a prototype online course of Demystifying Multimedia Technology in about 90 (long) days. Each page of the prototype was individually designed and hand-coded in HTML. Media elements of the prototype included: text, graphics, streaming RealAudio (used for short instructor lectures), Shockwave animations, and QuickTime video.

Several hundred students, from at least 11 countries around the world, registered free of charge and took the course, which was marketed through a link from the MSP Web site. Feedback was, almost without exception, very positive.

On the strength of that, Robert Todd and his team started looking at building another set of five courses, with an eye toward offering a complete online certificate of completion in multimedia studies. The MSP became engaged in a conversation with a large publishing company, Prentice-Hall. Prentice-Hall was impressed by the prototype and was interested in having the MSP produce curriculum that they would package and distribute worldwide.

The team decided that if they were going to serve the production needs of a demanding client such as Prentice-Hall, it would be wise to devise a content management system to simplify the process of production and delivery. At the time, there were no such content management tools available. Robertís team looked at the available technology and chose to build their own system using the Illustra database, an object-oriented, relational database that allows for storage and use of multiple media types.

With a $100,000.00 in-kind technology grant from Illustra, the team started development of the planned 25-course online curriculum and certificate program. They successfully completed production of five courses:

• Demystifying Multimedia Technology (a new version)
• History of Multimedia
• Introduction to Macromedia Director
• Designing the Interactive Experience
• Multimedia in Action

The team produced a two-day workshop and a workbook that taught content experts how to create online courses in the form of a script. They also produced a set of online resources to support the instructor in the creation of script content. The resources included an online script template, template explanation, and sample script. Also included was a script template in the form of a familiar toolóMicrosoft Wordówhich used Microsoft Word styles to define content types such as main text, summary text, bullet points, questions, sidebar comments, supports main image, and illustration. Media references and production needs were also included in the script. The script and media were then easily transferred by a production person into the content management system for on-the-fly delivery without hand coding of individual HTML pages.

The following year brought about many challenges for the development team. The task of building a content management system using the Illustra database was extraordinarily complicated. There were problems from all angles, one being that the Illustra database was a new, Windows NT version and had not been fully tested, nor was it well-supported, by Illustra. When Illustra was purchased by Informix, it became a small part of a large company and even less technical support was available. The task of both content and tool development resulted in a small team working an enormous number of hours.

Very rich by design and by implementation, the five courses were of a higher standard than were other online curricula. Yet the courses were flawed in their execution and in their technical performance.

Without a marketing budget, a sufficient marketing campaign was never mounted. The online courses were listed in the CEL catalogue and MSP brochure, which did not reach the target audienceóthose who could not be physically present at the Downtown Center facilities.

The online courseware and content management system were designed based on having a large client, Prentice-Hall. However, after much work and negotiation, an agreement was never reached. Without a client, the online development team was under-funded, understaffed, and unable to refine the content management system and move forward with creating new courses toward the goal of offering a complete online certificate program.

Student enrollments covered technology and teaching costs, yet they did not cover production costs. The online courses went on hiatus, and the development team took on contract projects for others in order to find a financial solution so that they could finish the work they had begun.

When the College, too, encountered serious fiscal difficulties, the activities of the online development center came to an end.
 

Efforts to Integrate the Internet Continue

Mirroring the rapid movement of the World Wide Web into American society, the Internet and the World Wide Web moved rapidly onto the San Francisco State University campus. The San Francisco State University website was introduced at the beginning of the Fall '94 semester by Julianne Tolson, called the Websterina. At that time, she only worked on the Web five hours per week. Part of these first efforts were linkages to the first academic department web servers, those of the Computer Science and Instructional Technologies departments.

In Spring 1995, under the direction of John True, Computing Services expanded computing resources on campus to allow individual faculty and students to create web pages of their own, allowing for the possibility of course web pages and online courses. The first workshops to teach faculty and staff to use and publish on the World Wide Web were sponsored by Computing Services and the Center for the Enhancement of Teaching in Spring/Summer 1995.

Also at that time, the first faculty class project sites, created by Steve Wilson (Art) and Art Chandler (Humanities), were linked to the Universityís web site. Several departments and programs created the first departmental web sites at that time: Business Analysis and Computing Systems, Broadcast and Electronic Communication Arts, the Geographic Information Systems program in Geography, Journalism, Physics and Astronomy, and Public Administration. Fiscal Affairs and the Office of Research and Sponsored Programs also created their first presence on the web.

By the Fall of 1995, the faculty staff workshops were impacted and students had began to request training so these workshops were moved to the McKenna theatre. At that time, Eric Klavins (Computer Science student and creator of COW) was also teaching classes of students how to do web pages.

In 1995, Don Casella, Director of the Career Center, became the first faculty member on campus to teach a fully online Internet course, creating "From Classroom to Career", which was offered solely through electronic mail. Vera Lane, Associate Dean of the College of Education, and the AUTEC (All University Teacher Education Committee) soon followed with their EDUC 333: Exploring Teaching as a Career course, also via email. These efforts introduced the campus community to the concept of online courses.

The Bay Area Homelessness Program (BAHP), the precursor for SFSUNet continued its innovation by hosting the first web-based course (on homelessness), offered by Dave Stewart of the Health Education and Urban Studies departments. They began by offering course materials on the web and creating a web site for BAHP in summer, 1995 as a resource for teaching. This course, offered through COW, began developing in 1996 and was taught beginning in Spring 1997. This course was probably the first online "service learning" course offered at any university. The BAHP curricular materials have now been used in constructing courses at more than three other universities and numerous high schools and middle schools.

Other faculty were also continuing their innovative efforts. Elizabeth Sommers, as Meta-Coordinator of the California Regional Alliance for Computers and Writing (the California and Nevada arm of the National Alliance for Computers and Writing), became one of the top experts in using computers for writing and used this knowledge and experience extensively in her classes. Art Chandler continued his work with BayMOO and moved onto to the use of other, newer technologies.

In 1996, the continuing computer conferencing efforts of SFSUNet were followed by the first workshop on campus on how to use the Internet in the classroom, held by SFSUNet in conjunction with the Center for the Enhancement of Teaching (CET) under the direction of Vicki Casella. To the Center for the Enhancement of Teaching, the transition from computer and multimedia instruction to instruction on Internet in the classroom was a logical progression in enhancing teaching on the San Francisco State University campus.

During Spring 1996, then Vice President of Academic Affairs Marilyn Boxer decided to place efforts to develop online distance education at San Francisco State University under the auspices of the Center for the Enhancement of Teaching and Director Vicki Casella.

In June 1996, the Center for the Enhancement of Teaching (through Faculty Associate for Internet-Mediated Learning Genie Stowers and staff members Albert Tong and Ted Sheridan) began offering workshops on creating web pages and using the Internet in the classroom. Over the next fall (1996) and spring (1997), 728 faculty took the 35 Internet-focused workshops offered by the Center for the Enhancement of Teaching (Figure 1). Over the next year, another 36 workshops were taken by 248 faculty, many of whom took more advanced workshops and began posting their own syllabi course materials on the Web. Over two years, practically one thousand faculty participated in hands-on training in using the Internet in their classrooms through the Center for the Enhancement of Teaching.
 

This level of high faculty interest is being maintained, although many feel we are moving into a new stage of development. Participants in the early semesters of these training opportunities were the early adopters and innovators in the field. Those faculty have largely moved on to more advanced topics and are working on their own, bridging out and specializing in applications relevant to their own disciplines. Today, the Center for the Enhancement of Teaching and Vicki Casella feel that the training is reaching the next wave of facultyóthose in the mainstream of technology usage. Seeing this type and level of interest in training in online technology and online education at San Francisco State University means that our University is at least on a par with other universities participating in these activities, and probably slightly ahead of most universities. Clearly, the faculty and online course development activities of the Center for the Enhancement of Teaching place our University ahead of most of the other universities in the California State University system.

In the last year, there has been an enormous amount of activity. Computing Support Services Director Heidi Schmidt wrote a grant that allowed the purchase of a new server, the Curricular Web Server, to be dedicated to online course materials and online courses. One important characteristic of this server was that advanced features like CGI scripting could be added to course web pages and sites (a feature not previously allowed on campus servers due to security issues).

The grant also allowed the hiring of Curricular Web Specialist Michelle Rito. With the hiring of Ms. Rito, there was a staff person on campus whose full-time job it was to assist faculty in developing their online course materials. Michelle Rito has worked to provide advanced applications for use by the faculty like online forms, online tests, web page templates, and course page templates. She has also assisted scores of faculty with creating web pages, course web pages, and with putting entire courses online.

With the arrival of the curricular web server (online.sfsu.edu) and Michelle Rito, the online efforts at San Francisco State University were titled Online@SFSU. Ms. Rito has created listings of online resources and, most importantly, has followed up with placing the listing of online course offerings in every College on the online.sfsu.edu web server. With the development of the Universityís new web page, Online@SFSU can be found under the Academics, Research, and Teaching page, available on the Universityís home page.

Within the faculty, Barry Levine and Jack Hodges (Computer Science) both created online programming classes, taught through College of Extended Learning. Dave Stewart, a lecturer for Urban Studies, continued to teach URBS/HED 582: Homelessness and Public Policy for the Bay Area Homelessness Program. These courses were all taught through COW. Through Holistic Health, Adam Burke created an online class on Stress Management for Spring 97, to be taught through the College of Extended Learning. In Fall 1997, Jerry Eisman, Chair of Computer Science, converted his CSC 301 course into an online course offered in COW to allow students an online option for taking his course.

To host his growing online courses, in summer 1997 Don Casella transformed his email course to the first fully online World Wide Web course on campus and put it onto one of the new course management tools, TopClass. The TopClass server and license was purchased through a Career Center grant and, to this date, the Career Center continues to host the many San Francisco State University online courses that use the TopClass course management system.

Using TopClass and the Career Center server, Genie Stowers taught the first graduate seminar (on Virtual Government through the Public Administration Program) during Fall 1997. Other courses and faculty quickly followed.

By Spring 1998, six fully online courses were listed in the course schedule:

• COUN 333: From Classroom to Career, 1 unit, Don Casella
• COUN 693: Disability Issues and Career Development, 1 unit, Alan Fisk
• EDUC 333: Exploring Teaching as a Career, 1 unit (Course by Email), Vera Lane
• HUM 772: Cyberspace / Humanities, 3 units, Art Chandler
• PA 490: The Public Service as a Career, 1 unit, Genie Stowers
• CSC 301: Fundamentals of Computer Science, 3 units, Jerry Eisman

• CSC 9100 Section Z1: Object -Oriented Programming With C++, 2 units, Barry Levine
• CSC 9110 Section Z1: An Introduction to Java, 2 units, Barry Levine
• CE 425 / Health and Human Services: Stress and Self-Care Online, noncredit, George Araki and Kenn Burrows

Over the past two semesters, Vicki Casella has worked to coordinate online courses, determine which are being taught each semester, and organize (with Academic Resources) the list of online courses that appears in the Class Schedule. She has also worked with and helped to coordinate other units on campus as they begin the process of integrating online courses into regular University processes and procedures. She has also supervised the creation of a web site widely known for its examples of Internet-mediated learning, resources for faculty creating web sites, and instructions on teaching with multimedia and the Internet.

To ensure that the full range of faculty activity identified, Vicki Casella and the Center for the Enhancement of Teaching and Computing Services developed a survey to identify faculty efforts to integrate the Internet into their courses. This survey was distributed by the Public Research Institute during Spring 1998. Results of this survey are not yet ready to be included in this report, however. It is hoped that this survey and others like it will help ensure an accurate listing of online courses in the Class Schedule. The Report continues with a description of the methodology used to create this Report.

Return to top

The Task Force on Distance Education met biweekly from November 1997 to April 1998 then meet weekly until June. Task Force members consulted with a number of faculty and administrative staff to the collect the data for this implementation plan. The faculty consulted consisted of representatives from every college. The staff included representatives from AV/ITV, Computing Services, the Center for the Enhancement of Teaching, College of Extended Learning, Academic Resources, and the Graduate Division. The table below (Table 2) lists the names of the faculty and staff members who contributed to this report.

The information gathered for the section titled "Summary of Distance Education Initiatives at CSU Comparison" was done by using the Internet to research information about the universities and by contacting individuals by phone and email.

To verify the facts listed in the Internet and Video History and Timeline, we had the following individuals review it and contribute their feedback: Heidi Schmidt, Julianne Tolson, Art Chandler, Elizabeth Sommers, Gib Robinson, Jerry Eisman, Vicki Casella, Dave Stewart, and Ted Sheridan.

The section of the implementation plan that covers the scope of distance education, centralization of resources, standardization of media, and faculty support issues contains information obtained from our interviews, focus group sessions, email responses, and phone conversations. In all of our discussions, our goal was to gather information on how we could effectively and efficiently deliver distance education courses at San Francisco State University and to list their experiences and concerns about distance education.

Most, if not, all of the participants in our discussions were or wanted to become key players in the video and/or Internet distance education area.
 

Limitations of the Report

The participants in our individual interviews and focus groups were faculty and staff that were interested in distance education. We did not survey opinions from faculty and staff that were opposed to distance education as it was our task to provide an implementation plan for distance education.
 

Results of Focus Groups-- Issues and Concerns Experienced by Early Innovators

During the focus groups in Spring 1998, many issues and concerns were expressed to the Task Force by faculty and staff who are the early innovators in both video-mediated and Internet-mediated learning. Among these issues were the following:

• The uncertainty of ownership of course materials once they are delivered as well as other intellectual property issues;
• The sustainability and maintenance of courses once developed;
• The need for quality control over courses;
• The resources in faculty and staff time and support that are necessary to develop courses;
• The need for faculty and staff development and training on new technologies;
• Rewards/ incentives for faculty and staff participating in risky new activities;
• Ability to evaluate the effectiveness of distance education offerings in terms of student learning outcomes and teaching effectiveness;
• The need for adequate technology resources to provide support and continuing innovation;
• The need for campus policies regarding registration, course listings in the course schedule and identifying online course opportunities;
• The need to continue to develop campus infrastructure systems like online class registration and course evaluations;
• The need for students to have information about online and video education activities;
• The need for students to have adequate access to computer and video resources; and,
• The fluidity of California State University system plans in the area of distance education.

Return to top 

Before going on to recommendations, however, it is important to situate San Francisco State University in relation to similar institutions of higher education and their efforts in distance education. The purpose of this section is to compare San Francisco State Universityís distance education presence to the distance education presence of a set of "peer" institutions. The peer institutions were defined as the list of institutions used by CSU for faculty salary comparisons. The 19 universities on the list were divided into four regions.
 

Methodology Used in Comparisons

Presence in distance education was defined as the extent to which peer institutions publicize courses available via telecommunication technology. The presumption here is that the more extensive an institutionís distance education program, the easier it would be to locate information about that program. The unit of analysis for the comparison was each universityís web-site, as university web-sites would be an appropriate means of determining if the university may be offering remote learning opportunities. Each institutionís main web page was searched for the following terms: distance education, distance education, remote education, remote learning, and online classes. In addition to searches, the site indexes of each institutionís web site were also examined.

The results of these searches were analyzed and the institution was classified into one of four categories:

As a baseline measure, the search of the San Francisco State University web-site revealed San Francisco State University would be placed in the Extensive category. However, it should be pointed out that searching the San Francisco State University site for distance education showed some lack of presence of current distance education initiatives. However, the San Francisco State University web search revealed several interesting starting points for discovering distance education initiatives and perhaps most importantly, the Information Technology Team (ITT) Strategic Plan.

San Francisco State University does a poor job of publicizing its distance education initiatives. For example the curriculum web server, the Center for the Enhancement of Teaching, COW, and the College of Extended Learningís online materials did not appear in an initial search of the site. Further, AV/ITVís video offerings were only accessible indirectly. Based on this search, San Francisco State University would get a score of Limited. However, based on the presence of the ITT report, we might add that San Francisco State University is moving toward the Extensive category.

The poor return from the San Francisco State University sight might also speak to the poor validity of the research technique.
 

The Comparisons

A summary of each institutionís rating presented in Table 4:

Summaries of each universityís efforts and URLís for further investigation are provided, divided by rating category.
 

Extensive Distance Education Identity

Arizona State University (www.asu.edu): EXTENSIVE. Institutional policy in place and operational distance education courses being delivered via continuing education (www-distlearn.pp.asu.edu/). Very centralized approach (www. distlearn.pp.asu.edu/ dlt_info /individual.html). Most extensive of all peer institutions.

University of Connecticut (www.uconn.edu): EXTENSIVE. The Division of Extended and Continuing Education (vm.uconn.edu/~wwwece/) offers classes and certificates via computer mediated and video-mediated distance education programs. Also have an interesting online registration process.

North Carolina State University (www.ncsu.edu): EXTENSIVE. Institutional Mission Statement and data present on the web (www2.acs.ncsu.edu/UPA/updates/updt966/updt966.htm). The registration and administrative functions associated with distance education reside with the Office of Adult Credit Programs & Summer Sessions at NC State University (www2.ncsu.edu/ncsu/cont_ed/out_ex/acp/excourse.html).

University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee (www.uwm.edu/): EXTENSIVE. Institutional policy in place with centralized coordination (www.uwm.edu/Dept/DOCE/deuwm/). Nine courses offered in the Spring of 1998, primarily via compressed video (www.uwm.edu/Dept/DOCE/ deuwm/despr98.htm). San Francisco State University probably offers more courses.
 

Specialized Distance Education Identity

Rutgers University (www.rutgers.edu): SPECIALIZED. The School of Communication, Information and Library Studies provides a limited set of distance education courses (www.scils.rutgers.edu/de/index.html).

University of Southern California (www.usc.edu): SPECIALIZED. Extensive distance education offerings in the gerontology department (www.usc.edu/dept/gero/AgeWorks/site.htm). College of Engineering also offers extensive coursework (www.usc.edu/dept/engineering/ Distance_Learning/).

University of Texas, Arlington (www.uta.edu/): SPECIALIZED. The center for distance education (distance.uta.edu/) is a centralized structure for offering distance education courses. Plans will soon place them in the EXTENSIVE category. Mission Statement (distance.uta.edu/ cde/mission.html) and Organizational Structure (distance.uta.edu/people/) are in place.
 

Limited Distance Education Identity

SUNY Albany (www.albany.edu): LIMITED. Search reveals a learning technology lab (www.albany.edu/tree-tops/docs.ltl/about.html) run through the college of education that is similar to San Francisco State Universityís Center for the Enhancement of Teaching. Further investigation revealed the CETL (Center for Excellence in Teaching and Learning (www.albany.edu/cetl/ index.html) that runs a program where all the general education classes have an online presence, but are not offered to distant sites. Moving toward EXTENSIVE.

Georgia State University (www.gsu.edu): LIMITED. However, the Georgia Distance Education Association (www.gsu.edu/~wwwgdl/index.html) appears poised to launch an EXTENSIVE program of distance education offerings.

University of Nevada, Reno (www.unr.edu): LIMITED. Institutional policy exists (www.unr.edu/edtech/unr4.html) and most offerings are via extended education (www.dce.unr.edu/) as correspondence study.

Portland State University (www.pdx.edu/): LIMITED. Difficult to find any information. An Information Technology center provides CET type help to faculty and students (www.oit.pdx.edu/). Appears to centralize all distance education functions including video- mediated learning (www.oit.pdx.edu/irs/tv/index.htm). No list of courses.

Illinois State University (www.ilstu.edu/): LIMITED. Center for advancement of teaching (wolf.its.ilstu.edu/CAT/) is a centralized agency although instructional technology services (wolf.its.ilstu.edu/its/itspolicies.html) appears to be very similar to AV/ITV. No institutional statement about distance education.
 

No Distance Education Identity

Bucknell University (www.bucknell.edu): NONE. Further exploration revealed some nascent online courses in the computer science department (www.eg.bucknell.edu/csci/ curriculum/).

Tufts University (www.tufts.edu): NONE. No specific institutional statement about distance education.

George Mason University (www.gmu.edu): NONE. However, several faculty have Internet sites for their classes and the University is implementing a CET type institute - The Instructional Resource Center (www.ido.gmu.edu/IDO/) to aid faculty in developing technology enhanced courses.

Reed College (www.reed.edu): NONE. Difficult to find any technologically enhanced courses.

Loyola University, Chicago (www.luc.edu/): NONE. Many departments have home pages. Course materials may be published via an extensive, private Intranet. No university mission statement.

Wayne State University (www.wayne.edu/): NONE. Vague institutional policy about information technology in general (www.pass.wayne.edu/exec_summ.html) and a brief out of date page devoted to using the web to teach at Wayne State (www.wayne.edu/wtt/wtt.html). Some LIMITED cyber-assisted teaching.

University of Maryland, Baltimore County (www.umbc.edu/): NONE. Search engine was broken during all attempts to search site.

This comparison only measured the extent to which the institution promotes its distance education initiatives via the Internet. Institutions may have extensive distance education initiatives that are promoted in other ways or that may not be promoted at all but are mostly provided for the existing student body.

In general, seven of the peer institutions studied had no distance education program in place. In general, these institutions tended to be the independent universities. Four institutions had a significant distance education identity. These institutions tended to be large state universities with extensive outreach responsibilities. Three institutions have specialized programs that capitalize on the expertise and interest in one or two specific programs. Five institutions have limited programs. Two of the limited programs have plans in place to move to extensive distance education initiatives--SUNY Albany and Georgia State University. Wayne State University has plans to begin a limited distance education program and the University of Texas at Arlington is planning to expand its specialized offerings.

In general San Francisco State University ranks at the low end of the top universities in distance education. Compared to its peer institutions, San Francisco State University has significant distance education offerings with efforts being coordinated in the past year to more effectively advertise them on the university web site or through other methods. However, distance education offerings here at San Francisco State have little coherent identify.

 
Case Study of a Success-- CU Online

A case study of a successful distance education program at a university with a profile similar to San Francisco State University is also instructive.

CU Online is the University of Coloradoís successful distance education program. CU Online is working to offer classes from each of its four campus locations, CUñBoulder, Denver, Colorado Springs, and CU Health Sciences Center in Denver.

The Pilot Program

In 1996, the University of Coloradoís new president, John Buechner, was a strong supporter of the Total Learning Environment (TLE). CU Online was identified as a component of the TLE, and the Denver Campus College of Liberal Arts and Sciences (CLAS) was designated to lead the charge in the CU Online pilot program.

CLAS was selected for the pilot program because its Dean was supportive of the idea. Furthermore, CLAS had international college sites they wanted to reach with the Denver program (Beijing, Moscow, etc.). There was a high level of interest in Web-based delivery.

With a goal of building a platform that could deliver courses effectively, 53 courses were developed in the pilot year. The cash-funded pilot program was offered through CLASí Extended Studies. Over the course of a year, CU Online experienced substantial growth in the number of courses offered and in the number of students enrolled in those courses.
 

By tracking enrollments, CU Online found that students often chose to take more than one online course simultaneously and returned to do more online courses; 26% of the fall 1997 enrollment was "repeat business". (CU Online plans to capitalize on this trend through the marketing of special online course package deals to students.) Table 6 presents the data on repeat students.

Student-Faculty Communication

In CU Online courses, students and faculty communicate through the following channels:

• Text lecture
• Course materials and textbooks
• Audio/ video lecture (RealPlayer)
• Threaded discussion (asynchronous)
• Email within the site (asynchronous)
• Virtual Classroom (synchronous)
• Webliography
• Online Library

Demographics

The demographics of CU Onlineís students look very similar to San Francisco State University students. CU Online students are:

• 90% Colorado residents
• 25-35 years old, working and going to school to complete an undergraduate degree. Average age = 27
• 51% Female, 49% Male
• Internet-literate, with a technologically robust home computer
• Willing to pay ëextraí for online courses

CU Online is still struggling with how to market their curriculum (especially the undergraduate curriculum) to the world. In 1997/1998, CU Online has been working to expand their pilot program through incentive grant proposals, now received from all four campuses.

The CU Online pilot started with a proof-of-concept test within one college on one campus to determine the viability of the concept. The program was extremely successful. Their success must now be replicated across all the campuses, which will be a more difficult task. Not all of the pieces of the puzzle are in place as of yetóand not all the deans are as enthusiastic as was the Dean of CLAS.

The campuses are committed to providing the following online education: Boulder Continuing Education, undergraduate program; Denver Business, graduate component; Denver Engineering, graduate component; Colorado Springs College of Arts & Letters, undergraduate component; Health Sciences, and the Pharmacy Doctoral program.

Current offerings include 53 CLAS / Denver undergraduate courses, core course requirements and electives. Majors in English and Sociology are being planned and other CLAS majors are being evaluated. See Table 7 for a full listing of departments currently offering CU Online courses.
 

For language courses, CU Online needs a more synchronous communication model. Courses in the Sciences require the use of laboratory equipment. The University does not have a history of letting students use home science kits so clearly some issues still need to be resolved.

Student Evaluations

In terms of evaluation, students offered both positive and negative feedback for CU Online courses. Positive comments included:

• Convenience of asynchronous model
• No commuting/parking
• Can reflect on a subject before postingómore honest, thoughtful contributions

• Too much work
• Technology problemsómostly w/ ISP
• Miss face-to-face interaction
• Need more communication

Implementation Challenges

• Steep learning curve for faculty & students (Not a lot of existing models)
• Shift from teacher-centered to learner-centered model
• High Incomplete rates 20% (On campus is approximately 5%)
• Student barriersóadmissions, residency requirement, differential tuition rates
• Bureaucracy of state institution

Because an online course seemed flexible to many students, some thought that it did not require work. CU Online experienced high incomplete rates: 20% versus on-campus rates of approximately 5%. There was a misconception that because the courses were flexible, that the deadlines were also flexible. Many students have applied for extensions. CU Online now spells out very clearly what happens if a student does not complete the course. If students do not complete their work, they are given an incomplete. These students cannot move on to the next class. CU Online courses are based on a cohort moduleóthe interaction involved assumes everyone is at the same point.

Keys to Success

CU Online considers the factors that contributed to their success to be the following:

• Well-funded
• Extended Studies model for CLAS--Denver pilot
• Incentives for Departments
• Incentives for Faculty
• Strong support structures for faculty and students
• Faculty governance for course approval
• Outsource Vendor

Strong support structures were provided for faculty and students including: technical and instructional design, administration granting equivalent credit ratings for online courses, online enrollment systems, and teachers getting paid for work they did on courses. CU Online offers a complete virtual university campus with online registration and informationóeven the bookstore is online.

Also, CU Online outsourced technical support and site maintenance to Real Education (http://www.realeducation.com), one of the several vendors currently offering complete online education solutions to interested universities.

Next Steps for CU Online

The next steps of CU Online will be new challenges:

• Manage transition from cash-funded to state-funded status on the Denver campus
• Move to system-wide implementation
• Manage complexities of multiple colleges and campuses with their own policies, tuition structures, calendars, procedures, etc.
• Build CU Onlineís competencies in the area of instructional design and support
• Continue to improve courses and student services online
• There are new rules and regulations to contend with about how students and state-funded institutions must communicate; more forms, red tape, and fees.

Wisdom Learned from the CU Online Case Study

CU Online offers the following bits of wisdom for those creating a online education programs of their own:

• It is important to make critical information very noticeable. For instance, it may be a good idea to place a class drop deadline in several locations and in red.
• Make course details available to potential students, and be sure to include textbook information.
• A keyword search of the multi-campus database should be created.
• Protect course access with passwords. "Lurkers" should not be welcome.
• Clearly explain your expectations of your students: technical issues, content issues, Netiquette, level of involvement required.
• Offer an orientation, which shows students how to learn online.
• By 4th week of term students are set up, have read the material, and are ready to discuss. You have a variety of choices for technological facilitation. Try to keep student costs down.
• Use synchronous chat for small group work.
• Chat does not work well for large groups.
• An online library should provide access to full-text articles and journals, with "card catalogue" search capabilities.
• After outsourcing production and delivery the first year, concentrate on building up your own instructional design and technical support for the second year.
• Continuously improve your courses and quality assurance models.
• Students look to professor for answers to everything: technical issues as well as content issues. As handling support issues are not a good use of professor's time, CU Online provides separate technical support. There is a separate number to call for support.
• Class participation counts for part of the grade; threaded discussion can help instructors determine participation grades.
• Everyone should have E-mail.
• The course platform should be a database. This simplifies updating processes greatly. For instance, when a student changes E-mail address, the address is changed throughout system, in all the relevant locations.
• A Course Manager will allow faculty to change class work without messing up the HTML. Faculty can focus on text they have to change and not technology behind it.
• A Grading Manager allows for 17 different modes of test (randomized question presentation, automatic grading, provides raw score and time taken to complete test back to instructor.)
• Student Activity: track student time in class. This is useful for instructional design, even if big brother-like. Displays time in a bar chart.
• After the hectic set-up phase, you may want time to sit back and assess the software.
• At the end of each course, take a formal questionnaire review of students and faculty.
• Beware of problems with differences between Internet Service Providers (ISPs). Software may work with one and not the other.
• Online education is not for everyone. You must have willing student and teacher participants.

Return to top 

Four areas of concern have emerged from the work of this Task Force. They are:

1. Scope of Distance Education at San Francisco State University ñ The mission of distance education at San Francisco State University can either be viewed as outreach for new students or as instructional support for existing students. The consequences of a choice between these two options are the need for widely differing implementation strategies.
2. Centralization of Resources - Currently, there are many barriers in the way of implementing distance education on the San Francisco State University campus. Among these are the decentralization of distance education resources and information. The Task Force therefore emphasizes the need for centralized coordination and centralized strategies for the removal of those barriers. A campus Director of Distance Education will be crucial to the eventual success and development of distance education on this campus. No matter which implementation option is chosen, this Director will be responsible for coordinating information, resources, and efforts in order to achieve an effective distance education program on campus.
3. Standardization of Software and Hardwareñ Distance education will be facilitated by an agreement on specific minimum levels of software and hardware to be supported on campus. For instance, it would be most helpful for training purposes if students taking online courses were able to go into any lab on campus and have access to at least the same versions of Web browsers, the same types of plug-in software for browsers, and the same types of email software.
4. Faculty Support Issues - A number of issues arise surrounding the participation of faculty in the creation and execution of distance education. These issues include faculty intellectual property rights, recognition of faculty work in this area, the recognition of distance education efforts during the retention, tenure, and promotion process, and workload issues.

Scope of Distance Education - Strategic Options for San Francisco State University

A basic decision on the scope of distance education at San Francisco State University must be made. Should the University focus on providing more options and alternatives for our existing students, should the University focus upon reaching out to students not currently enrolled at San Francisco State University, or should some combination of these two be sought? These decisions could be seen as being a choice along a continuum that ranges from total outreach to total service to existing students.
 
Option 1: Provide Service To Existing Students

If our goal is to offer distance education as a service to our existing students, then we need to focus on ways we can enhance video and Internet courses by integrating innovative technologies into existing courses. Choosing this option means that extensive outreach to students not currently enrolled at San Francisco State University would not be the focus. Under this option, distance education would not play a large part in enriching University resources by bringing in new students who would not have to take classes on the impacted main campus.

Option 2: Reach Out to Students Not Currently Enrolled at San Francisco State Universityóthe Outreach Approach

If our plan is to offer distance education as an outreach effort, then we should concentrate on finding courses that would increase enrollment both globally and on campus, find courses that offer an alternative way to deliver a course that is otherwise highly impacted, or market a unique program or "niche" course. This approach targets courses that are impacted, courses that do not have high enrollment numbers on campus, and unique or "niche" courses targeted in priority areas. Choosing this option allows the possibility of distance education efforts providing additional resources to the University through new enrollments, enrollments that do not use scarce main campus resources.

The decision about where on the continua San Francisco State University chooses to focus-- between focusing on current students or focusing on reaching out to new students-- must be made before other efforts can be undertaken. All other recommendations are contingent upon this decision.
 

Centralization of Resources

All models presented in this Report require the creation of an identified person to act as Director of Distance Education. The primary function of this position will be to centralize the coordination of resources for the implementation of Distance Education at San Francisco State University.

The Task Force vision of this person is that he/she would become the identified resource for any faculty member to approach in order for a course to be developed and delivered as distance education. This individual should possess experience as a faculty member and have demonstrable experience both as a teacher and distance educator. Further desirable skills include project management, marketing and technical skills. Given the nature of distance education on the San Francisco State University campus, it is preferable that this individual be drawn either from San Francisco State University or another CSU campus. This position will be a tenured administrative appointment.

The Director of Distance Education at San Francisco State University

In order to carry out the charge of this position, the Director of DE needs to have permanent resources available as well as priority for additional production resources.

The Director of Distance Education:

• Is responsible for the development of Distance Education Resources;
• Is the Coordinator of online and video course schedules, course development, and coordinator of all distance education resources;
• Is a full member of ITT;
• Must be able to negotiate with and collaborate with other members of ITT to attain resources;
• Must have the clout to be able to set policy in the area of distance education;
• Serves as liaison and resource person for the faculty on all issues of distance education;
• Should be tenured faculty person with teaching experience in distance education;
• Would serve as advocate and program developer for distance education program;
• Supervises the curricular web server; and,
• Would coordinate, schedule, and supervise production team resources (see below);
• Would reorganize part of the time of existing staff currently working in the area of distance education (from Computing Services, the Center for the Enhancement of Teaching, AV/ITV, and CEL) into a production staff. This staff would provide the pedagogical, technical, development, and marketing expertise to ensure that existing distance education offerings are of a high quality and a good educational experience.

There are several options available regarding the place of this position within the San Francisco State University organizational structure. Several attractive options were considered, including placing the Director of Distance Education under the College of Extended Learning, the Center for the Enhancement of Teaching, or with AV/ITV. However, the Task Force recommends that the Director of Distance Education be placed under the auspices of Academic Affairs, Associate Vice President for Academic Program Development.

There are several reasons for locating the Director of Distance Education in the office of the Associate Vice President for Academic Program Development under the Provost/ Vice President for Academic Affairs. Among these are:

• Placing the position under the Provost office allows the Director to span the division between Internet-mediated and video-mediated learning, each housed primarily in separate units--the Center for the Enhancement of Teaching, Computing Services and AV/ITV-- currently represented on the Information Technology Team (ITT). The Director must be responsible for coordinating both Internet and video resources. Therefore, the Director should be placed in the organizational structure in such a way that the Director is able to bridge and work with the Center for the Enhancement of Teaching, Computing Services and AV/ITV.
• There are many benefits to housing the Director of Distance Education in either the College of Extended Learning or the Center for the Enhancement of Teaching. However, a major drawback to either of these organizational structures concerns the subsequent position of the Director among a major decision-making body for information resources at San Francisco State University, the Information Technology Team (ITT). Under any circumstances, the Director of Distance Education must coordinate and negotiate with the members of ITT, which includes Computing Services, the Center for the Enhancement of Teaching, AV/ITV, and others. Unless the Director of Distance Education reports directly to the Associate Vice President for Academic Program Development under the Provost/ Vice President for Academic Affairs office, they would not have sufficient stature and be on an equal footing with those with whom they must negotiate and coordinate.

• Due to the concerns of the faculty that distance education remain an academic enterprise, it is crucial that the Director and that Distance Education be located in an Academic Affairs unit.
• As stated above, historically on this campus, video- and Internet-based learning have been primarily focused in different units. It is the feeling of the Task Force that the Director must be able to bridge both technologies and so, should not placed in either unit. Placing the position under the Associate Vice President for Academic Program Development is a technology-neutral organizational structure.

 

Standardization refers to the stability and consistency of the technology used in support of distance education initiatives. Distance Education will be facilitated by an agreement on specific minimum levels of software and hardware to be supported on campus. Issues of connectivity, physical infrastructure, and consistency of interfaces through which distance education students access their courses and materials all need to be addressed. Consistency of interface refers to the need to establish a university-wide standard for a software bundle enabling access to Internet Mediated Learning course materials.

Why Standardize

There are three main arguments in favor of standardizing these issues at San Francisco State University. All of the arguments revolve around the benefits accrued from consistency of interface.

Access issues. Standardization will improve access to online materials. This improved access happens in two ways. First, San Francisco State University will facilitate the development of both private (at home) and public (at San Francisco State University) access points by ensuring the same software bundle exists in all access locations. Further, access is improved by placing an emphasis on course content rather than technology skills. For example, if the standard is set such that the Adobe Acrobat Reader will be provided to facilitate the reading of all PDF files, then students will only have to learn the Acrobat Reader one time. Students donít need to re-learn a new set of software for each class taken. Further, if look and feel issues are standardized, students will have little problem transitioning from course to course.

Faculty planning. Standardization is of enormous benefit to the faculty planning process. Faculty need to know what software students will have available to them. Faculty shouldnít plan to deliver course materials via "RealAudio" if 50% of the students wonít have access to the necessary interface. If faculty want to do a specialized innovation beyond the standardized package, the faculty will have to be aware of the additional time and effort required in that development.

Streamline user technical and support services. Finally, standardized software bundles will facilitate user technical and support services. User support shouldnít necessarily state that they will support only the approved bundle, but if a core interface bundle exists, the majority of questions will concern the programs included in that core bundle. Student training on the software they will be using in the distance education classroom will be easier to achieve since one common product will be used. Technical assistance will be easier to provide, as well.

Where and What to Standardize

The second standardization issue is where or what to standardize. There are really two interrelated issues here.

What to standardize. There should be a standard look and feel for computer mediated learning course materials at San Francisco State University. We are not suggesting all faculty must have websites that look exactly alike, but that all faculty should be informed of a standard minimum. Faculty are free to do something different or more than the standard minimum, but they need to be aware that there may be some more extensive training issues involved in engaging in the innovation.

Where to standardize. The second issue revolves around where to standardize. Computer labs on campus must have all of the software necessary to facilitate the standard. Also, a self-installing standard software bundle must be distributed to all off-campus students, for free. This self-installing bundle can be obtained from computer labs or the computer center via disk exchange.

How To Standardize

Three models are available to allow the goal of standardization to be achieved. They are to simply decide upon a standard, implement the standard, or to require students to purchase computers with a standard set of software.

Simply decide upon a standard. The first model for how to standardize is to simply decide upon a standard. This model is very top down. A small group of people, including faculty, Computing Services, AV/ITV and representatives of campus lab managers, decide on what the standard will be for interface issues. These people then generate a list of interfaces to be supported by the university (for example Acrobat Reader). Then all university computer labs adopt the bundle on computers able to run the software. All new equipment purchased for computer labs must run the software. An installation package (CD-ROM or disk exchange) is created by Computer Services. The advantage of this approach is speed while the disadvantage is the perceived loss of control by different players in the process. All computer labs on campus must participate or this strategy will fail. Currently, the decentralized computer lab structure on campus impedes distance education efforts on campus.

Set-asides. The second model is the "set asides" model. In this model, the same small set of people decides on the standard and then each computer lab is requested to "set-aside" a portion of computers (10 per lab) that are guaranteed to have the same software installed.

Computer requirement. The third option to achieving standardization is not to focus upon the computer labs and instead, require all San Francisco State University students to have a computer upon entry to the university. A computer requirement would make the expense of a computer recoverable as part of a student financial aid package. All students are then provided with the San Francisco State University distance education bundle. Given the demographics of our student body, it is unlikely that this model would be acceptable to our faculty and students.

 
Faculty Support Issues

Throughout the meetings and interviews that the Task Force conducted with the faculty and administrators with whom they met, a strong consensus developed over several issues of faculty support in the distance education process.

We therefore recommend the following issues be addressed in order to provide adequate faculty support in the area of distance education:

• Faculty Intellectual Property Rights. Adequate faculty intellectual property rights must be recognized. Control over reuse of all developed content material must be retained by the faculty member who develops online or video course materials. Faculty must be allowed to participate in any rewards that might come from the development of their intellectual property. Under no circumstances should the University develop any policy that would allow the University or any other party to take a faculty memberís intellectual property and use it to offer courses without the consent and/or knowledge of the faculty member. Faculty rights in this area should include control over both methodology and content.
• Recognition of Faculty Work. Faculty work in this new and innovative environment should be recognized throughout the retention, tenure, and promotion processes as equally legitimate to other teaching endeavors at the University. These efforts should also be recognized as what they areóexperimental efforts using new technologies and new modes of pedagogy. Faculty should receive recognition for the risks that they are taking in this innovative and new area and should be rewarded for taking initiative in this area.
• Workload. Distance Education courses should be considered as part of a faculty memberís normal workload. As such, each faculty member should receive the number of WTUs appropriate for each course taught via Internet or video-based learning.
• Faculty Encouragement and Support. Faculty should receive encouragement and support for the time-consuming process of developing new online or video-based courses. This support and encouragement should include, but not be limited to, release time to develop courses and mini-grants to help pay for graduate assistants, necessary equipment and software. This principle suggests that the current mini-grant system should be continued and enhanced.
• Job Security. Course materials developed by San Francisco State University faculty members should not be used to provide courses offerings without the express permission of the faculty member involved. This principle will help to ensure that video-taped or World Wide Web based course materials, once developed by faculty, will not be used by the University to replace faculty or lecturer time and so, ultimately replace faculty members.
• Evaluation of Distance Education Efforts. In order to ensure quality in our distance education efforts, specialized course evaluations by peer faculty experienced in distance education should be utilized.
• Class Size. Counter to many of the myths currently circulating about distance education, distance education is not a methodology suited for teaching more students with the same or fewer faculty resources. In fact, like the more traditional classes, class size in both video-based and Internet-based distance education classes should be limited.

 

The strategic options drive three possible models for distance education at San Francisco State University, to be discussed below. A Director of Distance Education would be required under all of the possible models.

Model One:  Expansion of Existing Resources

Under the first model, existing resources plus additional minimal resources are used to centralize distance education resources under a Director of Distance Education.

Under this model, only existing demand and current San Francisco State University students would be accommodated; no room for additional major innovations would be possible. Selection of this model means that distance education would have no outreach component to non-San Francisco State University students.

Other models, described below, represent greater efforts in distance education that are also possible options. They also represent the need for additional resources and changes in organizational structures. The models are additive and build upon one another, as seen in the graphics. Model 2 is Model 1 plus additional options and Model 3 requires even more resources and efforts.

The Task Force feels that, at a minimum, Model 1 should be adopted by San Francisco State University by Fall 1998. It is clear that our faculty are already engaging in interesting and innovative distance education efforts using both Internet- and video-based technologies--but at a price in terms of individual faculty and staff time and efforts. The Task Force believes that the University should encourage faculty to participate in distance education at this level.

Under this first model, no costs would be recovered (Figure 2). Basic costs required to implement the Model would include the costs of the resources seen below, the current $100,000 spent on mini-grants, and the costs of a half-time Director of Distance Education.

 
No matter what model of organization is chosen, certain minimum levels of resources will be required to sustain even today's level of distance education efforts. These minimum resources and activities include:

• Existing mini-grant opportunities should be retained. The existing technology mini-grant/release time competition should be continued in at least the current levels of $100,000. If at all possible, the amount of money available should be increased.

• A committee to decide upon distance education tools. A consultative process to confer with relevant parties on campus and decide upon software, hardware, and distance education tools used on campus (centrally as well as in individual labs) should be created. The decision making body that would focus on these issues should include faculty currently using the tools and technology, Computing Services, the Center for the Enhancement of Teaching, AV/ITV, and representatives of the lab managers around campus. As this committee needs to act quickly and effectively, it needs to be small and to have no other, broader mandate. The new Director of Distance Education should chair this body.

 
• Proper and appropriate distance education tools. Asynchronous and synchronous online communication tools must be adopted and supported. This means that real-time chat and robust conferencing with multi-level threading capability must be established and supported centrally on campus.

• Crucial infrastructure changes. Changes must be made in the infrastructure and systems at San Francisco State University in order to accommodate the different needs of distance education.

• Ongoing Class Schedule listings. A process must be established to coordinate online course offerings so that they may be listed in the Class Schedule. They should be listed under a separate heading for Online Courses as well as under their departmental listing.
• Online registration. A secure online registration process must be created so students who are not yet admitted at SFSU (and who might not even live in the Bay Area) can register for online classes without coming to campus.
• Online fee payment. A process must be created so that students can pay their fees online through a secure cash transactions process.
• Online dropping and adding of courses. If students remote from campus are to take courses, they must also be able to add and drop courses online.
• Online admissions process. An online admissions process must be created and facilitated.
• Online bookstore services. Online course students must have a vehicle through which they may order and pay for their books, through secure cash transaction processes.
• Online student and testing services. Online student and testing services must also be made available to students who might not be physically on campus.
• Rooms for final examinations. Rooms for final examinations for students taking online courses must be made available and coordinated through the Class Schedule and Director of Distance Education.
• Rooms for occasional class meetings. A few classrooms should be designated every semester as online classrooms and made available for occasional use by faculty teaching online classes and desiring some face to face contact with their students.
• Online transcripts. Transcripts must be made available online, also through a secure cash transactions process.

• Centralized training. Training on using online course tools must be conducted by a centralized unit and made available for all students taking online courses.

• Evaluation of courses. Adequate and effective evaluation of distance education efforts should be undertaken and used to improve San Francisco State University course offerings.

• Dedicated modem pool. A dedicated modem pool for online courses should be acquired in order to ensure adequate access to online courses.

 
• Necessary video equipment. Necessary video equipment (V-Tel CoDec system, remodeling of two of the Distance Education studios, multi-point transmission system for multiple site connections, two digital video cameras, and video projection stand) should be provided in order to ensure effective video-mediated courses.

• Reorganize the curricular web server under Academic Affairs and the Director of Distance Education. Since its function is primarily academic, the curricular web server, a crucial prime distance education resource, should be placed under the Director of Distance Education and the Academic Affairs unit

• The creation of a half-time Director of Distance Education position.

 
• Faculty targeted for participation would be those who are interested in enhancing their courses with innovative technologies.

 
• The Director of Distance Education would focus upon more effectively harnessing and coordinating existing resources and on serving current San Francisco State University students

As the models are additive, the second model is Model 1 plus additional resources. It would enable additional distance education efforts at San Francisco State University. Under this model, current San Francisco State University students could be served and a minimal level of outreach could be accomplished. As seen below, this outreach would be a very targeted and focused one. Should it be chosen, this model should be implemented by Fall 1999.

Partial recovery of the costs invested in distance education could be anticipated, as outreach generates growth that generates revenue. Costs would include the resources discussed above, the original $100,000 mini-grant program (increased to $125,000), and the salary of the Director of Distance Education. Possible reimbursements for the time of production staff working on distance education courses could also be considered.

In particular, service to current students and targeted outreach to non-San Francisco State University students could be the focus of Model 2 efforts, which would focus upon targeting the following types of courses for distance education efforts:

• Impacted courses (for example, Math 60)
• Courses that have high enrollment numbers (example: Management 405)
• "Niche" courses, which could serve both current and non-San Francisco State University students (example: CEL Multimedia program courses)
• Courses that require low maintenance (example: a Humanities course where material would most likely change less than a Science course)
• Community college "feeder" courses that would serve students likely to transfer into San Francisco State University programs requiring specific preparation (for example, courses leading to San Francisco State University's physical therapy program)

• Existing resources (identified above) would have to be utilized under this model, also.
• The Director of Distance Education would be at least a half-time position
• In addition to coordination, the Director of Distance Education would do much more program development, outreach and marketing work
• At least portions of the time of current staff working on distance education issues would be reorganized into a production staff. In order to obtain the services of production team members from various units around campus, the Provost would have to identify distance education as a priority that requires the services of identified staff members.
• Additional production staff could be hired to supplement the limited time and resources of existing staff
• Under this model, it would be necessary to start developing agreements for centralized examination facilities remote from campus, which must be organized and coordinated to ensure face to face examination options

The third model incorporates all of the features from Models 1 and 2 plus the additional resources necessary to make a major effort to reach out to non-San Francisco State University students and take a portion of the existing distance education market.

In order to accomplish this ambitious goals, adequate hardware, software, staff, marketing, and other resources will be required. This model represents the other end of the continuum--under this model, distance education could definitely contribute additional FTES to San Francisco State University, an alternative that could produce new resources for the University.

Full cost recovery invested in distance education could be anticipated, as outreach generates growth which generates revenue. Costs would include the resources discussed above in Model 1, the original $100,000 mini-grant program (increased to $150,000), the salary of the Director of Distance Education, the salaries of additional production team members, and the costs of some additional marketing capacity. Possible reimbursements for the time of current production staff working on distance education courses would also be necessary.

In addition to the resources seen above, Model 3 includes:

• The creation of a Division of Distance Education.
• The Director of Distance Education would be a full-time position.
• Hiring additional staff for a dedicated production team in addition to the existing staff from Computing Services, Center for the Enhancement of Teaching, and AV/ITV.
• A mini-grant program of at least $150,000 per year to subsidize faculty course development and maintenance.
• Under this model, centralized examination arrangements would be crucial.

 

Under any of these Models, outsourcing is an option. Outsourcing refers to contracting with an outside vendor to prepare and provide online courses to San Francisco State University students. Today, there are several prominent vendors who provide online education to universities. Real Education is one vendor who has recently (May 27, 1998) given a demonstration of their courses on campus (they were also the vendor who developed the CU Online system).

Like any system, there are advantages and disadvantages to utilizing outsourcing as an implementation scheme for distance education here at San Francisco State University. Outsourcing could be a more cost-effective approach, would address many of the security and organizational concerns that exist under the current system, would allow us to provide additional online courses more easily, and would provide access to course developers with a wide variety of experience and skills. Courses would not be owned by a vendor such Real Education but would be retained by the developers of the course. The vendor could also develop necessary graphics and assist with audio and video clips, as needed. This would eliminate the need for an extensive on-campus production staff. The courses would be physically housed on the vendorís server, reducing the need for technical assistance and server maintenance needs.

There are also disadvantages. No matter what assurances are provided, faculty could well be concerned that this is the beginning of a slippery slope towards losing control of their course content. Many faculty will also be concerned about contracting with a private firm to provide an educational environment to San Francisco State University students.

The issue and option of outsourcing is definitely one that should be discussed as decisions are made on how to implement distance education on campus. The advantages and disadvantages should be carefully weighed and as many administrators, faculty, and staff as possible should educate themselves, through the on-campus demonstrations, about the realities of this option.

Currently, there are discussions among Northern California campuses of the California State University system regarding the feasibility of contracting jointly with Real Education. Such an arrangement would have the advantage of both minimizing costs and setting thoughtful precedents for such contracting arrangements throughout the CSU.

Return to top 

San Francisco State University enjoys an active history in distance education. As this report shows, most efforts to date were initiated by departments and/or faculty in response to specific educational needs. These efforts, especially in the use of video-delivered education, have put SFSU in the forefront of distance education in the CSU system.

Yet it is the diffused and "grass roots" nature of these efforts the Task Force now sees as a growing liability. We conclude SFSU needs to define the scope of its efforts in distance education, deciding upon the desired blend of student support and outreach priorities. Once the campus mission is clear, SFSU needs to provide centralized and standardized resources for the creation, maintenance and delivery of distance education. Faculty support policies, especially in the area of intellectual property rights, must be established. Finally, in order to access the many resources at SFSU, we recommend the appointment of a Director of Distance Education to coordinate campus-wide efforts.

The Task Force concludes SFSU possesses many of the necessities required for success in distance education. The development of a cohesive vision and support structure for distance education will ensure SFSU retains its strong voice in the educational environment of the twenty-first century.

Return to top

Asynchronous. Communication between the sender and receiver does not take place simultaneously.

Bandwidth. The width of an electronic transmission path or circuit expressed in terms of the range of frequencies that can pass without distortion. The greater the bandwidth, the more information can be carried.

CODEC (Coder-Decoder). A coder-decoder (analog-to-digital and digital-to-analog converter) is used to convert analog signals, such as television, to digital form for transmission and back again to the original analog form for viewing.

Internet. The computer network that connects educational, research, and commercial networks throughout the world.

Listserv. A listserv is an electronic mailing list on a specific topic or subject. Users must subscribe to the listserv in order to receive messages and participate in discussions. To facilitate discussions among large groups, listserv software automates subscription and other maintenance functions. Listservs become virtual communities through the Internet.

Modem. A modulator/demodulator that translates a computerís digital information into analog for transmission on a telephone line.

PDF Files. Portable Document File formats are a popular formatting method today since they maintain all document formatting and ensure that the user may not change the documents. They can be read with the Adobe Acrobat Reader plug-in.

Plug-Ins. Plug-ins are software packages, typically available for free (but not always) for download from the World Wide Web, that allow additional features to be incorporated into a web site. Examples of features include animation (Shockwave is the plug-in), video and audio clips (Real Audio and RealVideo), or the ability to read completely formatted documents (Adobe Acrobat Reader).

RealAudio / RealVideo. Real Audio and Real Video are products (software plug-ins) that allow video and audio clips to be incorporated into a web page.

Synchronous. Communication between the sender and the receiver that is not delayed.

Teleconferencing. Bringing people together by electronic means (audio, audiographics, video, computer). Audio teleconferencing permits different individuals in the conference to speak to one another. Video teleconferencing can be one-way video with two-way audio or fully interactive with two-way video and two-way audio. Computer teleconferencing connects individual computers to a host computer for asynchronous or synchronous conferencing.

Threaded discussion. Threaded discussion is found in computer conferencing. It refers to the feature that allows the user to follow along with the "thread", or chronological theme, of an online discussion. The user goes from one comment about a particular topic directly to the next comment about that same topic. This contrasts to an email system, where comments about one topic might be interspersed with email messages about a variety of other topics. An important feature of conferencing software is that it allows for this threading. It also keeps track of which messages in the thread have already been read by each user.

World Wide Web. A subset of the Internet that allows documents to be linked together by clickable "hot spots." Its wide acceptance and ease of creation make it attractive for distance education.

---

SFSU Curricular Web Support Services Search