[ 203 ] Enhancing the learning outcome of university distance education: an Australian perspective Jeff Cooke Senior Lecturer in Information Systems, Central Queensland University, Rockhampton, Australia Irene Veach Faculty of Business Administrative Executive, Central Queensland University, Rockhampton, Australia States that Central Queens- land University (CQU) is one of seven universities authorized by the Australian government as a provider of distance education. Lack of affordable network infrastructure over vast areas of Australia cur- rently requires that paper- based study material be emphasized. At CQU, the Division of Distance and Continuing Education (DDCE) is responsible for the produc- tion and initial distribution of learning materials and stu- dent/lecturer paper-based interface management, e.g. tracking of assignments and response timeliness, a quality issue. Study material content is the responsibility of the lecturer, with quality reviews being performed by the origi- nating faculty departments. Integration of the Internet into unit delivery is being trialed in ad hoc ways by various lectur- ers, particularly in the Busi- ness Faculty. Forms a progress report of one such pilot programme in a post- graduate information systems offering. With respect to the QIP, a revised unit assessment survey was conducted. Prelim- inary indications are that the innovative utilization of the Internet reported may be a significant substitute for traditional paper-based deliv- ery while providing a superior learning environment much preferred by students. Addi- tionally, lecturers find it far more efficient to maintain the relevance of perishable mater- ial in courses, especially those which are information system or information technology- based. International Journal of Educational Management 11/5 [1997] 203–208 © MCB University Press [ISSN 0951-354X] Background Traditional delivery of distance education at Central Queensland University (CQU) has revolved around a very mature and highly- honed structure developed over several years. The learning “package” typically consisted of, but was not limited to, the following materials: • Unit Profile; • Study Guide; • resource book of readings; • references to appropriate journals and books; and • all integrated with a set textbook. Development of the content and integrating links of this package begins and ends with the lecturer in charge of the unit. The process of this development is managed by the Divi- sion of Distance and Continuing Education (DDCE) according to a common structure which has been professionally developed utilizing generally accepted learning meth- ods and models (DDCE, 1997). Quality assur- ance of the process itself is excellent, as evi- denced by the steady improvement in ratings (currently middle third) achieved in the bian- nual Australian Tertiary Education Quality reviews (Committee for Quality Assurance in Higher Education, 1995). Paper-based unit feedback is explicitly solicited from each student as a quality mech- anism which is used to adjust future offerings in unit content, form, and substance. These unit feedback surveys are a component of the quality improvement programme (QIP), but frequently are received too late for the lec- turer to effect change in the very next produc- tion of the study material package. It is our judgement that the current paper-based model of distance education course delivery as exhibited/practised at CQU has evolved to a plateau unlikely to be improved on. Evolutionary forces The amount of data and the associated pro- cessing thereof to produce an information product is growing at an ever increasing rate. It has been stated (Synnott, 1987) that the amount (new) of world information generated is doubling every five years. At this pace it is no wonder that many so-called information societies are overwhelmed by the choice, staggered by the amount, and confused at the real conflict of facts. In some university courses, distance educa- tion material is judged partly on the quantity of high quality paper-based material. This may include voluminous readings, sometimes encompassing two volumes of reproduced, appropriately copyright acknowledged, mate- rial. This is in addition to set readings in the prescribed text. The reading workload using this distance education model is consider- able, albeit precisely metered and objectively probed via lecturer-developed questions and answers at regular way points in the learning cycle. Students were then encouraged to per- form the (lecturer) provided self-assessment with respect to their grasp of the paper-based material. Clearly students were required to read and absorb a great deal of information. In the distance education mode, there was no direct student-student interaction unless a teleconference was performed or a workshop scheduled. Either of these activities were voluntary, and usually resulted in very poor participation rates. Furthermore, student- lecturer interaction was typically accom- plished, albeit on rare ad hoc instances, by students phoning the lecturer, post mail, or e-mail in those instances where students had access. Customer-driven business requirements are also changing. Intensified global competi- tion has increased the pressure on business to respond quicker and develop new and inno- vative ways to compete successfully in the marketplace. Business process re-engineer- ing (Turban et al., 1996) has become a fre- quent solution to these increased pressures. Business as well as student customers must work smarter rather than harder. Increas- ingly this means being better informed with the requisite quantity and quality of informa- tion to do their job. A strategy to meet market needs is different from one which exceeds market needs. An appropriate balance in resource expenditure is required in each case in order to produce the desired output. Out- puts, whether they be product or service, [ 204 ] Jeff Cooke and Irene Veach Enhancing the learning outcome of university distance education: an Australian perspective International Journal of Educational Management 11/5 [1997] 203–208 need this balance. Time becomes an increas- ingly valued commodity and must be judiciously apportioned to address the most critical factors for success. We are all experiencing, to a greater or lesser extent, information overload. More than focus is required. Relevance, particu- larly in the information systems arena, is even more important, with the view that information is becoming more susceptible to a “use by date”. Potential student and lecturer impacts We assert that heavy reliance on paper-based learning material can become a limiting factor in the learning process. Today’s com- petitive environment puts increased pressure on students to be very selective in their time utilization. Many times students accomplish this by excising over 80 per cent of the read- ing material, especially if a psychological threshold of “too much” is reached on the opening of a multi-kilogram study material package. This in addition to a set text! Lecturers too are time pressured. The lead time for revision, update, or complete rewrite of the distance education package continues to increase. In fact, over the last three years the average lead time required for production of unit material at CQU has increased from one semester to over two semesters. This is in spite of the fact that more word-processing resource and technology standardization has been applied to the production process. Not only has the production lead time become longer, increased quantities of available infor- mation requires increased lecturer time to research and develop quality updates and revisions. This is particularly true in the disciplines requiring a significant informa- tion systems or information technology com- ponent. Moreover, few lecturers would dis- agree that units in information systems require constant attention in order to ensure their relevance. However, as unit material production lead times lengthen, it becomes more difficult to maintain currency, rele- vance, and requisite quality of the distance education product. A new approach is required. Trial solution of an enhanced learning package Trial solution A trial solution addressing these evolution- ary forces and alleviating potential student and lecturer time compression was piloted in 1995/1996. The centrepiece of this trial was the design of a new distance education “pack- age” which integrates with the Internet. An evolutionary rather than a revolutionary approach was taken, realizing that too great a change from the highly developed paper- based model was imprudent. The package now integrates three major items. First, a single text eschewing the thrust of the unit is chosen which is no more than 18 months older than the semester in which the unit will be offered. This practically trans- lates into a text book with a latest print date being within one year of the offering. This is important, not only for relevance in an infor- mation science-related discipline, but also from an image point of view. Over 95 per cent of our mature age postgraduate students (customers) are currently employed, or on educational leave from a business or govern- ment enterprise. Perception of the relevance of learning material is many times equated to the dates associated with each piece of the integrated package. In particular, journal and text references are considered very perish- able. We believe that addressing this rele- vance factor is an important consideration in course marketing. Second, a single Unit Profile was developed which addresses both the on-campus as well as the distance education student’s participa- tive learning requirements. The Unit Profile contains: 1 the lecturer’s introduction and statement of learning objectives; 2 the assessment criteria; 3 assignment requirements and exam structure; 4 the weekly schedule; 5 Internet proficiency requirements (e.g. instructions about the use of a “list man- ager” and how to subscribe to it; and 6 the required format and associated process by which weekly class interaction is to be accomplished via the MIS (manage- ment impact statement) and the EMIS (electronic management impact statement, adapted from the MIS of Reynolds, (1992)). Item 5 is particularly important because it lays out the requirement to have Internet access, including a compliance statement to that effect electronically transmitted to the lecturer before close of business (cob) on Fri- day of week 1. Since the weekly schedule requires the submittal of an EMIS, compli- ance must not be delayed. This weekly EMIS (Appendix 2) assignment is in addition to set readings from the prescribed text book. Items 5 and 6 are new to the CQU Faculty of Busi- ness distance education process, and, the weekly schedule now contains an assessable [ 205 ] Jeff Cooke and Irene Veach Enhancing the learning outcome of university distance education: an Australian perspective International Journal of Educational Management 11/5 [1997] 203–208 participation requirement centring on the MIS or EMIS. This is also new. Third, the Study Guide provides complete detail on form, content, and the integrative process required for executing the weekly MIS (utilized by on-campus students) or EMIS (utilized by distance education stu- dents). The form (e.g. format) and content of the EMIS is similar to that of the MIS. The major difference between the two is that the MIS is focused on the prescribed textbook chapter for the week, with the requirement for it to be developed utilizing Microsoft Power Point and presented in front of the class through an Epson 3000 projector. The on-campus face-to-face class participation and topic integration discussion is maxi- mized because all students are interacting in a real time exchange. The lecturer facilitates this process and encourages lateral thinking excursions by injecting appropriate “what-if ” scenarios. Albeit the presentations are focused, no two classes are the same because this format does not restrict the outcome a priori. Students are encouraged to focus their EMIS on current information system or information technology topics, particularly those which have no particularly clear solu- tion path. Examples include, but may not be limited to, societies’ access to information, censorship, copyright and proprietary intel- lectual issues, electronic commerce and gov- ernments’ desire to apply transborder taxes, etc. The distance education electronic “face- to-face” class participation and topic integra- tion discussion is maximized because all students are interacting through a seamless electronic interface exchanging ideas in “near” real time. By “near” real time we specifically mean that the student assigned to find and develop the topic(s) for the week places his/her researched work on the list processor for “broadcast” to all students by cob Wednesday. All other students must com- ment by offering brief, yet insightfully devel- oped constructive criticism and/or “what-if ” responses by Sunday evening for that week’s presentation. The students themselves fuel and facilitate this process by injecting appro- priate “what-if ” scenarios and providing thoughtful judgements based on actual expe- rience, beliefs, or observation. This encour- ages additional lateral thinking excursions which usually results in very provocative outcomes. Albeit the weekly EMIS presenta- tion had a particular view based on the value structure, experience, and observations of the initial focused effort of the student assigned for the week, subsequent class participation and differences of view almost guarantee lively and thoughtful responses with the weekly conclusion not known a priori! The Unit Profile and Study Guide for unit 21608 together now consists of 24 pages. This is a considerable reduction from the 142 pages in 1995. Furthermore, the book of readings characteristic of the paper-based version of this unit delivered in 1995 has been elimi- nated and replaced with the EMIS/MIS requirement. For unit 21608, this has resulted in the elimination of two volumes containing 440 pages. The form and content of the Study Guide has been changed completely. Distance education enhanced package Process delivery mechanism In order to manage the unit 21608 distance education delivery process, the Majordomo list processor (Chapman, 1992) is used for managing the list established exclusively for the students of this unit. Majordomo is an automated list management programme “which frees the lecturer from dealing with most of the administrivia usually associated with managing mailing lists such as adding users, dropping users, etc.” (Chapman, 1992). EMIS development procedure The EMIS is the mechanism which encapsu- lates the procedure by which all students get involved in selecting and commenting on current topics of the day. Topics must be obtained from Internet sources (a prelimi- nary list of Universal Record Locater (URL) addresses are provided in the Unit Profile to get the student started) and are required to be relevant to the theme of the unit. The unit theme and additional guidance are explicitly supplied in the paper-based Unit Profile and Study Guide. There are no other restrictions. The lecturer produces a student responsi- bility list from the CQU Student Records System for each week in the semester. For each week a particular student is assigned responsibility to seek out three information science (systems or technology) topics with a potential enterprise management impact. Each of these articles should not exceed one screen (24 lines) of text. The student then cuts and pastes the selected article, along with its source and “publication” date, to a newly composed e-mail in preparation for transmis- sion to the unit electronic class list. The stu- dent then exercises critical thinking skills by addressing the important point of the article, by incorporating his/her views and then extrapolates them to a reasonable future scenario. This student-prepared management impact summary incorporates analysis [ 206 ] Jeff Cooke and Irene Veach Enhancing the learning outcome of university distance education: an Australian perspective International Journal of Educational Management 11/5 [1997] 203–208 according to each presenter’s particular knowledge, experience, background, and value structure. The framework for this EMIS follows that of Turban et al. (1996) (Study Guide explains) and is required to be within the framework of either re-engineering, global perspective, technology, or other. Appendix 2 is a reproduction of the EMIS instructions excerpted from the 21608 Study Guide for II/96. Results After two semesters’ operation in the trial mode, with fine tuning of both the Unit Pro- file and the associated Study Guide, it appears that several benefits/improvements have been achieved. First, full participation students achieve a greatly enhanced learning experience more closely aligned to a seminar-type environ- ment. Interaction is greatly increased. Since interaction is all electronic, and void of visual (e.g. face-to-face) queues, comments are more freely provided, albeit in a respectful and thoughtful manner. Written responses demon- strate a great deal of thought and very careful crafting. Appendix 1 reports the student survey comments addressing this aspect. Second, a more concise distance education package which greatly reduces the amount of paper-based material has been achieved. This results in a much shortened lead time for changes, updates, or rewrites with respect to the DDCE production schedule. The “perisha- bility” of the package has been reduced. Third, lecturers are able to delay the choice of textbook in order to accommodate the setting of the best available textbook which may also be the most recent. Conclusions It is our judgement that information systems learning from an enterprise management view is enhanced by integrating the commu- nication (e-mail) capability provided by the Internet with paper-based material. Further- more, development of a balanced integration of electronic and paper-based material as a distance education package is recommended for consideration by other disciplines. Additional improvements in the develop- ment of quality distance education “pack- ages” may be expected as Internet browsers, complete with search engines, become more readily available through Internet access providers. Currently, rural Australia and other less populated areas of the world are not economically well served in this regard. References Chapman, B. (1992), Majordomo Mailing List Manager, version 1.92. Committee for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (1995), Report on 1994 Quality, Vol. I, March, p. 14. Division of Distance and Continuing Education (1997), Creating Materials for Flexible Learning, Central Queensland University Press. Reynolds (1992), Information Systems for Man- agers, West Publishing, St Paul, MN. Synnott, W.R. (1987), The Information Weapon, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY. Turban, E., Mclean, E. and Wetherbe, J. (1996), Information Technology for Management, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY. Appendix 1. Survey results Student feedback was generally very posi- tive and there was reasonable consensus that the weekly MIS and EMIS achieved a greatly enhanced learning outcome. A sig- nificant number of students made positive comments about the interaction and synergy outcomes via the MIS (internal students) and EMIS (distance education students). The following quotes come directly from student unit evaluations: • I like the electronic interaction between students and lecturer. • The EMIS are very good. I enjoyed the variety of comments, the differing view- points and approaches to topics. This has shown me (sic how) to value and explore the breadth of understanding available, and what can emerge from a research team. Each person brings something new to the session, as long as they are not fettered by too tight a definition of what to learn and how to respond. • Lack of criticism and a time and place for humour among the serious considerations. • Overall this subject has helped to (slowly!) develop a “business perspec- tive” to issues, as well as an IT one or my own personal ideas. The discussion tak- ing place between students emphasized the different viewpoints on topics. • I believe that the EMIS format gives distance education students a far greater opportunity to participate in a manner more similar to actual classroom condi- tions. The format encourages participa- tion and interaction between students. • As a distance education student it is inter- esting to read the responses of other stu- dents to the weekly assessment questions. • Opportunity to get better acquainted with the net and its possibilities. • E-mail between myself and the other students has been pleasant and enter- taining, and quite different from any other form of contact I have experienced. [ 207 ] Jeff Cooke and Irene Veach Enhancing the learning outcome of university distance education: an Australian perspective International Journal of Educational Management 11/5 [1997] 203–208 Appendix 2. Study guide (excerpted), unit 21608, Information Systems Management This Study Guide is a component of the study package for 21608 Information Systems Management. The complete study package contains … • Unit Profile • Study Guide (this document) • Internet addresses (contained in the Unit Profile) required by all students in order to effect unit compliance and has been specifically developed by Jeff Cooke for a CQU course of study. This production of the 21608 Study Guide will provide a new and improved learning experience congruent with the explosion of information and technology available via the Internet. It requires a level of student disci- pline which is regularly and consistently applied. Previous support to the Australian in-country and overseas distance education information technology student consisted of voluminous printed material. The material in such a package quickly became outdated and increasingly more difficult to produce and maintain. Information is like vegetables ... it is perishable. In order to keep within the information technology “use by date”, this unit requires each student to accomplish an/a: 1 weekly interaction with the Internet, WWW, appropriate printed material, or all three to obtain current information for presentation or to contribute to weekly presentations by providing constructive feedback electronically or class comment directly; 2 analysis, integration and presentation of the information obtained electronically and/or from printed material according to a weekly schedule explained in this Study Guide; 3 presentation of an analysis in a manner outlined in this Study Guide and in the appropriate format for peer review, com- ment, and constructive feedback. Presentation instructions for distance education students The requirements are very similar to those for on-campus students except for the modifi- cations required to achieve the same results electronically. Specifically, the following instructions apply: Developing weekly Electronic Material Impact Summar y (EMIS) Commencing week 2 and each week there- after through and including week 13, one or two students will be required to prepare an EMIS for the following week. The weekly assignment is determined from the class list that I will supply electronically. (The stu- dent’s attention is directed to paragraph 2 on page 7 of the Unit Profile which requires electronic compliance.) The assigned presenter(s) choose an Inter- net e-mail or WWW source(s), and from this source(s) choose three current topics from which to summarize what you believe is the key point and present them electronically to the entire class via this unit’s list server. These will be the three most important elec- tronic articles in the weekly electronic source as you perceive them. Include in your elec- tronic summary arguments for or against each article. Why do you believe the article is important? Categorize each article into one of the following categories: 1 global perspective; 2 emerging technology; 3 business process re-engineering; or 4 other. Each (there are three) EMIS is limited to two electronic screens (24 lines each) for each article. One screen for re-displaying each article, and one screen for your analysis. This is a total of six screens. I must stress that the relative importance of each point is determined individually by each presenter. You exercise judgement on the key points based on your knowledge, experience, skills, and value systems. In essence, you will have exercised critical thinking skills in making the assessment of how the material may impact you. Some student presenters will tend to defer to the original author’s or reporter’s view as the default starting point, particularly when you have little or no skill or experience base on which to exercise professional judgement. However, students are encouraged to make judgements by synthesizing from a knowl- edge base being acquired as the unit progresses. Employing this approach will give you the opportunity to build and exercise your elec- tronic presentation and selling skills. These skills are particularly useful for individuals planning to be the future change agents and thought leaders in information systems management. Overview of weekly class presentation format for distance education students First, identify three electronic articles each of which fit within a typical VDU (visual display unit) screen (e.g. approximately 24 lines). Then copy and paste the electronic article into the body of your e-mail message. Explicitly identify each article, including its source. Your well-developed response or view- point (e.g. approximately 24 lines) follows [ 208 ] Jeff Cooke and Irene Veach Enhancing the learning outcome of university distance education: an Australian perspective International Journal of Educational Management 11/5 [1997] 203–208 each pasted article. Clearly and explicitly identify yourself and your response so the reader is clear that this portion of the EMIS is your original work. Repeat this procedure for each of the electronic articles. Send your work as an electronic message (again, there are three of these for each pre- senter) to the unit list processor (ULP, e.g. subject-21608 as designated in the Unit pro- file) NLT (no later than) cob (close of busi- ness) Wednesday. Any student may respond via the ULP and offer constructive criticism of your electronic “analysis report”. The class electronic feedback should be where additional ideas and extrapolative comments come out. Again, each piece of feedback must explicitly identify: 1 the student making the contribution; and 2 which of the three EMIS you are addressing. It is a strict requirement that each student actively participate and contribute via the ULP NLT Sunday evening of that week’s presentation. I must emphasize that the Majordomo list manager in OPEN list form (which is the parameter which I have set for this unit) does not identify the sender of any e-mail messages. This means that each contributor (e.g. weekly assigned student) and every participator needs to identify in their reply who they are and which (1, 2, or 3) of the EMIS they are responding to. I will file elec- tronic copies by week for ALL electronic traffic, for unit administration and Quality Improvement Program requirements. The weekly presenter monitors and responds to this activity electronically as required until commencement of a new week on Monday, when the cycle repeats with a new presenter. • Make it a personalized view. What is your point and why do you think that it is important? This may or may not correspond with the original author or reporter’s view that is expressed in the electronic material. Your view is what’s important here. • The student presenter must employ a “pro- fessional” approach which makes it effort- less for the reader to delineate between the article you have chosen and your response to and categorization of the electronic arti- cle. Amateurish, sloppy organization is prohibited. Class electronic discussion – Limited to each week’s material and must be posted to the list server NLT 1800 Sunday at the close of each week. It a strict requirement that each stu- dent actively participate and contribute.