The Changing Face of Education
Despite the frequent skepticism of the past, in today’s competitive education setting, the military services of the United States have embraced the online education phenomenon and have recruited colleges and universities to be their education partners
By Manfred F. Meine
Despite the frequent skepticism of the past, in today’s competitive education setting, the military services of the United States have embraced the online education phenomenon and have recruited colleges and universities to be their education partners, often using the power of education dollars to encourage schools to create special programs, to create entirely new administrative processes and in some cases to adjust content delivery for the convenience of the servicemember. All of these efforts are focused on maximizing military education dollars while using education as a recruiting and retention tool, and while making the completion of education programs as quick and convenient for servicemembers as possible. Much of the focus seems to be on attracting those schools to be military partners which offer the greatest acceptance of military training for academic credit, an issue that may not always find favor with accrediting bodies. Just what is the impact of this phenomenon? How are we ensuring the focus on quality is not lost? How are we assuring the servicemember that the education they are receiving is the same quality as that offered to their civilian counterparts who have fewer barriers to completing an education?
Educators have debated the use of technology as a teaching tool since the beginning of the twentieth century. Motion pictures were thought to be the technology that would change learning. In the 1930s, it was radio skills which were deemed critical to success in a wireless new world. Soon, however, television was the technology for a revolution in teaching and learning. Television resulted in the spread of telecourses as a distance learning medium.
By the change of the millennium, the Internet and the World Wide Web had evolved as the new revolution in educational delivery. Schools throughout the nation, joined or even prodded by the nation’s military services looked to this evolving medium as a solution to education delivery challenges, and as a way to expand existing education markets. The focus on flexibility evolved to the point where some schools even offered courses to be completed on handheld personal digital devices with or without access to the Web. Today it is obvious the military has embraced distance learning as a primary means to educate the many thousands of young enlistees, and the services use educational opportunities as a means to attract and retain recruits. Despite this rush to distance learning, the medium and its accompanying technologies evoke mixed reactions among both students and faculty. However, it is clear, that regardless of the reactions about distance learning as a medium, its use is expanding rapidly, and some would argue that it has been universally accepted. Despite this acceptance, the faculty member is still the key to success of the online environment.
Distance learning is not a new idea, but rather an evolving concept. While many colleges and universities, to include Troy University, have moved or are moving into distance learning, it is not universally accepted that this trend is a positive one. Faculty concerns revolve around the question of the level and quality of online interaction, the loss of the personal touch and the loss of face-to-face interaction. The push toward very standardized course templates, leaving little room for individual faculty style and methodology is also not universally accepted. Instructional design technicians have become a major part of the online phenomenon with an emphasis on providing more “visual pizzazz” in online courses to avoid having distance education courses become high tech correspondence courses. Concerns from students revolve around the level of faculty interaction as well as ensuring adequate technical and academic support in negotiating online courses. Concerns from accrediting bodies and higher education administrators revolve not only around the quality question, but also on ensuring adequate support for students and faculty. It is clear that keeping up with the rapid growth of the distance learning phenomenon presents significant challenges, challenges which are likely to grow with the continuing expansion of distance education as an educational delivery method. The likelihood of managing these challenges may well depend on who you ask, with diverging opinions.
Despite potential misgivings, students, including military members, are voting with a click of the mouse. At Troy University, a start-up distance learning effort that accounted for fewer than 1,000 enrollments per year less than 10 years ago has grown to over 60,000 per year, and the growth shows no signs of abating. A sizable portion of those enrollments are coming from military members, and include many who once attended on base classes, but have moved into Web-based education. Just what is causing this migration? The convenience and lure of asynchronous education negating the need to be at a specific place at a specific time have likely much to do with the shift.
As a result of this growth and migration, in today’s military education arena, one hears frequent concerns from on-base schools and military education officials about the difficulty of maintaining viable quality on-base education programs in the face of the exodus to online classes. Not only are most on-base schools seeing their own students choose to take some or all of their course work online, but they are facing competition from numerous distance learning programs offered by schools without an on-base presence. In interviews with education officials on military bases, one frequently hears the same concerns about military education dollars going to 60, 70, even 80 schools while there are only a handful of on base education providers.
School officials from colleges and universities with on-base programs frequently raise concerns about being held to strict guidelines, and being subject to accreditation-like reviews through the Military Installation Voluntary Education Review (MIVER) process, while off-base schools offering distance learning programs are not held to the same standards. Several years ago, the Defense Department assembled a task force to look at establishing rules and standards for off-base distance learning providers, but the final result of that effort has still not been formalized, although indications are a memorandum of agreement or understanding plan may soon be coming to fruition.
Considering this tremendous growth of distance learning over the past ten years, a discussion of the pros and cons of this rapidly expanding approach to higher education delivery, may not be appropriate in this context, but regardless of the result any such discussion would bring, it is clear that distance learning technologies are not only revolutionizing course delivery, but they are providing new methods for augmenting traditional classroom course work.
Distance Education and the Military
While the debate about distance learning continues, it is clear that the use of online course delivery for military students is growing rapidly, and the military services have embraced distance education as an important tool in helping military members complete their educational goals. In 2000, the United States Navy partnered with 16 colleges and universities in an effort to have distance learning become a potential aid in the effort to attract and retain Navy personnel through the lure of ready access to education programs funded at that time to 75 percent of tuition. Since then, the military tuition assistance level was raised to 100 percent by all the services, although with some credit hour limits in the Navy example.
The U.S. Navy with its extensive seagoing duty faces special challenges in providing education and training to sailors at sea, and has entered into educational and training partnerships with colleges and universities to deliver training and education while sailors are deployed. The Navy has for many years worked to make education available to sailors anywhere in the world through the use of technology and the Navy Program for Afloat College Education. The Army National Guard pursued a similar path by entering into agreements with numerous colleges and universities to deliver educational programs throughout the country—again, these programs are to be made available via Internet-based distance learning. A counseling center to support this initiative was established in Pensacola, Fla. The follow-on to that center was relocated to the National Training Center in Ark. The National Guard also explored providing college classes using its extensive teleconferencing network which was fielded as a training solution for the widely dispersed National Guard force. Despite the pros of teleconferencing as an educational and training delivery method the major shortfall is the lack of the asynchronous capability offered by online educational delivery. The Air Force, which relies heavily on its Community College of the Air Force (CCAF) to provide for educational opportunities for its enlisted servicemembers, has also joined the distance learning fray. The CCAF has long had access to distance learning as part of its portal, and in the Air University 2007 developed a CCAF to four year program. The Air Force initiative required schools to certify that CCAF graduates could complete their four-year program with no more than 60 additional semester hours (AU–ABC, 2007). This restriction made it difficult for schools with extensive general education requirements to participate.
One of the most ambitious distance learning efforts to date, however, was initiated by the United States Army in January of 2001. The Army, using the lure of a potential $700 million contract, used a contractor to manage distance learning for soldiers. The effort was expected to include over 7,000 enrollments in the first year, and to grow to over 70,000 enrollments by the fifth year. Not only did the Army pay 100 percent of tuition, fees and books, but for each eligible soldier, it also funded a laptop computer, a printer and Internet access. From the outset, Army soldiers lined up to enter the program, with over 1,200 of them doing so in the first two weeks of registration for the program. By the end of year four, the Army program resulted in over 60,000 enrollments. The program became so popular that costs ballooned, and while the Army expanded the program, it also established extensive controls over new enrollments. In 2006, the Army mandated a new registration process for all voluntary education for soldiers, which required colleges and universities to modify their student information systems in order to participate in tuition assistance funded programs.
In 2007, one of the Army’s major commands created its own special program for senior non-commissioned officers, which raised concerns among some military education officials and at many schools involved in supporting military education about the way such programs are created and how participating schools are selected. Once again, the focus seems to have been on maximum acceptance of military training credit, the least possible residency requirement and of course, cost.
The result of these various initiatives has been a tremendous increase in the number of military personnel pursuing higher education, often online education, because of the dispersed nature of the military. Even while fighting in Iraq, military personnel are continuing their education, presenting totally new “the dog ate my homework” explanation challenges.
As could be anticipated, the 100 percent tuition funding and the special programs encouraged or developed by the services resulted in dramatic growth in the cost of voluntary education for all the services, which of course strained the financial resources available. Ostensibly, this strain may have led to a perceived focus on getting the most “bang for the education buck.” In the case of the Marine Corps, the resource focus included requiring on-base schools to return a portion of their tuition dollars to the local base, and proposals for a new access to education database being developed by a contractor, but being funded at least in part by participating schools. While a resources focus is understandable and undoubtedly necessary, it is also fraught with the danger of diminishing or eclipsing the focus on quality. As a result, military education officials and school administrators must work closely together to ensure the proper balance is maintained.
Military education programs are exposing many young people to higher education who might have never gone to college. Many will need mentoring and tutoring, and might find the online medium quite challenging. In some cases, like the Army model, the motivation for entering college may be more than just obtaining an education. What then does this portend for the future distance learning education environment being faced by the nation’s colleges and universities?
Where is Military Education Going?
In order to make higher education available to as many military personnel as possible and yet ensure that the military student and the military services are getting the quality they deserve, the higher education community and military education officials should emphasize close cooperation and communication. Academic officials should be directly involved in the development of educational initiatives, and the process should be as open and inclusive as possible. Despite fierce competition for students and education dollars, academic institutions must partner with each other and with military education officials, to ensure that the interests of both can be heard and protected.
To protect and enhance the quality of distance education, colleges and universities need to prepare students to use emerging technologies, and to undertake educational efforts without the supportive structure of the traditional brick-and-mortar university. While ensuring that students get a top quality education, education providers must strive to provide an educational experience that is in no way less than what the on-base or even on-campus student receives. Faculty members need preparation as well. With the dramatic expansion of distance learning offerings, numerous new faculty members are being recruited for online teaching. Often, professors are not adequately prepared to make use of educational technology suggesting that increased training and incentives may be necessary. Troy University now requires online faculty members to complete a training course and to pass an examination to ensure at least a basic knowledge of how to successfully teach online and to properly support students.
Thousands of years of face-to-face, teaching with the professor lecturing to and discussing with students, is a tradition not easy and perhaps not wise to totally displace. While distance learning may have been intellectually and practically accepted, it is not certain that it has been fully accepted in faculty circles. Professors have had to learn how to employ educational technologies in their classroom and adapt teaching methods to all types of subject matter. For students and faculty, overcoming the fear of technology is likely to be a temporary problem as the computer and the Internet continue to become an ever greater part of our daily lives. Schwartz, however, suggests that the transition, particularly for faculty may require significant patience.
For proponents of traditional education delivery, Steven Nelson’s assertion that distance learning programs will never replace the traditional classroom, but will serve those who would otherwise not have the opportunity to continue their education, should be reassuring. On the other hand, the headlong plunge into distance learning by the military services may be equally disconcerting. While distance learning is not likely to ever replace the traditional classroom, it is likely that distance learning will become an ever-expanding part of higher education programs. The growth of distance learning will continue as the medium is used to expand the delivery of educational opportunities to people and places not able to take advantage of traditional education. The military may become or continue to be a leader in relying on the rapid expansion of distance learning opportunities for servicemembers. To ensure that this leadership provides the best value and outcome for both the military student and the services’ need for an educated force, close coordination between the higher education community and the services is essential. While military education officials should be open and candid about their needs for educational opportunities and their concern for resources, college and university officials should be equally candid about how to best ensure our servicemembers receive the quality education they deserve, and education that will be of equal value to them after leaving the military, not just while serving in the armed forces. How can we assure military leaders and military students of that value and quality? Communication is likely the key. Organizations like the National Association of Institutions for Military Education Services, the Council of College and Military Educators and the various state Advisory Councils for Military Education may provide the proper venue to build the communication networks needed to go forward toward success. ♦