At our campus in Louisiana, distance learning counts twice the class
load as a regular course and teachers get a nominal bonus as well.
Unfortunately, courses have to be approved and funded at a state level,
seemingly with the larger universities getting the first crack.
Universities that have traditionally served the "less marketable"
students-rural students, the urban poor, first generation college kids,
returning students, those admitted under open admissions, and the like,
are too often excluded in the designing and implimentation of
off-sight/remote/distance courses. Faculty with the expertise in
reaching these students that have often been excluded by the major
universities are themselves excluded from any substantive input. As a
result, the distance ed courses that I have seen have been often been
irrelevent to the needs of the people that are suppose to benefit from
them!
What this emphasis on Distance Learning, particularly compressed video
appears to be (IMHO) is a nice setup for an eventual reduction in the
number of faculty, with more and more courses being run from a central,
statewide campus. Administrators seem to like the idea, again IMHO,
because they can hire more non teaching faculty to ostensibly
"administer" programs being "taught" hundreds of miles away.
Too often, distance ed has all of the disadvantages of a large,
impersonal lecture, and none of the advantages. This is particularly
true for real time compressed video, where a lack of band width makes
meaningful interaction with faculty impossible.
