Support for this study was provided through a grant from the GSAMS Academic Programming Office/Georgia Department of Administrative Services

A Study of Georgia Technical Institutes Use of GSAMS for Credit Classes: Major Implementation Issues

GSAMS (Georgia Statewide Academic and Medical System) is Georgia's statewide system of two-way interactive audio and video connections for delivery of distance learning. As of 1996, nearly 300 sites, primarily in schools and colleges, were part of the statewide network.. Up to eight sites throughout the state can be connected for interactive programming over GSAMS. This study focused on the use of GSAMS for credit classes at the 33 technical institutes TIs) in Georgia. Credit instruction is important to examine because the greatest number of hours of GSAMS use at the technical institutes is for either offering or receiving credit courses. Also, users express many concerns about implementing this area of GSAMS programming and there is an expressed need for additional information to use in future decisions about policy directions and strategic planning in distance learning for the technical institute system in Georgia.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of the study was to identify critical themes, concerns, and implementation issues related to state technical institutes' ability to offer or receive credit courses using the GSAMS network. The researchers examined the major academic, technical, financial, and administrative issues and problems faced by technical institutes using GSAMS for credit course delivery, and collected information about how the schools were addressing these areas. All 33 technical institutes in Georgia have GSAMS equipment installed in at least one site on their campus. The technical institutes were among the first locations in the state to receive GSAMS equipment and some sites had been operating for over two years at the time of this study. Others were just beginning their GSAMS operations. Specific research areas of inquiry addressed in this study included:

1. Registration issues and procedures in offering GSAMS credit classes

2. Procedures and problems in awarding credits for GSAMS courses

3. Testing and evaluation of students and instructors

4. Reimbursement and costs of GSAMS site operation

5. Selection of course instructors for GSAMS credit courses

6. Site facilitation and support personnel options

7. Accreditation concerns and issues in offering credit courses over GSAMS

8. Course materials distribution and management

9. Scheduling or calendar issues for GSAMS sites

10. Other related issues not addressed in research questions

Findings from this report will be shared with the GSAMS Academic Programming Office; the Georgia Department of Technical and Adult Education; the technical institute Presidents, Vice-Presidents for Instruction, and Distance Learning Coordinators; and the technical institute Presidents Council committee on GSAMS policy development and Information Technology Committee. Professional conference presentations and journal publications will be used to disseminate research findings at the state and national levels. Results should be of interest in the development of state and individual site operating and implementation procedures for GSAMS credit programming.

Data Collection

The methodology used for the GSAMS study consisted of several phases of data accumulation consisting of initial telephone contact with the technical institutes, focus groups meetings and discussions over GSAMS with site representatives, telephone interviews with individual technical institute faculty or staff, and transcripts of focus group and individual telephone interviews.

The initial procedure in the study was to identify and contact all 33 technical institutes in the state of Georgia to identify which had been engaged in offering or receiving GSAMS courses at their respective sites. The initial contact with each institution was by telephone using the DOAS statewide listing of GSAMS Project Administrators and Site Contacts. A telephone survey worksheet (Appendix A) was used to establish background information for each site and to develop a list of potential focus group participants. The purpose of this initial telephone contact was to:

• determine which sites had offered or received GSAMS credit courses
• update site coordinator contact information at each site
• obtain information as to the type of GSAMS courses offered or received
• request GSAMS coordinators and relevant personnel participation in GSAMS focus groups planned at a later date

Contact with distance learning sites at the technical institutes was complicated by several factors including changes in GSAMS site personnel, unavailability of coordinators, and new coordinators who were not yet completely familiar with areas where questions were asked about site operations. Sites that were not able to be reached by phone were sent or faxed copies of the telephone survey worksheet sheet to complete and return, and a cover page outlining the purpose of the project. Sites that stated that they did not offer or receive credit courses are noted in Appendix B. These sites were not included in further data collection activities for the study.

Focus Groups

Through a series of telephone conversations, E-mail, and fax contacts, a list of potential focus group participants was established. Working with contacts from this list, a schedule of focus group meetings was set up using GSAMS sites at participating technical institutes, with the University of Georgia as the host site. Technical institutes were asked to invite their distance learning or GSAMS site coordinator, technical support staff, instructional administrators, and GSAMS instructors to participate in the focus groups. The GSAMS Web site and state GSAMS scheduling office were used to schedule multiple sites for the focus groups. Initial scheduling problems encountered in arranging focus group meetings for this project paralleled concerns and problem areas with using GSAMS expressed later by the participating coordinators at their respective sites. These included:

• discrepancies between listed available times for sites on the GSAMS web scheduler and actual availability of sites
• conflicts in GSAMS scheduling and availability at the individual locations
• difficulty in finding common transmission times at multiple sites
• limited availability of site operation personnel

Between April 16 and May 16, 1996, a total of seven focus groups sessions were held over the GSAMS network with two to five technical institute sites represented at each meeting and from one to six participants at each site.

A specific line of questioning and an agenda were outlined for the focus group meetings. Appendix C contains the question outline used to guide discussion at the seven focus group sessions. This list of questions was provided to participants in advance of the meeting. The intent was not to limit the answers of the participants to these questions but to provide a semi-structured, guided discussion allowing for participants to elaborate on additional areas of concern during the group sessions. The open-ended format of the questions provided initial focus and a broad subject framework, while still allowing the participants flexibility in their answers and discussions. This approach is consistent with a grounded theory methodology (Glasser & Strauss, 1965) of qualitative research which uses answers to directed questions but also the discovery of new directions of inquiry identified as concerns by the participants. There were two broad questions which reflected the focus of this study:

1) What are the issues/concerns/problems in offering/receiving credit courses over GSAMS?

Specific areas of inquiry which identified functional aspects of implementing credit instruction were drawn from initial discussions with technical institute personnel, input from DTAE staff, and discussion of distance learning issues at meetings of the TI Presidents Council Information Technology Committee during the past year. The directed questions including the following:

• Registration: where/how do students register and pay fees? to whom? are student costs same as for other credit classes? where/how does a student sign up for the course? whose responsibility is this? who keeps rosters, class lists, grade reports?
• Credit Awards: who awards the credits (whose course is it)? how is it recorded on student transcripts? who claims the student enrollment/FTE and associated tuition?
• Student Tests/Evaluations: who handles student testing, how? how are tests monitored (for cheating), tests distributed and collected? who evaluates the course?
• Reimbursement of Costs: how are costs for the course determined? (facility use, instruction, technical staff, air time, etc) who pays for these? how is this decided? (policies, formulas, formal agreements) what is currently charged to agency offering the class? is it the same for all agencies? (e.g., TIs vs. Univ. Sys.) what collaborative arrangements have been used and how do they work?
• Selection of Instructor: who teaches credit classes and how is this decided? are any incentives offered to faculty (reduced load, extra compensation, time for preparation, etc.)? how does it count for faculty loads (adjustments)? who hires and evaluates the instructor?
• Remote Site Facilitation: what support is provided/requested at the remote site? is technical assistance available throughout the entire class time? what are the alternatives? what happens if communications are disrupted/connection lost, class time missed?
• Accreditation Concerns: are any problems created regarding SACS requirements for distance learning? how are these handled? other accrediting agencies?
• Course Materials: how are required course materials from instructor to students, and student assignments to instructor, provided? how is student/faculty communication outside of class handled?
• Calendars/Scheduling: how are conflicts in scheduling class times handled? (e.g.., different academic year calendars, class start/end times, set-up times) are there established priorities in scheduling GSAMS room when there are conflicting requests?
• Other Areas: training, technical problems, supervision, cost-benefits, field trips, labs

Appendix B summarizes the response and participation of the 33 technical institutes. Of the 33 schools in the state four sites did not offer or receive credit courses. Of the remaining 29 technical institute sites who had offered or received credit courses over GSAMS

• 23 participated in the seven GSAMS focus groups
• 2 also provided an individual telephone interview
• 1 site chose not to participate in the focus groups
• 1 site was unable to be contacted during the period of the study
• 4 were not able to participate due to scheduling or personnel time conflicts.

Excluding the four sites that did not offer or receive credit courses, the percentage of participation in the study was 79% of the total sites offering or receiving GSAMS credit courses. Individual participants at the meetings included distance learning/GSAMS site coordinators, site technical support staff, academic and instructional administrators, and GSAMS course instructors and students at the participating technical institutes. Site coordinators made up the highest percentage of participants. A total of 45 - 50 individuals from the technical institutes provided input into the study.

Data Analysis

Two primary methods were employed to compile and analyze the data from the focus groups and telephone interviews. In the first method the audio tape recordings of the focus group sessions were transcribed and the narrative results entered into a qualitative research computer software program. This software enabled researchers to code the data, build code frameworks, sort information into categories, and structure specific search analyses to develop a consensus on problems and concerns important in this research. As the data was processed a large amount of information was generated. The qualitative software program greatly enhanced the ability to analyze a broad base of data including interviews and transcripts from the focus groups.

The second method was a systematic, holistic reading and manual review by researchers of the transcripts, notes and observations from the focus group sessions. This data included notations on verbal emphasis by participants and visual impressions not reflected in the transcript data. This method also provided confirmation of computer information and refinement or addition of data codes.

Appendix D shows the coding scheme used for this research. The coding was based initially on the questioning guidelines used in the focus group outline. Additional codes were added as the data was compiled, reflecting other concerns expressed by the focus group participants. Each code listed has a corresponding description for that code.

Presentation of findings from the review of focus group discussions are organized by the major categories of issues which emerged from the analysis of the data. Direct quotations from focus group participants are provided to illustrate each area and to reflect, in the words of the participants, the perception of issues and the TI responses to these . The major categories include the following: Registration and Credit Award - Ownership Issues, Accreditation Issues, Cost and Funding Issues, Logistics and Support Issues, and Instructional Issues.

Focus group discussion about procedures for registration, record keeping, enrollment and credit awards indicated great diversity in the ways technical institutes were handling these matters. The basis for decisions on procedural approaches were determined by the answer to prior questions about ownership: Whose course? Whose instructor? Whose students? A number of interrelated issues centered on questions of academic integrity/accreditation, student enrollment status and financial aid, and costs/finances (instructor payment, usage fees, tuition). Also, we found that answers to these questions varied depending on the types of institutions offering and receiving the courses, i.e., a TI and its satellite campus, two TIs, a TI and a Regents college. (Few participants discussed offering credit courses at GSAMS sites other than at their own satellite campus or another TI, e.g., at a high school or other site). From the focus group discussions, we were able to identify several patterns of responses regarding what the TIs are currently doing in this area.

There seem to be two major ways that these issues are handled currently by technical institutes, and a third option which was mentioned by several but is not being implemented to any extent yet. These options are: the "adjunct faculty" approach, the "transient student" approach, and the "cooperative" approach. Each has its pros and cons, and has implications for how registration and credit awards, financial aid, instructional staffing, and record keeping is addressed. Each also has financial implications for the institution.

In the "adjunct faculty model", students register for the GSAMS course at their home (receive site) institution but take the course from another (sending) institution who provides the teacher and issues a grade. The record of the course goes on the student transcript at their home institution, with information provided by the instructor to that institution. The receiving TI pays a pro-rated part of the instructional cost of the institution offering the course, based on the number of their students who enrolled in the course. The receiving school sees this as being very much like hiring an adjunct faculty member to teach a course for them. This works best when it is a course that has been taught by the TI in the past, and they can view this as if their course was being taught by an adjunct teacher identified/hired by another TI whose salary is shared by all TIs with students in the class.

Benefits to Students: This approach simplifies financial aid for students who can stay enrolled in their home institution, registering and receiving credit for the GSAMS course as if it were actually offered by their home institution. They do not have to apply to/through another TI, with the attendant paperwork, admissions criteria, etc. Credit is recorded on existing transcript at home institution. Students continue to receive financial aid from their own TI for this and other courses that quarter. Students can have access to courses not otherwise available to them (not taught by own TI).

Benefits to Institutions: Sending school receives money from other TIs to offset part of instructional costs. No fees are charged or paid for site facility use.

Concerns of Students: None identified.

Concerns of Institutions: Accrediting body (SACS) may object to receiving TI listing course on student transcript/awarding credit for course that was not actually taught by that institution since it was contracted through another school who has responsibility for hiring a qualified instructor, evaluation of student learning/grades, quality of instruction, support for students enrolled at remote site. Sending school must hire/supervise the instructor and coordinate the GSAMS course, but receives no enrollment credit for students in the class from other TIs, only their own students.

In the "transient student" model, students register for the GSAMS course at/through the technical institute offering the course, pay tuition to that school (sending TI), and are categorized by the sending TI as a "transient" student. Course credit is awarded and recorded by the sending TI on a transcript at the sending school; students can transfer these credits back to their home school to apply to their program. The receiving TI provides the facility for the GSAMS course, a site facilitator, line time, and may be paid a fee by the sending school to cover these costs. The receiving TI gets no student enrollment, but has no responsibility for record keeping (students are taking the course from another TI, even though the course instruction occurs on the home TI campus via GSAMS)

Benefits to Students: Expands course offerings available to students

Benefits to Institutions: Receiving TI gets paid for costs of GSAMS room and operation, has no other responsibilities for course. By enrolling students from other institutions the sending TI can expand course offerings and run courses with higher enrollment or those that might otherwise be canceled for low enrollment. Sending TI retains control over course instruction, grading, and credit award, which is more acceptable to accreditation groups.

Concerns of Students: Students must apply to another college, which takes extra time and paperwork. They may have problems with financial aid because they are registered for courses at two institutions and counted as a transient student at one (not eligible for financial aid as a transient student).

Concerns of Institutions: Receiving TI must provide GSAMS support and coordination but gets no student enrollment, even if their student is taking the course. It can be expensive for sending TI to pay costs of using sites, sometimes too costly to make the course offering feasible.

This approach is similar to what is used almost exclusively with Regents colleges offering courses at technical institute GSAMS sites. All admission, registration, and tuition payment are done through the offering college which awards the credit and counts the enrollment. The TI provides a site for the course with various financial arrangements for usage and support costs. TIs did not seem to have a problem with the registration and credit award issues related to regents institutions. There seemed little question about whose course and whose students these were. The real concerns arose when two or more TIs attempted to offer joint programming over GSAMS. As one participant described it "But now if it's a DTAE school, then it's a whole different can of worms."

A third alternative mentioned by participants was the "cooperative" approach which addresses the cost issue in two different ways: a) by taking a reciprocal or bartering approach between cooperating institutions, or b) by team teaching GSAMS courses. The first approach, reciprocity, primarily addresses the concerns about fees and costs to the sending and receiving institutions. The student registers for the course at their home institution regardless of who is offering it. The cooperating TI s agree to take turns offering and receiving GSAMS courses at their institutions, each one offering a course to the other(s) by pre-arranged schedule. No charge is made for expenses incurred by the offering institution since they will benefit when another institution offers a course for them at no charge the following quarter. The second cooperative approach, team teaching, involves instructors from multiple TIs each teaching part of the course which is offered by/at each participating TI. The host (sending) site would vary, depending on which instructor is teaching that week. Each cooperating TI pays its instructor for part of his/her time on the course; enrolls their students, collects tuition, and counts this enrollment at their institution; and jointly claims responsibility for the course offering. Student financial aid is not affected.

Both of these options require a good deal of advance planning and cooperation by instructors and administrators, common scheduling arrangements, and promotion with students. TIs seemed to like the idea of doing this, and saw potential in it, but none mentioned having actually accomplished it yet. Since student registration is through their home institution, similar concerns about accreditation could arise regarding responsibility for course instruction and grading. However, a formal cooperative agreement, joint planning, and shared course responsibility among instructors involved would help offset these concerns. The team teaching approach seems to hold the most promise of resolving questions of ownership by making this a joint responsibility, and providing a mechanism for sharing resources and expenses for the GSAMS courses offered by all participating technical institutes. It is also the hardest to implement because control and decision making must be shared as well.

Comments from focus group discussions:

"Credit awards could be simplified if the receiving site treated the teacher as adjunct faculty and then the individual student would register with the institution where they are, not necessarily with the sponsoring institution. Our students would register with us here, they would be sitting in the classroom in front of me (instructor), ___ TI students would be registering at ___ TI. I would be treated as adjunct faculty for ___ TI and as such would be entitled to some remuneration from them for teaching some of their classes. That way we take the student out of the loop and we allow them to be issued the credit from the institution that they originally registered with."

"We look at this as being just like adjunct faculty. We're purchasing a course, the student is registered here, the financial aid documents are done here, it is our student and the course just happens to be over GSAMS, but it would be like we'd go out and hire adjunct faculty to come in and teach a course for us as far as we're concerned...Their (originating site) instructor would keep the roll, they would produce the test, we would proctor the test here, we would pay them for the course delivery."

"Basically you almost have to get to the issue or really who owns the course. And we've taken the position here for accreditation and other reasons that basically the host site holds the course ... we've set up a situation where the students can register down at the local school ... they collect the fees down there (for us). We consider the students transient students (at our TI) since we're the one supplying the instructor, since we're the one offering the course, we consider them our students and so for that reason they have to fill out an application, transient student letter form and financial aid form so they can collect financial aid down there. (the local school) serves as a collection agency ... so we can input everything back into our system here ... and we bill them according to a scale based on the number of hours that they've registered with the local school."

We receive numerous courses from (regents college) and we basically just provide the facilities. (Regents college) pays for the facilitator and pays us $25 per student (that's an old agreement we've had in effect since '92 with them) and they register at (regents college), buy books by mail through the book store, and all that is handled by (regents college) at their campus. So we basically provide the room, the line, and a facilitator that they pay for."

"If we were delivering a course to ___ TI, we normally would be delivering that course to our own students here and possibly at other locations. That would just mean to us that we would have more students on our attendance roll than in our classroom. And we would get paid some amount of money for those students, that would be a ___ TI student, it would be their FTE, it would be their registration, it would be their whole thing."

"We looked at that and the financial aid problems, they're having to register at other schools, you could possibly have a student registered at several different locations, all of those kinds of problems we were trying to avoid by handling a GSAMS course that you were delivering for your students but being presented by another location, handle that just as if that were an adjunct faculty member delivering it."

"We're waiting to see what is going to happen. I've found that a student cannot receive financial aid from two different institutions at the same time, so trying to figure out how to handle that, to keep the students FTE I guess (the student) will have to stay at one institution all the time."

"To do financial aid across GSAMS would be a very difficult thing to do because you could not grant HOPE scholarships for transient students. Yet if a student was not physically present on your campus, you could not treat them as your own student. So that seems to be a big wall that is difficult to overcome."

"What we do with students in (financial aid), we still allow them to register and process financial aid at their local school. We have what we call a conversion agreement that our financial aid officer did some research on. We just have them sign a piece of paper that in essence gives the local school, the receive site, the authority to pay the full financial aid for the student as if they were a full-time student down there."

"It seems that we've gotten very wrapped up into who owns the student and who's going to get the student dollar and it seems that it would be idealistic, perhaps, in thinking that we could share that dollar in some way. If you're a host site you might want to consider renting other sites as a facility or sharing that student dollar with the other facilities and allowing them to collect fees and assign credits to the students but you are paid a fee from the other facilities as a presenter or originator of the course."

"They wanted to register those people. They wanted to grant them credit at their school. Yet (students) were not receiving any of the instruction from that school. Also they wanted to record the FTE. We talked about if there were 10 people in the class, we would take 5 and they would take 5. And we talked about all kinds of scenarios. But it came down to who would administer financial aid. That became a problem in doing it at two different sites under two different schools. That has to be worked out."

Summary

Certain issues are perceived by many TIs as significant barriers to the use of GSAMS for offering credit courses. Financial aid is paramount, because of its importance to so many TI students and because the schools feel they have little control over the federal regulations and requirements that determine how they issue aid to students. Also, student interests seemed at times to be in direct conflict with requirements for accreditation and the financial constraints of institutions. As described in the three approaches above, the TIs are approaching this issue from very different positions. No clear consensus emerged on what was the one best way. Each had its trade-offs, with some problems being resolved while others were created. These are central and significant issues for the TIs to wrestle with and resolve, since if they continue to be troublesome, it may increasingly restrict the willingness of TIs to use GSAMS to deliver credit courses and expand access to students.

ACCREDITATION ISSUES

Focus group participants mentioned the differences between SACS-COC requirements and those of the new agency, COE. TIs may be accredited by either of these two regional accreditation agencies and have to meet different standards (e.g., regarding library resources, faculty qualifications) since not all technical institutes are approved to offer associate degree programs. Participants generally seemed aware of the overall SACS expectations for assuring comparable quality of instruction and support in distance learning, but were not always sure what this meant or the details of the standards. They were even more unsure about COE expectations because of the newness of this agency and its scope of operations.

Accreditation concerns were a restricting factor in some cases, resulting in some TIs delaying use of GSAMS for credit courses, limiting which other TIs they could send or receive which courses (e.g., must be COC accredited), or raising questions about adequacy of library resources or faculty qualifications. Accreditation concerns determined how some TIs decided to handle GSAMS course registration/enrollment, credit awards, staffing, and evaluation, as well as the type of TI courses to be sent/received over GSAMS (e.g., associate degree or diploma). One TI mentioned having to upgrade their library in order to receive credit courses from a 2 year regents college. Others pointed out that with library resources going on-line at the TIs, this concern may be less important in the future. Still others were hoping for state guidelines that would address accreditation concerns in distance learning for individual TIs.

Comments from focus group discussions:

"the concern is...do the students at the distance learning site get the same services that they would if they were on campus."

"one of the things that is constraining to us is that we're under COC accredited schools and what we've pretty much offered so far is associate degree classes so we've kind of focused our outreach with those schools that are either accredited that way or seeking accreditation."

"It doesn't seem to be a big problem for us right now because we've only been receiving classes...Now, if we start to generate classes from here and sending them out to other institutions, then we're going to be more concerned. And we have some questions about how that is to be handled... The problem stems from the school that sending out the materials having to provide certain services for students at that site. They have to make sure they have access to library materials, advising... if you're receiving it from someone else, that institution is responsible for providing those services for every campus and it becomes their SACS problem. If you're sending it, it's your problem...that's where some of the concerns could come in."

"see, part of the problem in the technical institute system is that you have 7 or so schools that are COC accredited and the rest are under a different accreditation. We have to abide by COC criteria...one of the reasons we're just offering (GSAMS courses) is to maintain the integrity of the accreditation process we have...so it all ties in to our regular evaluation process, as would any class. If we were to receive classes from other COC schools we could assume that they would be qualified; if they weren't COC accredited then we'd have to go through a whole bunch of stuff to make sure our students would be getting an instructor that would be qualified on our level so that we could transfer it (the course) into our school."

"(SACS criteria says) if you have off-campus programs offered by telecommunications or any other non-traditional method then certain things have to take place and pretty much it's just like any other course you're offering, that you have admission, retention, and credential requirements, that you have instructors with qualifications commensurate with any other course, quality assurance, approved and administered under established institutional policies and procedures ... you've got to have the same kinds of good instructors and support that you have for any other courses."

"We are investigating the accreditation issue and that's one of the reasons why we're delaying delivering a credit course. But we are hoping that the Presidents Council will in fact deliver something that will provide guidelines within which to operate and deliver credit courses. We...have come to the conclusion that this needs to come from the top down."

Summary

Accreditation-related concerns include the restriction of offering/receiving courses only with other TIs who are also COC accredited to assure course comparability and transferability, issues related to library or other resources required by the course instruction (COE and COE library requirements are different), lack of clarity about what the accreditation expectations are for distance learning classes and how these need to be addressed, substantive change approvals for TIs already accredited by COC who want to offer DL courses, and the need to provide comparable support services for students at remote sites.

COST AND FUNDING ISSUES

Participants varied widely on whether or not to charge for GSAMS use, who should be charged (or not), what it covers/how to determine this, and how much to charge. Amounts mentioned by participants who were charging currently for use of GSAMS at their site ranged from $22 to $50 an hour. The most common hourly rate was either $35 or $45. Several sites mentioned that they thought the state (DTAE) had recommended $45 as an appropriate GSAMS hourly charge for the TIs. At most TIs the final determination of rates was authorized by the President. Most sites identified several categories of cost for GSAMS: line charges, salary for facilitator, utilities (heat, AC, lights), overtime for maintenance/cleaning, security or other staff for evening classes. Distinctions were also made for the type of organization utilizing the GSAMS site and the purpose of the programming. Most sites did not charge other TIs. Regents colleges that were offering classes attended by the receiving TI's faculty or students also received a break on fees in some cases. Where regents credit class programming was seen as simply using the GSAMS site as a convenient facility for their own students, most TIs felt more justified in charging usage fees. A few sites made a distinction between internal and external agencies, public and private agencies, with the highest fees being charged to external, corporate groups.

Free usage of GSAMS seemed more common in the initial, early implementation phases of the system because sites were being encouraged to use their 62.5 hours monthly, small numbers of students and classes were involved in most cases, and monthly charges were being supplemented by state funds. As these factors change, users become more experienced, and demands for use become greater, together with an increasingly tight budget situation at the TIs due to redirection, the perception of and justification for usage fees is undergoing major change.

A number of different cost charging arrangements were described, such as having the sending institution pay for the facilitator salary directly instead of a usage fee, negotiated lump sum payments (monthly or for each class), or a per student "head" charge for each student enrolled in the course. Some TIs talked about formal contracts which they used for GSAMS charges, adapting these as necessary. Others (the majority) talked about informal arrangements, "gentlemen's agreements", or verbal contracts worked out each time a request was made. Sites frequently mentioned the work of the President's Council in developing statewide guidelines for GSAMS usage and fees as a basis for making some of these decisions. Many expressed interest in a "formula" for determining costs and fees for GSAMS use.

However, TI participants also seemed to have mixed feelings about the need for a state-determined uniform rate for DTAE institutions. Some wanted to have the freedom to negotiate special arrangements locally, on an individual basis, using whatever criteria was best for their institution, and taking into account local need ("supply and demand") and other factors. Others saw the advantage of having an agreed upon rate that all TIs would charge, to equalize the situation in dealing with other regents colleges especially, so that TIs were not competing with each other on rates and each could be assured of receiving at least some income to offset increasing GSAMS operational costs. Some sites indicated they would welcome guidance on what is a reasonable, fair fee to charge that is not seen as arbitrary by external users. There was a lot of interest in what other sites were doing in this area, i.e., what fees were being charged by other TIs or regents sites and how these were determined.

A clear and significant change in GSAMS administration was a move from free to fee usage as the TI completed its two years of supplemented costs and faced payment of monthly line charges that would be double the original cost. Nearly every TI talked about instituting charges or of increasing the fees as the cost of GSAMS increased in the third year of operation. This posed problems especially for arrangements with regents colleges who had been allowed to use GSAMS sites at TIs initially for no charge. As these institutions were informed of new fees, many terminated arrangements or found other TI sites who were still charging lower (or no) fees. One site coordinator described this as triggering a "bidding war", with TIs bidding against each other to attract users of their GSAMS site. TIs were faced with the dilemma of having to set fees sufficiently high to cover costs of operating the system, without driving away potential users and ending up with little or no income being generated. They recognized that usage fees could reach a point of diminishing returns with costs exceeding the benefits of GSAMS use for sending institutions, resulting in less usage overall of the system and exacerbating the problem of how to pay for retaining it at the sites. Most sites emphasized repeatedly that they were interested only in cost recovery, not in making a profit with GSAMS fees. Income generated from these fees would help to offset the high costs of GSAMS operations.

Another theme that emerged in the context of the discussion of fees was that of cooperative agreements where costs could be shared among users. These were described as "trading services" or "barter arrangements" where TIs would agree to teach classes for each other on an alternating basis, teachers could be shared or exchanged, and resources and costs shared without charging fees. TIs felt this could be done best through regional consortia or through a statewide coordinating mechanism. Little actual cooperation of this sort was going on now at TIs, but participants saw it as one answer to the dilemma of charging/paying fees.

Comments from focus group discussions:

"There is a point of diminishing returns...if I'm offering a course at a remote site and that site is going to charge me some of the per hour dollar amounts that I heard (in this discussion) then I may choose not to deliver that course because it's simply not cost effective for me"

"Basically what we do ... when (regents college) teaches a class here on campus, if it is a benefit to our faculty or our students, in other words, if a faculty member or our students are taking the course, there is no charge to (regents college). If none of our students are taking the course, then we do charge an hourly fee for the use of the room and the facilitator. With the other tech schools...we try to work out an agreement. If we have students who are taking the course, there is again no charge to the tech school...if they are just going to use our facility, then yes, they are charged an hourly fee as well."

"What we've done in the past is we've allowed our site to be used without any fee ...but what is happening now is we're getting close to the two year time and we have to account for these funds. So we've put a charge on it."

"We're not charging them at all. They pay for the facilitator in the class, but we're not charging them any line charges or any other charges. We see that it's a benefit to our students who don't have to travel over there and enroll ... it's an access thing to us, that they have access to an associate degree program which we don't offer here, and that's the big benefit we see in this process"

"How costs are being determined? I'll tell you. We pulled it out of the seat of our pants. That's just about the size of it. Nothing is firm."

"We've been paying our own way. Now we've gotten to the point where we're kind of bottom line driven, like everyone else. And there were some courtesy things we've done in the past but we've now started charging everybody. We do have a written contract in place, what fees, what costs are. It's not a real profit driven contract, but it's more of a cost recovery contract. That could change in the next few months as the administrative team is looking for ways to increase revenue because of the cutbacks."

"We basically look at the line charge and try to cover that. You know, we paid $560 a month for the first two years. Now it's $1120. I don't see where we're going to get it covered but we need to make the effort. We have not really talked about using copying machines and mailing things back and forth and the cost of the facilitator, etc. We really haven't looked a whole lot at that."

"We have talked with (regents college) several times about offering credit classes and it's boiled right down to they want to offer classes but we couldn't come to any fee agreement. They just wanted us to offer the site, and my higher ups aren't going to do that. I mean, it comes down to a money thing, as bad as that is to say".

"What I've seen, each one of the technical institutes pretty much charge a different price for receiving courses. I know we've set our fee at $50 and I know some of them are charging $90. But right now the course that's originating from (regents college), we're not charging them that particular fee. They pretty much told us what they were going to pay and since we didn't have any courses going on we accepted that."

"That's one of the things we do (here)...we have a trade off agreement with (another TI). They teach some of our classes and we teach some of theirs."
... (response) We're currently not doing any of the trade off type things, but we would definitely like to do that. If I can help it, I don't want to have to mess with the contracts and things."

Summary

Covering the costs of the operation of the system was one of the top concerns expressed by the focus group participants. The high level of concern regarding this matter was tied to the loss of state matching funds for operational costs of the GSAMS at sites in operation for two years, which will double line costs. Many responded that they were just getting by before the change, with several paying for 62.5 hours of monthly line charges whether they used all the hours or not. Many site coordinators and administrators were concerned about whether they could viably afford to operate the system without the state funds. Several sites stated that they are absorbing the costs for maintenance, security, and related costs in operating the site for classes. This is especially a problem for night classes. Many stated that they would have to start charging for usage thus driving up the costs for sending sites and reducing the pool of potential customers. Several respondents stated that their school president was seriously considering closing down GSAMS if the sites had to operate at a loss. Several coordinators were concerned with the loss of positions if this occurred.

Funding issues also were tied to a broader concern about the lack of state direction for management and policy of the GSAMS system. Comments identified the lack of unified state guidelines on GSAMS that all sites could adopt and the lack of a defined hourly rate for GSAMS use. Some sites had specific GSAMS policies and rates in place while others handled this on a case by case basis. Many encountered problems when working with another site because of the lack of a mandated policy and rate structure. A number of people noted that they, in the past, had provided free GSAMS use for regents credit classes. As the two year limit expires on state funding they will have to cover these costs by charging everyone. The fear is that some users will decide not to bother with classes and GSAMS use if they have to pay what is seen as high hourly rates to use it. Many respondents rated this area as their major concern in GSAMS operations at this stage of development.

Participants generally felt that a fair and equitable time charge at all GSAMS sites in Georgia, not only DTAE schools, would eliminate this problem and provide a higher level of cooperation among all schools and colleges. Several people mentioned that it has taken two years for the system to work out its problems and train enough people to function as site coordinators. Now is the time for state support and assistance to fine tune the GSAMS network.

This categories includes information from participants about how technical institutes are addressing concerns related to facilitator staffing, reliability and technical support of the GSAMS equipment and operations, and scheduling courses on the system.

Issues related to facilitator support centered around questions about whose responsibility it was to provide (and pay for) the facilitator, how much and what type of coverage is actually needed during GSAMS classes, what facilitators are asked to do and how technically skilled they need to be, and who actually performs technical support tasks for GSAMS programming. The technical institute sites varied on how they defined and who was responsible for what is called "facilitation": starting up and testing the system at the beginning of class, operating the camera or other equipment during classes, troubleshooting when technical problems arise, receiving and distributing class materials, or administering or monitoring course tests/exams. At many sites these tasks seemed to be part of the site coordinator's job, other sites hired and trained facilitators (often students) to assist with GSAMS activities, others arranged for the originating site (e.g., a university using the TI as a site for their course) to pay for a facilitator who was hired and trained by the TI, still others used a combination of site coordinator oversight, trained facilitators, and course faculty or students, backed up by the technical experts in Atlanta at the CLI hotline.

Some site coordinators said they had to spend extra time or adjust their own schedule to accommodate GSAMS classes and in some cases could not provide support because of either cost or time constraints. Sometimes facilitation support consisted of a student assistant or a faculty member who may have learned enough about GSAMS equipment operations to monitor the technical facilities of their own class. Several people pointed out that once faculty got involved in GSAMS courses they usually enjoyed learning the technical aspects of operating the system.

Comments from focus group discussions:

"This is really quite a problem because most of us aren't just GSAMS coordinators, you know. Sometimes I feel badly for some of the students because no arrangements have been made for facilitators. You know I have another job to do and other commitments. I feel like sometimes they get shorted on that."

"We've trained a student and he's very proficient, so we really don't have to be here but we try for one of us to hang around just in case there's some technical difficulty. But he's pretty familiar with the system and as far as any technical problems he can call GSAMS."

"We don't usually provide a facilitator. We make sure the equipment is running before we let them have the panel. So we don't really provide a facilitator unless there is a problem, then they will come and get somebody."

"We made the decision real early to go and have a full time facilitator during all the courses. And we recruit that person, it's usually a student here who is not involved in that particular class and we pay them."

The extent of coverage also varied from having a full-time facilitator present in the room throughout an entire course to no facilitator at all. In most cases, however, a student or someone with some technical ability was trained by the site coordinator to perform system start-up tasks at the beginning of a program. This student facilitator would be backed up by the site coordinator who was available if trouble arose, or by contact with the CLI hotline when transmission was disrupted. For classes that met all quarter, the facilitation might be done by the instructor or even students in the course, once they became familiar and comfortable with operating the equipment (video, camera, sound). Some questioned the need to have a facilitator present throughout the entire class. Participants agreed that facilitators were most essential for troubleshooting when technical problems occurred or transmission was interrupted. At this point, someone who understood the technology and terms was needed to talk with experts at CLI about resolving the problems. Often the site coordinator was in the area and available for this purpose.

Comments from focus group discussions:

"The facilitator is such an integral part of a GSAMSconference. It's important that the facilitator be very familiar with how to contact CLI, be up to date on terms. To know the technical lingo helps tremendously, not just calling in and saying hey this thing doesn't work."

"The facilitator is me, when it comes down to it....usually all that involves is the black box and once you get someone comfortable on that, if you do your test and everything's up and running, we haven't felt the need to have somebody in the room. My office is right down the hall. I make sure someone's comfortable on it (the system) before I leave."

"We try to have facilitators in our classes ... but I meet with the faculty ahead of time to go over the equipment with them so that in the event that they don't have a facilitator, they're not left with no idea of what button to push and what to do."

"I think to have a facilitator or somebody there full-time all the time is probably a waste of that person's time... In credit courses if that instructor's there for one or two nights a week for a whole quarter, they get comfortable with it very quickly and we kind of just pass that on to them. Most of our GSAMS instructors will become proficient in the technical side as they become more familiar with the equipment."

Instructors needs for exchange of materials and tests, and for the coordinating and monitoring of student exams were seen as important logistical support for credit courses received at the technical institute sites. Several mentioned that GSAMS instructors occasionally rotated the location of the live course session, so that they could have direct contact with students at the remote site to assist with some of these concerns. Several sites had the students from the remote sites come to the sending campus for exams, providing both an opportunity to meet with the instructor and a security measure for distribution of test material.

Comments from focus group discussions:

"At ___ TI they have a full-time facilitator for distance learning only and they basically do all the things that instructors need them to do from the other end ... fax the tests, hand out stuff to students, make sure they're there before classes start ... other schools don't have that luxury so they've had to find somebody that sort of acts in that way, although not in a full time capacity."

"From time to time in order to engender some personal contact with the students, the students will go to the main campus, which in our case so far has been only about 30 miles away, to take exams. That way the instructor gets some hands-on contact with those students, and some more personal contact with them".

"I have taught a couple of distance learning courses to another institution and the handouts and testing was a real problem for me. The reason was that we did not have a facilitator at the other end. Had there been a facilitator I do not think we would have had any real difficulties, but there were times that even though the materials had been sent, they were not available to be distributed to students."

System Reliability and Support

Related to the question of how much and what type of facilitator support is needed is the issue of equipment and network operation and reliability. For the most part, the respondents were very pleased with the reliability of the system. When the system did encounter problems it was often due to weather disturbances. The availability and expertise of the central GSAMS staff in Atlanta was rated highly by the participants. Onsite equipment reliability was also rated high. It was pointed out that many problems of GSAMS transmissions were due to lack of understanding of the technology by users. Sites found that properly trained technical support staff and other users could handle or avoid many equipment malfunctions. As one participant put it: It's a training issue. Technical institute sites were among the first to receive GSAMS equipment, and apparently the early days of operation typically were more problematic as sites had to learn the new technology. As users became more familiar with how to operate equipment appropriately and effectively, equipment-related issues became less important.

Comments from focus group discussions:

"I found out time and time again that it's not always the technology. It could be lack of knowledge about what to do and there are very unusual things that can happen ... but they can be prevented and they can be eliminated. I think it's just vital to have that technical assistance at each location."

"I feel this system has been relatively trouble free. We do have a network problem occasionally. As far as the equipment in the room, its very rare that we are down because of a problem with the Codec or some other equipment in the room."

"I've been happy about it because with this much technology, you would expect to have more problems."

"... having people, experts in Atlanta that can talk you through a problem is great".

"In the first six months of operation, it was kind of tough. We just couldn't keep a conference online... but after the first six months went by our problems have been absolutely minimal for the past 2 and 2 years. I can't remember when we last had a problem."

"I think we had one class that we just totally had to cancel, a credit class. I sent the students home and the instructor did a video tape for the students to look at. And it was a weather related problem if I remember correctly."

It was also noted that it would be helpful if the state (DTAE) had someone to coordinate training or facilitate a course for all faculty members in teaching methods for GSAMS. This would allow the faculty to practice equipment operation and instructional methods at a GSAMS site and provide a trained base of teachers familiar with GSAMS operations and distance education for credit courses.

Issues related to GSAMS scheduling centered around several areas: conflicts resulting from multiple demands for use of the GSAMS room at the sites, student class schedule conflicts resulting when GSAMS and TI schedules differ, and logistical problems from differences in academic calendars at different sites participating in GSAMS classes. Focus group participants discussed whether their GSAMS classroom was dedicated or not, the priority for scheduling GSAMS versus other classes or conferences, and who controls room scheduling.

Most technical institutes were not able to reserve their GSAMS classroom for only distance learning activities, because of space needs at the institution and limited GSAMS activities, at least initially. This meant that other classes might be meeting on a regular basis in the facility which created conflicts and restricted availability for GSAMS programming. Many sites addressed this by establishing a priority for GSAMS programs over other activities, however, it was not always possible to enforce this and exceptions often had to be made. The principle of "first come, first served" was mentioned frequently in scheduling GSAMS programs. However, financial considerations seemed to be increasingly important in determining who would use the GSAMS facilities. Those who paid received precedence over those who did not. This reflects the trend, discussed earlier, for technical institutes to expect GSAMS to be self supporting, i.e., to cover the costs of the system operations, especially since these are now double what they were in the first two years of GSAMS and because the state budget redirect policy is putting greater pressure on institutional budgets. When room scheduling for GSAMS is controlled by the site coordinator they are able to exercise greater control over the facility, and can consistently apply priorities in cases of scheduling conflicts. But this is not always the case.

Comments from focus group discussions:

"Our instructors and staff are aware that if we have a GSAMS conference coming in that's scheduled after they've scheduled it for a class, it's a good possibility that they'll be bumped out. So GSAMS does have a priority".

"We're pretty much first come, first served. But we're going to have to start looking at who's paying and who's not, and the paying people will take precedence over the ones who are not paying. And of course, if DTAE says that we have to have a conference for the presidents or vice-presidents then everybody gets bumped. So we have priorities but those priorities are subject to change, based on circumstances."

"This room is used a lot in non-GSAMS ways and for meetings or short training sessions. When we get into scheduling credit-type courses this will become more a dedicated GSAMS room. And I agree with ____, it's going to come down to who can pay and who cannot. That's the directive we have gotten."

"We're having to phase out some outside use so that we can use our own GSAMS room and our credit classes can take priority. We're working slowly."

The process of scheduling GSAMS activities itself was admitted to be a concern. A number of respondents had experienced problems with scheduling courses over GSAMS. The lack of a central scheduling facility or coordinator made it very difficult to coordinate multiple site times without numerous telephone confirmations and a great deal of time. Even the use of the statewide GSAMS Web site scheduler did not seem adequate. One problem was that the Web site scheduler reflected GSAMS activities at a site but not the other activities in the same room which restricted available times for GSAMS programming. Also, information on the central scheduler was not always accurate and up to date, often because of ongoing changes in scheduling resulting from the need to contact, confirm, or sometimes reschedule dates and times to accommodate all participating sites. The more sites involved, the more lengthy, time-consuming, and complicated the scheduling process became. Focus group participants suggested that a centralized coordinator for the technical institutes or the state would be of great help. In addition, they suggested that if sites all gave priority to GSAMS activities over other uses of the room where GSAMS equipment is located it would reduce conflicts and help to simplify scheduling. However, they recognized that this is not always possible in schools where GSAMS is not used frequently and classroom space is at a premium.

Comments from focus group discussions:

"There's got to be a better way. It really does end up an awful lot of work just scheduling stuff. And the site coordinators change an awful lot too, so sometimes you're trying to run down someone who's no longer there".

"I don't really see the scheduling with sites to be a problem other than if you're hosting a meeting or something where you have six or seven locations on line with you".

"One of the difficulties that you're going to have is with scheduling and I suppose we're going to probably always have that to some extent unless the DTAE begins scheduling all our classes for us on a statewide basis, and I don't think that's going to happen."

A problem area related to this is the complication caused by different academic calendars and break periods for different colleges, universities, and technical institutes trying to cooperate on GSAMS programming for credit classes. Participants indicated that this was more of a problem in the summer when class schedules varied the most and some technical institute sites close down for periods of time. In most cases the sites seemed able to accommodate differences by rescheduling staff or building hours, but were concerned about the difficulties and costs this created for the institution. Student schedule conflicts also resulted when students enrolled in distance learning classes from an institution that runs on a different time schedule than their other classes. In these cases, flexibility on the part of instructors was seen as the key, and finding ways to make up instructional time has been accommodated. Some participants mentioned the importance of putting student needs first, and assuring that distance learning classes are run as scheduled, not cancelled for other competing activities.

Comments from focus group discussions:

"In working with (regents institutions) real scheduling conflicts occur in summer time when they go to their short summer session and we try to take our summer break. We do not have the problem year round."

"We're having some of the same problems ... quarters not coinciding and having to have the building open and maintenance not being able to get in and do room cleaning at the scheduled times and that kind of thing. We anticipate as we depend on the GSAMS to deliver more courses within our consortium that we're going to have a real problem here trying to schedule periods of the day. We have a screwy schedule that doesn't coincide with anybody else, so we're going to have to do some work to get our periods to coincide with others."

"I had one student whose course scheduling overlapped about ten minutes with one of the classes she was taking from me. You just have to be flexible about that... We made up some time during a break period or before or after class. Flexibility is a real key."

"I think most of the schools are like this, when the room's taken up (with GSAMS) you can't schedule another class in there. And we're using this room a lot. It's a nice room. You can put 30-35 people in here. And we have to schedule around it when we have a credit class which meets once or twice a week."

INSTRUCTIONAL ISSUES

This category includes implementation issues in instructional areas including testing and evaluation; materials distribution; make-up of time for interrupted transmissions; and faculty selection, training, preparation time, loads and incentives for teaching on GSAMS.

Regarding how faculty are selected to teach distance learning classes, most sites said that this was a voluntary process of identifying those faculty who expressed interest, showed initiative, or had a bit of ham in them. Many sites were struggling with the issue of fair loads and preparation time for faculty teaching GSAMS classes. None mentioned any special financial incentives or extra compensation, but some were providing load adjustments or release time to prepare for classes, especially for first time teaching on GSAMS. It was frequently acknowledged that it does initially take more time to prepare for instruction in distance learning classes, because of the planning and materials to be readied in advance of the class meeting. There seemed to be a general awareness of the kinds of incentives that could, and perhaps should, be offered, but little commitment to implementing this with faculty unless necessary. However, many seemed to see GSAMS teaching as part of the normal faculty workload, simply another way for faculty to deliver courses they are already paid to teach.

Comments from focus group discussions:

"Basically as far as who teaches them, we're just looking for teachers who show initiative. We're not trying to drum anybody in there unless we absolutely have to."

"We're going to institute training here and make it available. I think, honestly, we have some instructors who wouldn't do well on it. And that's fine. We'll target those we think will do a very good job and make it profitable for those people."

"In our case we didn't do anything extra. The instructor did have to work harder, they did have a lot more prep time involved, but all these courses were courses they had already been teaching. So it just meant they had to get all their papers ahead of time and have a little bit of idea of what they were going to do that day in the course. These are areas we still have to look at and we're open to suggestions."

"We haven't really reduced loads for the others all that much. But, to me, I've become so accustomed to it. I've done ten classes I think after this quarter and to me it's just like walking into another classroom."

"Another concern there is when you use an instructor to teach a distance learning class and then you've added say 20 or 25 students to that teacher's load. How do I as an administrator look at the teacher's load now that he or she is teaching both a class here and a distance learning class (remote site)?"

Training

Faculty training to teach over GSAMS was acknowledged as a need by all sites, and was addressed in various ways. Several participants had been providing training to interested faculty at their site on the operations of GSAMS equipment and/or teaching techniques for distance learning classes. These sessions varied from individual instruction or a one or two hour orientation session, to several days of workshops including hands-on practice with the equipment. Some sites were working collaboratively within their consortium to organize training for faculty at their sites. An interesting note was that when some participants expressed a desire for the state (or someone) to provide training workshops for faculty, others pointed out that this was already being done and was available through at least one public university, as well as regional or statewide technology education centers in Georgia. (Also, the GSAMS Academic Programming Office has a staff member assigned to organizing and providing training sessions on GSAMS). The real problem seemed to be a lack of awareness of the existing resources for technical institutes to use in providing training for their faculty and staff on using the system and teaching with GSAMS. The site coordinators often had the responsibility for GSAMS training of faculty and staff, including facilitators, at their institution. This seems to be an area where expertise has been developed by some of the technical institutes that could be shared with their colleagues across the state, if there were more effective ways of organizing and promoting it, perhaps through a state coordinating office for GSAMS or statewide inservice programs organized by DTAE.

Comments from focus group discussions:

"We've had staff development activities that coincided with ___ TI where three or four faculty members do presentations, and they had three or four faculty members, and it spanned a two-day period. It worked out really well and we're going to put together a quality circle that will evaluate our techniques and procedures so that we can formulate whatever's necessary to help each instructor to get over the jitters of having to deliver over this new medium. We know how to teach. It's just a matter of formulating strategies for the new technology."

"Usually every summer we go through a staff development process from a half to a full day session on the use and training on the equipment. How to set up a class."

"There's a trainer at Kennesaw Ed Tech Center that's supposed to be for everybody. So if you want to train, call them. They're paying this person, and it's not just K-12, it's for everybody. Get them up there and get them to train you."

"We are trying to introduce the system to faculty members at ___ Tech. I will be honest with you and say that the response has not been overwhelming. We've done training sessions for about four hours and it has involved about 17 to 18 faculty at each session."

"I provide training if we have a faculty member that is interested in doing it and part of my job description is to help them prepare for the class, to help them if they need computer graphics."

"We've had some sessions where we bring all our instructors into the room and we say, okay, you're on TV, you see yourself. We tape a session, have them do a five minute presentation, a summary part of their course, tape it, and then let them see that and talk about and review what they did right, what they did wrong, what they could do to improve it."

Evaluation and Testing

The procedural aspects of student testing seemed to be working pretty smoothly at the technical institutes, and none reported any problems with student cheating, though this was identified as a concern. One participant identified it as a security and trust issue, meaning that reasonable security precautions are taken, but ultimately the instructor must trust that the remote site facilitator will be trustworthy and responsible in minimizing opportunities for cheating. In most cases, the remote sites had worked out a process with the instructor regarding how and when test materials were to be sent to the sites (fax, mail, or courier); who would receive materials, make copies, administer, and proctor the testing at the site; when tests were to be administered; and how completed exams would be returned to the instructor for grading. No one method was used by everyone, but most used some combination of faxing or mailing materials to the site, student responding by fax or mail, and proctoring by remote site staff. Site coordinators or facilitators seemed to be communicating early and clearly with instructors to anticipate and resolve possible problems, and to agree on various methods for the transfer and protection of test materials. Typical methods used by sites are described in the comments below. Monitoring of test-taking by students was usually, but not always, done by the site facilitator.

Comments from focus group discussions:

"We normally get tests in the mail and I deliver it to students when they show up here at night. Then when they complete the test they fax the test back using the fax machine we have here. I should also say that I don't stay in here and monitor the test and no one else here does either."

"The tests are usually sent a couple of days before the test time and the instructor usually comes on line and talks to the students first and he gives the times that we issue the test. So I do the test and I serve as the Proctor and I seal the envelope and a courier picks them up or another instructor."

"I've observed the instructors, to preserve the integrity of the test, will often wait until that date and fax the test questions and students will fax their papers back and then later mail in the hard copy. And sometimes they're received through the mail and come to the facilitator or GSAMS coordinator, and that preserves the integrity of the test."

"I'm not sure cheating is the big issue, because the instructor can pretty much see the classrooms if they need to. What we have dealt with anyway, the students have been very mature... cheating has not been a problem. We either get the tests faxed in or Fedexed in and we distribute them and pretty much let the students take the test."

"Some areas have governing bodies that determine whether you can actually give the test off-site or not. In nursing, sometimes there are certain tests where they have to be in the room ... We can only offer that as a point-to-point (transmission between 2 sites only) where we have camera control."

"One of the biggest difficulties I had in monitoring tests was that in the middle of one of our class periods the system crashed. Having a facilitator there would have made all the difference in the world, but not having one I had no way of knowing whatsoever what might or might not have been going on at the other end. As it turned out it worked out okay, but it was a little bit disconcerting for me."

The evaluation of teaching by students was done in most cases by using already existing faculty evaluation forms at the technical institute, especially if it was their course and instructor. This information was shared with the instructor and with the site coordinator or academic administrator for purposes of feedback and improvement. Several sites pointed out that it was important to develop and use separate evaluation instruments for teaching and for the distance learning environment and process. There was sensitivity to the fact that student reactions to the technology of distance learning could influence teacher ratings unfairly, and that this needed to be examined separately. Several participants said that they pointed out to the GSAMS instructors areas where they felt improvement was needed.

"We have one standard form we use for every course. We ask them to make comments about how they enjoy or do not enjoy the use of distance learning in the written comments section, but our course evaluations are driven by the IES (institutional effectiveness system)"

"We have our regular faculty evaluation form the students fill out for each course, but we do have a modified form for the distance learning classes that ask some questions about how they enjoy or what they like or dislike about the course being taught over the system. We've found that if you ask them to write comments you won't get any, but if you ask them a question you will get a response from it."

"It has been most beneficial when we use two different instruments. We survey the teacher and that's totally different from the technology. I'd like to stress the importance of that. If you don't, you're going to get some bad evaluations sometimes where it shouldn't belong."

"We give a separate GSAMS evaluation instrument to everybody to see how they respond to this environment. And not only for the receive site students, but also for the students here at (the live site), because they're having to be here in a different kind of environment from the classroom they're accustomed to with a blackboard or whiteboard."

"I think it should be the responsibility of the coordinator to point out different helpful techniques to the instructors and also if they're doing something wrong to let them know, without any reservations."

Materials and Communications

Materials and books needed for classes seem to be handled much like test materials, using fax, courier, express or regular mail, or delivery by staff. Some students handled this directly with their instructor or the sending institution, and did not involve TI site staff. It was noted that instructors in GSAMS classes needed to be particularly well organized and use advance planning to provide class materials for remote sites in advance of each class meeting. Volume of handouts and last minute additions may have to be curtailed, although the fax machine in each classroom does allow materials to be shared during class meetings. Other resource materials needed for courses were provided through interlibrary loan or at the TI library.

Communication between faculty and students at the remote sites is more difficult in distance learning, but participants discussed several means being used to facilitate this communication. E-mail was mentioned frequently as an important way to communicate, but participants also noted that students and faculty do not always have sufficient access to make this a feasible option. Many faculty use the GSAMS or site phone connection before or after class or during break for individual consultation with students at remote sites, provide contact hours by telephone, or travel to the site at least once during the quarter to meet with students. Confidentiality of student-teacher conversations presented a challenge when using the GSAMS system for individual communications, but alternatives were used when this was the case.

"When we had the hook-up with ___ TI she had developed an outstanding package for the facilitator that was mailed weeks before the course started and it laid out every day. All the necessary materials were right there. And mostly everything was handled back and forth via the mails."

"On the syllabus the instructor always put their office hours, their number there, their number at home. Another thing we did during break was to put the fax on manual receive and we could actually call and talk to the instructor over the phone. It's pretty private and there's no one else in the room, so it's just a normal phone conversation, and that seemed to work real well."

"Faxes, the courier services, and telephone and e-mail have proven to be good resources to take care of the dialog that needs to be done (between faculty and students in classes)."

"Some GSAMS instructors have required that students have access to e-mail so they could have contact with the instructor on a daily basis. But a lot of times there has been no other communication. In one instance, the students had to complete some cards, index cards, that were mailed to the instructor, I think there were two per week mailed during the entire quarter."

"We at ___ TI utilize e-mail primarily between the student and faculty member for the site. But another professor, what he did was establish a telephone time for each specific location. They had a window in which they could communicate directly with that professor via telephone, two hours I believe it was for each institution."

Conclusions

One of the unanticipated dynamics to emerge from the focus group meetings held to discuss the research topics for this project was a frequent exchange of ideas and information among the participants themselves. There was a great deal of interest among those working with GSAMS about what others were doing about operational and procedural matters that were common to many sites. Participants seemed to value the opportunity to share how problems were being handled and to learn about other sites alternative approaches to routine concerns. The problem of isolation of site coordinators, facilitators, and instructors and their need to communicate regularly with their counterparts at other TI sites became obvious. There were many requests for information and suggestions, and offers to share materials and ideas, which occurred spontaneously as various implementation issues were discussed by participants in the focus groups. This indicated to us a need for ongoing and regular communication among those staff responsible for implementing the GSAMS network and credit courses. The system itself lends itself to this kind of interaction, however, the logistics of arranging frequent meetings among the very busy site coordinators could be a challenge. Most seemed to have multiple demands on their time.

Another frequently repeated concern was the need for state level guidelines to address some of the issues with GSAMS implementation, especially establishing fees to charge for system usage and decisions about registration and enrollment credit. On this matter, participants across all groups were in agreement. They want fee-setting guidelines from the state that they can use in developing contracts, negotiating with institutions wanting to use their site, and feeling that the ground rules are clear in these decisions. State (DTAE or Georgia) guidelines, rather than mandates, were seen as the basis for developing local institutional policies and operational procedures, still allowing adaptation for local needs. This also would make it easier to reach agreement on what sites will charge for use of their GSAMS facility. Several technical institutes had already developed policies for their institution which addressed many of the issues discussed in this study. Also, many participants mentioned that central coordination of TI course offerings (credit and non-credit) and scheduling to eliminate duplication or conflicts, facilitate collaboration efforts, and expand participation in distance learning across the state.

The third and most significant issue for GSAMS use in credit instruction was concerns related to funding and cost for continued operation of the system at the local level. Technical institutes all were struggling with how to provide a cost effective distance delivery and outreach service for students, and still recover costs of line charges, and in some cases, of staffing, maintenance, and utilities. The trend towards requiring GSAMS programming to be a self-supporting unit of the institution was creating multiple pressures and difficulties for site coordinators. Establishing user fees was the most common response to this pressure, but this led to complicated policy decisions about how much to charge who and under what conditions. No clear answers emerged from the discussions.

At this stage of its development GSAMS has become a market-driven system in Georgia and many of the dynamics and issues described in our focus group discussions (bidding wars, competitive pricing, supply and demand) were influenced by economics. The tensions that technical institutes expressed between centralized and decentralized decision making and control within the TI system extends to the broader GSAMS network in Georgia. Coordination and funding/fee guidelines established at the state level could affect many implementation issues explored in this study and may need to be part of the resolution of problems identified here to assure a viable future for GSAMS.

DTAE Homepage

aturlington@tcsg.edu