Academic Program Development at Ohio University’s Regional Campuses
In my remarks today, I would like to concentrate on some issues related to the development of academic programs on our regional campuses. To that end, I will describe some key characteristics of Regional Higher Education (RHE) at Ohio University, discuss briefly some important trends that we see, and outline four areas of focus that we believe are critical to our success.
There are five regional campuses at Ohio University, enrolling approximately 8,000 students per quarter, with an unduplicated annual headcount of nearly 12,000. Collectively, we have approximately 120 tenure track faculty members, as well as several dozen nontenure track, but nearly full time faculty members. Two of our campuses, Eastern and Zanesville, are considered to be co–located with technical colleges, whereas the Chillicothe, Lancaster, and Southern Campuses have a comprehensive mission that includes technical associate degree programs. Two years ago, we became the degree–granting unit for the technical associate degree programs, giving us direct responsibility for the curriculum in those areas.
Currently, we offer 22 associate degree programs. In addition, students can complete any of 10 baccalaureate programs on the regional campuses, and we offer some master’s degree programs that rotate irregularly among the campuses in a cohort–based format.
It is important to know that RHE includes the Athens–based Division of Lifelong Learning, which is responsible for credit and noncredit continuing education on the Athens campus and in locations other than the regional campuses. This responsibility includes coordination of the delivery of the University’s distance programs, as well as some international programs, including several in Hong Kong. We also have been responsible for independent study through correspondence for nearly 80 years, and we administer conferences and workshops on behalf of the University.
Lifelong Learning and the five regional campuses are linked by a common mission of outreach and access. It is our role to create educational opportunities in a wide variety of locations, using whatever delivery methods may be available to us that are consistent with our expectations for quality. We operate as a somewhat decentralized system, with a very small staff in our central office, but with a goal of maximizing all of the human and financial resources available to us. I believe that the opportunities created by having five regional campuses, with a relatively large number of faculty, and the Division of Lifelong Learning, with access to student populations beyond those campuses, are important to our approach to program development.
As I think about the future of our regional campuses, there are several national trends that push us toward emphasizing closer relationships among the various units in RHE and toward expansion of the academic programs available on regional campuses. For example, higher education seems to have become increasingly competitive, forcing institutions to consider carefully where they fit in relation to other institutions, how they price their programs, and how they control the costs of developing and delivering those programs. Institutions such as ours need to be clear about their commitment to quality and high standards for students, while being extremely student–centered in providing services, flexible in their use of locations and formats, thoughtful about their marketing strategies, and much more sophisticated in their management of budgets.
Beyond competition, but clearly related to it, is the issue of employing new technologies to deliver programs. At Ohio University, we believe that blended programs represent an appropriate niche for us that is consistent with providing flexibility to students, allowing for the delivery of programs nearly anywhere in the world, but maintaining the direct, face–to–face contact that we believe is necessary for the quality we seek and the structure that assures student persistence and success. Thus, although we make heavy use of the Internet, interactive video, and other technologies, we also bring students together for intensive residencies or for other meetings, and we relatively rarely use an online format for entire courses and programs. Not only do we gain flexibility through this type of approach, but we are obtaining a very high level of student satisfaction, a certain amount of state and national recognition that helps with our competitiveness, at least at the graduate level, and a cost effective method for course and program development.
A third important trend is the increasing emphasis on the importance of higher education for economic development. It is clear that funding agencies and employers, not to mention students, are looking to us to provide the education and training necessary for the modern work force. As a result, people really are returning to college and looking for credit and noncredit programs that will prepare them for new careers or for advancement in their current careers.
This trend is important because regional campuses are well– positioned to respond to this demand. The type of lifelong education that is required needs to be available at convenient locations, scheduled at times to meet the needs of students, and supported by responsive student services. The relative convenience of our locations for many individuals, as well as our affordable tuition and commitment to student support, should allow regional campuses to do very well in this environment.
These observations lead directly to the fourth trend, which is something we call “extended access.” By extended access we mean that students today need access to much more than the types of feeder programs or terminal associate degrees that we offered in the past. The demand for baccalaureate completion programs, credit and noncredit certificate programs, master’s degree programs that are oriented toward careers and contract training will only increase. In many cases, universities will find that regional campuses are in a better position to respond to certain of these needs than are larger, more traditional campuses. Yet, because of the credibility of the universities, regional campuses can become providers of choice, both in their traditional service areas and, sometimes, well beyond those areas.
I also would like to mention one additional trend that I think is underway: regional campuses are developing branches of their own. These “twigs,” as they are sometimes called, are probably better characterized as centers than as campuses. They may simply be outreach programs, offered through other institutions or in a few rooms leased in an attractive location. Or, like our centers in Pickerington and Proctorville, Ohio, they may be freestanding facilities, staffed by people who can provide critical faculty and student support but typically without resident faculty. These “branches of branches” seem to be growing all over the country. I suspect that they represent still another attempt to create flexibility in delivering educational services. In our case, we are using a variety of locations as a tool, not unlike our use of technology to create flexibility in the delivery of programs, while making sure that students have access to critical services and that faculty have appropriate facilities for live instruction.
So, given the trends we observe and the resources available to us, we have identified four areas of focus that represent broad strategic goals that can guide the priorities of our six units (five campuses and the Division of Lifelong Learning). These areas of focus are intended to concentrate attention on opportunities for new and expanded programs that can be delivered in a cost–effective manner and with the quality and credibility we require.
The first area of focus is faculty development. For us, faculty development includes working toward a larger full-time faculty. Importantly, however, we have created hiring guidelines for faculty and revised RHE–level guidelines for promotion and tenure. Although the revised promotion and tenure guidelines are consistent with previous expectations for research and scholarship, it is fair to say that we are more serious about expectations for scholarship than in the past. In support of these expectations, we have established a load reduction policy and a variety of programs to support faculty research. We also are encouraging our faculty divisions to look seriously at their orientation of new faculty members and their annual review processes to make sure that individuals receive clear feedback on their performance.
The emphasis on faculty development is consistent with certain core values for university professors. However, a larger and stronger faculty is essential if we are to have the support of academic units on the Athens Campus for expanded programs at the regional campuses. Given other developments at Ohio University, we simply must have faculty members who are well known by their Athens Campus colleagues and respected for their achievements. Because faculty members on regional campuses are hired and tenured at the campus, we need to create stronger linkages across the regional campuses and between the regional campuses and Athens.
One other critical aspect of faculty development deserves mention. We continue to place our primary emphasis on teaching, and our faculty members are asked to engage in a wide range of service activities that can limit the time available for traditional scholarship. Although a number of our faculty members are engaged in traditional sorts of research activities, we want to encourage our faculty to become involved in nontraditional work such as innovative approaches to teaching and involvement in Service Learning. Given our structure, we are able to reward faculty members for these activities, but we also are encouraging people to seek peer–reviewed outlets for dissemination of creative work in these areas. We are prepared to reward faculty members who choose to pursue scholarly activities that emerge directly from their teaching and service involvement.
The second area of focus relates significantly to the first. We need to strengthen our reputation, both inside and outside the university. Concentrating primarily on the internal issues, like many regional campuses, ours have been forced to combat a variety of myths and stereotypes that can limit our opportunities. In fairness, we also have occasionally engaged in certain behaviors and practices that do not meet expectations of our Athens colleagues.
Accordingly, and without going into specifics, we are endeavoring to do a better job of telling our story around the university. We also are working hard to strengthen the professionalism of many of our administrative and academic practices. It is my belief that, given the many biases we encounter, it is important for us to be impeccable in our practices and to accept the principal responsibility for making sure that people across the university know about our good work.
The third area of focus is an emphasis on partnership and collaboration. For our purposes, I use the word “partnership” to refer to our work with other units in the university, and I use the word “collaboration” to refer to our work across the units in RHE. At this point, we have a number of interesting partnerships developing, including a “one–university” School of Nursing that will include our associate degree RN programs, the Athens–based RN to BSN completion program, and a new MSN program that will be administered jointly by RHE and the Col lege of Health and Human Services. We also have new partnerships developing with the College of Education and with the School of Interpersonal Communication, and through Lifelong Learning we have a wide range of partnerships leading to new technology–mediated programs that will expand opportunities at regional campuses and at other locations.
In terms of collaboration, we are encouraging greater communication among faculty members through an annual faculty conference, meetings of our full professors and of our probationary faculty, a new Service Learning Institute, a new RHE Curriculum Committee, and a Faculty Development Committee. Faculty members from three of our campuses are working together and with the Division of Lifelong Learning to create online options within our Business Management Technology Program. Through this collaboration, we hope to increase scheduling flexibility for regional campus students and to create access to new student populations through online certificate programs.
An important program for us is our Organizational Communication major earned through the School of Interpersonal Communication. To support this major, we have hired additional faculty members, collaborating to some degree on the specialties represented across our system. Some courses are being delivered to multiple campuses through our interactive video system; faculty are collaborating on research projects; and we are also developing a technology–mediated (blended) option for the major through a collaboration among the campuses and Lifelong Learning.
There are a number of other examples of how we are trying to bring our faculty together, both to take better advantage of our faculty resources and to improve the quality of work for our faculty members. I think that collaboration, combined with effective use of technology, is critical if we are to expand opportunities at the baccalaureate and master level.
Finally, our fourth area of focus relates to financial health. We have overhauled our budget management approach to give the campuses relatively greater autonomy in decision making, while creating stronger incentives for increasing income and controlling costs. I will not go into details about these changes, which have been hampered somewhat by the problems with state funding of higher education, but in the long run, I am convinced that this new approach will benefit the campuses.
We also are looking for new income streams through our efforts at distance education and through an increased emphasis on contract training and external grants. We are fortunate to have adequate reserves at the present time to allow us to invest in new program development, as well.
I do believe that our independent budget is an absolutely critical element for our continued success. It is this independent budget that allows us to encourage Athens units to form partnerships with us that can generate income for them. Our financial independence also allows us some leverage when we work with various administrative units, and it helps support the perception that the campuses and Lifelong Learning are critical to entrepreneurial efforts at the university.
To summarize, I believe that our regional campus faculty and financial independence, as well as the fact that Lifelong Learning is part of RHE, provide us with excellent opportunities to respond to the changing circumstances in higher education. Through an emphasis on faculty development, stronger relationships across the university, and a more positive reputation within the university, I believe we can do a better job of meeting our mission while assuring the financial health of our system. If we respond effectively to the challenges we face, I am convinced that we are on the verge of a sort of golden age for the type of high quality, student–centered approach we bring to the world of higher education.