A popular direction to address the access/ resource limits dilemma involves the application of new technologies. Their potential as a cost-effective way to increase effectiveness and capacity arose as a subject of interest in virtually every concurrent session during the Forum. Technology was seen not only as a way to avoid the costs of bricks and mortar and the continuing costs of maintenance, but also as a way to gain productivity and shift the culture toward more learner-centered systems. Examples were numerous.

• UCLA requires faculty to have web pages for all courses.

• California State University at Monterey Bay will operate through interactive links to other institutions and resources, expanding its own resource pool while serving as potential resource to others.

• On-line students at the University of Phoenix number 3,000.

• Washington has invested in a K-20 telecom-munications network.

• Western Governors University has 16 states and territories as members; collaborative agreements have been reached with Great Britain, Japan, Mexico, and British Columbia.

• California’s Virtual University will broker a full range of degree programs from the start, drawing on the state’s higher education resources and on the entertainment, multimedia, and venture capital industries.

• The International Community College also will rely on a variety of interactive technology modes as its moves away from cable television delivery.

Policy Implications for Technology

Investment—Higher education institutions must be prepared to demonstrate that serious cost savings are possible before they can count on major funding infusions for technology. Cost considerations may be more important than many realize. These technologies cannot be sustained with a one-time cost; rather, they require continuous investments.

Mission—All aspects of technology may not be for everyone. Institutions must consider whether distance education, for example, is a logical part of their mission before committing to extensive outreach programs.

Cost-Benefit—Technologies are not cheap; the costs of interconnectivity, in particular, can be enormous. Educators and policymakers also must understand that savings may prove elusive. Continuous cost/benefit analyses must be performed to ensure that services on and off campus are provided in a cost effective manner.

Policy—Costs may not be the only problem. Restrictive policies and procedures established during an earlier time may be inappropriate to the new media. States and systems will need to review their procedures and modify or replace restrictive policies and regulations.

Learning—Institutions and faculty must be prepared to anticipate and accommodate the natural shift toward more student-centered learning approaches that these technologies allow.

Quality—Quality assurance will become a greater concern than ever. The traditional surrogates for quality–grades, credits, attendance–will become outmoded, as will such conventional safeguards as program review and approval requirements, institutional and program accreditation, and higher education funding formulas.

Outcomes—Technology naturally evokes the use of outcomes as the principal measure of quality. By shifting the focus of the quality debate from inputs to outcomes, the new technologies and distance education also can promote more closely linked education segments and, for students, smoother passage through the educational system. This emphasis on outcomes will dramatically affect the familiar higher education model, clearing the way for less formal learning experiences.