A. HBCU Achievements in Distance Learning

Distance learning is hard: it's hard for faculty to implement; its current formats are not suitable for all students; and it's hard for administrators to fund. Indeed, a recent Sloan Foundation Survey suggests that the people most likely to think that distance learning is easy are people who haven't tried to do it. Nevertheless it is becoming increasingly necessary for HBCUs to master this new pedagogy in order to remain viable participants in the academic marketplace.

In this report, the term "distance learning" only refers to Internet-based courses that are 100 percent online; it does not cover courses that are "blended" or "enhanced"; and it only covers courses delivered via the Internet as opposed to videotapes, television, correspondence, etc.

The DLL's recent monthly surveys of HBCU Websites show there is much for the HBCU communities to be proud of with regards to their current achievements in distance learning. For example:

• Two HBCUs -- Howard University and North Carolina A&T -- are offering distance learning degrees at the doctoral level.
  
  
• Three HBCUs -- Grambling University, Hampton University, and North Carolina A&T -- are participants in eArmyU, the U.S. Army's path-breaking distance learning initiative
  
  
• 28 HBCUs offer distance learning courses as part of 2 year, 4 year, & technical degree programs
  
  
• 7 HBCUs offer distance learning courses as part of graduate degree programs.
  
  
• 12 HBCUs offer distance learning courses as part of workforce certificate programs
  

B. Shortfalls ... Too Much Building

Producers of goods or services must determine which components to build themselves and which to buy from suppliers. Distance learning has (at least) four components: course management systems, courses, instructors, and students. This report focuses on the first three components. Fifteen years ago, colleges and universities intending to offer distance learning courses via the Internet had to build everything themselves: they had to develop their own systems and train their faculty to create all of their online courses. Today these components can be purchased from vendors or can be obtained from other academic institutions.

This report finds that HBCUs are not progressing as rapidly as they could in distance learning because they tend to build too many distance learning components themselves and do not acquire enough components from vendors or from other academic institutions. Therefore the report encourages HBCUs to shift their mix of build vs. buy, i.e., to build less and to acquire more.

Unfortunately one size will not fit all. A build/buy strategy that is optimal for one HBCU might be disaster for another. Accordingly, the report offers conditional recommendations. Some recommendations are for two year colleges; some are for HBCUs that offer continuing education programs; others are for HBCUs that have strong IT support staffs; while still others are for HBCUs offering doctoral degrees, etc, etc, etc.

C. Sources of Data for This Report

1. HBCU Data and Apologies

Information about HBCUs came from the DLL's extensive databases which, in turn, are based its monthly examinations of the Websites of each of the 104 colleges and universities officially designated as "HBCUs" by the White Hourse Initiative on HBCUs. Readers of this report can extract much of its underlying data from the "HBCU Profiles" page on the DLL's Gateway to HBCUs (using a Microsoft browser).

The DLL has made every effort to double check its assessments of each Website. We apologize for any errors that may occur in this report due to our misinterpretation of the descriptions of the distance learning programs found on these Websites, and we sincerely hope that the Webmasters and/or other knowledgeable persons will contact us to help us correct these errors.

2. Vendor Data and Acknowledgements

The DLL's information about the vendors of distance learning components displayed in the tables in Part II came from company Websites, from SEC filings (annual and quarterly), from online references listed in the "Notes" appended to this report, and from telephone interviews/emails with representatives of the following organizations: Reed Educational Services (10/17/05), eCollege (11/29/05), Desire2Learn (12/2/05), Blackboard (12/2/05, 2/14/05), WebCT (12/5/05), flexstudy.com (12/8/05), the Sakai Foundation (12/13/05), The Center for Legal Studies (12/14/05), Angel Learning (12/14/05), Moodle (12/14/05), Gatlin Education Services (12/15/05), MindEdge (12/16/05), elementK (12/16/05, 12/18,05), ed2go (12/16/05), and JER Group Online (12/16/05)

The DLL thanks each of the representatives of these organizations for taking the time to answer all of our questions and to provide corrections to earlier drafts of the information posted in the tables in Part II. The DLL assumes sole responsibility for any remaining errors.

A vendor's appearance in any of the tables in Part II of this report should not be interpreted as a endorsement by the DLL, by Howard University Continuing Education (HUCE), nor by Howard University.  Conversely, a vendor's absence from these tables should not be interpreted as criticism. The tables are extensive enough to enable HBCUs to explore various build/buy strategies, but they are not comprehensive (especially Table C). Their entries will be expanded as the DLL obtains additional information from its own research, from its readers' suggestions, and from the vendors themselves.