When students graduated from our institutions 20 years ago, few thought much about how long they would be competitive in the work force. Now, when graduates leave, within a year or less the knowledge base of their specialty and the technology they use will change so dramatically they need additional, on-going education almost immediately. We hope their on-campus education has taught them the problem-solving skills required to compete, but what about the objective, science-based technical knowledge which feeds that problem solving?

This intensified educational environment is creating a new kind of student, a true life-long learner, a knowledge customer. Because of this, educators in the Land-Grant system find new competitors cropping up all over, and their arena is not the academy, but the knowledge marketplace.

The content-rich output from the Land-Grant system is a full educational spectrum, ranging from specific bits of data to robust educational programs. For the purposes of this discussion, we will refer to this full spectrum as "education."

Background

Examples of these potential educational opportunities abound within the Land-Grant system's areas of competitive advantage, from agricultural and food production or processing to consumer and human issues. However, to make the point about the how the marketplace is expanding, let's look at an example which may initially appear farther afield.

A 28-year-old commodities broker realizes one day that she's not as competitive with her colleagues as she should be, especially with those who have more recently joined the firm. She decides to pursue Pacific Rim trading in Singapore as a specialty. There is an upper level agricultural economics course in Pacific Rim trading at the Land-Grant institution approximately 65 miles away. The course meets on campus three times a week for 16 weeks. There are two weeks in the middle of the course on Singapore. Will our commodities broker register for and attend any of these classes? Probably not.

What if those two weeks of material on Singapore were packaged as a robust, interactive learning module available on the World Wide Web? Chances are our commodities broker might sit down at 11 o'clock at night for a week or so and work her way through it. If the learning module were well built and followed some basic guiding principles for effective distance learning, she'd find herself more competitive in her professional environment almost immediately. And she might be willing to pay as much for that module as each on-campus student pays for the whole course.

The questions. How do we find the commodities brokers of the world and ascertain their interest in Singapore? How do we communicate this information to the on-campus professors who are teaching Pacific Trading courses? Then, how do we motivate and help them develop learning modules that satisfy these new learners' educational needs?

Our answers to these questions will chart the future of the Land-Grant university system. However, finding these answers will require vision and leadership from within the system.

The Challenge

They compete by gathering data specifically for or about their customers, (e.g., up-to-date details of the financial markets in Singapore) and combining this with broad - and typically university-developed - knowledge to create educational packages.

Because they use the knowledge base developed by faculty in our institutions, in one sense they might be considered collaborative. Yet because they may be vying directly with us for learners, in another sense they are competitive.

However, the greatest impact is that the total customer base is expanding in this process. If the Land-Grant system is to compete in this new knowledge marketplace, it must serve this expanded customer base. Audience interest is not just in the traditional foundation of agricultural production and home economics. A professional, diverse, and global audience demands expanded access to our universities, and the Land-Grant system must adapt or relinquish its role.

       The Audience
The need for on-going professional training is one factor driving the customer base expansion. College graduates are more likely than other workers to improve their job skills through training, according to a recent report by the National Center for Education Statistics. The report shows that workers in executive, professional, and technical occupations are also more likely to participate in job training when it's available. These people are using the foundation of their on-campus education as they return to another educational environment. In this new environment they demand access "just in time" and at the place of their choice.

As boundaries of tradition and geography become superfluous to this new learner audience, the importance of these boundaries will erode rapidly for all other, more traditional educational audiences. We already see this as competition continues to build in the formal credit course and degree-granting educational arena. Phoenix University, Western Governors, and Jones Education are prime examples.

       New Rules
So, as commercial education providers "sell" education their customers find acceptable, useful, and valuable, what is the future of Land-Grant educational programs? Can we compete with commercial providers? Should we?

Objective analysis and overall accuracy are traditional strengths the Land-Grant system and the Cooperative Extension Service bring to the customer. Add two additional factors, making education relevant to local issues and contributing to the common good, and we have the core of what has made Extension the success it has been for the last 90-plus years.

Now, however, our new education customers may not be buying what we're selling. They seem to rate convenience and ease of access as more important than what we call "science-based objectivity."

The classic three-part prescription for product success is quality, convenience, and price. If our advantage may be eroding in quality and convenience—as defined by our audiences—what about price?

On the surface we may appear competitive in price, but no price is too low if the education is not specifically relevant to the perceived needs of the customer.

       Meeting the Challenge
Reestablishing the Land-Grant system mission - making university resources both relevant and accessible to society in the places we all work and live - will require:
1) repackaging content into learning modules,
2) retooling faculty in the use of technology necessary to reach people in their homes, at work, or in their local communities,
3)developing a clear understanding of the instructional design required to effectively mesh the content and the technology.

In addition, while the obvious value of an Extension/Research Programs merger is widely discussed from the federal level down, perhaps the more critical consideration should be the merger of Academic Programs and Extension. The traditional success of Extension provide a solid foundation to begin providing information and access to a broader audience. If we don't, over time the private education providers will begin to re-invent a system for reaching customers which will look a lot like our current system.

       Motivation
One daunting concern of many faculty and staff is the massive effort required for the full development of an effective 16-week credit course made available via distance technology. Add to that the inherent and yet unresolved issues of credit transfer, fees, faculty support, and other primarily on-campus concerns, and we see why motivating faculty remains a difficult task.

Learning module development - well used in Extension education - offers an opportunity to compete in the knowledge marketplace while incrementally developing material that can have significant value to on-campus students.

Professors who continue to refine and develop the Land-Grant knowledge base while teaching 18-25-year olds, must - along with Extension specialists - rework that knowledge base into modular educational programs available when and where learners want (e.g., in their homes after they return from full-time employment).

The Land-Grant system is well positioned to develop competitive educational programs with effective instructional design. Even with the current level of perceived disconnect among research, teaching, and Extension in the Land-Grant system, we have a much stronger foundation because we are more of a system than most educational competitors - public or private.

Requirements for Success

• We need to know who wants and needs what, and specifically how and where they will be available and motivated enough to participate in educational opportunities.
         Action: Segment our audiences strategically and analyze the complex matrix of needs, desires, and motivational factors for each of the specific segments of our target audiences.

• We need to adopt methods to best reach the specific audience segments once we know who they are and what they want and need.
         Action: Rapidly adopt new technology and courseware in effective combination with currently available media (such as e-mail, satellite video, two-way video conferencing, audio conferencing, and video tape distribution) to satisfy the new learner/customer.

• We need to know how people learn in their homes or at work sites.
         Action: Develop best practice guidelines for distance learning, taking into account the pedagogical and motivational differences between on-campus instruction and off-campus education which is available in people's homes and work sites.

• We need to know with whom we can work to effectively compete.
         Action: Forge new partnerships with other public and private education sources, professional societies, and unique audience segments.

• We need to know what can happen best at home or work, and what must happen in a supervised setting in real time at an extension of the campus.
         Action: Develop learning centers at county extension offices, public schools, libraries, and other locations in effective combination with at-home and at-work educational access.

• We must establish immediate successes in our areas of comparative advantage.
         Action: Focus learning module development efforts on areas where we have significant content already, e.g., food safety, commodity marketing, certified crop advisor training, technology adoption, effective parenting, and/or money management. There are people who must find continuing education in each of these areas. If we don't serve their needs soon, others will.

• We need to establish internal policy changes focusing on the importance of off-campus or non-classroom learners.
         Action: Review current policies. Faculty members are the key. No matter what we know about what audiences want and need, unless there are incentives and assurances for faculty that distance learning is something they should be doing, we will not be able to generate the content to meet the need.

• We need to recognize the importance of entering this phase of educational and technology development in a proactive fashion.
         Action: Move into the marketplace proactively. As is the case in any marketplace, the first in has a significant advantage. From technology adoption to influencing public interest rulings, we need to address these issues proactively and not wait for someone else to decide the issue, forcing us to accept their position with little or no discussion.

ADEC Program Panel representatives:
Dave King, Purdue University
Dan Cotton, University of Nebraska
Al Turgeon, Pennsylvania State University

Original presentation: White Paper Recommendations to the ADEC Board of Directors
January 30, 1998, Dallas, Texas

Sources

Boehlje, M., and D. King, "Extension on Brink - Meeting the Private Sector Challenge in the Information Marketplace", Agricultural Communicators Congress, July, 1996. (Scheduled for publication Fall 1998 in the Journal of Applied Communication.)

Bane, P. William , Stephen P. Bradely, and David J. Collis, "Winners And Losers: Industry Structure In The Converging World Of Telecommunications, Computing And Entertainment," Harvard Business Review web site January, 1998

Dillman, Christenson, Salant, and Warner, What the Public Wants from Higher Education: Workforce Implications from a 1995 National Survey, November, 1995.

NASULGC Board on Agriculture, From Issues to Action, A Plan for Action on Agriculture and Natural Resources for The Land-Grant Universities, December, 1996.

National Research Council, Colleges of Agriculture at Land-Grant Universities, Public Policy and Public Service, 1996.

Primary Research Group, Inc., The Adult and Continuing Education Business Report, October, 1997.

Strosnider, Kim , "For-profit Higher Education Sees Booming Enrollments and Revenue," The Chronicle of Higher Education, January 23, 1998.

submitted:
Dave King
Co-chair, ADEC Program Panel
Department Head Agricultural Communication Department
Purdue University
6.29.98