One argument for asynchronous (typically web-based) delivery as opposed to synchronous (real-time video) delivery of distance learning courseware is that the goal of distance learning in the future should not be to deliver a vicarious classroom lecture experience using remote technology, but instead should be to use an array of knowledge media to fashion interactive individualized learning environments for remote users. This argument may or may not prevail across the full spectrum of distance learning modalities, but it's emergence does present interesting strategic opportunities for libraries, which this article will review.

In his article "Why Universities Need Technology Strategies," Sir John S. Daniel summarized the critical debate between synchronous and asynchronous delivery vehicles for distance learning as being centered upon the role of "knowledge media," the term he used "….to denote the convergence of computing, telecommunications, and the cognitive sciences....the knowledge media are about the capturing, storing, imparting, sharing, accessing, creating, combining, and synthesizing of knowledge. The knowledge media are not just a technical format, such as CD-ROM or computer conferencing, but the whole presentation style, the user interface, the accessibility, the interactivity." (Daniel 1997)

The fact that synchronous video delivery is described as teacher-centered while asynchronous web delivery is characterized as learner-centered actually underlies our ongoing terminological schizophrenia about whether we are providing "distance education" or "distance learning." Daniel goes on to state that American higher education has placed such a high level of institutional investment in the synchronous delivery technology (satellite, cable-TV, etc.) that it has been unable thus far to reap the benefits of advanced work in web delivery vehicles now being realized elsewhere in the world. While equally cogent arguments can be found in support of video delivery, the broad range of debate is too extensive to be dealt with here. Rather, I wish to focus upon the particular argument raised by Daniel and it's potential for opening a new planning opportunity for libraries.

As important as the knowledge media argument could become for the wider arena of the distance learning community, it bears special attention in the library community. This is particularly true at a time when academic libraries are being called upon to provide new levels of support for distance learning students. It is critical, I would suggest, to recognize in this debate the potential emergence of an evolutionary path for libraries in support of distance learning. It can provide us with a unique opportunity to build upon and leverage the particular strengths that libraries bring to the table. These strengths, as I see them, include:

1. Libraries have typically centered their service delivery upon the user/learner, rather than upon the teacher/provider.
2. Libraries have typically used knowledge media as a delivery vehicle since they are, after all, the socially designated keepers of knowledge media. The printed book can still be considered the most successful and widely-used distance learning format.
3. Library service has traditionally been oriented toward the individual and not toward aggregate classroom groups.

These facts suggest that if academic debate intensifies around distance learning methodologies, libraries will be well positioned to reap benefits in terms of institutional visibility and relevance. Over the long run, video delivery could be drawn into an internal market competition with web delivery, and the issue would be decided on the basis of both cost and effectiveness. The key question remaining is whether effectiveness will be measured primarily in terms of faculty satisfaction and convenience or student satisfaction and convenience. But even if the future of distance learning entails a mixture of synchronous and asynchronous techniques, the emphasis upon knowledge media as a distinct modality creates an opportunity.

Our potential responses can be characterized as representing the difference between planning and strategic planning. Simple planning would involve a review of our role as defined by our various institutional projects, setting aside resources and drafting action plans to fulfill that role, and awaiting further direction from administrators regarding future options in content delivery and instructional support. Strategic planning demands the above, but with the crucial difference that we also extend our vision to the larger academic and institutional context of what we are doing. If strategic planning requires us to prepare for a possible evolutionary trend from teacher-centered to learner-centered distance learning, we could begin that preparation with the following steps:

1. Develop an assessment process that measures student reactions to library media support in ways that can be distinguished from student reactions to the remote classroom experience per se. One can argue that such a discreet assessment is needed in any case to simply evaluate and validate our basic role in such projects. But it would be very interesting to see if there is any consistent difference in user satisfaction between the synchronous remote classroom experience provided by the instructor and the asynchronous knowledge media component provided by libraries.
2. Contribute to the design of a distance learning technology base that offers greater flexibility and more options for teachers and students, including a greater degree of functional integration with the library's online system. Even if synchronous video delivery remains the dominant modality, it will surely continue to see a variety of enhancement and plug-in options for multimedia instructional support. It is important that library networking options become part of any planning discussion regarding such enhancements. This is particularly true in cases where academic library staff includes media specialists who are expected to play an advisory role in instructional support.

One possible framework for expanding the above steps into a strategic plan would be to begin with the following general assumptions:

Assumption 1: The debate between synchronous video delivery and asynchronous web delivery models will continue and intensify. The current vested interests and investments in synchronous delivery will be seriously challenged over the long term by the customer service rewards of asynchronous delivery. The debate offers an opportunity to argue for a greater library role in distance learning in general and for involving library administrators in distance learning facility planning in particular. In cases where the library administration shares responsibility for media services and academic computing (the "Information Commons" model) it may well become the one campus department with greatest staff expertise and technology support in both video and web content delivery.

Assumption 2: The presumed debate does not intensify, but interest in web courseware development continues alongside the existing programs of synchronous delivery. In this scenario, Universities will need a range of delivery options to achieve flexibility in responding to changing initiatives. The library should contribute by offering the university a limited but carefully structured array of delivery support options, ranging from low end to high end. Each option could be packaged with:

1. Appropriate facility space,
2. Hardware platform
3. Technical support
4. Instructional support

The option array could be developed along the following lines:

1. A low end video-delivery "talking heads" option with a standard classroom layout, basic fixed equipment orientation, low level instructional advisory support, and inexpensive cost-recovery formula. One might think of this as the "University C-SPAN" option.

2. A high-end video-delivery option (one or more) with graphical enhancements, picture-in-picture, high level instructional support, with a steeper cost-recovery formula. This could become a distance learning laboratory, with flexible equipment layout for collaborative group learning.

3. A WWW and multimedia supplementation and enhancement platform for distance learning instructional support. This should be designed carefully to adapt to at least two possible scenarios:
   1. If the university outsources the responsibility for network delivery, then the library should be prepared to offer an instructional support package with plug-ins designed for the vendor's hardware/software platform.

   2. If outsourcing is not pursued, the library's own Internet access plan should be strengthened to become a responsive proposal for coordinating an in-house production and networking enterprise. Such a plan may need to be aligned with similar appropriate plans under academic computing.

4. Lastly, an extended Bibliographic Instruction package could be developed in concert with general courseware development for web and/or video delivery. As the content of BI classroom sessions increasingly centers upon digital services and resources, the potential for adapting such sessions to the web only increases. This brings the added benefit of keeping the instructional content available for "just-in-time" review throughout an academic term, rather than only at the beginning of a semester.

Obviously, fiscal constraints will always limit library development options. But times of fundamental debate bring special risks and opportunities. Perhaps administrators would respond favorably to a proposal that for X dollars more, plans for future distance learning classrooms can become instead distance learning laboratories, where various instructional strategies (such as collaborative workgroups) and interactive technologies can be experimented with. Later on, working from their assessment experiences in such platforms, library instructional support staff could then advise the faculty: "From our experience, approaches a, b &. c have succeeded in the past, while approaches d, e &. f have not worked for reasons x, y and z; and here are the evaluation data (supported by a faculty advisory committee) to support these contentions."

Ultimately, the video/web debate may well be settled on the technological field, when PC-based videoconferencing tools become more commonplace, resulting in a blend of synchronous and asynchronous functions. As Helena F. Rodrigues describes it: "With the emergence of multimedia telephony, a distant learner will be sitting at a workstation communicating with a librarian at a remote site. Each person can see the other on a screen. A real-time reference interview will ensue; resources will be discussed. Finally, the distant learner can retrieve text, images, and video clips from the library's databases."(Rodrigues, 1996)

In all areas of library and information services, we should strive to create flexible learning environments where skilled staff can present an array of knowledge media in response to the needs of individual patrons. Our goal in support of distance learning, it seems to me, should be to extend that same flexible environment in ways that allow staff to disperse knowledge media with similar effectiveness to learners in other physical places.

References

Daniel, Sir John S., "Why Universities Need Technology Strategies," Change: the Magazine of Higher Learning 29, no. 4 (1997): 16.

Rodrigues, Helena F., "The Role of the Library in Distance Education," Microcomputers for Information Management 13, no. 1 (1996): 26.

Don Beagle
University of North Carolina at Charlotte
E-mail: drbeagle@email.uncc.edu

Donald Beagle is Associate Director of Library Services and Head of the Information Commons at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. UNCC's new Information Commons includes send-and-receive distance learning facilities for the North Carolina Information Highway and the North Carolina Research and Education Network.