Carchidi, Daniel M. (2003). The Virtual Delivery and Virtual Organization of Postsecondary Education. Reviewed by Elsie M. Szecsy, Arizona State University

	Carchidi, Daniel M. (2003). The Virtual Delivery and Virtual Organization of Postsecondary Education. New York: Routledge Falmer. pp. xv + 232 $80.00 ISBN 0-415-93088-X Reviewed by Elsie M. Szecsy Arizona State University June 29, 2004 I once administered a distance learning network on Long Island. Two public educational services agencies, a local college, and over a dozen Long Island school districts from the New York City line to the East End contributed infrastructure, instructional resources, or professional development programming to the network. Together we offered high school and college courses and professional development activities and teleconferences for teachers and administrators. These years were turbulent because the network was constantly reinventing itself with a constant parade of new people, new courses, and new technologies entering and exiting the scene. I could only trust that careful coordination of resources would provide for a well-functioning whole. Upon reading Carchidi’s Virtual Delivery and Virtual Organization of Postsecondary Education, I gain new insights into that experience. The book is based on doctoral research conducted in 1996 at the University of Michigan’s Center for the Study of Higher and Postsecondary Education. It is guided by this question: How do environmental, collaborative, internal management and historical conditions shape the organizational form and administrative patterns that are demonstrated in higher education institutions? I do not know Carchidi’s work well. When I searched his name on the Internet, there were few references beyond this book and his board membership for Innovate, a peer reviewed online journal about online learning that is scheduled to appear July 2004. The context in which his research question is situated resonates of business jargon. He points out that “educational constituencies are united in seeking a learning experience that is of high quality, reasonable cost and sufficient individuality” (p. xi). This force is leading higher education away from a mass education (industrial) model and to a flexible and responsive (organizational) one. As a result, virtual educational organizations within institutions interact with a larger array of players. New, unfamiliar interactions are reshaping postsecondary education. However, he reminds us, not all virtual education is as innovative as one would think; some forms may be more transactional than transformational. Virtual educational strategies can replicate the deficiencies of traditional teaching methods as well as be used to support highly interactive and transformational learning environments that are responsive to students (or responsive to market forces). Virtual organization and governance For the purposes of his discussion, virtual means both technology-mediated distance education and organizations in which units are horizontally, vertically, and spatially integrated across multiple geographic locations. Virtual educational product delivery is place-variable (not face-to-face) and can be located in various types of network organizational structures. Some structures can be internal networks, where all resources are internal to the organization. This arrangement provides for control and predictability. Others may be stable networks, where partial outsourcing provides for flexibility and the ability to serve customers better. Yet others may be dynamic networks. They are the most flexible because of their vertical desegregation, reliance on brokering to structure and assemble network members, contracts and result-based compensation to provide organizational stability, and extensive information sharing systems to build trust quickly. They are also the rarest and most experimental. From the business perspective, virtual organizations may be a more stable form than their physical counterpart because of their constant focus on customer needs in attending to customer wants (Davidow & Malone, 1992). Managing virtual organizations requires a considerable amount of trust, because traditional administration and management mechanisms available in face-to-face environments are not available in the virtual one (Handy, 1995; Davidow & Malone, 1992). In higher education, the virtual organization has been introduced presumably to address a number of needs, including taking advantage of the power of technology to fuel educational reform and improvement (Van Dusen, 1997), and to improve educational access (Johnstone and Krauth, 1996; Jones, 1995; Rucker, 1998). Its advancement has been met with a number of challenges too, including those related to certification and accreditation requirements, and the human-technology interface. Virtual higher education governance structures are not all created equally. Hurst (1998) identifies six governance structure scenarios: The Open University (separate organization from existing public system), Governor’s University (brokered content from a variety of institutions), Virtual Community College and University (courses, content, degrees and certificates offered and managed by existing institutions), Institutional Competition and Consumer Advocacy (free market, open competition), Coordinated Collaboration (public higher education institutions choose which institutions will be responsible for provision of distance learning degrees), and Distance Learning products in existing organizational and institutional structures. Regardless of scenario, virtual higher education institutions operate in a rapidly changing marketplace. To survive, they themselves must be adaptable. Theoretical frameworks, premises, and virtual educational types Carchidi proposes a multifaceted conceptual frame that includes open systems theory, institutional theory, and resource dependence theory to understand the relationship between and among inter-organizational, intra-organizational, and extra-organizational forces that influence a virtual organization’s ability to adapt to new markets in a climate of uncertainty. Guided by this conceptual frame, and on the basis of comprehensive Web searches, examination of local and national education information databases, and conversations with practitioners and researchers, Carchidi introduces a typology of virtual postsecondary educational organizations: Business/Corporate (e.g., Dell University, Intel University), Stand-alone Proprietary (e.g., University of Phoenix Online), Proprietary Public and/or Private Higher Education Institution-Corporate sector Alliance (e.g., National Technological University), Public or Private Higher Education Institution Continuing Education (e.g., U-California Extension Center for Media and Independent Learning), Public Higher Education System Utility (e.g., Network for Education and Technology Services), Virtual Campus within a Public Higher Institution or System (e.g., Pennsylvania State University World Campus (Institution); Colorado Electronic Community College (System)), Statewide Consortium of Public and/or Private Higher Education Institutions (e.g., California Virtual University), Multi-State Consortium of Public and Private Higher Education Institutions (e.g., Western Governors University). Five illustrations Carchidi devotes a chapter to each of five virtual education programs selected for this study: University of Maine System Network for Education and Technology Services (formerly UNET), National Technological University (NTU), University of California Extension Center for Media and Independent Learning (CMIL), Colorado Electronic Community College (CECC), and Pennsylvania State University World Campus (World Campus). The criterion for selection was organizational type: internal or stable network; Carchidi did not include dynamic network organizations in his study because he considered them too experimental to offer enough meaningful data for analysis. Each case study includes an organizational overview, a description and history of the program, an analysis of the program that follows the conceptual framework outlined above, and commentary about the program’s organizational arrangements and administrative patterns. Carchidi provides a summary of lessons learned through each of them that are worthy of attention by others involved with similar virtual education organizations or those considering launching one. University of Maine System Network for Education and Technology Services (UNET) was framed to create a separate, virtual campus within the University of Maine System for the non-traditional student. Through UNET we learn that (1) Creation of a virtual education organization can create controversy; (2) Organizing for and delivering educational products collaboratively in community-based centers and technology mediated learning add value to higher education for students; (3) Virtual postsecondary education organizations operating in traditional universities may experience limited ability to innovate because of existing policies and decision-making structures; (4) Meeting the educational needs of a rural population dispersed in rugged territory is distinctly challenging, and technology support issues should not be underestimated by virtual education administrators or virtual education policymakers. National Technological University (NTU) was one of the first virtual postsecondary education organizations to form a for-profit arm and use venture capital funding to grow organizational capacity and reach. NTU relies heavily upon developing trust and collaborative relationships with its clients: students who purchase its services and universities who provide educational content. NTU’s experience teaches that leadership resides in the private sector as well as the academic arena. Whether the presence of both types of leadership complements or contradicts each other, however, is an open question. In the cases of the University of California Extension Center for Media and Independent Learning (CMIL) and the Colorado Electronic Community College (CECC) collaboratives, a number of positive and problematic occurrences arose. We learn in the case of CMIL that the association with a highly regarded institution is an advantage for defining an institutional identity; it can also be a hindrance in bringing new educational products to market in a timely manner because of the already existing academic review process. We learn from CECC that a longstanding relationship with a private company can be strategic, but it also permits a less strategic vendor relationship that is supplier-oriented instead of student centered. It is also risky to place too much organizational knowledge in an external organization. Carchidi argues that partnership with a telecommunications infrastructure provider can help improve product design and educational product marketing, and external grant funding legitimizes this type of virtual educational enterprise. From the higher educational perspective, this argument may be a difficult one to justify. Penn State’s World Campus is an important experiment in postsecondary education as a design that draws exclusively from internal resources and maintains a Penn State “brand”. This model remains centered faculty expertise, which most in the organization believe is critical to ensuring course quality and adherence to institutional norms. The World Campus will continue to serve as a model for other similarly situated postsecondary educational institutions to observe, especially with respect to strategies employed to drive innovation, grow revenue, and define itself in the marketplace. Comparisons and implications In the next chapter, Carchidi draws comparisons between internal and stable network organizations, synchronous and asynchronous delivery systems, niche and broader-market orientations, strong and weaker ties to business, and length of time program has existed. Internal networks’ reliance on resources within the organization limits their choices with respect to functional expertise or access to other resources not available internally. Legitimacy is derived from measures of student satisfaction and grant funding. Negotiated relationships with external entities are not associated with program development process. Instructors retain control over course content process, which was not overly sensitive to accreditation standards. Stable network organizations have more elaborate contacts and relationships with dissimilar organizations within their environment. Legitimacy in the stable network organizations studied is derived from affiliation with a highly regarded parent institution (e.g., University of California at Berkeley and the Colorado Community College System). Unlike internal network organizations, stable network organizations’ content providers are frequently outsourced and content development tied to accreditation and other concerns. Innovation, for stable network organizations, flows to them through their external partners. For internal network organizations, the flow of innovation to them comes through faculty expertise and other internal resources. In the internal network organization there are fewer restrictions to the flow of innovation than there would be in the stable organization because the expertise is readily available within the organization. However, the level of innovation is only as great as the capacity of internal resources to demonstrate innovation. Programs using synchronous delivery modes have extensive technology support and to incorporate new technologies as they became available. In programs using asynchronous delivery modes, there was lesser attention to technology support. More responsibility was placed on the learner to ensure that the technology functioned in asynchronous delivery environments than there was in synchronous delivery environments. Educational products with a niche market focus place greater emphasis on understanding markets and translating the understanding into specific products than educational products with broader market foci. Niche market products utilize a vetting process to link marketing function with academic content developers. Products for a broader market use a less systematic linking method, because they have a less distinct understanding of their market. For niche market products there is a clear sense of who the audience is and what support the instructor needs. Such was not the case for the products oriented to a broader market. Administrators in niche market oriented organizations are aware of the requirement to make a profit or break even. They are generally more likely than administrators in broader market-oriented organizations to assess the competition before launching new programs. Products aimed at a broader market use a more free-flowing content development process with amenable instructors. Although making a profit is of primary concern in niche-market-oriented organizations, matching the needs of students with educational programming is more important in broader-market-oriented organizations. Administrators of programs with a broader-market focus spoke of their product’s accessibility and convenience. They defined quality in terms of the program’s ability to improve the economic status of the learner. Administrators of niche market oriented products were more likely to market the product on the basis of high quality, well defined, and distinctive content. Programs with strong ties to business and industry tend to be more likely to place a high value on collaboration among partners and on their internal interactions than programs with weaker ties do. Programs with stronger ties also demonstrated fewer overt conflicts over their respective organizations’ values orientation. For programs with weaker ties to business and industry, collaboration was manifest in service to students, rather than a vehicle for creating an operating advantage for the program. Programs with weaker ties to business and industry are more likely to encounter values conflicts in areas such as standardization of the educational product and quality education, the appropriateness of various degrees and scopes of interactions with business and industry as they relate to the academic standards of the institution. Older virtual organizations have historical relationships with their organizing units. These relationships influence their purpose. Programs in older organizations do not view themselves as change agents; they view themselves as leaders, and leadership stops short of a mission to drive new ideas or changes into other organizations. Newer organizations are more likely to view themselves as change agents. These organizations are more likely to engender new relationships that push other campus units into new territory and threatened existing arrangements. The adaptive challenge for virtual education organization and administration Carchidi finds four adaptive problems that virtual education institutions must work to solve: Match market opportunities to organizational capacity. The historical purpose or mission of the institution can create barriers or incentives to develop specific markets. Also, the ability to understand the market may be influenced by the strength of ties to other organizations or groups whose expertise can be used to shape the virtual organization. Organizational leadership advocacy, technology selection that matches organizational and market expectations, and appropriately structured vetting processes mediate the problem. The extent to which generating revenue is a priority; the organization’s ability to understand, respond to, and overcome pressures and demands on content developers; and the extent to which the organization is seen as a competitor influence the understanding and mobilization of capacity to meet market opportunities. Design systems that connect market opportunities to organizational capacity. Factors to consider for systems design include (a) the degree to which the organization is embedded within existing structures; (b) the degree to which financial aid and accreditation policies are viewed as important to the organization; (c) the degree of autonomy and discretion that leaders have to design a system that reflects or differs from the values expressed by particular constituents; (d) the degree to which external relationships can be incorporated within the system’s functional areas and their importance to the operation of the organization; and (e) technology selection methods to deliver the educational product. Manage the system. Consider how organizational leaders control and stabilize the system they have designed and how they foster new innovations from the system. Each way to achieve control and stabilization is unique to its context and is not normally generalizable to other contexts. In some instances, outsourcing is appropriate; in others it is not. The presence of an organizational champion is important regardless of the context. The network system fosters organizational learning, especially in stable networks where critical resources may be located outside of the virtual organization. Organizations with more experience in finding common ground and fostering collaboration derive the greatest value from their virtual educational system. Establish legitimacy of the system and its products. Product legitimacy is influenced by the product’s distinctiveness in the marketplace as projected through marketing. It is also influenced by the institution’s organizational system and learner satisfaction. System legitimacy is influenced by the degree to which the organization is viewed as a competitor and change agent by other units in the institution. It is also influenced by the organization’s relationship with the larger organizing structure and the degree of external recognition received by the virtual organization. These four elements constitute the adaptation cycle of virtual postsecondary educational organizations. Legitimizing and managing are in reciprocal relationship. System and product legitimization determines the match between market and organizational capacity. How market and organizational capacity are to be matched determines system designs. System designs influence management functions. As the virtual educational organization develops and grows in response to the changing marketplace, this adaptation cycle repeats itself. Implications for practice Carchidi acknowledges that competition in the marketplace and the notion that knowledge is a commodity that can be bought and sold may be troubling to some. He adds that we may also find that virtual postsecondary educational organizations are not necessarily comfortable, though they may be interesting places to work. Virtual organizational development is both a top-down and bottom-up matter. Senior level forces create these entities, and lower level forces keep them alive. The purpose of virtual education is not to attract students from other educational delivery models; its purpose is to attract additional students. Some professors may argue, however, that placing courses online disconnects them from teaching the courses, and they do not own their content anymore. Virtual educational institutions redefine boundaries. The market no longer is necessarily limited to the local area in which the bricks-and-mortar institution is situated. The market reaches as far as the technology can reach, which may be as close as the dorm room on campus or as far away as the other side of the earth. Partnerships, whether developed within the institution or between the organization and others through outsourcing arrangements, play an important role in developing new products and adding credibility to the virtual educational organization. Yet the more innovative the partnership is structurally, the less distinctive its identity may be in the marketplace. In the case of NTU, for instance, customers may recognize the content providers better than they recognize NTU. Content is the most important resource, and technology is a critical vehicle for teaching and learning in the virtual context. Content developers—be they faculty or consultants—must be committed to the concept and practice of virtual learning. Organizations with strong reputations should decide to develop niche market products, while organizations with strong convenience orientations should choose to develop broader market products. The latest technology is not necessary to achieve success; matching the best technology to serve targeted needs well is. Technology-mediated instruction will raise learners’ expectations for technology-mediated administration. Consequently, student service functions need to be as technologically advanced as the technology-mediated instruction is. Outsourcing instructional technology systems is risky; because it is a core competency, instructional technology must remain in the organization for organizational success. State government leaders and other policy makers must realize that virtual educational organizations are economic development instruments that reach into other sectors and industries, and knowledge is the export commodity. When understood as an economic development device, federal policies, such as financial aid policies, may be interpreted as restraining trade in the states. Change in longstanding perspectives about higher education is required at all levels of government. The findings of this study may lead higher education faculty and administrators to look less at the organizational chart and more toward the network of relationships in their organizations as a roadmap to the virtual organization. An effect of this approach will be to identify key actors who are critical in solving the adaptation cycle problem. For faculty, the implications point to change from a faculty-centric perspective to a learner-centered one. The learner-centered view acknowledges that relationships in the virtual environment are highly negotiated and not a matter of control and compliance by any of the key players in the organization—students, faculty, administrators, or other stakeholders. However, some faculty affected by the loss of intellectual property to online courses may argue that virtual learning is not highly negotiated. Carchidi’s research did not consider this aspect of virtual learning. Carchidi recommends that entrepreneurs and venture capitalists work to solve the problems associated with the adaptive cycle through various methods, such as providing marketing systems or technology services with data mining capability or serving as a partner in the development of educational products (e.g., a management consulting firm might partner with a school of business in offering an executive certificate). Also, though a healthy revenue stream is necessary to support and grow the virtual educational organization, the presence of sufficient “relationship capital” is also a necessary indicator of a viable investment. For this reason, Carchidi recommends that investors inquire not only about the revenue stream but also about the nature of relationships when considering an investment. Carchidi admits to two limitations of his study. The first is that because these organizations remake themselves at a rapid pace, the cases may or may not represent an accurate image of organizational types (or even if an accurate representation is indeed something that can be defined). Second, he is concerned that the adaptation cycle is too idiosyncratic to be used as an analytical device. The adaptation cycle remains essentially a conceptual approach for understanding the virtual educational organization. Conclusion Carchidi concludes that it is the responsibility of educational research to explore questions of theoretical and empirical import and to consider the utility of research for practical application (p. 214). He acknowledges the need for a theoretically derived model to support research on virtual educational organizations. Without such a model, research efforts will be undermined and educational practice not enriched because there will be no body of knowledge to guide the future design, development, and management of these organizations and their products. Though I can agree with Carchidi’s assessment of the contribution of his research to the field, I am not certain that the theoretical approach that he proposes is the only pathway to a comprehensive understanding of distance learning. Vrasidas and Glass’s work reminds us of Popper and Meehl’s assertion that “theories can only be refuted, not confirmed; and a theory that is not falsifiable is not informative” (Vrasidas and Glass, 2002, p. 46). Viewing distance learning through a single theoretical lens limits our ability to understand all the nuances of the field, its organization, and its administrative arrangements. Carchidi’s focus on the importance of trust and “relationship capital” is well taken, yet his analysis fails to capture the places where relationships can be assessed (i.e. at the teacher-learner, teacher-content; learner-learner, and learner-content, and especially the professor-program administrator interface). Research in the areas of social capital, networking, and team-building—such as those referred to by Lieberman and Grolnick (1996) and Gallego, Hollingsworth and Whitenack (2001)—may provide the reader additional insight, especially for the administration of virtual postsecondary education institutions whose marketplace is global. Cultural norms for the student may be different from and unfamiliar to the “home office” of the virtual institution, and Carchidi has not devoted enough attention to outstanding issues related to ownership of intellectual property in virtual higher education (see Euben, 2000; Twigg, 2000). Carchidi’s focus on psychological and physical distance as defining factors in distance learning limits the understanding of the field. Burbules and Callister (2000) argue …as the Internet becomes not only an archive of information, but an actual medium of communication and collaboration… the metaphors of “distance” and “delivery” (transporting something over a distance to give to someone) are less appropriate for the kinds of educational interactions that are possible within this new technological environment. Their argument points to the use of technology to support a collaborative workspace, in which educative interaction would take place and is supported by Vrasidas and Glass (2002) who point out additional technology tools that were not available earlier offer functionalities not available in earlier generations of distance education. Nonetheless, Carchidi’s point that distance learning is to open new markets and not redirect existing ones is also well taken. However, what is intended as an ideal and what actually happens may be two different things: Some may argue that poorly informed administrators may use distance learning technologies to reduce staffing in existing markets rather than limit their use to attracting new, untapped markets. Under ideal circumstances, the new markets may very well be at a geographic or psycho-cultural distance. Building a collaborative workspace for this level of diversity requires careful consideration of content and learning context of the students. Respecting and rewarding the professor who elects to provide educational opportunities via distance learning is also an important consideration. To make the most effective use of available technologies, we need to know that the virtual educational environment is an appropriate context for specific educational purposes. Where the educational purpose cannot be served virtually, we need a knowledge base that will support that assertion. We also need a knowledge base that supports the notion that alternative educational experiences can serve the same purpose. Otherwise, we risk promoting a transactional virtual learning experience no better than mediocre face-to-face instruction. The virtual environment is an appropriate venue for transformational learning experiences, and properly implemented technology tools can provide an incomparable learning environment that involves experiences that would not be even remotely possible in the more traditional face-to-face environment. A research base that clearly defines what educational purposes can be served by what virtual learning tools would help virtual postsecondary educational organizations deploy the best tool for the purpose. Finally, I would recommend consideration of research from the education community with respect to leadership and administration in virtual postsecondary education and how virtual leadership varies from and is similar to that of leadership in place-bound settings. Carchidi’s book approaches virtual educational organization and administration from a business perspective that provides a portion of the overall virtual education picture. The reader would clearly benefit from additional perspectives on distance learning and its organizational, institutional, and administrative arrangements. As I reflect over my Long Island experience in light of Carchidi’s research, I understand better how administrative functions were distributed throughout the network and my place as one of a distributed administrative team. Other similarly situated educators and researchers are likely to benefit from reading this book. It is not likely to be easy reading, but both embedded and implied messages are important ones to consider—by practicing distance learning administrators and by those intending to launch virtual learning programs in their institutions. References Burbules, N. and Callister, T. (2000). Universities in transition: The promise and the challenge of new technologies. Teachers College Record, 102 (2), pp. 271-293. Colorado Electronic Community College. Website was unavailable on May 6, 2004: http://www.cccoes.edu/cecc/home.htm. Davidow, W. H. & Malone, M.S. (1992). The Virtual Corporation. New York: HarperBusiness. Euben, D. (2000). Distance Learning and Intellectual Property: Ownership and Related Faculty Rights and Responsibilities. Washington, DC: American Association of University Professors. Retrieved May 17, 2004, from http://www.aaup.org/Legal/info%20outlines/legdl.htm. Gallego, M., Hollingsworth, S. and Whitenack, D. (2001). Relational knowing in the reform of educational cultures. Teachers College Record, 103 (2), pp. 240-266. Handy, C. (1995, May/June). Trust and the virtual organization. Harvard Business Review, 73, 40-50. Hurst, F. (1998). So you want to start a virtual university? On the Horizon, 6 (4), 1-8. Innovate: Journal of Online Education. Fort Lauderdale, FL: Nova Southeastern University. Retrieved May 14, 2004, from http://horizon.unc.edu/innovate/guidelines/. Johnstone, S.M. & Krauth, B. (1996, March/April). Some principles of good practice for the virtual university. Change, 38-41. Jones, D. P. (1995). Higher education and high technology: A case for joint action (Report No. HE 029 147), Boulder, CO: National Center for Education Management Systems. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 400 721). Lieberman, A. & Grolnick, M. (1996). Networks and reform in American education. Teachers College Record, 98 (1), pp. 7-45. National Technical University. Retrieved May 6, 2004, from http://www.ntu.edu/index.asp. Penn State World Campus. Retrieved May 6, 2004, from http://www.worldcampus.psu.edu/pub/index.shtml. Rucker, T. (1998, August-September). Accrediting virtual classes is key to remaining competitive. Community College Journal, 69 (1), 36-40. UNET: The University of Maine System Network. Retrieved May 6, 2004, from http://www.unet.maine.edu/. University of California – Berkeley Extension Online. Center for Media and Independent Learning. Retrieved May 6, 2004, from http://www-cmil.unex.berkeley.edu/. Twigg, C. (2000). Who Owns Online Courses and Course Materials? Intellectual Property Policies for a New Learning Environment. Troy, NY: Center for Academic Transformation, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. Retrieved May 17, 2004, from http://center.rpi.edu/PewSym/Mono2.pdf. Van Dusen, G.C. (1997). The Virtual Campus: Technology and Reform in Higher Education. Washington, DC: Ashe-Eric Higher Education Report, 25, (5). Vrasidas, C. & Glass, G.. (2002). A Conceptual Framework for Studying Distance Education. In C. Vrasidas & G. V Glass (Eds.) Distance Education and Distributed Learning, pp. 31-55. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. About the Reviewer Elsie Szecsy is a research professional in the College of Education, Arizona State University. Her professional interests include education policy development as it relates to Latino and other students of color and their families, and the use of interactive technologies to support education reforms that lead to equitable educational opportunities for all students. Previously, Dr. Szecsy coordinated a distance learning network that linked high schools across Long Island (NY) with each other for the purpose of sharing instruction. This partnership project involved the Board of Cooperative Educational Services (BOCES) of Nassau County, Eastern Suffolk (County) BOCES, and over twelve area school districts from the New York City line in Nassau County to Long Island’s East End. The network offered real time, technology-mediated high school courses and professional development events that would have otherwise not been available to area students, teachers and school administrators. Dr. Szecsy is also an experienced foreign language and English language arts teacher at the middle and high school levels, and has taught courses in curriculum development and assessment, educational foundations, educational technology, and educational administration at various New York metropolitan area colleges and universities.