Going Online: Pitfalls and Best Practices in Distance Education
Declining enrollments and the expanding universe of students made possible by technology all over the world have made conversations about the use of distance education unavoidable in higher education. Administrators are asked by their Boards how technology is being implemented to expand the reach of their universities, and faculty often watch on in horror as the traditional classroom lecture format is declining in favor compared to “flipped classrooms,” competency-based learning, asynchronous online lectures, adaptive learning, and virtual advising. Between 2002 and 2012, “the number of undergraduate students taking online courses increased by approximately 23 percent” (Braude & Merrill, 2013) and as online courses have grown more and more common place, Parker et al. (2011) estimate that 61% of liberal arts colleges, 79% of research universities, and 82% of community college offer some online options. This chapter looks at the history and current development of distance education and provides administrators and faculty guidance and best practices on the many decisions required to successfully implement technology to expand academic offerings.
The Rise of Distance Education
Distance education is hardly a new phenomenon in higher education. The practice dates back as far as the 1800, and was common in the United States through correspondence schools in the 1900s that offered rural and poor learners the opportunity to expand their skills, often in the disciplines of business, history, accounting, and administrative services (Harting & Erthal, 2005). As education in the United States grew with the return of veterans from World War II and the passage of the Higher Education Act, the number of institutions and types of programs to serve them swelled (Geiger, 2014). The adaptation of education to serve different segments of the population (veterans, women, working adults, and other nontraditional students) led administrators around the country to continue to ask questions about how to expand access and provide more convenient pathways to educational institutions. And, while adaptation occurred with night courses, part-time programs, and instructional sequencing to ease pathways to degrees, nothing was more transformative to education than the almost overnight ubiquity of networked computers and the realization that knowledge was no longer bound to lecture halls and library stacks. Early adopters, like Glen R. Jones at Jones International University and John Sperling, who created the University of Phoenix through the Institute for Professional Development’s partnership with the University of San Francisco, saw the opportunity of taking the classroom to the masses through technology (Breneman et al., 2006; Harting & Erthal, 2005). These efforts, however, were only the early tremors in the seismic shift of private profits and not-for-profits into online education to serve a growing population of adult learners returning to school. What distance learning was, is, and could be is a product of the mass availability and mass comfort with technology balanced against the traditions of education, which yield slowly to the inevitability of evolution.
This evolution of distance education that began mainly as correspondence classes, where students would be sent workbooks or textbooks by mail and asked to complete exercises, which would be returned to the correspondent school, graded, and a certificate of completion created transformed with the creation of the Internet. The Internet initially eliminated only the mailing of documents, as schools such as Fielding Graduate School in Santa Barbra, California and others now had the ability to communicate and transmit materials (mostly text-based content rather than audio or visual materials) instantaneously. Several technology firms saw the opportunity to create warehouses of documents (such as written lectures, assignments, readings, and examinations) and the ability to create discussion boards for students to interact in real time (synchronous) and at their own pace (asynchronous). Many universities used online platforms as augmentations to their traditional courses, posting assignments and readings that might traditionally be held on reserve in the university’s library collections. The platforms expanded to give faculty the ability to have students submit assignments to the platform (or electronic dropbox), grade and repost the assignments in the platform, and keep a constantly available and updated gradebook for students. The richness of content evolved as the technology and bandwidth expanded, and professors were soon given the ability to transmit and record lectures (first in audio and later with video) giving students the ability to participate in real time or to watch them at their own pace and from any location. As can be imagined, any resistance to technology in the classroom was magnified a hundred-fold with the growing possibility that academic content (and the lecture itself) could be recorded and owned by the university, perhaps thereby making the faculty less important, if not obsolete. The fears of faculty have largely not come to pass, but faculty remain the heart and soul of most institutions, and adopting, expanding, and excelling at distance education requires an understanding of its strengths and limitations and an administration that is able to partner with faculty. These challenges will be addressed later, but as a concluding note on “traditional” online courses, it is important to understand what distance education looks like for students as of this writing. Most students arrive at a course through a web-portal and are immediately met by an experience that is wholly two-dimensional. Many universities work with vendors that can help build more “robust environments,” but few as of today are able to provide much more than inspiring images, text, and perhaps a welcome video. There are chat boxes and classroom updates (again, almost all in text form), and there is navigation that typically takes students through learning units (which are essentially a file folder with elements such as readings, quizzes, videos, lectures, and simulations). Most students that take online courses today have little interaction with the faculty outside of discussion boards and limited feedback on assignments. Institutions generally shy away from synchronous lectures or activities (where students arrive in the online environment all at once and participate remotely) because in most cases students are from diverse geographic regions of the country (sometimes even diverse countries) or have outside commitments that make being in one place at a particular time inconvenient or impossible. I have taught several classes where my students logged in from military combat overseas, or from an aircraft carrier across the world, and enforcing their attendance in a 6 p.m. Pacific Standard Time lecture was not feasible.
These current practices in online technology are in some ways accompanied by a movement that gained notoriety in the early 2000s when some of the very best courses offered by elite universities like Harvard, Stanford, Princeton, and Penn were offered online for free. Massive Open Online Courses (MOOC) and the MOOC movement faded initially for mostly economic reasons, which will be discussed later, but the MOOC signaled a shift in how people began to think about distance education. Why would every university offer a Political Science 101 course if the best political scientist in the world was willing to give away his lectures and learning materials for free?The technology platforms quickly adapted to the opportunity and created adaptive learning opportunities, where the course content and assessments shift according to the abilities and learning style of the learner. The kernel of the MOOC is that hundreds of thousands of people from around the world can take a course together, synchronously or asynchronously, from the best instructors in the world (often for free), and the technology around the courses put student learning at the heart of the exercise.
As a significant early adopter of technology and with a focus on innovation and access, Western Governors University grew to become a significant player in what has become known as competency-based learning. Though existing in many forms, the basic premise is that learners can access prerecorded content online and complete assignments that demonstrate that they have mastered the recorded content that matches to learning outcomes in an academic program. Apart from giving learners the opportunity to self-pace, competency-based learning did something even more significant, redefined the meaning of the “credit hour,” or the seat time that a student had to occupy in order to qualify for academic credit (and the financial aid dollars precisely measured against that credit paid to the institution). This decoupling of seat time and student learning signal a fundamental shift in how academics think about what constitutes appropriate rigor and student contact, and requires administrators to be even more familiar with accreditation standards, assessment, and the complexities of financial aid and other forms of student funding.
With over a century of distance education and three decades of online education, more than three quarters of the nation’s colleges and universities now offer some form of online course; about one-in-four college graduates have taken at least one course online; and “among college graduates who have taken a class online, 15% have earned a degree entirely online” (Parker et al., 2011, p. 3, 7). This explosion has given rise to a number of questions about the effectiveness and quality of online education, its true value as a mode of academic delivery, its ability to lower the cost of education, what constitutes best practices, and the appropriate role of faculty and administrators in this evolution of what constitutes higher education.
Educational Effectiveness and Quality: Does Online Education Work?
Administrators and faculty are often asked about the quality of online offerings, and a significant amount of skepticism exists as to the quality of an online degree versus a traditional degree. Young adults are just as skeptical about online education as older adults; “just three-in-ten American adults (29%) say a course taken online provides an equal educational value to one taken in a classroom”;by contrast, “fully half of college presidents (51%) say online courses provide the same value” (Parker et al., 2011, p. 3). In another study, Parker et al. (2011, p. 11) found that only 29% of all respondents said online classes offer an equal value to on-site courses. Studies on the value “signaled” by a degree from an online University point out that the skepticism is shared by employers, calling into question for many the value proposition of the online degree (Parker et al., 2011, p.11). However, while there may be questions at large about the value of online education and a degree offered 100% online, significant research has studied the effectiveness of online course offerings and demonstrated its effectiveness (Scheg, 2015, p. 245). In general, online courses can be just effective or more effective than traditional onsite courses (Bartholomew, 2010; Braude & Merrill, 2013, p. 51; Beck, 2010; Diaz, 2002; Means et al., 2010, p. xiv; Scheg, 2015, pp. 245–246). Research has shown that the effectiveness of the courses is often tied to the discipline and the type of learning that typically occurs, and that “instruction combining online and face-to-face elements had a larger advantage relative to purely face-to-face instruction than did purely online, instruction” (Means et al., 2010, p. xv). For instance, an undergraduate survey course taught in large lecture halls with limited interaction is in many ways comparable to an online course; materials are presented to a large group of students who digest the material and demonstrate their understanding on an examination. The level of one-on-one engagement may actually be higher in an online course, where attendance is monitored and the faculty engages with the students in regular discussion board posts. Even graduate courses have been shown to be as effective in some disciplines when measuring satisfaction and student learning outcomes (Hansen, 2001, pp. 995–996). Like the characteristics of successful on-site students, successful online students have been found to have characteristics that should be considered when designing and implementing courses; these characteristics include being more disciplined, organized, self-motivated, and technologically knowledgeable” (Hiltz & Goldman, 2004). Structuring courses to attract, retain, and continually engage these students is critical, and often dependent upon the learning management systems (LMS). Learning analytics embedded in some LMS systems can help select at-risk students, which can help administrators redeploy resources, and significantly increase retention, a significant measure for many in determining the success of an online program. However, while there is no substitute for a high-quality faculty member, the best LMS and systems are “…far beyond the capability of individual instructors to create on their own, and are typically developed by teams of cognitive scientist, software engineers, instructional designers, and users interface experts” (Bacow et al., 2012, p. 7).
While there are few agreed-upon standards in modeling what constitutes the very best in online education, a growing number of journals and conferences offer resources to those who seek best practices (Fish and Wickersham, 2009). Alley and Jansak (2001) have identified keys to quality online learning, including creating an environment where knowledge is constructed, not transmitted; where students are provided learning activities that match their learning styles; where courses provide “mental white space” for reflection; where solitary and interpersonal activities are interspersed; where inaccurate learning is identified and corrected; where “Spiral learning” provides for revisiting and expanding prior lessons; and where a master teacher is available to guide the learning process (Alley & Jansak, 2001, pp. 6–17).
Chickering and Ehrmann (1997) contend that the power of online technologies will be fully realized only if their use is consistent with newer pedagogies of teaching that place students more in the role of creators of knowledge. The authors suggest that the best online teaching should encourage contact between students and faculty, develop reciprocity and cooperation among students, use active learning techniques, give prompt feedback, emphasize time on task, communicate high expectations, and respect diverse talents and ways of learning (1997). “High quality online instruction encourages discovery, integration, application, and practices. Instructors need to discover students’ learning preferences, integrate technology tools, apply appropriate instructional techniques, put them all into practices, and generate the most suitable method for individuals” (Yang & Cornelious, 2005).
As the research continues to grow, so does the recognition of grant-funded projects to disseminate best practices. Quality Matters, for example, is an organization representing institutions across high education and K-12 that focuses upon peer-reviewed process to certify the quality of an online or blended course. The organization provides rubrics that can help administrators understand the key components of a highly evolved online course and gives administrators and faculty the opportunity to participate in a review process that offers some guidance on whether a university’s courses comply with their standards (Quality Matters, 2015). Some of the standards from Quality Matters include learning activities that are tied to learning objectives and program competencies; clear guidance for technical support; utilization of appropriate multimedia and a variety of instructional materials; the course clearly defines the expectations of the students and “netiquette” for online discussions; and that learning activities provide opportunities for interactions that support learning (Quality Matters, 2015).
Given the volume of research and years of practical application, it is clear that high-quality online education is an effective method for delivering high-quality educational content for selected disciplines. The quickly evolving opportunities in educational platforms, a growing number of high-quality content providers, and a quickly expanding locus of scholarship and best practices in online education give faculty and administrators a clearer perspective on the value of online education and a roadmap for quality and educational effectiveness.
The Costs of Implementation and the Cost of Higher Education
The costs of implementing an online educational system can be significant. Many institutions utilize an established Learning Management System, such as Blackboard, most of which would typically charge a per course (or per student per course) fee with certain guaranteed minimums on an annual basis. Additional fees would likely be for technical support for students in the platform and technical support for faculty in the platform, with significantly higher fees for additional built-in content or course design assistance. University administrators currently have build-it versus buy-it options from many vendors who offer universities complete catalogs of courses with built-in textbooks, audio–visual content, examinations, gradebooks, and tracking analytics. These buy-it options often are billed on a per user fee with wireframes and banners adjusted to brand the courses with a particular university’s name, color, logos, et cetera. Even more venture capital groups are reaching out to universities to offer online course content, learning management systems, entire degree programs, and recruitment services for a significant portion of tuition revenue (Pianko & Jarrett, 2012). This ever-expanding market is fueled by the $8 billion annual college textbook industry, which sees its role as moving further into content delivery, rather than just content creation (Parker et al., 2011, p. 14).
As schools struggle to achieve enrollment gains and manage debt, more and more are selecting these profit-sharing models rather than purchasing LMS systems, building online colleges, hiring and retaining online faculty, and managing a distinct set of student engagement activities to ensure student success. And, in considering whether to buy-it or build-it, timing should be considered just as seriously as potential costs. Many universities establish launch timelines that are unrealistic given their capabilities, which can ultimately lead to launching poor-quality courses (which will undoubtedly affect student satisfaction and referrals in the long run). Most high-quality online courses take over 100 hours of course design time from an instructor, and then just as many hours of a course designer working with a faculty member to ensure quality and proper student experience. An excellent quality assurance process would have an expert in course design taking the class well before it is seen by students to ensure that content and links function properly. Beyond the frustration of students who experience a poorly designed course, a significant driver of increased costs is poorly functioning course content that cause students and faculty to retain customer service and design services last minute. Some universities have worked with their LMS provider to establish links within each page of a course to identify problems that are sent directly to the faculty or program chair. In a well-constructed system of this kind, all users become quality assurance experts, who provide ongoing feedback to the owner of the course content.
Bacow et al.’s (2012) research into implementation and quality issues across higher education noted administrator’s desire to generate revenue, increase international program recognition, and recruit beyond existing geographies to be among the primary drivers of the adoption of online programs. The financial success of added online programming is not guaranteed, with an often intensive initial capital investment, significant competition, and a steep learning curve to successfully deliver the courses. However, the most successful programs were those that “…have established a separate program with a difference (lower) cost structure, often using less expensive space, adjuncts or other lower cost faculty, and a separate administrative apparatus, while charging tuition equal to or even sometimes greater than the tuition charged for traditional courses” (Bacow et al., 2012, p. 9). In analyzing the costs of implementing online education, it is clear that administrators must undergo an extensive review of potential vendors, utilize professional networks and consultant when available to understand current pricing models and vendor options, understand the initial costs and timing of implementation, and grapple with the growing competition and need for quality to preserve the institution’s brand and student experience.
The Opportunities of Implementing Distance Education
Most Boards and presidents see online education as an opportunity to expand the geographic reach of their institution and to recruit students that would not traditionally be candidates for their degree programs. Many universities see the added opportunities for purchasing already tested and implemented academic programs as an opportunity to diversify program offerings. While both are possible, a scan of the environment should yield caution. There are many established players in the online marketplace, most of whom have shared administrators and faculty and learned collectively the lessons of online adoption. Challenges with recruitment and retention (Allen & Seaman, 2013; Frankola, 2001; Neumann, 1998) are ominous and often require a rethinking of the role of faculty and advisors. As addressed above, many institutions have adapted to this either by moving almost entirely online or by creating a separate college with distinct differences in the culture and day-to-day work of faculty and staff. In a space with existing competitors, marketing can be a challenge, with an institution’s entry not even guaranteeing the potential students who must be cultivated and recruited with different forms of engagement: e-mail, social media videos, online meet-ups, electronic welcome kits, and customer management systems with automated engagement campaigns to monitor a potential student’s level of interest prior to admission and registration.
Creating a Culture of Evidence and Excellence in Online Education
The growing opportunities in online education should lead administrators not only to ask whether their institution should adopt online offerings but also to ask how to build cultures of evidence and excellence to differentiate their institutions from peers. According to Twigg (2001) many problems can arise as institutions make the transition to online offerings because of different quality standards and the appropriate measurement of quality and student outcomes in online offerings. Traditional faculty may be resistant not only to teaching online courses but also to recruiting new faculty with specialized expertise, feeling that the shift of focus in pedagogy or specialization might impact their own teaching or departmental importance. These issues transcend just online education, and represent larger discussions about the role of faculty and the “locus of authority” in higher educational institutions as institutions inevitably shift to address changing circumstances (Bowen & Lack, 2013; Bowen & Tobin, 2015). Faculty must remain a central focus of the process of implementing and evaluating program quality, both for as Deubel (2003) has argued, “an instructor’s attitude, motivation, and true commitment affect much of the quality of online instruction” (as cited in, Yang & Cornelious, 2005, p. 5).
Obtaining buy-in from faculty and administrators on what qualifies as quality in online development and delivery has been challenging for many institutions because of differences between disciplines. Administrators tend to advocate one-size-fits all templates for course development and archiving, which is often at odds with faculty who desire to have unique versions of their courses. Even finding agreement between faculty and administration on how to evaluate the quality of the teaching, learning, and content in online courses can be difficult. To alleviate some of those tensions, many universities have created online divisions with distinct faculty, administrators, and processes; other universities have created administrative support departments to partner with faculty to design and evaluate courses within the traditional structure of a university. Under any structure, administrators should partner with faculty and staff to recognize best practices within the institution in course design and course delivery. Creating “faculty champions” can help build consensus and buy-in for what constitutes appropriate levels of achievement for both students and faculty. Ultimately, creating excellence and evaluating the quality of courses require a faculty evaluation structure that has the ability to recognize and reward, and subsequently integrate evaluation of online activities into ongoing program review. These evaluations should include both the clarity and relevance of course outcomes, the relevance of course material to the discipline and course outcomes, the quality of participation of faculty and students in online activities, the ease of navigation, the ease of access and integration to course materials, and ongoing evaluation from both the student’s and faculty’s perspective of the quality of the course design and delivery.
Conclusion
As demand for online courses continue to increase, competition will assuredly continue to push institutions, platforms, and content providers to become more adept. This will come with a need for constant faculty evolution, greater communication and online skills, and greater time commitment to creating a vibrant learning environment in a sea of providers (Gallien & Oomen-Early, 2008, p. 463).
Issues of workload and the evaluation of instructor and design quality will necessarily go hand-in-hand as faculty and administrators work to find a balance between academic freedom, the appropriate role of faculty, workload, and the role of administrators and the Board in shaping the trajectory of an institution trying to adapt to a changing ecology of education. In evaluating whether to make the transition to online education, administrators should keep these balances in mind as they work with faculty to develop programs and courses, carefully consider the costs of implementing online systems, constantly evaluate the quality of outcomes to create competitive advantage and promote value within the institution, and be cognizant of the signaling to external constituents that online education can create and reinforce. Going online is not a simple decision, but rather part of a larger set of strategies aligned with institutional reach and mission (Figure 6.1). Engaging the board, faculty, alumni is critical for buy-in, and empirically evaluating the opportunities and challenges in entering into an increasingly competitive space can help create realistic timelines and budgets to ensure long-term success. In the end, administrators must weigh whether their institution’s traditional methods and offerings will continue to hold competitive value in the quickly shifting ecology of higher education or whether they will side with most experts predicting a seismic shift requiring a rethinking of how to expand access, reduce costs, and draw upon the best content from around the globe to capture the attention and imagination of the modern student.
Figure 6.1 Evaluation of the decision to go online.
Allen, I.E., & Seaman, J. (2013). Changing Course: Ten Years of Tracking Online Education in the United States. Babson Survey Research Group and Quahog Research Group, LLC. Retrieved from http://www.onlinelearningsurvey.com/reports/changingcourse.pdf.
Alley, L.R., & Jansak, K.E. (2001). The ten keys to quality assurance and assessment in Online Learning. Journal of Interactive Instruction Development, 13(3), 3–18.
Bacow, L.S., Bowen, W.G., Guthrie, K.M., Lack, K.A., & Long, M.P. (2012). Barriers to adoption of online learning systems in US higher education. New York, NY: Ithaka S+ R.
Bartholomew, D. (2010). Colleges embrace online education. Daily Breeze. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/755008217?accountid=25307.
Braude, S., & Merrill, J. (2013). The chancellor’s new robes: Online education. Creative Education, 4 (7A2), 50–52.
Breneman, D., Pusser, B., & Turner, S. (2006). Earnings from learning: The rise of for-profit universities. New York: State University of New York Press.
Beck, V.S. (2010). Comparing online and face to face teaching and learning. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 21(3), 95–108.
Bowen, W.G., & Lack, K.A. (2013). Higher Education in the Digital Age. New York, NY: Ithaka S+ R.
Bowen, W.G., & Tobin, E.M. (2015). Locus of Authority: The Evolution of Faculty Roles in the Governance of Higher Education. New York, NY: Ithaka S+ R.
Chickering, A.W., & Ehrmann, Z.F. (1997). Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education. Washington Center News. Retrieved from www.lonestar.edu/multimedia/sevenprinciples.pdf.
Diaz, D. (2002). Online drop rates revisited. Retrieved from http://ts.mivu.org/default.asp?show=article&id=981.
Fish, W.W., & Wickersham, L.E. (2009). Best practices for online instructors: Reminders. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 10(3), 279–284.
Frankola, K. (2001). Why online learners drop out. Workforce, 80(10), 53–59.
Gallien, T., & Oomen-Early, J. (2008). Personalized versus collective instructor feedback in the online course room: Does type of feedback affect student satisfaction, academic performance and perceived connectedness with the instructor? International Journal on E-learning, 7(3), 463–476.
Geiger, R.L. (2014). The History of American Higher Education: Learning and Culture from the Founding to World War II. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Hansen, B. (2001). Distance Learning: Do Online Courses Provide a Good Education. CQ Researcher: The Congressional Quarterly Inc. Retrieved from http://photo.pds.org:5012/cqresearcher/getpdf.php?id=cqresrre2001120700.
Harting, K., & Erthal, M.J. (2005). History of distance learning. Information Technology, Learning, and Performance Journal, 23(1), 35–44.
Hiltz, S.R., & Goldman, R. (Eds.). (2004). Learning Together Online: Research on Asynchronous Learning Networks. Boston, MA: Routledge.
Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., Bakia, M., & Jones, K. (2010). Evaluation of Evidence-Based Practices in Online Learning: A Meta-analysis and Review of Online Learning Studies. Washington DC: US Department of Education.
Neumann, P. (1998). Risks of E-education. Communications of the ACM, 40, 136.
Parker, K., Lenhart, A., & Moore, K. (2011). The Digital Revolution and Higher Education: College Presidents, Public Differ on Value of Online Learning. Pew Research Center: Pew Social and Demographic Trends.
Pianko, D., & Jarrett, J. (2012). Early days of a growing trend: Non-profit/for-profit academic partnerships in higher education. In D. Oblinger (Ed.), Game Changers: Education and Information Technologies (pp. 91–104). Washington DC: Educause.
Quality Matters. (2015). Retrieved from www.qualitymatters.org.
Scheg, A.G. (2015). Critical Examinations of Distance Education Transformation Across Disciplines. Beaverton: Ringgold Inc. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1651933474?accountid=25307.
Twigg, C. (2001). Quality Assurance for Whom?Providers and Consumers in Today’s Distributed Learning Environment. The Pew Learning and Technology Program, Center for Academic Transformation, Troy, New York. Retrieved from http://www.center.rpi.edu.
Yang, Y., & Cornelious, L.F. (2005). Preparing instructors for quality online instruction. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 8(1).