Though the authors state in the Introduction that, “We believe such [online] systems have the potential to improve faculty productivity and lower instructional costs without sacrificing educational quality,” online education continues to face staunch critics.  Fundamentally, the report notes that the onslaught of online education in the higher education landscape has the potential to completely transform our concept of and basic approach to educating the nation’s college students.  The concept of online education is so foreign to many that there is some resistance based solely on it being “different.”  The authors conducted interviews with a variety of institutions utilizing online education in a variety of ways.  Not surprisingly, considering the relatively recent arrival of online education on the higher educational scene, institutions are still working to figure out how best to utilize new technologies to reduce instructional costs, improve student learning outcomes, and maximize faculty effectiveness.

Online education is becoming such a disruptive force (to use Clayton Christensen’s terminology) in education that the authors state, “Online learning is taking place at just about every college and university in the nation.”  In their interviews with administrators and faculty at institutions implementing online education in some way, there were some common themes uncovered discussing the rationale for the introduction of online education.  Many institutions, for example, see online offerings as a revenue generator.  Online education has the ability to reach non-traditional students (adult learners who are not able to attend class in a physical, more traditional setting) as well as students who would otherwise not enroll with the university due to geographic location.  While there are significant startup costs associated with implementing an online environment, many schools anticipate eventually recouping that initial investment through decreased use of facility space, increased enrollments thanks to the online offerings, and more effective use of faculty time.  Interestingly, some universities have seen cost savings as well as increased revenue yet the authors point out, “Very few institutions are using either the savings from online education or the net incremental revenue to reduce the price of education to students.”

Schools are also beginning to utilize online education as a means of improving student retention and persistence.  Practically speaking, the current economic crisis that has led to reductions in faculty size and reduction in course offerings, has effectively barred many students from getting into the classes they want and need to graduate.  By moving courses to an online environment, more can be offered overall and fewer students will be blocked from registering for core courses.  In this way, students will be more likely to continue their educations unabated.  In addition, some schools believe that online education has the potential to dramatically improve our understanding and execution of practices to improve student learning outcomes.  Some institutions have implemented online education as a means of testing this theory.  The authors acknowledge that “the belief that students in online courses may learn the material better than their traditional-format counterparts did not appear to be widely held.  This may be partly due to the scarcity of convincing evidence, produced by rigorous evaluations, about the effectiveness of hybrid or online learning compared with that of traditional modes of teaching.”  (The Department of Education released a meta-analysis in 2009 that found that “on average, students in online learning conditions performed better than those receiving face-to-face instruction.”)  

While there are many reasons stated by university administrators for implementing online platforms, there are many perceived barriers, some of which have been stated in the discussion above regarding the rationales for implementation.  As is the case with all disruptive technologies, a small group of early adopters carries the burden of proving the value to others.  For many faculty members interviewed for the report, online education is seen as the end of their value as instructors.  The authors note that fears over diminished faculty ranks in the face of online education was a common theme in their conversations.  While online learning does lend itself to a certain level of “automation,” the faculty must still remain engaged in order to make the course as effective as possible.  Additionally, for those faculty who are willing to venture into the world of online teaching and learning, the authors recommend that institutions create some type of incentive or compensation program.  The initial work required on the part of the faculty member teaching in an online environment is substantial enough that universities should consider breaking down this particular barrier by offering some type of incentive or additional compensation structure for innovative faculty members willing to pursue the online platform. 

For many faculty members, control or ownership over the course is paramount to all other concerns.  The report notes that some faculty members have questions about the implications for intellectual property standards in the online environment.  Others note that they take great pride and care in crafting their courses and many are unfamiliar with the concepts associated with instructional design – they teach the way they were taught and are comfortable in that setting.  In response to these stated challenges and perceived obstacles, the authors have provided a series of remedies including to “make faculty pioneers heroes” by embracing those willing to venture into the online environment and pave the way for others to follow.  Other strategies include establishing centers within the institution separate from the traditional to experiment with online learning and continuously developing a mechanism for mining data that will assist in providing answers to the questions of student learning outcomes, persistence, and retention in the online setting. 

Though there are some perceived barriers to the adoption of online learning systems in American higher education, there is significant evidence that students are migrating toward the online environment.  Babson Survey Research Group, in conjunction with The Sloan Consortium, Inside Higher Ed, and Pearson, noted in its recent report titled, “Going the Distance: Online Education in the United States, 2011” that in the Fall of 2010, more than 6.1 million students took at least one online class.  That represents a 10.1 percent increase over online enrollments in Fall 2009.  In his book The Innovative University: Changing the DNA of Higher Education from the Inside Out, Clayton Christensen notes that the cost of operating an online university is half that of operating a traditional one, largely because of a lack of facilities needed for students.  (To see more about Christensen’s theories in The Innovative University, see my blog article posted last August.)  This translates into an opportunity for students to receive an education for significantly less cost than they could at an average traditional university.  Considering the ambitious goals of the Obama Administration to bring America back to its preeminent position in terms of college graduates, an alternative to traditional higher education is necessary.  At this point online education seems to be a viable alternative and the number of students registering for online courses at traditional universities and the number enrolling at fully online institutions like APUS is a testament to this – despite any perceived barriers.

Sunday’s session for presidents and chancellors had the following topics:  Vision and Change at BYU-Idaho: A Model for America’s Colleges and Universities, Information Technology:  Seize the Day, and a luncheon at which Terry Hartle, SVP of Government and Public Affairs of ACE spoke about the pending Department of Education regulations regarding Credit Hours, State Regulation, Gainful Employment, Accreditation, and Misrepresentation.  Later in the day, Yale’s President Richard Levin spoke about “Why Colleges and Universities Matter.”  I also attended a session hosted by Stan Ikenberry, former president of the University of Illinois and ACE, and George Kuh, Professor Emeritus of Higher Education at Indiana University Bloomington and the founding director of the Center for Postsecondary Research and the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE), regarding assessment and ways in which institutions implement it.

Having the conference in Washington provided some benefits.  Eduardo Ochoa, Assistant Secretary of Postsecondary Education at the U.S. Department of Education was an unscheduled speaker at the luncheon and provided a few comments regarding the administration’s position regarding higher education and reminded the group that he had served as a provost at Sonoma State University.  He also stated that he was unable to provide a statement about three of the issues because of a lawsuit against the Department.  Terry Hartle’s major points were that the industry can regulate itself and does not need increased federal regulation at a time when there are many changes occurring as well as innovations required in order to remain competitive.

Rick Levin’s lecture provided three main points:  (1) the basic research principle of our universities is a driver of our nation’s growth and healthcare improvements, (2) the diverse array of higher education institutions provides an education to a broad workforce, and (3) our colleges are the principal avenue of upward mobility for our citizens.  President Levin is an economist and unabashedly stated that his lecture had an economic focus although his sincere comment that “the most profound consequence of higher education is that it improves the soul” was not economically based.

As one of a number of presidents invited to attend the session on assessment, I was pleasantly surprised about the depth of discussion.  Our comments were recorded by a researcher for a project sponsored by the National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment (NILOA) and all of us participating received the prerequisite Institutional Review Board (IRB) disclosure.  Assessment has been an interest of the accrediting bodies for the last ten years or so, but usually is not a topic about which college and university presidents are conversant.  The group representing a variety of institutions ranging from public research universities to private liberal arts colleges to an online university.  All the presidents in attendance were focused on the measurement of learning outcomes at their institution.

Many years ago I took a course in oral history at Duke.  Interviewing people who participated in a historical event years after the event took place gave me an appreciation for the fact that reporters write about an event from their perspective which may not be the perspective of the participants.  While some of the lectures and panels at this year’s annual meeting have been discussed in articles published by The Chronicle of Higher Education and Inside Higher Ed, those articles are related to specific topics.  As a somewhat regular attendee of ACE’s annual meetings, I observed a difference through the statements of the speakers, the questions of the participants, and the general tone of the conversations at the social events.  Usually, the major determinants of change in any sector are the market or the government or both.   This year may be the year where a need for change is finally recognized by the entire sector.

Online education has gained tremendous momentum in the last several years.  A November 2008 report titled, “Staying the Course: Online Education in the United States, 2008” published by the Sloan Consortium notes that during the fall 2007 semester, some 3.9 million students were taking at least one course online, representing a twelve percent increase over the previous year.  During the same semester, twenty percent of all college students were taking at least one course online.  An Eduventures report from November 2006 predicted this growth; that report found that half of the 2,000 potential students surveyed indicated that they would be interested in completing a degree online.

Though the recently released Department of Education report focuses on online formats for K-12 education, the findings are relevant for online education in general.  The 2006 Eduventures report notes that online education was most popular among adult learners.  The Department of Education report, however, notes that “the number of K-12 public school students enrolling in a technology-based distance education course grew by 65 percent in the two years from 2002-03 to 2004-05.”  In total, the report states that more than a million K-12 students took online courses during the 2007-2008 school year.  Such statistics are promising for online colleges and universities like APUS.  If K-12 students excel in online education in their early education, it seems likely that they may continue with the online format for undergraduate, graduate, and even doctoral degrees.  In Disrupting Class, authors Clayton Christensen, Michael Horn, and Curtis Johnson predict that 25 percent of K-12 classes will be online by 2014 and 50 percent by 2019.  (For a review of Disrupting Class, see my August 2008 blog article.)

In considering the reasons why online courses are growing in popularity, the Department of Education report notes that the ability for students to use their time in a flexible manner boosted online education’s popularity.  According to the study, “learners in the online condition spent more time on tasks than students in the face-to-face condition” finding “a greater benefit for online learning.”  There are obvious cost-saving benefits to online formats and some that are not as obvious including the ability to attend class from one’s home and saving money on the gas a traditional student needs to commute to classes at a brick and mortar institution. 

Additionally, online education expands access to many who may otherwise lack educational opportunities.  Online education could provide significant benefits to those living in rural areas, for example.  The diverse student population found in online classrooms promotes a meaningful exchange of ideas and points of view that is often absent in more traditional classrooms which, especially in traditional K-12 schools are comprised of students from a particular geographic location.  Christensen and his co-authors argue that advances in technology will allow K-12 educators to meet the needs of their students more than ever before.  In the event of smaller school districts with limitations of special teachers, foreign languages like Arabic and Mandarin Chinese could be offered online.  Already, there are providers who offer online advanced placement courses for school districts unable to find qualified teachers.

The implications of the report’s findings for the online education industry are significant.  A recent article in Inside Higher Ed quotes Secretary of Education Arne Duncan as saying of the meta-analysis and its findings, “’This new report reinforces that effective teachers need to incorporate digital content into everyday classes and consider open-source learning management systems, which have proven cost effective in school districts and colleges nationwide.’” 

Today’s students are embracing technology in almost everything they do.  Cell phones, MP3 players, laptop computers, and portable gaming devices are the norm for anyone who can afford them and the cost of technology continues to decrease every day.  The online education market is a part of the technology revolution.  Institutions that embrace online degree programs are expanding access to education for many of America’s students.  Higher education is notorious for its perceived conservation of traditional pedagogies and unwillingness to utilize new technologies to transform the ways that students learn.  With the advent of online education, however, the world of higher education is breaking out of that mold and students are benefitting in the process. 

In addition to affording students some flexibility in their schedules, opportunities for learning are dramatically increased in the online format.  Because students are not tied to classrooms and able to complete work on a more flexible schedule, they are also able to dedicate time to even more non-traditional educational opportunities including volunteer work, memberships in clubs and organizations, and other extracurricular activities that certainly provide invaluable experience.  Working individuals often find that earning a degree online allows them the ability to continue with their careers while working toward attaining their degrees.  In general, I believe that such opportunities help encourage the development of a more well-rounded student and individual.

The meta-analysis released Friday by the Department of Education is not the first study that recognized the advance of online education for students’ learning outcomes.  Coming from the arm of the federal government, its recognized stature makes this report more significant.  As the nation struggles to develop citizens who can effectively compete in our globalizing world, online education is becoming an appealing alternative to traditional brick and mortar classrooms.  With the current economic crisis unfolding as it is, many more individuals will find the economic benefits of online education (ie: lower tuitions, no commuting costs, etc.) worthwhile, allowing online program providers the opportunity to enhance the technologies offered in their classrooms.

The term she referenced originated with Marc Parensky, founder of Games2train and considered to be one of the world’s foremost experts on the relationship between games and gaming technology and the learning experiences of today’s young people.  Parensky holds Masters degrees from Yale, Middlebury and the Harvard School of Business and has been an advocate for the use of technology in classrooms for years.  Parensky has even worked with the Department of Defense to establish an educational program that embraces the use of games as positive educational tools.

The lesson I learned from observing my daughters at play was that children who have access to technology are able to utilize it and to think, act, and learn in ways that are vastly different than the way we learned years ago.

Today’s issue of Inside Higher Ed features an interview with John Palfrey and Urs Gasser, authors of Born Digital: Understanding the First Generation of Digital Natives, which focuses significantly on data collected at Harvard University’s Berkman Center for Internet and Society, where both work.  The two explore the digital context in which today’s young people are learning and analyze the impact of their digital environment on their learning experiences.

Digital Natives seem to have an advantage in today’s world (and, according to the Berkman Center, not all youths are digital natives; it is a label that depends on the individual’s access to and frequency of use of digital technologies).  Technologies are expanding and shrinking our world simultaneously, opening doors to means of communication and commerce that 100 years ago were not conceivable.   At the same time, technology brings far off international neighbors directly into our homes via emails and webcams.  Today’s students have access to a wealth of information (including a growing number of primary documents which, as technologies improve, have been provided as images on many websites, including the Library of Congress) that their parents did not.  Even with such remarkable educational opportunities available via the Internet and other technologies, there are problems associated with the use of such technologies which require serious consideration.

Advocates of the use of the Internet and other technologies in classrooms, Palfrey and Urs state that given the omnipresence of digital technology in a student’s world, teachers must become fluent in the issues associated with copyrights and discerning between legitimate Internet sources and those that lack academic legitimacy.  The authors note that many of the young people with whom they spoke did not know that Wikipedia entries can be edited by anyone with an Internet connection.  Only a minority of the students, according to Palfrey and Urs, realized the problems that the Wikipedia system posed to the site’s credibility.  They also discuss the academic challenges associated with a rising “cut-and-paste” culture among digital natives and conclude that parents and educators must proactively inform digital natives about the ethical and unethical use of other people’s work. 

While there are obvious dangers in the prevalence of digital technology in the classroom, the benefits, I believe, are worth the risk, a risk which can largely be avoided by a systemized curriculum which integrates the use of technology with frequent lessons on the responsibilities associated with using it.  Of course, not every course lends itself to the use of technology and academia must remain mindful of this as they define the balance between appropriate uses of technology and inappropriate uses of technology in the classroom.  As an online university, APUS is obviously a strong advocate of the use of technology in the classroom.  In fact, it is online technology that forms the cornerstone of our classrooms!  We have the distinct advantage of being able to use the Internet to provide quality educational opportunities to our students while using our Discussion Boards as a means of providing the typical Socratic method of dialogue between students and teachers, a mix that allows students to benefit from both.

When I cast an eye on the broader K-20 educational platform, it is imperative that we provide our students with not only the access to the technology but also access to teachers who have been trained in the appropriate pedagogies to provide learning experiences that inform and enrich the student and prepare them for the challenges of an ever shrinking or “flattening” world.