THE STATE OF ONLINE LEARNING
I have been teaching online since 1995. We started with an electronic bulletin board system called the Denver FreeNet to offer course materials and discussions on snowy, wintry days. We then evolved to our first online program in nursing informatics, which went live during the 1997-1998 academic year. This was an early version of WebCT, a course management system developed by Murray Goldberg at the University of British Columbia.
I vividly remember the trials and tribulations of starting that online program. It was amazing how many systems within a university were needed to accommodate the online student. The library was the first to join, helping ensure that students had access to the necessary journals and texts, but some offices were slower to adapt. When our first online students were about to graduate, I had to visit each office and do a manual check-out for each student. That included the Parking Office, where I had to sign forms stating that no student ever had a parking ticket on campus.
So, ever since our humble beginnings, I have watched with interest the evolution of online education in higher education and nursing. This year saw the publication of the 13th annual and final Online Report Card: Tracking Online Education (Allen & Seaman, 2016), a survey of chief academic officers (CAOs) at degree-granting institutions in the United States conducted by the Babson Research Group.
This most recent report card, with Babson data for fall 2015, reports the views of CAOs about online learning as a strategic long-term goal, faculty acceptance, and the comparability of online and face-to-face learning. It also includes fall 2014 data on enrollments from the National Center for Education Statistics Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS). Using IPEDS data, Poulin and Straut (2016) also released the WCET Distance Education Enrollment Report, which highlights "differences by sector, graduate vs. undergraduate study, student location, and by the number of institutions educating students at a distance" (p. 3).
To fully understand the data, it is important to examine the definitions used by each of the datasets.
* The Babson data broadly refer to "any offering of any length to any audience at any time" (Allen & Seaman, 2016, p. 40). Hybrid or blended courses are defined as courses that blend face-to-face and online delivery, with between 30 and 79 percent of the content offered online. An online course offers 80 percent or more of its content online, typically with no face-to-face meetings.
* For IPEDS, Allen and Seaman (2016) look at distance education that "uses one or more technologies to deliver instruction to students who are separated from the instructor and to support regular and substantive interaction between the students and the instructor synchronously or asynchronously" (p. 41). Technologies included are CD-ROMs, DVDs, broadcasting, audioconferencing, and Internet-based education.
The other difference between the Babson and IPEDS data is that IPEDS includes associate degree and vocational/technical programs as part of undergraduate education. IPEDS also eliminates noncredit, continuing education, open enrollment, and alumni courses.
WHAT THE DATA TELL US
Now that we understand the data sources, let's look at the results. First, there is no doubt that distance/online education is commonplace and continues to grow, despite declining overall higher education enrollments (which fell by 2 percent from 2012 to 2014). We are not seeing double-digit growth, but there is a steady increase in distance education. Poulin and Straut (2016) reported that distance education enrollments grew by 7 percent for those taking at least one online course and 9 percent for those taking all their courses online. There is also growth in public and nonprofit private schools but a decrease in growth in private, for-profit institutions. Let's look at the evidence.
* 5.8+ M students took a distance course in fall 2014 (28.4 percent of all enrolled students).
* 2.85 M students took all their courses at a distance (Allen & Seaman, 2016), that is, one in seven higher education students learned exclusively online (Poulin & Straut, 2016).
* 2.97 M students took some, but not all, courses at a distance (Allen & Seaman, 2016), that is, one in seven higher education students took some but not all courses online (Poulin & Straut, 2016).
According to Poulin and Straut (2016), universities tend to use online courses to "meet demand from residential students, address classroom space shortages, and/or provide extra sections" (p. 16). For residential students, distance does not mean geographic separation but does have to do with time shifting. With 25 percent of students taking an online course, online education is becoming commonplace in academic settings. Public institutions use online for both on-campus and off-campus students.
Many believe that distance education is primarily offered by private, for-profit schools, but the data do not support this myth. Here is some of the evidence:
* 72 percent of all distance students were enrolled at public institutions (Poulin & Straut, 2016).
* 85 percent of those who took some of their courses and 48 percent of those who took all of their courses online were from public institutions (Poulin & Straut, 2016).
* 39 percent of graduate distance students and 73 percent of undergraduate distance students were enrolled at public institutions (Allen & Seaman, 2016).
* 61 percent of graduate students and 27 percent of undergraduate students were enrolled in for-profit and nonprofit private institutions (Allen & Seaman, 2016).
The WCET report examined distance education enrollments by student location. The majority of students (53 percent) were taking all online courses in the same state as their institution; a smaller percentage (41 percent) were taking online courses in other states. Students outside the United States, or those whose locations were unknown, represented the balance.
Public institutions reported that the majority of their students (84 percent) were classified as in-state, whereas private, for-profit institutions reported that the majority of their students (74 percent) were classified as out-of-state. For nonprofit private institutions, a little over half their students (56 percent) were classified as out-of-state students.
A WORD ABOUT STATE REGULATIONS
Many public institutions that offer in-state online programs lack the funding or infrastructure to pay for state authorizations to offer education in other states. Regulations require all distance education programs to obtain the state's authorization prior to enrolling students in that state. In the case of nursing, the institution must also check with the state board of nursing to understand the regulations about offering clinical experiences in a particular state. (Learn more at http://wcet.wiche.edu/focus-areas/policy-and-regulation/state-authorization.)
Many states have joined SARA (State Authorization Reciprocity Agreements), which allows students to take online courses in institutions in another state. (Learn more about National Council for State Authorization Reciprocity Agreements at http://nc-sara.org/content/basic-questions-about-sara.)
Schools that offer an online program of study to out-of-state students must pass several checkpoints before a student can be admitted. At the University of Colorado, we check to see if the applicant lives in a SARA state or if the university has applied to that state's board of education to offer distance programs to students in that state. We check also with state board of nursing regulations. In one state, for example, you cannot offer didactic or clinical experiences to anyone unless all your faculty are licensed in that state. Needless to say, we avoid taking that state's students.
THE VIEWS OF CHIEF ACADMEIC OFFICERS
CAOs have steadfastly reported that online education is a critical component of an institution's long-term strategy. According to Allen and Seaman (2016), "the 2015 results showed no change in the percentage of academic leaders who viewed the learning outcomes for online instruction as the same or superior to face-to-face instruction" (p. 5). CAOs at institutions with large distance education offerings were the most positive. They reported that blended/hybrid courses had the same learning outcomes (50.5 percent) or superior learning outcomes (35.6 percent) compared to face-to-face courses.
It is interesting to note CAOs' perceptions of faculty acceptance of online education. "For the past twelve years no more than one-third of chief academic officers reported that their faculty accepted the value and legitimacy of online education" (Allen & Seaman, 2016, p. 6). It is not surprising that leaders of institutions with large distance education enrollments (60.1 percent) perceived that their faculty are more accepting of this teaching-learning modality than leaders of institutions that do not offer similar opportunities (11.6 percent). But, despite the considerable growth of distance education, academic leaders do not think that faculty value or accept online learning.
This trend has persisted across the years. According to Allen and Seaman, "a continuing failure of online education has been the inability to convince its most important audience - higher education faculty members - of its worth" (p. 26).
TAKE-AWAY MESSAGES FOR FACULTY
For me, the most important audience is the learner, and making sure that academia provides accessible and affordable education in formats most suitable to the learner is essential. I acknowledge that I am biased, but here are some of my take-away messages.
1. Online education is not going away. It is now part of the mainstream of higher education.
2. At some point in your career as an educator, you will be asked to teach an online or hybrid/blended course. Given the likelihood of this happening, faculty development to learn how to design and conduct an online course is recommended.
3. Think of your audience and the best way to interact and engage with your audience. Nothing can be deadlier than having to listen to three hours of a canned video lecture. (Unless, of course, you are comfortable with your audience fast-forwarding through the lecture.)
4. Use best practices in facilitating learning in an online course. There is plenty of evidence to support how to facilitate learning online.
5. Think differently. Ask, how can I use the multiple resources available to me as an educator to engage the learner and facilitate a passion for learning?
As always, I would like to hear your views. Write to me at mailto:[email protected].
References