online education.docxAN OVERVIEW OF ONLINE EDUCATION ATTRAC.docx

online education.docx
AN OVERVIEW OF ONLINE EDUCATION:
ATTRACTIVENESS, BENEFITS, CHALLENGES, CONCERNS
AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Online education has grown tremendously over the past ten
years. The increased accessibility of the internet and the World
Wide Web has created vast opportunities for non-traditional
education through this medium (Karber, 2003). The explosion of
technology has also made teaching outside the traditional
classroom possible for teachers and has also provided learners
with easy access to course material. This paper reviews
literature related to online education. Its attractiveness,
benefits, and challenges are addressed. Some concerns and
recommendations are further discussed.
In April, 2005, I attended the annual professional conference of
the American Counseling Association in Atlanta, Georgia.
While setting up our display to promote our masters and
doctoral programs in counseling at Sam Houston State
University (SHSU), I was approached by a counseling student
who was interested in our doctoral program. However, the first
question out of her mouth was nothing related to counseling;
rather, it was, "Do you offer any online courses?" Later that
day, as I was reading the conference program guide trying for
interesting presentations, I could not help but to notice a
number of workshops on web-based learning and/or online
education. I subsequently attended two of those workshops and
met several professors from different universities who had
either taught online courses for quite some time or who were
currently discovering the best practices for teaching online.
These experiences helped me realize at least to some extent the
degree of growth in online education.

My responsibilities for the semester included gaining more
understanding of online education. Consequently, I made
several attempts to enrich my knowledge of distance learning
and online teaching. Perhaps, the five things that I share at this
point will help others who are embarking on online teaching.
First, I consulted with my colleagues who are currently teaching
online courses. This helped me recognize the importance of
getting materials prepared even before the start of a semester. I
also learned that online courses may consume more time than
regular classroom teaching. I understood the importance of
learning the technology, knowing the technology, and feeling
comfortable with it. Second, I attended several workshops
regarding online education and established a network with those
who are involved in online programs at other universities. These
people I will consider as my consultants and support as I begin
to design my own online course. Third, I talked with the
employees in the division of computer services at SHSU, and I
set up biweekly Blackboard training for not only myself, but
also for other faculty members of the department. Fourth, I
conducted a brief survey with 15 students and two faculty
members who had taken or taught an online course before to
understand their experience. Fifth, I completed a literature
review which gave me the foundation and the background of
understanding the need for online education. This paper is the
result of the literature review which attempts to explore and
understand different areas of online education.
Review of Literature
The Popularity of Online Education
The increased accessibility of the internet and the World Wide
Web has created vast opportunities for non-traditional education
through this medium (Karber, 2003). The explosion of
technology has also made teaching outside the traditional
classroom possible for teachers and has also provided learners
with easy access to course material (Coyner & McCann, 2004).
Online education has grown tremendously over the past ten
years. One report by Singh and Pan in 2004 showed that over

54,000 online courses were offered by universities in the U.S.
with over 1.6 million student enrollment in 2000. Another
survey from the United Stated Education Department, as cited
by Lyons (2004), stated that the enrollment for distance
education courses grew from 750,000 in 1994-1995 to 2.9
million in 2000-2001. The revenues in the online industry were
forecasted to climb from $550 million in 1998 to $11.4 billion
in 2003 (Singh & Pan, 2004).
Distance learning, especially online education, has gradually
become an integral part of teaching in higher education (Lyons,
2004). Many colleges and universities in the U.S. are now
providing distance education to students all over the world, and
some even collaborate to offer online classes (Lyons, 2004). For
example, the University of Phoenix has claimed to be the
specialists of online programs while Yale and Stanford
University in the United Stated joined hands with Oxford
University in England to offer classes to their alumni since
2000. Some universities even provide degree programs via the
internet without any residency requirement (Lyons, 2004).
What Causes The Shift?
Historically, teaching and learning were confined to classroom
settings with few instructional strategies including lectures,
discussions, and field trips to stimulate the learning process of
students (Deal III, 2002). Karber (2003), however, stated that
the growing demand for education and the limited funding
available for expanding physical facilities in many universities
have altered the traditional way of delivery. The communication
and information revolution beginning in the nineties has also
shifted our perspective of teaching and learning, and as a result,
classrooms are no longer the only setting for education (Deal
III, 2002).
The advance of technology and the development of the internet
and the World Wide Web have "opened doors to the classroom
to the world around us" (Deal III, 2002, p.21). Online education
has then become the vehicle to help access to the underserved
populations (Singh & Pan, 2004). Taking over the emerging

market, online education has reached out to thousands of
learners around the globe (Deal III, 2002; Karber, 2003).
Online programs, according to Karber (2003), have become a
feasible solution for contemporary education. This author
claimed that the flexibility of online education has helped many
self-motivated and mature students who want to earn a degree
while working full-time supporting themselves and their
families. Nowadays, teachers and students no longer need to be
separated by distance and time (Deal III, 2002). Online
programs serve as a catalyst to enable the paradigm shift to take
place in education, making educators/academics think about and
study how such programs are best delivered.
Why Is Online Education So Attractive?
When comparing traditional teaching with online teaching,
Karber (2003) attributed four reasons for the attractiveness of
online programs. First, individuals who have work or family
constraints can benefit from online learning. Lyons (2004)
identified three groups of students who find online programs
attractive. They are "busy working people, often on shift who
want to advance their career, frequent travelers, those who
physically find it difficult to attend college and parents who
want to, or have to, spend more time at home with their
children" (p. 448). Another study indicated that online courses
also appeal to school leaders and administrators. Reeves and
Brown (2002) reported one online program for superintendent's
certificate in one Texas university and 90 educators signed up
for the first class. Classes were run by superintendents serving
as adjunct prolessors. This example showed how online
programs address the needs of this population of educators.
Second, online programs are convenient for those students who
live in crowded cities since travel back and forth to campus is
no longer necessary. I, personally, have heard students
complaining about commuting and requesting to have classes in
their local area. Online programs can be a solution to their
problem. Deal III (2002) recognized that online programs also
reach out to students in remote communities who did not have

the opportunity before. The flexibility of staying home while
getting a good education makes online education appealing.
Third, students can choose different universities that offer
online programs since physical distance is not an issue in the
virtual environment. Students are not limited to the few
universities near their area, and they have more freedom to
choose where they really want to study. Fourth, students can
obtain a broader perspective on various topics since they are
able to interact with students from all around the globe. Online
programs also attract students all over the world who desire to
pursue a degree in higher education. I could only imagine what
that will be like to have a classroom of students from Asia,
Europe, Africa, America, Australia, and other parts of the world
together to discuss an educational issue. Students' experience
and perception would definitely be enriched.
Unique Characteristics of Online Education and Its Technology
One unique characteristic of online programs, according to
Karber (2003), is the contact between the teacher and the
students through the use of emails and other electronic means.
There is minimum or zero face-to-face interaction between
teachers and students. Other means of teacher-student
communication are "posting of student work on Web pages;
asynchronous discussions; live, Internet-based conferencing;
and streaming audio and video" (Karber, 2003, p. 534). Unlike
traditional classrooms where immediate verbal and non-verbal
feedback can be given to the entire class, teachers of online
programs recognize the significance of offering prompt
feedback on students' assignments and questions (Karber, 2003).
Many software packages, including Blackboard and WEBCT,
are in the market to assist professors to create online programs
(Lyons, 2004). With the help of these software packages, a
wealth of information can be posted for students to access
quickly through the internet. Singh and Pan (2004) illustrated
four essential functions of these software programs. First,
online students can read or listen to an electure over and over
until it is understood. The ability to gain input repeatedly helps

to consolidate teaching concepts to students. Second, the
conference function or the online discussion board serves as a
public arena where students and instructors can post their
questions and answers. This makes discussions of current
events, controversial issues, and response to specific questions
possible.
In addition, the announcement and communication function
enables instructors to post their announcements and inform
students of any upcoming events or assignments. Professors can
also have the option of communicating with individual students
or groups of students. Also, students can submit their homework
as an attached file to an email message, and when the homework
is corrected, it can be returned to the student via email (Lohr,
2001). Professors can post a homework assignment, and
students will have no excuse for not knowing what to turn in.
The real time discussion, live chat, or virtual classroom has
replaced the face-to-face interaction of the traditional
classroom. This can be done with the entire class or small
groups once they agree on a specific time to meet in
Cyberspace. These times must be established in the beginning of
the course and should be posted in the syllabus. Lohr (2001)
gave an example of the virtual classroom which includes the
videos of the students, their names, and a chat section. Instead
of a traditional classroom interaction, an instructor and the
students can communicate exclusively via the chat section. The
advantage is that the conversation can be saved as a text file
and posted for students to review.
The Benefits of Online Education
There are a number of benefits in taking online courses.
Accessibility is one of the most essential benefits reported by
Coyner and McCann (2004). Students can gain access to
information including syllabi, course assignments, scoring
guides, power-point presentations, and supplemental materials
24 hours a day and seven days a week. Hammonds (2003) stated
that this method of teaching allows students to be flexible in
their use of time. Online education provides a viable option for

those who did not have the opportunity before because they live
far from campuses or have limited time for campus education
(Deal III, 2002). Furthermore, it serves the needs of students
from various backgrounds and age ranges. People who are not
able to have access to tradition classrooms because of time,
geography, financial considerations, family, and work
constraints can have access to the resources online (Davison,
2005; Karber, 2003; Taylor, 2003). Online education provides a
time-independent and place-independent learning environment
which makes it convenient and flexible for different learners
(Deal III, 2002; Hammonds, 2003).
Because of the availability of information, students can study in
any location at any time of the day according to their schedule.
Online programs also make it possible for parents to drop off
their children at a soccer practice and work on their class
project at the same time (Reeves & Brown, 2002; Deal III,
2002; Lyons, 2004). Even teachers, according to Lyons (2004),
can enjoy the flexibility of teaching at home instead of going to
campus, and there are fewer hours spent photocopying class
handouts for students.
Deal HI (2002) suggested another benefit of online education is
its frequent and timely feedback between teachers and students.
This feedback system, substituted for the face-to-face classroom
instructions, has made online programs more effective (Deal III,
2002). Multi-media experience is another significant benefit of
online education that motivates learners (Davison, 2005). Deal
III (2002) reported that "there is a range of multi-media tools
available to create instructional materials to display text
graphics, animation, video, and interactive simulations" (p. 22).
The communication technology also creates more interactivity
between instructors and students and among students
themselves. Using synchronous or asynchronous communication
techniques, students are engaged with one another in their
discussion (Reeves & Brown, 2002). Deal III (2002) suggested
that the fear associated with face-to-face discussion is reduced
by electronic communication and the stereotypical attribution

based on ethnic or cultural background is largely excluded
(Karber, 2003; Lyons, 2004). Since students have to work in
groups, online courses also encourage team building and group-
work for success (Aune, 2002; Coyner & McCann, 2004).
Online education also encourages independent learning and
builds accountability of students (Coyner & McCann, 2004).
Since students can review the lectures repeatedly, they gain
more control over their learning and have more to say on what
they wish to learn through the feedback system.
Online education is highly affordable due to the fact that most
people have their personal computers and internet connection at
home and the tuition costs can be lower because of the reduced
use of physical classrooms and other traditional classroom
resources (Deal III, 2002); however, at times the cost is more
than a regular course. The larger fees attached to the tuition
indicate that the university will have more money, but save it by
not having the cost of electricity or classroom cleaning. Online
courses may be a cost effective solution for some universities to
continue to provide quality education when finances are tight
(Davison, 2005). For some colleges, the notion even exists that
there is no need for colleges to construct more buildings and
parking lots to accommodate more students (Taylor, 2003).
The Challenges of Online Education
Coyner and McCann (2004) encouraged instructors of online
programs to prepare, plan, and complete course information and
materials before the start of the semester. It seems clear that
significant upfront planning and organization is a vital
challenge. Another challenge for instructors is to translate the
entire course from the regular classroom to the web-based
environment (Reeves & Brown, 2002). Modification of
materials to adjust to this new online environment is not an easy
task, and instructors need to be extremely organized, dedicated,
and committed (Reeves & Brown, 2002). Lyons (2004) and
Coyner and McCann (2004) agreed that it is necessary for
online teachers to spend a significant amount of time to pilot
and revise their courses to enhance smooth delivery. Karber

(2003) concluded that both teachers and students invested more
time and effort in on-line courses as compared with traditional
classroom teaching.
With technological challenges frequently encountered when
teaching online, Coyner and McCann (2004) alluded that
materials currently used in a classroom setting may or may not
be compatible with the electronic format, and some elements,
such as video clips, may not be accessible to students. Online
teachers may also struggle with a lack of technical support
and/or resources to design appropriate materials. Both teachers
and students are recommended to acquire adequate technical
skills before they enter the online environment (Davidson,
2005). To prepare students who are unfamiliar with the
technology, teachers may find themselves at times spending
more time in technological training than teaching the content
material of the course (Coyner & McCann, 2004).
Another challenge identified is the expectations of online
students. Since students have continued access to information,
Lyons (2004) and Taylor (2003) stated that teachers are
expected to offer instantaneous feedback whenever a question is
posted or an assignment is turned in. Sometimes students may
appear rude and demanding in their emails and responses to
their class discussion; some are more likely to question their
grades while others do not take their deadlines seriously
(Lyons, 2004). To minimize the flow of emails and maximize
communication with the whole class, Taylor (2003) urged
instructors to post the student's questions and the instructor's
answers on the classroom discussion board. Karber (2003)
advised that it is imperative for teachers to make all effort to
reduce misunderstanding.
Some Concerns and Issues for Discussion
According to Singh and Pan (2004), "there are concerns about
the accuracy, lack of complexity and depth, and the
commercialization of the Web, suggesting flaws in the quality
of information, and the possibility of bias" (p. 303). Although
one research study indicated that online teaching does not have

an adverse effect on students (Hammonds, 2003), a survey of
the literature revealed that little has been done to compare the
effect and student attendance of online programs with
traditional programs (Buck, 2001 ; Singh & Pan, 2004).
According to Buck (2001), many educators are skeptical of
online education and view it as inferior. Since online education
is a fairly new industry, more outcome research may be needed
to measure its effectiveness and success. On the other hand,
courses requiring face-to-face meeting may not be a good fit for
web-based education (Coyner & McCann, 2004).
Taylor (2003) believed that online education is not for everyone
with specific concerns being issues for lower student
performance and the rate of retention. Students who have
trouble with motivation and self-discipline may sign up for an
online class but disappear half way through the course. Lyons
(2004) relayed that the use of the internet might affect student's
interest negatively. Student isolation and its impact on
teamwork and interpersonal skills also posed a concern (Singh
& Pan, 2004). In addition, students who require more personal
assistance may consider online interaction inadequate and feel
frustrated; students who are less independent may feel
overwhelmed with the immense resources (Coyner & McCann,
2004). In order to be successful in the online environment,
students must acquire a set of skills such as writing,
communication, time management, organization, and the ability
to work independently (Deal III, 2002).
Evaluation of online students also stirs debate. Deal III (2002)
critiqued how teachers of online programs would know who
they were evaluating without meeting with students face-to-
face. Lyons (2004) added that plagiarism could be a potential
problem in online programs. To resolve these issues, Deal III
(2002) advised the use of clear and precise rubric-based
assessment, while Lyons (2004) suggested that students
complete a performance-based examination in a nearby test site.
Lyons also suggested that teachers be creative with their essay
questions by avoiding standard questions.

Reeves and Brown (2002) suggested two types of favorable
online teachers-one that feels very comfortable with the
technology and one that wants to take risk and expand the
boundaries of teaching. Some universities have relied solely on
adjunct faculty to teach online courses, while other universities
have tended to stay with their full-time faculty members. One
reason for using full-time professors is to ensure similarity of
the online versions of courses and the face-to-face version in
the traditional classroom. To ensure quality of the online
education, universities do not want to make distinctions
between what they do online and what they do in the classroom.
Our Department of Educational Leadership and Counseling at
Sam Houston State University, Huntsville, Texas, has utilized
both full-time faculty as well as adjuncts. The adjuncts have
been experienced in teaching the courses and have had training
from the University Computer Services in terms of use of the
delivery system, Blackboard. The content and types of
innovations used for teaching has been supported by several
workshops and by a departmental online mentor. The
differences between adjuncts and full-time faculty in the course
evaluations from the student are equivalent. Our departmental
faculty believes that the support that faculty members receive
makes all the difference in their effectiveness.
Other concerns include teachers' refusal to teach online
programs because of the lack of personal interaction, the use of
copyrighted material in online programs, and the debate on the
ownership of the material created for web-based instruction
(Singh & Pan, 2004). Another related issue is how minority and
lower-income students can have access to modern technology
(Singh & Pan, 2004) and an issue with challenged learners who
required special accommodations. Coyner and McCann (2004)
urged teachers to address these issues during the design stage of
an online program.
Suggestions and Recommendations
Karber (2003) stressed the importance of training and
developing a group of qualified faculty members to teach online

courses while Eastmond, Nickel, du Plessis and Smith (2000)
suggested a model for incrementing online programs. Their
fourstage model, including awareness, faculty support, faculty
skills, and department effort, starts off heightening the
awareness of individual faculty members and ends up involving
the entire department in building online curriculum. During the
awareness stage, faculty members are provided with workshops
to demonstrate the use of the technology. Next, when faculty
members are ready to test out the new environment with its
technology, they need technical training and support to design
their curriculum. During the third stage where faculty members
are teaching online courses, they need teaching assistants and
other related support to revise and improve the materials. And
finally the online instruction moves to the departmental level
where the entire curriculum will be put together.
Teachers are recommended to attend workshops or conferences,
and gather resources on online programs before designing such
courses (Davison, 2005). Developing good rapport with the
curriculum designer, other instructors teaching online courses
(Coyner & McCann, 2004), and technical support staff is crucial
(Davison, 2005). Acquiring the technical knowledge is
necessary for teachers, and at the same time having a responsive
technical staff to safe-guard the technology is important as well
(Karber, 2003). Teachers also have to bear in mind the choice of
technology which allows both synchronous and asynchronous
communication (Singh & Pan, 2004), and the compatibility of
teaching materials with the technology (Karber, 2003). Teachers
are suggested to clarify with the institution on the copyright
issues beforehand (Singh & Pan, 2004), and to adhere to the
American with Disabilities guidelines when designing and
developing the course content (Coyner & Mccann, 2004).
In developing working relationships with students, it is
recommended that teachers manage communication expectations
from the very beginning (Davison, 2005). Hardware requirement
and desirable connection speeds to ensure efficiency must be
specified to the students (Singh & Pan, 2004). Teachers are

advised to set parameters especially about the availability and
response time, and notify students when they are away or
unavailable (Lyons, 2004). In addition, it is crucial to allocate
weekly assignments and communicate with students on a regular
basis (Aune, 2002; Lyons, 2004). Viewing the course and
coursework from the learner's perspective and anticipating
possible problems can be helpful in order to develop acceptable
solutions (Coyner and McCann, 2004). Furthermore, Karber
(2003) asserted that it is important to provide technical support
and other student services to online students. Karber (2003) also
recommended new students to demonstrate their competency in
the use of technology before being admitted to online programs.
One recommendation (Lyon, 2004) is for teachers to connect
weekly reading assignments with discussion and summarize the
teaching points of the previous week. Another suggestion from
Davison (2005) is to set up a cyber-cafe forum so that students
can ask questions while other students can answer. Teachers
need to understand that students learn differently online and
students need to be encouraged to participate to enhance their
learning experience (Aune, 2002; Singh & Pan, 2004).
Lyons (2004) advised teachers to personalize the online
experience as much as possible by addressing students by name,
signing the teacher's own name at the bottom, and proofreading
their email messages before they are sent. Lyons (2004) also
asked teachers to be flexible, since online activities can be
easily interrupted by technical problems, and to prepare to
extend their homework deadlines. Inviting students to come to
campus at the beginning for orientation and at the end of the
semester to take the comprehensive final examination are other
suggestions (Singh & Pan, 2004). Lastly, Coyner and McCann
(2004) encouraged teachers to continue to revise and improve
their coursework when necessary to ensure appropriate content
and materials.
Conclusions
Deal III (2002) urged educators to pay special attention to what
online programs can provide: An education at the learner's own

pace and learning style without the constraints of time or place.
When effectively managed, online education can empower
learners to reach their career goals and to meet degree or
certification requirement. Online education also reaches out to
places where educators have never touched before and creates
opportunities for the underserved and people living on the other
side of the world. As a consequence, online education brings
job security for faculty members and increased enrollment to
universities. Online education posts a new challenge and brings
a new paradigm to educators, and its potential is still an
undiscovered territory waiting to be explored.
unnamed.jpg
out (1).pdf
nline education has been a remark-
able development in higher edu-
cation. The connectivity of the Internet
and the concept of distance education is
a natural combination. However, noth-
ing before has been so controversial
and at the same time widespread and
quickly driven by rapid investment and
expanding program offerings. Despite
lingering controversies regarding qual-
ity and costs, the technology is now
deeply integrated in higher education,
and the basic process of online deliv-
ery has already become an ubiquitous
feature of most universities (Survey of
Higher Education, 2005). Millions of
students are now taking courses via dis-

tance education, mostly online (Carlson,
2004; Carnevale, 2005).
Nevertheless, some schools’ adminis-
trators discovered that online programs
were more costly than had they expected,
and so they retrenched. The online quest
of Columbia University closed after 2.5
years, whereas Caliber, the online part-
ner of the Wharton School, filed for
bankruptcy. Many major schools such
as Temple University and New York
University discontinued their online
programs (e.g., Virtual Temple, NYU
Online; Kyle & Festervand, 2005). How-
ever, at the same time, several nonrank-
ing universities have leaped ahead with
rapidly growing enrollments in their
escalating and profitable online degree
programs. One of the most amazing
examples is the for-profit Apollo Group,
which owns several for-profit schools,
including the University of Phoenix.
The for-profit University of Phoenix
is now the largest university in Amer-
ica, with an enrollment of more than
300,000 students. Moreover, this for-
profit university is expanding globally:
in Mexico, Canada, Puerto Rico, China,
and India (Survey of Higher Education,
2005). The question is: Why do some
institutions find online programs to be
less profitable, whereas other institu-
tions discover online programs to be
highly profitable?

An analytical inquiry using economic
theory and a small set of experimental
data can answer the question of cost
comparability. For example, the Copen-
hagen Business School’s experiments
(Pettersson & Heede, 2000) provide
evidence from which researchers can
draw compelling general conclusions.
We also present our recent survey of
online business degree programs. The
survey explains the behavior and quality
of competing institutions. The answers
become clear as we examine the eco-
nomics of opportunity costs, economies
of scale, quality considerations, and
marginal costs.
Distinguishing Characteristics
Online courses are essentially distance
education because the students are phys-
ically separated from each other and the
Investigation of Higher Education: The Real
Costs and Quality of Online Programs
DAVID E. SMITH
DARRYL J. MITRY
NATIONAL UNIVERSITY
LA JOLLA, CALIFORNIA
OABSTRACT. In this article, the authors describe an analytical
inquiry into the cost
and quality issues of online pedagogy
in university education. Using economic

theory, pedagogical insight, survey find-
ings, experiments, and other studies that
researchers have reported in the literature,
the authors address these issues, identify
answers, and present findings, implications,
and recommendations. The authors con-
clude that educators and students will not
realize the true potential of e-learning until
the administrators of all universities adhere
to the higher academic standard of full-time
faculty expertise.
Keywords: costs, online courses, quality
Copyright © 2008 Heldref Publications
January/February 2008 147
148 Journal of Education for Business
professor. Distance education degree-
granting programs are not a new phe-
nomenon (Huntley & Mather, 1999). The

disadvantage of these pedagogical alter-
natives relative to traditional classroom-
based education has always been that
learning associated with self-study
lacks any extensive dialogue with the
expert faculty (Perelman, 1992). How-
ever, the interconnectivity of the Inter-
net does provide opportunity for exten-
sive dialogue, whether synchronous or
asynchronous.
During the past few years, many
researchers have made great promises
about reshaping education through the
Internet. Nevertheless, the truth is that
many online programs do not use the
intrinsic potential for real interactivity
(Young, 1998). Essentially, the major
missing ingredient is usually meaningful
dialogue and deliberation with appro-
priately credentialed faculty members.
Therefore, many online courses are no
more than a simple computerization of
the correspondence course (Hjortkjær,
1998). Although the use of virtual facili-
ties such as chat rooms and downloadable
overhead presentations with speak pro-
grams has become widespread (Carlson,
2004; Huntley & Mather, 1999), they are
still inadequate substitutes for high-level
cognitive interactivity (Drucker, 2000;
Duus & Nielsen, 1999; Pettersson &
Heede, 2000).
Analysis of a European Business
School

The Copenhagen Business School
(CBS) in Denmark took an early leader-
ship role in technology-assisted learn-
ing experiments (Smith, 1995). The fac-
ulty conducted an extensive review of
pedagogy before initiating their online
experiments and developing their online
programs. They recognized that the
Internet provided opportunities and chal-
lenges to the traditional learning format
(Duus, 1996). CBS established carefully
planned online-learning studies (Duus
& Nielsen, 1999). In the present article,
we present some important results from
our research and survey of online learn-
ing. The students who enrolled in online
courses and in on-ground classrooms
were analyzed. Variables that we col-
lected included gender, ethnicity, age,
grades, and academic background. A
profile of the students showed that the
online students were homogeneous with
the general student population. During
the experiments, Duus and Nielsen kept
the same curriculum and faculty mem-
bers as in traditional courses to ensure
consistent comparability of online cours-
es with on-ground classroom courses.
Academic rigor was further scrutinized
and maintained by the additional moni-
toring of a CBS faculty academic study
board. The same full-time faculty mem-
bers who were responsible for the on-
ground courses developed and taught the

online courses.
In measuring and comparing the out-
comes of the e-learning and the tradi-
tional learning experiences, Duus and
Nielsen (1999) based course compari-
sons on identical learning goals, con-
tent, and curriculum. Table 1 shows
a comparison of academic outcomes
for the online and traditional on-ground
courses. Duus and Nielsen found no
significant differences in outcomes
between classroom and online learn-
ers (p < .05) with this equal-standards
pedagogical model.
Essentially, this finding is the same as
from numerous U.S. university studies
(Merisotis & Phillips, 1999). However,
Duus and Nielsen (1999) controlled
for variables very carefully and were
more thorough than most other studies.
These findings are particularly impor-
tant because the meticulous attention to
detail in the CBS studies left little room
for doubt about the findings. Although
this e-learning approach is not an exact
replication of the dialogue-based semi-
nars in the traditional classroom setting,
it is a close approximation. By using
this equivalent approach, it is possible
to raise the quality of online education
to a level at which it equals the standards
of seminar-type classroom pedagogy.
However, this is possible only by main-

taining the intensive faculty-student
interaction based on problem-solving
and applications-oriented assignments.
Comparative Costs
This equal-quality-conscious approach
to online learning, which has identical
academic standards and a high level of
interactivity, requires a similar invest-
ment in faculty time and support in com-
parison to equal-sized on-ground class-
rooms. However, analysis of the cost of
operating the program reveals that it is
more expensive in comparison to larger
classrooms on-ground, as researchers
would expect. This finding agrees with
what other academicians believed to be
the case: Equal-quality online programs
will never be as cost effective as large
classrooms (Navarro, 1998). This is true
because the per capita cost of providing
online learning, where class sizes are
necessarily limited to a smaller number
of students, is substantially higher than
providing on-ground classrooms with
larger class sizes. For universities, the
fixed cost of classrooms is not a consider-
ation in the comparison of online classes
versus on-ground classes. The buildings
have previously been amortized. What
remains are the variable costs of instruc-
tion of which the primary expense is
faculty compensation. Furthermore, no
significant economies of scale exist for
online programs because the major cost

is not infrastructure but the variable cost
of the hours spent by faculty members.
The primary factor in online programs
is the expert faculty time per student,
which translates into faculty salaries. A
previous report of six studies commis-
sioned by the Alfred P. Sloan Founda-
tion found similar empirical findings
TABLE 1. Comparison of Not-For-Profit and For-Profit Schools
of Business
Offering Online Education
Variable Not-for-profit schools (%) For-profit schools (%)
AACSB accreditation 53 0
Residency requirement 23 0
Latest technology 63 30
Note. AACSB = Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of
Business International.
(Carr, 2001). It should not be surprising
that the single largest cost component
for online programs is faculty salaries.
Therefore, in the scope of a quality-
conscious educational system, expense
comparisons will always show that the
equal-quality online approach is more
expensive if the student-to-faculty ratio
is smaller for online programs (all other

things being equal). A faculty confer-
ence at the University of Illinois made
similar conclusions (Young, 2000).
According to Young, “good teaching is
possible online only by lowering student-
to-instructor ratios and taking other
steps to counteract the disadvantages of
teaching at a distance” (p. A48).
We find that the answer to the question
of comparative costs between on-ground
and online delivery is straightforward.
With equal quality in all academic stan-
dards, including equal quality of fac-
ulty credentials, the comparative costs
between on-ground and online delivery
will be approximately the same between
same-size enrollments, but the costs of
small classrooms will be higher in com-
parison to those of large classrooms
because the per capita variable costs are
lower in large classrooms. This finding
is because the largest costs are for the
academic expertise—the appropriately
credentialed faculty—which must be
the same for either online or on-ground
programs to claim real equivalency, but
the potential for a quality faculty-to-
student ratio is limited by the online
environment (Perreault, Waldman, &
Zhao, 2002). Therefore, there are no
significant economies of scale in equal-
quality online academic programs.
Economies of scale would exist if
educators could somehow distribute the

instructor’s expertise and interactivity
over a much larger number of students.
However, serious reflection would indi-
cate that the assumption that one can
somehow develop economies by record-
ing the faculty expertise for mass dis-
tribution is illogical. Such an assertion
requires that the on-ground classroom
could also be recorded and be equiva-
lent to live classrooms, by all standards.
Would the on-ground student’s contact
with faculty be limited to prerecord-
ed content? Is prerecorded, text-based
learning equivalent to a live faculty
content expert being readily available?
The answer is no. If it were otherwise
true, then any sort of text-based cor-
respondence format would satisfy, and
we would be back to the correspon-
dence experience of the early 1900s. Is
an audio track or a recorded videotape
equivalent to communicating with a real
live professor? If that were the case,
then equivalency could be claimed for
solely video courses on ground as well,
and this idea has proved untrue. Previ-
ous pedagogical research has supported
the possibility that learning and student
satisfaction are always positively cor-
related with the extent and the quality
of the dialogue (Bloom, 1956; Specht,
1985). The major input responsible for
the learning output of the educational
process is the living faculty. Indeed, fac-
ulties are the primary resource (Bocchi,

Eastman, & Swift, 2004).
Sufficient evidence is available to con-
clude that equivalency is possible, but the
per-student outcome is constrained by the
faculty-student ratio for real equivalency
in online education (Bocchi, Eastman,
& Swift, 2004). There should no longer
be controversy on these issues of equiva-
lency or costs. However, the academic
community still needs to address some
important issues.
Profits at the Expense of Quality
Educators can lower costs, but only
by lowering the quality of the primary
resource, thereby reducing the variable
expense. If all teaching faculty mem-
bers have earned doctoral degrees from
ranking universities—not lesser degrees
from nonacademic universities or cred-
its from the workplace—then costs may
appear higher for online programs ver-
sus on-ground programs. Currently, the
general landscape of online degree pro-
grams is littered with deceptive prac-
tices. For example, one may assume
that a highly reputable faculty member,
a recognized expert in his or her field,
is capable of designing the initial tex-
tual online course content. However, the
issue then becomes a question of who
interacts with the students. Does the
online instructor need to have this same
expertise of academic equivalency? If

not, then the institution can hire lower
cost labor (e.g., adjunct instructors,
facilitators) to assist in the online cours-
es. By significantly limiting the involve-
ment of the original content expert or
equivalently credentialed instructors,
the program administrators can easily
reduce the cost by hiring less quali-
fied facilitators. These facilitators or
instructors would rarely be considered
for full-time faculty positions at schools
of quality and would certainly not be
considered for tenure-track positions.
Currently, the lower cost of delivery is
accomplished by hiring fewer full-time
faculty members with terminal degrees
from ranking universities and replac-
ing them with less qualified part-time
facilitators with inferior or question-
able credentials. Unfortunately, this is
happening on a large scale at many
schools that are enjoying large profits
from online degree programs.
At first glance, the situation with this
substitution of less qualified instructors
might appear similar to the situation of a
large lecture-hall classroom, where stu-
dents can listen to a faculty member’s
lecture, but hold discussions or interact
only with doctoral students acting as
teaching assistants. However, there are
real quality differences between the on-
ground doctoral-student teaching assis-
tants and many of the current online

facilitators. A facilitator with only a
master’s degree is not the same as a
better trained, research-oriented doctoral
candidate. Furthermore, in the traditional
classroom environment—regardless of
whether it is large or small—a professor
is available and has the academic freedom
to change his or her presentation and the
communication with the students, imme-
diately and continually, because it is not
recorded and it is interactive in real time.
Moreover, this freedom is exercised with
the faculty member’s judgment, as the
student-professor interaction dictates.
Such flexibility and academic freedom
for immediate judgment is not possible
in a recorded online distance-education
format, especially when the instructors
are not authorized to make changes and
when only the course developers are
authorized to do so.
Fundamental Economic
Considerations
For existing brick-and-mortar univer-
sities, if the classroom buildings are
fully amortized, a similar average cost
per student up to the limit imposed by
quality considerations may be achieved
on the basis of comparisons of small

classes of equal sizes. This process
requires a straightforward microeco-
nomic analysis. However, because we
have determined that no economies of
scale are possible in online programs,
the only advantage of online learn-
ing becomes the ability to reach more
students in diverse locations and cir-
cumstances. Therefore, from a mac-
roeconomic standpoint, another set of
variables must also receive appropriate
attention: the full cost and benefits to
society. Researchers have not consid-
ered the full cost to society in previous
analyses. The full cost of educational
programs must take into account not
only the cost to the institution, but also
the opportunity costs of the students
and those of potential public sponsors
(Green & Baer, 2001). For example,
economic theory suggests that in devel-
oping countries, such a cost-benefit
relation would reveal opportunities for
online programs, because the Internet-
based programs can reach potential stu-
dents over vast distances and in very
remote locations where deployment of
conventional resources (classrooms and
faculty accommodation) would be expen-
sive. Here again, straightforward econom-
ic theory answers the question a priori.
Therefore, very small online classes
may actually be socially cost effective
in certain regional areas, especially in
developing countries. For example, the

Virtual University of Monterrey, Mex-
ico, successfully uses the Internet and
telecommunications to reach students in
diverse locations (Tecnológico de Mon-
terrey, 2007). Nonetheless, although the
social cost-benefit model supports the
use of online programs in these areas, it
does not guarantee that the private mar-
ket oriented for-profit institutions will
serve them. Because, in this case, social
benefits are in the equation, such justifi-
able programs will still require public
underwriting if real quality equivalence
of academics is maintained, all other
things being equal.
Survey of Online Universities
When we examine the data, it is
understandable that some institutions
find the online programs unprofitable,
whereas other institutions find them
highly profitable. We surveyed 40
online schools with the largest enroll-
ments and found that the schools offer-
ing online degree programs fell into two
distinct categories: not-for-profit and
for-profit. Researchers and educators
can easily see which type has the most
decisive quality factors. The data in
Table 1 show the percentage of schools
with accreditation from the Associa-
tion to Advance Collegiate Schools of
Business International (AACSB), the
number of schools with a residency

requirement, and those using the high-
est level of technology, respectively.
AACSB accreditation requires that
full-time faculty members have terminal
degrees. This feature is one of the impor-
tant factors distinguishing between busi-
ness schools. Institutions that operate
by hiring mostly part-time instructors
and facilitators cannot receive AACSB
accreditation. It should be noted that
none of the for-profit schools were
AACSB accredited.
A part-time residency requirement,
even of short duration, is also an indi-
cation of quality program standards. At
the least, with some sort of residency,
the schools can know that the online
student is most probably the same per-
son being examined and graded. In
all, 23% of not-for-profit schools had
residency requirements, but none of
the for-profit schools had residency
requirements. This is understandable
because any amount of residency
requirement increases costs. Operat-
ing with a higher level of technology
may also indicate a commitment to
quality standards. A larger percent-
age of the not-for-profit schools used
the latest technology in comparison
to the for-profit schools. Of course,
the single most important factor is the
credentialed teaching faculty. The not-
for-profit schools published catalogues

and other materials identifying all their
faculty members and their credentials.
However, none of the for-profit schools
either listed their faculty members or
explicitly identified the credentials of
instructors or facilitators. A definitive
quality investigation of the compara-
bility of credentials is not possible, but
the absence of faculty identification is
a clear indication of the lower quality
of for-profit online institutions.
Conclusions and
Recommendations
Educators and researchers have
answered the question of whether there is a
difference between online and on-ground
learning in different ways. If the aca-
demic credentials and rigor of the online
teaching faculty are lower than those
of the on-ground teaching faculty, the
levels of quality of the educational expe-
riences will differ. Unfortunately, there
is no national or international faculty-
regulating authority for all institutions
and their degrees. Some of the various
regional accrediting organizations are lax
on standards when considering online
schools, particularly with respect to fac-
ulty credentials and consequent compa-
rable remuneration. In online education,
many of the accrediting bodies are self-
serving groups sponsored by for-profit
online schools.

Economists know that the market
mechanism is a remarkable process and
that given seller competition and buy-
er’s knowledge, it will ultimately result
in the most efficient outcome. However,
the caveat is buyer’s knowledge. If the
buyer is not fully informed, then the
seller can fool the buyer into purchasing
an inferior product or service. Faculties
of legitimate institutions everywhere
must immediately take command and
provide intelligent leadership for the
public. They cannot afford to allow the
greed of corporate management and the
one-dimensional assessment movement
to depreciate the full value of the aca-
demic process. Furthermore, only the
full-time faculty can stop avarice dis-
guised as better, cost-effective practic-
es. If faculties, independently and col-
lectively, do not stand against avarice,
then ultimately all faculty members will
become interchangeable employees of
enterprise. If faculties do not fight to
maintain academic-quality standards,
then most higher education will con-
tinue to suffer significant decline over
time. Already, part-time adjunct instruc-
tors with lower credentials are being
used to artificially increase the supply
of teaching faculty to lower institutional
costs. We advise the faculty members to
begin reasserting authority over issues
of quality and costs. Certainly, these
issues cannot be left either to adminis-

trative staffs or to executives of for-profit
corporations. Both theory and empiri-
cal evidence show that the pecuniary
interests of commercial institutions and
some not-for-profit administrations try
to disguise and sell an inferior product
in a mass market to maximize apparent
competitiveness and net revenues. If
such organizations remain unrestrained,
it will be to their economic advantage
to dilute the value of the faculty expert
and to increase the class size, under
the claim of equivalency. This is tak-
ing place because faculties have relin-
quished their rightful academic author-
ity. Online delivery of higher education
is here to stay (Carnevale, 2000, 2005).
It is a useful mechanism for delivering
quality higher education, but the acad-
emy needs to better inform the public
of the quality differences in online pro-
grams. Furthermore, the academy needs
to promote the honest recognition of its
credentials. Whenever fellow faculty
members create new pedagogies whose
uses of capital-intensive resources
appear to have a bigger market potential,
all faculty members must ensure that the
creation is not used to depreciate the
scholarly process and inhibit academic
value. The banner of academic freedom
remains fragile and can be guarded only

by scholars themselves.
Some corporations operating for-
profit firms, under the guise of universi-
ties, are currently causing havoc among
the poorly informed public. Most of these
companies have online degree courses
that are taught exclusively by adjunct
part-time instructors who frequently
have not earned terminal degrees from
reputable, highly accredited universities
in the fields they teach. The latest ter-
minology used by the for-profit schools
refers to the teaching faculty as facilita-
tors or instructors. Consequently, with
few exceptions, most of these facilita-
tors come from a pool of underem-
ployed quasi-academics or moonlight-
ing corporate employees. Accordingly,
they are paid for piecework at a low rate
of compensation. The usual claim made
by the for-profit purveyors of online
degrees is that their courses are bet-
ter because they are taught by practic-
ing professionals who work full-time in
the field they teach. The sales promo-
tion strategy used by these firms is that
the students are more likely to acquire
the latest knowledge and skills from
people directly employed in corporate
positions. Unfortunately, this specious
argument has been allowed to continue
unabated. It is championed on the Web
sites and in the marketing brochures of
these institutions. This bogus claim is

at the root of a multibillion dollar scam
and has succeeded in selling to millions
of customers and thereby flooding the
workforce with questionable degrees.
Such degrees certify adulterated knowl-
edge at best. This has been the real
social cost of online education over the
past 10 years. Students graduating from
these colleges believe that they received
a good education because they enjoyed
the experience and learned something.
These former students do not realize
that they could have learned more if
they had been exposed to higher aca-
demic standards and full-time faculty
with real credentials and qualifications.
Most legitimate institutions with truly
equal-quality online programs have not
proclaimed their academic superiority
and have not distanced themselves from
general online vendors. Even a casual
review of current marketing materials
of legitimate academic institutions illus-
trates how not-for-profit universities
have tried to compete with the for-profit
schools by using much of the same word-
ing. Unfortunately, this often includes
such pronouncements as that their
instructors are better qualified because
they come from real-world working
environments, potentially leading to
the misinterpretation that their instruc-
tors are part-time academics working
for lower compensation than those who
have earned legitimate credentials. To

successfully respond to the competition,
legitimate universities need to inform
potential consumers of the deceptive
practices and misleading claims of
their competitors and thereby appro-
priately distinguish the equal-quality
product in the competitive marketplace.
The genuine institutions of higher edu-
cation have not publicly denounced
the purveyors of watered-down online
degrees by clearly stating the coun-
terargument of higher academic stan-
dards. Indeed, a few of the otherwise
reputable universities have unwittingly
abandoned their standards for online
programs, whose standards of quality
are not the same as those for their on-
ground programs. This circumstance is
evident when courses are taught by less
qualified instructors. For true equiva-
lency to exist, the individuals hired for
teaching online courses must have the
same expertise and academic legitimacy
as the on-ground full-time faculty, and
anything less is a deceptive means to
lower cost to increase net revenue.
The e-learning approach has devel-
oped as a powerful alternative for fac-
ulty to lead academic studies, but its
true potential may not be realized until
the administrators of all universities are
forced to require their online faculty to
meet the academic standards of the full-
time faculty (Carnevale, 2001). Perhaps

in the future, computer-based artificial
intelligence will become a reality that
will surpass great minds. Until then—
regardless of whether it is asynchro-
nous or synchronous—online distance
education will require professors with
legitimate credentials. In the meantime,
the uninformed public is purchasing
millions of inferior educational experi-
ences from purveyors of degrees that
are based solely on the Internet. These
vendors are artificially lowering costs,
thereby substantially increasing profits,
by using low-paid online instructors or
facilitators to dialogue with students,
instead of having tenured and creden-
tialed faculty.
Faculty members may ask three
questions:
1. How do faculty members identify
degree programs that are cost effective
when offered online? The answer comes
from the circumstance that many of the
current on-ground programs do not use
huge lecture-hall classes, but have small
class sizes, and consequently, these are
the programs that can be cost-effective
in online formats.
2. How do faculty members stand up
to their university’s top management
and stop the process of watering down
standards in online programs? Faculty
members must refuse to assign courses

to instructors who have substandard
credentials. Full-time faculty members
must refuse to allow exploitative part-
time pay scales. For a course of action,
we suggest that individual faculty mem-
bers demand that the issue be addressed
within their faculty senate and other
collective faculty bodies of authority.
3. How can a quality, not-for-profit
university compete against a for-profit
university that operates with low-cost,
substandard, part-time instructors? Again,
we suggest that the faculty members take
the lead by informing the administration
about the opportunity for valuable counter-
marketing campaigns. Students enroll in
university programs to earn degrees that
will have currency in the marketplace. If
the public is given the real information
regarding price and quality, they will
make appropriately rational decisions.
Likewise, the managements of employ-
ing organizations do not wish to hire
people who have obtained substandard
educations and meaningless diplomas.
Therefore, the best way for quality-con-
scious universities to compete is to iden-
tify the credentials of all their online
professors and clearly distinguish their
authentic standards of quality. Over time,

this method will result in significantly
increasing online enrollments in quality-
conscious universities and decreasing
enrollments in the programs of exploit-
ative profiteers.
The technology of online learning has
matured. Online higher education can be
offered in the form of an equal-quality
and equal-standard learning experi-
ence and can be an economically viable
option for many colleges and universi-
ties. However, the genuine academic
institutions must distinguish their prod-
uct from that of the profiteers by candid
marketing that counters the profiteers’
deceptive marketing. By using the strat-
egy of differentiation, the genuine aca-
demic institutions can not only maintain
their rigorous academic standards but
also successfully market their product
in a globally competitive environment.
However, the current direction is toward
depreciation of faculty and lower aca-
demic standards. If faculty members
everywhere do not assert their claim to
the real quality standards and simulta-
neously show their administrations how
to properly compete and prosper, the
public and the scholars will both lose.
NOTES
Dr. David E. Smith’s research interest is inter-
national marketing.

Dr. Darryl J. Mitry’s research interest is inter-
national economic development.
Correspondence concerning this article should
be addressed to Dr. David E. Smith, National
University, 3390 Harbor Blvd, Costa Mesa, CA
92626.
E-mail: [email protected]
REFERENCES
Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational
objectives. New York: Longman.
Bocchi, J., Eastman, J. K., & Swift, C. O. (2004).
Retaining the online learner: Profile of students
in an online MBA program and the implications
for teaching them. Journal of Education for
Business, 79, 245–253.
Carlson, S. (2004, November 26). Online educa-
tion survey finds unexpectedly high enrollment
growth. The Chronicle of Higher Education,
p. A30.
Carnevale, D. (2000, January 7). Survey finds
72% rise in distance-education programs. The
Chronicle of Higher Education, p. A57.
Carnevale, D. (2001, January 7). Assessment takes
center stage in online learning: Distance educators
see the need to prove that they teach effectively.
The Chronicle of Higher Education, p. A47.
Carnevale, D. (2005, February 4). Offering entire

degrees online is one key to distance education.
Carr, S. (2001, February 16). Is anyone making
money on distance education? The Chronicle of
Higher Education, p. A41.
Drucker, P. (2000, May 15). Putting more now
into knowledge. Forbes, 165, 84–88.
Duus, H. J. (1996). Undervisning i det 21 århun-
dredes videnssamfund [Teaching in the knowl-
edge society of the 21st century]. Fremtidsori-
entering, 1, 32–35.
Duus, H. J., & Nielsen, O. (1999, May). Der er
en ny Verden til Forskel [Making a difference].
Civiløkonomen, 1, 8–9.
Green, M., & Baer, M. (2001, November 9).
Global learning in a new age. The Chronicle of
Higher Education, p. B24.
Hjortkjær, C. (1998). Fjernundervisning på Inter-
nettet og brug af IT I Undervisning: En Rede-
gørelse [Distance learning on the Internet and
use of IT in education: A report]. Copenhagen,
Denmark: University of Copenhagen.
Huntley, M., & Mather, M. A. (1999, Septem-
ber). Distance learning gathers speed and depth.
Technology & Learning, 20, 75.
Kyle, R., & Festervand, T. A. (2005). An update
on the high-tech MBA. Journal of Education

for Business, 80, 240–244.
Merisotis, J. P., & Phillips, R. (1999). What’s
the difference? Outcomes of distance vs. tra-
ditional classroom-based learning. Change,
31(3), 12–17.
Navarro, P. (1998). Notes from the electronic
classroom. Journal of Policy Analysis and Man-
agement, 17, 106–115.
Perelman, L. (1992). School’s out. New York:
William Morrow.
Perreault, H., Waldman, L., & Zhao, J. (2002).
Overcoming barriers to successful delivery of
distance-learning courses. Journal of Education
for Business, 77, 313–318.
Pettersson, M., & Heede, S. (2000). CTU-
evaluering. Copenhagen, Denmark: University
of Copenhagen.
Smith, D. E. (1995, March). Fjernundervisning-
en Teknologisk Forfront [Distance learning: A
technological forefront]. Kræmmerhuset, p.14.
Specht, P. H. (1985). Experiential learning-based
vs. lecture-based discussion: The impact of
degree of participation and student characteris-
tics on comprehension and retention. Journal of
Business Education, 60, 285–287.
Survey of Higher Education. (2005, September 8).
The brains business. The Economist, 376, 4.

Tecnológico de Monterrey. (2007). Virtual univer-
sity: A contemporary solution. Retrieved Jan
10, 2008, from http://www.ccm.itesm.mx/eng-
lish/index.html#vu
Young, J. R. (1998, May 15). A year of Web pages
for every course: UCLA debates their value.
Young, J. R. (2000, January 14). Faculty report
at University of Illinois casts skeptical eye on
distance education. The Chronicle of Higher
Education, p. A48.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further
reproduction prohibited without permission.
out.pdf
56 Change ● May/June 2009
Universities won’t survive. The
future is outside the traditional campus,
outside the traditional classroom.
Distance learning is coming on fast.
—Peter Drucker quoted in
Forbes Magazine, 1997
W
hen online distance learning
was first proposed as a

viable alternative to site-
based education, many
predicted the demise of traditional col-
leges and universities. The ability to
take courses where and when students
wanted would mean, these futurists
said, that the traditional bricks-and-
mortar classroom would cease to exist,
replaced by a go-
anywhere virtual institution.
Management guru Peter Drucker
was one of the most prominent individ-
uals to say that higher education as we
knew it simply could not compete with
the convenience and cost of online edu-
cation. Others ominously predicted that
the advent of “digital diploma mills”
would mean the end of faculty life: fac-
ulty professionals would be replaced by
automated simulacra.
While online learning (i.e., course-
work students take at a distance, using
the Internet, with no face-to-face meet-
ings) has grown at an astonishing pace,
it has done so in ways that no one pre-
dicted. In the middle of the 1990s, there
were too few online courses to count.
By 2002, 1.6 million students—approx-
imately 20 percent of all college stu-
dents—were taking at least one online
course. In fall 2007, this figure stood at
3.9 million. The change in delivery of
coursework in higher education could

have been termed revolutionary, except
that few feel that higher education has
been revolutionized. What has hap-
pened instead is an absorption: most
students have chosen to add online
coursework onto their existing, class-
room-based curriculum.
Below I describe how some of the
predictions about online distance edu-
cation have turned out, based on the
best current evidence.
Prediction #1: Online students will
be very different from students taking
courses on campuses.
One of the primary concerns that many
“cyber pessimists” had about online learn-
ing had to do with stratification by income,
race, or ethnicity. So far, there’s very little
evidence that this is occurring. Instead,
students enrolled in online coursework
look more or less like their peers in terms
William R. Doyle is an assistant professor of
higher education at Vanderbilt University.
He previously served as a senior policy ana-
lyst at the National Center for Public Policy
and Higher Education, where he was project
manager for the center’s first publication of
Measuring Up, the state-by-state report card
on higher education.
Playing the Numbers

Online Education:
The Revolution
That Wasn't
B y Wi l l i a m R . D o y l e
Figure 1. Student Ethnicity and Income
Race/Ethnicity
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
All Students
Online Students
Income
0 5 10 15 20
White
Black or African American
Hispanic or Latino
Asian
Native Hawaiian/ other
Pacific Islander
American Indian or Alaska Native
Other
More than

one race
Less than 20
20-40
40-60
60-80
80-100
100+
In
co
m
e
in
T
h
ou
sa
n
d
s
56- 58 Doyle.indd 56 4/7/09 12:48:49 PM

Online Education:
The Revolution
That Wasn't
of income, race, and ethnicity. Figure 1
shows the distribution of students by race
and ethnicity in online education vs. in all
of higher education; it also reveals that on-
line and site-based students have about the
same income profile.
But students enrolled in online
courses do tend to be older than their
peers in traditional classrooms. The av-
erage age of online students is 29, com-
pared with an average age of 26 among
all undergraduates. Indeed, Figure 2
shows that online students are more
likely to be older than 30 than they are
to be in their late 20s.
Online students are also more
likely to be female—women consti-
tute 63 percent of online students vs.
57 percent of all undergraduates. And
students taking classes online are dis-
proportionately independent. Figure
3 shows that 35 percent of students
enrolled online are classified as depen-
dent, compared with about 65 percent
of all students. Of the independent
students, 58 percent of those enrolled
online had at least one child.

Prediction #2: Most students who
enroll online will do so exclusively.
Many critics of online learning
have expressed concern that students
in these courses will suffer as a re-
sult of a total lack of face-to-face
communication with professors and
their peers. But most students utilize
online education as a complement
to, not as a substitute for, traditional
classroom-based education. Only
one-third of students enrolled in on-
line courses do so exclusively—the
other two-thirds are enrolled in a mix
of online and regular coursework.
This kind of blended education has
become the norm among those who
utilize distance education.
Prediction #3: Students will take
classes online at distant institutions.
One of the most surprising find-
ings from years of research into online
education is that most students take
these courses from institutions that are
quite close to their homes. While on-
line education may be very helpful for
geographically isolated individuals, it
is primarily used by people who live
in proximity to the campus that offers
the courses they are taking. Among all
students, the median distance from the
student’s home to his or her campus is
15 miles. The same is true of students

taking online courses. For three-fourths
of students taking online courses, the
offering campus is less than 40 miles
away.
Figure 3. Independent Vs. Dependent Students
All Students
Online Students
Total Online
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Figure 2. Student Age
15-23
24-29
30 or More

0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Percent of Students
All Students
Online Students
www.changemag.org 57
P
er
ce
n
t
D
ep
en
d
en
t
56- 58 Doyle.indd 57 4/7/09 12:48:57 PM
58 Change ● May/June 2009
Prediction #4: For-profit higher edu-
cation will consist primarily of online

education.
Many assumed that “online” would be
synonymous with “for profit,” as institu-
tions sprang up promising cheaper educa-
tion than their not-for-profit peers. These
institutions would be the amazon.coms of
higher education, driving smaller provid-
ers out of business by offering the same
product more conveniently and efficiently.
It hasn’t turned out that way. Figure
4 shows that the percent of students en-
rolled online is about the same at public
and private not-for-profit and private
for-profit institutions. At all types of
institutions, online enrollment accounts
for about 15 percent of the total (the dif-
ferences are not statistically significant).
So online learning has turned out
be less ground breaking than either its
detractors or its supporters promised
in the early days. Instead, its scope has
turned out to be, at least to this point,
less ambitious than anticipated, while
many of the problems that were fore-
seen have not materialized. Instead,
online learning appears so far to be a
modest but important add-on to the ex-
isting system.
The picture of the student of the
future that emerges from the early lit-

erature on online learning is a younger
person who, fed up with traditional uni-
versities, uses the revolutionary power
of the Web to bypass the archaic struc-
tures of academia. The picture that has
emerged is more prosaic, but possibly
more important: a working mother who,
unable to make it to the nearby campus
every week night, instead takes an online
course here or there to lighten the load.
Figure 4. Percent of Students Enrolled Online
No Yes
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Took Online Course
Private Not-For Profit
for Profit
Public
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
��
�
��

��
��
��
��
Allen E & Seaman, J. (2008).
Staying the course: Online educa-
tion in the United States, 2008.
(Technical Report) Needham, MA:
Sloan Consortium.
Noble, D. (2002). Digital diplo-
ma mills: The automation of high-
er education. In P. Mirowski & E.
M. Sent, (Eds.), Science Bought
and Sold: Essays in the Economics
of Science (pp. 431-443). Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Gubernick, L. and Eberling,
A. (1997, June 16). I got my
degree through e-mail. Forbes
Resources
C
56- 58 Doyle.indd 58 4/7/09 12:48:59 PM
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further
reproduction prohibited without permission.

online education.docxAN OVERVIEW OF ONLINE EDUCATION ATTRAC.docx

online education.docxAN OVERVIEW OF ONLINE EDUCATION ATTRAC.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to online education.docxAN OVERVIEW OF ONLINE EDUCATION ATTRAC.docx

Similar to online education.docxAN OVERVIEW OF ONLINE EDUCATION ATTRAC.docx (17)

More from cherishwinsland

More from cherishwinsland (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

online education.docxAN OVERVIEW OF ONLINE EDUCATION ATTRAC.docx