Module 2: Promises & Pitfalls

 

Module 2 Assessment

 

 

Promises

 

A variety of the promises of distance learning are financial in nature. Corporate investiture weighs in heavily. Universities attempt to save money, as well as increase revenue, by offering distance education options to students that are unable to attend classes because of time or distance. Such reflections are often mitigated, where class size increases while the overhead remains the same. In an article entitled Developing Countries Turn to Distance Education, Bollag and Overland assert the belief that developing countries are turning to state run distance education programs to suppliment, and even substitute ever increasing enrollments and a lack of on-campus accommodation. Locations such as Beijing, Jakarta, and South American countries such as Brazil and Argentina have begun to employ distance-learning techniques to span shortfalls of those well beyond reach. Bollag and Overland further assert countries like China are moving from elite to mass education, and that “traditional universities cannot meet the demand” (2001, pg. A29). China, as an example, makes effective uses of a radio and television delivery system to serve 1.5 million students, two-thirds of which are in a degree program. According to a recent survey, published by the Instructional Technology Council, “distance education enrollments have grown by 6.52 percent from fall 2011 to fall 2012. This pace was slower than in previous years (fall 2007 to 2008 saw a 22 percent increase), but the increase distance education saw surpassed the overall 2.64 percent decline in student enrollment that the entire student population (including those enrolled in face-to-face classes) at colleges experienced” (2013, pg. 2).

 

The number of students taking at least one online course continues to expand at a rate far in excess of the growth of overall higher education enrollments. The most recent estimate, for fall 2006, places this number at 3.48 million online students, an increase of 9.7 percent over the previous year. The number of online students has more than doubled in the four years since the first Sloan survey on online learning. The growth from 1.6 million students taking at least one online course in fall 2002 to the 3.48 million for fall 2006 represents a compound annual growth rate of 21.5 percent. The size of the entire higher education student body has grown at an annual rate of around 1.5 percent during this same period (from 16.6 million in fall 2002 to 17.6 million for fall 2006 - Projections of Education Statistics to 2015, National Center for Education Statistics). As the following table illustrates, students taking at least one online course now represent almost 20 percent of total enrollments in higher education (Allen, & Seaman, pg. 11).

 

Additionally, among the more salient areas of concern in the developing domain of D.E., research on the effectiveness of online teaching, the reasons for the increase in online courses and programs, and the relationship between teaching and learning in online environments remains varied. According to Osborne et al, "McAlister, Rivera, and Hallam (2001) for example, suggest that web-based programs are positive tools institutions can use to expand their reach” (as cited in Obsborne, Kriese, Toby & Johnson, 2009).  Equally, administrators hope that distance learning methods will help make higher education more cost-effective (Dibiase, 2000). This response may be seen as a quick fix for many administrators. If not approached seriously however, the quality, effectiveness, and over all virtue of distance programs can quickly become second rate.

 

Pitfalls

 

Despite a watershed of promising advantages to distance learning, the problems that need to be resolved are equally numerous and compelling. Inclusive are: the quality of instruction, hidden costs, misuse of technology. In tandem, design, implementation, and engagement raise issues with the attitudes of instructors, students, and administrators. Each one of these has an effect on the overall quality of distance learning as a product. Consequently, each of these issues relates to the others. In accordance with the  P.E.D. professional development mission, a brief examination will be made of each of these issues separately, then presented in the interactive discussion forum.

 

Quality of Instruction

 

The most prominent concern is understandably the quality of instruction provided through D.E. learning programs. A fair portion of the quality of instruction is directly proportional to the attitude of the administration and the instructor. In definining quality, it is critical to focus on how students learn best, and support such with those tenets / methodologies that work best, "Quality learning is largely the result of ample interaction with the faculty, other students and content. Because the web enables interaction, it provides an opportunity for faculty to construct collaborative projects for students" (Meyer, 2002, pg. 9).

 

Given the characteristic all-encompassing responsibility of the instructor, teacher attitudes are also significant to consider. Data collected in a 1999 study by Inman and Kerwin revelaed instructors had conflicting attitudes about teaching distance education. In a majority of cases, they report that after teaching one course, the greater number of instructors were willing to teach another, but that they rated the quality of the course as only equal or lower quality than other classes taught on campus. This being a very common response, it seems that the administration believes the technology itself will improve the quality of the class. Palloff and Pratt (2000) remind us that “technology does not teach students; effective teachers do”(pg. 4). They make the point that the issue is not technology itself, but how it is used in the design and delivery of courses. 

 

Cost Effectiveness

 

The second issue is the verifiable cost and the cost effectiveness of distance learning programs, and whether they are trully cost efficient.  The study further revealed that the concepts of costs and effectiveness are not as simple as they first appear. For an accurate assessment of cost effectivness, a more complete survey must take into account further considerations. The startup costs, maintenance costs, and personnel costs should also be factored in to arrive at a true cost for a distance-learning program. Although distance education programs are commonly held to be more cost effective than conventional programs, studies show this can be supported only in those cases when enrollments reach sufficiently high levels relative to expenditures and completion rates.

 

A snapshot view of mega-university institutional D.E. cost effectiveness, can be illustrated by EffectivePractices Editor Tana Bishop, Associate Dean for Administration in the Graduate School at the University of Maryland University College (UMUC). As oneof the largest providers of online learning in the United States, UMUC reports 32,787 students taking online classes last year. Bishop states, “competition for educational dollars and increasingly limited fiscal resources require institutions to identify, project, and control the costs associated with online learning. While profit making typically is not the goal of public institutions, there is a growing desire to control costs or to achieve some cost savings while improving quality ”(Lorenzo & Moore, 2002, pg. 7).

 

As of 2013, it is compellingly that colleges and universities are discovering avenues to increase learning effectiveness, achieve lower dropout rates, decrease the use of over-crowded campus space and ultimately decrease labor costs through creative development of technology-enhanced and fully online courses.