As online learning rapidly expands, we asked a half-dozen thinkers to address the question of quality. We also asked them to assess the quality of online-learning programs in general, and to discuss any issues that especially concerned or encouraged them. Here’s what they had to say.
Elliott Masie, chair of the Learning Consortium and CEO of the Masie Center, a learning-and-technology research group in Saratoga Springs, N.Y.:
Online learning has grown in deployment and acceptance, primarily because it can provide scale and flexibility. In the early stages of online education, we are seeing too much modeling after the physical classroom. We have tried to replicate traditional classroom elements like lecture, discussion, office hours, and assignments. That was predictable; most new technologies build on the existing and familiar (early TV was radio with pictures).
But the next stage of innovation and development will come as faculty and designers ask online education to accomplish things that could never happen in the classroom:
IN THE RIGHT COLUMN: More on Online Learning
BROWSE THE FULL ISSUE: News, Commentary, and Data
BUY A COPY: Digital and Print Editions at the Chronicle Store
Hyperscaling. Imagine if 100,000 students were using the same curriculum in classes around the world. How might we ask them to collaborate en masse, conduct huge surveys, and leverage the force of 100,000 learners working on the same goals?
E-collaboration. Imagine models of collaborative learning that harness the ability of students to work with peers and experts in whole new ways, including the imaginative use of avatars.
Class of one. Imagine using cutting-edge assessment and learning-style technology to provide each student with a customized course, in which every week they get a unique set of activities targeted to their performance gaps and accomplishments.
Simulation intensity. Imagine how we might build large-scale simulation environments so that students would have the ability to “fail forward” with greater frequency. If I am taking environmental science, simulation might give me and my peers intense practice moments based on changing scenarios (climate shift, a significant change in the economy, or a disaster like the gulf oil spill). Those variables would lead to a variety of policy or design failures, and from those we would deepen our comprehension. In other words, students would experience intensive and repeated trial and error, perhaps under lifelike deadline conditions, but in a context in which the errors’ consequences are pedagogically constructive.
Mentoring to the max. Imagine how an institution of higher education might massively leverage alumni and other assets to provide deep mentoring and coaching for each element of the curriculum. Being an active alumnus or alumna would include an expectation of a role as a mentor.
We have an opportunity to reimagine what online learning can be. Let’s be bold!
Alexander C. McCormick, associate professor of education at Indiana University at Bloomington, and director of the National Survey of Student Engagement:
The truth is that we know astonishingly little about the “quality” of nearly all collegiate programs, whether face-to-face or online. In fact, we don’t even have a generally accepted understanding of what quality means in this context. Is it mastery of core knowledge and skills? According to what and whose criteria? Does it mean value added—the amount students gain in knowledge and skill irrespective of their terminal level of competence? Is it some combination of those things? Or is it simply a question of success in the labor market, as signified by employment at an appropriate level, employer satisfaction, or earnings?
Historically we have dodged those difficult questions by simply assuming that attainment of a bachelor’s degree signifies meeting some or all of those objectives. That has meant accepting course grades as appropriate measures of learning in discrete curricular building blocks, and fulfillment of bachelor’s requirements as expert judgment of how those building blocks combine to form a structurally sound educational edifice.
There are many reasons why that set of assumptions is under challenge, but a fundamental one is the serious erosion of consensual understanding of what a bachelor’s degree stands for. Students now have a variety of routes to the degree from a remarkably wide range of providers: residential and commuter institutions; community colleges and four-year institutions; public, nonprofit, and for-profit institutions; institutions that award credit for life experience; competency-based programs; and virtual institutions. The advent of virtual universities (both legitimate providers and the “prestigious unaccredited institutions” pitched in spam e-mails) represents the latest and most dramatic development in the evolution of what counts for a college education. And to complicate matters, students are increasingly combining courses from multiple providers.
So from my perspective, the mode of instructional delivery isn’t the issue—in fact, it’s a red herring. The real issue is the warrant for claims of educational legitimacy of individual courses as well as entire courses of study. Skepticism about online education is typically rooted in questions about whether it meets the same quality standard as face-to-face instruction. But that base line has not been subjected to comparable scrutiny. The long-term benefit of the expansion of online education, then, is likely to be a much-needed articulation of what counts as college-level learning in any format and of what a bachelor’s degree stands for.
Robert W. Mendenhall, president of Western Governors University:
Asking about the quality of online learning is like asking about the quality of education at brick-and-mortar schools—there are high-quality online-learning programs and there are low-quality ones, just as there are both high-quality and low-quality traditional institutions. The key to quality isn’t the delivery mode. There have been numerous studies, including a large 2010 meta-study by the Department of Education, which show that online learning is equal to or perhaps slightly better than classroom education. We shouldn’t be surprised by this finding—most online education is simply classroom education delivered over the Internet. It is still a professor, with 20 to 30 students, the same syllabus, and the same assignments. We are using the technology only as a delivery mechanism, and not taking advantage of the potential transformative power of technology.
The real challenge for online education is to use the technology to get substantially better results than classroom education, rather than being content with the same results. Technology has fundamentally changed the productivity of every industry in America except education—in education it is an add-on cost. We know that learners come to higher education knowing different things, and that we each learn at a different rate. By using the technology to teach, to deliver the content of a course, we are able to free all students to study what they need to learn, and to do so at their own pace. The faculty role changes from delivering content to mentoring students.
By using technology to assess learning, we can actually measure what students know and can do, rather than how long they spend in class. Technology allows us to fundamentally change the model, individualize learning, and in so doing improve learning and reduce costs. At WGU the average time to graduation with a bachelor’s degree is 30 months, and the university is self-sustaining on annual tuition of $5,800.
Finally, I am concerned that online learning is viewed as a separate category of education, one that requires a different set of rules and government regulations. The reality is that all education, whether delivered face-to-face or online, should be judged on the same basis: educational results. That is, is it high quality, effective, and affordable?
Janet Salmons, a faculty member in the Capella University School of Business and Technology, and author of Online Interviews in Real Time (Sage, 2010):
Quality should increase with growth, since we have more opportunities to examine what works online, then design and teach accordingly. As a result, e-learning programs increasingly optimize the interactive, collaborative, creative potential of Web 2.0.
Online, it’s not possible to sit in the back of the lecture hall and hope that the professor doesn’t realize that you skipped the reading. Every student must actively engage in an online class. Students must construct and express ideas in writing to demonstrate their knowledge. Faculty members track course access and participation so that learners can’t get lost in a crowd (as I often was as a student in large classes in an Ivy League school). As an online instructor, I have come to appreciate iterative one-on-one and small-group exchanges with students as more meaningful than the traditional lecture.
We can look at outcomes like graduation-and-completion rates, but I am not sure such measures really address the question of program quality. For that, I look at students’ options for varied, relevant, and progressively complex courses within a cohesive curriculum. High-quality programs should offer writing, research, library, and technology services that are flexible and appropriate. More than anything, committed, motivated, engaged faculty are essential to online programs. Class size should permit faculty to offer personalized attention and frequent feedback.
My real concerns are for higher education and scholarship generally. How can non-tenure-track faculty (more than 70 percent of American faculty members) find support for research, time for writing, and opportunities for dialogue with other scholars? I think we will need new models for research and new ways to support scholarship. Perhaps just as e-learning is changing our ideas of learning, e-research and online conferences may change our ideas of academic inquiry and community.
Carol A. Twigg, president and CEO of the National Center for Academic Transformation:
I must admit that I am somewhat mystified about the continuing concern about quality assurance in online learning, particularly when it is directed at accredited colleges and universities. While existing quality-assurance systems are not perfect—and can certainly be improved—they more or less work for institutions, for states, and for the federal government. The characteristics of a good face-to-face course are the same as those of a high-quality online-learning course. Student support, faculty support, reliable infrastructures, effective evaluation—all are required to ensure a high-quality learning environment whether on or off campus.
I am concerned whenever someone suggests that we should have different standards or higher standards for online learning. While some aspects of our current quality-assurance practices may be inadequate, most—if not all—of the concerns are not related to online learning. Since the distinction between on- and off-campus learning is blurring and will continue to blur, common academic sense would suggest that if new forms of quality assurance are needed—a greater emphasis on measuring student learning, for example—they are needed for all aspects of the educational experience, not just for online learning.
An overwhelming body of research tells us that the quality of online learning is, in general, as good as that of face-to-face learning. That should not be surprising, since the faculty members who teach online courses are, for the most part, the same faculty teaching in the classroom and making judgments about whether or not students are learning. So if you are satisfied with the quality of face-to-face learning programs, you should not be losing sleep worrying about the quality of online-learning programs.
I, for one, am not satisfied with the current quality of face-to-face programs and their translation to the online environment. If we have any hope of achieving what is becoming known as the college-completion agenda (radically increasing the percentage of Americans who hold high-quality degrees), we must substantially improve the quality of instruction at our institutions. We need to redesign our approaches to online learning to take advantage of the capabilities of information technology rather than simply bolting technology onto existing structures. We need to go beyond “as good as” to “much better than.” I am encouraged because I know it can be done.
George Veletsianos, assistant professor of instructional technology at the University of Texas at Austin:
In the late 1700s and early 1800s, the world saw the rise of a method of instruction called the monitorial or Lancasterian method. This approach involved advanced students’ assisting their less-advanced colleagues in what amounted to modern-day tutoring sessions. Was the method effective? While it eventually fell out of favor, initial reactions varied. On the one hand, the approach allowed increased access to education. On the other, it could lead to poor learning experiences.
A few hundred years later, we face a similar dilemma: Has the quality of online-education offerings kept up with growth? Is the method effective? The answer is still the same: Yes and no. Over all, learning at a distance has dramatically improved during the last 15 years. The problems facing the traditional distance-learning model (e.g., feelings of isolation on the part of learners and instructors) can now be efficiently dealt with via participatory Internet technologies. Yet examples of outstanding online learning are hard to find. While social technologies enable the adoption of student-centered pedagogies, we remain faithful to our didactic approaches.
Nevertheless, we live in exciting times. I am encouraged because I see around me a desire to innovate and question cultural norms that may have hindered technology-enhanced education.
At the same time, three dominant narratives surrounding online learning concern me. These are:
Online learning versus face-to-face learning. The tendency to compare the two prevents us from seeing the unique opportunities offered by online learning. While I understand the desire to compare, I would prefer to spend our energy on improving education rather than comparing what should be inherently different approaches.
The latest technology as a panacea. To improve online learning, we need to stop thinking of technology as a tool to solve problems and start rethinking the ways we teach. While newer technologies may shape some of those ways, we need to evaluate our approaches, reconsider teacher/student roles, and assess the purposes of education and the meaning of learning in technology-rich environments.
Delivering education to the masses. Unfortunately, online learning is often seen as a way to deliver education to large numbers of students. The narrative of online education as a product to be delivered harms education. We need to think of online education as an experience, and the instructor as the designer of that experience—an experience that can be fulfilling, engaging, and powerful.