Transcript TItle

DL Versus On-Ground – What the
Research Says – and What It
Doesn’t Say
Andy Borchers
IMEB
Slides are at:
www.kettering.edu/~aborcher
Preview

With the advent of the Internet and
growth of Distance Learning (DL), some
have wondered:

“Before we commit ourselves to ‘the virtual
classroom’ or even the ‘virtual university’, I
would like to see solid empirical research that
shows that undergraduates will learn how to
think critically, interact rationally and develop
the cognitive and ethical perspectives that they
acquire in a good residential program.”
October, 1992 Research in Distance Education
Preview

My presentation today will focus on
three main points that address this
question:



“No significant distance phenomenon”
compiled by Thomas Russell.
“What’s the difference?” IHEP
“What is different between DL and
traditional education?” Andy Borchers
An admonition

The subject of DL can evoke emotions for
a number of reasons:



Faculty tend to prefer the learning style they
learned under. They may feel threatened by
change.
With DL has come a host of ‘new age’
institutions that have evoked a competitive
market for higher education. The economic
lives of many institutions hang in the balance.
Our point today is to ask “what does the
research say”, not to argue preferences in
learning styles.
“No Significant Difference”




The title of a 1999 book by Thomas Russell.
Russell reports on the history of research on
distance learning versus face to face instruction,
summarizing 355 studies.
Available on the web.
Most studies:


Focused on individual courses.
Looked at outcomes such as
course grades and attitudes
(such as satisfaction)
“No Significant Difference”

Major conclusion

“The fact is that the findings of
comparative studies are absolutely
conclusive, one can bank on them. No
matter how it is produced, how it is
delivered whether or not it is
interactive, low tech, high tech,
students learn equally well with each
technology and learn as well as their
on-campus face-to-face counterparts.”
A History of Studies

Early work (1920-1950)



Focus on film, phonograph and correspondence
courses
Major interest in American military (esp. film)
and the Midwest – Nebraska, Oklahoma, etc.
Television era (1950- )



Continued work in a variety of areas – English,
calculus, accounting, etc. and various locations
– U.S., Canada, Latin America, Australia and
Japan.
Various media – TV, radio, movies, AV
Wide range of institutions – Harvard, Penn
State, Ford Foundation, public school districts,
and corporate settings.
A History of Studies

Computer Age (late 1970’s to
today)


Numerous studies including
asynchronous and synchronous
approaches via TV and computer
mediated.
Comparison between “high tech”
interactive approaches and “low tech”
low interactive approaches.
355 Studies Later....

The same phrases appear over and
over:






“No significant difference”
“No statistical difference”
“Comparable”, “Similar”
“At least as well...”
“No method ... any more effective...”
Results hold for single course
studies and meta analysis of
multiple studies.
Parallel Site – Significant Difference

Some 37 studies have found
differences:


Sometimes on-line “wins”
Sometimes on-ground “wins”
Two Critical Observations – “Ceteris
Paribus”


Good researchers control extraneous
factors. This research focuses on the
effect of media in isolation.
Hence, the results could better be stated:


Students learn equally well with each
technology and learn as well as their oncampus face-to-face counterparts, ceterus
paribus (all other things the same).” (italics
added by Andy Borchers).
But, are “all other things the same”
between traditional and DL education?
Two Critical Observations

Research focus throughout these
355 studies are individual courses.
Only a few focus on entire degree
programs.


Hence, does media have an impact on
DL versus traditional “degree
programs”?
A student’s education is certainly more
than one course – it is the sum of years
of education.
What’s the Difference

The title of an April, 2000 study,
conducted by IHEP (Institute for Higher
Education Policy)


Funded by American Federation of Teachers
and National Educational Association
Theme – Critical evaluation of “No
Significant Difference”
What’s the Difference


Distance Education isn’t new – roots
in 19th Century
There is a large collection of
research on effectiveness:


Seems to indicate “no significant
difference”
This research base needs careful
analysis, however.
What Did They Do?

Examined 40 research studies conducted
in the 1990’s on the effectiveness of DL.


Mix of one-way, two-way and computer
mediated approaches
Can be categorized as:
 Descriptive studies
 Case Studies
 Correlational research
 True experimental research – preferred to
establish causal links since factors are
controlled. Only a few of these studies exist.
What Did IHEP Find?

Found that studies focused on three
factors:




Student outcomes
Student attitudes about learning
Student satisfaction
Major finding – “there is a paucity of true,
original research”


Generally critical of existing research
Hence, we can’t conclude much about DL
versus traditional education
What Did IHEP Find?

Key shortcomings





Most studies don’t control extraneous variables
Most studies don’t use randomly assigned
subjects – hence, selection bias
Questionable reliability and validity of
instruments
Lack of control for student/faculty attitudes (the
reactive effect)
Sheer volume of studies don’t respond to
inherent bias of self interested researchers – but
IHEP seems to ignore their own bias.
What Did IHEP Find?

What are the gaps?







Research focuses on outcomes in single courses.
Research looks at average performance; it
ignores differences among students.
Research doesn’t explain high drop out rates for
DL students.
Research doesn’t account for differences in
learning styles
Research focuses on single technologies, not
technology “cocktails” (blended approaches)
Research provides no theoretical framework
Research fails to consider digital libraries
Implications



DL’s ability to extend “access” to remote
students is unclear – especially if students
need computer skills to use it.
What is the “quality of access” that DL
offers?
Factors other than media may be far
more significant in impacting outcomes –
student motivation, instructor, learning
tasks and learner characteristics.
What the Difference? An Assessment

Key observations




IHEP offers no original research of their
own. They only offer criticism of
others.
IHEP is biased based on their funding
sources (AFT and NEA).
IHEP seemingly ignores the best done
studies on DL.
If we wait for perfectly reliable and
valid instruments, we may never know.
What Is Different?

My personal experience in teaching:



On-Ground
On-Line
Dramatic changes in Higher Education:



Growing consumerism among students
Emergence of for profit universities and
aggressive, tuition driven non-profits
Changing face of graduate education:
 Increase in part-time programs
A “Credential” war among employees?
Is education becoming a commodity?


Growing Consumerism Among
Students

Are students “customers”?





Customers can take their money elsewhere.
Students are “pupils”, however.
Will students accept their apprentice role
under the leadership of faculty?
Ever increasing tuition charges lead
families to shop for “best buys” and “Let’s
Make a Deal”
DL is one of the latest moves by schools
to meet consumer demand – “Why do I
have to go to class, bring it to me!”
The Rise of For Profit Education

Early leaders – schools like University of
Phoenix, DeVry:


Focus- adult learners in part-time, career programs:
 Bachelor Degree completion
 Graduate management and education – inc. PhD
Business Model
 Frequently DL or on-ground with DL support
 Frequently multi-campus
 Employ large numbers of adjuncts as
“facilitators”

UoP has 90 full time faculty for > 45,000 students
Minimal research and service missions
 Have achieved NCA accreditation

Chronicle of Higher Education

Index of For Profits









Apollo Group and University of Phoenix
Career Education Corporation
Corinthian Colleges
DeVry Inc.
Education Management
ITT Educational Services
Strayer Education
Sylvan Learning
Whitman Education
Growth of Aggressive, Tuition Driven
Non-Profits

In competitive response, tuition driven
non-profits (schools financed largely by
tuition dollars):



Examples include Baker College, Nova
Southeastern University
Major DL players
Typically, employ business models with:




Large adjunct corps
Big users of DL technology
Trendy curriculums
Similar to for-profits in many ways
Financial Differences

Example institutions:



University of Phoenix – aggressive forprofit
Nova Southeastern University –
aggressive non-profit
Kettering University – traditional nonprofit
Financial Comparison
Comparison of
Financials
UoP
Revenue (tuition)
100%
Income (gift, grant,
investment)
NSU
Kettering
87%
69%
13%
31%
Cost of Revenue
47%
82%
73%
Selling, G&A and other
24%
12%
13%
Income Tax
12%
Net Income or Gain
18%
6%
14%
Changing Face of Graduate Education

Growth of part-time programs




For many mid-career professionals a
masters degree in “something” is a key
item to add to their resume.
But to many – the subject or quality of
institution doesn’t matter
DL is quite attractive
An ensuing credential war

Pieces of paper matter more than
learning.
Master Degrees Awarded
Engineering
Year
19
98
19
96
19
94
Business Management
And Administrative Ser
vices
19
92
19
90
120,000
100,000
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
0
200+ Regionally
accredited DL MBA
programs
Is Education Becoming a Commodity?

An open question:

Some recent research questions the
economic value of education from top
schools.


Is a BS from New Mexico Tech ($2k/year)
worth that much less than a BS from
Stanford ($30k/year +)?
Will digital technology replace
traditional classroom interaction
between faculty and students?
Conclusion

So what’s the answer to the
question:

“Is there solid empirical research that
shows that undergraduates will learn
how to think critically, interact
rationally and develop the cognitive
and ethical perspectives that they
acquire in a good residential program?”
Conclusion

The answer isn’t clear. It does
appears:



Everyone has an opinion.
That mode of delivery (DL or
traditional) isn’t nearly as important as
a host of other factors.
That the educational world is changing
rapidly due to technology and
competition.
Conclusion

What does this mean for Kettering?





A general blurring of market distinctions.
Students and families have higher expectations
of institutions.
Engineering programs may be “safe” from
some competitors, but not the general market
for credentials.
We’re in a competitive market – in the long run
no school is “safe”.
Technology is here to stay.