Thirty-two
Trends Affecting Distance Education:
An Informed Foundation for Strategic Planning
Scott L. Howell, PhD
Brigham Young University
scott_howell@byu.edu
Peter B.
Williams, M.S.
Brigham Young University
peter_williams@byu.edu
Nathan K.
Lindsay, M.S.
University of Michigan
nlindsay@umich.edu
Abstract
Recent issues in this journal and other
prominent distance-learning journals have established the need for
administrators to be informed and prepared with strategic plans equal to
foreseeable challenges. This article provides decision makers with 32
trends that affect distance learning and thus enable them to plan
accordingly. The trends are organized into categories as they pertain to
students and enrollment, faculty members, academics, technology, the
economy, and distance learning. All the trends were identified during an
extensive review of current literature in the field
Informed Planning
Recent issues in this journal and other
prominent distance-learning journals have established the need for
administrators to be informed and prepared with strategic plans equal to
foreseeable challenges. This article provides decision makers with 32
trends that affect distance learning and thus enable them to plan
accordingly. The trends are organized into categories as they pertain to
students and enrollment, faculty members, academics, technology, the
economy, and distance learning. All the trends were identified during an
extensive review of current literature in the field.
In a recent issue of Distance Learning
Administration, Beaudoin (2003) stressed the importance for institutional
leaders “to be informed and enlightened enough to ask fundamental
questions that could well influence their institution’s future viability”
(p. 1). Example questions included “How many faculty will we be needed in
ten years? Will the notion of classrooms survive? Is the present structure
of the institution viable? Will teachers and students need to meet on
campus anymore? [and] Can the organization’s decision makers respond to
new competitors?” Given these and other pressing questions, decision
makers must clearly understand all influencing factors. Institutions need
not only pose difficult questions, they must answer them from an informed
perspective.
Decision makers often rely on long-term
demographic and economic projections, based on current trends and
foreseeable influences, in their strategic planning (Reeve, 2002). While
demographic and economic predictions are essential in planning distance
learning, they alone are not sufficient. Other major influences complicate
the issue, such as the rapid advancement of technology, shifts in higher
education audiences and learner profiles, faculty members’ reactions,
adapting campus cultures, and unsettled tensions between administrators,
faculty members, and distance learning leaders. These and many other
factors can compound one another in ways difficult to predict. While
identifying trends does not offer solutions to distance-learning
challenges, decision makers will benefit by carefully considering each
trend as it affects institution and goals.
Methodology
The trends presented in this article
were identified during an integrative literature review, conducted to
summarize the current state and future directions of distance education.
Books, journal articles, reports, and web sites were selected based on
their currency (most references were published within the last 3 years)
and relevance to distance education, information technology, and impact on
the larger, higher education community. For this review, researchers
collected citations identifying and supporting unique trends in a document
that grew to over 140 pages. Themes emerged as the analysis progressed
regarding students and enrollment, faculty members, academics, technology,
the economy, and distance learning. The citations were then ordered in sub
categories and specific trends, and condensed for publication.
Student/Enrollment Trends
1. The
current higher education infrastructure cannot accommodate the growing
college-aged population and enrollments, making more distance education
programs necessary.
Callahan (2003) noted at a recent UCEA
conference that the largest high school class in U.S. history will occur
in 2009. In corroboration of this projection, a survey conducted by the US
Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics
predicted that college enrollment will grow 16% over the next ten years
(Jones, 2003). Reeve and Perlich, in projecting similar growth rates for
the state of Utah, added this insight: “Because college and university
attendance are not restricted to this ‘traditional’ age group, this
presents only a partial measurement of the projected demand for higher
education” (Reeve & Perlich, 2002, p. 3). With this growth in college-age
population and enrollments and the need for more lifelong learning for
adults, many institutions acknowledge that within the decade there will be
more students than their facilities can accommodate (Oblinger, Barone, &
Hawkins, 2001). Scalable distance-education models may provide a solution
to capacity constraints growing enrollments place on the current higher
education infrastructure.
2.
Students are shopping for courses that meet their schedules and
circumstances.
More and more learners are requiring
flexibility in program structure to accommodate their other
responsibilities, such as full-time jobs or family needs (PSU, 1998). With
these constraints, students shop for courses that best accommodate their
schedules and learning styles, and then transfer the credit to the
university where they will earn their degrees (Johnstone, Ewell, &
Paulson, 2002; Paulson, 2002; Carnevale, 2000c). Johnstone et al. (2002)
refer to this notion of acquiring and exchanging credit at different
institutions than the one they receive their degree from as “academic
currency” and note that it is growing—as of 1999, 77% of all students
graduating with a baccalaureate degree had “attended” two or more
institutions.
Students’ demand is being supported and
answered. In 1998, 83% of governors identified “allowing students to
obtain education anytime and anyplace via technology” as a critical
characteristic of universities in the twenty-first century (de Alva, 2000
pp. 34, 38). Given the demand and response, education is becoming a
commodity, making consumers of students and putting them in a position to
shop for the best deal (Johnstone et al., 2002; Pond, 2003; West, 1999;
Dubois, 1996).
One result of the highly competitive
e-learning market will be institutions that specialize in meeting
particular niches in the market (Gallagher, 2003). Morrison and Barone
(2003, p. 4) observed, “We can see the beginnings of the trend toward the
unbundling of courses, credits, services, and fee structures.” Dunn
foresaw a similar trend, predicting that “courseware producers will sell
courses and award credits directly to the end user and thus, through
intermediation, bypass the institutional middleman” (Dunn, 2000, p. 37).
The transition may also blur the distinction between two- and four-year
colleges and universities (Carr, 1999). In this context of greater
“portability,” more educational “brokers” (e.g., Western Governor’s
University, Excelsior College, Charter Oak State College, etc.) will exist
(Pond, 2003). Further, as de Alva has asserted, “Institutional success for
any higher education enterprise will depend more on successful marketing,
solid quality-assurance and control systems, and effective use of the new
media than on production and communication of knowledge” (de Alva, 2000,
p. 40).
3.
Higher-education learner profiles, including online, information-age, and
adult learners, are changing.
Online students are becoming an entirely
new subpopulation of higher-education learners. They are “generally older,
have completed more college credit hours and more degree programs, and
have a higher all-college GPA than their traditional counterparts” (Diaz,
2002, pp. 1-2). For example, Diaz has noted that online students received
twice as many A’s as traditional students and half as many D’s and F’s.
The modern, traditional-age college
students are unlike past generations. They are “interested in
[qualifications from] small modules and short programs … and in learning
that can be done at home and fitted around work, family, and social
obligations” (Bates, 2000, p. 5). Information-age learners prefer doing to
knowing, trial-and-error to logic, and typing to handwriting. Multitasking
is a way of life for them, staying connected is essential, and there is
zero tolerance for delays. Further, modern literacy includes not only text
but also image and screen literacy—it involves navigating information and
assembling knowledge from fragments (Oblinger et al., 2001; Jones &
Pritchard, 2000).
Today’s adult learners differ still from
traditional college-age students. They tend to be practical problem
solvers. Their life experiences make them autonomous, self-directed, and
goal- and relevancy-oriented—they need to know the rationale for what they
are learning. They are motivated by professional advancement, external
expectations, the need to better serve others, social relationships,
escape or stimulation, and pure interest in the subject. Their demands
include time and scheduling, money, and long-term commitment constraints.
They also tend to feel insecure about their ability to succeed in distance
learning, find instruction that matches their learning style, and have
sufficient instructor contact, support services, and technology training
(Dortch, 2003; Diaz, 2002; Dubois, 1996).
4. The
percentage of adult, female, and minority learners is increasing.
Approximately “42 percent of all
students at both private and public institutions are age 25 or older” (Aslanian,
2001, p. 4). Not only are they numerous, adult learners are the
fastest-growing population in higher education. While the number of
18-24-year-old students increased only 41% between 1970 and 2000, the
number of adult students increased 170% (Aslanian, 2001; “Lifelong,”
2002). Some factors that might influence this phenomenon include “the
growth of continuing education programs, economic necessity, the rapidly
changing job market, changes in the economy, and the simple aging of
student populations” (Bishop, 2003, p. 374).
Like growth in adult learners, the
percentage of women and minority learners is increasing. More women than
men now enroll in college (57% of students are women), a trend supported
by the fact that more women are entering the workforce (“Lifelong,” 2002).
Among minorities, the proportion of women is even higher: “60% of Hispanic
and two-thirds of African-American college students are women” (Cetron,
2003, p. 10). If enrollment follows population projections, higher
education can expect this trend to continue—the Hispanic population in the
U.S. is expected to increase 63% by 2020, reaching 55 million people
(“Lifelong,” 2002).
5.
Retention rates concern administrators and faculty members.
Studies comparing online course
retention rates with traditional courses are inconclusive. This may be due
to “the newness of online education, but individual schools and
organizations are reporting that their online programs have as high or
higher rates of retention as their traditional classroom offerings”
(Roach, 2002, p. 23). Some claim that distance education attrition is
high. A Chronicle of Higher Education article in 2000 reported that “no
national statistics exist yet about how many students complete distance
programs or courses, but anecdotal evidence and studies by individual
institutions suggest that course-completion and program-retention rates
are generally lower in distance-education courses than in their
face-to-face counterparts” (Brady, 2001, p. 352).
Brigham (2003), in a benchmark survey of
four-year institutions’ distance education programs, found that 66% of the
distance-learning institutions have an 80% or better completion rate for
their distance education courses; 87% have 70% or better completion. Diaz
(2002) asserted, and others (Bolam, 2003; Allred, 2003) concur, that “many
online students who drop a class may do so because it is the ‘right thing’
to do. In other words, because of the requirements of school, work, and/or
family life in general, students can benefit more from a class if they
take it when they have enough time to apply themselves to the class work …
they may be making a mature, well-informed decision.”
Faculty Trends
6.
Traditional faculty roles are shifting or “unbundling.”
“Rather than incorporating the
responsibility for all technology- and competency-based functions into a
single concept of ‘faculty member,’ universities are disaggregating
faculty instructional activities and [assigning] them to distinct
professionals” (Paulson, 2002, p. 124). Doing this involves a “deliberate
division of labor among the faculty, creating new kinds of instructional
staff, or deploying nontenure-track instructional staff (such as adjunct
faculty, graduate teaching assistants, or undergraduate assistants) in new
ways” (Paulson, 2002, p. 126). Distance education teams include
administrators, instructional designers, technologists, and
instructors/facilitators (Miller, 2001; Williams, 2003). The functions of
instructors and facilitators then include being a “facilitator, teacher,
organizer, grader, mentor, role model, counselor, coach, supervisor,
problem solver, and liaison” (Riffee, 2003, p. 1; see also Roberson, 2002;
Scagnoli, 2001).
The role of faculty members in distance education requires “some
specialized skills and strategies. Distance education instructors must
plan ahead, be highly organized, and communicate with learners in new
ways. They need to be accessible to students [and] work in teams when
appropriate” (PSU, 1998, p. 4). Distance faculty members must be experts
in maintaining communication, because there is increased demand for
student interaction in distance learning (NEA, 2000). Finally, they may
have to assume more administrative responsibilities than is true in a
residential model (PSU, 1998).
7. The
need for faculty development, support, and training is growing.
Faculty members tend initially to try to
use their conventional classroom methods to teach at a distance and then
become frustrated when attempts are unsuccessful (Dasher-Alston & Patton,
p. 14). In Green’s (2002) survey of the role of computing and information
technology in U.S. higher education, chief academic and information
technology officials rated “helping faculty integrate technology into
their instruction” the single most important IT issue confronting their
campuses over the next two or three years (p. 7). An EDUCAUSE survey
supported the issue’s importance: “faculty development, support, and
training” were rated the fifth overall strategic concern, as well as the
fifth IT issue most likely to become even more significant in the next
year. However, despite IT leaders’ rising concern over the issue, it is
not yet among their top ten uses of time or resources (Crawford et al.,
2003).
8.
Faculty tenure is being challenged, allowing for more non-traditional
faculty roles in distance education.
Faculty tenure status is coming under
more fire as new state, private, and for-profit distance-learning
universities are created. For example, Florida Gulf Coast University, a
new distance-learning state university, and BYU-Idaho, a private four-year
university, will not have tenured faculty members. The results of de
Alva’s 2000 survey support this trend: governors rated “maintaining
traditional faculty roles and tenure” as the least desirable
characteristic of a twenty-first century university (p. 34). Since
distance educators and administrators must secure instructors and course
content experts, access to on-campus professors and their arrangements
with the university become significant factors affecting distance
education. Contributions to distance education rarely move faculty members
toward tenure; therefore, dissolving tenure might make them more likely to
participate in distance education efforts.
9. Some
faculty members are resisting technological course delivery.
As long as distance education
contributions are not considered in tenure and promotion decisions, and as
long as professors have their own, traditional ways of delivering their
courses, many faculty members will be reluctant to participate in online
courses (Oravec, 2003). Concerning this reluctance, Dunn has predicted
that many faculty members will revolt against technological course
delivery and the emerging expectations their institutions will have of
faculty members. Dunn forecast that some of the resistance will even be
manifest through unionization and strikes (Dunn, 2000). Some have
suggested the labor-intensive and time-consuming demands required to
develop online modules as reasons for faculty resistance (Brogden, 2002).
10. Faculty members who participate in
distance education courses develop better attitudes toward distance
education and technology.
Despite some resistance, the results of
a four-year study by McGraw-Hill showed a strong increase in overall
faculty support for technology in education, with only 22% viewing it as
important in 1999 and 57% in 2003. Instructors feel that Web-based
technology is helping them achieve their teaching objectives (McGraw-Hill
Ryerson, 2003).
A 2002 study similarly showed that “most
teachers (85%) were not philosophically opposed to distance education”
(Lindner, 2002, p. 5). Further, teaching at a distance improves
perceptions of distance education factors: “Faculty members who had not
taught distance education courses perceived the level of support as lower
than those who had” (Lindner, 2002, p. 5). Carr (2000) found similar
results: 72% of those who had taught distance-learning courses were
favorable, compared with 51% who had not taught at a distance.
11.
Instructors of distance courses can feel isolated.
Despite growing support among faculty
members for distance learning, there are acknowledged drawbacks. “Design
teams and instructors must anticipate isolation that can be felt by
instructors who are separated from their students. This isolation may
affect instructor satisfaction, motivation, and potential long-term
involvement in distance learning” (Childers & Berner, 2000, p. 64).
Childers and Berner (2000) anticipated the potential for feeling isolated
and suggested that “feelings of isolation may be offset by the
instructor’s ability to work with peers in other institutions or with
students across the globe” (p. 64).
12.
Faculty members demand reduced workload and increased compensation for
distance courses.
An NEA survey reported that faculty
members’ top concern about distance education was that they will do more
work for the same amount of pay, apparently a merited concern. The NEA
(2000) found that most faculty members do spend more time on their
distance courses than they do on traditional courses, and 84% of them do
not get a reduced workload. Similarly, 63% of distance faculty members
receive no extra compensation for their distance courses.
A UCEA survey of four-year institutions
found that 64% of faculty members were compensated for distance courses
with normal, on-campus salary; 74% were additionally given development
stipends. However, 82% of respondents added a qualifier about how
compensation for distance learning depended on the type of course, the
rank of the faculty member, and other factors (Hickman, 2003).
Academic Trends
13.
Knowledge and information are growing exponentially.
One cannot dispute that there is
proliferation of new information: “In the past, information doubled every
10 years; now it doubles every four years” (Aslanian, 2001, p. 5; see also
Finkelstein, 1996). This growth in information will certainly continue to
dramatically impact higher education and learning in general. Knowledge
proliferation may increase content-breadth demands on higher education,
spreading distance education resources ever thinner and complicating
development decisions.
14. The
institutional landscape of higher education is changing: traditional
campuses are declining, for-profit institutions are growing, and public
and private institutions are merging.
Changes in the institutional landscape
may magnify competition among educational providers and allow new models
and leaders to emerge. “For-profit institutions are the fastest-growing
sector in education” (Gallagher, 2003; Pond, 2003). Currently, only 4 to
5% of all higher-education students are enrolled with for-profit
providers, but 33% of all online students are enrolled with these same
providers (Gallagher, 2003). As Bates (2000) has observed, this phenomenon
could have a dramatic impact on higher education:
The private sector will concentrate on
those areas where profits are most easily made, such as business programs
and information technology courses. However, it will leave those areas
that cannot pay their way, such as many arts and social science programs,
and possibly health science because of the high cost, to the public
sector. With the loss of cross-subsidy, the higher education sector will
be in even more financial trouble. (p. 6; see also Anderson, 2001).
However, accompanying the growth in Internet usage (see trend 23).
Berge (2000) describes for-profits’
practice as “picking the low hanging fruit” by offering the more
marketable courses, e.g., business, computer science, etc., and leaving
the “heavy lifting” type of courses to traditional academe.
Dunn (2000) projected changes in higher
education’s landscape over the next 20 years. “The number of
degree-granting institutions will continue to grow, while the number of
traditional campuses will decline. By 2025, half of today’s existing
independent colleges will be closed, merged, or significantly altered in
mission” (p. 37). Another aspect changing in higher education is the
blurring line between public and private universities, especially in the
financial arena. Dunn also predicted that “the distinctions between and
among public and private, for-profit and nonprofit institutions of higher
education will largely disappear” (p. 37). White (2003) has observed this
blurring already taking place.
15. There
is a shift in organizational structure toward decentralization.
Much of distance education programs’
success or failure can be attributed to how it is organized. Hickman
(2003) observed a movement “from a highly centralized core of
administrators, coordinators, [and] marketing and support staffs to a more
‘institutionalized’ approach in which continuing education personnel were
assigned to academic units within a university” (p. 6). He noted that
others with a semi-decentralized model in which continuing education
personnel were assigned to academic units (decentralized), while the
support and marketing infrastructure remained centralized to coordinate
interdisciplinary work. Pointing to a series of UCEA managerial surveys,
Donaldson (2003) affirms, “The organization of CE [continuing education]
is tended to be related to issues of centralization/decentralization of
both its administrative and academic functions” (p. 1). In the 2002
managerial survey, UCEA found “an increase in the academically/
administratively centralized model (28% for public and 44% for private
institutions) [and] the academically decentralized/administratively
centralized model (58% for public and 32% for private institutions).” But
as Donaldson reminds, “There are strengths and weaknesses in all these
models” (p. 1).
16.
Instruction is becoming more learner-centered, non-linear, and
self-directed.
Instructional approaches are becoming
more learner-centered: “recursive and non-linear, engaging, self-directed,
and meaningful from the learner’s perspective” (McCombs, 2000, p. 1).
Whereas in the past, most instructors followed a “transmission” or
lecture-style approach to teaching, more instructional diversity is
occurring among teachers who are trying a larger variety of approaches
(Eckert, 2003). A pedagogical shift is likewise occurring within distance
education, moving from a transmission model to constructivist,
sociocultural and metacognitive models. These models use computer-mediated
communication and emphasize students’ responsibility for their own
learning (Rumble, 2001; Miller, 2001).
Stated differently, “Distance education
can be seen to be evolving from an essentially modernist (bureaucratic or
Fordist) form of education into a post-modernist phenomenon with a focus
on the student as consumer, on flexibility and global reach” (Rumble,
2001, p. 31). With this transition, there is also a shift toward increased
accessibility for those who are disabled. “Many feel that eLearning holds
great promise…for learners with physical and mental challenges”
(Frydenberg, 2002, p. 7).
17. There
is a growing emphasis on academic accountability.
In a recent poll by the North Central
Association of Colleges and Schools, university presidents,
administrators, and faculty members rated increasing demands for
accountability (80%) and expanding use of distance education (78%) as the
highest impact trends on future NCA (i.e., regulatory) activities (de
Alva, 2000). Programs such as the “State-by-State Report Card for Higher
Education” manifest this growing emphasis on academic accountability (see
http://measuringup.highereducation.org/2002/reporthome.htm). Noting this
trend, Dunn (2000) forecast the following:
Accreditation and program approval will
be based more on educational outcomes. Testing programs will be put in
place by discipline organizations, federal and state governments,
corporations, and testing companies. Large corporations will develop their
own approval systems. By 2025, there will not be one national
accreditation system, although the U.S. Department of Education will
provide a basic safety net for quality. (p. 37; see also Pond, 2003)
Distance educators must plan to accommodate this emphasis on
accountability if they are to maintain accreditation and meet consumer
demands.
18.
Academic emphasis is shifting from course-completion to competency.
Related to the shift toward
accountability, there is a slight shift from “theoretical” and “seat-based
time” to “outcomes-based” or “employer-based” competency. In many cases,
“certification is becoming more preferable than a degree” (Gallagher,
2003). Diplomas are less meaningful to employers; knowledge, performance,
and skills are what count to them (Callahan, 2003). De Alva (2000) also
found this trend; 66% of governors identified “integrating applied or
on-the-job experience into academic programs” as a critical characteristic
of universities in the 21st century (p. 34, 36, 40; see also BYU DCE Unit
Review, 2001). With an emphasis on competency, course content will be
dictated more “by what learners need, [than] by what has been
traditionally done” (de Alva, 2000, p. 38).
19.
Education is becoming more seamless between high school, college, and
further studies.
As universities shift toward competency
and institutions cater more closely to learners’ specific needs, the
distinctions between high school, undergraduate college, and graduate
programs will dissolve. “Incentives will be given to students and
institutions to move students through at a faster rate [and] the home
school movement will lead to a home-college movement” (Dunn, 2000, p. 37).
As leaders in the effort to cater to learners’ needs, distance education
programs may be a dominant influence in this trend.
20.
Higher education outsourcing and partnerships are increasing.
Universities are traditionally
independent, free-standing, and competitive (Hawkins, 2003). On the other
hand, distance learning institutions have been more cooperative and
accommodating with partner institutions. Interestingly, Rubin (2003) has
noted that “traditional universities are becoming more like distance
learning universities and not the opposite” (p. 59). With this shift, more
institutions are creating partnerships with other colleges, universities,
companies, and other kinds of institutions to share technology and to
produce and deliver courses (Carnevale, 2000c; Dunn, 2000; Cheney, 2002).
It is predicted that higher education teaming will be successful: by 2005,
partnerships and outsourcing will produce “courseware applications
covering the 25 college courses that enroll 50% of all credits” (Dunn,
2000, p. 37; see also McIsaac, 1998; Paulson, 2002).
However, partnerships present “obstacles
as well as benefits. Winning accreditation, providing student services,
setting tuition, figuring out finances, and transferring course credits
are among the thorny issues that administrators find themselves struggling
to face collectively” (Carnevale, 2000b, p. 2).
21. Some
advocate standardizing content in learning objects.
“The central issue in courseware
development at the moment is the potential for developing reusable
learning objects, tagging them in a systemic way, storing them in
well-designed databases, and retrieving and recombining them with other
objects to create customized learning experiences for specific needs”
(Frydenberg, 2002). Farhad Saba referred to this as part of the
“post-industrial” culture, pointing out that traditional academe is still
in the “industrial” or mass-production and standardized testing culture.
According to Saba, “true” individualized learning is the future and
strength in educational technology (Saba, 2003; see also Bates, 2003).
Others have likewise noted the increasingly widespread standardization and
reuse of content (Anderson, 2002; Gallagher, 2003).
Technology Trends
22.
Technological devices are becoming more versatile and ubiquitous
One of the most apparent trends
affecting distance education is the advancement of technology.
Infrastructures are growing stronger as computers double in speed while
decreasing in cost, and high-speed network connections continue to expand.
Computer, fax, picture phone, duplication, and other modalities are
merging and becoming available at ever cheaper prices (Cetron, 2003).
Further, IT functionalities not imagined ten years ago are being realized.
By 2018, computers will be able to “routinely translate languages in
real-time with the accuracy and speed necessary for effective
communications” (“Emerging,” 2003, p. 8; see also Cetron, 2003). “New
technology will transform higher education as we know it today” (Oblinger
et al., 2001, p. 2), one example being the changes caused by broader use
of e-texts and PDAs (Chick et al., 2002). By the year 2012, schools and
colleges will routinely use “computerized teaching programs and
interactive television lectures and seminars, as well as traditional
methods” (“Emerging,” 2003, p. 8). Videoconferencing and other
technologies will also help enrich distance media and provide many
benefits of face-to-face instruction.
23. There
is a huge growth in Internet usage.
Not only is technology becoming more
ubiquitous, it is being used more competently by more people from all
nationalities, age groups, and socioeconomic levels (Murray, 2003). There
has been a 59% increase in the number of children accessing the Internet
since 2000 (Murray, 2003). As Cetron (2003) reports, the number of current
Internet users is approximately 500 million worldwide and will almost
double by 2005. One reason for the growth is a growing percentage of users
outside the US; Americans have dropped from 42% to 37% of the total
Net-using population within the last three years. However, this decrease
does not reflect a decline in American users. “By 2002, 83 percent of all
[American] family households reportedly owned computers,” and “78 percent
of children live in a home where they or their parents have access to the
Internet. That represents a 70-percent growth rate from 2000” (Murray,
2003, p. 37).
24.
Technological fluency is becoming a graduation requirement.
Ubiquitous technology may continue to
increase the options available for distributing distance education to more
people in a scalable fashion, especially if it is accompanied by
technological fluency. The increase in Internet usage includes competence
as well as sheer numbers: by 2005, “computer competence will approach 100%
in U.S. urban areas” (Cetron, 2003, p. 6). The networked world is
dominating the economy, increasing the power of the individual, and
changing business models—no one can afford to be without computer
competence (Oblinger, 2000). Accordingly, universities are beginning to
list the fluent use of technology as an outcome skill, encourage students
to take online courses, and even requiring students to take at least one
online course before they graduate (e.g., Fairleigh Dickinson, BYU-Idaho)
(Young, 2003).
Economic Trends
25. With
the economy in recession, there are fewer resources for higher education
and higher education, initiatives, such as distance education.
The Washington-based Center on Budget
and Policy Priorities recently calculated the combined deficits of the
nation’s 50 state governments to total $85 billion within the next year,
“the highest number since the Great Depression” (White, 2003, p. 54). This
recession will prompt all universities to seek additional external sources
of funding. To worsen the problem, university costs and enrollments are
growing (UCEA, 2001; see Trend 7). Some institutions are beginning to
consider distance learning as a possible solution to the dilemma (Jones,
2003), but start-up expenses for distance education programs are typically
high.
26.
Funding challenges are the top IT concern for many.
While distance learning is a potential
solution to decreasing resources and rising demand, the issue is far from
being resolved. A study from the Colorado Department of Education reported
that “the cost per student of a high-quality online learning program is
the same as or greater than the per-student cost of physical school [i.e.,
traditional] education” (Branigan, 2003, p. 1). The study also explained
that most costs in education are for staffing. EDUCAUSE reported similar
results: “IT Funding Challenges has become the number-one IT-related issue
in terms of its strategic importance to the institution, its potential to
become even more significant, and its capture of IT leaders’ time”
(Crawford et al., 2003, p. 12).
27.
Lifelong learning is becoming a competitive necessity.
Some have estimated that people change
careers, on average, every 10 years (Cetron, 2003). Labor Department
officials estimate that approximately 40% of the workforce change jobs
every year (De Alva, 2000). Undoubtedly, “the changing nature of the
workforce in the Information Age … [will require] a continuous cycle of
retraining and retooling” (Dasher-Alston & Patton, 1998, p. 12; see also
Dunn, 2000; McIsaac, 1998). To add to the demands for a dynamic workforce,
retirement will be delayed until late in life (Cetron, 2003; “Lifelong,”
2002). In such circumstances, “the opportunity for training is becoming
one of the most desirable benefits any job can offer,” and employers are
coming to “view employee training as a good investment” (Cetron, 2003, pp.
6, 22). Accordingly, an increasing number of employers (85% of Fortune 500
companies) are paying for their employees to go back to school to stay
current with changes (Markel, 1999).
Alvin Toffler wrote, “The illiterate of
the 21st century will not be those who can’t read and write. They will be
those who can’t learn, unlearn, and relearn” (Pond, 2003). Considering
these factors, some are concerned about how well higher education will be
able to respond (Dasher-Alston & Patton, 1998). Some of the changes
accompanying the growing demand for lifelong learning, will demand short
accelerated programs, well-suited for online delivery, and portfolio
credentials (Gallagher, 2003).
Distance Learning Trends
28. More
courses, degrees, and universities are becoming available through
distance-education programs.
The literature is replete with evidence
of the growing demand for distance education. The annual market for
distance learning is currently $4.5 billion, and it is “expected to grow
to $11 billion by 2005” (Kariya, 2003, p. 49; see also Pond, 2003;
“Lifelong,” 2002). As Oblinger and Kidwell (2000) have noted, the
International Data Corporation (IDC) expects a 33% growth rate in distance
education over the next several years. Some analysts predict that demand
for distributed education will grow from “five percent of all higher
education institutions in 1998 to 15 percent by 2002” (p. 32; see also
West, 1999). Others have asserted that up one-half of traditional campus
programs will soon be available (alternatively or exclusively) online
(Finkelstein et al.2000; Bishop, 2003; Dunn 2000; Winsboro, 2002).
Organizations from within and outside
higher education are adapting to accommodate the growth in distance
learning. For example, “human resource professionals and hiring managers
are becoming more accepting of online degree credentials” (“Lifelong,”
2002, p. 77). Further, more and more university systems are “spinning off”
new “virtual” or “online” universities—for example, Penn State’s World
Campus, Arizona Regents University, California Virtual Campus, and many
others.
Some reasons for this remarkable growth
include efforts to expand access to more students, alleviate capacity
constraints, capitalize on emerging market opportunities, and serve as a
catalyst for institutional transformation (Oblinger & Kidwell, 2000).
Another factor influencing growth may be competition with other
institutions. “Universities offering distance education are often
perceived as modern and [technologically] competent, thus creating a
competitive advantage” (Bishop, 2003, p. 374).
Distance students include both the
traditional continuing-education students (i.e., adult learners) and
growing numbers of younger, on-campus students (Anderson, 2001). One
estimate is that as “many as half the students in online courses are from
the traditional 18- to 25-year-old student cohort who normally take
campus-based courses” (Roach, 2002, p. 24).
29. The
Internet is becoming dominant among other distance-education media.
Distance education has existed in some
form or another since the 1800s. However, accompanying the growth in
Internet usage (see trend 23), “today’s distance education focus has
dramatically shifted toward network-based technologies (in general) and
Internet-based delivery (more specifically)” (Kinley, 2001, p. 7). Today,
the Internet is being used more than other continuing education delivery
strategies, such as Interactive Television (ITV), correspondence, and
live-remote location combinations (Hickman, 2003). Not only is online
learning more common now, but it increases 40% annually (Gallagher, 2002).
One reason for the growth is the fact that digital media are transferable,
storable, and widely accessible (Pond, 2003).
The UCEA Distance Learning Community of
Practice (2002) recently collected a baseline survey of distance
enrollments by medium. The average enrollment in university-level
independent study courses was 4,725, with 56% of course credits delivered
in print, 25% online, and 19% granted by passing waiver exams. In 2002,
Brigham Young University Independent Study had 24,351 university-level
enrollments. Of those, 32% were delivered online and 68% on paper—an
increase in web-delivered courses since 1998, when only 15% were online
(BYU IS, 2003).
30. The
distinction between distance and local education is disappearing.
As universities digitally enhance more
courses, the distinction between distance and local education is becoming
blurred (Dunn, 2000). Digitally enhanced courses provide students in
traditional classrooms with more opportunities for independent study:
“Even in a conventional ‘face-to-face’ system, students spend much of
their time working on their own. It may always have been so, but the
increase in resources for individual learning and especially those through
the new technologies has provided students with far more powerful tools
for independent learning” (Rumble, 2001, p. 36). Clearly, distance
students are not the only ones who benefit from “distance” courses. In
fact, most online students live in the local vicinity of the institution
offering their course (Carr, 2000).
As a result of online courses, many institutions struggle to define
Internet students (Hickman, 2003). Traditional in-state, out-of-state, and
international student distinctions are being eliminated, and the
corresponding fee structures for the respective groups are breaking down
(Carnevale, 2000a; Carnevale, 2000b). Currently, 74% of distance learning
institutions do not charge out-of-state distance students out-of-state
tuition, 91% do not charge international students more, and 71% do not
charge more for distance courses than they do for on-campus courses
(Brigham, 2003).
31. The
need for effective course-management systems and Web services is growing.
With all the growth in online education,
student- and course-managing systems are becoming ever more crucial. Web
services is “a relatively new term used to describe new software standards
that allow for integration of different applications as well as the secure
exchange of data over the Internet” (Crawford et al., 2003, p. 24). Web
services ranked number seven on the EDUCAUSE strategic IT concerns list,
number six on the list of issues becoming more significant, and number
three on list of highest resource expenditures. EDUCAUSE predicted that
“at some point, vendors will… offer a standard approach to data
integration, interchange and interface” (Crawford et al., 2003, p. 24).
Instructional/course management systems were similarly ranked number nine
on the IT issues most likely to become more significant in 2003-2004
(Crawford et al., 2003).
32. There
is an increasing need for learning and teaching strategies that exploit
the capabilities of technology.
Technological advancements have
naturally caused distance educators to ask how “new technologies such as
wireless, mobile laptop computing, personal digital assistants (PDAs),
videoconferencing, videostreaming, virtual reality, and gaming
environments enhance distributed learning” (Crawford et al., 2003, p. 24).
For many administrators and faculty members, “how” is the question. While
many studies have shown no significant difference when comparing online
with traditional courses, applying traditional teaching strategies at a
distance often causes frustration (Dasher-Alston & Patton). Appropriately,
then, developing distributed learning and teaching strategies for online
education was ranked number eight on the EDUCAUSE list of IT strategic
concerns (Crawford et al., 2003). Distance learning research should focus
on delivery strategies that help solve the capacity constraints, economic
concerns, and higher-education consumer needs outlined in this article.
Trends Informing Vision
In summary, many trends in higher
education will influence the future of distance learning. Student
enrollments are growing to surpass the capacity of traditional
infrastructures, learner profiles are changing, and students are shopping
for education that meets their needs. Traditional faculty roles,
motivation, and training needs are shifting while workload, compensation,
and instructional issues continue to deter them from distance learning
participation. The institutional and organizational structure of higher
education is changing to emphasize academic accountability, competency
outcomes, outsourcing, content standardizing, and adaptation to
learner-consumer demands. The Internet and other information technology
devices are becoming more ubiquitous while technological fluency is
becoming a common expectation. Funding challenges are increasing with
fewer resources to meet expanding, lifelong-learning demands. Distance
education is becoming more abundant, especially online, and location
independent, increasing the need for effective course-management systems
and teaching strategies that utilize technology.
In response to these trends, distance
learning may rise to meet student needs and overcome funding challenges
that traditional institutions cannot. Distance education administrators
must resolve concerns with faculty and university administrators to ensure
adequate support, as well as to develop the needed course management
systems and teaching strategies. Technological advances and increased
fluency will continue to open opportunities for distance education.
Although higher education institutions are changing to favor distance
education, the complexities of major transformations will require
patience.
As Bates (2000) suggests, perhaps “the biggest challenge [in distance
education] is the lack of vision and the failure to use technology
strategically” (p. 7). The challenge is understandable, given the
complexity of the issues involved. "Clearly, each institution needs to
understand where on-line distance education fits in its vision of the
institution's future and in its mission" (Meyer, 2002, p. 67). Further,
institutions will strengthen their distance-learning strategic plans by
identifying and understanding distance-education trends for student
enrollments, faculty support, and larger academic, technological and
economic issues.
References
Allred, E. (2003, June). Is quitting
good? Unpublished manuscript, Brigham Young University.
Anderson, T. (2001, November/December)
The hidden curriculum in distance education: An updated view. Change.
33(6): 28-35.
Anderson, T. (2002, May) An updated and
theoretical rationale for interaction. Athabasca University: IT Forum
Paper #63.
Aslanian, C B. (2001). Adult Students
Today. The College Board: New York.
Bates, T. (2000) Distance education in
dual mode higher education institutions: Challenges and changes. Online:
http://bates.cstudies.ubc.ca/papers/challengesandchanges.html
Bates, T. (2003) Higher education and
elearning: Integration or change? Presentation, University of British
Columbia. Online:
http://bates.cstudies.ubc.ca/
Beaudoin, M. F. (2003). Distance
Education leadership for the new century. Online Journal of Distance
Learning Administration (6)2. Retrieved June, 2003:
http://www.westga.edu/%7Edistance/ojdla/summer62/beaudoin62.html .
Bishop, J.S., Spake, D.F. (2003)
Distance education: A bibliographic review for educational planners and
policymakers 1992-2002.
Bolam, H., & Dodgson, R. (2003).
Retaining and supporting mature students in higher education. Journal of
Adult and Continuing Education. 8(2): 179-194.
Brady, L. (2001) Fault lines in the
terrain of distance education. Computers and Composition. 18: 347-358.
Branigan, C. (2003, June 2) Forum
addresses virtual schooling myths. eSchool News.
Brigham, D. (2003). Benchmark
Information Survey. Unpublished presentation, Excelsior University.
Brogden, L.M., & Couros, A. (2002)
Contemplating the virtual campus: Pedagogical and administrative
considerations. The Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin. 68(3): 22-30.
Brigham Young University (BYU)
Independent Study Data. (2003). Unpublished raw data, Brigham Young
University.
Brigham Young University (BYU) Division
of Continuing Education (DCE) Unit Review. (2003). Unpublished report,
Brigham Young University.
Callahan, P. M. (2003, March 28-30).
UCEA 88th Annual Conference. Chicago, Illinois.
Carnevale, D. (2000a, March 31) Southern
educators seek to cut tuition rates for online courses. The Chronicle of
Higher Education.
Carnevale, D. (2000b, May 19) 2 models
for collaboration in distance education. The Chronicle of Higher
Education.
Carnevale, D. (2000c, September 8)
Accrediting bodies consider new standards for distance-education programs.
The Chronicle of Higher Education.
Carr, S. (1999, October 8).
Distance-learning group blends offerings of 2-and 4-year colleges. The
Chronicle of Higher Education.
Carr, S. (2000, July 7). Many professors
are optimistic on distance learning, survey finds. The Chronicle of Higher
Education.
Cetron, M. J., & Daview, O. (2003) 50
trends shaping the future. Special Report Published by the World Future
Society.
Cheney, D.W. (2002, November) The
application and implications of information technology in postsecondary
distance education: An initial bibliography. Special Report: National
Science Foundation.
Chick, S., Day, R., Hook, R., Owston,
R., Warkentin, J., Cooper, P. M., Hahn, J., and Saundercook, J. (2002).
Technology and student success in higher education: A research study on
faculty perceptions of technology and student success. McGraw-Hill Ryerson
Limited: Toronto, Ontario.
Crawford, G., Rudy, J. A., & the
EDUCAUSE Current Issues Committee. (2003, November). Fourth annual
EDUCAUSE survey identifies current IT issues. 12-26.
Dasher-Alston, R. M., & Patton, G. W.
(1998). Evaluation Criteria for Distance Learning. Planning for Higher
Education. 11-17.
de Alva, J. K. (2000, March/April) Remaking the academy. Educause. 32-40.
Diaz, D. P. (2002, May/June). Online
Drop Rates Revisited. The Technology Source. Retrieved June, 2003: http://ts.mivu.org/default.asp?show=article&id=981
Donaldson, J. (2003, June). Continuing
Education Organizational Models. Unpublished email correspondence.
Dortch, K. D. (2003, April 13-15) “How
to get learners to learn.” Distance Education and Training Council: Report
on the DETC 77th Annual Conference.
Dunn, S. (2000, March/April) The
virtualizing of education. The Futurist. 34(2): 34-38.
Dubois, J. R. (1996) Going the distance:
A national distance learning initiative. Adult Learning. 8(1): 19-21.
Eckert, E. (2003). Review—New Directions
for adult and continuing education: Contemporary viewpoints on teaching
adults effectively. Adult Basic Education. 13(1): 62-64.
Emerging technologies and ground-floor
investment opportunities. Special Report: Forecasts for the Next 25 Years.
(2003). The World Future Society: Bethesda, Maryland.
Finkelstein, M.J., Frances, C., Jewett,
F.I., Scholz, B.W. (Eds.) (2000) The American Council on Education and the
Oryx Press: Phoenix, AZ.
Frydenberg, J. (October 2002). Quality standards in eLearning: A matrix of
analysis. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning.
Athabasca University.
Gallagher, S. (2002) Report—Distance
learning at the tipping point: Critical success factors to growing fully
online distance learning programs. Eduventures, Inc.: Boston, MA.
Gallagher, R. (2003) The next 20 years:
How is online distance learning likely to evolve? 2003 UCEA 88th Annual
Conference: March 28-30, 2003—Chicago, Illinois.
Green, K. C. (2002). Campus Computing
2002: The 13th national survey of computing and information technology in
American higher education. Encino, CA: Campus Computing, 2002.
Hawkins, B. (2003) Distributed learning:
Promises and pitfalls. 2003 UCEA 88th Annual Conference: March 28-30,
2003—Chicago, Illinois.
Hickman, C. J. (2003, March 29). Results
of survey regarding distance education offerings. University Continuing
Education Association (UCEA) Distance Learning Community of Practice,
Research committee report.
Johnstone, S.M., Ewell, P., & Paulson,
K. (2002) Student learning as academic currency. ACE Center for Policy
Analysis. Retrieved June, 2003:
http://www.acenet.edu/bookstore/pdf/distributed-learning/distributed-learning-04.pdf
Jones, D. R., & Pritchard, A. L. (2000,
November/December). The distance education debate: An Australian view.
Change. 32-33.
Jones, R. (2003). A recommendation for
managing the predicted growth in college enrollment at a time of adverse
economic conditions. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration
(6)1. Retrieved June, 2003:
http://www.westga.edu/%7Edistance/ojdla/spring61/jones61.htm .
Kariya, S. (2003) Online education
expands and evolves. IEEE Spectrum. 40(5): 49-51.
Kinley, E.R. (2001) Implementing
distance education, the impact of institutional characteristics: A view
from the department chair’s chair. A Dissertation at the University of
Nebraska-Lincoln.
Lifelong Learning Trends: A Profile of
Continuing Higher Education. 7th Edition. (2002, April) University
Continuing Education Association.
Lindner, J.R., Murphy, T.H., Dooley,
K.E., & Jones, E.T. (2002) The faculty mind and how to read it. Distance
Education Report. 6(14): 5.
Markel, M. (1999) Distance education and
the myth of the new pedagogy. Journal of Business and Technical
Communication. 13(2): 208-222.
McCombs, B. L. (2000). Assessing the
role of educational technology in the teaching and learning process: A
learner-centered perspective. The Secretary’s Conference on Educational
Technology. Retrieved June, 2003:
http://www.ed.gov/Technology/techconf/2000/mccombs_paper.html .
McIsaac, M. S. (1998) Distance learning:
The U.S. version. Performance Improvement Quarterly. 12(2): 21-35.
Miller, G. E. (2001) General education
and distance education: Two channels in the new mainstream. The Journal of
General Education. 50(4): 314-322.
Morrison, J.L., & Barone, C. (2003,
March/April) The national learning infrastructure initiative (NLII): An
interview with EDUCAUSE’s Carol Barone. The Technology Source. Retrieved
June, 2003:
http://ts.mivu.org/default.asp?show=article&id=1046
Murray, C. (May 2003) Study reveals
shifts in digital divide for students. eSchool News, 36-37.
National Education Association (NEA).
(2000, June). A survey of traditional and distance learning higher
education members. Retrieved June, 2003:
http://www.nea.org/he/abouthe/dlstudy.pdf .
Oblinger, D., & Kidwell, J. (2000,
May/June) Distance learning: Are we being realistic? Educause. 31-39.
Oblinger, D., Barone, C.A., & Hawkins,
B.L. (2001) Distributed education and its challenges: An overview.
American Council on Education (ACE). Retrieved June, 2003:
http://www.acenet.edu/bookstore/pdf/distributed-learning/distributed-learning-01.pdf
Oravec, J. (2003) Some influences of
online distance learning on US higher education. Journal of Further and
Higher Education. 27(1): 89-104.
Paulson, K. (2002) Reconfiguring faculty
roles for virtual settings. The Journal of Higher Education. 73(1):
123-140.
Pond, W. K. (2003) Lifelong Learning–The
Changing Face of Higher Education. eLearning Summit, 2003. La Quinta
Resort, California
Penn State University (PSU) Strategic
Plan. (1998) An emerging set of guiding principles and practices for the
design and development of distance education. Retrieved June, 2003:
http://www.outreach.psu.edu/de/ide/
Reeve, R. T., & Perlich, P. S. (2002),
September/October). Utah economic and business review. Bureau of Economic
and Business Research (BERB), 62 (9-10), 1-15.
Riffee, W.H. (2003) Putting a faculty
face on distance education programs. Syllabus: Technology for Higher
Education. Retrieved June, 2003:
http://www.syllabus.com/article/asp?id=7233
Roach, R. (2002, October 24) Staying
connected: Getting retention right is high priority for online degree
programs. Black Issues in Higher Education.
Roberson, T. J., & Klotz, J. (Winter
2002) How can instructors and administrators fill the missing link in
online instruction? Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration.
5(4). Retrieved June, 2003:
http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/winter54/roberson54.htm
Rubin, E. (2003) Speaking
personally—with Eugene Robin. The American Journal of Distance Education.
17(1): 59-69.
Rumble, G. (2001) Re-inventing distance
education, 1971-2001. International Journal of Lifelong Education.
20(1/2): 31-43.
Saba, F. (2003). Report on visiting
Brigham Young University. Unpublished report, Brigham Young University.
Scagnoli, N. I. (2001) Student
orientations for online programs. Journal of Research on Technology in
Education. 34(1): 19-27.
University Continuing Education
Association (UCEA). (2001). Survey Summary: Results from the 2001 UCEA
management survey.
University Continuing Education
Association (UCEA) Distance Learning Community of Practice. (2002,
February). Independent study program profiles 1999-00.
West, G.B. (1999, Summer) Teaching and
technology in higher education: Changes and challenges. Adult Learning.
16-18.
White, L. (2003) Deconstructing the
public-private dichotomy in higher education. Change. 35(3): 48-54.
Williams, P.E. (2003) Roles and
Competencies for Distance Education Programs in Higher Education
Institutions. The American Journal of Distance Education. 17(1): 45-57.
Winsboro, I.D.S. (2002) Technology and
distance learning lessons from the nation’s newest university: Perceptions
and reality. The Educational Forum. 66(3): 247-252.
Young, J. R. (2002, March 22). 'Hybrid'
teaching seeks to end the divide between traditional and online
instruction. Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved June, 2003:
http://chronicle.com/free/v48/i28/28a03301.htm
Online Journal of Distance Learning
Administration, Volume VI, NumberIII, Fall2003
State University of West Georgia, Distance Education Center
Back to the Online
Journal of Distance Learning Administration Contents
