Online Education: Panacea or Plateau By Dr. Holly J. Seirup, Dr. Rose Tirotta, Dr. Elfreda Blue Introduction Purpose & Research Focus More and more colleges and universities across As online education continues to grow, under- the US have adopted online instruction (Allen & Seaman, standing faculty and student perceptions seems to be an 2015; Perreault, Waldman, Alexander, & Zhao, 2008). Ginn imperative piece of the decision to continue to expand & Hammond (2012), offer an example of the growth in a online offerings. The purpose of this study was to review report on the adoption of online instruction by National As- faculty and students perceptions of online learning and to sociation of Schools and Public Affairs and Administration gain an understanding of the current status of distance edu- members. The report chronicled the increase in offerings of cation. Findings may inform researchers about whether online courses, certificates, and Master degree programs faculty and student perception provide insight relative to the from eight online courses in the 1990s to 15 in 2003 and 39 online education trend. Will it emerge as an essential com- in 2012. Online offerings and enrollments are expansive ponent of university studies or is this the beginning of a (Ni, 2013) as colleges and universities continue to rethink plateau for online education? the concept of instructional effectiveness, innovative peda- gogy, and student retention. Review of Literature Chief academic officers (70.8%) at colleges and Faculty Perceptions universities agree that online education is critical to their overall strategic plan - an increase from 48.8% in 2002 (Allen, Many colleges and universities have made the de- & Seaman, 2015). To ensure success of distance learning cision to offer online instruction as part of a strategic plan to initiatives, "faculty and students must be willing to embrace, thrive, or perhaps to survive in the highly competitive educa- or at least grudgingly accept, online learning." (Bristow, Shep- tional market (Windes & Leshy, 2014). Initially adoption and herd, Humphreys, & Ziebell, 2011 p. 246). With 24-hour ac- growth of online educational offerings were slow and both cess to the internet and technological innovations (i.e. smart students and faculty were skeptical that learning objectives phones, tablets, and wifi), online education has become could be adequately achieved in an online format (Allen, more appealing. Half of all graduates in the past decade et.al, 2012). Faculty had concerns related to the quality of have enrolled in at least one online course (Parker, Lenhart, online courses, the time required to develop and teach & Moore, 2011). online, issues of intellectual property, as well as the devel- oping the skills required to teach online. (Gerlich, 2005). S The growth rate of online courses has exceeded Osborne, Kriese, Tobey, & Johnson. (2009) found that fac- prin that of traditional enrollment (Rich & Dereshiwsky, 2011). In ulty believed that students learn less, interaction is less 2g, Fall 2010, the number of students enrolled in an online pro- effective, and students believe the classes taught on line 01 6 gram (2.78 million) represented 14% of all college or uni- are easier than those taught face-to-face. All of which can J versity enrollment (Silber & Condra, 2011). Still, present serve as barriers to developing and teaching courses online. ou trends indicate that faculty acceptance of online courses rna has "lagged" and the growth rate of these courses may be Allen and Seaman (2015) found that academic l fo leveling off at a level 3.7 % lower than prior years (Allen & leaders view "online education as the same or superior to r Le a Seaman, 2015). The "lag" is noticeable in trends relative to those in face-to-face instruction" (p. 5). In fact the percent- ed MOOCs (Massive Open Online Courses). Developed and age rating from these leaders has increased from 57.2% in rsh ip offered to provide affordable access to education, MOOCs 2003 to 74.1% in 2014. Yet faculty do not report the same a n were a growing trend until the recent decrease in the per- endorsement of online education. They believe that the uni- d In centage of academic leaders who believe that MOOCs "rep- versity is moving too much education online and that the stru resent a sustainable method of offering online courses" learning outcomes are inferior to those classes taught face- ctio (Allen & Seaman, 2015, p. 6). to-face. This includes faculty who have experience teaching n online (Allen, Seaman, Lederman, & Jaschik, 2012). 5 The Higher Education Research Institute (HERI) and more time consuming (Perreault, et. al., 2008) than (2013-14) faculty survey found that the proportion of fac- the face-to-face counterpart. ulty who report teaching a minimum of one class online has increased from 14% in 2010-11 to 17.4% in 2013-14. Methods Interestingly, those holding the rank of instructor and lec- turer are more likely to be teaching online than full profes- Participants sors. Faculty report that as the demand for online instruc- tion increased (Allen & Seaman, 2015; Osborne, et.al., This study was conducted in two parts at a mid- 2009), faculty began to feel strongly encouraged to teach sized private, four-year college in the northeast United online (Windes & Lesht, 2014; Gerlich, 2005) In fact some States. In 2012, 60 graduate and undergraduate students report that teaching online has become an expectation not enrolled in both traditional face-to-face and online courses a choice (Gerlich, 2005) Allen et. al., (2012) found that participated. A fair representation of students (67%) had "about one-third of faculty members think that their institu- taken online courses in the past (n=37); 38% (n=23) had tion is pushing too much instruction online, compared to not taken an online course at all. In 2013, surveys were fewer than 10 percent of administrators" (p. 2). sent to both faculty and students. This sample included faculty that taught online courses in the past (n = 29) and Student Perceptions faculty that only taught face-to-face (n = 91). Seventy-one percent of the student participants had taken an online Allen & Seaman (2015) report that the number of class in the past (n = 34) while 29% had only taken face-to- college and university students taking at least one online face courses (n = 14). Survey responses for all three sur- course has continued to increase, but the increase is at veys were voluntary. All answers were anonymous. lower rates than in the past. There are a variety of reasons students choose to take courses online but the most com- Survey mon seems to be flexibility and convenience (Dobbs, et. al., 2009; Osborne et. al., 2009; Perreault, et. al., 2008). The student survey, created by Dobbs, Waid, & Wyatt (2005) found that online courses appeal to students del Carmen (2009), was comprised of 59 items presented balancing their desire to continue their education with family in a Likert scale (31 questions) and multiple choice/fill in responsibilities, work schedules, as well as the inability to (28 questions) format. Items focused on experience with attend school with a traditional schedule. Initially, it seemed online and traditional courses, perceptions about quality, that students who chose online education were older and challenge, and level of difficulty of online courses and working (Dobbs, Waid, & del Carmen, 2009; Perreault et. traditional courses. Participants were asked to share their al., 2008), but this has changed and more "traditional" stu- perceptions of various aspects of online courses includ- dents are enrolling in distance education. At the same ing, why they would or would not take online courses, the time students continue to report missing the interaction quality of the learning experience and content of the that occurs in a face-to-face classroom experience. courses, and how much work is perceived to be required. The faculty survey was very similar to the student survey Unfortunately, research reveals that students concentrating on faculty perceptions of teaching. may enroll in an online course experience thinking that it is less rigorous than a traditional classroom (Osborne, Results et.al., 2009) and can be quite surprised to find that they have to work harder (McFarland & Hamilton, 2005-06), Data were entered into SPSS T-test results and that the course is more demanding (Wyatt, 2005), yielded a significant difference between perceptions of fac- n ulty who had taught online courses (M = 3.351, SD = .654) o itc u rts n I d n a p ih sre Table 1 Perceptions of Online Courses (of those that have taught/taken online classes) d a e L ro Learned more online Learned less online Learn the same f la n ruo Students 2012 8% (n=3) 43% (n=16) 49% (n=18) J 6 1 0 Students 2013 9% (n=3) 32% (n=11) 59% (n=20) 2 ,g n irpS Faculty 2013 7% (n=)2 48% (n=13) 44% (n=12) 6 Table 2 Perceptions of the Quality of Online Courses Very high quality Good quality Fair quality Not at all good quality Students 2012 31% (n=10) 44% (n=14) 25% (n=8) 16% (n=5) Students 2013 41% (n=14) 32% (n=11) 26% (n=9) 0% (n=0) Faculty 2013 28% (n=8) 62% (n=18) 10% (n=3) 0% (n=0) and faculty who never taught an online course (M = 3.701, quality" and "good quality" courses. None were recognized SD = .597) on whether they thought online classes were as "not at all good quality." better than face-to-face courses [t(118) = -2.751, p < .01]. Overall, both students and faculty agree that they The faculty that had experience teaching online, had a prefer traditional classroom courses. More students, how- more positive outlook on online courses. There was also ever, prefer online courses as compared to faculty and in a significant difference between faculty that had taught 2013, students and faculty were more apt to have no prefer- online courses (M = 3.241, SD = .577) and faculty that had ence than in 2012 (Table 3). never taught an online course (M = 2.949, SD = .508) on whether they thought that face-to-face classes were better Discussion than online classes [t(118) = -2.615, p = .01]. The faculty that had not taught online had a more positive outlook of face-to- The results of this study support prior research face courses (Table 1). and confirm that faculty that have online teaching experi- ence perceive online education more positively than those Results among the students in 2012, the students without online teaching experience. Alternatively, those in 2013, and the faculty in 2013 were also examined. that have only taught face-to-face, perceive that traditional classroom pedagogy as superior over online courses. Overall, both students and faculty agree that they Interestingly, the perceptions of both students and fac- perceive there is either less learning in an online envi- ulty was that students learn less (or the same) in an ronment or it is similar to a traditional, face-to-face venue online environment while faculty perceive a higher qual- (Table 2). ity of the courses taught online than students. Probably the most significant finding of the study is that both stu- Faculty perceive that the online courses offered are dents and faculty prefer the traditional classroom over slightly higher quality than students. Students perceive that online education. over time, the courses are getting better with more "higher S p rin g 2, 0 1 6 Table 3 Course Preference J o u rn Prefer traditional courses Prefer online courses No preference al fo r L e Students 2012 57% (n=21) 27% (n=10) 16% (n=6) a d e rs h ip Students 2013 59% (n=20) 12% (n=4) 29% (n=10) a n d In Faculty 2013 61% (n=17) 7% (n=2) 32% (n=9) stru c tio n 7 This is an important factor for higher education McFarland, D. & Hamilton, D. (2005-2006). Factors affect- leaders to consider while making decisions for the fu- ing student performance and satisfaction: Online versus ture of distance learning and may be particularly impor- traditional course delivery. Journal of Computer Informa- tant when considering the finding of Allen & Seaman tion systems, 46 (2), 25-32. (2015) that 70.8% of academic officers see online edu- cation as critical to the overall strategic plan. The per- Ni, A.Y. (2013). Comparing the effectiveness of class- ceptions of faculty and students are based on their own room and online learning: Teaching research methods. experience with distance learning. Prevailing percep- Journal of Public Affairs 19(2). Retrieved from http:// tions will not change without significant effort to increase w w w . n a s p a a . o r g / J P A E M e s s e n g e r / faculty and student experiences with online learning. index_2013spring.asp For many years, distance education was expand- Osborne, R. E., Kriese, P., Tobey, H., & Johnson, E. (2009). ing and it seemed to offer increased markets and ac- And never the two shall meet?: Student vs. faculty per- cess yet at the same time the perceptions of students ceptions of online courses. Journal of Educational Com- and faculty regarding online learning is mixed and it puting Research, 40(2), 171-182. doi:10.2190/EC.40.2.b would seem that if given a choice they would prefer the traditional classroom experience. This is not to suggest Parker, K., Moore, A., & Lenhart, A. (2011). The digital revo- that there is not a place for online education; clearly it lution and higher education. Pew Research serves an important function and provides many with Center.Perreault, H., Waldman, L., Alexander, M., & Zhao, flexibility and access. Perhaps there is a leveling off J. (2008). Graduate business students' perceptions of point where leaders in education need to weigh the ben- online learning: A five year comparison. The Delta Pi Ep- efits of distance learning with the perceptions of faculty silon Journal, L(3), 164-179. and students and their preference to learn in a traditional classroom. Rich, A. & Dereshiwky, M. (2011). Assessing the compara- tive effectiveness of teaching undergraduate intermediate References accounting in the online classroom format. Journal of Col- lege Teaching & Learning, 8(9), 19-28. Allen, I. E., Seaman, J. (2015). Grade level: Tracking online education in the United States. Babson Survey Research Windes, D.L. & Lesht, F.L. (2014). The Effects of Online Group, and Quahog Research Group, LLC. teaching experience and institution type on Faculty per- ceptions of teaching online. Online Journal of Distamce Allen, I. E., Seaman, J., Lederman, D. & Jaschik, S. (2012). Learning Administration, XVII(1), 1-14. Conflicted: Faculty and online education 2012. Babson Survey Research Group, the Sloan Consortium. Wyatt, G. (2005). Satisfaction, academic rigor and interac- tion: Perceptions of online instruction. Education, 125(3), Bristow, D., Shepherd, C.D., Humphreys, M., & Ziebell, M. 460-468. (2011). To be or not to be: That isn't the question! An empirical look at online versus traditional brick-and-mor- tar courses at the university level. Marketing Education Review, 21 (3), 241-250.doi: 10.2753/MER 1052- Holly Seirup, Ed.D. is an Associate Professor in the Counseling and 8008210304 Higher Education Leadership & Policy Studies programs at Hofstra University in Hempstead, NY. n Dobbs, R.R., Waid, C.A., & del Carmen, A. (2009). Stu- oitc dents' perceptions of online courses: The effect of online Rose Tirotta, Ed.D., is the Coordinator of Learning Support in Stu- urts course experience. The Quarterly Review of Distance dent Computing Services and an adjunct in the School of Education nI d Education, 10(1), 9-26. at Hofstra University in Hempstead, NY. n a p Elfreda Blue, Ph.D., is an Associate Professor in the School of ih Gerlich, R. N. (2005). Faculty perception of distance learn- dsre ing. Distance Education Report, 9(17), 8. Education at Hofstra University in Hempstead, NY. a e L ro f la n ru o J 6 1 0 2 ,g n irp S 8