DL Versus On-Ground – What the Research Says – and What It Doesn’t Say

1. DL Versus On-Ground – What the Research Says – and What It Doesn’t Say Andy Borchers IMEB Slides are at: www.kettering.edu/~aborcher

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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.

5. “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 ascourse grades and attitudes(such as satisfaction)

6. “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.”

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. Parallel Site – Significant Difference • Some 37 studies have found differences: • Sometimes on-line “wins” • Sometimes on-ground “wins”

11. 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 on-campus 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?

12. 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.

13. 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”

14. 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.

15. 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.

16. 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

17. 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.

18. 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

19. 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.

20. 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.

21. 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?

22. 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!”

23. 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

24. 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

25. 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

26. Financial Differences • Example institutions: • University of Phoenix – aggressive for-profit • Nova Southeastern University – aggressive non-profit • Kettering University – traditional non-profit

27. Financial Comparison

28. 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.

29. 200+ Regionallyaccredited DL MBAprograms

30. 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?

31. 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?”

32. 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.

33. 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.