The Chancellor’s New Robes: Online Education

doi:10.4236/ce.2013.47A2009

Paper Menu >>

Journal Menu >>

Creative Education

2013. Vol.4, No.7A2, 50-52

Published Online July 2013 in SciRes (http://www.scirp.org/journal/ce) http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ce.2013.47A2009

The Chancellor’s New Robes: Online Education

Stan Braude1, Jon Merrill2

1Biology Department, Washington University, St. Louis, USA

2Philosophy-Neuroscience-Psychology, Washington University, St. Louis, USA

Email: [email protected]

Received June 8th, 2013; re vise d J uly 10th, 2013; accepted July 18th, 2013

mons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, pro-

vided the original work is pr ope rly cited.

Online education is being rapidly embraced as a cash cow for reputable universities. Although there are

legitimate advantages to online learning, the data on learning outcomes are scarce. We point out the rea-

sons why high quality, live classes are unlikely to be replaced by online alternatives. However, we do de-

scribe the poor teaching practices that can be inexpensively replaced by online courses. We finally point

out that best practices and high quality online education are expensive and cannot generate the revenue

expected by university administrators.

Keywords: Online Education; Distance Learning

Introduction

Online education is the latest innovation in distance learning

and is expanding at an astounding rate. Pianko and Jarrett (2012)

report that from 2002 to 2012 the number of undergraduate

students taking online courses increased by approximately 25

percent. Students report that cost, flexibility in timing, location

and availability all contribute to the attractiveness of online

education. Online courses have moved into the mainstream and

Parker et al. (2011) estimate that 61% of liberal arts colleges,

79% of research universities, and 82% of community college

offer some online options.

Is the Online University an

Unprecedented Innovation?

We must keep in mind that distance learning is not new and

the recent rise in online higher education courses is only the

most recent innovation in the expansion of access to education

that has roots in the correspondence courses of the late 19th and

early 20th centu ries. Although the na me “corre sponde nce c o u rse ”

evokes ridicule and the assumption of fraud, the first corre-

spondence courses were pioneered in 1874 by Illinois Wesleyan

University in an honest attempt to reach out to a broader audi-

ence. With the advent of television, came the possibility of

offering the distance learner an experience that went beyond the

printed page and again universities attempted to reach out to

broader audiences of students with the first televised college

courses offered by the University of Houston in 1953. Today,

adult education through public television has shifted from broad-

cast lectures to documentary films, but the legitimate educa-

tional motives remain the same.

Despite the amount of bandwidth taken up by marketing and

pictures of kittens, the world-wide-web does provide public

access to an unprecedented amount of information. Hence it is

not surprising that distance learning has entered this venue as

well. Once again it was a public university that made the first

attempts at computerized learning, with PLATO (programmed

logic for automated teaching operations) offered by the Univer-

sity of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign in 1960. However, the

interest in online courses did not explode until the for-profit,

University of Phoenix began offering degrees in 1989.

What Are the Pedagogic Advantages

of Online Learning?

Beyond the goal of reaching a broader student population,

there exist a number of legitimate pedagogical and practical

benefits for some students. Online courses offer an opportunity

for self-paced and student-centered learning. Asynchronous

online courses offer students the freedom to work on the course

material when they have time, perhaps after work hours or on

weekends. Recorded online lectures can be paused at any point

so that students can take notes without missing what is ex-

plained next. Students can also view video examples or read

supplementary materials linked to the lecture. Finally, synchro-

nous discussion threads and synchronous online chatrooms may

be less intimidating for those students who have become more

comfortable in an online social environment than a live envi-

ronment.

Student satisfaction with online cour ses has been well tra cked

and Hartnett et al. (2011) note that, across the board, online

students are intrinsically more motivated than their on-campus

peers. This is not surprising because a major difference in these

populations is that the majority of online students enroll out of

interest in a topic, rather than to fulfill a degree requirement.

This intrinsic motivation was correlated with initial engagement

and retention. Nonetheless, overall retention rates are much

lower in online courses compared to the national average for

college students (Herbert, 2006) and the students who complete

outcome surveys are, therefore, likely to represent a skewed

subset of the population of stu dents originally enrolling in on lin e

courses. More importantly, satisfaction is a marketing outcome

S. BRAUDE, J. MERRILL

that does not necessarily reflect learning. Consequently, there

exists much skepticism of the claims of better educational out-

comes from online courses.

In response to the repeated claims that there are thousands of

studies supporting the efficacy of online education, the US De-

partment of Education co mmissi oned a meta -analy sis of re se a r c h

on online learning. The 2010 DOE investigation involved a

systematic search of empirical studies documenting the effec-

tiveness of online and distance learning published between

1996 and 2008. The initial search of published research yielded

1132 articles, of which only 176 met three key criteria: they

investigated learning taking place partially or entirely over the

internet, they included a controlled, experimental design, and

finally, they reported data on student achievement or other

learning outcomes. Of these, only 99 articles compared face-to-

face learning to online education and only 37 articles specifi-

cally examined the variation in online learning practices and

those effects on the learner at the undergraduate level. This is a

far cry from thousands of articles. Furthermore, while the meta-

analysis found that students in courses with an online compo-

nent had modestly better outcomes than students receiving only

face-to-face education, these results were not due to any unique

characteristic of the online medium, but were attributed to the

high motivation of the subset of students who completed online

courses, and to the amount of time they spent studying.

Will the Live Classroom Go

the Way of Live Theatre?

Prognosticators predicted the demise of live theatre when

Edison introduced moving pictures and the demise of movie

theatres when CBS beg an broadcast ing television. And yet live

theatre flourishes even in the era of Netflix and Youtube. There

is an attraction to live experiences compared to remote. But

why is the live performance attractive and how might that me-

chanism explain the pedagogic benefits of the live classroom

experience?

Daniel Levitin (2006) suggested that music is a combination

of familiar pattern and surprise. More broadly Braude (2013)

proposed that our brains have evolved to reward us for recog-

nizing the subtle surprises against a variety of background pat-

terns. This same mechanism is involved in our enjoyment of

humor and literature and may also explain the attraction of live

performance where there is always the opportunity for surprise.

The film Romeo and Juliet starring Leonardo DiCaprio and

Claire Danes will obviously be consistent between viewings.

However, a performance of Romeo and Juliet in the theatre will

be different every night!

The opportunity for surprise contributes to the heightened

attention and alertness associated with the live classroom and

this enhances learning. This element is lacking in asynchronous

online courses. Additionally, the social aspect to being in class

with one’s peers is lost in online courses. This social compo-

nent may explain the attraction of the live setting for a large

portion of the population, but does the “face-to-face” experi-

ence lead to better education? Goran and Braude (2007) argue

that, in addition to visual, auditory and kinesthetic learners,

there are also social learners. Essentially, while we may not all

seek out a social learning setting, being with others, especially

peers, raises alertness and this alone can lead to better learning

opportunity. This is consistent with Schutte’s (1998) finding

that collaborative learning with peers is the key factor in ex-

plaining higher performance of classroom learners compared

with online learners and Frankola’s (2001) finding that personal

connection is one of the most important factors in boosting

completion rates. She also reported that NYU students found

that the social aspect with their peers was helpful in their stud-

ies, and nearly all of the NYU online students who completed

online coursework reported that live sessions provided an emo-

tional lift.

Who Is at Risk of Replacement

by an Online Course?

Despite the apparent benefit of a live classroom setting, does

all education necessarily have to be confined within the class-

room? The live setting creates the opportunity for the instructor

to make a great impact on the experience of their students.

However, not all instructors are influential and inspiring. Con-

sequently, courses that have been taught by a lecturer reading

directly from note s or relying solely on the text might be easily

replaced by a video of a better lecturer. Furthermore, courses

involving repeated practice to enhance memorization and re-

gurgitation might also be easily transferred to the online do-

main. Neuman (1998) argues that these courses are for “stress-

ing fundamentals as well as helping students gain real skills”

and student performance can be easily automated. We propose

the general guideline that any course in which student perform-

ance can be evaluated with multiple-choice exams is a candi-

date for replacement by an online offering. We challenge our

colleagues to examine their own teaching and consider whether

their teaching could be easily replaced with an online alterna-

tive. While t he mission of many higher education institutions is

to create the beginnings of “life-long learning”, the courses de-

scribed above fall short of these institutional goals and instead

emphasize memorization of knowledge.

What Do We Look for in the

Best Online Courses?

The best online courses are those that creatively engage the

student. Excellent online courses contain: synchronous discus-

sions, small class size, qualified discussion leaders and graders,

timely grading and feedback on written work, and engaging

lectures. Synchronous discussion takes the place of in-class dis-

cussions. With discussion, students are able to articulate ideas

and analyze the arguments of others. An excellent online course

features this aspect of the education process. Furthermore,

qualified discussion leaders and graders are necessary to pro-

vide quality content for online students. Qualified instructors

should be chosen to provide quality content. Additionally,

small class sizes allow the instructors to get to know their stu-

dents on a more individual level. While it is easy to get lost in a

lecture hall of 300 students; how much easier in an online class

of 300?

The asynchronous features of an excellent online course should

include access to exciting lectures, links to related material,

high quality graphics, and videos. The paradox is, however, that

it is not cheap to incorporate these features into an online

course. Graphics and videos, alone, require time and effort to

create. Also, in many disciplines, there is new, pertinent, in-

formation being generated yearly, requiring materials to be up-

dated. Considering the requirement for low student-teacher r a t io s ,

qualified discussion leaders, high quality video and graphics,

S. BRAUDE, J. MERRILL

and up to date materials it is difficult to imagine how these new

robes will earn the high profits that have enticed our adminis-

trators.

Follow the Money

Despite the dearth of evidence to support the claims of effec-

tiveness with online courses, many institutions are beginning to

sign-up. A majority of surveyed college presidents see potential

for growth in online education (Parker et al., 2011) and George

Washington University, Boston University, Northeastern Uni-

versity, University of Southern California are just a few of the

many high profile intuitions that have established partnerships

with online outsourcing companies. One expectation might be

that massive online courses allow more students to enroll, thus

increasing tuition revenue per class. However, closer examina-

tion of Embanet, Brisk Education, Compass Knowledge Group,

and other providers of online platforms, reveals a major flaw in

the financial reasoning. These companies reap up to 85% of

tuition income for the courses they facilitate. Unless enroll-

ments soar, the universities that employ these companies will

actually lose a vast amount of tuition revenue.

Furthermore, we must be realistic about the fact that devel-

oping massive online courses requires an enormous commit-

ment of time and effort on the part of the faculty who had been

originally hired to teach students on campus. Faculty involved

in online course preparation quickly discovers that the genera-

tion of high quality instructional material is extremely time

consuming (Neuman, 1998). On top of this, online course de-

velopment requires even greater foresight and planning than a

live class because students may be working at their own pace

and interaction between students and faculty may be infrequent.

The University of Phoenix has shown that one can generate

profit by offering courses that depend on the student reading a

text and watching videos. In the end, more students enrolled

will lead to more tuition dollars. On the other hand, colleges

and universities that hope to continue offering high quality

teaching and opportunities for learning, must factor in the nec-

essary time and resources.

Conclusion

In conclusion, it is clear that there exist legitimate benefits of

online education for some students and that high quality teach-

ing and learning can be achieved through online courses. How-

ever, quality online education is as expensive to produce and to

provide as quality classroom education. Unfortunately, the lead-

ers of many top universities are not immune to the appeal of the

latest fashion and online courses appear to be little more than

the Chancellor’s new robes.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Gina Frey and the Educational Re-

search Group at Washington University for feedback on the

arguments outlined in this essay

REFERENCES

Braude, S. (2013). The adaptive significance of humor. In B. Crespi, &

K. Summers (Eds.), Foundations of human social evolution: Contri-

butions of Richard D. Alexander. New York: Oxford University Press.

Cohen, S., Little, J., & Sipior, J. (2001). Panel: Brick & mortar vs.

E-learning universities. Informing Science, 4, 143-147.

Frankola, K. (2001). Why online learners drop out. Workforce: HR

Trends & Tools for Business Results.

Goran, D., & Braude, S. (2007). Social and cooperative learning in the

solving of case histories. American Biology Teacher, 69, 80-84.

doi:10.1662/0002-7685(2007)69[80:SCLITS]2.0.CO;2

Hartnett, M., St. George, A., & Dron, J. (2011). Examining motivation

in online distance learning environments: Complex, multifaceted,

and situation-dependent. The International Review of Research in

Open and Distance Learning, 12, 20-38.

Herbert, M. (2006). Staying the course: A study in online student satis-

faction and retention. Online Journal of Distance Learning Admini-

stration, 9.

Levitin, D. (2006). This is your brain on music: The science of a human

obsession. New York, NY: Dutton.

Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., Bakia, M., & Jones, K. (2010).

Evaluation of evidence-based practices in online learning: A meta-

analysis and review of online learning studies. Washington DC: US

Department of Education.

Neumann, P. (1998). Risks of E-education. Communications of the

ACM, 40, 136.

Parker, K., Lenhart, A., & Moore, K. (2011). The digital revolution and

higher education: College presidents, public differ on value of online

learning. Pew Research Cencer: Pew Social and Demographic Trends.

Pianko, D., & Jarrett, J. (2012). Early days of a growing trend: Non-

profit/for-profit academic partnerships in higher education. In D.

Oblinger (Ed.), Game changers: Education and information tech-

nologies (pp. 91-104) . Educause.

Schutte, J. G. (1998). Does using technology in instruction enhance

learning? A reply to Ed Neal. The Technology Source, 1998-2009.