a survey of online learning at new york city metropolitan area colleges and universities
DESCRIPTION
Presentation at the CUNY IT Conference - December 2008TRANSCRIPT
A Survey of Online Learning at New York City Metropolitan Area Colleges
and UniversitiesCUNY IT Conference
December 5, 2008Anthony G. Picciano
CUNY Graduate Center and Hunter College,
Rachel S. Thompson
Doctoral Student Urban Education,
CUNY Graduate Center
Outline
Background
Methodology
Respondents
Findings
Comments/Discussion
Source: Allen, I. E. & Seaman, J. (2008). Staying the Course: Online Education in the United States, 2008.
Allen & Seaman Studies
Definitions
• Fully Online (80+% of the content delivered online): A course where most or all of the content is delivered online; typically has no face-to-face meetings.
• Blended/Hybrid (30 to 79% of the content delivered online): A course that blends online and face-to-face delivery. Substantial proportion of the content is delivered online; sometimes uses online discussions; typically has few face-to-face meetings.
Methodology (Mixed)
• Survey Sent to Chief Academic Officers at Ninety-Four Colleges and Universities in Ten Southern New York State Counties
Forty-Seven Percent Response Rate (N=44)
• Follow-Up Interviews with Three Respondents
RespondentsTable 1 – Institutional Type
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid Community College8 18.2 18.2 18.2
Public - 4 Year 12 27.3 27.3 45.5
Private 16 36.4 36.4 81.8
For Profit 6 13.6 13.6 95.5
Other 2 4.5 4.5 100.0
Total44 100.0 100.0
Respondents to the survey represent a mix of type (public, private, community colleges, and for-profit) institutions.
Student enrollments at the respondent institutions also represented a mix of small, medium and large colleges and universities.
RespondentsTable 2 – Student Enrollment of Respondent Institutions
Frequency Percent Valid PercentCumulative
Percent
Valid Less Than 250012 27.3 28.6 28.6
2500-5000 6 13.6 14.3 42.9
5001-10000 8 18.2 19.0 61.9
More Than 10000 16 36.4 38.1 100.0
Total42 95.5 100.0
Missing System2 4.5
Total44 100.0
Figure 1 - Offering Fully Online Courses
75%
9.1%
15.9%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
YES
NO BUT PLAN TOOFFER
NO AND NO PLAN TOOFFER
% of Respondents
Figure 2 - Offering Blended/Hybrid Courses
11.4%
13.6%
75%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
YES
NO BUT PLAN TOOFFER
NO AND NO PLAN TOOFFER
% of Responses
Figure 3 - Fully Online Course Offeringsby Type of Institution
100.0%100.0%
50.0%
50.0%
50.0%
50.0%
18.8%
25.0%
56.2%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
YES
NO BUT PLAN TOOFFER
NO AND NO PLAN TOOFFER
% of Responses
Community College Public 4 Year Plus Private For Profit Other
Figure 4 - Blended/Hybrid Course Offeringsby Type of Institution
100.0%
50.0%50.0%
50.0%
87.5%
12.5%
62.5%
18.8%
18.8%16.7%
33.3%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
YES
NO BUT PLAN TO
OFFER
NO AND NO PLAN TO
OFFER
% of Responses
Community College Public 4 Year Plus Private For Profit Other
Figure 5 - Fully Online OfferingsBy Total Enrollment
50.0%
50.0%
33.3%
16.7%
33.3%
16.7%
12.5%
87.5%
100.0%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
YES
NO BUT PLAN TO
OFFER
NO AND NO PLAN TO
OFFER
% of Responses
Less Than 2500 2500-5000 5000-10000 More Than 10000
Figure 6 - Blended/Hybrid Offeringsby Total Enrollment
33.3%
25.0%
41.7%
50.0%
50.0%
100.0%
100.0%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
YES
NO BUT PLAN TOOFFER
NO AND NO PLAN TOOFFER
% of Responses
Less Than 2500 2500-5000 5000-10000 More Than 10000
Figure 7- Reasons for Offering Fully Online or Blended/Hybrid Courses
3.95
5.46
4.10
4.38
5.38
5.68
4.13
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00
PEDAGOGICALLYBENEFICIAL
GROWING POP &SPACE
FINANCIALLYBENEFICIAL
STUDENTSPREFERENCE
STUDENTACCESS
STUDENT NEEDS
FACULTYPREFERENCE
Mean Response
Figure 8- Barriers to Offering Fully Online or Blended/Hybrid Courses
4.24
3.83
5.44
4.41
5.00
4.00
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00
DEVELOPMENTCOST
LIMITED TECHSUPPORT
CONCERNABOUT
QUALITY
FACULTY NOTINTERESTED
FACULTYTRAINING
LIMITEDINSTRUCTION
SUPPORT
Mean Response
Figure 9 - Attitudes Regarding Online Learning
5.88
5.45
4.82
6.33
4.76
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00
FULFILLSIMPORTANT
NEED
COMPARABLEEDUCATIONAL
VALUE
CAREFULRECORDS
KEPT
STUDENTSNEED MOREDISCIPLINE
FACULTYACCEPTANCE
Mean Response
Figure 10 - Growth in Fully Online Enrollments
78.9%
21.1%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
ProjectGrowth
Staysthe Same
% of Responses
Figure 11 - Growth in Blended/Hybrid Enrollments
87.2%
12.8%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
ProjectGrowth
Staysthe Same
% of Responses
Summary Comments
Data collected in this study indicate that access to higher education is the most important reason for offering fully online and blended/hybrid courses… College administrators see online programs and courses as important for (convenience) their existing student base and also for attracting new students to their programs.
Summary Comments
…this study confirms that while most colleges are offering some form of online and/or blended learning courses, some resistance still exists internally …This resistance does not appear to be large-scale, adamant refusal issues as much as concerns ..Although one senior administrator at a four-year residential college made the point that: “At a residential college experience and socialization and culturalization are important so I’m not looking to excuse [students] them from the campus environment or direct interaction with classmates and faculty.”
Summary Comments
While online and blended learning have made major inroads into mainstream higher education, it is not clear that they are causing major upheavals in policy and planning. … As more online and/or blended courses are offered, institutional plans call for incremental increases in the requisite support areas more so than major new investments in academic programming and support…
…one significant exception …college changed one of its traditional 120 credit baccalaureate programs from forty courses each worth three credits to thirty courses each worth four credits. The change was made possible by adding an online component to every course equal to one credit. In short, every three-credit face-to-face course would have one credit added to it that would be conducted online thereby increasing online learning activity by twenty-five percent
Summary Comments
Discussion and Questions
References
•Allen, I. E. & Seaman, J. (2008). Staying the Course: Online Education in the United States, 2008.
http://www.sloan-c.org/publications/survey/pdf/staying_the_course.pdfAccessed November 28, 2008
•Allen, I. E. & Seaman, J. (2007). Online Nation: Five Years of Growth in Online Learning. http://www.sloan-c.org/publications/survey/pdf/online_nation.pdfAccessed September 23, 2008
•Picciano, A.G. Developing an asynchronous course model at a large, urban university.
Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 2(1), 1998.http://sloan-c.org/publications/jaln/v2n1/pdf/v2n1_picciano.pdfAccessed October 2, 2008.
•Picciano, A.G. Beyond student perceptions: Issues of interaction, presence, and performance in an online course. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 6(1), 2002.http://www.umdnj.edu/idsweb/idst8000/fydryszewski_article.pdfAccessed October 2, 2008.
http://www.filter.ac.uk