questions related to online education offered by colleges and universities in the United States. ... states that the findings were based upon data collected from a ... and online students (http://teleeducation.nb.ca/nosignificantdifference/).
Embanet SuccessLetter
March 2004, Volume 21
Hugh's View Unsubstantiated Opinions and Unsupported Perceptions Reign Although a plethora of reports (often identified as studies) has described perceptions of administrators and students regarding distance education, these reports consist almost entirely of opinions—unsubstantiated beliefs and false or misleading conclusions. A new addition to the literature of distance education is a hodgepodge of unsubstantiated opinions found in a report funded by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation and the Sloan Center for Online Education (2003). The survey team identified the need for such a report because "very few if any research surveys have focused on online education" (p. 5). Team members were apparently unfamiliar with the regular publication of studies such as The Condition of Education and databases maintained by the National Center for Education Statistics and the U.S. Dept. of Education. These websites include references to scores of reports and studies related to online education. The Sloan-sponsored report sought to identify answers to selected questions related to online education offered by colleges and universities in the United States. (An online course was defined as a course 80% of whose content was delivered online.) Perceptions; that is, opinions, were solicited from students and faculty members regarding whether they would embrace online education, whether online education would match the quality of face-to-face instruction, and other aspects of distance education. A web-based survey was created and invitations to participate were sent via email to presidents and chief academic officers at degreegranting institutions of higher education. Survey results were based upon approximately 1,000 respondents. Of course, it seems odd to ask administrators whether students would "sign up for online courses" and ask administrators whether "faculty would embrace online education." Wouldn't querying students and faculty members have provided more reliable answers? Although the report states that the findings were based upon data collected from a "comprehensive national sample," the sample was not scientific. Original recipients of invitations suggested additional respondents, who subsequently received an invitation to participate. The sampling methodology thus resulted in another collection of opinions; that is, a nonscientific study whose findings could not be generalized validly. It was also reported that "the number of students learning online topped 1.6 million in fall 2002." There is evidence to support the assertion that 1.6 million students were enrolled in online classes—but not a shred of evidence was presented to support the assertion they were learning. The single most astounding finding in this report, however, is that almost 60% of the "academic leaders" surveyed opined that academic achievement for online students equals or is superior to the achievement that results from face-to-face instruction. Despite several decades of research, the answer to this question remains open because studies that have investigated this quality question have been designed poorly
(Phipps & Merisotis, 1999). Shearer (2003) argued convincingly that it is not whether online education could match the goals of traditional face-toface instruction, but how technologies could be used to enhance education, extending instructional goals beyond the goals face-to-face instruction could achieve. Thus, the field of distance education is no closer to answering this question than it was 30 years ago. Hundreds of studies cited by Russell (1999) purportedly found no significant difference between the academic achievement of on-campus and online students (http://teleeducation.nb.ca/nosignificantdifference/). A companion website (http://teleeducation.nb.ca/significantdifference) purports to list studies that found significant differences related to student achievement among on-campus and online students. Some entries, however, cite studies that have nothing to do with distance education; other studies found significant differences—but ones that did not compare student achievement. For example, some studies found increases in graduation rates among online students, findings unrelated to differences in student performance between on-campus and on-line students. To make any sense of the studies, whose findings were identified as significant or not significant, requires an examination of the sample in each study, its size, and the selection and application of the statistical tools used to test for differences between groups. Poorly crafted questions, poorly designed research, inadequate sample sizes, the ubiquitous use of volunteers (often paid or rewarded), and the disregard of other basic tenets of research design do not establish a basis for any definitive conclusion regarding the equality or superiority of online education compared with the effects of traditional face-to-face instruction. In the meantime, thousands of graduate students are learning erroneous information about the efficacy of distance education. Worse, there is no sign of a decrease in the publication of doctoral dissertations whose opinions and perceptions lack an empirical foundation and whose conclusions lack validity. References Phipps. R., Merisotis, J. (1999). What's the difference? A review of contemporary research on the effectiveness of distance learning in higher education. Washington DC: The Institute for Higher Education Policy. Retrieved February 26, 2004, from http://www.ihep.com/Publications.php?parm=Pubs/Abstract?9 Russell, T. (1999). The no significant difference phenomenon. Montgomery, AL: IDECC. Russell, T. (2002). The significant difference phenomenon. Retrieved February 21, 2004, from http://teleeducation.nb.ca/ significantdifference/index.cfm Shearer, M. (2003). No significant difference and distance education. Retrieved February 28, 2004, from http://www.distanceeducator.com/de_ezine/article.php?thold=-1&mode=flat& order=1&sid=182#33
Editor, researcher, writer, and consultant, Hugh W. Glenn, EdD, formerly taught at Pepperdine University and at three California state universities. He has edited manuscripts for major publishers, written instructional materials, and authored several textbooks and software manuals. His professional writings have been published in ERIC, The Elementary School Journal, Education Digest, and The Commentator. Dr. Glenn is also a frequent contributor to the editorial pages of The Orange County Register.
Sloan Center for OnLine Education (2003). Sizing the opportunity: The quality and extent of online education in the United States, 2002 and 2003. New York: Sloan-C. Retrieved February 28, 2004, from http://www.sloan-c.org/resources/survey.asp
www.embanet.com/successletter/volume21/hughs_view.htm
2/3
