“Like Having a Tiger by the Tail”: A Qualitative Analysis of the Provision of Online Education in Higher Education

Abstract

Background/Context

Online education has become an increasingly prevalent medium of instruction and the primary source of enrollment growth for colleges and universities. The well-documented growth of online education is often regarded as a response to rising costs in higher education, but the same cost-saving strategies that would allow institutions to increase their net revenue through online education may also serve to endanger the quality of student learning.

Purpose/Objective/Research Question/Focus of Study

This study explores how leading universities reconcile financial and quality considerations when offering online education.

Research Design

Drawing from interviews with 22 administrators, faculty members, and instructional designers, we conduct a qualitative analysis of how to navigate financial and quality considerations pertaining to the development and delivery of online courses and exclusively online degree programs.

Findings/Results

The central finding of this study focuses on the importance and pursuit of quality as an actionable goal when offering online education. We also find emergent themes related to the business model of online education, the influence of online education on the changing faculty role, and the shift toward student-centered learning in online education.

Conclusions/Recommendations

We offer a novel conceptual model, the Model of Quality-Driven Decision-Making in Online Education, to show how universities can navigate financial and quality considerations when offering online education in higher education.

References

Allen

, & Seaman

(2014). Grade change: Tracking online education in the United States. Newburyport, MA: The Sloan Consortium.

Allen

, & Seaman

(2017). Digital learning compass: Distance education enrollment report 2017. Babson Park, MA: Babson Survey Research Group.

Allen

Seaman

Lederman

, & Jaschik

(2012). Conflicted: Faculty and online education. Inside Higher Ed, Babson Survey Research Group, and Quahog Research Group, LLC.

Angolia

M. G.

, & Pagliari

L. R.

(2016). Factors for successful evolution and sustainability of quality distance education. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 19(3), n3.

Ary

, & Brune

(2011). A comparison of student learning outcomes in traditional and online personal finance courses. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 7 4, 465—474.

Belkin

(2013). US private colleges face enrollment decline. The Wall Street Journal, 11 11.

Blackmon

S. J.

, & Major

(2012). Student experiences in online courses: A qualitative research synthesis. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 13 2, 77—85.

Bowen

(2013). Higher education in the digital age. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Bowen

W. G.

Chingos

M. M.

Lack

K. A.

, & Nygren

T. I.

(2012). Interactive learning online at public universities: Evidence from randomized trials. Ithaka S+R, 22.

10.

Carter

Bryant-Lukosius

DiCenso

Blythe

, & Neville

A. J.

(2014). The use of triangulation in qualitative research. Oncology Nursing Forum, 41 5, 545—547.

11.

Cellini

S. R.

, & Kee

J. E.

(2010). Cost-effectiveness and cost–benefit analysis. In Wholey

J. S.

Hatry

H. P.

, & Newcomer

K. E.

(Eds.), Handbook of Practical Program Evaluation (3rd ed., 493—530). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

12.

Charmaz

(2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. London, UK: Sage.

13.

Cheslock

, & Gianneschi

(2008). Replacing state appropriations with alternative revenue sources: The case of voluntary support. Journal of Higher Education, 79 2, 208—229.

14.

Cheslock

Ortagus

Umbricht

, & Wymore

(2016). The cost of producing higher education: An exploration of theory, evidence, and institutional policy. In Smart

(Ed.), Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research (Vol. 31, 349—392). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.

15.

Creswell

J. W.

(2012). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

16.

Crotty

(1998). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the research process. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

17.

Daymont

, & Blau

(2008). Student performance in online and traditional sections of an undergraduate management course. Journal of Behavioral and Applied Management, 9 3, 275.

18.

Drèze

, & Stern

(1987). The theory of cost-benefit analysis. In Auerbach

, & Feldstein

(Eds.), Handbook of public economics (Vol. 2, 909—989). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier.

19.

Driscoll

Jicha

Hunt

Tichavsky

, & Thompson

(2012). Can online courses deliver in-class results? A comparison of student per formance and satisfaction in an online versus a face-to-face introductory sociology course. Teaching Sociology, 40 4, 312—331.

20.

Figlio

Rush

, & Lu

(2013). Is it live or is it internet? Experimental estimates of the effects of online instruction on student learning. Journal of Labor Economics, 31 4, 763—784.

21.

Golafshani

(2003). Understanding reliability and validity in qualitative research. The Qualitative Report, 8 4, 597—606.

22.

Guba

E. G.

, & Lincoln

Y. S.

(1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

23.

Immerwahr

Johnson

, & Gasbarra

(2008). The iron triangle: College presidents talk about costs, access, and quality. San Jose, CA: The National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education.

24.

Jaquette

, & Curs

(2015). Creating the out-of-state university: Do public universities increase nonresident freshman enrollment in response to declining state appropriations? Research in Higher Education, 56 6, 535—565.

25.

Lack

(2013). Current status of research on online learning in postsecondary education. New York, NY: Ithaka S-R.

26.

Lewis

, & Harrison

(2012). Online delivery as a course adjunct promotes active learning and student success. Teaching of Psychology, 39 1, 72—76.

27.

Lincoln

Y. S.

, & Guba

E. G.

(1986). But is it rigorous? Trustworthiness and authenticity in naturalistic evaluation. New Directions for Program Evaluation, 30, 73—84.

28.

McPherson

M. S.

, & Bacow

L. S.

(2015). Online higher education: Beyond the hype cycle. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 29 4, 135—153.

29.

Means

Toyama

Murphy

, & Baki

(2013). The effectiveness of online and blended learning: A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Teachers College Record, 115, 1—47.

30.

Mentzer

Cryan

, & Teclehaimanot

(2007). Two peas in a pod? A comparison of face-to-face and web-based classrooms. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 15 2, 233—246.

31.

Merriam

S. B.

(1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education: Revised and expanded from case study research in education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

32.

Merriam

S. B.

, & Tisdell

E. J.

(2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

33.

Meyer

K. A.

(2006). Cost-efficiencies of online learning. ASHE Higher Education Report Series, 32 1, 1—123.

34.

Miles

M. B.

, & Huberman

A. M.

(1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

35.

Miller

(2010). The course of innovation: Using technology to transform higher education. Education Sector Reports. Retrieved from http://www.educationsector.org/usr_doc/NCAT-Report_RELEASE.pdf

36.

Morris

(2008). Economies of scale and scope in e-learning. Studies in Higher Education, 33 3, 331—343.

37.

Morse

J. M.

(2010). Sampling in grounded theory. In Bryant

, & Charman

(Eds.), The SAGE handbook of grounded theory (pp. 229—244). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

38.

Ortagus

(2017). From the periphery to prominence: An examination of the changing profile of online students in American higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 32, 47—57.

39.

Ortagus

(2018). National evidence of the impact of first-year online enrollment on postsecondary students’ long-term academic outcomes. Research in Higher Education, 59 4, 1035—1058.

40.

Ortagus

, & Yang

(2017). An examination of the influence of decreases in state appropriations on online enrollment at public universities. Research in Higher Education, 59 7, 847—865.

41.

Poirier

, & Feldman

(2004). Teaching in cyberspace: Online versus traditional instruction using a waiting-list experimental design. Teaching of Psychology, 31 1, 59—62.

42.

Sener

(2012). The seven futures of American education: Improving learning and teaching in a screen-captured world. North Charleston, SC: CreateSpace.

43.

Shea

, & Bidjerano

(2014). Does online learning impede degree completion? A national study of community college students. Computers & Education, 75, 103—111.

44.

Shenton

A. K.

(2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects. Education for Information, 22 2, 63—75.

45.

Slaughter

, & Leslie

L. L.

(1997). Academic capitalism: Politics, policies, and the entrepreneurial university. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

46.

Slaughter

, & Rhoades

(2004). Academic capitalism and the new economy: Markets, state, and higher education. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

47.

Stake

R. E.

(2010). Qualitative research: Studying how things work. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

48.

United States Senate. (2012). For-profit higher education: The failure to safeguard the federal investment and ensure student success. U.S. Senate, Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee.

49.

Wagner

S. C.

Garippo

S. J.

, & Lovaas

(2011). A longitudinal comparison of online versus traditional instruction. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 7 1, 68—73.

50.

, & Jaggars

(2011). Does course delivery format matter? Evaluating the effects of online learning in a state community college system using instrumental variable approach. New York, NY: Community College Research Center, Teachers College, Columbia University.

51.

, & Jaggars

(2013). Adaptability to online learning: Differences across types of students and academic subject areas. New York, NY: Community College Research Center, Teachers College, Columbia University.