R685: Week Four Reflection

This week in R685 we’re discussing online and blended learning.

“the smallest institutions have the lowest [online] penetration rates across almost all program categories” (Allen & Seaman, 2005).

I wanted to draw attention to this because I’m guessing there are lots of reasons worth talking about. For example: smaller institutions tend to have smaller staff and smaller budgets to work with, as discussed in the report. There’s more than that, though: the college at which I did my undergraduate offers traditional and distance-learning formats (though even the distance classes are really only online-facilitated at this point), and though it has begun developing an online degree program in recent years, faculty with whom I still correspond on a regular basis tell me that those people in charge of the program are having trouble understanding in what ways online courses differ from traditional courses, so that may be another reason as well.

At least at my small, private, not-for-profit school (my graduating class, 2008, comprised of the entire undergraduate student body, on-campus and off, was less than 200 people), much of the technological things we take for granted at IU just weren’t possible. The first semester online registration was even AVAILABLE for was the fall after I graduated – I had to truck pieces of paper around campus, get four or five different signatures, and then drop everything off with the registrar (uphill, both ways in the snow, blah blah).

Allen & Seaman (2010) seems to support my analysis that part of the problem is a lack of institutional commitment to online course offerings. “[S]chools [that institutionally believe that their online offerings are strategic for their institution and they have fully incorporated online into their formal long-term plan] enroll forty-three percent of all higher education students but educate nearly two-thirds (66 percent) of all online students in fall 2009.” Those schools that don’t “culturally” understand the importance of the technology are going to be slower to adopt the technology.

That said, I’m not sure if I’m convinced that online classes are unilaterally better than face-to-face ones. I love having course materials available 24/7 from anywhere I might happen to be, but on the other hand, one problem brought up by Figlio et. Al (2010) is one that I am already having trouble with, just a few weeks into the semester: “as has been documented at one major four-year institution, last-minute cramming in internet-based courses is rampant (Donovan, Figlio and Rush, 2006)”. Though I’m doing it on a micro-scale, getting my last-minute “cramming” done at the end of the week rather than the semester, I’m just not as active as I like to be in this class. For me, having concrete deadlines is very important, or I have a hard time getting things done. I find it a little funny that, as a person planning to work with teachers to incorporate technology into their classes, I’m having trouble taking an online class – even one as well-designed as this one.

Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2005). Growing by degrees: Online education in the United States, 2005. Needham, MA: Sloan-C. Retrieved on June 24, 2010,, from http://www.sloan-c.org/publications/survey/pdf/growing_by_degrees.pdf

Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2010, November). Class Differences: Online Education in the United States, 2010, The Sloan Consortium. http://sloanconsortium.org/sites/default/files/class_differences.pdf

Figlio, D.N., Rush, M., & Yin, L. (2010, June). Is it Live or is it Internet? Experimental Estimates of the Effects of Online Instruction on Student Learning. National Bureau of Economic Research. http://www.nber.org/papers/w16089.pdf?new_window=1

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *