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