INTRODUCTION

This chapter explores the basic concepts and the current landscape of teaching and learning in online environments.

DEFINITION OF TERMS

Distance education is the delivery of content using technology (Seaman, Allen, & Seaman, 2018). Learning takes place when the learner and the teacher are geographically separated (Layton, 2017). The Sloan Consortium (Allen & Seaman, 2018) defines online learning in terms of the proportion of content delivered online. When 80% or more of the content is online, it is an online course. When 30% to 79% is online, the course is hybrid or blended. When 1% to 29% of the content is online, the course is web facilitated, and when no part of the course is online, it is a traditional class. Web-based learning means using the World Wide Web as the teaching and learning strategy. There is a reduction in time and space barriers to learning, and learning can take place anytime and anywhere.

HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE OF TEACHING WITH TECHNOLOGY

The practice of teaching and learning at a distance is not new to education. Paper-based distance curricula in which the learner enrolled in a university and received learning packages in the mail have been available for some time. Early correspondence courses included interaction with the instructor through telephone calls and mail. Television also provided a medium for teaching and learning at a distance. Students in remote areas could use the television to obtain learning content. In the late 1960s, Schramm (1962) conducted studies that compared instructional television (ITV) with classroom instruction and summarized the results of more than 400 empirical studies. The findings of his research revealed no significant difference between learning from a television or in a classroom.

As distance education progressed from correspondence courses to online learning, opportunities for interpersonal interaction also increased. Videoconferencing made it possible for learners and faculty members to interact in real time. With the emergence of the Internet, particularly email and the World Wide Web, it became possible to promote high degrees of interaction using mainstream technology and cost-effective learning environments.

Following Schramm’s (1962) conclusions that there was no significant difference in learning between the traditional classroom and televised learning, researchers compared classroom instruction to other methods of distance education. Numerous studies comparing traditional classroom-based instruction with technology-supported instruction have found no significant difference in critical educational variables, such as learning outcomes. Wetzel, Radtke, and Stern (1994) summarized the results of comparative studies conducted through the mid-1990s and found no significant differences in learning outcomes between the two learning environments. Thomas Russell (1998) at North Carolina State University studied hundreds of sources of written material about distance education and concluded that the learning outcomes of students in the traditional classroom are similar to those of students in distance technology classes. This was termed the no-significant-differences phenomenon.

The American Federation of Teachers and the National Education Association commissioned the Institute of Higher Education Policy to conduct a review of the current research on the effectiveness of distance education (Merisotis & Phipps, 1999). Merisotis and Phipps (1999) reviewed studies published in the 1990s and presented “What’s the Difference: A Review of Contemporary Research on the Effectiveness of Distance Learning in Education.” The findings were that online students tend to perform as effectively as traditional students. Online students had similar learning experiences and were as satisfied with their learning experiences as were traditional classroom learners. The authors noted several shortcomings in the original research: lack of control for extraneous variables, lack of randomization of subjects, questionable validity and reliability of instruments used to measure student outcome and attitude, and no control for reactive effects, such as the impact of motivation and interest, because taking a course online is a novelty. The authors suggest that because of these shortcomings, the study was inconclusive. The question—what is the best way to teach students—prevailed (Merisotis & Phipps, 1999).

This led to the investigation of other variables, such as overall course satisfaction, course organization, and attainment of class objectives. Leasure, Davis, and Thievon (2000) looked at these variables in traditional lecture and distance-based instruction and reported no significant differences. Allen, Bourhis, Burrell, and Mabry (2002) conducted a meta-analysis and found no differences in satisfaction levels but found a slight preference for traditional face-to-face courses over distance-based education courses.

Researchers began to move beyond comparative studies and into other methods, such as discourse analysis and in-depth interviews. These methods have provided theoretical frameworks for practice. Billings (2000) suggested a model that focuses on the best practices that included technology, faculty, students, and outcomes. The author developed examples of evidence for the best practices in the model. For example, evidence for the technology best practice is infrastructure that includes access to the Internet, course management software, user support, and appropriate hardware and software.

While the guiding principles of quality practice were under development, universities were struggling with what Noble (1998) calls automation. According to Noble, “automation—the distribution of digitized course material online, without the participation of professors who develop such material—is often justified as an inevitable part of the new ‘knowledge-based’ society” (Noble, 1998, p. 1). The University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) instituted the Instructional Enhancement Initiative, which mandated that all arts and sciences courses have a web-based delivery component. The university collaborated with private corporations and formed its own for-profit company (Noble, 1998). Noble says, “It is by no accident that the high-tech transformation of higher education is being initiated and implemented from the top down, either without any student and faculty involvement in the decision-making or despite it” (Noble, 1998, p. 2). Although faculty members and students were opposed to the initiative, UCLA administrators continued with their plans (Noble, 1998). Further, Noble cites a reason for the decision to continue—the fear of being left behind in an academic trend he calls “the commercialism of higher education” (Noble, 1998). The function of the university is to teach, and universities are developing their courseware into marketable, sellable products in hopes of getting “a piece of the commercial action for their institutions or themselves, as vendors in their own right of software and content” (Noble, 1998, p. 5). The concern of faculty members is the quality of education. They view web-based instruction as commoditizing education, and the fear was that the quality of instruction will be compromised by automation.

Online courses and programs grew from 1999 to 2001 through grants awarded by the Department of Education called Learning Anytime Anywhere Partnerships (LAAP) for innovative distance learning projects that included partnerships. With funding from President Bill Clinton’s Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education, LAAP received $10 million in 1999, $23.3 million in 2000, and $30 million in 2001. Even with the phasing out of the program, the emphasis on partnerships in projects continued to grow (Carnevale, 2001).

SUMMARY

Online learning environments have morphed into academia as acceptable methods for achieving academic goals in flexible and creative learning environments. Students are motivated and independent, and faculty members have changed roles from being the sage-on-the-stage (classroom teaching) to guides-on-the-side (online teaching). When considering the research findings over the past several decades along with societal changes and demand for accessible learning, it becomes evident that learning online is heading in a direction that will drive demand. As new generations grow up learning online, educators will continue to face the challenge of keeping students engaged through active learning and feedback that facilitates the learning process.

REFERENCES