Post on 27-Dec-2015
transcript
More on The “Why” of Online in Higher Education
By John Sener, Sener Learning ServicesNovember 7th, 2008
Why Another Report?
Online Nation had intriguing findings which merited further examination
BSRG has lots of unexamined data Online Nation - two new constructs:
Online Learning Framework Strategically Important Factors
Original Report Questions
What more does the “new” data about strategically important factors tell us about why institutions offer online courses and programs? “New” = 2006 data for 2007 report “New” = constructs (OLF, SIF)
Is the Online Learning Framework useful? If so, how?
Are Strategically Important Factors useful? If so, how?
Online Learning Framework = Level of Engagement
Online Learning Framework Category
Doing Online
Learning?
Online Learning Critical to Long-Term Strategy?
Online Learning in
Strategic Plan?
Not Interested No No N/A
Not Yet Engaged No Yes No
Non-Strategic Online Yes No N/A
Engaged Yes Yes No
Fully Engaged Yes Yes Yes
Strategically Important FactorsIncrease student access
Attract students from outside the traditional service area
Grow continuing and/or professional education
Increase rate of degree completion
Provide pedagogic improvements
Enhancing value of college/university brand
Improve student retention
Improve enrollment management responsiveness
Increase the diversity of student body
Optimize physical plant utilization
Reduce or contain costs
Increase strategic partnerships with other institutions
Strengthen academic continuity in case of disaster
Enhance alumni and donor outreach
Why Online? Because It’s Strategic
Many factors are strategically important 100s of institutions using each strategy Increasing student access is still #1
Attracting students from outside the traditional service area is #2.
Most striking finding: depth and breadth
Why Online? Because It’s Strategic
Increase student access 62.8% 30.0% 92.8%
Attract students from > traditional service area 53.0% 28.4% 81.4%
Grow continuing and/or professional education 40.1% 40.9% 81.0%
Increase rate of degree completion 33.2% 39.0% 72.2%
Provide pedagogic improvements 27.8% 42.8% 70.6%
Enhancing value of college/university brand 28.2% 41.4% 69.6%
Improve student retention 25.6% 40.0% 65.6%
Improve enrollment management responsiveness 20.9% 40.8% 61.7%
Increase the diversity of student body 23.7% 34.2% 57.9%
Optimize physical plant utilization 22.0% 32.6% 54.6%
Reduce or contain costs 18.2% 32.8% 51.0%
Increase strategic partnerships w/other institutions 19.9% 29.6% 49.5%
Strengthen academic continuity in case of disaster 24.0% 24.1% 48.1%
Enhance alumni and donor outreach 11.8% 23.9% 35.7%
Very Important (VI)
Important (I)
VI + IOnline Education Is Strategically Important for My Institution – Fall 2006
Online Is Strategic: Implications
What are individual institutions doing? [aka: what are your competitors doing?]
100 ways to use OL to reach your alumni 100 ways to enhance your institution’s brand Etc.
Is the credit collapse an OL Black Swan? Which factors make standalone sense? Which factors need unbundling? How?
Example: Summer OL programs as access
Level of Engagement
More strategically engaged = more positive about online education
Certain strategic factors are much more important in making the transition to deeper engagement
Making OL critical to long-term strategy: Attract students from outside traditional service area Provide pedagogic improvements Increase student access
Integrate online learning into strategic plan: Enhance value of the college/university brand Improve student retention
Doesn’t much affect perceptions of barriers to OL
Strategically Important Factors by Level of Engagement
Increase student access 98.5% 96.8% 80.2%
Attract students from outside traditional service area 89.7% 86.1% 65.6%
Grow continuing and/or professional education 84.8% 79.9% 76.0%
Increase rate of degree completion 79.7% 71.6% 61.1%
Enhancing value of college/university brand 81.3% 62.0% 57.5%
Provide pedagogic improvements 81.1% 72.4% 52.9%
Improve student retention 77.7% 60.9% 51.8%
Strengthen academic continuity in case of disaster 56.4% 41.5% 40.8%
Increase the diversity of student body 66.6% 55.0% 45.9%
Optimize physical plant utilization 61.0% 53.3% 45.5%
Improve enrollment management responsiveness 71.2% 60.2% 47.6%
Increase strategic partnerships w/other institutions 58.8% 45.4% 38.4%
Reduce or contain costs 60.9% 47.1% 38.8%
Enhance alumni and donor outreach 40.5% 30.1% 32.9%
Fully Engaged
Engaged NSOsOnline Education Is Strategically Important for My Institution – Fall 2006
Level of Engagement and Institutional Type
Institutional type + level of engagement matters in some cases
Frame: what’s more important to academic leaders at a deeper level of engagement? (>differences, not most important factors)
Frame: What institutional characteristics might matter?
Making OL critical to long-term strategy: Baccalaureate, Masters, Private Not-for-Profit
Integrating OL into a strategic plan Doctoral/Research
Level of Engagement and Institutional Type: Non-Strategic Online vs. Engaged
Baccalaureate: All of them, esp.: Increasing student access (100% vs. 60%) Reducing or containing costs (72% vs.27%) Improving enrollment management responsiveness
(36% vs.76%) Masters:
Providing pedagogic improvements (47% vs. 77%) Attracting students from outside service area (67%
vs. 96%) Increasing student access (71% vs. 99%)
Private Not-for-Profit Increasing student access (68% vs. 100%) Attracting students from outside service area
(64% vs.94%)
Level of Engagement and Institutional Type: Engaged vs. Fully Engaged
Doctoral/Research: Strengthening academic continuity (31%
vs. 72%) Increasing the diversity of student body
(43% vs. 81%) Improving enrollment management
responsiveness (26% vs. 62%) Enhancing donor and alumni outreach Improving student retention (48% vs. 83%)
Level of Engagement: Implications
This Strategic Factor… …May be Most Important to This Type of Institution…
...Transitioning to*
Enhance value of college/university brand
Baccalaureate(Institutions 1500-2999)
Engaged
Doctoral/ResearchPublics
Institutions 7500-14999
Fully Engaged
Provide pedagogic improvements
BaccalaureateMaster’s
Institutions 1500-2999
Engaged
Increase strategic partnerships with other institutions
BaccalaureateMaster’s
Engaged
Private Not-For-ProfitsInstitutions <1500Institutions 15000+
Fully Engaged
Level of Engagement: Carnegie Class (NSO Engaged)Institutions making online learning critical to long-term strategy:
For This Type of Institution…
This Strategic Factor May be Most Important % Importance (Difference)
Baccalaureate Increasing student access Reducing or containing costs Improving enrollment mgmt responsiveness Optimizing physical plant utilization Attracting students from outside service area Enhancing value of the college/university brand Growing continuing/professional education Providing pedagogic improvements
100% (+40)72% (+45)76% (+40)77% (+39)96% (+34)82% (+33)96% (+32)74% (+29)
Doctoral/ Res. Increasing student access 100% (+36)
Associates None
Master’s Providing pedagogic improvements Attracting students from outside service area Increasing student access Optimizing physical plant utilization
77% (+30)96% (+29)99% (+28)64% (+27)
Level of Engagement: Carnegie Class (Engaged Fully Engaged)
For Institutions integrating online learning into a strategic plan:
For This Type of Institution…
This Strategic Factor May be Most Important % Importance (Difference)
Baccalaureate Improving student retention Increasing rate of degree completion
88% (+38)85% (+24)
Doctoral/ Research
Strengthening academic continuity Increasing the diversity of student body Improving enrollment mgmt responsiveness Enhancing donor and alumni outreach Improving student retention Enhancing the value of college/university brand Optimizing physical plant utilization Reducing or containing costs
72% (+41)81% (+39)79% (+36)62% (+36)83% (+35)87% (+33)63% (+27)65% (+26)
Associates Improving student retention 83% (+21)
Master’s Increasing rate of degree completion 85% (+19)
Level of Engagement: Institutional Control (NSO Engaged)
Institutions Transitioning from Non-Strategic Online to Engaged(= making online learning critical to long-term strategy):
For This Type of Institution…
This Strategic Factor May be Most Important % Importance (Difference)
Private Not-for-Profits
Increasing student access Attracting students from outside service area Increasing rate of degree completion Optimizing physical plant utilization Improving enrollment mgmt responsiveness Reducing or containing costs
100% (+32)94% (+30)66% (+23)58% (+23)55% (+21)49% (+20)
Publics None
Level of Engagement: Institutional Size (NSO Engaged)
Institutions Transitioning from Non-Strategic Online to Engaged(= making online learning critical to long-term strategy):
For This Type of Institution…
This Strategic Factor May be Most Important % Importance (Difference)
< 1500 Attracting students from outside service area 93% (+27)
1500-2999 Attracting students from outside service area Increasing the diversity of student body
83% (+34)73% (+22)
3000-7499 Improving enrollment management responsiveness Increasing rate of degree completion
69% (+26)74% (+20)
7500-14999 Attracting students from outside service area Increasing student access Increasing rate of degree completion
85% (+34)100% (+29)75% (+22)
Level of Engagement: Institutional Control (Engaged Fully Engaged)
For Institutions integrating online learning into a strategic plan:
For This Type of Institution…
This Strategic Factor May be Most Important % Importance (Difference)
Public Improving student retention Enhancing the value of college/university brand
81% (+20)78% (+20)
Private Not-for-Profit
Increasing strategic partnerships w/other institutions Reducing or containing costs
59% (+22)
67% (+20)
Level of Engagement: Institutional Size (Engaged Fully Engaged)
For Institutions integrating online learning into a strategic plan:
For This Type of Institution…
This Strategic Factor May be Most Important % Importance (Difference)
< 1500 Increasing the diversity of student body Increasing strategic partnerships w/other institutions
73% (+22)60% (+21)
1500-2499 Increasing rate of degree completion 82% (+20)
7500-14999 Improving enrollment management responsiveness Reducing or containing costs Increasing the diversity of student body Enhancing the value of college/university brand
84% (+39)61% (+38)70% (+32)82% (+31)
15000+ Increasing strategic partnerships w/other institutions
60% (+23)
Barriers by Level of Engagement and Institutional Type
Not important generally Not important for institutional size, control Baccalaureate institutions are the most skeptical:
Less likely to agree that faculty at their school accept the value and legitimacy of online education (18% vs. 32% average),
Less likely to agree that online degrees have the same level of respect as face-to-face degrees (15% vs. 28% average),
Less likely to agree that student demand for online learning is growing (58% vs. 70% average)
Barriers by Level of Engagement and Institutional Type
Barrier Importance More Likely* for…
Importance Less Likely* for…
Lack of faculty acceptance Doctoral/Research ---------
Lack of employer acceptance
Private For-Profit ----------
Higher development costs Doctoral/Research >15000
Higher delivery costs ---------- ----------
Lower retention rates ---------- Doctoral/Research; >15000
Students’ need for more discipline
---------- Doctoral/Research; >15000
*>10 percentage points difference
Future Plans for Report Release
Release preliminary report findings; post on web site
Analyze 2007 data Do more rigorous statistical analysis on
2006, 2007 data Release report early 2009 (Jan/Feb)