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)

Questions?Contact Info

? ________________ ? jsener@senerlearning.com Web site: senerlearning.com Skype: john.sener