Introduction

Management pundit Peter Drucker has predicted that the residential university campus as we know it will be defunct within 30 years. A better bet is that traditional higherin education will change, not disappear. The question is: How will it change? The fact is, computer and related technologies are evolving so quickly—and new providers and brokers of higher education proliferating so rapidly—no one knows. (Gladieux and Swail 1999, 7)

Many see the rise in the availability of technology-supported distance education—that is, the delivery of instruction over a distance to individuals located in one or more venues—not only as a revolutionary opportunity to increase access to postsecondary education, but also as an opportunity to hasten the overall pace of reform in higher education (Ehrmann n.d.). In contrast to the institutional status quo, what was once an eclectic assortment of individually accessed, noncredit educational courses is quickly being knit into comprehensive degree- and certificate granting programs (Phipps, Wellman, and Merisotis 1998). Indeed, if a recent article in the Chronicle of Higher Education (April 9, 1999, A27) is any indication, the distance education industry is thriving: "For an industry that barely existed three years ago, the level of activity is dizzying."

This report, conducted by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), presents findings from the second nationally representative survey of distance education at the postsecondary level. This survey, conducted in winter 1998–99, collected information about the 12-month 1997– 98 academic year. The first report, Distance Education in Higher Education Institutions (U.S. Department of Education 1997) was based on data from a 1995 NCES Postsecondary Education Quick Information System (PEQIS) survey of higher education institutions. It reported findings on the number of institutions offering distance education courses, the number of distance education courses offered, enrollments in distance education courses, the number of distance education degree and certificate programs offered, and the types of technologies used to deliver distance education. As the first NCES report on the topic, it provided valuable baseline information about the status of distance education in higher education institutions.

The current report updates and expands upon the findings presented in the previous report in several important ways. Perhaps most significantly, the current survey expands the universe of institutions from which it collected data, from higher education institutions to all 2- year and 4-year postsecondary institutions. In addition, this report also presents new information about fields of study and instructional levels of courses and programs offered through distance education, as well as information about how tuition and fees charged for distance education courses compare to those charged for on-campus courses. Finally, this report also provides trend information for higher education institutions, including changes in the percentage of higher education institutions offering distance education courses, enrollments and course offerings, degree and certificate programs, as well as technologies used to deliver distance education courses. These empirical results are provided in the following chapters of this report. The remainder of this chapter provides a brief overview of issues related to distance education.

Overview

What is Distance Education?

Distance education in the most general sense of the term is instruction delivered over a distance to one or more individuals located in one or more venues (Phipps, Wellman, and Merisotis 1998). By this definition, the history of distance education can be traced back as far as the 1830s with the advent of commercial correspondence courses (Hanson et al. 1997). But the advent of advanced information technologies and, in particular, the Internet, has profoundly altered the character of distance education. Indeed, rapid changes in technology continue to challenge the traditional ways in which distance education is defined (Hanson et al. 1997)—resulting in the present situation where the term "distance education" is applied to a great variety of programs, providers, audiences, and media (Sherry 1996).

For the purposes of this study, distance education refers to education or training courses delivered to remote (off-campus) location(s) via audio, video (live or prerecorded), or computer technologies, including both synchronous and asynchronous instruction. Courses conducted exclusively on campus, as well as classes conducted exclusively via written correspondence, are not included in this definition of distance education (although some on-campus instruction or testing may be involved, and some instruction may be conducted via written correspondence). In addition, for the purposes of this study, distance education does not include courses in which the instructor travels to a remote site to deliver instruction in person, although courses may include a small amount of oncampus coursework or labwork, on-campus exams, or occasional on-campus meetings.

Why Might Institutions Implement Distance Education?

Several forces are at work in what some have characterized as the "current rush" to implement distance learning programs by colleges and universities, including the convergence of communication and computing technologies, the changing demographics of students pursuing postsecondary education, and the need to reduce the cost of education (Sherron and Boettcher 1997). It has been suggested that the primary benefits of implementing distance education programs for postsecondary institutions include the potential to increase enrollments of nontraditional students and to reduce program costs (Willis 1995). The 1995 PEQIS findings indicate, for example, that a large majority of institutions believed it somewhat or very important that their distance education offerings increase access to new audiences and increase enrollments. In addition, fewer institutions (but still a majority) reported that reducing institutional per-student costs was a somewhat or very important goal to their distance education program.

It has also been suggested that the benefits of implementing distance education programs also accrue to students. Accordingly, the primary benefit of distance education may be that it has the potential to provide access to postsecondary education where otherwise it might not have been available, due to such constraints as geography, time, job and family responsibilities, or finances (Sherron and Boettcher 1997). Increased access to certificate and degree programs via distance education may have the further benefit of encouraging students to undertake these programs or to complete them more quickly, particularly for part-time students (Turoff 1997). Findings from the 1995 PEQIS study on distance education indicate that institutions support these goals. For instance, a large majority of higher education institutions using distance education reported that improving access by making courses available at convenient locations and by reducing time constraints were somewhat or very important goals in their decision to use distance education. However, research evidence on the impact of distance education on access, as well as research evidence on distance education's impact on both enrollments and program costs, is not conclusive (Gladieux and Swail 1999).

How is Distance Education Delivered?

The development of technologies employed to provide distance education have resulted from a "push-pull" relationship between providers and the public: technological advances have created awareness and demand among users, while usage has pushed providers to further develop technologies (Gladieux and Swail 1999). According to Sherron and Boettcher (1997), these advances have produced over the years four different generations of distance education technology. These generations are summarized in exhibit 1 and described briefly below. Key differentiating characteristics of the generations of technologies of distance education include:

• the number of individuals that can be simultaneously supported in communication (i.e., one-way, two-way, or multiple-way communication);
• the amount and types of information (voice, video, data) that can be communicated (i.e., whether the communication channels are "broadband" or "narrowband"); and · the speed at which that information is communicated (i.e., whether the return rate is fast or slow).

The technologies predominantly used in distance education in the early and mid-20th century (such as print, radio, and television) can be characterized as one-way narrowband communication. These first-generation distance education technologies, thus, were best used to transfer information primarily from faculty to student. This delivery mode did not typically incorporate any interaction among students and only supported minimal interaction between students and faculty. One additional constraint among first-generation broadcast technologies was that they were time dependent (i.e., radio and television broadcasts occurred only at specific, predetermined times that required the student to be listening or watching at those times). Second-generation technologies began to emerge by 1960 and represented a significant advancement in that they addressed the time dependency issue of first-generation technologies. The advent of the VCR and cable television enabled "timeshifting" of the broadcast portion of distance education courses, as well as the alternative of bypassing broadcast completely by making the content of courses available on videotapes that could be sent to students and viewed at any time. In other respects, however, distance education courses that employ this generation of technology are not so dissimilar from the previous generation: there tends to be little interaction among students and between students and faculty. By the mid-1980s, the personal computer had found its way into use by distance education providers, followed not long thereafter by the advent of two-way videoconferencing. This third generation of distance education technologies, in contrast to previous generations, allowed faculty to convey increasingly complex and large amounts of information to students and enabled interaction among students and between students and faculty through the use of electronic mail, chat rooms, and bulletin boards. The advent of computer-assisted instruction, simulations, and other electronic resources accessed via computer disk, CD-ROM, or the Internet further characterizes this generation of distance education technology.

The fourth generation of distance education technologies represents still another advance. Interactivity among students and between students and faculty is increased, and the amount and types of information that can be exchanged are significantly greater and take significantly less time to occur. Indeed, these advances are further decreasing distance education's reliance on time and place and are enabling the implementation of completely virtual universities. The current landscape of distance education incorporates a number of technologies, spanning second, third, and fourth generations. Examples that were provided in the 1997–98 survey include two-way video with two-way audio, one-way prerecorded video, Internet courses using synchronous and asynchronous computer-based instruction, and CD-ROM.

In characterizing different implementations of distance education, it is important to note that research does not conclusively support the notion that more advanced technologies necessarily represent better distance education implementations (Hanson et al. 1997). Different distance education technologies meet different instructional and learner needs and the consequent costs to implement different technologies for institutions and students vary. For instance, Tuckey (1993, as cited in Hanson et al. 1997) compared the use of an electronic whiteboard, a form of synchronous audio-conferencing, and asynchronous computer conferencing, concluding that each form of technology had its advantages: "Visual channels enabled through the whiteboard technology may be more important in subject areas such as mathematics and the sciences, whereas [computer conferencing] may be more suitable in areas requiring extensive discourse" (p. 70). Furthermore, other factors such as learner ages, cultural and socioeconomic backgrounds, interests and experiences, educational levels, and familiarity with distance education methods and delivery systems may all be associated with the effectiveness of distance education (Sherry 1996).

How is Distance Education Organized?

With the increased capabilities of newer generations of distance education technology, postsecondary institutions are being forced to revisit, if not altogether redefine, their missions (Ehrmann n.d.; Gallick 1998). In this regard, the forces acting upon postsecondary institutions are no different than those acting upon larger society. New technologies are challenging fundamental assumptions about the nature and organization of work, as well as the need for workers to engage in continuous learning (e.g., Carnevale 1991; Kelly 1998). A range of unconventional providers, such as corporate universities and unaffiliated distance learning providers, have entered the postsecondary marketplace, offering instruction and credentials in new settings, on flexible schedules—blurring lines between public and private, for-profit and not-for-profit (Gladieux and Swail 1999).

Indeed, the institutional response to technology's pressure on organizational structures and relationships can be traced back over 20 years (Oblinger and Maruyama 1996). Through the end of the 1970s, institutions generally acted individually with regard to distance education, creating their own materials or purchasing them from other institutions. With the advent of satellite technology in the 1980s, consortia of institutions formed to share the correspondingly high costs of course development and delivery. With the rise of the networked computer and the Internet, the 1990s have brought pressure on institutions to consider their niche in an even broader national or international distance education marketplace, thereby fostering innovations in institution-to-institution relationships. One way to conceptualize these new and emerging arrangements of institutions is by considering what distinguishes different types of postsecondary providers, both in terms of who provides the education and who awards the degree or certificate. Phipps, Wellman, and Merisotis (1998) created such a typology and identified four basic types of organizational arrangements employed by institutions that provide distance education:

• Enhancements to traditional campus-based instruction. Perhaps the most prevalent form of distance education occurs as an enhancement to campus-based instruction offered at traditional colleges and universities. In this type of arrangement, students are regularly matriculated, enrolled in the usual courses, taught by the same faculty, and are generally on campus all or most of the time they are studying. The instruction can be offered through off-campus centers as well as on campus. The difference is that distance education students are not in the same location as their instructors. Distance education arises primarily through faculty initiatives to employ available technologies and may be particularly beneficial to students who live off campus or who work full- or part-time.
• Consortia or collaboratives. Another form of distance education is provided by consortia or collaboratives that represent cooperative pooling and sharing arrangements among institutions (typically, traditional colleges and universities). In these arrangements, multiple institutions join together to provide distance education on a statewide or regional basis. The authority to award degrees and credits, however, remains with each member institution and does not shift to the consortium.
• Contracted or brokered arrangements. Contracted or brokered arrangements are configurations of institutions, faculty, or other providers brought together solely for the purpose of delivering distance education. In contrast to consortia or collaboratives, the authority to award degrees and credits rests with the contracting or organizing entity, not with the originating institution.
• Virtual universities. Virtual universities are institutions that offer most or all of their instruction via technological means and are distinguished by their nearly exclusive use of technology as the educational delivery device.

As new types of organizational arrangements emerge, challenges to the flexibility of the higher education community may continue. For now, distance education providers are offering traditional and nontraditional students alike the opportunity to pursue postsecondary education through a variety of arrangements (Phipps, Wellman, and Merisotis 1998).

How Effective is Distance Education?

As distance education has grown, so has interest in its effectiveness. Research on the effectiveness of distance education typically seeks to compare the performance, attitudes, and satisfaction of distance education students with those of traditional on-campus students (Phipps and Merisotis 1999). Like research on other educational interventions, the distance education literature is largely anecdotal in nature (Hanson et al. 1997), contains a considerable amount of cross-referencing (where many of the papers and summaries cite similar research or reference each other), consists of only a rather small body of high-quality original research (Phipps and Merisotis 1999), and—given the rapid evolution of distance education—is dated.

Three recent reviews of the distance education research offer some insights into its effectiveness. An oft-cited report entitled The No Significant Difference Phenomenon (Russell 1999) compiles hundreds of sources that indicate that the learning outcomes of distance education students are similar to the learning outcomes of traditional oncampus students. This body of work also suggests that the attitudes and satisfaction of distance education students are generally positive. Other reviews of this body of evidence are more critical (Phipps, Wellman, and Merisotis 1998), arguing that there is not conclusive evidence to indicate that student learning outcomes are higher in the vast majority of distance education settings than in traditional on-campus ones. Noting issues with the quality of the research base, Hanson and his colleagues (1997) in their review of the distance education literature tentatively conclude that:

• Distance education is just as effective as traditional education in regards to learner outcomes.
• Distance education learners generally have a more favorable attitude toward distance education than traditional learners have, and distance learners feel they learn as well as if they were in a regular classroom.
• Successful distance education learners tend to be abstract learners who are intrinsically motivated and possess internal locus of control.
• Each form of distance education technology has its own advantages and disadvantages in contributing to the overall quality of the learning experience.

Despite these tentative statements, studies comparing the outcomes of distance education students with traditional on-campus students, while commonly conducted, have been criticized by many as inappropriate (Hanson et al. 1997):

It is likely that when different media treatments of the same informational content to the same students yields similar learning results, the cause of the results can be found in a method which the two treatments share in common…give up your enthusiasm for the belief that media attributes cause learning (Clark 1994, 28)

In addition to general concerns about quality and appropriateness, researchers also have identified gaps in the existing research base on distance education. For instance, according to Phipps and Merisotis (1999) the research on distance education:

• tends to emphasize student outcomes for individual courses rather than for a total academic program;
• does not take into account differences among students;
• does not adequately explain why the dropout rates of distance learners are higher;
• does not take into consideration how the different learning styles of students relate to the use of particular technologies;
• focuses mostly on the impact of individual technologies rather than on the interaction of multiple technologies;
• does not include a theoretical or conceptual framework; and
• does not adequately address the impact of access to resource materials and support services.

Emerging Policy Issues

According to Phipps, Wellman, and Merisotis (1998), the pace at which institutions are moving into technology-mediated learning is remarkable. Predictions are that distance education—which was once a "poor and often unwelcome stepchild within the academic community"—will continue to have a profound impact on postsecondary institutions and their faculty (Phipps and Merisotis 1999, 29). As Kenneth Green, project director of the Campus Computing Project, asserts: "The genie will not go back into the bottle: demand for technology will continue, not diminish; the opportunities for distance and online education will grow, not recede" (1997, J-9). Evidence of this can be seen in the adoption of distance education by postsecondary institutions, as well as recent legislation supporting distance education. For instance, Public Law 105-224 (enacted October 7, 1998), which extends the authorization of programs under the Higher Education Act, contains three provisions related to distance education:

• The Distance Education Demonstration Program, which is intended to test the quality and viability of distance education programs currently ineligible for student aid funds under Title IV of the Act;
• The Learning Anytime Anywhere Partnerships program, which is intended to support innovative partnerships among colleges, employers, technology companies, and others to implement asynchronous distance education on a national or regional scale; and
• The Web-Based Education Commission, which is charged with conducting a thorough study to assess the educational software available in retail markets for secondary and postsecondary students who choose to use such software.

The support and adoption of distance education has led to the emergence of a number of policy issues that postsecondary institutions face:

• Equity of access to postsecondary education. Many assert that the primary benefit of distance education is that access to postsecondary education is increased. However, distance education requires that students have access to appropriate (and sometimes costly) technology and that they know how to use it (Phipps and Merisotis 1999), and some have raised concerns about special challenges students with disabilities face in accessing distance education (Chronicle of Higher Education, October 29, 1999). Currently, there is very little information available on how many students are actually making use of distance education course offerings, and we know even less about the characteristics of distance learners. Without such information, there is no way to know whether distance education is reaching those who might not otherwise have access to postsecondary education, or simply accommodating those who already take advantage of such opportunities (Gladieux and Swail 1999).
• The costs of developing and implementing distance education programs. Some have asserted that distance education programs are a cost-savings approach to providing postsecondary education, but cost information is scant (Gladieux and Swail 1999). Anecdotally, there is some evidence to suggest that these costs savings are not being universally realized (New York Times 1998). Given these concerns, it is important to note that more than 60 percent of colleges and universities do not have an information technology financial plan in place (Green 1998).
• Accreditation of and quality assurance in distance education programs. Distance education poses many challenges to the traditional model of academic accreditation. Some fear that quality assurance mechanisms are being bypassed by some distance education providers and that the risk is a degradation of public perception about the meaning of a college degree and an increase in the potential for consumer fraud and abuse (Phipps, Wellman, and Merisotis 1998). On the other hand, online institutions have been accredited using established standards; for example, the North Central Association's Commission on Institutions of Higher Education have evaluated and accredited online institutions (e.g., Jones International) using the Commission's accreditation standards (Chronicle of Higher Education, November 4, 1999).
• Copyright and intellectual property rights. As more course syllabi, readings, and discussions occur on line, ownership of intellectual property—a legally complex and potentially controversial issue—is a continuing source of debate in the university setting. A fourth of colleges and universities have a campus policy regarding intellectual property for Web-based instructional resources developed by faculty (Green 1998).
• Changes and challenges facing the role of postsecondary faculty. The rise of distance education poses significant and substantial challenges to faculty compensation practices and existing norms of faculty development (Sherron and Boettcher 1997), including issues of promotion and tenure, release time, course load, course updating and revision, publishing, faculty mentoring, and consistency across departments.
• Pressures on existing organizational structures and arrangements. As previously noted, changes in distance education technology are having an impact on the missions and structures of participating postsecondary institutions (Ehrmann n.d.; Gallick 1998). For instance, institutions are being forced to define the differences between (traditional) residential and distance education programs, and new arrangements between the business, government, and education sectors are emerging that are challenging the traditional organization of postsecondary education.

Organization of this Report

As the preceding discussion illustrates, distance education is a topic of great interest to a number of stakeholders, including individuals considering a postsecondary education, faculty and administrators at postsecondary institutions, providers of technologies used for distance education, and policymakers at federal, state, and local levels. As such, there are a number of questions that have been raised about this phenomenon, including: How many institutions offer distance education? How many plan to in the future? How is distance education delivered? How much does it cost? Has the status of distance education changed in recent years? The remaining chapters of this report address these questions, as well as others. The next chapter (chapter 2) provides information about the 2-year and 4-year postsecondary education institutions that offered distance education in 1997–98 and the overall enrollments in distance education offered at those institutions. Chapter 3 provides information about the total number of distance education courses offered, and the number of college-level, credit-granting distance education courses by field of study and instructional level of the course. Information about enrollments by field and level is also provided. Chapter 4 describes college-level degree and certificate programs that are designed to be completed totally through distance education. Chapter 5 describes the types of technologies that institutions used as primary modes of instructional delivery and plans for future technology use, and chapter 6 provides information about how tuition and fees for distance education courses compare to those for comparable oncampus courses. Chapter 7 provides comparisons of distance education course offerings, enrollments, degrees and certificates, and technologies between 1994–95 and 1997–98. The concluding chapter discusses the findings of this study.

Top