Throughout its rich history, distance education (DE) has fallen under the scrutiny of an academic bias that posits remote learning experiences as “less than” the in vivo endeavors engaged at brick-and-mortar institutions. While distance learning offers equity of opportunity to historically underserved, unrecognized, and otherwise marginalized learners in the postsecondary market, it frequently falls prostrate among traditionalist views of the discipline as a diminished sector of learning science. The industrial age heavily promoted the mechanization of education to include stringent criteria on not only what qualified as learning but also where and when learning occurred; transitioning into the digital age of the 21^st century warrants leadership’s reconsideration of DE as an authentic field not only through which a diverse body of learners enjoys greater accessibility to flexible, meaningful, high-quality learning experiences but also upon which to deploy multimodal initiatives that significantly increase the outreach and access of these experiences. In considering the current picture of distance education across what has become a progressively expansive landscape, we must evaluate the priorities we set, the integrity we convey, and the wisdom we exercise in serving the evolving needs of audiences across broad contexts.

While over 95% of public postsecondary institutions offer some form of distance education – primarily online courses – these offerings are not as available at smaller, private institutions both in the for-profit and non-profit sector; for exclusively online program offerings, access drops significantly as institutional selectivity rises, indicating a strong bias toward face-to-face learning experiences as “better” (Xu and Xu, 2020). During the COVID-19 pandemic, however, the neglected and underestimated science of DE rose in global visibility as institutions were forced to shut down; moving forward, “[a]s the world emerges out of the pandemic in fits and starts, it seems inevitable that online instruction will be a crucial part of higher education pedagogy and is here to stay for the foreseeable future” (Shankar et al., 2021). Even as digital DE becomes more visible as a viable learning modality beyond the pandemic demand for its emergency administration, problematic issues of quality versus cost prevail.

Xu and Xu (2020) issue the caveat that online learning as a perceived institutional cost-reducer often proves counterintuitive when considering quality, implementation, and infrastructure. Through qualitative analysis, Ortagus and Derreth (2020) evaluated interview data reflective of how higher education administrators reconcile the financial and quality aspects of online learning programs; concluding the pursuit of quality as an “actionable goal” in online education, the team cautions that cost-saving measures in the development stages can potentially endanger the user-end experience and negatively influence student learning outcomes. In referencing the work of Ortagus, Lederman (2019) asserts that “even if institutions (as most do) start online programs with the goal of improving their financial situation …, they will ultimately fail unless they put the quality of those programs at the center of their strategy.”

While invested stakeholders may embrace a business model in deploying DE courses, an important – and neglected – aspect of that approach is that postsecondary education, including higher education, exists as a consumer-based (rather than compulsory) industry. In the current global economy, we can no longer rely upon brand loyalty or allegiance to an alma mater when myriad options for distance learning exist. It makes sense, therefore, to assure quality and integrity of product – i.e. the learning experience – during the assessment and design phases of development. Xu and Xu (2020) identify four areas to hone quality in the online learning environment: 1) presentation and organization, 2) objectives and alignment, 3) interpersonal interaction, and 4) technological integration; attention to these markers not only relays quality to the consumer and promotes learning experiences founded in best practice, it also assures the most reliable return on investment for increased retention and revenue generation. Deployment of DE for dollars alone omits the most vital aspect of the learning experience – the student. In any consumer market, success is determined by a product’s capacity to reach and sustain satisfaction among its consumer base. In the case of distance learning, we need to evaluate the quality of our product and invest in the development process in order to reach strategic goals with veracity.

Innovation-resistant institutional cultures combined with flawed perceptions of distance education as not only a less prioritized learning modality but also as a workhorse primarily purposed to generate revenue for more highly prioritized traditional in-person curricula runs the significant risk of causing a ripple effect that greatly jeopardizes the quality of online learning experiences and ultimately affects the user experience. The 2022 teaching and learning edition of the EDUCAUSE Horizon Report cites online and hybrid learning among the primary areas of growth within the higher ed landscape; in fact, the report asserts that those institutions unwilling to embrace a robust digital learning landscape will be “left behind” as the consumer-base has adapted its expectations in light of the rapid shift to online contexts amid and beyond the chaos of the COVID-19 pandemic. Essentially, there is no return to what once was; we must keep moving forward and DE will serve as a vital component of that trajectory while “… those resisting the adoption of remote and hybrid learning are experiencing record-low enrollments” (Pelletier et al., 2022, p. 36). We must heed the lessons of the pandemic, as well as the wisdom gleaned from distance education’s rich historic foundations, and adjust our institutional mindset toward growth – even if that outlook presents a new set of challenges. In order to expand our learning spaces, we must broaden our horizons in how we approach online and distance learning in the 21^st century and invest in initiatives steeped in integrity and geared toward change.

———-

REFERENCES

Lederman, D. (2019, Sept 4). The messy conversation around online cost and quality: Asked to explain how they balance financial and academic considerations, administrators and professors say quality is key but struggle to define it. Inside Higher Ed.

Marcus, J. (2022, Oct 6). With online learning, ‘Let’s take a breath and see what worked and didn’t work’: The massive expansion of online higher education created a worldwide laboratory to finally assess its value and its future. The New York Times.

Ortagus J.C., & Derreth, R.T. (2020). “Like having a tiger by the tail”: A qualitative analysis of the provision of online education in higher education. Teachers College Record, 122(2) A80.

Pelletier, K., McCormack, M., Reeves, J., Robert, J., & Arbino, N. with Al-Freih, M., Dickson-Deane, C., Guevara, C., Koster, L., Sánchez-Mendiola, M., Skallerup Bessette, L., & Stine, J. (2022).  2022 EDUCAUSE Horizon Report, Teaching and Learning Edition (Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE, 2022).

Shankar, K., Arora, P., & Binz-Scharf, M. C. (2021). Evidence on online higher education: The promise of COVID-19 pandemic data. Management and Labour Studies, 0(0).

Xu, D., & Xu, Y. (2020). The ambivalence about distance learning in higher education: Challenges, opportunities, and policy implications. In L. W. Perna (ed.), Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research, 35.