This comment form “jsener” sort of slipped through the cracks and I think that it merits some thought.
I also disagree with the assertions that online learning in the U.S. “has not delivered on thepromise of increased access” and has fared better for quality. There are now over three milliononline learners annually in U.S. higher education and probably over 12 million cumulatively sinceits inception. The majority of this has happened at community colleges, for which access is anintegral part of their mission. How does this not represent an increase in access? While I thinkthat online learning has finally succeeded in establishing a perception and reality of quality, IMOthis still lags behind relative to its achievements in improving access. If online learning failed todeliver relative to some of its initial hype, the fault is with the hype.
I happen to agree with this. I feel that Online learning in the U.S. has, on the aggregate, increased access to higher education, but it might have done so with differential impact on different learner communities. For example in the “golden age” of paper-based distance education, incarcerated learners were relatively well served through distance education. That is, many facilities provided enough access to paper based materials to allow an inmate to engage in a formal distance education program. Very few prisons allow Internet access to inmates, significantly reducing access to that learner population for this modality. This becomes an access issue when institutions move from traditional paper-based distance learning delivery methods to online.
I wonder too, what percentage of institutions with a history in traditional distance education (Penn State, UMUC, Open Polytechnic of NZ, Open University UK, UNISA, University of Wisconsin, etc.) have moved away from paper and only offer their programs online. I also wonder if tuition and fees have risen disproportionally throughout the transition, creating another access issue for some learner populations.
- 793 reads
