It can be tough to condense a 55-page report with nearly as many tables and figures into an hour-long webinar, including questions; here are responses to questions not fielded during the webinar:
1. How do you define online program?
A simple definition of a fully online program (which is the terminology employed in the CHLOE 1 and 2 Surveys) is made up of fully online courses (i.e., courses which may be completed by students without being physically present at the host institution). The CHLOE definition makes allowance for minimal, occasional, and voluntary face-to-face sessions or activities, and 38% of respondents indicated some use of such sessions in their online programs.
2. What are some sample titles for the “Chief Online Officer”? (e.g., could this be the Provost or is this a dedicated position)?
Regarding titles for Chief Online Officers, the CHLOE 2 Report says (pp. 15-16): "Most chief online officers report through academic affairs with titles like associate or assistant provost, vice president for academic affairs, or dean. Among those chief online officer titles that make a specific reference to online education, the most common general terms, as one would expect, are: online learning or education, distance learning or education, and e-learning (hyphenated or not). Other titles, more revealing of a specific approach to online learning, include: web-based learning, extended learning, distributed learning, online and blended learning, online and professional studies, and online and off-campus programs. Still others refer to: technology-enhanced learning, instructional technology, emerging technology, faculty development, instructional design, academic services, academic innovation, innovative learning, support services, delivery and support, teaching and learning, and digital media/learning/education. In light of CHLOE’s focus on innovation in online learning, it is notable that seven respondents report titles that include the word “innovation.”
3. What do you mean by interaction with the students and the instructor during the course? Or in the process of ID?
The question in the CHLOE 2 Survey on student interaction was intended to focus on student-to-student interaction, not student-faculty interaction.
4. I note the slide on “Blended” learning/online vs. on-ground blend. Is there research about efficacy of online — with supplemental minimal synchronous video meetings?
CHLOE has not queried online officers about the efficacy of fully online courses and programs versus blended courses (combining online and f-2-f activities) or blended programs (combining online and f-2-f and/or blended courses). Nor, beyond asking whether any synchronous activities are included in online courses, did CHLOE explore what their inclusion might mean for student engagement and success. Studies at individual institutions may address these issues, but such studies are generally neither comparative nor well controlled.
5. Regarding reasons given to invest in new technology, Mr. Garrett said the schools may be overlooking opportunities for cost savings in investing in online learning, because survey respondents didn’t check that category very much as a motivation to adopt technology. Perhaps, though, no one wants to claim cost savings or revenue generation as a top reason for adopting online education technology. . . .
I agree. Institutions are much more comfortable casting their goals in terms that benefit students (e.g., expanding enrollment and program choices) responding to faculty or addressing technical limitations in their current systems. One assumes that they are not unaware that increased enrollment generally leads to increased revenue, and that increasing online enrollment can compensate for declines in face-to-face enrollment, confirming healthy enrollment overall. They may also be aware that technical efficiencies can lead to lower staffing costs, and that, in the extreme case, online learning can serve as a cash cow to help fund less efficient activities at an institution. However, there is remarkable consistency in minimizing these practical considerations in public and even in anonymous survey comments.
We recognize that there may be additional questions. Please contact Ron Legon or Richard Garrett with any questions.
