Online vs. Face-to-Face Courses: Do Different Standards Apply?

Online vs. Face-to-Face Courses: Do Different Standards Apply? --Christina Partin

Much controversy exists pertaining to online courses and their impact on higher education. In the last decade, the number of online courses has multiplied, and the number of online learners has grown substantially. Looking at enrollment trends, it might seem at first glance that online courses are luring students out of the traditional classrooms. However, when taking into account other social variables, such as credentialing in the workplace (Bankston, 2011), the lagging economy, and the increasing popularity and social acceptance of non-traditional students (Ross-Gordon, 2011), the reality may be that online courses aren’t moving students out of the classrooms. Instead, they may be attracting students that would have never been in the traditional classroom in the first place. Online courses are giving access to new groups of students who may have been denied access due to social boundaries, geographic restrictions, or scheduling difficulties in the past. Unfortunately, however, this new and empowering trend is creating a rift in the traditional institutions that are moving in a direction to offer a greater number of online courses.

Because of the rather unique nature of higher education, terms of employment in the traditional system are very different from what is customary in the private sector. The faculty is employed by an institution, but the employee is responsible to standards set forth by the department, in addition to the governing associations of their respective fields. Due to the highly professionalized and specialized nature of the various disciplines, it is difficult to for an external body to govern over the group. As a result of these complexities, the American Association of University Professors “strove to codify the distinctive position of college and university teachers,” so that they could “be free from external interference” (Schrecker, 2010, pp. 12-3). Academic freedom was developed to ensure that college and university teachers could teach their classes and conduct research without fear of retribution from outside forces that might disagree with their approach or findings. As a result, university and college faculty members (especially those who have been granted tenure) have been able to teach their classes and conduct their research as they best see fit to do so. Because of the collegial nature of the academy, there is little oversight of the day-to-day work of an employee. This system generally works, however, because departments hire faculty members who have strong records, promise for future success, and expertise in their fields. Of course, we know from anecdotal evidence as well as research on student perception (Kramer, 2009) that not all college and university teachers communicate their expertise well. Yet, these classes continued to be offered by the same instructors, often without intervention.

Online courses are facing a much different scrutiny. Some institutions are working tirelessly to try to find ways to ensure consistency and standards of quality amongst online sections of courses. From using external “content matter experts” and curriculum designers and creating “master courses” to pairing with privatized companies that sell “canned” curriculum for a profit, colleges and universities are investing considerable time and effort into this process. While there is certainly no problem with wanting to ensure quality in any course, the actions mentioned above may be on the border of infringing on academic freedom. How can a college or university teacher be expected to teach the content in a way that is deemed appropriate by that individual when his or her ability to create content is limited or restricted by the institution? At what point does a teacher no longer need to be an expert on content, if he or she has no authority over the course materials? These questions preface a larger concern for the quality of instruction as course development and instruction go hand-in-hand. If an instructor is not granted the freedom to construct or create course content, that person is no longer instructing the course, but merely overseeing the function of the technology as students learn from a third-party who may or may not be qualified to determine what is best for the students.

An issue that is driving the push for “approved content” is accessibility. As many institutions receive federal funding, they are required to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and provide services to those individuals who may have troubles accessing the content or materials in their courses. The sad reality is that many students with disabilities have struggled with access on college campuses long before online learning was on the scene. In our litigious society today, however, institutions have become fearful of legal consequences for failing to provide access to all students. Online courses are commonly the courses at an institution that have the greatest visibility and because of their delivery, evidence of quality or accessibility can persist over time. These courses subsequently have become the target of hostility (Lombardi & Murray, 2011) from administration and between faculty members and service providers.

Undoubtedly, quality assurance is important in online classes. Access for all students is not only a legal obligation—it is a moral obligation. The point of this paper is not to say that these standards aren’t necessary or that they shouldn’t be enforced. Rather, the point is to say that it is important to discuss how these standards can be achieved all across the institution. Focusing solely on online courses places an undue burden on instructors who teach these classes. Ignoring face-to-face courses inhibits growth and continued or increased success of these classes. Academic freedom is a right of all college and university teachers, regardless of medium for delivery. If institutions truly want to guarantee quality and accessibility to course content, these institutions need to provide and encourage training, tools, and support to faculty as they develop classes for online and for face-to-face delivery.

References

Bankston, C. (2011). “The mass production of credentials: Subsidies and the rise of the higher education industry.” Independent Review, 15(3), 325-349.

Kramer, M. (2009). “Students’ perceptions of effective and ineffective communication by college teachers.” Southern Communication Journal, 65(1), 16-33.

Lombardi, A. & Murray, C. (2011). “Measuring university faculty attitudes toward disability: willingness to accommodate and adopt Universal Design principles.” Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 34(1), 43-56.

Ross-Gordon, J. (2011). “Research on adult learners: Supporting the needs of a student population that is no longer nontraditional.” Peer Review,13(1), 26-29.

Schrecker, E. (2010). The lost soul of higher education : corporatization, the assault on academic freedom, and the end of the American university. New York: New Press.