© by Cathleen A. Kennedy, December, 1998
Permission to reproduce may be requested from the author.

Those who know of my efforts to bring online education to community college students are often surprised, and sometimes dismayed, by my skepticism about it. They interpret my restraint as a sort of arrogance: the courses I develop are "good," while other courses need closer scrutiny. The truth is that I'm not as worried about individual courses as I am about deployment of online curricula in general. Online education has the potential for dramatically expanding access to higher education, but it can also exacerbate social inequities by further stratifying individuals and their communities into technology have's and have-not's.

If we want online technology to transform educational practices and reduce academic inequities, we have to pay close attention to the specific needs of the audience we want to serve. The real challenge, and the way to make a true social difference, is to use online education strategically to assist those who are not well-served by current educational practices. Colleges and universities have a responsibility to use online education with discretion and to resist becoming course vendors and diploma mills.

This paper explores issues of equity in online education. The first section looks at the promise of online education in reducing barriers to populations traditionally under-served by higher education. I identify limitations in the accessibility of higher education and then explore the ways technology overcomes those limitations. The second section is a narrative of success stories from the perspectives of individuals and institutions, highlighting student outcomes and effective pedagogy. The third section provides alternative explanations for the success stories and identifies limitations in current research in this area. Finally, I conclude with suggestions for further research into the issue of the impact of online education on student equity.

The Promise of Online Education

To understand the promise and potential of online education, I look first at the factors that limit an individual's access to higher education. The limitations most often cited are academic and economic. Students cannot meet entrance requirements, or cannot afford to attend. In California, the problem is somewhat different because higher education is largely subsidized by the state. Students can attend at least two years of college at very low cost without meeting any entrance requirements. They can then transfer to colleges and universities in the California State University or University of California systems, where tuition is lower than public universities in most other states. In addition, there are several forms of financial assistance available through scholarships and federally-funded student loans. Despite these financial solutions, capable students may still be limited economically from access to prominent universities where tuition is high. In addition, the cost of living on or near campus can be prohibitive and not always covered by scholarships. A recent study of tuition increases over the past twenty years demonstrates that despite availability of financial aid, enrollments at public institutions of higher education decline as tuition increases. Black, Asian and Hispanic students are much more sensitive to these increases than White students, and community college students are most responsive to tuition increases (Heller, 1998).

Another reason individuals cannot attend college is because of responsibilities to their families. Some need to work to support a family while attending school part time; others need to care for young children. This situation introduces additional factors influencing the decision to attain a college degree: residing in close proximity to a college, getting a comparable job if a move is required, availability of adequate child care, being permitted to attend college on a part-time basis, and being able to schedule classes around other obligations. One ramification of encouraging these individuals to attend college is that institutions will have to find ways to accommodate older, part-time, commuting students.

Although the problem of academic proficiency as an obstacle to higher education was introduced earlier, the issue of academic experience and the educational habits that arise from discouraging environments is worth additional consideration. I am constantly surprised to see how many students coming into the community college with very poor high school records can completely turn the situation around. This doesn't happen by accident, but by intention. First, the student has decided to attend college, so we can assume there is at least a spark of motivation to succeed. Second, the students I see also make a choice to get advice about how to proceed, providing further evidence of their motivation. Finally, many of these students have other responsibilities and have made a decision to fit school into their lives. This suggests that there may be others in the community who would be well-served by getting more education, but who have not yet overcome the obstacles they experience in taking the first steps. Many of these potential students live in communities where college attendance is not a tradition and may simply be limited by uncertainty about how to begin (CPEC, June 1998). More subtle obstacles faced by some potential students include, but are certainly not limited to, the following: a perception of school as punitive, a perception of themselves as unable to learn, a perception of students as weak, and a perception of education as irrelevant. Regardless of the basis for these perceptions, they create real limitations to access to higher education. Related to this is the problem of low completion rates of Black and Hispanic students who do enroll in college. While Black and Hispanic enrollment in California postsecondary institutions in 1995 comprised 27% of the total student body, only 17% of baccalaureate degrees were awarded to students from these groups (CPEC, Feb. 1998). Researchers have identified the major cause of attrition in higher education to be "underpreparedness for college" (Jones and Watson, 1990).

A final group of individuals for whom higher education remains highly problematic includes persons with physical disabilities. The obstacles they face include the obvious problems of physical access, often coupled with economic limitations and numerous invisible barriers. In an educational setting, these barriers include communication difficulties (for some disabilities), social isolation, teachers who are poorly educated about the implications of specific disabilities relative to an ability to learn, and the pervasive behavior of the public to treat disabled persons as though they are not present, as though they have additional disabilities (such as speaking loudly to a person in a wheelchair), or as though they are mentally underdeveloped. All of these factors limit the ability of disabled persons to fully participate in the college experience.

To summarize, we can identify five broadly defined categories of individuals who could benefit from further education but for whom access to higher education, as it is currently delivered in classrooms on college campuses, is limited. These are the economically disadvantaged, the academically under-prepared, individuals with family responsibilities, those who had negative educational experiences, and the physically disabled. People from these groups would be direct beneficiaries of a reform that removed or reduced the limitations presented in this discussion. While this represents a large segment of many communities, it does not accurately reflect the potential impact of removing barriers to higher education because it does not take into account the indirect beneficiaries. When circumstances, or even prospects, improve for an individual, many others who have some relationship to the individual also benefit: families, neighborhoods and communities can change. In addition, nearby businesses benefit when communities are invigorated with hope, and economic renewal becomes possible. I realize that this is a rather grand vision, but even small steps toward this goal can make a big difference. For many families and communities, knowing someone who attended college makes a crucial difference in motivation to attain an education. David Goleman writes eloquently about characteristics leading to success in life, and the ability to defer gratification ranks high on his list (1995). When children in impoverished communities see a positive outcome for someone who attended college, they learn about delaying immediate gratification (i.e. avoiding an unpleasant experience at school) in pursuit of a long-term benefit (i.e. a good job and upward mobility). Although there are many aspects to motivation, both intrinsic and extrinsic, the influence of close contact with a successful college graduate cannot be overstated.

Historically, collegiate providers of distance education have struggled with public perceptions that associated them with commercial, profit-based enterprises (Watkins and Wright, 1991). Before looking at the ways online education removes some of the barriers to higher education, I want to be sure to differentiate the roles of public educational institutions and other education providers. "Other educational providers" includes private colleges and universities, corporate training providers, and publishers and other companies that sell courses to the public, such as Ziff-Davis and Microsoft. While many of these institutions provide ethical and academically sound educational experiences, the public may assume that all online programs are equal, and may associate the occasional slipshod practice of some providers with all online education. In this paper, I take the view that the first goal of public education is to provide a structured, directed educational path to individuals for the purpose of entering careers or conducting research. Profit is not the goal, although solvency is obviously an issue. This is not to say that other educational providers do not share this goal, but they may not. Take, for example, a comparison of two mission statements for online education providers, one a private university, the other a community college:

Equalizing access to education is difficult to define. Individual educational paths have different starting and ending points, follow different routes, and are modified with differing frequency. It's nice to think that degree requirements are consistent from one institution to another, but we know they are not. It's also nice to think that degrees from different institutions have the same value, but again, we know they do not. In the same way, we know that equalizing access to higher education won't ensure equal outcomes, but it can bring us closer to equalizing opportunity for achievement.

Which limitations, then, can online education alleviate? First, online education reduces economic limitations to higher education by eliminating the need for new capital expenditures for additional classrooms. This should have a positive effect on tuition, compared to constructing more buildings to accommodate the anticipated growth in college enrollment over the next decade. Online education also reduces the necessity for some students to live on campus, or travel to campus several times a week, thereby reducing living or transportation costs.

Second, individualized educational strategies to address academic deficiencies can be implemented through computerized learning environments delivered online (Weber and Specht, 1997). Recent research into intelligent tutoring systems shows much promise in providing person-specific methods of teaching that improve student outcomes in basic skills, support higher levels of learning, and increase motivation (Beck, Stern and Haugsjaa, 1996). One outcome of successful completion of tutorial sessions is an improvement in self-esteem, a critical factor in persistence of high-risk students. Besides remediation, online education also addresses other areas that can reduce the risk of student attrition, including career exploration, guidance in developing a realistic academic program, development of effective study skills, and cultivation of supportive academic peer-communities. Finally, high-risk students are often subjected to teachers' negative attitudes about them and misunderstandings about cognitive styles and cultural aspects of learning. Well-designed online courses can mitigate these barriers to academic success.

Third, student participation in online courses can be at times convenient to the student, making it possible for working students and parents to integrate education into their lives more easily. Many aspects of online courses are asynchronous, allowing students and teachers to participate at different times, but still access and derive value from one another's contributions.

Fourth, online education has features that make it appealing to those who have had bad educational experiences in the past. Since online students study at home and at any time, "attending" school does not have to be obvious to peers. Students don't have to make elaborate plans to get to campus, and they don't have to sit in a classroom full of others watching and evaluating their performance. They don't have to feel embarrassed about trying new things and risking failure in front of their friends. In many cases, they can use online assessment tools to monitor their own learning and growth, and they can get additional help in many forms online.

Finally, online technologies provide numerous interfaces to facilitate communication. A number of adaptive computer tools, including both hardware and software, have been developed for use by persons with limited vision, hearing, speech, and mobility. In fact, technology-oriented careers can be particularly desirable for individuals with disabilities that can be mitigated or minimized by using computers (Burgstahler, 1994). Online communication also promotes an equalization of students by removing appearance biases and allowing individuals time to formulate responses before actually responding. This serves to place disabled students on more equal footing with other students. In the broader context, interactive online technology used to build communities of learners is one of the most valuable advances in distance education. The social aspect of learning is a critical factor, as exemplified by research conducted by Gavriel Salomon,

Opposing Points of View

Critics of online education suggest that technology actually introduces new barriers to higher education. They point to the cost of computer equipment as a major obstacle to most families, and certainly among families living in impoverished communities. At a recent meeting of 8 university presidents, Oberlin President Nancy Dye said she feared that online learning will introduce two tiers to college education: one for those who can afford the traditional experience, and another on the Internet for those who cannot. Another participant, Columbia University President George Rupp, said he feared a third tier as well: No college education at all "for those who are not plugged in." Although dozens of American colleges and universities now offer complete degree programs, ranging from Associate's to Master's, there is great disparity with regard to fee structure. Some charge more for online courses than for the on-campus equivalent, while others charge the same or less for courses taken online.

Access to computing technologies is problematic for many families. Even if computers are provided, one can imagine a scenario where they are vandalized soon after placement into homes or community centers in impoverished areas. In addition, well-meaning technology supporters may not have a clear understanding of why individuals stop attending school. Investment in technology instead of creating jobs or providing food or health care may actually prove counterproductive and lead to further disenfranchisement of the very groups they had intended to help. Problems may also creep up in the implementation of online courses if course design assumes that all students are inherently independent, motivated learners. In fact, these are very middle-class characteristics that are often missing in students from lower socioeconomic groups. Assuming that they exist, when in fact they do not, can doom students to failure, even when they try their best. In a fascinating manuscript, C.A. Bowers advances concerns about our assumptions that computer technology is a culturally neutral tool (1988). He suggests that widespread digitization of information and dependence on educational computer applications written primarily by affluent young, white males gives computers considerable influence in shaping cultural norms and values. Julia Ferganchick-Neufang raises concerns about the anonymity afforded by online technology and cautions about potential harassment problems (1998).

Finally, some advocates of online education are so fanatical in their beliefs and extreme in their pronouncements that they overshadow more modest efforts that may actually be more attainable and affect more individuals than huge virtual universities.

Success Stories

There is no shortage of evidence pointing to dramatic success of online education and other technology-mediated instruction that can be extended to an online format (Baker, Hale and Gifford, 1997; Berge and Collins, 1995; Deuchastel, 1997; Goldberg, 1996, 1997; Hiltz, 1995; Lovis, 1988; Schank and Cleary, 1995). Usually, this means that students have "done no worse" with technology-mediated instruction than with traditional, professor-lead classroom instruction. We also find many reports of enrollment increases with online courses, often extrapolated to demonstrate that an institution has successfully improved access to education (Daggett, 1998; McClanney, 1998; Meathenia, 1998, "Enrollment", 1998). This section gives a brief overview of what success means.

An extensive, multiple-year, multiple-course study of online teaching at the New Jersey Institute of Technology supported the following hypotheses:

While there is certainly no arguing that providing alternate forms of instruction to traditional college students, and to working adults who simply did not take advantage of college right out of high school, is a meritorious endeavor, I find the personal stories of individuals to be much more compelling evidence of the need for pursuing this educational format. For example, a blind student in a program specifically targeting disabled students interested in using technology to study science, engineering, and mathematics reports, "getting access to the Internet was the best thing that ever happened to me. In a way, my computer and access to the net have become my eyes to the world" (Burgstahler, 1994). A student living in a remote area, taking an online course in Microbiology from Queen's University in Canada reports,

A recent survey I conducted of student experiences in online courses at a community college yielded the following student comments:

These comments exemplify the experiences of many students who would not be able to take courses in a traditional on-campus format.

Alternative Explanations

Why are preliminary findings about the success of online courses so encouraging? As public and private institutions rush to bring more courses online, we should ask if these courses are actually contributing educational value to society, or whether these programs are more glitz than substance. One explanation, of course, is that advanced by proponents of online education: that online courses are as good as traditional courses, and much more convenient. Let's assume for the moment that this is not the case. What other explanations can account for the success stories of online education?

Several possibilities come to mind. First, individuals enrolling in online courses may believe they are easier than traditional courses. Every semester I have at least one student who asks me to approve an "overload" schedule. When I ask how he or she will fit all the courses in, with ample time for the homework each course requires, the student usually sits back for a moment to think up a convincing answer. I'm no longer surprised to hear, "Well, what about if I take a telecourse?" It often turns out that the student has never actually taken a telecourse, but has some sense that they are easier than on-campus courses. I suspect that some people enroll in online courses because they believe they are, like telecourses, easier. From surveys of distance education students at College of San Mateo, we find that students rate telecourses and online courses as sometimes harder, sometimes easier, and sometimes equivalent to on-campus courses. The differences lie in individual student experiences, just as on-campus classes can be harder or easier than one another.

Another possibility for the current popularity of online courses is that they are new, and by taking an online course a person gains a sense of belonging to a select group of technically savvy folks. There may be prestige associated with enrolling in these state-of-the art courses, or some may value the technical novelty for its own sake, earning one more "notch" on the professional accomplishments scale. Actual learning becomes an ancillary benefit instead of the main purpose.

Then, there is the curiosity factor, enhanced by both convenience and reduced threat-a combination difficult to beat. Where but in an online class can the student remain fairly anonymous and invisible to teacher and classmates, free to fail or quit without public reprisal or humiliation? Online courses may be appealing to some because they are so easy to get into and out of.

Since most online courses are currently taken by college students or working professionals, it's easy to point to good student outcomes. These students would undoubtedly do well in any environment. We might further speculate that students who struggle in online courses usually withdraw from these courses by the time end-of-course surveys are conducted, and when involved in longer-term studies, their data records are probably discarded during the analysis stage as "incomplete" responses.

In addition, few studies probe the more subtle reasons for students enrolling in online courses. We don't learn much when the findings tell us these courses are more convenient for working people. How about defining which working people take these courses and whether participation in the courses actually improves performance or earnings. How do "course-completers" utilize what they have learned? Does it make a difference in their lives? Perhaps we should also explore why some people who could take these courses don't enroll. Are their concerns justified, or are they simply uniformed?

Understanding these questions and the issues they raise will be helpful in determining whether online education does, indeed, have the potential for improving equity in higher education.

Conclusions

Online education will not provide the promised revolution in tertiary education by replicating traditional classroom practices in cyberspace. It may increase enrollments and plump up decimated budgets in public education, if it can be competitive with the private sector online education industry. Making higher education convenient to a fairly accomplished and motivated population group is certainly an appropriate goal, but it does not begin to exploit the potential of using technology to benefit those who have been under-served by traditional educational systems. Physical access to courses, teachers, and fellow students is technologically elementary with email and online conferencing already pervasive tools for computer users across the globe. Most of the evidence pointing to the success of online education demonstrates how already-enrolled college students, mostly in professionally-oriented courses, do just as well in computer-mediated learning environments as do students in traditionally delivered courses. Some do even better.

As good as this is, it still ignores issues of equity present in our educational system. It seems we cannot integrate the concepts of academic excellence and educational equity, in part because so much of the definition of what we do educationally is based on a competitive model. Vasconcellos and Callan make a timely observation that is still relevant, 25 years later,

What we have yet to see, is evidence that technology enhances learning outcomes, motivation, or access to under-served groups such as minority students, the underprivileged, academically under-prepared students, and the disabled. I found no studies of the impact of placing internet-connected computers in inner-city households, of using intelligent tutoring systems for remediation programs specifically oriented to students of non-White and non-English speaking cultures, and I found no research into improved learning outcomes for homebound or disabled students in higher education.

A first step in providing evidence that technology can truly improve the quality of life for these groups is qualitative research into the true obstacles to access to education. We need to gain an understanding of the daily circumstances of those who do not attend college but who could benefit from additional education. Insights into factors that prevent participation will inform changes to the ways we provide access to education.

If parallel research is also conducted to explore best practices to enhance learning and motivation of the educationally under-served, then we will be ready to experiment with truly innovative and productive educational uses of online technologies that may compel further investment and research in this area. So far, the raison d'etre for online education has been the potential for increasing enrollment and reducing the cost of education. We now need to expand the positive impact of online education by using it to eliminate the true barriers to development of an educationally-empowered citizenry.

Ajinkya, L. (1998) "Get smarter, online." Cable News Network, August 6, 1998.

Baker, W., Hale, T. and Gifford, B. (Oct. 1997) From Theory to implementation: The Mediated Learning approach to computer-mediated instruction, learning and assessment. Educom Review, 32(5). http://www.educause.edu/pub/er/review/reviewArticles/32542.html

Beck, J., Stern, M. and Haugsjaa, E. (1996) Applications of AI in Education. Crossroads, An Electronic Publication of ACM. Oct. 1998. http://www.acm.org/crossroads/xrds3-1/aied.html

Berge, Z. L. and Collins, M. P., editors. (1995) Computer Mediated Communications and the Online Classroom, Vols. I and II. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.

Burgstahler, S. (Dec, 1994) Increasing the Representation of People with Disabilities in Science, Engineering and Mathematics. Information Technology and Disability, 1(4).

Bowers, C. A. (1988) The Cultural Dimensions of Educational Computing. Understanding the Non-Neutrality of Technology. New York: Teachers College Press.

Brodsky, N. H. (April, 1998) Learning from Learners, Internet Style. Educom Review, 33(2). http://www.educause.edu/pub/er/review/reviewArticles/33214.html

California Postsecondary Education Commission (Feb, 1998) Fact Sheet: Composition of Higher Education in California. http://www.cpec.ca.gov/FactSheets/FactSheet1998/fs98-1.htm

California Postsecondary Education Commission (Feb, 1998) Toward a Greater Understanding of the State's Educational Equity Policies, Programs, and Practices: The Collegiate Experience. Update 98-1. http://www.cpec.ca.gov/higheredupdates/update1998/up98-1.asp

California Postsecondary Education Commission (April, 1998) Legislative Analyst's Recommendations on the 1998- 99 Governor's Budget Identify Higher Education Enrollment Growth as a Major Issue Facing the Legislature. Update 98-3. http://www.cpec.ca.gov/higheredupdates/update1998/up98-3.asp

California Postsecondary Education Commission (June, 1998) Toward a Greater Understanding of the State's Educational Equity Policies, Programs, and Practices: The Commission's Recommendations. Update 98-5. http://www.cpec.ca.gov/higheredupdates/update1998/up98-5.asp

Combs, N. (April, 1995) Closing the Windows on Opportunity. Educom Review, 30(2). http://www.educause.edu/pub/er/review/reviewArticles/30228.html

Daggett, W. R. (Feb, 1998) Technology in Education: Striving for Excellence and Equity. League for Innovation in the Community College - Leadership Abstracts, 11(2). http://www.league.org/publication/abstracts/leadership/labs0298.htm

Davis, B. and Wessel D. (Jul, 1998) Dream Catchers: Community Colleges and the Coming Prosperity. League for Innovation in the Community College - Leadership Abstracts, 11(7). http://www.league.org/publication/abstracts/leadership/labs0798.htm

Delisle, G. (1998) Distance Education in Microbiology: Online and CD-ROM Course. The NODE Learning Technologies Network. Nov. 98. http://thenode.org/pedagogy/resource.cfm?ID=105&Subj=31&Loc=PED

Deuchastel, P. (1997) A Web-Based Model for University Instruction. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 25(3), 221-228.

Dupuis, A. M. and Gordon, R. L. (1997) Philosophy of Education in Historical Perspective. Lanham, MY: University Press of America.

( Mar, 1998) Enrollment Surges at UC Berkeley Extension. T.H.E. Journal. 25(8)

Ferganchick-Neufang, J. K. (February, 1998) Virtual Harassment: Women and Online Education. First Monday, 3(2). http://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue3_2/fergan/index.html

Goldberg, M. W. (1997) WebCT and First Year Computer Science: Student Reaction to and Use of a Web-Based Resource in First Year Computer Science. Proceedings of the ACM's ITiCSE Conference on Integrating Technology into Computer Science Education, June 1-5, 1997, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.

Goldberg, M. W. (1996) CALOS: An Experiment with Computer-Aided Learning for Operating Systems. Proceedings of the ACM's 27th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education.

Goleman, D. (1995) Emotional Intelligence. New York: Bantam. 78-83

Heller, D. (April, 1998) Access to Public Higher Education, 1976 to 1994. American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting. http://www-personal.umich.edu/~dheller/papers/aera98.html

Hiltz, S. (1995) Teaching in a Virtual Classroom. 1995 International Conference on Computer Assisted Instruction. http://www.njit.edu/njIT/Department/CCCC/VC/Papers/Teaching.html

Jones, D. J. and Watson, B. C. (1990) High-Risk Students and Higher Education: Future Trends. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 3. Washington, DC: The George Washington University, School of Education and Human Development.

Kubala, T. (1998) Addressing Student Needs: Teaching on the Internet. T.H.E. Journal. Mar. 1998. http://www.thejournal.com/http://www.thejournal.com/magazine/vault/A2026.cfm

Lovis, F., editor (1988) Remote Education and Informatics: Teleteaching. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers.

McClenney, K. M. (Aug, 1998) Community Colleges Perched at the Millennium: Perspectives on Innovation, Transformation and Tomorrow. League for Innovation in the Community College - Leadership Abstracts, 11(8). http://www.league.org/publication/abstracts/leadership/labs0898.htm

Meathenia, P. (1998) Wired for Learning: Lessons from a Distance Learning Partnership. T.H.E. Journal 25(11). June 1998.

Russell, T. L. (April, 1997) Technology Wars: Winners & Losers. Educom Review, 32(2). http://www.educause.edu/pub/er/review/reviewArticles/32244.html

Ruth, S. (Oct, 1997) Getting Real About Technology-Based Learning: The Medium is NOT the Message. Educom Review, 32(5). http://www.educause.edu/pub/er/review/reviewArticles/32532.html

Salomon , G. and Perkins, D. (1998) Individual and Social Aspects of Learning. Review of Research in Education, 23. http://construct.haifa.ac.il/~gsalomon/indsoc.htm

Schank, R. and Cleary, C. (1995) Engines for Education. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Smelser, N. and Almond, G., editors. (1974) Public Higher Education in California. Berkeley, CA: UC Press.

U.S. Department of Education (Feb. 1998) Highlights of the Fiscal Year 1999 Budget Request for Student Financial Aid. The Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance. http://www.ed.gov/offices/AC/ACSFA/acsfa_docs/fy99sum2.html

Watkins, B. L. and Wright, S. J. (1991) The Foundations of American Distance Education: A Century of Collegiate Correspondence Study. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.

Weber, G. and Specht, M. (1997) User Modeling and Adaptive Navigation Support in WWW-based Tutoring Systems. Paper to be presented at UM-97 (Cagliari, Italy, June 2-5, 1997) http://www.psychologie.uni-trier.de:8000/projects/ELM/Papers/UM97-WEBER.html