Terminology Matters: The Differences between Distance Education and Online Education by Sarah Zipf
According to Allen and Seaman (2017) there are over 4.9 million students enrolled in some form of undergraduate distance education. This number is significant because distance education continues to increase, while general enrollment patterns in higher education decrease. Unlike any other time in history, institutions of higher education can reach more students than ever before without concern to the constraints and limitations found with physical campuses. However, there are issues with distance education, including the terminology and use of synonyms. When distance education is used as a synonym for online education, the details, uniqueness, and institutional responsibility of online education are lost. As Sarah Guri-Rosenblit states so perfectly: “Many policy makers, scholars and practitioners in higher education use these two terms interchangeably as synonyms…but [they] are by no means identical” (Guri-Rosenblit, 2005, p. 1). Comparing student experiences through the umbrella term “distance education” as opposed to the specific term “online education,” has problems and impedes progress in understanding the literature, history, and institutional responsibility.
The interchanging terminology of “online education” and “distance education” confuses the relevant literature for administrators and faculty charged with helping students succeed. Allen and Seaman (2017) explain distance education, courses and programs, that use “one or more technologies to deliver instruction to students who are separated from the instructor” (p. 6). This definition includes numerous types of courses beyond the traditional in-residence course. In their study, Palaciso and Wood (2016) provide four categories of distance education: “regular asynchronous, face-to-face, synchronous, and asynchronous with media” (p. 648). This simple breakdown tells a lot about the type of modality and may provide the much-needed distinction of educational practices in higher education. Without clear distinction between the types of distance education, institutions are unable to investigate enrollment decisions, academic success, student learning and student satisfaction appropriately or in enough detail to influence practice.
For example, a study by Koch (2005) examines students’ ethnicity, among other factors for students in distance education. Koch (2005) had a large sample size (n=76,866) of students taking courses through interactive videoconferencing and two-way audio. This form of distance education included in-class experiences, with other classmates, and an instructor located in a different physical location. How likely is it to take lessons learned from a study like this and apply them to a solely online education experience? The pedagogy in Koch’s study is classified as distance education, and yet the similarities between this form and online education are few.
This serves as a good example that there are far too many differences between distance education and online education to consider the modalities the same when developing policies, curriculum, student services, and reporting and additional detail about the pedagogy is warranted.
Labeled under the “distance education” umbrella term, this information does not provide enough detail about the type of classroom experience. It is really with the advent and increase in online education that this distinction should be made and doing so may not easily overcome the hundreds of years of distance education practice.
In 2011-12 the National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES) collected data for distance education enrollment differently for the first time by slicing data to include specific points of online education students. Until this time, the data combined all forms of distance education together, including online education. With the new level of detail in the most recent data collection, NCES reports show that nearly a third of all enrolled students are taking some form of online class (US Department of Education National Center for Educational Statistics, [US ED NCES], 2017, table 311.22). This number is a considerable portion of enrollment. Institutions are better served by knowing these specific details about their students’ enrollment patterns. Labeled under the “distance education” umbrella term, this information does not provide enough detail about the type of classroom experience. It is really with the advent and increase in online education that this distinction should be made and doing so may not easily overcome the hundreds of years of distance education practice.
Online education, compared to higher education, is new; distance education, however, is not new (Moore & Kearsey, 1996). For example, The Pennsylvania State University has offered a form of distance education since 1892 (Dawson, 2017). What is new, is the use of information and communication technologies (ICT), which makes the body of relevant literature much smaller. In the late 1990’s, several institutions started using America Online to deliver content electronically to students (Moore & Kearsley, 1996). Here again, the misuse of terminology confuses matters and negates a long history of distance education in lieu of the more current applications of ICT or online learning. Meaning, when the term distance education is used as a synonym for online learning, the history of distance education is relegated to more recent ICT application.
An implication of using distance education as a synonym for online education can lead to confusion about institutional responsibility and reaction. For example, last year the National Consortium of State Authorization Reciprocity Agreements (NC-SARA) gave guidelines for future required reporting about distance education taking place outside of the home state (see nc-sara.org, 2018). Working through this process as part of my graduate assistantship, I found many people believed these rules only pertained to online education. However, the definition of distance education means there is a physical separation between student and instructor, which includes internships, practica, and other supervised field experiences. NC-SARA membership allows states and institutions to form reciprocity agreements, decreasing the need to have authorization between institution and all other states and territories. A student completing an internship in another state over the summer, is a vastly different experience than a student completing their entire degree program through online education. Again, the terminology used is the same without regard to the nuances and differences between modalities.
Institutions have a responsibility to prioritize specific issues associated with student success. A consistent use of terminology is critical for institutions to provide more targeted interventions that fit best for the modality used. Using the distinct terms reminds us that distance education has a long history with higher education and online education, as a form of distance education, holds separate and unique qualities. As institutions continue to increase distance education offerings, including online education, efforts should be made to use appropriate terminology, mitigating confusion between the two pedagogies.
Sarah Zipf is a PhD student in Higher Education at the Pennsylvania State University. Sarah’s professional experience as a financial aid administrator shaped her research interests in adult students, financial aid, and distance education. She currently works as a graduate assistant for the Education Policy Studies department.
Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2017). Distance Education Enrollment Report 2017. digital learning Compass.
Dawson, M. (2017). We Are…wherever you are: Penn State marks 125 years of distance learning. Retrieved from: https://news.psu.edu/story/ 496777/2017/12/11/academics/we-are-wherever-you-are-penn-state-marks-125-years-distance
Guri-Rosenblit, S. (2005). “Distance education” and “e-learning”: Not the same thing. Higher Education, 49(4), 467–493. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-004-0040-0
Koch, J. V. (2005). The Influence of Ethnic Background, Gender and Age on Student Performance in Distance Learning Programs. Journal of Educational Technology, 2(3), 38–49. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1068705
Moore, M., & Kearsley, G. (1996). Distance Education: A Systems View. Belmot, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co. National Council for State Authorization Reciprocity Agreements. (2018). Retrieved from: nc-sara.org
Palacios, A. M., & Wood, J. L. (2016). Is online learning the silver bullet for men of color? An institutional-level analysis of the California community college system. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 40(8), 643-655.
US Department of Education National Center for Educational Statistics (2017). Retrieved from: https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d17/tables/dt17_311.22.asp
