Based on responses from 1025 institutions, primarily at the Provost level, this report gives a view of online learning not available anywhere else at this level of detail - including any sources on adoption of online learning in the corporate training market.

As we point out below, the Sloan-C and A-HEC research are very complementary and we encourage you to participate in the A-HEC research, which is ongoing and enables you to benchmark your initiative along multiple best practice dimensions.

Analysis point #1: Online enrollment growth was lower than Sloan had predicted a year ago - at 18.2% it was closer to our A-HEC estimate of 20% which still verfies the important role that online plays in addressing capacity issues and the significance of programmatic progress

Analysis point #2: Online is gaining as a key strategy in community colleges while the privates are most varied containing both the strongest and weakest of the spectrum

Analysis point #3: Core faculty are definitely the most involved in the online activities as opposed to adjuncts - however scaling is all about best practices in support systems and strategy

Analysis point #4: It is no harder to evaluate online courses versus face-to-face courses but A-HEC best practices research indicates that measurement is where there is both the biggest challenge and the most opportunity

Analysis point #5: Defining what is meant by an online course or program is important in setting standards and strategies

A-HEC Report Availability

In the original A-HEC "Achieving Success" study report we referenced the Sloan-C 2004 report extensively. In our opinion, the Sloan-C research and the A-HEC IsL research are extremely insighful when used together.

• The Sloan-C research is based on a large number of institutions with a single respondent while the A-HEC research is based on multiple respondents within an institution but with a more select set of best practice leaders.
• The net result is that Sloan-C gives an unparalled look at the broad general market, but with the uncertainties and biases of the single respondent approach, while the A-HEC research fills in some of the detailed gaps by going deeper within institutions and focusing on the leading edge.

As we noted in the A-HEC February 1 IsL Success report, based on our research we felt that Sloan's prediction of a 24.8% growth rate in 2005 was too high. We expected around 20%. In fact, the 2005 Sloan study reports 18.2%.

• The reality is that regardless of how large the statistical sample our experience is that many institutions do not have accurate data on this as there can be issues in how various types of online enrollments are coded and counted in the information systems. We have found through our detailed interactions with those directly responsible for online programs that a significant percentage - perhaps as high as 25-30% - do not have a good handle on their numbers.
• The real takeaway, as noted in Sloan and in A-HEC IsL is that the enrollments are growing faster in online than in traditional. As we point out in the A-HEC February report, this continues to evidence that online is playing and will continue to play a key role in capacity development.
• Sloan reports that online course penetration is rivaling traditional courses with wide variations (roughly 30% to 80%) depending on the level of the program. This is consistent with the A-HEC finding that those institutions not embracing online will be a minority. However, Sloan also finds that the penetration of online programs is significantly lower (probably averaging around 33%). This is significant as we have reported the key finding that programmatic progress is the major stepping stone to innovation and leadership in online.

In A-HEC's most recent November 1 annual summary report on our detailed work with 31 IsL programs we presented in-depth analysis of the best practice, maturity, and priority differences between privates, publics, and community colleges. This year Sloan introduced the measurement of 'penetration' of online into the various classifications and academic programs. This is extremely valuable information and we encourage you to look at this data.

• The A-HEC November 1 report highlights the fact that community college's use of online was very clustered at a maturity of about 4 years while the maturity distribution of publics and privates was much more varied. Also, we noted in the report that community colleges, while still not as program-oriented as the other two groups, are rapidly becoming so (probably the key ingredient to online success). This is consistent with Sloan's finding that associates degree leaders agreement that online is critical to their strategy has experienced the most rapid increase in the last three years.
• While the Sloan report indicates that private nonprofit institutions indicate in the minority that online is critical to their strategy, we need to amend this with the findings from the A-HEC research. The A-HEC research clearly indicates that the privates with successful programs are leading in best practices, especially leadership and programmatic approach (see summary finding #5).
• For us, the most important takeaway, as controversial as it is, is that the most progress and yes, even innovation is occuring in the non-elite privates, community colleges, and middle-tier public comprehensives where necessity is the mother of invention and the value proposition is most compelling. Understanding motivation is key.

The February A-HEC IsL report clearly revealed that it is the core faculty that are leading the charge in the online endeavors. Sloan took a look at this issue in the latest report and confirms this finding.

• The A-HEC research clarifies that although it is the core faculty, they are typically not selected based on their reputation for teaching. It is more based on their interest in pursuing online. One of the reasons why the programmatic approach emerged as a key success factor is that it engages a group of faculty with mixed inclinations to online in redesigning at the program level.
• The support systems for engaging and supporting faculty are key to success. It has been the past number one challenge for successful online initiatives and still remains a key priority. Community colleges have emerged in the A-HEC research as being the strongest in this best practice area (see summary finding #5).
• Strategy with respect to faculty involvement is key. While in a minority, some of the A-HEC leading institutions indicated it is important to involve all faculty. Peirce College, for instance, has 100% faculty participation and promises the same quality level in all types of delivery.

Sloan switched their focus from asking about quality to asking about evaluation. The finding was that the chief academic officers believe they can evaluate online as well as face-to-face. The problem is that, according to the A-HEC research, measurement is the area in which institutions are weakest and there is the most significant gap between the leaders and the pack.

• Some had been critical of Sloan's past qualitative questions on quality of online because the question was being answered by the provost and not by those involved. We believe the A-HEC research, which validated the earlier positive quality findings of Sloan, is closer to the truth because our respondents were largely those involved working directly with faculty. Our latest reseach includes faculty responders in the self-audit process.
• 82% of the Sloan respondents feel it is no more difficult to evaluate online than face-to-face. We believe this. The challenge is that measurement emerged in the recent A-HEC research report as being the most challenging and varied success factor (see summary finding #3).
• In the A-HEC research we are seeing a clear evolution in measurement from student satisfaction to comparison of student achievement rates to tracking learning outcomes. Institutions that are doing the second or third of these in a pervasive manner are clearly best practice leaders at this point. As we have indicated in our report on what is coming next in learning technology there has been and will continue to be significant new progress in offerings from companies such as eCollege and Tegrity that enable new forms of measurement and evaluation.

Sloan continues to use a classification of course type that is based on a proportion of content delivered online with boundary markers at 29% and 79%. Our research indicates that few institutions track or measure this and, probably more importantly, the real delineation must be made in the comparison to traditional courses and programs from the student perspective if you want to relate the findings to strategy.

• A-HEC introduced a very simple but we believe effective classification that looks at the delivery from the student (consumer) perspective and is consistant with how most online program leaders and responsible parties classify delivery. It classifies courses and programs into fully online, hybrid, web-supported, or emporium style.
• Most importantly the A-HEC approach allows us to monitor the very interesting developments in online strategies concerning fully online versus hybrid. Some recent presentations at conferences have indicated that hydrid may be overtaking fully online. Although we definitely are seeing a rise in the interest of hybrid - which reflects the growing importance of online in the traditional environment - the leaders continue to focus as much or more attention on fully online (see summary finding #2).

The February 2005 A-HEC study report is available both online and for download.