A Market Development Perspective. Let us now go back to the question raised in section II, that is, is this “Thwarted Innovation” or “Entering the Mainstream?” Clearly in the sample for this study we are looking at the later. From a classic market development perspective we have clearly witnessed in this sample set many examples of the classic “Crossing the Chasm” (Moore, 1991) into the mainstream market through a focus on a segment or niche with a strong “compelling reason to buy”. The segment we are primarily referring to are adult learners. However, non-residential students, students pressed for time, high school students who want a college experience without coming to campus, are other examples of segments with a strong compelling reason to buy. Since estimates put the adult learner population through 2012 as at least 40% of the total degree seeking population (Gerald & Hussar, 2002) it does not make sense to call the adult segment a “niche” market.

The findings of this study indicate that we are in the early majority of the mainstream. Marketing and branding is becoming more important as the competition is beginning to increase. There has been speculation as to how this more intense competition will impact the various players (Gallagher, 2004). However, consistent with the early majority phase we are seeing a market for online where the demand greatly outstrips the supply.

As part of the study we asked the participants to speculate on the broader market over the next five years. The responses to several of the statements concerning adoption and competition are shown in Figure 21. There is very strong agreement that 80% or more of institutions in the broader market will embrace e-Learning. The institutions are split on whether this will mean that institutions will need to narrow their focus (on specific programs or student populations) in order to more effectively compete as e-Learning spreads. Less than 45% agreed that e-Learning will have little effect on competition.

The “Thwarted” Study (Zemsky & Massy, 2004a) presents an interesting theory on adoption, essentially proposing that there are at least four adoptions occurring simultaneously, each in different phases. The first two are adoptions of relatively simplistic supplementary technologies like email and CMS systems that improve communication but do not fundamentally alter the learning process. The later two involve more sophisticated development of content in new instructional approaches that are considered to be true innovations (from the perspective of the authors).

The “Thwarted” perspective of adoption seems to be referring more to adoption by the faculty users than by the marketplace of student adopters. Although we are not sure if this was the intention of the study, it strikes us as saying that if we were interested in understanding the adoption of a new ice cream product at the ballpark we should be primarily concerned about the adoption characteristics of the vendors as opposed to the fans who consume the final product. Obviously higher education is different than ice cream, but the exaggeration makes the point that we shouldn’t lose sight of what adoption we are talking about. As stated above, the market for adoption of e-Learning by the student consumers has all the makings of being in the early majority.

However, in this study we are very aware of the importance of faculty in the adoption equation and asked for the perception of how faculty feel about their experience with e-Learning. Figure 22 charts out some key responses. As mentioned earlier, the figure shows that there was a clear majority that believed that online courses or programs were not just as good, but higher quality than their face-to-face counterpart. The figure also shows that even in these successful institutions there is a bias toward early adopters of technology. However, the expected attitudes toward evolutionary versus revolutionary impact surprised us. While there is clearly more agreement that going online has been an important evolutionary step (68%), greater than 50% also believe that e-Learning has revolutionized the manner in which faculty teach.

Among the participant institutions there were clearly some differing attitudes about what level of faculty participation is required, even in the long-run. Figure 23 illustrates the range of attitudes. While 11% feel that is absolutely critical to engage 100% of faculty in the online endeavors, which one might view as an extreme position, 26% believe it is not important. The majority, 63% felt it was either very important or somewhat important.

How will the involvement of faculty evolve, especially with regard to course production? Figure 24 shows the answers to some questions we asked in this regard. Almost 80% of the participants believe that even across the broader market courses will move to a more centralized development group. Several of the institutions in this study have already moved strongly in this direction. It is a good fit with the programmatic approach. It also fits well with another broader market prediction shown in the figure which is that as e-Learning causes greater competition, course/instructional quality will be more important. So, in essence this is predicting a world where faculty become better at teaching and content gets a richer, more centralized resource (most likely prioritized by institutional leadership).

Perhaps the most relevant finding from this study with respect to faculty adoption relates to the “Thwarted” study’s fourth adoption category of “the development of new course/program configurations” (Zemsky & Massy, 2004a). The current study provides strong evidence that institutions and at least a core of participating faculty have moved right past the third adoption cycle of “learning objects” right through to new course/program configurations. Numerous data points already covered in this report support this conclusion:

As mentioned previously, a strong qualitative takeaway from this study was that these institutions were especially skilled at engendering grass-roots faculty activities. While there were many views expressed, one that we found very down-to-earth was, “I found it important to have faculty become involved with a minimum of interference with their current method of pedagogy . . . As time progresses, student feedback and help from our instructional designers and IT folks help to change that initial pedagogy to something that improves learning.” In short, high quality online courses at this stage of evolution seem to have more to do with effective teaching than other factors. So, it is important to not hinder faculty, but rather to empower them.

A Macro Perspective. In section IV we introduced capacity, cost, and attainment in asking, “How relevant is Internet-supported learning to the future of higher education?” While this study has explored many of the micro factors associated with success in online learning, we believe the connections to the macro picture are clear:

• Capacity: If we are to take the online growth results and objectives of these institutions, as well as the results of the Sloan “Entering” Study, e-Learning is showing the potential to handle growth rates in the double digits, much faster than the growth of traditional higher education (in the absence of opening new schools). Several of the institutions in this study used e-Learning to address limitations on physical space.

• Cost: Cost containment is not popular with many in higher education. However, as pointed out in (Vedder, 2004), there will be more and more scrutiny of cost as it relates to price. If nothing else, there should be facilities and extracurricular activity cost savings from online learning. Many of the participants in this study were reducing or eliminating physical class sessions and therefore enabling more effective use of resources.

• Attainment: Most importantly, the focus of these successful institutions is on student success. Especially when implementing a programmatic approach, these institutions are stepping up to the plate to take responsibility for improved student learning, both through the course experience and the overall set of student services offered.

A Systems Theory Perspective. Finally, despite the success to date of Internet-supported Learning in institutions like those in this study, are there larger forces than those discussed so far that can derail its progress? Since higher education provides both public and private “goods” (Graves, 2002), it exists within a complex set of relations with large amorphous entities that can exert a large influence.

One set of such forces are the emerging market forces in higher education which some have argued are driving the system more and more towards an emphasis on the private good to the neglect of the public good (Newman et al., 2004). It appears that emerging market forces will tend to promote the success of e-Learning as they have to date, but might there arise high profile issues of poor quality by perhaps a few operators that might tarnish the larger set of institutions? The institutions in this study appeared to have largely addressed the quality issue by achieving the same accreditation for their online programs as their traditional programs.

Another set of forces is the influence of government, both at the state and federal levels. Newman (Newman et al., 2004) details the importance of the compact between the state and each individual institution and the state and the system of higher education as a whole. This compact sets the tone of the market and helps direct it toward the public good. Institutions may be able to increase capacity through Internet-supported learning, but will the State reinforce this benefit or deter it? Will the State reward institutions that show more effective use of resources? How will interstate commerce come into play? One institution in the study pointed to not being able to get some states to approve a distance program with onsite meetings whereas they would approve a purely online program. This seemed counter to supporting quality educational alternatives (from the perspective that a onsite meetings enhance quality for the students).

A third set of forces comes from, arguably, within the academy. It is the predominate focus on prestige as the ultimate and growing goal of what seems like a majority of higher education institutions (Newman et al., 2004). This is a powerful force that is reinforced through the success and influence of graduates from high prestige schools as well as the proliferation college rankings. As new learning alternatives continue to expand through e-Learning will the academy and society be able to compare learning with prestige? Will learning ever be considered more valuable than prestige? If so, where will or should this change originate, from within or outside the academy?

No one knows how these forces will influence Internet-supported Learning, but they must be considered in understanding the complete picture. It is clear that these successful institutions participating in this study are focused on Internet-supported learning as an enabler that can improve performance of the mission and enhance service to students. Therefore, we can speculate that as more institutions begin to address the intersection of mission and service to students with Internet-supported learning, they are achieving much more than becoming skilled at a new technology. At a minimum they are viewing the move to online as a chance to improve the current program. That is, to create a better educational product. However, many have gone much further in addressing strategic, cultural and process issues that will help them perform their mission more effectively in the future.