Online Learning in Schools of Business: Deans’ Perspectives on

Faculty Issues

Maureen Snow Andrade, Ronald Mellado Miller and Shaylana Davis

Utah Valley University, 800 W. University Parkway, Orem, U.S.A.

Keywords: Online Learning, Distance Education, Schools of Business, Higher Education, Resistance.

Abstract: The demand for higher education is increasing, thereby widening access and creating a more diverse student

body. Institutions are implementing flexible learning strategies, such as online courses, to accommodate

students’ responsibilities and time demands. This enables them to have choices in how, what, when, and where

they learn, and extends opportunities to gain knowledge beyond a privileged few. Business schools in

particular are embracing online degrees to meet demand as the programs they offer attract more students than

any other course of study in many contexts. However, institutions face challenges when implementing

organizational change, and particularly those that disrupt traditional practice. Deans of business schools must

find ways to encourage faculty to redesign their courses for online delivery and teach online; they must also

to take steps to ensure quality. The purpose of this study was to explore the current practices of business

schools for online learning, particularly how deans are addressing faculty issues, and to determine the impact

of these practices. Findings indicate that demand is outpacing offerings. Resistance, workload, and

compensation are continuing issues. Quality assurance and training predicted the number of faculty teaching

online but the former did not increase faculty confidence.

1 INTRODUCTION

Due to the benefits of post-secondary education,

countries which traditionally had elitist higher

education systems are expanding access to a diverse

range of learners (Evans et al., 2017; Ma et al., 2016).

This is increasing demand—a total of 412 million

students is expected to be enrolled by 2030 compared

to 99 million in 2000 (Ossiannilsson et al., 2015).

Expanded access is also resulting in changes in

student demographics as these U.S. enrollment

statistics illustrate: 26% of students work full time,

36% work part-time, 38% attend classes part-time,

44% are non-White, 45% live off campus, 62%

receive federal financial aid, 27% are between the

ages of 22 and 29, 10% are between the ages of 30

and 39, 28% have children, 56% are female, and 14%

study online (Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, n.d.).

These students need options for “how, what, when

and where they learn” (Higher Education Academy,

2015, para. 1) so that they can successfully balance

multiple responsibilities. Few students have the

ability to attend university full-time without some

type of concurrent employment. A common approach

for addressing the needs of today’s students is

distance education, which most typically takes the

form of online coursework. The primary purpose of

distance learning is to make “knowledge accessible to

more than just a privileged few” (Kentnor, 2015, p.

30). Diverse students, including those who are non-

traditional (over the age of 25), (Radford, 2011;

Wladis et al., 2015) have low grade point averages,

are ethnic minorities, and are first-generation (neither

parent attended college) (Ashby et al., 2011; Johnson

and Palmer, 2015; Wladis et al., 2015) are the most

likely to enroll in online courses in U.S. higher

education institutions.

Business schools in particular are embracing

online degrees as a strategy to meet demand as the

programs they offer attract more students than any

other course of study in higher education institutions

in the U.S., Canada, Australia, and the UK

(Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2017; Higher

Education Statistics Agency, 2018; National Center

for Educational Statistics, 2017; Statistica, 2018).

Leaders in these schools must find ways to encourage

faculty to redesign their courses for online delivery

and teach online; they must also to take steps to

ensure quality. This study explores the current

practices and strategies of business schools for online

344

Andrade, M., Miller, R. and Davis, S.

Online Learning in Schools of Business: Deans’ Perspectives on Faculty Issues.

DOI: 10.5220/0007617403440351

In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Computer Supported Education (CSEDU 2019), pages 344-351

ISBN: 978-989-758-367-4

learning, particularly how leaders are addressing

faculty issues, and the impact of these practices.

2 LITERATURE REVIEW

Various forms of student diversity affect success in

both traditional and non-traditional modes of

learning. Thirty percent of students in U.S. higher

education institutions leave during or after their first

year and 40% of those who continue beyond that

period fail to graduate (Morshed, 2016). Such

statistics differ by country. Only 6% leave during or

after the first year in the UK and less than 1% fail to

complete; however, 95% of traditionally-aged

university students enroll in U.S. higher education

institutions and only 6% in the UK (Morshed, 2016),

suggesting more opportunity for widening access.

Student success in online courses, in particular, is

an extensive concern. Forty-five percent of chief

academic officers (CAOs) in the U.S. feel that

retention (e.g., course completion and continued

enrollment) is more difficult in online courses than in

face-to-face courses and 68% view these courses are

requiring more discipline (Allen and Seaman, 2015).

As a result, some institutions restrict certain

populations from taking online courses in general,

online courses deemed to be difficult, or the number

online courses (Liu et al., 2007).

Faculty are critically important to the success of

online initiatives, yet many are resistant (Allen and

Seaman, 2016). One-third of CAOs report that this is

a significant barrier (Allen and Seaman, 2016).

Reasons for resistance are predominantly concerns

with quality or a perceived lack of institutional

support (Carlson and Carnevale, 2001; Shelton &

Saltsman, 2005). Even CAOs themselves feel that the

quality of online learning is not comparable to face-

to-face; 71.4% rated it as good or better in a U.S.

national survey, but this number has declined from

previous years (Allen and Seaman, 2016). In spite of

this, academic leaders feel compelled to increase

online offerings to meet demand, expand outreach,

compete with other institutions, and generate tuition.

Professional guidelines and standards for

implementing online learning initiatives in higher

education indicate the importance of quality

standards, the provision of appropriate technology,

professional development opportunities, and regular

course review and improvement processes

(Community College Research Center, 2013;

Institute of Higher Education Policy, 2000; Lenert

and Janes, 2017). However, the impact of these

practices on institutional goals such as increasing

enrollments, the percentage of faculty teaching

online, stakeholder confidence in online courses, or

student success is largely unknown. The results of one

survey indicate that 55% of faculty members disagree

or strongly disagree that online and face-to-face

courses are comparable in terms of student learning

outcomes (Calderon & Jones, 2016), indicating that

much remains to be done to address this issue.

Faculty are responbile for the content and design

of online courses, including how content is presented;

learning activities, interaction; and feedback and

grading, although they may be supported by trained

instructional designers. Additionally, peer review

processes for online courses, typically based on a

standardized rubric, aim to provide consistency in

course features and ensure quality (Budden and

Budden, 2013; MarylandOnline, Inc., 2018). The

Quality Matters rubric, for example, consists of

standards related to several different course aspects:

introduction, learning objectives, assessment,

instructional materials, interaction/engagement,

technology, learner support, and accessibility

(MarylandOnline, Inc., 2018).

Faculty in business fields, trained to use the

Quality Matters rubric, felt that its adoption resulted

in more visible information to students and clearer

expectations, consistency in the look and feel of a

course, and improved course structure; however, they

did not feel it specifically reflected the needs of

business education (Budden and Budden, 2013). A

disadvantage of rubrics such as Quality Measures is

that they do not examine how a faculty member

actually delivers a course, but focus on only course

design (Piña and Bohn, 2014). One aspect of online

course delivery is ensuring that faculty members

maintain currency with technology-assisted learning,

its strengths and weaknesses, and how it can

contribute to learning (Lenert and Janes, 2017). Other

aspects might involve faculty-student interactions

and faculty presence. Online course evaluation

processes have yet to focus on such issues, possibly

because faculty are evaluated in other ways.

The Association to Advance Collegiate Schools

of Business (AACSB) published an international

distance learning quality document, which is distinct

from its accreditation standards, but which provides

institutions with guidelines for distance learning. This

document emphasizes the importance of faculty

commitment to online learning and the need to

provide faculty with design and delivery training; it

also indicates that faculty are responsible for

curriculum and delivery platform decisions and

evaluation (AACSB, 2007, 2013; Gaytan, 2013).

These principles are critical as “presidents may dream

Online Learning in Schools of Business: Deans’ Perspectives on Faculty Issues

345

visions and vice presidents may design plans, and

deans and department heads may try to implement

them, but without the support of the faculty members,

nothing will change” (Bates, 2000, p. 95). Leaders

much remember and honor the faculty role to ensure

the success of online learning initiatives.

Some feel that online education has become

mainstream rather than a new method that needs to be

justified (Kentnor, 2015), and that it may be an

improvement, or even at some future point, a

replacement for traditional face-to-face delivery

(Arasaratnam-Smith and Northcote, 2017). Others

observe that online education has been aimed at

access until recently, and is now focused on

improving educational quality and determining how

knowledge is “transmitted, preserved, and generated”

(Sener, 2012, p. 124). A perhaps unexpected outcome

of online learning has been greater interest in

instructional practices and improving teaching and

learning across all delivery modes (McPherson and

Baccow, 2015), which supports this future vision of

online learning contributing to better understanding

of knowledge acquisition across the board.

Leaders responsible for online learning

acknowledge the importance of faculty training and

instructional design services (Fredericksen, 2017),

yet is it unknown if or how these strategies and others

impact the achievement of strategic initiatives for

online learning. Leaders must identify not only how

to get faculty on board, but how to help them develop

motivation and skills for online learning and future

educational innovations. A larger goal is to improve

teaching and learning across delivery modes to ensure

that students are graduating with the outcomes

employers expect (Association of American Colleges

& Schools, 2015; Schneider, 2015).

3 METHODS

This study involved a survey of deans at AASCB-

accredited business schools. The survey focused on

institutional strategies, challenges, and successes

based on issues identified in the literature related to

online learning. Factual information regarding

enrollments, degree levels, programs, length of time

online learning has been in place, percentage of

faculty teaching, and other particulars were also

collected. The survey had a combination of forced

choice and open-ended questions.

A total of 621 deans were invited to participate in

the online survey and e-mailed a link. E-mail

addresses were located through an internet search

based on a list of 800 AASCB schools. Of those for

whom e-mail addresses were obtained, 474 were in

the U.S. and 147 outside of the U.S. In total, 414 e-

mails were successfully delivered, 121 surveys

started, and 84 completed. The majority of

respondents were in the U.S. with 21 from outside the

U.S., (e.g., Canada, Australia, New Zealand,

Singapore, Hong Kong, Republic of China, Mexico,

Chile, Peru, and Lebanon). Quantitative survey data

was analyzed using descriptive statistics and multiple

regression analysis techniques with dummy variables

created as needed. Qualitative data was analyzed

using the constant comparative method to identify

themes and subthemes in the deans’ comments to

determine those that were most representative across

schools.

4 RESULTS

In this section, we present factual program

information, descriptive statistics, and regression

analyses based on the survey results to inform the

purpose of the research—to explore current practices

for online learning in AACSB-accredited schools of

business and determine their impact.

Qualitative data related to the identification of

institutional strategies for online offerings indicated

that predominantly, deans were instituting distance

learning to increase enrollments and provide students

with flexible access to education, as noted in this

representative quotation: “Distance learning is an

initiative in our strategic plan to grow enrollment and

offer students more flexibility in completing their

degrees.” Another noted that “demand for online was

growing in popularity, so we knew we had to

respond.” Thus, there is a clear need to increase the

number of faculty teaching online to increase student

access. Survey results indicated that an average of

approximately 43% of full-time faculty in the

respondents’ schools of business was teaching online.

The majority of schools of business participating

in the study (44%) had been offering online courses

and degrees for 1-5 years, with 32% from 6-10 years,

and 25% over 10 years. As such, the majority were

relative newcomers to the online modality. The length

of time online courses had been offered predicted the

approximate percentage of full-time faculty who were

teaching online, demonstrating that programs can

expect a gradual increase in faculty involvement over

time. The regression results showed that: R= 0.26,

R²= 0.07, Adjusted R²= 0.05, F(1,79)=5.53, p=0.02.

A key issue identified by the deans in the

qualitative responses was faculty resistance. “Still

challenged to address negative perceptions about

CSEDU 2019 - 11th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

346

online and faculty resistance.” One explained further:

“Our current faculty are experts in a different kind of

teaching and learning, and the teaching philosophies,

strategies, and tactics they have learned are not

always well-suited to an online environment.”

Another agreed, stating: “The faculty are resistant to

training and development efforts. Some faculty are

not very good at teaching online.” A third dean

commented: “Senior faculty sometimes have a

difficult time reacting to change and want to turn the

clock back to only face-to-face. Other senior faculty

have recognized that creating online courses

improves their face-to-face courses. The more recent

hires have embraced online.” These comments

illustrate variation in faculty members’ reactions.

One reason for resistance was quality. One dean

described his key challenge as “HUGE faculty

resistance—faculty think that an online course is an

inferior product.” Interestingly, deans indicated that

quality was impacted by the faculty themselves. As

noted earlier, deans shared that in some cases,

“faculty are not that good at it [teaching online].” As

such, while quality can be controlled through course

design, the faculty themselves may doubt their skills

or lack confidence in their mastery of online

pedagogy or technology.

One way to address resistance and the

development of needed skills is training. Training

was required by 58% of the schools represented and

optional in 42%; training positively predicted the

percentage of full-time faculty who taught online,

which could be partially explained by the fact that in

some cases, faculty were required to complete

training before being allowed to teach online. In

several cases, deans indicated that “all faculty must

complete training before being allowed to be assigned

to a distance course.” In some ways, this strategy of

requiring training could act as an incentive for those

wanting to teach online. Even though it could be

perceived as a barrier by others, the results indicated

that training predicted higher percentages of full-time

faculty teaching online, with R= 0.29, R²= 0.09,

Adjusted R²= 0.07, F(1,73)=6.93, p=0.01.

One dean commented that in cases where training

was available but optional, “faculty do not take the

opportunity.” The same dean observed that the more

courses offered online, “the less [he sees] of faculty

in the building,” suggesting that changes in

organizational culture were also evident. In other

cases, respondents indicated that developing faculty

members’ online teaching skills also resulted in these

skills being transferred to their face-to-face courses.

“Faculty develop better instructional skills and take

those skills back to their campus classes.” In other

words, leaders and faculty must be prepared for a

range of consequences as the result of increasing the

prevalence of online learning, some which may be

considered less than ideal by some stakeholders.

Accompanying the need for training were

“bureaucratic challenges to instructor pay and

incentives outside of traditional model.” Frequently,

comments pertaining to this were made in connection

with training as in the following two quotations:

“Work load and compensation as well as adequate

training support is an ongoing issue.” “Faculty need

training, development, compensation and recognition

to ensure high quality online education.” The most

common recognition for faculty completing training

was a stipend (45%). In spite of this, however,

recognition for completing training did not predict

approximate percentage of full-time faculty in the

school of business who taught online, with R= 0.12,

R²= 0.01, Adjusted R²=0.00, F(3,51)=0.24, p=0.87.

Reasons for resistance were also explained as

follows: “We have experienced considerable push-

back because of the additional effort required and the

negative impact that this time has on the completion

of research.” Another dean agreed, indicating this

challenge: “Coordinating course offerings across

departments to support a variety of students while

ensuring faculty are not overloaded and we maintain

the required balance of research/tenure and tenure

track faculty and adjunct instructors to support the

need of online programs.” Both statements indicate

that balance is important—the balance of teaching

and research and the balance of full- and part-time

instructors interacting with students in online courses.

The mean percentage of online courses offered by

the schools of business in the study was 22.72%,

which is relatively low. In schools where deans

indicated their course enrollments were increasing,

the percentage of full-time faculty teaching online

was not increasing, perhaps suggesting the need to

hire part-time faculty to fill the gap. A regression to

explore this showed R= 0.15, R²= 0.02, Adjusted R²=

0.01, F(1,78)=1.80, p=0.18.

These issues concerning the faculty role and the

ratio of full- and part-time faculty are critical to

faculty acceptance and involvement. Faculty will

most value what is rewarded, particularly when

tenure and promotion are at stake. In other words,

leaders must ensure that reward systems are aligned

with strategic planning and goals.

One approach to overcoming resistance is to take

specific measures to ensure quality. An

overwhelming 89% of respondents reported using

some type of quality evaluation procedures for online

education. The use of these standards predicted the

Online Learning in Schools of Business: Deans’ Perspectives on Faculty Issues

347

approximate percentage of full-time faculty in the

school of business who taught online. As such, this is

an effective practice, with R= 0.18, R²= 0.03,

Adjusted R²= 0.02, F(1,78)=2.75, p=0.05, one tailed.

However, although 42% of respondents indicated

evaluation processes increased faculty confidence

with another 36% neither agreeing or disagreeing,

regression analyses demonstrated that these

evaluation processes did not increase faculty

confidence in the quality of online offerings, with R=

0.08, R²= 0.006, Adjusted R²= 0.00, F(1,68)=0.40,

p=0.53.

5 DISCUSSION AND

IMPLICATIONS

Fewer than half of the faculty in the schools

represented, on average, is teaching online. This is an

issue due to increasing demand for online programs

and the need for business schools to provide

flexibility and access to diverse populations of

learners and to remain competitive with other

schools. Findings also indicate that school of business

deans are struggling with some common issues,

namely faculty resistance in a variety of forms,

balancing the number of full- and part-time

instructors, the need for faculty training and

professional development to foster appropriate skill

sets, and quality. These issues also reflect those

reported in the literature.

The main takeaways from the research are

summarized and discussed below.

 The majority of business schools have been

offering online education for 1-5 years. As such,

they are relatively new to this modality and their

capacity and expertise is evolving.

 The number of faculty teaching online is not

keeping pace with increasing online enrollments.

This is a significant issue and requires leaders to

explore reasons for this (e.g., resistance) and

implement appropriate strategies. The latter

might include instructional design support,

hiring new faculty with the expectation they will

teach online, requiring training to build needed

skills, nurturing faculty-to-faculty mentoring,

aligning rewards or performance evaluations

with desired behaviors, or other incentives.

Otherwise, more part-time faculty will need to be

hired, which may result in an imbalance in the

ratio of full- and part-time faculty teaching

online.

 Faculty resistance is a significant barrier to

expanding online offerings. Reasons vary, but

predominantly include the following:

o Faculty do not possess the skills for it.

o Faculty believe that the quality of online

learning is lower than traditional face-

to-face learning.

o Senior faculty tend to be more resistant

to online delivery than junior faculty.

Those leading online initiatives might

consider identifying the root causes of faculty

resistance in order to determine how to address

this issue. Are the faculty blaming quality simply

because they do not want to teach online? Do

they not want to teach online because they are

satisfied with the status quo? Do they not

understand that online learning is more than

grading assignments and that they can actually

teach (albeit in different ways)? Are they worried

about a lack of interaction with students? Greater

understanding of the issues is needed and better

communication about what online learning

entails.

 Teaching online is perceived as increasing

faculty workload and negatively impacting

research time. As such, schools of business must

prioritize their strategic initiatives for online

learning and find ways to fund them. This might

include decreasing class size, hiring teaching and

research assistants, and providing student and

faculty support staff and resources. Additionally,

institutional and program mission statements

must be guide what activities are prioritized and

rewarded and the balance expected between

teaching and research.

 Along with workload, incentives and

compensation were concerns. Approaches to this

vary and depend on context. Some institutions

offer incentives for designing or teaching online

courses. These can range from fairly

conservative stipends to those that are quite

generous. In other cases, institutions view online

course design and teaching as a normal part of

what a faculty member does and do not offer

additional monetary compensation. These

strategies may depend on the degree to which

online teaching is embedded in the institutional

culture.

 Faculty training at the majority of schools is

required. When it is not, faculty tend to not

participate. Those who do, however, may

transfer what they learn to other learning modes,

thus requiring such training should be seriously

considered. In some contexts, pedagogical

CSEDU 2019 - 11th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

348

training is required of all new faculty members

as although they have all been trained in their

disciplines, most have not been trained in

teaching. Many faculty welcome these types of

professional development opportunities,

particularly new faculty who are eager to learn

how to engage with students. Participating in

professional development teaching programs can

be acknowledged through the tenure and

promotion process and through other forms of

certification or recognition, such as Higher

Education Academy Fellowships (Advance HE,

2018).

 Organizational culture and change are impacted

by online learning initiatives, evident by fewer

faculty being present on campus on a regular

basis and the carryover of new skills gained

through online course design and teaching to

traditional teaching. Some of this may be

perceived as positive while in other cases, it

could be considered negative. Change is

inevitable but must be managed well and focused

on a common vision and the establishment of

agreed-upon and specific goals to enable

achievement of that vision.

This study also makes a significant contribution

in terms of identifying practices that predict more

faculty teaching online. These include the following:

 Training positively predicted the percentage of

full-time faculty teaching online.

 Recognition for completing training did not

predict the percentage of full-time faculty

teaching online.

 The length of time online courses/programs had

been in existence predicted more faculty teaching

online.

 The use of quality evaluation measures predicted

the percentage of full-time faculty teaching

online.

 Increases in student enrollments did not predict

the percentage of full-time faculty teaching

online.

 Course evaluation processes did not increase

faculty confidence in the quality of online

offerings.

Given these outcomes from the study, leaders

have a clear directive—implement training or review

the effectiveness of current training and rewards,

understand that change evolves over time and do not

let up (Kotter, 2008), ensure the efficacy of quality

evaluation, take measures to make sure that the

number of full-time faculty teaching online keeps

pace with increasing online enrollments, and

determine root causes of faculty concerns to address

lack of confidence in online learning on the part of

faculty members. Specific ideas for addressing many

of these issues were discussed earlier in this section.

Leaders wanting to implement organizational

change and ensure that it becomes embedded in the

culture might consider the use of change models such

as Kotter’s 8-steps (2002, 2008) or Bolman and

Deal’s (2017) reframing. Reframing involves

viewing organizational change through four frames—

structural (strategy, goals, responsibilities, reporting

lines), human resource (people’s needs, personal

growth, job satisfaction), political (conflict

resolution, power base-building), and symbolic (a

motivating vision, sense of purpose, celebrations that

recognize performance). Reframing provides leaders

with a comprehensive approach to leading change

initiatives and greatly increases the likelihood of

success.

6 CONCLUSIONS

Education is a “partnership between [higher

education providers] and students with the goal of

providing accessible yet manageable learning

opportunities for a wide range of people” (Higher

Education Academy, 2015, p. 4). This study has

shown that schools of business are actively pursuing

this goal, yet are faced with significant challenges, as

are other programs and institutions that are

implementing online learning. It is generally

acknowledged that “despite the current drawbacks,

online education is still the best prospect for the future

provided the barriers of faculty assessment and course

design are addressed” (Nash, 2015, p. 80). As such,

this study provides specific, actionable findings to

assist leaders in the effective implementation of

online learning in schools of business and beyond.

REFERENCES

Advance HE. (2018). Fellowship resources. Retrieved from

https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/individuals/fellowship/f

ellowship-resources

Association of American Colleges and Universities. (2015).

The LEAP challenge: Education for a world of

unscripted problems. Washington, DC: Association of

American Colleges and Universities. Retrieved from

https://www.aacu.org/sites/default/files/files/LEAP/LE

APChallengeBrochure.pdf

Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business.

(2007). Quality issues in distance learning. Retrieved

from

Online Learning in Schools of Business: Deans’ Perspectives on Faculty Issues

349

https://numerons.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/16quali

ty-issues-in-distance-learning.pdf

Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business

(AACSB). (2013). AACSB assurance of learning

standards—As interpretation. Retrieved from

http://www.aacsb.edu/~/media/AACSB/Publications/white

-papers/wp-assurance-of-learning-standards.ashx

Allen, E. I., & Seaman, J. (2015). Grade change: Tracking

online education in the United States. Babson Park,

MA: Babson Survey Research Group and Quahog

Research Group. Retrieved from http://www.

onlinelearningsurvey.com/reports/gradelevel.pdf

Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2016). Online report card:

Tracking online education in the United States. Babson

Survey Research Group. Retrieved from https://

onlinelearningsurvey.com/reports/onlinereportcard.pdf

Arasaratnam-Smith, L. A., & Northcote, M. (2017).

Community in online higher education: Challenges and

ppportunities. Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 15(2),

188-198.

Ashby, J., Sadera, W. A., & McNary, S. W. (2011).

Comparing student success between developmental

math courses offered online, blended, and face-to-face.

Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 10(3), 128-140.

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2017, October 23).

Australians pursuing higher education in record

numbers. Retrieved from http://www.abs.gov.au/

AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/mediareleasesbytitle/1533FE5

A8541D66CCA2581BF00362D1D?OpenDocument

Bates, A. W. (2000). Managing technological change:

Strategies for college and university leaders. San

Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Beaudoin, M. (2016). Issues in higher education—A primer

for higher education decision makers. In B. O. Barefoot

& J. L. Kinzie (Series Eds.), New Directions For

Higher Education, & M. S. Andrade (Vol. Ed.), Issues

in Distance Education (Vol. 173, pp. 9-19). San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass. doi:10.1002/he

Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (n. d.). Today’s college

students. Retrieved from https://postsecondary.

gatesfoundation.org/what-were-learning/todays-

college-students/

Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. (2017). Reframing

organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership. 6

ed.

San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Budden, C. B., & Budden, M. C. (2013). A look at an

Implementation of the Quality Matters program in a

collegiate environment: Benefits and challenges.

Contemporary Issues in Education Research, 6(4),

381-384.

Calderon, V. J., & Jones, J. M. (2016, November 21).

Higher ed faculty skeptical about online course quality.

Retrieved from https://news.gallup.com/opinion/

gallup/197870/higher-faculty-skeptical-online-course-

quality.aspx

Carlson, S., & Carnevale, D. (2001). Debating the demise

of NYUonline. The Chronicle of Higher Education,

A31. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/free/v48 /

i16/16a03101.htm

Community College Research Center. (2013). Creating an

effective online environment. Teachers College,

Columbia University. Retrieved from http://

ccrc.tc.columbiaEdu/media/k2/attachments/creating-

effectiveonline-environment.pdf

Evans, C., Rees, G., Taylor, C., & Wright, C. (2017).

Widening access to higher education: The reproduction

of university hierarchies through policy enactment.

Journal of Education Policy.

DOI: 10.1080/02680939.2017.1390165

Fredericksen, Eric E. (2017). A national study of online

learning leaders in US higher education. Online

Learning, 21(2). Retrieved from

http://dx.doi.org/10.24059/olj.v21i2.1164

Gaytan, J. (2013). Ensuring quality in online courses:

Applying the AACSB international's distance learning

quality issues. Online Journal of Distance Learning

Administration, 16(3). Retrieved from https://www.

westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/winter164/gaytan164.pdf

Higher Education Academy. (2015). Flexible learning in

higher education. Retrieved from https://www.

heacademy.ac.uk/system/files/downloads/higher_educ

ation_academy_flexible_learning_framework_210416.

pdf

Higher Education Statistics Agency. (2018). Higher

education student statistics: UK, 2016/17 - Subjects

studied. Retrieved from

https://www.hesa.ac.uk/news/11-01-2018/sfr247-

higher-education-student-statistics/subjects

Institute for Higher Education Policy (2000). Quality on the

line: Benchmarks for success in internet-based distance

education. National Education Association, 1-45.

Retrieved from http://www.nea.org/assets/docs/

HE/QualityOnTheLine.pdf

Johnson, D., & Palmer, C. C. (2015). Comparing student

assessments and perceptions of online and face-to-face

versions of an introductory linguistics course. Online

Learning, 19(2), 1-18.

Kentnor, H. E. (2015). Distance education and the evolution

of online learning in the United States. Curriculum &

Teaching Dialogue, 17(1/2), 21-34.

Kotter, J. P. 2002. The heart of change. Boston, MA:

Harvard Business School.

Kotter, J. P. 2008. A sense of urgency. Boston, MA:

Harvard Business School.

Kunz, M. B., & Cheek, R. G. (2016). How AACSB-

accredited business schools assure quality online

education. Academy of Business Journal, 1(2), 105-

115.

Ladyshewsky, R., & Soontiens, W. (2013). Managing the

online learning revolution in an MBA course: Quality

assurance through strategic development. Working

Papers 2018/26, Maastricht School of Management.

Maastricht: Netherlands. Retrieved from

https://ideas.repec.org/p/msm/wpaper/2013-26.html

Lenert, K. A., & Janes, D. P. (2017). The incorporation of

quality attributes into online course design in higher

education. International Journal of E-Learning &

Distance Education, 32(1), 1-14. Retrieved from

https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1146391.pdf

CSEDU 2019 - 11th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

350

Liu, S., Gomez, J., Khan, B. & Yen, C. J. (2007). Toward a

learner-oriented community college online course

dropout framework. International Journal on E-

Learning, 6(4), 519-542. Retrieved from

from https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/21789/.

Ma, J., Pender, M., & Welch, M. (2016). Education pays

2016. The benefits of higher educaiton for individuals

and society. College Board. Retrieved from

https://trends.collegeboard.org/sites/default/files/educa

tion-pays-2016-full-report.pdf

Marciniak, R. (2018). Quality assurance for online higher

education programmes: Design and validation of an

integrative assessment model applicable to Spanish

universities. International Review of Research in Open

& Distance Learning, 19(2), 126-154. Retrieved from

http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/34

43/4622

MarylandOnline, Inc. (2018). Specific review standards

from the QM higher education rubric, Sixth Edition.

Retrieved from https://www.qualitymatters.org/sites/

default/files/PDFs/StandardsfromtheQMHigherEducat

ionRubric.pdf

Martin, F., Polly, D., Jokiaho, A., & May, B. (2017). Global

standards for enhancing quality in online

learning. Quarterly Review of Distance

Education, 18(2), 1-10.

McPherson, M. S., & Bacow, L. S. (2015). Online higher

education: Beyond the hype cycle. Journal of Economic

Perspectives, 29(4), 135-154. DOI:

10.1257/jep.29.4.135

Morshed, J. (2016, June 29). The US and UK: Comparing

higher education in the two top ranking nations.

Retrieved from https://www.unit4.com/blog/2016/06/

the-us-and-uk-comparing-higher-education-in-the-

two-top-ranking-nations

Nash, J. A. (2015). Future of online education in crisis: A

call to action. Turkish Online Journal of Educational

Technology, 14(2), 80-88.

National Center for Educational Statistics. (2018). Fast

facts. Most popular majors. Retrieved from

https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=37

Ossiannilsson, E., Williams, K., Camilleri, A. and Brown,

M. (2015). Quality models in online and open

education around the globe. State of the art and

recommendations. Oslo: International Council for

Open and Distance Education. Retrieved from

https://www.pedocs.de/volltexte/2015/10879/pdf/Ossi

annilsson_et_al_2015_Qualitymodels.pdf

Piña, A. A., & Bohn, L. (2015). Integrating accreditation

guidelines and quality scorecard for evaluating online

programs. Distance Learning, 12(4), 1-6.

Radford, A. W. (2011, October). Learning at a distance.

Undergraduate enrollment in distance education

courses and degree programs. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Education, National Center for

Education Statistics. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/

pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2012154

Schneider, C. G. (2015). The LEAP challenge:

Transforming for students, essential for liberal

education. Liberal Education, 101(1/2), 6-15.

Sebastianelli, R., Swift, C., & Tamimi, N.. (2015). Factors

affecting perceived learning, satisfaction, and quality in

the online MBA: A structural equation modeling

approach. Journal of Education for Business, 90(6),

296-305. doi: 10.1080/08832323.2015.1038979

Sener, J. (2012). The seven futures of American education:

Improving learning and teaching in a screen captured

world. North Charleston, SC: CreateSpace

Shelton, K., & Saltsman, G. (2005). An administrator’s

guide to online education. Greenwich, CT: Information

Age Publishing.

Statistica. (2018). Number of students enrolled in

postsecondary institutions in Canada in 2015/16, by

field of study. Retrieved from https://www.statista.com/

statistics/447843/postsecondary-enrollments-in-

canada-by-instructional-program/

Wang, Q. (2006). Quality assurance—best practices for

assessing online programs. International Journal on E-

Learning, 5(2), 265-274.

Wladis, C., Conway, K. M., & Hachey, A. C. (2015). The

online STEM classroom--who succeeds? An

exploration of the impact of ethnicity, gender, and non-

traditional student characteristics in the community

college context. Community College Review, 43(2),

142-164. DOI:10.1177/0091552115571729

Online Learning in Schools of Business: Deans’ Perspectives on Faculty Issues

351