History of Distance Education 29
Online, which was believed to be the only institution able to compete with the
growing for-profi t University of Phoenix, closed its doors in October 2001, along
with the University of Maryland’s distance education for-profi t arm (Carlson &
Carnevale, 2001). Surprisingly, that same year, the University of Phoenix’s enroll-
ments nearly doubled from 16,000 to 29,000 (Carlson & Carnevale, 2001). By
2002, over 1.6 million postsecondary students were enrolled in online courses,
and six years later that number had almost tripled (Allen & Seaman, 2008). How-
ever, aside from the University of Phoenix, many fl edgling online educational
programs started during this time did not survive. Of these, many were online
programs begun by traditional brick-and-mortar institutions.
Numerous factors infl uenced the demise of these online institutions, but per-
haps the most signifi cant were the lack of understanding of online pedagogy and
online learning styles, as well as the lack of faculty buy-in for online education
(Marcus, 2004). Online education is a different medium for teaching and learning,
and therefore requires a different pedagogy (Bernard et al., 2004). Further, faculty
were, and still are, an integral part of any university’s success, and many faculty
members at the traditional universities did not embrace online education due to
concerns regarding the quality of education being provided through this medium
(Shelton & Saltsman, 2005). As many traditional universities entered the online
marketplace, they did so without the full support of the faculty, ultimately im-
pacting the sustainability of their online programs (Carlson & Carnevale, 2001).
As Bates (2000) stated, “presidents may dream 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” (p. 95).
Another factor that led to the closure of many of the institutions providing
online education was the failure on the part of educators to recognize that dif-
ferences exist between teaching and learning in the online and face-to-face envi-
ronments (Arenson, 1998). Many professors merely provided the online students
with lecture notes from the traditional classroom, with the assumption that this
would suffi ce. However, research has found that a well-designed, documented,
and structured online course that facilitates active engagement with the students is
essential for success (Dykman & Davis, 2008; Gaytan & McEwen, 2007; Palmer
& Holt, 2008). Carlson and Carnevale (2001) contend that online pedagogy is not
the only reason for the initial failure, but rather the lack of institutional support
for the faculty and lack of leadership with an understanding of online education
were also to blame. According to Shelton and Saltsman (2005), the most common
complaints from faculty regarding online education are (1) the lack of understand-
ing of this method of teaching; (2) the lack of institutional support; and (3) fear
that the quality of education in the online environment suffers.
In sum, in 1998, as nonprofi t institutions sought to increase profi ts by entering
into the online marketplace through the creation of subsidiaries and partnerships,
they ignored the fundamental principles of the quality of education, institutional
governance, and project planning. Derek Bok (2003) argued that new technolo-