CHLOE 9 REPORT RESPONSE (Part one of a four-part series)
By Robyn Hamontree, Regina Law, and Kevin Phang
The ninth installment of the Changing Landscape of Online Education (CHLOE) report was recently released. CHLOE 9: Strategy Shift: Institutions Respond to Sustained Online Demand offers new insights into the state of online learning in the post-pandemic world. The study covers a wide variety of topics related to online learning including budgetary concerns, regulatory changes, and the ongoing debates over where online fits in terms of institutional, educational, and even marketing priorities and strategies.
In this series of articles, the Noodle team will take a deeper dive into three key areas discussed in the report:
- Is online learning a net cost or a revenue generator?
- Are institutions missing a competitive advantage by not marketing the quality of their online programs?
- In an environment of increased concern for student wellbeing, are online learners receiving the same support as those on campus?
Following are a few highlights from the report in each area to get your deliberative juices flowing. Much more to come!
Net Cost vs Revenue Generator
The need/demand for online learning programs experienced a warp speed acceleration during the pandemic, forcing institutions to invest more and faster than they had planned. Basically, this tossed any well-considered, long-term and return on investment (ROI) strategies in the bin.
In terms of the financial impact of that forced adaptation, we see findings in CHLOE9 that may be viewed as contradictory:
“In 2024, 52% of chief online officers (COLOs) said online programs generate net revenue, up from 47% in 2020. The share that regards online programs as a net cost shrank from 26% to 15%.”
…but…
“Only 17% of COLOs, however, said they see online as a way to reduce institutional costs, and two-thirds are convinced such a goal is unrealistic.”
So, what factors have impacted the financial component of instituting remote learning on an accelerated track?
- How mature is the implementation of online learning? Innovators and Early Adopters enjoyed a serious advantage over institutions which were forced into an “all hands (and dollars) on deck” immediate implementation scenario.
- How prevalent are online options? – Stemming from the previous point, institutions which have more robust online offerings and higher online enrollments tend to view remote learning as a revenue generator.
- Does online content have a shelf life? – The amount of instructional content which can be reused vs. needing to be created afresh for each term is likely a big driver of the cost vs. return dynamic.
We will also look at ideas to optimize the ROI of online learning as we go forward.
Is the Quality of Online Options a Missed Marketing Opportunity?
As the availability of online learning shifts from a nice bonus feature to a cost of entry, simply saying “We have online options” has limited (or zero) marketing value.
However, “Institutional responses highlighted that many institutions showcased “quiet quality” by practicing robust online quality assurance measures spanning student support, faculty development, and course design, but largely failing to market these efforts publicly.”
In a question asking institutions about “Online Marketplace Focus and Differentiators,” only two of the top 10 responses had to do with marketing or promoting the quality of online offerings. The other answers primarily centered around touting the simple “existence” of online programs as a recruiting tool or as a means of expanding learning options.
In the report’s own words, “…the low prioritization of quality, student support, and cutting-edge curricula in marketing efforts raises questions about how effective schools are in positioning themselves distinctly and competitively in the online marketplace.”
In other words, just as schools market the quality of their on-campus experience and instruction, there is a vast opportunity to market the quality/value of online offerings beyond just checking the box that says “Yes, we have it.”
Support for online students – another missed opportunity?
In the post-pandemic environment, we have seen increased awareness and self-reporting of mental and emotional challenges among youth, often related to the dismantling of the social component of learning during the “lockdown.” As more students embrace the benefits of remote learning, “Supporting online learners’ unique needs is vital to online quality and strategy—especially if the institutional mission and strategy include a ‘students first’ approach.”
Institutions do report using a wide variety of research tools to help understand the unique needs of online learners, but how are they using the findings?
While many academic supports – library resources, academic advising, tutoring – are relatively well-developed for online learners, holistic support for students is still lagging, especially regarding social and community support.
Just 23% of those surveyed reported fully-developed mental health support systems for online students; only 8% claimed similar attention to mentoring programs; and a mere 5% felt that adequate support is being given to Social/Community/Extracurricular Clubs for online learners.
Institutions face numerous challenges in this area, from instituting and managing clinical mental healthcare options to creating and supporting effective engagement tools.
So, that’s a lot to think about. We hope this summary has filled your mind with questions and “Noodlings” of your own and that you will look forward to the next article in this series, focusing on the cost component.
Read the next article in this series: “Cost Center vs Revenue Generator”
