Address

University name Kyung Нее Cyber-University Sejong Cyber-University Seoul Cyber-University Seoul Digital University Open Cyber-University Korea Digital University Korea Cyber-University Daegu Cyber-University Wonkwang University Hanyang Cyber-University East West Cyber-University Hanseung Digital University Semin Digital University International Digital University Cyber Foreign Language University

Subtotal

Cyber-College name World Cyber-College Semin Cyber-College Yeungjin Cyber-College

Subtotal

New entrants authorized

Actual enrollment

Actual enrollment rate (%)

Total of entrants authorized³

Actual enrollment

Actual enrollment rate (%)

5, 600 14, 550 18, 700 21, 600

^aThe Ministry of Education and Human Resource Development (MOEHRD) authorizes the number of new entrants to the university (including cyber-universities), and then universities (including cyber-universities) can recruit new students for the number of new entrants authorized by MOEHRD for that year, plus any shortage from the previous year. As a result, the number of new students for a given year can be larger than the new entrants authorized by MOEHRD if the cyber-university failed to fill its new entrant allotment in the previous year (Korea Educational Development Institute, 2004).

authorized will stay around at levels similar to 2004. The statistics for 2004 are important because it was the first year that students across the four years of a university experience were enrolled. Up to 2003, the actual enrollment number of new entrants increased, but from 2004, a slightly lower new enrollment is evident. Nevertheless, total actual enrollment increased steadily (Table 20.1). It

The Emergence of the Cyber-University and Blended Learning in Korea 285

will be interesting to watch the actual enrollment rates of new students during the coming years to see whether the popularity of cyber-universities continues to grow.

The lower-than-expected or hoped-for enrollment rate is due at least in part to lower respect for cyber-universities as compared to traditional campus-based universities in Korea. In addition, traditional universities have attempted to ex­pand their e-learning courses so that many potential cyber-university students can have their needs met at campus-based universities.

Types of Cyber-University

The seventeen cyber-universities, all private, are classified into three types: (1) cyber-university linked to an existing campus-based university institution (eleven cyber-universities), (2) cyber-university consisting of a campus-based university consortium (four cyber-universities), and (3) cyber-university without affiliations with any other universities (two cyber-universities) (KERIS, 2003).

The first type of cyber-university, based in an existing campus setting or in­stitution, has some immediate name recognition and infrastructure to build from. The brand name provides an identity for the cyber-university. Cyber-universities typically can use the resources of the campus-based university, such as support from the professors, digital libraries, and research facilities. For example, Hanyang Cyber-University and Kyung Нее Cyber-University borrowed the identity of a campus-based university for the cyber-university since both universities are known for their strong campus-based programs. In fact, Hanyang University allows stu­dents to take classes at the Hanyang Cyber-University and vice versa. Although cyber-university students are allowed to take courses from the campus-based uni­versity, most are unable to due to time and location constraints. While some cyber-universities have attracted students using the brand name of the traditional campus, cyber-universities that are not on prestigious campuses tend not to attract students as readily.

The second type of cyber-university is based on a university consortium. Such cyber-universities have the privilege of having access to students from all partici­pating universities even though they are not students of the cyber-university. Cyber-universities of this type have their own enrollment. Among the four cyber-universities of this type now in Korea, Seoul Digital University, a consortium of twenty-one universities and led by Donga University, is quite successful and offers the greatest variety of areas of study (eight areas with fifteen subareas). Korea Digital University, which is based on a consortium of six universities led by Korea University, is a successful example, as indicated by its relatively high enrollment rates when compared to authorized enrollments (over 80 percent).

286 The Handbook of Blended Learning

Seoul Cyber-University and Hanseung Digital University are examples of the third type of cyber-university, which does not rely on a specific university affilia­tion or consortium. Interestingly, Seoul Cyber-University now offers campus ed­ucation, which is somewhat unique among the Korean cyber-universities, though some cyber-universities (those with traditional university affiliations) offer off-line education. In effect, this third type of cyber-university has started to venture into blended learning.

Demographics

Recent reports from the Korean government reveal that the largest percentage of freshmen at a typical cyber-university were between thirty and thirty-nine years old. The second largest group was in their late twenties (21 percent). In addition, 17 percent were in their early twenties and 18 percent in their forties (KERIS, 2003). This report confirms that, as expected, the typical student in a Korean cyber-university is older than the average freshman in traditional universities. Such data indicate that cyber-universities seem to be meeting the needs of lifelong education.

Cyber-Korean students primarily have a high school degree or equivalent (nearly 87 percent in 2003). The remaining ones are two-year college graduates (4 percent), four-year university graduates (4 percent), high school diploma cer­tificate examination holders (4 percent), and graduate degrees (1 percent). Some students are enrolled for a second university degree.

Rates of enrollment of female students were 35 percent in 2001, 38 percent in 2002, 38 percent in 2003, and 42 percent in 2004. In traditional universities, the female student population is almost 39 percent (МОЕ, 2004). These rates are similar to those in the United States, where females in college slightly outnum­ber the male population (Oblinger, 2002).

In terms of job status, 86 percent of cyber-university students in 2003 were employed and viewed this as a chance for a degree as well as useful for job retention. Nearly three out of four cyber-university students live in or near the Seoul area (KERIS, 2003).

Study Areas

Program area offerings within cyber-universities continue to increase. For instance, 39 program areas in 2001, 79 in 2002, 149 in 2003, and 162 in 2004 were offered. While many programs were replicated, the growth of program areas and study disciplines reveals how cyber-universities try to satisfy students with more refined areas of study. The study disciplines include business management (23 percent),

The Emergence of the Cyber-University and Blended Learning in Korea 287

IT (22 percent), and many others, including nongovernmental organizations, social welfare, theology, foreign languages, and oriental humanities.

The areas of study offered by cyber-universities are crucial for student recruitment. To succeed, cyber-universities should have their own identity, not just mimic the campus-based universities in cyberspace. In response, many have dif­ferent curricula and services because they have different students with distinct needs. Consequently, administrators at cyber-universities must pay special atten­tion to the needs of the marketplace to make decisions about what academic pro­grams they might support and what programs might lose resources.

Trends of Online Learning

In order to understand how online learning is perceived by those in the cyber-university system, surveys and interviews were conducted in May and June 2001 with 630 faculty and 219 staff, and May and June 2004 with 401 students, all who had some online instructional experience. The 2001 study was conducted to find out how students, academic faculty and staff perceive online learning. Key aspects of this study that were replicated in 2004 focused on student weekly work­ing hours, work load, levels of satisfaction, academic achievement, and difficulties of e-learning.

Weekly Study Hours per Course

Students were asked how many hours per week they spent studying for each e-learning course. In 2001, including online classroom hours, students spent on average 3.4 hours a week studying (see Figure 20.1). Interestingly, the largest per­centage of students, 38 percent, spent 2 to 4 hours studying an online course each week. An additional 32 percent spent fewer than 2 working hours per course per week. In total, then, more than 70 percent of cyber-university students studied fewer than 4 hours per week in each course.

In the 2004 study, excluding any online classroom time, nearly 40 percent of cyberstudents spent just 1 to 2 hours studying for each course each week, and an­other 30 percent spent less than 1 hour per course per week. It thus appeared that they were studying even less per week than the previous sample from the first year of the program in 2001.

Although they may have been studying less than their 2001 counterparts, the 2004 online class students studied slightly less than or about the same number of hours as face-to-face students (You, 2004). And while the data from 2001 showed that students with more online learning classes tended to spend more hours

The Handbook of Blended Learning

FIGURE 20.1. HOURS PER WEEK STUDIED PER COURSE, ONLINE

STUDENTS, 2001.

Other

studying, this was not replicated in the 2004 study. The 2004 findings are also somewhat in contrast to those from Oblinger (2002) in the United States, which claimed that online students (cyber-university students) tended to spend more time studying because they were more motivated and eager to do self-directed learning.

Workload

In 2001, students and faculty were asked how their cyberclasses compared with face-to-face classes in terms of effort. In general, students (81 percent) and acad­emic faculty (93 percent) reported more burden with cyberclasses compared with that of face-to-face classes. Nevertheless, additional stress was more frequent among online faculty (45 percent felt it was twice the burden) than among on­line students (34 percent felt it was twice the burden). In contrast, in the 2004 study, more than 40 percent of the students felt that the workload of their cybercourses was similar to face-to-face courses. Still, nearly 30 percent felt overworked with online learning, which is somewhat ironic since our research indicates that they tended to study slightly less than students in face-to-face settings. Given these find­ings, there seems to be a high need for more faculty and student guidance and support in online courses.

The Emergence of the Cyber-University and Blended Learning in Korea

Level of Satisfaction

When students were asked whether they were satisfied with their online learning class experience compared with face-to-face classes, over half of the 2001 students (57 percent) were satisfied. However, in the 2004 study, just 32 percent of stu­dents were equally satisfied. In addition, 35 percent of students were slightly less satisfied, and just one in four students were slightly more satisfied.

As shown in Figure 20.2, cyberstudents in 2004 were slightly less satisfied wiui their online learning experiences than cyDerstudents in 2001. When they were asked about the level of satisfaction for online learning contents and instructional

FIGURE 20.2. COMPARISON OF SATISFACTION LEVEL WITH E-LEARNING.

290 The Handbook of Blended Learning

strategies, they also were less satisfied with the instructional methods or strate­gies employed online. Again, it is interesting that students showed less satisfaction with e-learning in 2004. Apparently Korean students are displaying higher ex­pectations for their online learning courses as they gain more experience with this educational delivery method.

The data from 2001 were analyzed again according to instructional media. We found that students' satisfaction was the highest when the main instructional for­mat was blended learning, such as face-to-face instruction with online supplements (68 percent) or online courses with face-to-face supplements (59 percent). Student satisfaction with fully online courses was lower but still positive at 55 percent. Sim-uarly, the 2004 study also showed that students prefer blended learning (face-to-face with online learning support, 42 percent; online learning with face-to-face support, 32 percent).

Perception of Academic Achievement

The survey asked how different faculty members perceived students' academic performance compared to face-to-face courses. Overall, faculty members in 2001 responded that the academic achievement for e-learning would be lower than that of face-to-face courses. Specifically, while about one in four thought it would be the same as face-to-face and another one in four thought it would be better, the remaining 50 percent thought it would be lower. Students in 2001 also reported that they would have better levels of academic achievement in face-to-face classes than in online classes.

A similar trend regarding student perceptions of their value of their learning occurred in the 2004 study (this study did not deal with faculty). In this study, 42 percent of students reported they would expect lower achievement, 34 percent expected similar achievement, and 13 percent higher achievement. Interestingly, in the 2004 data, female students were more critical about cyberlearning than male students. The reason that female students were more skeptical about acad­emic achievement needs to be investigated because female students are often known to be more active in online discussions (Gadio, 2001; Im & Lee, 2003).

Difficulties in Online Learning

In the 2001 study, students claimed that there were many online learning diffi­culties. Among the more salient were problems in receiving help for instruc­tional or administrational questions, too heavy a workload, lack of course-related information, and Internet inaccessibility. Some of the other issues included bor­ing instructional content, a lack of interactivity with instructors, and too frequent

The Emergence of the Cyber-University and Blended Learning in Korea 291

evaluation. In the 2004 study, cyberstudents were more concerned with boring in­structional content, inadequate management of the learning process, the slow speed of the Internet, inadequate cyberinstructional pedagogy, and minimal feed­back from the instructor. In addition, some voiced concerns about inadequate eval­uation, inadequate amount of content, high difficulty level of the course content, and little chance for peer communication and interaction. Interestingly, when com­paring the results of the two surveys, the students showed different priorities over just a three-year span. For instance, the 2004 students were much more aware of the importance of content and instructional processes than administrative sup­port and technical problems that were salient issues in 2001.

Discussion and Conclusions

Although e-learning is becoming a common medium for instruction in Korean higher education, there still are many areas where growth is possible, though the expan­sion of cyberlearning may hinge on meeting key student and instructor needs. Based on the analysis of student and faculty member perceptions of online learning and cyber-universities in Korea, there are several important implications and suggestions that are valid for both fully online learning and blended learning.

First, blended learning will likely continue to grow rapidly in Korea during the coming decade. In fact, in our surveys, blended learning was suggested to be the preferred instructional format by both cyber-university students and in­structors. Clearly, online learning has not yet met the satisfaction level that faculty and students desire. Faculty members continue to seem anxious about student aca­demic achievement since the delivery of instruction is physically separated, so the degree of students' learning depends more on individual students than on im­parting knowledge in face-to-face instruction. The perception of lower academic achievement in Korea is consistent with the Sloan Consortium research (Allen & Seaman, 2003) in the United States, which reported that chief academic officers in higher education perceive that the quality and outcomes of online learning are currently inferior to those of face-to-face. However, these same individuals pre­dicted the quality of online learning would equal or surpass face-to-face instruc­tion in the next few years. Recent research by Bonk and Kim (2004) on college faculty and administrators related to the future of e-learning replicated the Sloan findings related to expectations that both e-learning content quality and student outcomes would surpass face-to-face environments in the next few years.

Interestingly, as students acquire more experience with online learning, they spend less time studying and are slightly less satisfied. Once again, such results sug­gest that online learning should be blended with face-to-face instruction.

The Handbook of Blended Learning

Second, in terms of the preferred delivery format of course content, cyber-university students wanted Web-streamed content, while students from off-line uni­versities preferred Web-based materials and resources. Online students in particular wanted to see their own professor in the online video. In essence, they wish to have the feeling of presence in a real classroom. When cyber-university facilities were being designed, there were debates in Korea about which system was more suitable for e-learning: rely primarily on Web-based content (such as lecture notes, PowerPoint slides, and Web resources) or video-based lectures (a " talking head" instructor delivering lectures with PowerPoint notes via video streaming). Although each type of content delivery method has its own advan­tages and potential uses, when both methods deliver the same information, campus-based students prefer Web-based content since the Web can deliver information in a flexible and condensed way. In contrast, students from cyber-universities want video lectures for their online classes (Lee, Kwak, & Cho, 2004). For cyber-university administrators, the cost for Web content delivery is a seri­ous matter. Currently, video-based lectures in Korea cost about $7, 000 per course, compared with $35, 000 per course for the typical development of Web-based course contents, and students have shown a similar level of achievement (personal communication with the dean of Kyunghee Cyber-University, February 2004). Of course, most classes now use both formats in different degrees, often supported by various supplemental materials such as printed books. Another factor that administrators must keep in mind is the reusability of these content resources, so while the reusability of Web-based contents may be higher, video streaming contents tend to be used for areas with low reusability such as IT. Fortunately, in Korea, the infrastructure exists for live online video-streamed lectures, thereby enabling cyber-universities to use whatever format they need.

Third, a new definition of instructors may be needed. When the content developer and the teacher for the video streaming are different (which is often the case), the teacher on the video should be a person with authority in that content area. In vocational education, content developers and teachers are usually not identical. Authorities are invited to provide content, and those instructional pack­ages sell through educational institutions. When expert-generated content is used, a new role for instructors is required. Having the authority on the video is one way of enhancing the quality of the class, especially when online learners have low expectations or unfavorable attitudes regarding the quality of online contents.

Fourth, professional development for instructional strategies and blended learning content development is needed. As shown in the research reviewed here, many cyberprofessors feel overwhelmed and not happy about the quality of their e-learning classes. Particularly when new roles for instructors are required and materials are boring or there is inefficient pedagogy (as the cyberstudents claimed

The Emergence of the Cyber-University and Blended Learning in Korea

in our survey research), faculty should want to learn about content development and instructional strategies for online learning. In response, most major Korean universities have begun building and operating centers for teaching and learning, which include a focus on supporting e-learning pedagogy.

Fifth, instructor success stories should be recognized and rewarded. In our research, faculty and staff typically felt a much greater burden than students. One reason for the high stress may come from their perception of the wide exposure of the e-learning medium. Faculty members tend to try to provide additional and better content for online classes than in their face-to-face classes since online con­tent is reusable and possibly open to public view. But instructional activities are equally important, and online success stories learned during professional devel­opment can be a model for them. Providing instructional environments for blended learning can also help faculty become aware of alternative pedagogy for online learning (cybergogy).

Sixth, students need guidance and support for the use of blended learning given that they spend fewer study hours, feel significant stress or burden, and their satisfaction level of the online learning is low.

The emergence of the cyber-university has brought significant change to the Korean higher education system in just a short amount of time. One immediate im­pact was to initiate online learning in higher education including campus-based uni­versities. The experience of cyber-universities points to the new educational mode of blended learning. Students at cyber-universities seem to appreciate the visual ap­pearance of instructors as in streaming video and the opportunity to take face-to-face courses as well as meet face-to-face with their peers. Studies of the psychological and social factors that are attributable to the need for blended learning are neces­sary as well as those that explore the benefits of blended learning as a mode of ed­ucation. It will be interesting to watch trends in fully online learning as well as blended learning in Korea and around the world during the next few years.

References

Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2003). Seizing the opportunity: The quality and extent of online education in

the U.S., 2002 and 2003. Sloan Consortium. Retrieved August 29, 2004, from

https://www.sloan-c.org/resources/sizing_opportunity.pdf. Bonk, C. J., & Kim, K. J. (2004, August). Future of e-learning in higher education and

training environments. In Proceedings of the 20th Annual Conference on Distance Teaching and

Learning. Madison, WI. Gadio, С. М. (2001). Exploring the gender impact of the world links program: Summary of

the findings of an independent study conducted in four African countries. World Links.

Retrieved July, 30, 2004, from https://www.world-links.org/english/assets/gender_study_

summary.pdf.

CHAPTER TWENTY-ONE