Online graduate education: Where are we and where should we go?
As online graduate programs in psychology continue to proliferate, questions also arise as to whether such programs offer educational and professional outcomes commensurate with those provided by traditional master’s and doctoral degree programs. For better or worse, the ongoing global COVID-19 pandemic has forced students, instructors, and educators alike to experience online education firsthand. In the coming years, these three stakeholder groups will likely continue to explore online platforms as an alternative to traditional graduate programs. The stresses, challenges, successes, and failures of converting face-to-face courses to online versions in a manner of weeks will yield war stories and long memories of both the positive and negative aspects of online instruction. At the same time, we are a science that advocates empirically based decision making. As universities, graduate programs, individual faculty, and students look to the future, it is important to understand the research addressing the effectiveness of online graduate education.
Specifically, we examine the effectiveness of online education at two levels of analysis: the course and the program. Most prior research and meta-analyses have examined the effectiveness of online education and training at the course or learning objective level: Are there differences in learning outcomes between students in online versus face-to-face versus blended (hybrid) courses? We review research that addresses this question and add a different analysis that has received less attention: How do the student experience and employability of graduate students compare between those who complete online versus face-to-face programs? Although universities and departments look to online programs as opportunities to increase revenue and decrease costs, it is imperative to also examine whether online degrees produce a return on investment for students attending those programs as well as whether there may be differences in time required to complete these degree programs. To supplement our literature review, we conducted a brief survey using a convenience sample of coauthor contacts and responses to social media requests. The COVID-19 pandemic creates a unique opportunity to consider relevant parties’ attitudes toward online education, including from instructors who had not previously taught online. Thirty-five participants answered questions about their experiences with converting graduate courses to online (due to COVID-19) and their perceptions about online courses and programs.Footnote 1
We review research at the course and program level, after which we offer practical considerations for administrators, educators, students, and applicant stakeholders of online programs. We also draw on this research to offer suggestions for optimizing learning and development in online environments. Our goal is to stimulate discussion on building effective learning environments and continuing to train effective psychologists regardless of the delivery modality.
The case for online graduate programs
The last decade has seen a proliferation of online degree programs at the undergraduate and graduate levels (Seaman et al., Reference Seaman, Allen and Seaman2018), including master’s and doctoral programs in industrial-organizational (I-O) psychology. In 2009, there were two online I-O master’s programs offered by “traditional” universities (Kansas State University, Colorado State University), and a handful of online programs offered by for-profit institutions (e.g., Capella University, Walden University, University of Phoenix). In 2019, graduate I-O degrees were available in 34 fully online and nine hybrid programs (a mix of online and face-to-face instruction). This proliferation is in part due to the perceived benefits of online education by stakeholders (Mills et al., Reference Mills, Knight, Kraiger, Mayer and LaFontana2011).
Benefits of online educational programs
Benefits to students
In a field in which top in-person graduate programs have high selection ratios, the growing number of online programs give potential students more options for attaining a degree in a profession that offers both an attractive salary (DuVernet et al., Reference DuVernet, Poteet, Parker, Conley and Herman2017) and a positive employment outlook (Bratcher, n.d.; Cherry, n.d.). An online degree program offers flexibility in both time and location (Arkorful & Abaidoo, Reference Arkorful and Abaidoo2015; Braun, Reference Braun2008). Students have a broader choice of institutions, not just those near their home, and may be able to find less expensive alternatives (Greatvaluecolleges.net, n.d.). Older students with established careers and families may want to pursue an advanced degree without having to relocate or commute to campus, or they want the ability to engage in coursework on their own time to avoid conflicts with their work schedules. Online programs create opportunities for international students who may be unable to obtain a student visa or, especially for a master’s program, may not want to relocate for only 1 or 2 years. Some popular online college guides suggest that students will benefit from enhanced learner control, customizing “your learning based on your individual needs and preferences” (bestcollegesonline.org, n.d.). Online education offerings may benefit job performance and career opportunities for individuals already working in related roles but doing so without the relevant formal education, enabling them to learn theory and best practices. Providing education for these individuals helps the field as a whole by providing access to qualified talent. The wealth of applied experience that such students can bring to discussions and group work can enhance the learning experiences of their classmates (Mills et al., Reference Mills, Knight, Kraiger, Mayer and LaFontana2011).
Benefits to institutions
For educational institutions, there are three dominant motivations for offering online degree programs: better serving their student population, increasing enrollments and revenue, and more flexible use of resources. These historical reasons must now be viewed in the context of the need to have online educational capability in the event of further disruptions to campus operations due to future national or global crises (e.g., COVID-19) or other broad-ranging concerns. The majority of students taking at least some online courses are at public institutions (Allen et al., Reference Allen, Seaman, Poulin and Straut2016), which often have a mission to serve students in their state as broadly as possible. For example, a number of state university systems use online education explicitly to reach nontraditional adult learners who may not have the opportunity for a university education otherwise (Kelderman, Reference Kelderman2018). Offering degree programs online can open up untapped applicant populations, including those who live in other geographical regions or who are working professionals who are unable to attend full-time, face-to-face classes. Universities can offer new online courses and programs without the investment in physical campus infrastructure, and they are often more scalable than on-campus programs. Online programs permit greater flexibility with limited faculty resources (Arkorful & Abaidoo, Reference Arkorful and Abaidoo2015) and may also allow institutions to attract qualified faculty (particularly adjuncts) via geographically broadened recruitment and applicant pools, as faculty need not be colocated.
Benefits to other stakeholders
There are also benefits for other stakeholders in online education, including faculty and potential employers. Having midcareer students in the graduate online classroom may provide faculty with access to relevant, current examples of course concepts that students have observed in the workplace. Employed students could also help connect faculty with data collection opportunities for applied research or project options for coursework. Employers have a greater ability to retain employees while they obtain online degrees as compared with in-person degrees, and they could benefit from reduced tuition costs if they are supporting employee education costs. Accessible, affordable online education can also serve as a retention tool for major employers. For example, FedEx launched a strategic partnership with the University of Memphis’s online programs as an incentive to retain employees who might otherwise leave for other career opportunities (Irwin, Reference Irwin2019).
Drawbacks of online educational programs
In contrast with the benefits reviewed above, there are also potential drawbacks of online educational programs for each of the stakeholder groups. For example, students may receive less individual attention from faculty without the opportunity to work with them face to face. They may have limited career opportunities, given evidence that employers have significant reservations about hiring new employees directly from online programs as discussed in more detail below. For institutions, there is often a significant resource investment in starting new online programs (Allen et al., Reference Allen, Seaman, Poulin and Straut2016), and this may draw resources away from established programs. Faculty may perceive online teaching assignments to be less attractive and require more effort or online programs to be of lower quality with less access to talented students as research assistants and collaborators (Arbaugh et al., Reference Arbaugh, Dearmond and Rau2013). This in turn could make it more difficult for institutions with online programs to attract and retain research-active faculty.
The realization of these benefits compared with drawbacks of online degree programs for schools, students, employers, and other stakeholders is inextricably tied to how successful they are at the course and program level. In the next two sections we explore these outcomes, addressing the extent to which learning outcomes are due to the choice of media (online vs. in-person) or the instructional methods used in different contexts.
Course-level outcomes
We begin with the question of the extent to which online graduate programs can produce meaningful changes in knowledge and skills through coursework. By “course” we mean a single instructional event that occurs over an established academic period—for example, a multi-semester study of leadership development with a single cohort of students. Multiple meta-analyses have demonstrated that, on average, purely online and classroom instruction produce comparable learning outcomes (Means et al., Reference Means, Toyama, Murphy and Baki2013; Sitzmann et al., Reference Sitzmann, Kraiger, Stewart and Wisher2006). Sitzmann et al. found that online instruction was more effective for declarative learning outcomes (i.e., recalling factual information), whereas online and classroom instruction were equivalently effective for procedural learning outcomes (i.e., performing skills). Means et al. aggregated studies comparing web-based with classroom instruction that incorporated either random assignment or quasi-experimental designs. The researchers reported that learning outcomes in online-only courses were not significantly different from those in face-to-face settings, but outcomes in blended courses were significantly better than in face-to-face settings. Online (online-only or blended) and classroom instruction produced similar outcomes for declarative knowledge, but online instruction on average resulted in greater procedural knowledge outcomes.
Relevant to this analysis, Means et al. (Reference Means, Toyama, Murphy and Baki2013) reported that the effect sizes from comparing online with face to face instruction were small but positive for graduate courses. Sitzmann et al. (Reference Sitzmann, Kraiger, Stewart and Wisher2006) found that online instruction was more effective with older learners (over 24 years old), suggesting that graduate students may be more prepared to handle online instruction than many undergraduates are. In summary, meta-analytic studies suggest that online graduate courses are at least as effective as face-to-face courses, and for some students and some outcomes they may even produce greater learning. Based on this, online courses in graduate psychology have the potential to be as effective as are face-to-face courses. In our survey we see indicators of such potential, as 71.4% of the respondents were at least somewhat satisfied with the content quality of their online courses and only 14.3% were dissatisfied. Additionally, 60.0% were at least somewhat satisfied with students’ learning experiences, whereas 22.9% reported being at least somewhat dissatisfied.
Individual courses, and instructional programs more broadly, can use a blended or hybrid learning approach combining instructional formats (Arbaugh et al., Reference Arbaugh, Desai, Rau and Sridhar2010). Typically, blended learning involves some combination of face-to-face and computer-mediated instruction, occurring “any time a student learns at least in part at a supervised brick-and-mortar location away from home and at least in part through online delivery with some element of student control over time, place, path, and/or pace” (Staker, Reference Staker2011, p. 5). Simply distributing readings through a learning management system is not considered hybrid learning, but beginning a discussion in class and completing it through the system would be. There is a wide variety of potential hybrid options ranging from alternating online and face-to-face instruction by the week to requiring residential components for a part of a class while delivering the rest of the instruction online. For presentation purposes here, we are considering blended or hybrid instruction as instructional formats that make concurrent use of both instructional modalities within a course to optimize student learning.
Research indicates that blended learning is between 13% and 20% more effective than instruction delivered strictly in the classroom for both declarative and procedural learning outcomes (Bernard et al., Reference Bernard, Borokhovski, Schmid, Tamim and Abrami2014; Means et al, Reference Means, Toyama, Murphy and Baki2013; Sitzmann et al., Reference Sitzmann, Kraiger, Stewart and Wisher2006). Yet, the incorporation of multiple delivery media is not responsible for this effect (Clark, Reference Clark1994). Rather, the effectiveness of hybrid instruction is enhanced by optimizing the instructional advantages of both online and classroom instruction. Specifically, these courses tend to incorporate a variety of instructional methods, including human interaction during classroom instruction and online learning opportunities in between classroom meetings. Thus, a student who is not grasping the materials presented in a lecture may be able to attain clarity after reading other students’ discussion board comments, talking to the instructor, or looking up information online. This may be true not only for content (topical) courses but also for more fundamental skills courses (e.g., research methods, statistics).
As an example of this, one of the authors used a “flipped classroom” approach (Schmidt, & Ralph, Reference Schmidt and Ralph2016) to teach graduate multivariate statistics. Students watched recorded videos and had the ability to pause or replay content to improve understanding. Class time was used to answer questions, demonstrate specific analyses, and create deeper learning by attempting to solve applied problems. Despite these advantages, one challenge is that blended learning tends to require a greater time commitment from students, which may be the reason that students tend to be less satisfied with blended learning than with classroom instruction (Means et al., Reference Means, Toyama, Murphy and Baki2013; Sitzmann et al., Reference Sitzmann, Kraiger, Stewart and Wisher2006).
As illustrated by the example above, an advantage of online or blended learning programs is that they can provide learners with more control over their instructional experience, accommodating individual differences in basic knowledge, aptitude, schedule availability, and rates of learning (Arbaugh et al., Reference Arbaugh, Desai, Rau and Sridhar2010). In contrast, classroom instruction requires all students to learn the same content in the same period, which presumes that students begin the course with similar knowledge and skills. Technology-delivered instruction can be tailored to meet the needs of each student by personalizing instruction and adapting to students’ existing knowledge and rate of learning (Arkorful & Abaidoo, Reference Arkorful and Abaidoo2015). Providing students with control over the instructional experience encourages them to take responsibility for their learning while reducing frustration and boredom because students can move quickly through material with which they are already familiar and focus on unfamiliar or difficult material. Thus, learner control has a generally positive effect on both student satisfaction and learning and can potentially reduce the time required to complete online courses (Carolan et al., Reference Carolan, Hutchins, Wickens and Cumming2014; Ely et al., Reference Ely, Sitzmann and Falkiewicz2009; Kraiger & Jerden, Reference Kraiger, Jerden, Fiore and Salas2007; Landers & Reddock, Reference Landers and Reddock2017; Orvis et al., Reference Orvis, Fisher and Wasserman2009). There are some important boundary conditions that influence the effectiveness of learner control. In their meta-analysis, Carolan et al. found that learner control was more beneficial for more experienced learners, suggesting that the autonomy often found in online instruction would be more beneficial to graduate students with prior experience. Furthermore, Brown et al. (Reference Brown, Howardson and Fisher2016) suggested that high levels of learner control are more appropriate for open skills rather than closed skills. Thus, instructors would need to design learner control opportunities into their courses differently depending on the topic (e.g., statistics vs. organizational change) and the level of the students.
Despite extensive evidence of the effectiveness of online instruction, academic faculty tend to be among its harshest critics. In a 2012 survey of over 4,500 academic faculty, approximately two thirds rated online learning outcomes “inferior or somewhat inferior” to those from a face-to-face mode (Allen et al., Reference Allen, Seaman, Lederman and Jaschik2012). A separate annual survey of chief academic officers between the years of 2002 and 2015 indicated that only about one fourth of faculty appeared to accept the “value and legitimacy of online education” (Allen et al., Reference Allen, Seaman, Poulin and Straut2016, p. 6). In our survey, 54.5% of respondents agreed that they had negative attitudes toward online graduate programs prior to their own online experience in the spring of 2020.
This schism between data and opinion highlights the value of both this article and the discussion we hope to stimulate. We believe that our field will see more online education in the future, so it is important that as we all become more experienced with online/hybrid modalities we form evidenced-based beliefs (and not just opinions). Negative attitudes toward online education by its providers likely contribute to the negative outcomes for program graduates that we discuss in the next section.
Program level outcomes
Although we see the potential for positive outcomes for online education at the individual course level, a successful graduate program is more than the sum of its courses. For example, at the program level, a central goal of graduate education is to produce skilled professionals who can effectively work in line with the scientist–practitioner model. Below, we focus on student satisfaction and employability as two primary measures of program success.
Student satisfaction
SIOP members periodically collect data from PhD and master’s level students as one way of assessing program reputation, outcomes, and quality. Acikgoz et al. (Reference Acikgoz, Huelsman, Swets, Dixon, Jeffer, Olsen and Ross2018) recently conducted a survey of culture, resources, and student satisfaction within master’s-level I-O programs. Acikgoz et al. presented results and program rankings without differentiating between online and face-to-face schools. However, the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology’s (SIOP) Online Program Subcommittee of the broader Education & Training Committee obtained data on 47 alumni of online and hybrid I-O programs (Grossman & Sanchez, Reference Grossman and Sanchez2020). Notably, the mean satisfaction rating for online alumni (M = 3.66, SD = 0.76) was substantially lower than that for all alumni (M = 4.10, SD = 0.31). Moreover, only 9% of online alumni reported having had an internship during their program. Relatedly, online alumni reported that their first postgraduation jobs were, on average, only moderately related to I-O psychology (M = 3.20, SD = 1.36) and felt as though their respective online programs prepared them for the workforce only moderately well (M = 3.35, SD = 1.27).Footnote 2 Although these metrics cannot be compared with those for all alumni, as they were not collected by Acikgoz et al. (Reference Acikgoz, Huelsman, Swets, Dixon, Jeffer, Olsen and Ross2018), they provide insight about the current state of online programs.
Roman et al. (Reference Roman, Barnett and Eatough2018) ranked master’s and doctoral programs based on student evaluations of program attributes including program culture, quality of faculty, and learning applied skills. They did not include instructional delivery mode in their analysis of the data, but examining the list we can see that no online doctoral programs appear in the top 20 programs. Some online programs did appear in rankings of individual attributes, with one online program appearing in the top 20 for program culture and two appearing in the top 20 for learning practical skills. Three online/hybrid programs appeared in the list of top master’s level programs. Notably, this study measured program flexibility, defined as “Opportunity for students to arrange their schedule to fit other facets of their life, take a semester off for life events.” It was considered irrelevant for PhD students and was not one of the top five criteria for master’s students. Howald et al. (Reference Howald, Nesnidol, Horan and Matthews2018) ranked 40 I-O doctoral programs by developmental opportunities. Online and hybrid doctoral programs ranked in the bottom quarter for both teaching and research developmental opportunities available. Some of these programs position themselves as applied, so perhaps it is not surprising that they would offer fewer opportunities to hone skills in teaching and research. However, four of the online programs ranked at the bottom of the list for applied experience opportunities, such as internships, with two online programs ranking near the top of the list.
Employability
Multiple studies have examined the influence of educational setting on the employability of graduates from face-to-face versus online and hybrid degree programs. Most of these studies have examined the outcomes for recipients of bachelor’s degrees, although some studies have looked at outcomes for graduates with a master’s or doctoral degree. Researchers have also investigated employer attitudes toward graduates, hiring preferences, and stated reasons for hiring/not hiring online degree recipients.
The perceived employability of graduates from online programs depends largely on how the question is asked. When employers or hiring managers are asked about general attitudes toward candidates from traditional versus online/hybrid programs, they generally report no preference for one degree type over the others (e.g., Bailey & Flegle, Reference Bailey and Flegle2012; Kaupins et al., Reference Kaupins, Wanek and Coco2014; Society for Human Resource Management [SHRM], 2009, 2010; Thirunarayanan, Reference Thirunarayanan2010). For example, SHRM (2010) surveyed 449 employers representing a range of public, private, and government sector organizations about their attitudes toward online education of job applicants. Among respondents, 49% agreed or strongly agreed with the statement “Online degree programs are equally credible to traditional degree programs.” Though respondents held generally favorable attitudes toward online credentials, attitudes were less positive about degrees from online for-profit institutions and when hiring for executive-level compared with entry-level positions.
The results are quite different in studies using experimental designs in which hiring managers are provided multiple candidates whose credentials are matched except for program type. In these studies, applicants from traditional programs are generally rated as more desirable, more likely to be interviewed, and more likely to be hired than applicants from online or hybrid programs (e.g., Adams, Reference Adams2016; Adams et al., Reference Adams, DeFleur and Heald2007; Adams et al., Reference Adams, Lee and Cortese2012; Allen et al., Reference Allen, Seaman, Poulin and Straut2016; Huss, Reference Huss2007; Kinneer, Reference Kinneer2014).
Such effects favoring candidates from traditional programs over online programs extend to positions requiring a master’s or doctorate degree (Adams & DeFleur, Reference Adams and DeFleur2005; Connolly & Diepenbrock, Reference Connolly and Diepenbrock2011; Curran et al., Reference Curran, Sanchez Mayers and Fulghum2017; DePriest & Absher, Reference DePriest and Absher2013; Flowers & Baltzer, Reference Flowers and Baltzer2006). As with undergraduate education, the results depend in part on how the question is asked. Guendoo (Reference Guendoo2008) surveyed community college administrators who reported that they would be “receptive to” hiring faculty with online degrees when paired with high levels of career accomplishments. Metrejean and Noland (Reference Metrejean and Noland2011) used a between-subjects design and presented firm recruiters of certified public accountants with equivalent candidates, except one had a degree from an online program and one from a traditional program. The researchers found no differences in recruiters’ desires to recruit the candidate as long as both candidates passed a certification exam.
Generally, though, research shows an advantage for graduates of traditional programs for jobs requiring advanced degrees. Connolly and Diepenbrock (Reference Connolly and Diepenbrock2011) surveyed 647 student affairs professionals and reported that about 80% believed that in-person and online master’s job candidates were nonequivalent and that they would rather hire candidates with in-person education. For faculty positions, results show a consistent pattern of preferences for candidates with traditional education over those with online or hybrid degrees (Adams & Defleur, Reference Adams and DeFleur2005; DePriest & Absher, Reference DePriest and Absher2013; Flowers & Baltzer, Reference Flowers and Baltzer2006; Mustafa, 2012; Thirunarayanan, Reference Thirunarayanan2010). As one example, Adams and Defleur surveyed 109 chairs of search committees for academic positions in the humanities, the social sciences, science and technology, and professional fields. Respondents were presented with three candidates with comparable qualifications but different degree formats—traditional, virtual, or hybrid. Ninety-nine percent chose the candidate from the traditional educational setting compared with the virtual; 89% chose the traditional over the hybrid; 85% of respondents indicated they had reservations about doctoral degrees earned online. Qualitative comments collected in their study revealed that committee chairs believed that a person educated in an online doctoral program would lack hands-on experience and interpersonal skills. One respondent stated, “I don’t believe graduate courses can be taught online. University life is part of personal education which is needed to be a social individual. Online education is misused by individuals who don’t understand the difference between an educated human being and a barbarian with skills” (p. 81).
The study most relevant to SIOP members is Rechlin and Kraiger’s (Reference Rechlin and Kraiger2012) survey of 23 I-O psychologists employed in consulting firms and directly responsible for hiring other I-O psychologists. Respondents were provided brief descriptions of eight fictitious candidates who varied on three factors: degree from an online versus traditional university, a master’s degree versus a PhD, and completion of an internship during their degree program. Respondents rated the likelihood they would hire each hypothetical applicant. The results showed strong main effects for each independent variable, preferring candidates with an internship to those without (η2 = .61), PhD applicants over master’s-level applicants (η2 =.41), and, relevant to the present context, with a degree from a traditional program over an online program (η2 = .63). The latter effect size was extremely large, with mean ratings for traditional candidates over six standard units higher than for candidates from online programs.
In summary, research overwhelmingly shows that graduates from online programs are less likely to be hired than are graduates from traditional programs, given similar credentials. The effects are as strong or stronger for graduates with master’s- or doctoral-level degrees.
Past research is also clear on why employers see the degrees as nonequivalent. Many employers perceive an online education to be of lower quality than a traditional face-to-face program (Carnevale, Reference Carnevale2007; Flowers & Baltzer, Reference Flowers and Baltzer2006; Kohlmeyer et al., Reference Kohlmeyer, Seese, Sincich, Catanach and Feldman2011; Safara, Reference Safara2017). Online degrees may be perceived as grounded in gaining “a lot of information but not much learning” (Adams & DeFleur, Reference Adams and DeFleur2005, p. 80), a product of a degree mill (Safara, Reference Safara2017), and characterized by lower quality instruction and lax assessment (Saad et al., Reference Saad, Busteed and Ogisi2013). As discussed by Flowers and Baltzer, “the overwhelming sentiment was that online programs are not thought to have the quality of a face-to-face program, and that an online program cannot develop the types of personal skills a professor needs” (p. 38). Many of the concerns about the quality of learning stem from a perception that online instruction lacks interaction and face-to-face communication between students and faculty (Linardopoulos, Reference Linardopoulos2012). “Online programs do not provide for the personal interactions of a classroom environment that enrich one’s preparation nor do online programs encourage development of personal/social interaction skills” (p. 38, Flowers & Balzer, Reference Flowers and Baltzer2006). Moreover, there are beliefs that graduates from online programs lack practical job experience, the opportunity to develop interpersonal skills (Adams & Defleur, Reference Adams and DeFleur2005; Curran et al., Reference Curran, Sanchez Mayers and Fulghum2017), the clinical and technical skills that come from close mentorship (Karl & Peluchette, Reference Karl and Peluchette2013), and lab-based learning (Safara, Reference Safara2017).
The perception that online programs do not (or cannot) provide sufficient education in interpersonal skills is particularly problematic in the field of I-O psychology. A 2010 SIOP study by Fink et al. (Reference Fink, Guzzo, Adler, Gillespie, Konczak, Olson, Beier and Dickson2010) found that business presentation, influence and persuasion, teamwork, and practical problem-solving skills were among the competencies that were most expected by I-O employers and the least developed in I-O graduates. To the extent that employers perceive students in online programs to have less of an opportunity to develop these skills, then the employability of online students in mainstream positions will remain low. At least one online master’s program (Walden UniversityFootnote 3) is using virtual reality simulations in an effort to teach these skills, and continued advances in such technology may help close these perceived gaps.
In summary, the preponderance of studies that compare candidates from online and traditional programs show a preference for the latter. This effect holds for graduates of professional programs and advanced degree programs; if anything, the effect is stronger for graduates of doctoral programs. This effect can likely be attributed to perceptions about lower quality of instruction and limited opportunities for developing interpersonal and communication skills in online programs. As described above, research suggests these concerns are not necessarily warranted in terms of instructional quality and specific course outcomes, particularly because learning can be as high, or even higher, when using online or blended learning approaches. Yet, initial surveys indicate that the concerns may be more legitimate with respect to broader program-level outcomes such as interpersonal skill development. For example, very few alumni of online I-O programs reported they were provided with internship opportunities, which is critical for developing students’ “R competencies,” which are interpersonal skills that make them more “rewarding” to deal with and therefore more employable (Shoenfelt et al., Reference Shoenfelt, Stone and Kottke2013). Thus, although online formats need not preclude the ability to develop interpersonal skills, efforts to specifically develop them, such as through internship and mentoring programs, likely need to be built into online programs to bolster graduates’ employability. We further discuss recommendations for enhancing online program effectiveness in a later section.
Students enrolling in online master’s and doctoral programs should be cautious about the influence that degree completion may have on their career prospects. Students expecting to be competitive for jobs in academia or in research-oriented positions may be disappointed by a lower value placed on their degree. In contrast, students who have pursued such degrees part time as a way to bolster their credentials for an existing job may not experience these difficulties. Updated research is needed about how online degrees influence job placement and career success at both the master’s and doctoral levels. Data need to be readily available about placement statistics across programs to allow applicants to make informed choices.
Considerations for stakeholders of online educational programs
We expect the number of online graduate programs in psychology to continue to grow, necessitating a deeper understanding of how we can close the gap between online and traditional programs. Here, we critically examine three characteristics of higher education that may differ between online and face-to-face programs: human interaction in courses, mentoring (interaction outside of courses), and structural characteristics such as selectivity and rigor. These three factors as the structure for comparison emerged organically as we read research and position papers on the emergence of online education. We argue that for online programs to “compete” with face-to-face programs (at least from the perspective of educating graduate students), their faculty and administrators need to find ways to close the gap on these dimensions.
It is important to note that hybrid or blended are also options with programs as with courses. Blended educational programs combine features of online and face-to-face programs. There are many variations of blended programs. Some online programs require a short campus residency experience. For example, the MS I-O program at Kansas State University, one of the first online programs, requires students to be collaboratively colocated on campus for 2 weeks each for two consecutive summers. During these on-campus segments, students take fundamental skills courses (e.g., research methods) and topical seminars that feature valuable face-to-face interaction (e.g., ethics course), and they also benefit from collaborative project-based group work with their cohort and, not least, intensive interfacing with their professors.
Human interaction (within courses)
Online programs would benefit from integrating human interaction with both peers and faculty as part of the degree program. Human interaction refers to the extent to which students communicate and interact with both the instructor and other students during educational experiences. We focus here on in-course experiences and next address interactions outside of courses (e.g., mentoring). Brown and Ford (Reference Brown, Ford and Kraiger2002) described two benefits of incorporating human interaction in courses. The first is informational. Students receive more relevant information when discussing, collaborating, and sharing information. The second benefit is motivational. Human interaction provides the opportunity for collaborative learning and fostering a sense of community, and it reduces feelings of isolation. We further examine the importance of learner–instructor interaction and learner–learner interaction.
Kraiger (Reference Kraiger2008a) applied social constructivism theory to understand the learning process, proposing that learning is inherently social and people learn through their social networks. This perspective argues for the importance of human interaction, whether learning happens online or face to face. “Third-generation instructional models, embodied in WBI [web-based instruction], have the potential to change our fundamental understanding of how we learn and how we facilitate learning” (Kraiger, Reference Kraiger2008a, p. 463). If we adopt this viewpoint, the question becomes not whether we can facilitate effective human interaction in online graduate education but how.
Instructors in the classroom can monitor visual cues of students’ interests and adjust accordingly, serving both informational and motivational functions of human interaction. It may appear that this would be difficult to replicate online. “Poorly implemented, WBI appears as a one-way, non-engaging instructional approach. However, when properly designed and implemented, WBI offers far more opportunities for customization and adaptation to individual learners than can be found in the classroom” (Kraiger, Reference Kraiger2008b, p. 505). Initial evidence suggests that offering an online course for doctoral students requires more time than a comparable face-to-face course. Faculty will typically devote extra time to facilitating online discussions and responding to students in an online format, finding it more efficient to interact with students in the classroom setting (Singleton & Session, Reference Singleton and Session2011). This is likely to be a disincentive for faculty—particularly research-active faculty—to participate in online doctoral courses.
When using the right blend of technology and instructional approaches, instructors can successfully create social presence in technology-mediated courses (Berry, Reference Berry2017; Ke, Reference Ke2010). Blended learning elements, such as the multiday residency (face-to-face instruction on campus), can foster relationships between instructors and students and among students that will facilitate later interaction in the online environment. Video-based synchronous lectures and discussions can help replicate the social presence of a physical classroom environment while also offering the benefit of multiple communication media. This in turn provides multiple opportunities for students who may be reticent to participate in the classroom (Berry, Reference Berry2017).
One of the main advantages of onsite graduate instruction appears to be that students can meet with professors face-to-face on a regular basis, including ad hoc meetings when the need arises. Informal, synchronous communication can also be achieved through a variety of online technologies, such as instant messaging and video chatting. Empirical data on the effectiveness of these approaches are limited. Some studies with undergraduate students suggest that the use of both in-person and virtual office hours using instant messaging is quite low, although students have positive reactions to the virtual office hours option (Edwards & Helvie-Mason, Reference Edwards and Helvie-Mason2010; Li & Pitts, Reference Li and Pitts2009). Our own experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic showed substantial variation in students’ willingness to meet with their professors virtually. In our survey, 37.1% of respondents said graduate students attended virtual office hours as frequently as they attended in-person office hours, with 17.1% reporting that students attended virtual office hours more frequently than in person. Research is needed to establish whether graduate students are more or less likely to contact and engage with their professors and advisors from a distance. Further guidance also is needed on generating a culture where continuous virtual communication is both encouraged and expected.
Kraiger (Reference Kraiger2008a) argued that learner–learner interactions are critical for third-generation learning. The instructor typically has less presence in online learning, offering more opportunity for learner–learner interaction. The variety of available online instructional techniques may offer more modalities for learner–learner interaction. Indeed, some forms of online instruction may actually enhance the learner’s motivation to participate and interact. Particularly in online professional programs, such as the MBA, students often learn from one another as they share professional experiences in a discussion forum or other modality (Thompson et al., Reference Thompson, Ballenger and Templeton2018). Strong peer interaction in a graduate program may also result in students building networks that will be useful to them moving forward in their careers.
In this respect, it is critical that faculty and institutions are cognizant that online graduate courses and programs should not automatically equate to ballooning course sizes. Recent research has suggested that to ensure effective instruction, online graduate course sizes should remain small, ideally under 15 students for master’s courses and under 10 students for doctoral courses (Tomei & Nelson, Reference Tomei and Nelson2019). Such recommendations present an inherent challenge to what has historically been one of the main arguments in favor of online education: that it has the potential to be a revenue generator to a much greater extent than are on-campus programs. This raises genuine concerns about institutions’ return on investment in hosting online education versus traditional face-to-face education.
Mentoring (interaction outside of courses)
Research over the years has clearly demonstrated the important role of the faculty advisor in graduate student success, including outcomes such as student research productivity, self-efficacy, and quality of jobs that students get postgraduation (e.g., Paglis et al., Reference Paglis, Green and Bauer2006). At least some aspects of advising and mentoring could be provided online, but there has been relatively little empirical work on e-mentoring (Neely et al., Reference Neely, Cotton and Neely2017). Characteristics of e-mentoring, such as the greater opportunities for electronically mediated communication, cost effectiveness, opportunity for boundaryless structure, and greater egalitarianism may enhance the effectiveness of graduate school advising. Role modeling behaviors such as department meeting facilitator, instructor of an undergraduate course, or consultant interacting with a local client may be more difficult in e-mentoring than in face-to-face mentoring. Murphy (Reference Murphy2011) examined a different type of e-mentoring program involving master’s students and external working professionals who were alumni of the university and found that blended communication modalities (email plus a phone call or meeting face to face, for example) were more effective than purely online mentoring. This suggests that students in an online program could gain career and psychosocial benefits from external mentors.
In an online graduate program, faculty must adapt to using technology to promote learning and mentoring that are equally as effective as face-to-face versions of these programs. Formal experiences such as courses, research presentations, research advising, and facilitating interactions between students and clients in applied settings can be planned and achieved. With a purely online, asynchronous program, we suspect that some spontaneous communication could be lost, making it more difficult for students and faculty to develop lasting professional relationships. It may also be more difficult for advisors and peers to detect whether a student is struggling, having a difficult time progressing toward degree requirements, or experiencing adverse effects of stress or mental health. If classroom sizes are no longer an obstacle to larger course sizes, cohorts may grow, making it difficult for faculty to provide the one-on-one mentoring experience that is at the heart of many effective graduate programs.
Selectivity and rigor
Table 1 provides preliminary data analyzed by the Online Program Subcommittee of SIOP’s Education & Training Committee comparing face-to-face and online I-O terminal master’s programs on characteristics related to admissions criteria, and Table 2 presents on the rigor of in-program structural experiences. The data were collected through SIOP’s Graduate Training Program database, so programs needed to fill out a form to be included in the database.
Comparison of admission factors of online/hybrid and face-to-face I-O master’s programs
Note. GPA = Required grade point average. GRE = Graduate Record Exam score.
a N = 24 (18 online, 6 hybrid).
b N = 67.
Comparison of program factors of online/hybrid and face-to-face I-O master’s programs
a N = 24 (18 online, 6 hybrid).
b N = 67. Average completion time in years.
As can be seen in Table 1, admission requirements for face-to-face master’s programs are substantially higher than for online and hybrid programs. Although the average GPA of incoming cohorts is similar across delivery methods, face-to-face programs are more likely to require GRE test scores, previous research experience, previous work experience, letters of recommendations, and personal interviews. Face-to-face programs are also more selective, admitting less than half their applicants, whereas online programs admit nearly three fourths of their applicants. From the perspective of the potential graduate student, the less rigorous admissions process and increased odds of admissions are often attractive. However, for online programs that are hoping to convince employers of the quality of their degree, more selective admission criteria on the front end may generate higher quality graduates on the back end. Yet, one must also consider the extent to which stricter selectivity works against the public-good goal of facilitating availability and accessibility of educational offerings and opportunities—a central benefit of online education. This consideration is particularly relevant for state institutions, which receive public funding with the understanding that they serve a public good.
As shown in Table 2, there are differences in the structural characteristics between online and face-to-face programs; however, the differences are not as great as those shown in Table 1. Compared with on-the-ground programs, online master’s programs take about as long on average and are similarly likely to require a master’s thesis. However, online programs are less likely to require a preliminary exam and much less likely to require a supervised internship. Recall that Rechlin and Kraiger (Reference Rechlin and Kraiger2012) found that, independent of program mode, employers preferred graduates with internship experience. Thus, one way for online master’s programs to produce graduates who are more competitive with those from face-to-face programs is to take strides to provide an internship or other applied developmental experience for their students. Of the top 20 master’s programs offering substantial applied experience, only three are online or blended formats (Vodanovich et al., Reference Vodanovich, Morganson and Kass2018).
We do not have similar data for doctoral programs. Although some online programs do offer doctoral degrees, these programs tend not to be ranked highly (Howald et al., Reference Howald, Nesnidol, Horan and Matthews2018; Roman et al., Reference Roman, Barnett and Eatough2018). Mills et al. (Reference Mills, Knight, Kraiger, Mayer and LaFontana2011) suggested that it likely would be more challenging to create and manage a quality online doctoral program than a quality online master’s program because the frequency and intensity of the one-on-one student–faculty interaction that is so fundamental to doctoral-level education is more difficult and less organic in an online program than in a face-to-face one. Likewise, the fact that master’s programs are often more application oriented and less research intensive can be another factor making them more amenable to online instruction compared with doctoral programs.
Recommendations for optimizing online instruction
Underlying the perceived value of a degree from an online program is the educational experience: What are our students learning, and what is the experience like for both online students and instructors alike? Research reveals that online, hybrid, and face-to-face instruction produce roughly similar learning, depending on the nature of the learning outcome. Satisfaction with the experience likely varies by content type, quality of instruction, quality of technology, and various characteristics of both learner and instructor. Learning and teaching during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has likely either changed or solidified individuals’ prior perceptions of pedagogy and andragogy in these ways. Because online instruction is very likely to continue—if not expand—in the future and because many of our readers may be responsible for that instruction, we offer several sets of recommendations on how to optimize both online instruction and graduate education more broadly.
Effective instruction
Kraiger and Ford (Reference Kraiger and Ford2021) advise that the central purpose of instruction is to facilitate learning. Thus, effective instruction is that which best creates an environment in which learners can acquire requisite knowledge and skills. This holds equally true for online, blended, and face-to-face instruction and has been argued forcibly for decades by educational psychologist Richard Clark who declared, “media will never influence learning” (Reference Clark1994, p. 21). Clark’s point was that no instructional medium (e.g., online vs. face to face) is inherently better than another; when effective design principles are held constant, media will be equally effective. This is nicely illustrated in Sitzmann et al.’s (Reference Sitzmann, Kraiger, Stewart and Wisher2006) meta-analysis; when the researchers controlled for the presence or absence of critical educational attributes like feedback and practice, web-based and face-to-face instruction were equally effective. This suggests that the instructional methods or learning conditions are driving observed differences in the effectiveness of online and classroom instruction (Clark, Reference Clark1994).
From this perspective, designing effective online instruction is tantamount to designing effective instruction. Cognitive scientist Herb Simon was quoted as saying “Learning results from what the student does and thinks and only from what the student does and thinks. The teacher can advance learning only by influencing what the student does to learn” (cited in Ambrose et al., Reference Ambrose, Bridges, DiPietro, Lovett and Norman2010, p. 1) An in-depth discussion of the science of instruction is beyond the scope of this article. However, Kraiger and Ford (Reference Kraiger and Ford2021) characterized effective instruction as that which
(a) facilitates encoding by improving learner engagement, directing attention to key material, and drawing connections between new content and what the learners already know or need to know to perform their jobs; (b) facilitates organization by providing an overarching structure to the content, providing sufficient time for organization and consolidation to occur, and helping learners understand connections between content elements and between those elements and the work context; (and) (c) facilitates retention and retrieval by having learners practice retrieval during learning, ensuring that the content is well ingrained (over-learning), incorporating physical, functional, psychological and social fidelity between educational and performance environments, and preparing learners to generalize or adapt newly acquired knowledge or skills to novel contexts.
This holds for all forms of instruction, including online and hybrid.
Just as we advise organizations to implement evidence-based approaches to hiring, evaluating, and training their human capital, it behooves us to learn and implement best practices in the science of instruction. For interested readers, useful resources are Clark (Reference Clark2019), Halpern et al. (Reference Halpern, Graesser and Hakel2007), Mayer (Reference Mayer2008, Reference Mayer2019), and the National Research Council (2012). In the next section, we examine some of the challenges and benefits of online instruction specifically.
Effective online instruction
Although effective instructional principles may be equally important to the design of online versus face-to-face instructions, some may be more challenging to implement in virtual learning environments. Robert Gagné (Reference Gagné1965) famously wrote that the “first event” of instruction is to gain the attention of the learner. Any of us who have looked out at a classroom of students absorbed in smartphones and social media appreciate this challenge in a way that Gagné could have never imagined decades ago. The challenge of gaining students’ attention may be exacerbated when we all are reduced to a small screen and they are in nonclassroom environments that present distractions beyond electronic media. Also challenging is creating a virtual environment in which students practice the skills they are learning in the proverbial classroom, especially interpersonal ones. For example, imagine a unit on job analysis. Although many aspects of this could be taught effectively online, enabling students to practice observing and interviewing job incumbents in a purely virtual context would be more difficult. Nonetheless, this context also presents an opportunity for instructors to become more creative in their instructional toolboxes, including leaning on the community outside of the university. For example, this may present an opportunity for students to work with local organizations and community partners to allow for such practical opportunities while also strengthening community partnerships. That being said, one must also recognize the nonnegligible additional time, effort, and challenges required of instructors in order to implement this effectively and without presenting additional risk to the institution or its community partners.
It is important to recognize that there are many instructional principles that are easily implemented online. For example, the principle of adaptive difficulty states that learning is maximized when the difficulty of practice problems increases as learners master content (Kraiger & Ford, Reference Kraiger and Ford2021). Meta-analyses support this principle both in general online learning contexts (Wickens et al., Reference Wickens, Hutchins, Carolan and Cumming2013) and for medical-based simulations (Cook et al., Reference Cook, Hamstra, Brydges, Zendejas, Szostek, Wang, Erwin and Hatala2013). Similar to adaptive testing processes, online learning environments can be established so that students are given increasingly difficult tasks as they complete easier ones. As a second example, student discussion is a demonstrated effective method for increasing class engagement (Salter & Conneely, Reference Salter and Conneely2015). Research shows that student-driven discussion is often richer in asynchronous online environments than face to face (Canter et al., Reference Canter, Voytecki and Rodriguez2007). In the former, students have the opportunity to think through and compose constructive answers, have an equal opportunity to participate, and may be less dissuaded by personal characteristics (shyness, low self-efficacy) or perceived power differences that may inhibit engagement in in-person learning environments (e.g., Al-Shalchi, Reference Al-Shalchi2009; Mills & Fullagar, Reference Mills and Fullagar2017; Stern, Reference Stern2004). Discussion boards can be designed to require students not just to post but also to respond to comments posted by other students. That is, in asynchronous discussions, students have more time to reflect on others’ contributions, research the topic, and thoughtfully compose their answers. As anecdotal evidence, several years ago one of the authors taught a training and development course live to master’s students at one university, whereas identical course materials were used in an online master’s course at a different university. A comparison of the number of student comments showed that the online students produced 5 to 10 times as many comments per week as did the students in the face-to-face context.
An important insight for faculty who are teaching online for the first time is that the competencies for teaching effectively online are somewhat different from those required to be effective in the classroom. Those who have become comfortable “winging it” or “playing to the crowd” in the classroom will struggle to teach effectively online. By taking a competency approach, faculty can seek out instructional and peer support to develop as online instructors. To facilitate this, SIOP has prepared an online teaching survival guide (Wiese et al., Reference Weise, Shuffler, Sanchez, Sanders and Mendelson2020). The guide directs readers to other resources and best practices. Most universities provide instructional and technical support for online teaching and have likely increased these resources with the onset of COVID-19.
In our survey, we included an open-ended question asking respondents for “one thing (they) would do differently the next time (they) teach online graduate courses.” The most frequent type of response was encouraging more learner-to-learner and instructor-to-learner interaction. Seven respondents mentioned hoping to add more personal interactions, for example, “Better incentives for students to participate in real-time interactions with me and with one another” and “Ask students to turn their camera on … to foster community.” The second most frequent type of response was using more asynchronous discussion (five comments), for example, “Add more online, out-of-class online discussion components (e.g., discussion boards).” In summary, faculty converting to online graduate courses in the spring of 2020 saw the need to take greater steps to encourage synchronous and asynchronous human interaction in the future.
Effective online instruction requires competencies that can be learned by studying paired with iterative practice, feedback, and perseverance. The foundations for effective online instruction are identical to those of other forms of instruction, but the ease with which they are implemented may differ. In our survey, 65.7% of respondents agreed their institutions provided adequate technical support but only 42.8% agreed their training needs for online instruction were met. Respondents expressed interest in learning how to use instructional support tools such as whiteboards and breakout rooms, as well as how to create more engaging lectures.
Effective graduate programs
The COVID-19 pandemic caused most graduate programs to reexamine their instructional approaches, philosophies, and processes while facing months of online-only interaction. For example, how do we continue to provide optimal instruction, skill development, and research experiences that lead to highly qualified graduates in the wake of the fallout from the pandemic? This must be done within the context of rising expectations for online instructional quality and greater familiarity with online learning. These deliberations can be fueled by our recent collective experience moving courses and mentoring alike to virtual formats. We asked whether respondents had more favorable attitudes about online instruction and online programs following their spring semester. More favorable attitudes toward online courses were reported by 37.2%, less favorable by 28.6%. Regarding online graduate programs, 20.5% reported more favorable attitudes, 50.0% reported less favorable attitudes, and 29.4% reported their attitudes were unchanged. Thus, following a “crash course” in online course delivery, most of the respondents had attitudes either similar to or worse than prior attitudes toward online courses and programs. In open-ended responses to a question about potential advantages to online graduation, many respondents stressed the flexibility to students as an advantage and the opportunity for more out-of-class discussion. Many still expressed doubt about the widespread applicability of online graduate education, for example, “Some content graduate classes can easily make the transition; however, I still think there are some classes and mentoring [for which] going online does reduce the quality and rigor.” At both the course level and program level, institutions will be challenged to continue to improve online delivery, whereas researchers will be challenged to propose and test instructional solutions.
Throughout much of this review, we have focused on instructional components, but the quality of a graduate online program and the employability of its graduates necessitate creative strategies for developing other competencies in students. Experienced faculty in online programs may have addressed some of these issues; faculty in graduate programs moving to an online format (voluntarily or out of necessity) will need to address the broader problem of how to support students in developing the full range of competencies needed to become effective professionals. Ongoing dialog through this forum or in future SIOP committees and conferences is critical.
Practical experience
One clear need is to establish methods of gaining practical experience in organizations. These could be full internship programs or short-term consulting experiences. Internships provide students with opportunities to transfer learned skills to organizational contexts, develop new skills, and make professional connections that can serve them throughout their career. The same benefits can be gained through virtual internships, although students miss most of lessons learned from being “at work” on a regular basis. Virtual internships can provide additional benefits beyond onsite ones: students can avoid office politics, practice and develop virtual meeting skills, and demonstrate the ability to get work done without direct supervision.
Similarly, consulting projects can also be conducted virtually. The online master’s program at Colorado State University requires students to complete team-based virtual consulting projects as part of a final summer capstone course. Students write proposals, develop a work product, and communicate with the client and each other using technology. Experiences such as these can help develop the business presentation, influence and persuasion, teamwork, and practical problem-solving skills that are often lacking in graduates of I-O programs (Fink et al., Reference Fink, Guzzo, Adler, Gillespie, Konczak, Olson, Beier and Dickson2010). Further discussion and research is invaluable to determine best practices in providing practical experience to students in online programs.
Mentoring
In graduate programs, a faculty mentor serves as a guide for their protégé throughout their graduate career, often providing both professional and personal advice. In research-based programs, the mentor provides critical instruction and feedback on research and writing skills. A mentor helps protégés build a professional network that helps them both during their graduate education and as they transition into their professional lives. Online programs thus need to develop effective models of e-mentoring (Neely et al., Reference Neely, Cotton and Neely2017), giving distance students the opportunity to learn and receive both career and psychosocial support from faculty and more experienced students. It seems likely this could be achieved at the master’s level, but less is known about online doctoral education. As noted by Mills et al. (Reference Mills, Knight, Kraiger, Mayer and LaFontana2011, p. 32), “doctoral degrees require a frequent and intense one-on-one student–faculty interaction that would likely be severely compromised in an online format.” Although this is still a consideration for many reluctant converts to online pedagogy, communication technologies and capabilities have changed substantially in the decade since the Mills et al. publication. As in the case with incorporating practical experience into online education, many of the characteristics of effective mentoring (Kraiger et al., Reference Kraiger, Finkelstein and Varghese2019) can be successfully implemented into virtual relationships—for example, setting expectations, asking questions, encouraging introspection, providing advice, connecting to others. Further dialogue and research should examine differences between face-to-face and online graduate programs in how trusting and productive mentoring relationships form and the extent to which specific structural and behavioral differences between settings relate to competencies learned, student persistence, quality of student learning, and student readiness for professional work.
Program culture
Roman et al. (Reference Roman, Barnett and Eatough2018) defined program culture as the “atmosphere of the program, norms, collaborative vs. competitive.” In their survey, program culture was rated as one of the five most important criteria for evaluating graduate programs by both doctoral and master’s students. The culture of a graduate program can be represented in the spontaneous or serendipitous interactions that take place in the classroom before the lecture starts, in the computer lab, during the walk to the bus stop or parking lot, or at after-hours social events—elements that are difficult to replicate in an online setting. Experiences with peers are not only essential to mastering content and meeting deadlines; they facilitate socialization for one’s future professional career (Austin, Reference Austin2002). Anecdotally, the authors and the reader would likely agree that these informal peer interactions are some of the most valuable—and certainly memorable—aspects of graduate school. As many organizations and universities have undoubtedly learned during the COVID-19 pandemic, even if work gets done, the nature of social relationships and sense of organizational culture likely change when moving online (Prasad et al., Reference Prasad, Rao, Vaidya and Muralidhar2020). Limited research shows that although teleworking is positively related to organizational commitment, the effects are small (Golden, Reference Golden2006; Martin & MacDonnell, Reference Martin and MacDonnell2012). One significant challenge for existing online programs, new online programs, and (particularly) face-to-face programs that convert to online is how to create communication channels, a sense of support, social interactions, and rituals and routines that create a strong and positive culture.
Conclusion
“Inevitably, online degrees will be questioned for the foreseeable future, and those … offering them have a responsibility to critically consider and respond to such concerns” (Mills et al., Reference Mills, Knight, Kraiger, Mayer and LaFontana2011, p. 31). Our review suggests this statement still represents the viewpoint of many stakeholders in graduate education. Despite research evidence showing that online or hybrid courses can be as or more effective than face-to-face courses, reactions to online graduate programs by students, faculty, and employers tend to be more negative. However, considerations regarding face-to-face versus online graduate education are becoming increasingly multifaceted and relevant—and arguably have never been more so than in the COVID and post-COVID environment. Spring 2020’s forcibly rapid shift to online instruction highlighted the potential for quality online instruction at both undergraduate and graduate levels. The undeniable reality is that online education in all domains and at all levels will be more prevalent moving forward. Therefore, obvious tensions between what the market sees, what faculty want, and what we know about the quality (or potential quality) of online programs will increasingly be brought to the forefront of educational decision making.
I-O psychology as a profession and SIOP as a society have been, and will continue to be, populated by increasing numbers of graduates from online programs. In terms of the profession, through simple principles of supply and demand, more graduates entering the workforce as a result of new online graduate programs can drive down the salary employers are willing to pay. Second, to the extent that there are either real or perceived differences in the quality of education for those students, potential employers may undervalue the degree. As a society, membership growth and renewal is driven directly by new graduates and the types of programs in which they are taught. Membership growth is generally a positive trend, but the processes by which new applicants for membership are screened, our members’ needs for continuing education, and the mission and work of the Education & Training Committee may change as the pool of potential members changes. Thus, SIOP has the responsibility of becoming involved in establishing and making recommendations to educational institutions regarding appropriate and sufficient education in I-O psychology.
Ultimately, the effectiveness of online graduate programs is predicated on the quality of the instruction and the interpersonal environment surrounding instruction. One of the purported advantages of online instruction is that it is possible to decrease the cost of disseminating information. This is clearly possible by using inexpensive instructional methods (e.g., online lectures, chatrooms) to convey course content. However, many methods of producing high-quality instructional content (e.g., simulations, games, and intelligent tutoring systems) can be extremely expensive. Thus, we propose that one of the core considerations regarding the effectiveness of online graduate programs is the extent to which the school is investing time and money into developing high-quality content and delivery technology rather than using online programs to minimize resource expenditures and maximize profits. Admissions standards and program requirements such as preliminary exams and supervised internships may need to be increased in online programs. We also need to consider how online programs facilitate human interaction and how they provide effective mentoring using technology. These roadblocks will need to be resolved before we can be confident that online programs will offer a degree of quality similar to that of face-to-face programs.
The extent to which online graduate programs will be embraced by the market moving forward is yet to be seen. We have attempted to take important steps in resolving the tension and reconciling perceptions versus the empirically informed reality of online graduate education. Henceforth, it will be critical for the field to continue and extend such conversations as graduate institutions across the globe grapple with implementing online graduate programming—temporary or otherwise. Honest, difficult, and evolving conversations about best practices (and well-intentioned failures) are critical in facilitating the overall quality—and market perception—of online graduate education moving forward. We look forward to the discussion.
