Mistaking Distance Education for Domino’s Pizza

The better single mode educational institutions (the ones which focus exclusively on DE) adhere to a systems model, where the direct services of the institution are supported by planned linkages and adequate resources for the necessary types of support services (Moore and Kearsley, 2005). Of course, not all single mode institutions do this, and external accreditation and oversight will continue to be essential for high quality educational services and learning opportunities. However, this kind of integration and systems view is still beyond the practices of many dual mode institutions. I assume this is due to their reasons for initiating the DE component – were they mainly due to mission, pedagogy or finances? Pullen and Snow (2007) caution “When expanding a course to online delivery, consideration needs to be given to administrative support.” They emphasize that asynchronous DE is more not less costly than f2f, but advocate simulteaching as a cost efficient hybrid. Similarly, Bates and Poole (2003, p. 127) stress the "design, organizational, and administrative issues that result from different mixes of face-to-face and technology based teaching."

Domino’s achieved financial success by vastly expanding the revenues for a very limited fixed preparation and business space. No need to have capacity for seating, no need to have a fleet of vehicles as the drives bring their own automobiles, low rent and utilities costs, and a limited menu. It was a recipe for success, and Domino’s explosive growth shows it captured those advantages.

For administrators under growing pressure to cut costs, increase productivity and demonstrate competitive offerings, DE must seem a ready-made solution. With modest technology investments and relying on existing f2f faculty as the front line face of DE to students, it promised to be the solution to numerous fiscal and enrollment challenges (no more need to expand parking capacity!). Unfortunately, it is too often not accompanied by a reorganization of institutional resources or accountabilities beyond continuing the end of term instructor evaluations by students. Needless to say, it is an unsatisfying experience both for the instructor and for the student when DE is applied like a paste rather than integrated into the learning experiences for DE learners.


As Moore (2007, p. 181) notes: “… it should be a matter of more concern that higher education accommodates so many people in positions of influence who have no training in pedagogical theory and practice …” To be effective in practice, DE cannot be treated as just another flavor of pizza – the easy advantages disappear quickly if there isn’t fundamental integration of DE into the organization and mission of the institution. Even Domino’s has had to respond to its customers complaints.

( ).

Bates, A.W. & Poole, G. (2003). Effective Teaching with Technology in Higher Education: Foundations for Success. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Moore, M.G. (2007).Web 2.0: Does It Really Matter? The American Journal Of Distance Education, 21(4), 177–183.

Moore, M. G. & Kearsley, G. (2005). Distance Education: A Systems View. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.

Pullen, J. & Snow, C. Integrating synchronous and asynchronous internet distributed education for maximum effectiveness. Education and Information Technologies, 17(3), pp.137-148.