Leadership Foundations in Global Online Education
Introduction and Context
Higher education has evolved over the past one thousand or more years depending upon the source you consult. While the origins of advanced teaching and learning go back eons to the days of Socrates and before, we have seen the most dramatic changes in the past thirty years with even more exciting changes predicted for the next decade or two. Despite the recent activity, higher education is infamous for the slow rate of change over those many, long years. We are now in a transformation from the mostly campus-based teaching and learning of the 19th and 20th century to the increasingly online distributed learning of the 1990’s until today. The advent of the World Wide Web with the release by the National Center of Supercomputing Applications at the University of Illinois of the first Web browser, Mosaic, in 1993 (Wikipedia contributors, 2026) opened the technological pathway of the internet to enhance the postal mail-based correspondence courses of prior centuries. In the past few decades, many universities began reaching out online to enroll learners in degree and certificate programs.
A pivotal point in demonstrating the potential and future of online education came in 1995 with the historic and devastating hurricane Katrina. I had the good fortune to be engaged in a remarkable effort of more than a hundred American universities with online courses and degree programs who came together under the auspices of the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation through the higher education association, the Sloan Consortium, and many federal, state and regional groups to serve student at more than twenty colleges and universities along the gulf coast who were forced to close their physical campuses due to the hurricane’s destruction. The seminal effort in utilizing online education at scale in a natural disaster is chronicled by George Lorenzo in a paper titled simply “The Sloan Semester.” (Lorenzo, 2008) Students at the affected universities were able to take classes online from other fully accredited universities who volunteered their classes and no or reduced charges so that the students could complete their classes without delays in making progress toward their degrees and certificates.
It took another disaster, the worldwide Covid pandemic that was declared in March 2020 (North American AIDS Cohort Collaboration on Research and Design [NA-ACCORD], n.d.), to motivate nearly all higher education institutions to close their campuses and move instruction online in order to reduce student and staff close exposure to others and minimize spread of the disease. That resulted in a massive overnight change in the delivery of higher learning for millions of students from in-person to online. Campuses reopened in the spring or fall of 2021. Upon re-opening, the number of online learning enrollments remained elevated compared to pre-pandemic days, and they continued to rise. Now more than half of the post-secondary students are taking at least some online classes. (National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], n.d.)
This online shift, albeit, lasting only a year for most colleges and universities, expanded exposure to the online delivery mode among both students and faculty members. While in many cases the on-campus classes were hastily transitioned to online delivery mode over spring break, 2020; the advantages and potential of this mode became apparent and favored by many. The boost in exposure caused by the pandemic is a significant factor in the steady migration we have seen from in-person to online learning.
A central factor in the importance of online learning is that from any remote point on the planet, an institution can enroll, engage, teach and advance the lives of students anywhere on Earth. This is a powerful advantage that enables large enrollments and global influence for even a small institution. Over the quarter of a century, from 1997 through 2021, I founded and led the online learning initiative at the University of Illinois Springfield (UIS). The program accrued extensive national recognition for excellence and innovation in online learning. (OpenAI, 2026) The online program accumulated more than half the credit hours generated by the university in several semesters. Many of the non-credit professional development courses are now delivered online for the convenience of access for employed learners. Certainly, UIS was not alone in growing an expansive online program generating significant tuition revenue and extending the global reputation of the institution.
Recognizing the importance of the leadership role of COLOs, a national association with which I have been affiliated for the past dozen years as a Senior Fellow, UPCEA the Online and Professional Education Association, publishes “Hallmarks of Leadership.” (UPCEA, n.d.) This publication focuses on the expanding roles and responsibilities of leaders in the field. It is updated periodically.
The evolution to global education online is rooted in the technologies that enable, for the first time in the history of humans, to effectively and efficiently provide interactive communication, collaboration and engagement of peoples worldwide across languages, cultures and geography. Collectively these technologies and their impact on societies are called the Fourth Industrial Revolution. (Schwab, 2016) It is in this context that we examine online global education.
Online Learning Rise in Importance and Influence in College and University Administration
As a result of the increasing enrollments in online learning delivered degrees, certificates, programs and courses, the position title of Chief Online Learning Officer (COLO) was created to give the leaders a position of influence at their institutions. Influence and importance within the university administration historically has been determined most often by the number of enrollments and the generation of revenue, often tuition and fee revenue, that is so important in ensuring financial stability and success of the institution. Prior to the Covid Pandemic, many institutions put online programs under the supervision and leadership of persons carrying the title of “director.” Such was the case with my own career in which I was named Director of the Office of Technology-Enhanced Learning (OTEL) in 1997. However, as online programs and resulting enrollments increased greater responsibility and authority accrued to the leaders. That was the case with my position at the University of Illinois Springfield, in 2013 I was given the title Associate Vice Chancellor for Online and a seat on the Provost’s Academic Cabinet of Deans. From that position, I and others in analogous positions were able to exercise leadership university-wide as well as influence among other colleges and universities through research, publication and professional affiliations. Often, we find that the COLO coordinates with the Chief Information Officer (CIO) in advocating the technologies that are powering the global reach of universities – most notably the internet and Artificial Intelligence. It is the positioning within the administrative structure and the “seat at the table” of decision makers that opened the door to leadership opportunities for the administrators of online programs.
We are amid the Fourth Industrial Revolution (Schwab, 2016). The experience of online leaders in leveraging technology to reach and create interactive online academic engagement for students at a distance also puts COLOs in a position of technology leadership. The transformation of higher education in this era began with the rise of the internet and online education. Now, nearly all of the Learning Management Systems (LMSs) use artificial intelligence (AI) as a key component in the delivery of online learning. Further, AI’s rapid expansion has begun to permeate the development, delivery, and assessment of classes and related academic experiences. COLOs must keep up to date on the latest applications of AI across the higher education and related fields. They must become AI experts for their universities. De facto, at many institutions, the COLO is the administrator on the Academic Cabinet to whom peer leaders turn for insight, advice and recommendations regarding next steps in the AI transformation of the university. Operationally, the COLOs help create consensus among the deans and other administrators on the institutional use, protections, and policies of the application of AI in the teaching and learning process.
Leadership from Faculty
When AI emerged in the form of GPT-3.5 in November of 2022, a minor revolt was ignited in higher education. Very quickly, students learned that they could utilize the technology to write credible research papers and respond to many college-level assignments in classes using traditional pedagogies of the time. Students submitted the work without giving credit to the AI system they used. In response, companies such as Turnitin, Grammarly, and other academic software support companies released “AI-checkers” to support faculty review of student submissions to identify instances of using the technology to circumvent the actual research and writing that was expected to be done by the student. However, these were shown to give less than perfect results, providing false positive results. (Chechitelli, 2023) As a result some students were falsely charged with violating academic integrity policies, a charge that could ruin an innocent student’s future career potential.
Rather than applying inconsistent and untested technologies to try to diagnose the use of AI, the better approach is to adapt the delivery and assessment modes of learning to the available technologies. Instead of a “gotcha” technological approach, increasingly faculty members sought to adapt to the use of AI in the career context of the workplace where the learner will ultimately apply their skills. This adaptation required changes in the approaches to teaching and evaluation. Instead of teaching facts and information, which are instantly available via the internet, faculty have begun to emphasize critical and creative thinking in the context of their disciplines as the most useful skills sought by employers today.
Leading from the middle, in this case from the faculty rather than administrators, has been most prominently displayed in the instance of academic integrity in the AI use in assessment of student work. Faculty members have risen to the occasion, as they did with programmable calculators and ghost writers of the past in higher education. It was the faculty members who led the move to revise their courses, and particularly their choice of assessment modes, to embrace this technology that clearly is becoming integrated into the workplace and embraced as a tool of efficiency and accuracy.
While administrators welcomed online learning for the added enrollments and revenue, it was the faculty innovators, at some universities dubbed “faculty champions,” who led to the acceptance of internet-based learning as a credible mode of learning delivery and a sandbox for enhancing workplace skills. The outreach via online was credited by faculty with enhancing diversity and welcomed for bringing broader perspectives to class meetings, thereby enriching discussions. Yet not all faculty members have supported these initiatives. Some sought the more comfortable, unchanging role of faculty of prior centuries, acting within the silos of their own learning, even if that is untouched by technologies. That model lacked providing students with current perspectives, experiences, and relevant preparation for the contemporary workplace. The percentage of such professors who have not changed with technologies, practices, and perspectives are dwindling every year.
Leadership from Staff
The staff members associated with supporting the development and delivery of online classes play a key role in influencing administrators and faculty to adopt the ever-improving technologies and increasingly closer ties to the current workplace practices. A unique relationship exists between and among the support staff who serve in the roles of instructional designers, course developers, and media specialists with the faculty whose courses they help produce. In their unique roles, these staff members are positioned to explain the evolving pedagogies, technologies and practices that are reforming higher education today into a much more student-centric and relevant field.
It is ironic that the faculty member, whose role has been at the center of the university for hundreds of years, today is not expected to have accomplished deep learning in pedagogy, the art, science and practice of teaching. Rather, faculty are required to have accomplished deep learning in the subject matter. Yet, without strong skills in the process and practice of exchanging information, cultivating engagement, and encouraging creative and critical thinking, the faculty member is unlikely to excel in service to the student. However, the support staff members are most commonly schooled deeply in these practices. Many engage in continuing professional education to ensure their skills and knowledge are up to date.
To those advocates of online learning, staff members rather than faculty or administrators are often considered the heroes of online distance learning. They tirelessly meet with faculty to explain the new and emerging technologies, the ways in which studies have shown that students can best be engaged at a distance, and opportunities to improve learning outcomes through effective course design.
Leadership from Students
Writing as a professor emeritus who held faculty status for half a century on a couple of the campuses of the University of Illinois, I have observed significant changes in the way in which we have approached learning since the development of the internet. Often times, we were described as the “sage on the stage” speaking at students in lecture formats. With the advent of the World Wide Web in 1993, a notable shift in pedagogical emphasis took place. The learner moved from a position of a mere consumer of the wisdom spooned out by a professor to one of engaging and interacting with peers around the world as well as the faculty member.
Student-centered learning, which certainly seems logical and appropriate today was significantly advanced by learning management systems (LMSs) that created the technological framework for online learning. The structure reinforced sound pedagogy that had been validated in study after study. Putting the student at the center of the learning process enabled students to provide leadership in their classes and with their faculty members in advocating for best practices in teaching and learning. The emphasis on student engagement, process facilitation and interactive learning breathed new life into teaching practices that in far too many cases had grown dull and stale over the decades.
From my perspective of administering during the first quarter century of online learning, it was fascinating to see how this upstart approach influenced all higher education to be more responsive to students. It was a classic example of Clayton Christensen’s Disruptive Innovation Theory. “Disruptive Innovation describes a process by which a product or service takes root in simple applications at the bottom of the market—typically by being less expensive and more accessible—and then relentlessly moves upmarket, eventually displacing established competitors.” (Christensen Institute, n.d.) Christensen, himself, pointed to online learning as one of the key examples of his theory toward the end of his career.
The students, themselves, took the lead in insisting that on-campus classes also utilize online LMS technologies. This pervasive change took place because of student leadership in each department and college. The students recognized the superior pedagogy and the efficiency of conducting classes utilizing learning management systems.
Leadership Impact and Importance
We can see that online learning has changed the face and practice of higher education over the past thirty years. It has advanced the classroom from the campus to a worldwide forum; infused technology from the venerable blackboard to the World Wide Web; moved the learning mode from one-way lecturing to engaging interaction; and opened the process from a single stuffy classroom to an endless worldwide venue. Cross-cultural sharing – both synchronous and asynchronous – have been facilitated in higher education at a scale not previously approached through use of the internet. Geographical exchanges have proliferated within and among disciplines, fostering wisdom exchange across cultures. Higher education has been vastly enriched by the open online engagement among professors, students, and staff around the world. The leadership that has guided this cross-cultural renaissance is global online learning.
Now, we see another technology, AI, which inherently is delivered primarily online, taking a lead role in teaching today. This has not happened without leadership. Leadership from visionary administrators was a lynchpin in the process. Yet, it didn’t stop there. Leadership from innovative and inspired faculty members created exemplars and encouraged colleagues to join in the innovation. Uniquely, college staff members stepped up to lead and teach the faculty members how to best employ the technologies and to apply new practices to advance their classes. Students stepped up to insist that these changes be made to improve the quality of their own learning process. It was a monumental advancement for the entire industry of higher education. We are not yet done; the next decade promises even further change.
The Next Decade
I had planned to close our journey with a look ahead to the next half century. However, I have realized that is reaching too far. That may have been possible in the 1950s to the 1980s, but not now. A decade is a very long predictive reach today. Our digital technologies, and the practices that they will advance, have now reached the near-vertical part of the exponential curve of change. As Nathan Eddy writes in EdTech Magazine, “Research from EDUCAUSE shows institutions are increasingly prioritizing data modernization to improve operational efficiency, student success, decision support and institutional research, while Deloitte’s 2026 Higher Education Trends report identifies data integration and responsible AI adoption as critical priorities for improving decision-making and student success.” (Eddy, 2026) With AI will come a whole host of new approaches to learning.
While AI technologies are still in their nascent stage, we can clearly see more sophisticated implementations that will continue to advance teaching and learning. One example that is most likely to make a huge difference at many colleges, universities and learning providers is AI driven Adaptive Learning. As Coursera describes “The personalized approach that adaptive learning platforms provide can increase retention, engagement, and overall performance. The technology may also provide improved access and promote greater equity in education by offering cost-effective options with positive overall outcomes.” (Coursera Staff, 2026)
AI based Adaptive or Mastery learning promises to solve one of the greatest frustrations I felt every single semester that I taught. Faculty were expected to teach students from a variety of backgrounds to meet the learning outcomes of the class. We were given an A to F scale on which to grade them. Built into that system is the premise that some, perhaps many of the students, would not truly master the content. That is because we operate on a “calendar-based” system in our culture. All students are expected to complete the learning expectations of the class in 18 weeks (or whatever is set by the college). Yet, in some classes I had students who could get an A on the final exam on the very first day of the class; others, because of lack of prior learning, disabilities, or other factors were not capable of reaching that level of knowledge by the end of the semester. To overcome this disparity, we need a virtual revolution in the way we approach and deliver learning. AI may provide us the method to create this revolution!
Mastery learning takes a different approach – one that I believe is vastly superior. That is that each student is to master the class content, not at a B, C, or D level, but to truly master all of the learning objectives of the class. So, students attend classes online or in-person, complete readings, and any other exercises. They are given formative assessments on a frequent (perhaps weekly) basis. In each assessment, AI responds to each question they answer providing reinforcement, or, in the case of a wrong answer, AI identifies precisely what misunderstanding, or incomplete understanding caused the wrong answer to be chosen. A reading or tutoring session is scheduled by AI to help the student understand that concept. If more than one wrong answer is given, the student is re-assessed after completing the AI assigned learning. The process continues until the student achieves a 90% or above assessment on the topic for that week.
This process may take more than 18 weeks for some students enrolled in a course, but it ensures that all students achieve at a mastery (90%) level rather than some students achieving at a lower level. Since much of the learning we do today is scaffolded upon prior learning, this helps ensure that all students master the outcomes for every class to more smoothly advance in their academic career.
Imagine that all students completed every class having accomplished an A-level mastery of the designated learning outcomes, rather than an inconsistent and incomplete understanding of the material! How much better would their careers and our world be?
References
Chechitelli, A. (2023, March 16). Understanding false positives within our AI writing detection capabilities. Turnitin. https://www.turnitin.com/blog/understanding-false-positives-within-our-ai-writing-detection-capabilities
Christensen Institute. (n.d.). Disruptive innovation theory. https://www.christenseninstitute.org/theory/disruptive-innovation/
Coursera Staff. (2025, November 11). Adaptive learning platforms: How AI powers personalized education. Coursera. https://www.coursera.org/articles/adaptive-learning-platforms
Eddy, N. (2026, July 10). Future-ready strategies for technology leaders in higher education. EdTech Magazine. https://edtechmagazine.com/higher/article/2026/07/future-ready-strategies-technology-leaders-higher-education
Lorenzo, G. (2008). The Sloan Semester. Online Learning, 12(2). https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v12i2.1693
National Center for Education Statistics. (n.d.). Distance learning. U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=80
North American AIDS Cohort Collaboration on Research and Design. (n.d.). Timeline of COVID-19 in the US and Canada. Retrieved July 24, 2026, from https://naaccord.org/covid-19-timeline
OpenAI. (2026, July 23). Individual Leaders / UIS online learning program / COLRS / ION awards [Large language model transcript]. ChatGPT. https://chatgpt.com/share/6a482d43-2f64-83ea-9dfd-7fe810b068a9
Schwab, K. (2016, January 14). The Fourth Industrial Revolution: What it means and how to respond. World Economic Forum. https://www.weforum.org/stories/2016/01/the-fourth-industrial-revolution-what-it-means-and-how-to-respond/
The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica. (n.d.). Fourth Industrial Revolution. In Encyclopaedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/event/The-Fourth-Industrial-Revolution-2119734
Turnitin. (2023). Understanding false positives within our AI writing detection capabilities. https://www.turnitin.com/blog/understanding-false-positives-within-our-ai-writing-detection-capabilities
UPCEA. (n.d.). UPCEA hallmarks of excellence in online leadership. https://upcea.edu/resources/hallmarks-online/
Wikipedia contributors. (2026, July 22). NCSA Mosaic. In Wikipedia. Retrieved July 24, 2026, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NCSA_Mosaic