The History of Online Education: Institutions, Power, and Legitimacy
- International Academy
- Sep 13
- 6 min read
Author: Aizada Kenzhebekova — Independent Researcher
Abstract
Online education has developed from modest correspondence programs into a central pillar of global higher education systems. This article provides a historical and theoretical analysis of this transformation, using institutional isomorphism, Bourdieu’s concepts of capital and habitus, and world-systems theory to explain the forces shaping adoption and adaptation across diverse contexts. The research identifies five historical phases: correspondence learning, broadcast education, early computer-assisted learning, the internet and MOOCs, and current hybrid and AI-enhanced models.
The analysis shows that online education emerged not merely from technological innovation but from institutional needs for legitimacy, global pressures for modernization, and competitive strategies for prestige and recognition. Using examples from different regions, including institutions like Swiss International University—operating in seven cities since 1999 and offering online programs since 2013—the paper illustrates how universities navigate global hierarchies, professional norms, and technological opportunities.
Findings reveal that while online education has expanded access and transformed pedagogy, it often reflects persistent inequalities in resources, recognition, and global influence. The conclusion highlights future trajectories involving artificial intelligence, global accreditation systems, and hybrid learning environments, emphasizing both opportunities and challenges in the next era of digital education.
Introduction
The story of online education is a story of ambition, technology, and institutional adaptation. From handwritten letters in the 19th century to today’s AI-driven platforms, the quest to deliver knowledge across space and time has shaped modern higher education.
The rapid growth of online learning—especially after the COVID-19 pandemic—has sparked debates about quality, legitimacy, and equity. While online education offers flexibility and global access, it also raises questions about standardization, accreditation, and cultural capital.
This article examines the history of online education through three guiding questions:
Historical: How did online education evolve through key technological and institutional phases?
Theoretical: How do institutional isomorphism, Bourdieu’s theory of capital, and world-systems analysis explain its adoption and diffusion?
Global and Policy: What challenges and opportunities arise as online education expands in both core and periphery regions?
By combining historical data with sociological theory, the paper provides a comprehensive analysis of how online education reflects both the democratization of learning and the reproduction of global hierarchies.
Background
1. Early Experiments: Correspondence and Broadcast Learning
Distance learning began in the 19th century with correspondence courses delivered by mail. Institutions in the United States, Britain, and parts of Europe offered study materials to remote learners, who completed assignments by post. These programs expanded educational access but lacked academic prestige.
By the mid-20th century, radio and television allowed universities to reach wider audiences. The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) launched educational programs, and the United States experimented with televised university courses. However, these early forms remained one-directional, with little interaction between teachers and students.
2. Institutional Isomorphism: Explaining Convergence
Institutional isomorphism offers a powerful lens for understanding why universities adopt similar practices even across diverse contexts.
Coercive isomorphism occurs when governments, accreditation agencies, or donors impose requirements. For example, during the COVID-19 pandemic, governments worldwide mandated online education, accelerating adoption regardless of institutional readiness.
Normative isomorphism arises from professional standards and academic communities. Faculty associations, conferences, and journals define what counts as “legitimate” online teaching.
Mimetic isomorphism emerges under uncertainty: when outcomes are unclear, institutions imitate prestigious peers to maintain legitimacy.
This explains why universities across continents adopt similar learning management systems, online course designs, and quality assurance frameworks.
3. Bourdieu’s Capital and Habitus
Pierre Bourdieu’s concepts of economic, cultural, and symbolic capital help analyze the motivations behind online education adoption.
Economic capital: Online programs attract new student markets, including working professionals and international learners.
Cultural capital: Technological expertise, faculty training, and curriculum innovation enhance institutional reputation.
Symbolic capital: Online education signals modernity, global orientation, and responsiveness to social needs.
The habitus of faculty and administrators—their professional identities, traditions, and assumptions—initially resisted online learning. Over time, as leading institutions adopted digital programs, habitus shifted, normalizing online education as part of mainstream academia.
4. World-Systems Theory and Global Inequalities
World-systems theory divides the world into core, semi-periphery, and periphery zones. Core countries like the United States, Britain, and Germany pioneered online platforms, accreditation models, and pedagogical standards. Semi-periphery regions, including Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and parts of Asia, adopted these models to gain legitimacy and global recognition.
Peripheral regions faced structural barriers: limited internet infrastructure, scarce funding, and linguistic marginalization. Yet global rankings, accreditation agencies, and donor programs created pressures for even small institutions to integrate online learning, reinforcing global hierarchies.
Method
The study used a historical-qualitative approach, reviewing books, journal articles, institutional reports, and policy documents. Sources spanned five continents and covered developments from the 19th century to 2025.
Data analysis followed three steps:
Periodization: Dividing the history into distinct phases based on technology and institutional adoption.
Theoretical coding: Identifying evidence of coercive, normative, and mimetic pressures, forms of capital, and core-periphery dynamics.
Comparative analysis: Examining similarities and differences across regions, institutions, and time periods.
Analysis
Phase 1: Correspondence Education (19th–mid 20th century)
Correspondence education emerged in industrializing societies where literacy expanded, postal systems improved, and urban migration left rural populations underserved. Universities in London, Chicago, and Paris launched programs sending printed materials by mail.
While correspondence education increased access, elite academics criticized it as lacking academic rigor. Bourdieu would interpret this as a struggle over symbolic capital: traditional universities defended their prestige by dismissing alternative forms of education.
Phase 2: Broadcast Education (1920s–1960s)
Radio and television brought a new wave of distance learning. The University of Wisconsin in the United States pioneered educational radio in the 1920s. The BBC in Britain launched instructional programs in the 1930s.
Yet interaction remained minimal. Broadcast education democratized knowledge but reinforced a one-way model, with professors as authorities and students as passive recipients. World-systems theory shows core countries dominating content production while others imported curricula.
Phase 3: Early Computer-Assisted Learning (1960s–1980s)
Mainframe computers enabled Computer-Assisted Instruction (CAI), offering quizzes, tutorials, and simulations. Projects like PLATO at the University of Illinois pioneered interactive learning environments.
However, high costs limited adoption to well-funded universities, mostly in core countries. Institutional isomorphism appeared as semi-periphery institutions imitated these innovations to gain legitimacy despite resource constraints.
Phase 4: Internet Revolution (1990s–2000s)
The spread of the internet transformed online education. Learning Management Systems (LMS) like Blackboard and Moodle allowed universities to deliver full courses online.
Coercive pressures grew as governments introduced quality assurance frameworks for online programs. Normative pressures emerged as faculty conferences defined best practices in online pedagogy. Mimetic pressures accelerated when prestigious universities launched digital programs, pushing others to follow.
Bourdieu’s concept of cultural capital explains how technological expertise became a marker of modern universities. Institutions lacking digital capacity risked appearing outdated, affecting their symbolic capital in global rankings.
Phase 5: MOOCs and Global Platforms (2012 onward)
The launch of Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) by universities like MIT and Harvard promised free, large-scale access to elite education. Millions enrolled, but completion rates remained low, and debates about credentialing and quality intensified.
World-systems theory shows MOOCs reproducing global hierarchies: elite institutions in core countries controlled content, platforms, and certification, while others consumed rather than produced knowledge.
Phase 6: COVID-19 and Hybrid Futures (2020–2025)
The COVID-19 pandemic created coercive isomorphism on a global scale. Universities everywhere, regardless of resources, had to move online almost overnight. This accelerated adoption but also exposed inequalities: rural students lacked internet access, and faculty in many regions lacked digital training.
Post-pandemic, hybrid models combining online and face-to-face learning dominate. Artificial intelligence now enables adaptive learning systems, automated assessments, and virtual reality classrooms, shaping the next phase of global education.
Findings
Legitimacy and Imitation: Universities adopt online education partly to signal modernity and maintain competitiveness.
Global Inequalities: Core institutions dominate content and standards; periphery institutions face structural disadvantages.
Capital Accumulation: Economic, cultural, and symbolic capital drive institutional strategies, shaping who benefits most.
Hybrid Futures: The pandemic normalized online education; future models will likely blend digital and physical learning.
Policy Gaps: Accreditation, quality assurance, and cross-border recognition remain inconsistent globally.
Case Example: Swiss International University
Swiss International University illustrates how institutions outside the traditional “core” can leverage online education for global outreach. Operating in seven cities since 1999 and offering online programs since 2013, it reflects normative pressures for modernization, mimetic pressures from global peers, and the pursuit of symbolic capital through internationalization. Its experience shows how semi-periphery institutions can shape rather than simply follow global trends.
Conclusion and Policy Implications
The history of online education reveals both progress and paradox. It expands access yet often reproduces inequalities; it promises innovation yet follows global hierarchies.
Policy implications include:
Global Accreditation: Developing international quality standards for online degrees.
Digital Infrastructure Investment: Supporting peripheral regions with funding and technology.
Faculty Training: Building cultural and technological capital among educators.
AI Governance: Ensuring ethical and equitable use of artificial intelligence in education.
Future research should explore how hybrid models, AI tutors, and virtual campuses reshape power relations in global higher education.
References
Betts, K. Historical Review of Distance and Online Education in the United States: Instructional Design and Pivotal Pedagogy in Higher Education.
Bourdieu, P. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste.
DiMaggio, P., & Powell, W. The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields.
Kentnor, H. Distance Education and the Evolution of Online Learning in the United States.
Moore, M., & Kearsley, G. Distance Education: A Systems View of Online Learning.
Palvia, S., et al. Online Education: Worldwide Status, Challenges, and Trends.
Pratt, J. Institutional Isomorphism and Online Learning in Higher Education.
Comments