Nearly five years ago on October 27, 2008 Clayton Christensen and Michael Horn briefed participants at an American Enterprise Institute [AEI] meeting on “Disruptive Innovation in Education and Health Care.” Christensen and his work were well known by this Washington DC group. AEI described the meeting:
The ability of technology to “disrupt” long-established business practices–dramatically changing the landscape of industries by increasing access, cutting costs, and revolutionizing delivery–has been a subject discussed for decades and is the topic of Harvard Business School professor Clayton M. Christensen’s iconic volumes, The Innovator’s Dilemma and The Innovator’s Solution. Yet, as Christensen has observed, these radical, innovation-driven transformations have been largely absent in the education and health industries–perhaps the two most important arenas of everyday life.
At that time of the AEI briefing, Christensen and Horn’s book Disrupting Class had just been published. Subsequently, their work has been interpreted by some in the press as resolving the problems of students’ access to (in both a physical and economic sense), and success in, higher education. Christensen and Horn’s presentations and the discussion focused on “online learning”. It should be noted that data from MOOCs [Massive Open Online Courses] would not be available for three more years. Both presentations were far more nuanced than reported.
The press, governments, public and some college leaders assume their model describes what can be achieved by higher education in a few years.
Silicon Valley has enthusiastically promoted MOOCs (Massive Open Online Courses), but some universities have decided MOOCs are not effective or appropriate for their students.
In the summer of 2012, The Wall Street Journal reported 160,000 students signed up for Sebastian Thrun’s Artificial Intelligence course. The course was available as a lecture for enrolled students on the Stanford University campus and simultaneously on the Internet as a MOOC. (Later reported as over 170,000 students). Andy Kessler wrote:
Twenty-three thousand people finished the course. Of his 200 Stanford students, 30 attended lectures and the other 170 took it online. The top 410 performers on exams were online students. The first Stanford student was No.411. (That is, 0.25% of the online students did better than the best enrolled Stanford students attending the lecture).
And he quotes Mr. Thrun:
“The AI class was the first light. Online education will way exceed the best education today. And cheaper. If this works, we can rapidly accelerate the progress of society and the world. If you think Facebook’s neat, wait five to 10 years. So many open [education] problems will be solved.”
Kessler also reported: “Mr.Thrun’s cost was basically $1 per student per class.”
At the same time last year some colleges and universities had to explain why they were not participating in the MOOCs.
Many college and universities have online learning. Some believe these online pedagogies are more effective for their students. They do not say that MOOCs have no role in global learning. Most agree MOOCs can, as Thrun believes, make a major contribution to global learning, especially where there are limited educational opportunities.
If Thrun’s cost estimates are representative and if the MOOC technology is implemented throughout U.S. higher education as suggested, $138 billion per year could be saved. Universities believe there can be cost savings from online learning technologies, but not the savings promised by the most enthusiastic MOOC supporters.
Three cases show how the universities responded to last summer’s MOOC-mania (here, subscription required)—the University of Southern California, University of Oklahoma, and the “Big Ten plus one” Committee on Institutional Cooperation—by saying “no.”
As part of the transformation of teaching and learning in higher education, decisions are being made on the type and scope of online learning and whether to participate in MOOCs—a specific form of online learning.
Two papers about MOOCs and online learning have been published by Dallas-based Academic Partners, an academic support company. They deserve the attention of those in colleges and universities making those decisions. What makes these specific papers important is Sir John Daniel’s participation as author or editor. Leading the UK’s Open University from 1990 to 2001, he assembled a talented and dedicated team that had to develop learning processes adapted to the needs of non-residential students, to lead the transition into learning technologies, ensure quality, and be financially successful. Combining this background and a history of scholarship, his thorough and pragmatic approach yielded two publications that share his insight as an understandable guide for discussions with Boards, state executives and legislators, and the press and public.
Are online education and MOOC the same? Is any difference important?
MOOC – Massive Open Online Course. As currently interpreted, massive meaning hundreds of thousands of student taking the course, open meaning free for the student, and online referring to the way the course is offered over the Internet. Joshua Kim, writing in Inside Higher Education, believes there is more to online education than MOOCs. Online education includes all of the online courses colleges and universities have been offering for several decades using many different instructional technologies. Kim differentiated between the two when he commented on John Tamny’s Forbes article “Online Education Will Be the Next ‘Bubble’ To Pop, Not Traditional University Learning” (here).
Kim labeled Tamny’s work “Confused Reporting.”
When Tamny is saying that online education is the next bubble he is of course not talking about the sort of online education that any of us working in the field of designing, teaching, or supporting online courses would recognize.
Tamny is talking about MOOCs
Kim labels this misuse as conflation.
Kim’s criticism could be made of most press-release based reporting and MOOC provider presentations about online education. Because of this misunderstanding, discussion of online education between college and university boards and administration, and colleges and universities and the public and government bodies has become error-prone and counter-productive. With consequences.
The recent experience of the University of Virginia shows how this misunderstanding can lead to a confrontation between the Board and university executives. This article describes the information the Board of Visitors (BOV) had when President Sullivan “resigned” last year and subsequent actions taken by University administration and the Board the following year.
According to Forbes’ John Tamny “Online education only offers learning that the markets don’t desire, and because it does, its presumed merits are greatly oversold. There’s your ‘bubble.’” He summarizes “Going to college is a status thing, not a learning thing. Kids go to college for the experience, not for what’s taught. And that’s why there’s no ‘bubble’ forming in the university world.”
Tamny’s opinion is both different from most business analysts and important. His conclusion discourages further investment in current and potential start-up enterprises. It also presents another perspective for institutional boards and governments seeking to better understand the role of education technology.
Joshua Kim, in his Inside Higher Ed blog “Learn,” (here and here) was frustrated by Tamny’s choice of the term “online education.” Kim correctly reports online education technology is heavily used in traditional classrooms as well. Tmany’s article divided higher education between colleges and universities offering classroom instruction and firms offering online education that lack contact with peers and faculty—the typical MOOC provider (Massive Open Online Course). These are two extremes of Kim’s spectrum of the use of “online” technology. Tamny did not use the term “MOOC” itself.
Today Asahi Net International acquired the Sakai Division of rSmart. rSmart CEO Chris Coppola will join the Ashai Net International Board creating interlocking boards. The financial arrangements are not known.
rSmart is a well known contributor to Apereo Inc.’s Sakai learning management system and to the Kuali suite of administrative software applications. rSmart has enhanced, implemented, and supported Sakai. It has also implemented the Kuali Financial System for colleges and universities.
This reorganization of effort may represent the changes in higher education: The relentless promotion of online learning and demand for more productive administrative systems is being advocated as a solution to the rising cost of higher education in developed countries. (more…)
