LYONS REFLECTIVE JOURNAL
OMDE 606 explores the economics of distance education and e-learning. The course examines
the human capital theory, provides a detailed analysis of cost factors, and cost effectiveness.
The Economic Problem with Online Learner
Support Systems
There is a plethora of scholarly articles available on the Internet espousing the benefits of a
comprehensive online learner support system designed specifically to meet the unique needs of
online learners. We read several articles discussing the merits of retention and graduation versus
the higher costs of dropouts and having to recruit replacements. In this module we even
examined the demographics of dropouts to determine common factors among dropouts. Taken
into a different perspective we can then figure out the demographics of those most likely to
succeed. So, why don’t we provide support systems to counteract the dropouts? One answer is
may be the cost factor.
We discussed the need to be proactive when developing online learner support programs
(Simpson, 2010). Take the case of the University of California (UC) Online Education Project
Plan. According to the plan, UC plans to implement online programs into its existing traditional
architecture and the project will take two years to reach its initial goal of 40 courses (UCSB,
2011). The document discusses funding, course development, marketing, and student services. In
theory the plan appears sound. However, the reality is that most likely some component of the
scheme will be compromised due to funding, staffing, or timing issues. Prioritizing the project
components may result in compromising learner support. After all, the course development,
marketing, faculty recruitment, and technology may be considered primary elements; while
learner support services may be considered secondary; or, something that can be furthered
developed over time. The institution’s primary considerations to keep the project in scope may
be to get the programs up and running and get the students on-board. Retention and graduation
are not at the forefront of anyone’s mind at this stage. Indeed UC’s project plan does not mention
its plans for addressing retention issues and only mentions learner support as a line item in the
project to begin in the second year of the project (UCSB, 2011). Brigham (2001) points out that
converting existing student support services often cost more time and money than anticipated.
Online learners should be able to access the resources they need via the Internet at any time. At
the very least, advising support and customer service should be available after 5 pm. In addition,
institutions need to have infrastructure and skilled staff to maintain systems and perform
upgrades as needed. The institution needs to allow for assessment and some model for measuring
success. A well-developed online program must provide resources for the development,
implementation, maintenance, and assessment of online learner support services. Moreover, a
project may be more successful if the institution researches successes and failures. The
underlying principle is that it is more cost-effective to retain and graduate students than to recruit
for replacing dropouts (Simpson, 2010).
LYONS REFLECTIVE JOURNAL
References:
Brigham, D.E. (2001). Regents College: Converting student support services to online delivery.
The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 1(2). Retrieved from
http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/23/365
Simpson, O. (2010). 20% can we do better? Retrieved from
https://senate.ucsb.edu/Issues/Online%20Education%20Pilot%20Project.pdf
University of California. (2011). Project plan. UC online education. Retrieved from
https://senate.ucsb.edu/Issues/Online%20Education%20Pilot%20Project.pdf
Barriers to Globalization of Online
Education
One of the primary objectives of online education is to make education accessible to all people.
Earlier class discussions identified this as a benefit to expanding education and online education
is an excellent vehicle for attaining the goal. In theory, the concept of global higher education
sounds doable, especially using the Internet. However, there are many challenges for
globalization. Some countries may not possess the minimum hardware and software capabilities
needed for access; language barriers; and establishing academic standards and a standard for
accreditation.
Bold, Chenoweth, and Garimella (2008) use Brazil, Russia, India, and China (BRIC countries) as
the model for their research. Bold, Chenoweth, and Garimella (2008) suggest countries with
viable networks and infrastructure extend their capabilities across borders to those countries
which lack the necessary tools; in a sense – a type of exportation. While this sounds like a
possibility, my concern would be security and the maintenance of a global network that runs on
the same “line”. Consider a smaller scale, Comcast’s network. Comcast is fairly large, but to
troubleshoot and secure their small network (in comparison to a global network) is barely
manageable. I have a hard time envisioning BRIC, European, American, and Asian countries all
on the same network!
Thinking about a universal system of higher education raises concerns about the administration
and management of larger institutions. True, economies of scale can be achieved as enrollments
increase. But, take the current state of my institution. We have grown from 15,000 students to
22,000 students, but the staff has not increased. At some point with increasing enrollments, the
support has to increase as well in order to accommodate the growing student population. This
support includes all student support services as well as the staff who process transactions such as
billing, procurement, information services, etc. Morris (2008) warns against economies of scale
that backfire. For example, designing programs that require end users to supply expensive
LYONS REFLECTIVE JOURNAL
equipment, print out materials, and complex networks really only shift the cost burden to the end
users. This distorts the true costs of the programs.
Finally, there is the quality issue. Mostly everyone is familiar with diploma mills; organizations
that crank out diplomas that are basically useless. These companies prey on naïve customers and
they are not accredited by regionally recognized accrediting agencies. But, I hadn’t really
considered brokers until I read Hämäläinen, Whinston, and Vishik (1996). Although the article is
somewhat dated, I understand the concept described where users submit their interests and
requirements and the broker provides a customized learning program. Users in this case (it seems
to me) would be universities and companies searching for educational and course components to
build their course offerings. I can’t imagine the labor involved in maintaining a vast warehouse
of subject materials; not to mention the effort involved in cataloging, keeping the content up to
date, and the programming to match relevant results to the input. It will be interesting to see
where this initiative leads. Google could probably do it!
References:
Bold, M., Chenoweth, L., and Garimella, N.K. (2008). Brics and clicks. Journal of Asynchronous
Learning Networks, 12(1), 5-25.
Hämäläinen, M., Whinston, A.B., and Vishik, S. (1996). Electronic markets for learning:
Education brokerages on the Internet. Communications of the ACM, 39(6), 51-58.
Morris, D. (2008). Economies of scale and scope in e-learning. Studies in Higher Education,
33(3), 331-343.
Is the Library Worth the Cost?
In Module 5 we examined the economic value of consolidating and sharing resources among
institutions. Partnerships, consortiums, and collaborative programs are excellent models for sharing
resources, skill sets, and innovative ideas. Moreover, institutions which participate in these types of
alliances not only enjoy the support of other members, they also enjoy the potential to expand their
markets. The University System of Maryland (USM) employs the Library Information Management
System (LIMS) as its integrated system for managing research materials. At Towson University the
2012 library operating budget is over $2.5 million dollars (Towson University, 2012). In my work at
Towson University I know that the library operations are also subsidized by the central budget. The
annual bill for the LIMS subscription is approximately $1 million dollars. This is just Towson’s
portion of the bill. I suspect that the research institutions such as the College Park campus and the
online institution, UMUC, pay higher costs. Considering there are twelve institutions in the USM,
that amounts to over $12 million per year in subscriptions. It is true that the partnership afforded by
membership in the USM allows individual institutions access to resources it would not otherwise be
able to fund without substantially raising tuition and fees. How do private institutions afford these
services? As an aside, about 50% of my search results in UMUC’s library database are items that are
not readily available. Some documents require a subscription to the journal and some that are not
LYONS REFLECTIVE JOURNAL
available online through the UMUC database can be retrieved through a basic Google search. If we
can retrieve documents through Google, what services are we purchasing through the LIMS?
Starratt and Armstrong (2011) argue for a global digital library. I love the title of their article: “The
Higher Education Library: What Will $2 Billion Buy?”! First, let’s consider the profits made from
subscription revenues. One article can cost up to $30 to purchase (Starratt & Armstrong, 2011).
Furthermore, Starratt and Armstrong (2011) state that the costs for purchasing articles are rising, but
universities across the nation purchase the same access. Wow, that seems terribly inefficient; but, I’m
sure the providers love the revenues and profits. It seems to me that this is an unethical exploitation
of public and private funds. With a global digital library, Starratt and Armstrong (2011) state:
No longer would students and scholars be at the mercy of the false construct of the academic
publishing economy and underfunded library materials budgets in order to advance learning and
research (Starratt and Armstrong, 2011, p.582).
What about open access to research? I assisted my daughter with her biology and chemistry research
and was amazed at the restricted access to scientific research articles. Even the library databases at
UMUC and Towson University could not access these articles. Again, what exactly are we paying for
with our millions of LIMS dollars? Movement towards open access already exists, but it will be
difficult to attain. However, according to Starratt and Armstrong (2011), grantors now mandate in
their contracts that institutions must provide a method for archiving research results and making them
freely available to the public. If passed, The Federal Research Public Access Act (FRPAA) would
require every government agency with a research budget of at least $100 million to make their
research articles freely available to the public within six months of publication (Starratt and
Armstrong, 2011). Starratt and Armstrong (2011) provide examples of how institutions process
information in order to comply with this directive. For example, at MIT research articles are forward
to the provost office and the provost office takes care of publication (Starratt & Armstrong, 2011).
This relieves the burden on the individual department and provides some consistency throughout the
institution, making it easier to prove compliance.
Finally, with a global digital library and open access, what will happen to all those staff members
throughout the universities whose job it is to manage the library’s database? If we create a global
digital library, we would increase collaboration among the institutions, increase access, provide a
broader range of research materials, reduce redundancy and wasted salaries and benefits, and redirect these available resources to other areas.
References:
Starratt, J., and Armstrong, K. (2011). The higher education library: What will $2 billion buy?
Journal of Library Administration, 51,(580-594). doi: 10.1080/01930826.2011.589357
University, (2012). 2012 Operating budget and plan. Retrieved from
http://www.towson.edu/adminfinance/fiscalplanning/budgetoffice/documents/2012_BudgetBook.pdf
LYONS REFLECTIVE JOURNAL
Interaction in Online Education – Taming the
Monster
In Module 4 we discuss mass media, its impact and costs. The readings by Thalheimer and
Ainsworth bring interesting arguments into what we’ve learned thus far on interaction.
Thalheimer (2002) contends that interactivity is overrated and can lead to distraction. Moreover,
the tendency to fulfill an interaction requirement results in trivial, irrelevant discourse
(Thalheimer, 2002). Ainsworth (n.d.) questions whether interaction is really necessary in
distance education. Ainsworth (n.d.) is not convinced that students like interacting with each
other. Furthermore, student-instructor interaction is primarily limited to resolving housekeeping
issues, such as questions related to assignment requirements (Ainsworth, n.d.).
Could these viewpoints turn the online learning upside down? Or, is there a solution to taming
the interaction monster? Consider the first question. Both Thalheimer (2002) and Ainsworth
(n.d.) present compelling arguments that interaction is out of control. However, using the
Internet as a tool for disseminating and gathering information is very inexpensive when
compared to manual tools such as videos, printed material, and audio cassettes. Perhaps the
problem is that everyone jumped on the Internet bandwagon (Thalheimer, 2002) and no one has
really taken a good look at reality. We need to keep in mind the economics as well as the quality
of teaching and learning. We need to find the middle ground. Do instructors know how much
time a student spends weeding through unreliable information on the Internet to complete a
research paper? Do students appreciate the time and effort instructors put into preparing and
presenting an online course? Not to mention the 24/7 availability the instructor is now committed
to thanks to global accessibility. Is all of this really necessary; or, could we set limits?
Consider the dreaded group projects. I’ve been lucky to witness evolution in the group project
environment. Perhaps ten years ago or so my groups communicated in the Study Group area of
WebTycho. Period. Today they want emails and wikis in addition to the Study Group. Really?!
Why on earth does anyone want to be connected 24/7 to a study group? What’s wrong with the
delivered environment? We are letting the available technology dictate our process instead of the
other way around.
“The mistake of academia is to attempt to make what is an informational environment into an
instructional environment, to turn the Internet on its end and attempt to use it to control the user,
the student” (Ainsworth, n.d.). Unfortunately, I now see a trend where members post irrelevant
information that distracts from the focus of the project. I’m reminded of the old saying about the
plane that keeps circling the barn. What would happen if learners couldn’t find the answer on the
Internet? In disciplines like economics or chemistry, learning involves some time with a pencil
and paper figuring out calculations and balancing equations. It isn’t as simple as typing a
question into Google.
Let’s look at taming the interactive monster. How about choices and limits? For example, we
could have the option of a group project or working in pairs. Often group projects are really not
group projects; but more like individual assignments that have to be split among five or six
LYONS REFLECTIVE JOURNAL
members. Perhaps, instructors could close the course for a period of time to allow (force)
students (and instructors!) to go out and play.
So, what does this have to do with economics and mass media? At the beginning of our course
we discussed human capital and some advantages of education. One advantage of education (and
particularly online learning) is the exposure to information that an individual would not
otherwise enjoy. Online learning has certainly opened up many doors for exploring a wealth of
information at a very low cost, both to the provider and to the learner. Using interactive web
tools further enhances our capabilities by providing simulations and real-time, real-world
scenarios. These applications definitely benefit our learning experience, particularly since digital
tools also allow for data storage. Test results, simulation data, and lessons learned can be
immediately downloaded and stored for future reference and analyses. No doubt, the Internet is
the way to go. Let’s get it under control and set limits to the interaction hype. We can go back to
the fundamental economic question: What is the opportunity cost of online learning? Or, rather,
what are we giving up when we pursue online learning? Perhaps if we could answer this
question, we might gain a better understanding of learner attrition in online learning.
References:
Ainsworth, D., (n.d.). The unbearable cost of interaction. Retrieved from
http://tychong.umuc.edu/tycho/OMDE/606/1202/9040/conference/getAttachment.tycho?attachId
=f3323a6683ab255662a169772afa952f¬eId=c6f486f783ab255655456c997c248d4c
Thalheimer (2002). Special NewsLine story: Stop aiming for interactivity. Document provided in
Web Tycho classroom. OMDE6069040.
Government vs. Private Sector in Online
Higher Education
During Module 3 we examined the cost-effectiveness of distance education and were honored
with guest lecturer Dr. Greville Rumble. Discussions included graduation and retention rates,
vulnerabilities, capitalism, and debates on government versus privatization. There are certain
economic advantages of privatizing online institutions, but do we really want to market online
higher education? Will institutions be more focused on making a profit than on educating
students? I believe that state-funded institutions are needed and that governmental oversight is
necessary to ensure standards are met. How will state institutions be able to sustain public higher
education?
According to Meyer (2010), state institutions can consider online tools as an efficient way for
delivering classroom content. Her argument includes two substitutions: capital for labor and
capital for capital. Using online lectures can reduce the number of faculty needed, not only
because the computer replaces the instructor; but, sections can be combined so that fewer
LYONS REFLECTIVE JOURNAL
sections are needed. Using technology reduces space requirements so that institutions do not
need as many classrooms, parking, and other facilities (Meyer, 2010).
So, how does the state institution convert to online courses in order to take advantage of the cost
efficiencies? At my institution we are severely under-staffed. Enrollment has grown, but staff
positions have not. Some faculty positions have been added, but not enough to meet the demands
of the institution. Regular faculty are focused on teaching, research, and service. Developing
online courses is not part of their promotion and tenure reviews. In addition we do not have the
expertise to do the work. I think that the University System of Maryland would do well with a
“task force” of instructional designers to work with the institutions in developing consistent and
quality programs. After all, the USM is a stakeholder and should inspect the quality of
instruction to ensure academic standards compliance.
Unfortunately, unused state appropriations are returned to the state. Towards the end of the fiscal
year, funds are either spent on unnecessary items or used to purchase items needed for the next
year. With support from the USM, funds could be set aside for redesigning public higher
education in Maryland. There are many articles written on the economic benefits of online
education, and the need for public higher education, so that more people can access higher
education. However, the reality is much more challenging. Consider the actual time and labor
needed to convert; consider that most institutions offer classes year-round to accommodate the
demands; and consider that most regular faculty do not possess the necessary skills and
experience to convert classrooms to online learning. Public online higher education can work and
should be a priority in strategic planning.
Reference:
Meyer, K.A. (2010). If higher education is a right, and distance education is the answer, then
who will pay? Journal of Asnchronous Learning Networks, 14(1), 55-78.
Economic Tradeoffs in Online Education
OMDE 606 examines human capital theory, expansion, economic factors, and their relation to
online education. While reading through the course materials and discussion posts, I wonder
what the tradeoffs are for establishing online education. For example, how does an organization
forego the economic rewards of online education in an underdeveloped country? Is the
investment in education for impoverished peoples worth it?
Our reading during the first module focused on the human capital theory. Shultz (1961) argued
that economic growth, improved living conditions, and other accomplishments are due, in part,
to investment in human capital. Success cannot be solely attributed to material wealth and
physical assets. Research also included education expansion. How has education grown in
LYONS REFLECTIVE JOURNAL
various demographic groups? The numbers of adults and women pursuing education have grown
significantly over the past few decades, partly due to the availability of online education. Online
education has the potential to reach those people who cannot pursue education under
conventional methods. They may have personal responsibilities that preclude them from
attending face-to-face classes or may live in remote areas. Perhaps they simply prefer the online
environment over face-to-face learning.
Since the focus of this class is the economics of distance learning, it is reasonable to ask if it is
economically reasonable to develop and deliver online education to all people. Or, should
institutions operate their programs solely for profit; or, at least in a cost-effective manner.
Clearly, the decision to expand online education to individuals in poor or rural areas of the globe
is more challenging than to offer the same programs in an industrialized nation. Greville Rumble
(2007) argues that education should be available to all people. Society is morally obligated to
provide resources to help the unfortunate. I wholeheartedly agree with Rumble in believing that
we all grow and improve our conditions when the weakest are developed and educated.
Education should not be exclusive. Governments and private institutions can work together to
provide education for the impoverished. I tend to think that education is in essence a basic need,
similar to food and shelter.
Stern (1988) discusses vocational training in terms of economic growth. According to Stern
(1988) “Expanding PVE [postsecondary vocational education] could also increase total output by
making the existing labor force more productive, even if the number of workers available for
work at a given wage level did not increase” (p. 8). We can tie Stern’s argument in with
Schultz’s human capital theory and propose that businesses and universities can partner to
provide vocational education and training. Indeed, many colleges and universities offer
certificate programs and non-credit courses for personal enrichment and to assist students with
certifications and career advancement. Would it be feasible to extend this model to remote and
under-developed areas?
I believe that a dynamic economic model that considers the profitability of a large student
population in online programs can provide the needed resources to support the needs of peoples
who cannot enjoy the benefits of education. Possibly governments can subsidize private
organizations that offer programs to these people.
References:
Rumble, G. (2007). Social justice, economics and distance education. Open Learning: The
Journal of Open and Distance Learning, 22 (2), 167 -176.
Schultz, T. W. (1961). Investment in Human Capital. American Economic Review, 51, 1-17.
Stern, D. (1988). Performance-based public policy toward postsecondary vocational education:
Some economic issues. Retrieved from EBSCO Host.