The online/open education revolution, or not

There’s been a lot in the news lately about online education and open education, which are two slightly different things.  Curt Bonk has a nice post that rounds up a lot of recent articles here; but I have been reading some slightly different things as of late.  I don’t know if there’s a clear connection between all these things or not, but I see at least a vague connection in my own mind:

So, what to make of all this?

For starters, I think that Blake (and others who would take this ala carte approach) are missing at least two of the points of university degrees in terms of both teaching and credentialing.  First, in order to know what classes to not take because they would be a waste of time, one has to have quite a bit more life and educational experience typical of people starting college degrees.  It’s really easy to take a course and then after the fact say “well, that was a waste of time.”  Not so easy before you take the class.

Academics debate the point and amount of general education all the time, as we did vigorously a few years ago at EMU.  But I think the prevailing wisdom is it’s a good educational experience for everyone with a college degree to have at least some introduction to other fields of study– that is, other than a “major” or a “minor”– and there are some basics that most colleges believe students ought to know something about:  writing, math, “the humanities,” and so forth.

As for all of these hyperbolic claims about the revolution of online education and how it is going to change all the rules: we’ve seen this sort of thing before.  Many years ago, I did some research on late 19th/early 20th century correspondence courses– you know, through snail mail.  Without going into details about all that now, there were a lot of people back then who thought that courses through the mail were going to bring education to the masses and largely replace conventional college degree programs.  That turned out not to be the case.  So I’m not saying that online and open education aren’t going to change the way universities work– and I’m all for that.  I’m just saying that I don’t think college degrees are going to become any less important anytime soon.

After all, even Shaq thinks it’s important!  After finishing his undergraduate degree and finishing an online MBA from the University of Phoenix, and now this doctorate.  Why?  I’m not questioning O’Neal’s intelligence or sincerity in pursing a degree, but it’s not like someone is (or isn’t ) going to hire him because of this degree, and he could have just studied and learned on his own.  But the reason for him seems to be similar to a lot of others:  besides having a credential, a college degree represents a personal goal and achievement that is significantly more tangible than participating in a free and relatively anonymous educational “experience.”

4 thoughts on “The online/open education revolution, or not

  1. Well, who could argue with Shaq’s doctorate as existence proof of the value of higher education?

    I think there are really two markets:
    1. A credential market
    2. An a la carte educational experience market

    At our end, the credential market is under severe cost pressure, and it seems to be me that it is as much about joining a club as getting a “credential”. If we want more money for our credentials (after all, why not aspire to that), we need to raise the value of joining our club.

    At EMU, we’re effectively not participating in the a la carte model, which I strongly suspect is a mistake. That’s a great way of building rep. Edx is free, but I think of it as advertising. A lot of Harvard and MIT’s offerings are anything but free. It’s a great way to make money and stay relevant.

    Like

    • I think this is pretty spot-on, Bud. I don’t know how well EMU can compete in the “just in time”/a la carte education market though because I think most people who need just one class and not a degree are taking it from the University of Phoenixes of the world. But that’s just a guess, and I am betting that no one at EMU has really done a lot of research as to what that market is really like.

      I do think there are ways that EMU could get in on the “here’s a free course” marketing gambit, too. I can think of a couple of different faculty in my department who are great at lecturing and who could probably put together a series of a dozen or so hour-long talks. And let’s be clear: at the end of the day, that’s pretty much the extent of the Edx et al “open education” work, just replicating the wise professor in an online environment.

      Like

  2. Steve, there are a lot of retreat type things we could offer. We would just have to be extremely relevant to be able to charge a good price for them.

    Like

  3. The Provost is looking to revitalize/reinvent EMU’s strategy for online education, including increased support for instructional design & pedagogy. Anyone have more info about when this will actually happen?

    My Department was ignored by continuing ed when we approached them to move our program online. The ce staff did/said everything they could to “stop” us.” Why?

    Like

Comments are closed.