VOLUME 14, NUMBER 2, 2000
Editorial
Welcome to the For-Profit Providers—But with
Some Concerns
Michael G. Moore
Articles (for abstracts,
click here)
Distance Education Copyright, Intellectual Property, and Antitrust Concerns
Kenneth D. Smith, John Paul Eddy, Thomas C. Richards, and Paul N. Dixon
Performance and Perceptions of Distance Learners in Cyberspace
Peter Navarro and Judy Shoemaker
BRIDGE: A Model for Comparing the Costs of Using Distance
Instruction and Classroom Instruction
Frank I. Jewett
Distance Education for Dentists: Improving the Quality
of Online Instruction
Heiko Spallek, Peter Berthold, Diarmuid B. Shanley, and Rolf Attstrom
Distance Education and Diversity: Are They Compatible?
Allan C. Lauzon
Interview
Speaking Personally with Shirley M. Davis
Darcy W. Hardy
Book Review
Higher Education in an Era of Digital Competition: Choices and Challenges
by Donald E. Hanna
Janis L. Hall
EDITORIAL
Welcome to the For-Profit Providers-But with Some Concerns
Michael G. Moore
Online, Web-based delivery of information and interactions has attracted the attention of college educators to the idea of distance education in a way that no earlier technology managed to do. By some estimates, the next two years will see 85 percent of American colleges offering online courses to over two million students. These numbers may be compared with those reported for the for-profit sector, where some three million people already study in programs accredited by the Distance Education and Training Council (http://www.detc.org/). Until recently, these private, for-profit companies focused almost exclusively on the "blue-collar," technical training end of the market. That is changing. For-profits are now beginning to compete with universities and colleges in delivering programs of higher continuing education.
Besides the long established private schools, companies are being set up to deliver training exclusively online, targeting areas such as business and information technology. Some of these new companies are Harcourt Learning Direct (a subsidiary of publisher Harcourt Brace), HungryMinds, SmartPlanet, eHigherEducation, and SmartForce. The latter reported 1999 sales worth $198 million.
Some for-profit institutions are also competing with institutions that offer credit courses and degrees. Major examples are Jones International University and the University of Phoenix. In March 1999, Jones became the first for-profit institution offering courses entirely over the Internet to be accredited by a regional accrediting body. With more than 56,000 students, the University of Phoenix is probably the largest for-profit university in the US.
Another form of for-profit delivery is the in-house program set up by many major corporations. By the most recent count of their informal association, the Corporate University Xchange, there are over 1,000 of these. Some, like Motorola University, have built physical facilities, while others, such as Dell University, have no physical campus and exist only as "virtual" universities.
One response by public institutions to the greater involvement of the private sector is the forging of partnerships. In such public-private partnerships, a higher education institution delivers its program in concert with a corporation. eCollege, for example, is a company founded in 1996 that partners with the University of Colorado and some twenty-five other institutions. Corporations may provide content (Novell), a virtual delivery system (Caliber Learning Network), or both (IBM).
A second response from public institutions-and also from previously non-profit higher education institutions-is to enter the for-profit field themselves. The University of Nebraska at Lincoln, for example, has created a for-profit company called class.com to provide distance education to high school students. New York University has set up NYUOnline, with a former publishing executive as its CEO. Columbia University is partnering with UNext, an online delivery provider, to build a new Ivy League Internet business degree for distribution to high profile corporate clients. (See Virtual University Business Digest at www.geteducated.com for this and similar stories.)
What are the implications of the expansion of for-profit interests into higher education? Let me throw out one or two thoughts, though surely there are more, perhaps more important, issues that readers may like to examine and perhaps report to the AJDE or discuss in DEOS.
First, there is the issue of equity. The core mission of distance education, since its invention in the nineteenth century, has been to open access to those who were denied opportunity in the conventional systems, especially in higher education. It seems that this mission to reduce inequality does not preoccupy many of today's providers-who regard online distance education as a consumer commodity. It can be bought, if one has the purchasing power, but is inaccessible otherwise. Not only is distance education no longer able to achieve its traditional goal of narrowing the gap between those with greater knowledge and those who have less, but, in the online era, will probably contribute to widening it.
Even access to the new forms of distance education requires, first, access to the new technology, which is not equally available to all sectors of the population. High income households are twenty times more likely to have access to the Internet than low income families, with access being particularly difficult for people traditionally underrepresented in higher education-African Americans, Hispanics, and people with a poorer high school education. Regardless of income level, Americans living in rural areas are lagging behind those in urban areas in Internet access. So far, the US has not developed a policy for dealing with this problem. It does not seem to be a problem that the private, for-profit market is able to deal with.
Mixed up with the question of equity are concerns about the quality and balance of the online curriculum. Since the private sector seeks to sell its services only to the better-off members of society-aiming particularly at those in business, information technology, the health industries, and similar rich markets-where will the resources be found to provide for the rest of society's needs for continuing learning? With maximized income, the private sector is able to make the investments needed to use the most effective technologies, to employ superior faculty, and even to offer learner support and other services needed to increase quality while reducing costs-in those rich curricular areas it chooses to harvest. Who fills the need in the rest of the curriculum? Where does this leave the public and private non-profit institutions? With reduced income-as they lose the "low hanging fruit" to the for-profit sector-public and private non-profit institutions have to meet the needs for education and training in content areas that may be socially and personally of great value, but that do not give immediate returns to investment in the form of increased wages. They are left to grapple with the higher-cost learners, i.e., the less self-directed, the less occupationally motivated, and the less advantaged who need close emotional and other support. This is likely to raise the average costs of teaching the rest of the population, and as more and more "uneconomic" courses are abandoned, the prospect for the future of our culture is worrying, to say the least.
And what if the for-profit institutions truly follow Adam Smith's injunctions to maximize profits by reducing costs to the utmost? Presumably, we then experience "price wars," with suppliers trying to undercut each other and increase demand by lowering costs even at the expense of the range and quality of services that can be delivered. We then suffer from Gresham's law. Gresham-as you remember from Economics 101-believed that consumers will often reject high-quality goods if they have previously been exposed to similar products of lower quality. Once suppliers of online courses market their services on the basis of low cost, their cheaper, but inferior, programs may drive out confidence in better ones. Of course, it can be argued that, as in other markets, institutions that assess quality are likely to arise (though this has not happened so far), and that there will always be buyers who are ready to pay more for a superior product. However, the example of television, where there is an abundance of cheap and inferior programs and very few quality programs, is, in my view, a sobering one. It suggests that, while we should welcome the contributions of the for-profit sector, being sensitive to the problems as well as to the opportunities that this growing involvement may pose, will be in the best interest of private and public providers alike.
Distance Education Copyright,
Intellectual Property, and Antitrust Concerns
Kenneth D. Smith, John Paul Eddy, Thomas C. Richards, and Paul N. Dixon
An empirical examination of accredited American
higher education institutions was conducted to obtain baseline data regarding
distance education copyright, intellectual property, and antitrust concerns.
Additionally, a multiple-case study involving ten of the top thirty accredited
distance education institutions in America was conducted. Policy approaches
were examined for all institutions, and differences were discussed between
public and private institutions as well as between the following Carnegie
Classification institutions: Research I and II, Doctorate I and II, and
Master's I and II. Data indicated that, out of the schools surveyed, 22%
of the institutions in these Carnegie Classification categories published
copyright and intellectual property policies on their institution's Web
site. In the case study, it was found that 90% of the institutions centrally
controlled their distance education program administration as well as
the copyright and intellectual property policies related to it.
Performance and Perceptions of Distance Learners
in Cyberspace
Peter Navarro and Judy Shoemaker
This study compared the performance and perception
of cyberlearners to that of traditional learners. A study of several hundred
undergraduate students taking an introductory economics course at the
University of California suggests that cyberlearners learn as well as,
or better than, traditional learners regardless of characteristics such
as gender, ethnicity, academic background, computer skills, and academic
aptitude and that they do so with a high degree of satisfaction. CD-ROM-based
lectures, electronic testing, threaded electronic bulletin boards, and
online discussion rooms all appear to be effective instructional technologies.
The CD-ROM-based lectures that simulated the traditional classroom experience
were regarded as being both the most essential and most enjoyable instructional
medium.
BRIDGE: A Model for Comparing the Costs of Using
Distance Instruction and Classroom Instruction
Frank I. Jewett
A computerized cost-simulation model designed
to compare the cost of expanding a campus using distance instruction to
that of classroom instruction is discussed. The rationale for the cost
comparison is the working hypothesis that the benefits of distance instruction
are at least as good as those of classroom instruction. Cost comparison
examples from classroom, television/broadcast, and asynchronous network
courses are discussed. The model also demonstrates the cost-saving potential
of sharing courses and programs among campuses.
Distance Education for Dentists: Improving the Quality of Online Instruction
Heiko Spallek, Peter Berthold, Diarmuid B. Shanley, and Rolf Attstrom
This study describes the development and the
evaluation of quality assurance criteria for online dental education.
These criteria were developed by the authors and evaluated by oral health
professionals through an Internet survey. The survey indicated that oral
health professionals ranked the creation of scientifically based, frequently
updated courses that clearly define their educational goals and objectives
as highly important.
Distance Education and Diversity: Are They Compatible?
Allan C. Lauzon
This article argues for understanding distance
education as a community of practice that must acknowledge and accommodate
diversity in the context of increasing economic globalization. It asserts
that any community of practice is embedded in a larger social context
that influences values and practice. It also examines the historic and
contemporary social, economic, and political forces that inform and influence
distance education practice. This is followed by reflections on the implications
for distance education practice and its current capacity to be sensitive
to diversity and to meet the needs of culturally diverse learners.
