I have finally reached the end of the semester. I have been presented with many ideas that would have never crossed my mind had I not taken this course. I also would have never started to think about the cost factors involved in distance education. Now, when I speak with others in the field of education I feel confident that I have a better understanding of the economics behind it. Granted, I am not claiming to be an expert, however, I have developed ideas around the basic concepts.
This course helped me understand that there is a lot of preparation and planning that must take place prior to even attempting to place a DE program within an institution. I originally believed that everyone was just jumping on the bandwagon of distance education because they believed that they could turn a profit by reducing overhead of a program. I quickly discovered that is not the case.
Also, another interesting idea that will stay with me, beyond my time in this course, is the concept of value. I am of full understanding that value is determined by the person that holds the item, but in terms of education and skills, value is decided by many different people that may not have a say in what you value for yourself.
Finally, this course made me think about the future of DE. I am not sure what the next step for DE in higher education will be. I want to believe that most schools will become dual mode institutions and offer both on ground and distance courses; but I believe that there is a factor that I am not even aware of at the moment. Maybe in regards to mobile learning and even younger students.
At any rate, I was not at a loss of thoughts in this class and fully appreciated the thoughts that it ignited in terms of my progress towards my degree.
Monday, December 6, 2010
Web 2.0
Finally, for the first time in my academic career at UMUC, I finally have found an explanation of Web 2.0 which makes sense. It is essentially, the technologies and different applications that survived after the dot.com burst in the early 2000's. Apparently Tim O'Reilly coined the term, and from there the term evolved. It is odd that the Web 2.0 is supposed to define the technologies that came around after the fall of the dot.com's; however, they were in existence then, just not used to their total benefit. These technologies, RSS, social networking, 'googling', etc., I think would not have come into existence without that fall. It was almost like natural selection. At that time, everyone was jumping on the bandwagon of anything that involved the internet and technology. However, this fall is what made everyone regroup and pay attention to what was really necessary and what was sellable. Although it is called Web 2.0, its almost as if the internet went through its own evolution and still has not finished working out its kinks so that it could survive. I think that Web 2.0 is just a start and given more time (hopefully no more falls), then we will see what what the internet is really made of.
Thursday, December 2, 2010
Retention and the Culture of Education
While working at an accrediting agency, this was when I first became aware of the concept of retention. I was not to sure why this was required of the institutions that we were reviewing, but, I knew what the threshold percentage was, and I knew that there was a problem if retention was low. Of course over time, I was able to gain an understanding of retention, and recognize the importance, from the accreditation side. However, it wasn't until it became a reoccuring theme in my courses that I began to understand that the retention rates of online distance learning institutions is important for the overall online learning environment.
There is no mistaking that online learning is not looked at as affectionally as traditional education (and by traditional I mean, specifically face to face institutions with a campus). However, this differing view of online institutions combined with low retention rates, are allowing many believers towards the belief that higher education, specifically in an online environment is not beneficial for its students. While an institution on the surface is concerned with retention in its efforts to maintain a profit, there are additional areas of importance surrounding the retention debate.
My professor, Thomas Huelsmann, quoted the following, "Distance education systems, from a political economy perspective have thus usually been seen as giving a second class, inferior education to those allowed into education last, namely those who are hardest to reach and frequently the most disadvantaged" (Oliveira 1988, Nettelton 1991). Although this is a much older statement, prior to the rise of such schools as Phoneix University, Kaplan, etc., this view is still held by many, inside and outside of the educational field. Prof. Huelsmann continues by stating that "distance education systems have been seen to help maintain the stability of unfair societies by legitimating what is only a pretense of equal opportunity." This makes it appear as distance education is a bone thrown to non-traditional students that did not fit into the 'traditional' educational mold. They are not expected to succeed, and therefore, there is no surprise when the retention rates are low. Even if I were not a student in a distance education program at a distance university, I would still take offense to these statements.
During my studies, I have finally started to find others that believe that the traditional ways of education are not beneficial to the larger context of society. Everyone can not learn by sitting in a lecture room, attempting to absorb all the knowledge that a tenured professor presents to them. I congratulate the students that realized this early and decided that it would be a waste of time and energy to attempt to fit a mold that did not work for them. Hence, the non-traditional student. Usually an adult learning that has realized, slightly later, what there specific goals are in life. At this point, also, they are no longer in the mood to 'find themselves' at a traditional univeristy and no longer need the community aspect of a campus to help encourage them in their educational life. Hence, non-traditional institutions, and specifically, with the help of greater advancements in technology, the online learning institutions.
Hopefully, now, I can possibly revisit my original thoughts regarding retention and the culture that it represents in an online environment. While the non-traditional institutions, specifically, online learning institutions, cater to the non-traditional student, I think that it is fair to assume that many non-traditional outcomes will come of this union. For example, higher retention rates.
(continued later today)
There is no mistaking that online learning is not looked at as affectionally as traditional education (and by traditional I mean, specifically face to face institutions with a campus). However, this differing view of online institutions combined with low retention rates, are allowing many believers towards the belief that higher education, specifically in an online environment is not beneficial for its students. While an institution on the surface is concerned with retention in its efforts to maintain a profit, there are additional areas of importance surrounding the retention debate.
My professor, Thomas Huelsmann, quoted the following, "Distance education systems, from a political economy perspective have thus usually been seen as giving a second class, inferior education to those allowed into education last, namely those who are hardest to reach and frequently the most disadvantaged" (Oliveira 1988, Nettelton 1991). Although this is a much older statement, prior to the rise of such schools as Phoneix University, Kaplan, etc., this view is still held by many, inside and outside of the educational field. Prof. Huelsmann continues by stating that "distance education systems have been seen to help maintain the stability of unfair societies by legitimating what is only a pretense of equal opportunity." This makes it appear as distance education is a bone thrown to non-traditional students that did not fit into the 'traditional' educational mold. They are not expected to succeed, and therefore, there is no surprise when the retention rates are low. Even if I were not a student in a distance education program at a distance university, I would still take offense to these statements.
During my studies, I have finally started to find others that believe that the traditional ways of education are not beneficial to the larger context of society. Everyone can not learn by sitting in a lecture room, attempting to absorb all the knowledge that a tenured professor presents to them. I congratulate the students that realized this early and decided that it would be a waste of time and energy to attempt to fit a mold that did not work for them. Hence, the non-traditional student. Usually an adult learning that has realized, slightly later, what there specific goals are in life. At this point, also, they are no longer in the mood to 'find themselves' at a traditional univeristy and no longer need the community aspect of a campus to help encourage them in their educational life. Hence, non-traditional institutions, and specifically, with the help of greater advancements in technology, the online learning institutions.
Hopefully, now, I can possibly revisit my original thoughts regarding retention and the culture that it represents in an online environment. While the non-traditional institutions, specifically, online learning institutions, cater to the non-traditional student, I think that it is fair to assume that many non-traditional outcomes will come of this union. For example, higher retention rates.
(continued later today)
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Design, Design, Design
Bates said that similar to real estate, where the important element in home selection is location, location, location. In online courses, the important element is design, design, design. Bates states that design drives "costs and effectiveness in a course." Logically, this would be a person's first thought that a well desinged course would have greater benefits in the overall success of a course in regards to quality and cost matters. However, many institutions are not willing to put forth the effort upfront to focus on the desing of a course prior to its go live period. There is still an underlying belief that if the course is already developed, then transferring this information to an online system is essentially easy.
In reviewing the information from module 5, there are many different factors to consider in the design of of an online course. One must decide if it will be delivered synchronously or asynchronously; if the course will use internet technologies, or another method to relay course information; also the type of interactivity used in the course makes a difference. In the design of a course, I believe that these components will have an effect on the overall outcome of the course.
An area that Bates touched on in chapter 8 of the text was the cycle of development in web-based learning. I found this argument interesting because it shows how elearning progresses through a university. First, there is an instructor/professor/lecturer, that looks to incorporate newer technologies in the course. Although this may not be the best solution, it is a step towards change which may not cost the institution much, but will open the door to the potential expansion of education. From this section, which Bates terms the 'lone ranger, the technology is slowly moved through the ranks of the university until it gets to the point that the univeristy decides to invest in the new learning venture and backs the technology. This appears to be a natural progression of growth for elearning, but Bates, then mentions another facotr. He states, "if teachers can learn all the skills needed to design, develop, deliver and maintain Web-based materials in such a way that the technology is fully exploited...then there is no need for the support of other professionals such as instructional designers, project managers and Web developers" (p. 173). Although this statement not only puts myself, and many others out of a job, it appears that this would be contradictory to the Lone Ranger idea. This idea would mean that the instructor would encompass all of these additional tasks, in addition to the normal teaching and research loads. I am not saying that this is not possible, however, it is burdensome on the instructor. The team effort I believe is necessary, to ensure that the overall design is benefical for all parties involved.
At this time, i think that i am talking in circles. for this reason, i am going to stop posting this message, return in the morning to clarify and move on to module 6 and the group project. Good Night.
In reviewing the information from module 5, there are many different factors to consider in the design of of an online course. One must decide if it will be delivered synchronously or asynchronously; if the course will use internet technologies, or another method to relay course information; also the type of interactivity used in the course makes a difference. In the design of a course, I believe that these components will have an effect on the overall outcome of the course.
An area that Bates touched on in chapter 8 of the text was the cycle of development in web-based learning. I found this argument interesting because it shows how elearning progresses through a university. First, there is an instructor/professor/lecturer, that looks to incorporate newer technologies in the course. Although this may not be the best solution, it is a step towards change which may not cost the institution much, but will open the door to the potential expansion of education. From this section, which Bates terms the 'lone ranger, the technology is slowly moved through the ranks of the university until it gets to the point that the univeristy decides to invest in the new learning venture and backs the technology. This appears to be a natural progression of growth for elearning, but Bates, then mentions another facotr. He states, "if teachers can learn all the skills needed to design, develop, deliver and maintain Web-based materials in such a way that the technology is fully exploited...then there is no need for the support of other professionals such as instructional designers, project managers and Web developers" (p. 173). Although this statement not only puts myself, and many others out of a job, it appears that this would be contradictory to the Lone Ranger idea. This idea would mean that the instructor would encompass all of these additional tasks, in addition to the normal teaching and research loads. I am not saying that this is not possible, however, it is burdensome on the instructor. The team effort I believe is necessary, to ensure that the overall design is benefical for all parties involved.
At this time, i think that i am talking in circles. for this reason, i am going to stop posting this message, return in the morning to clarify and move on to module 6 and the group project. Good Night.
Sunday, November 28, 2010
At the End
The end of this course, is proving to be very trying for everyone in the class. There are perks of a course online, and there are some downfalls of the technology being used. Although, there is a great push at the end of the course, I want to make sure that I am able to document my thoughts for these final course modules.
During the end of the course, there were many technological and life 'glitches' that attempted to hinder progress within the course. However, everyone's dedication to the course ensured that the course continued to progress. During the discussion with Bates, there was extreme frustration on many parts, the technology system and the multiple assignments due at once. Luckily enough, the students persevered and the course was able to continue.
Although this time period was rather trying for me as a student, I attempted to continue with my course readings. It is difficult to keep up with all the readings, but an attempt was made. Therefore, the final posts this semester will stem from module 5 through the end. Although it is possible to continue to post on the system, they will not garner much of a response from the class, as they are delayed. However, in review of the material it did indeed trigger a lot of thought for me.
Thanks.
During the end of the course, there were many technological and life 'glitches' that attempted to hinder progress within the course. However, everyone's dedication to the course ensured that the course continued to progress. During the discussion with Bates, there was extreme frustration on many parts, the technology system and the multiple assignments due at once. Luckily enough, the students persevered and the course was able to continue.
Although this time period was rather trying for me as a student, I attempted to continue with my course readings. It is difficult to keep up with all the readings, but an attempt was made. Therefore, the final posts this semester will stem from module 5 through the end. Although it is possible to continue to post on the system, they will not garner much of a response from the class, as they are delayed. However, in review of the material it did indeed trigger a lot of thought for me.
Thanks.
Sunday, November 21, 2010
My Aha Moment
This is very late, and very much in hindsight, but very valid nonetheless. I have finally had my 'Aha' moment in this course (Economics of Distance Education). Granted, for a large part of this month I was sick and unable to think clearly, but something happened when I got better and was able to start my studies again. Everything started to click and everything began to make sense.
First, coming into this course, I figured that it makes sense to have an econonics of budgeting course in an distance education program, especially since this program can prepare its students to become director's of DE programs. However, while reading Bates, "Technology, E-Learning and Distance Education" I came across an idea that brought it all together for me. For a while, I thought that the technology of DE was a separate concept from the overall cost of the DE program. I thought that the cost factor of the DE program was similar to the cost factor of any other education institution. But, then, what was the purpose of justifying the technology, and deciding which technology would have the greater return on investment.
I am starting to think that it all comes down to justification. Why is so much research and emphasis placed on the newest technology? Why must the proponents of DE prove that this is an effiecient learning mehtod and worth the investment? Why must it be proven that it is worth the cost of investing in an LMS that costs a huge investment upfront versus using a free open source system or general blog open for everyone?
I am just now starting to connect the dots within this entire DE system. Granted, I am still at the early stages. I also hope that this weeks conference with the guest instructor Tony Bates will provide me with more insight.
More insights to come as more lightbulbs go off.
First, coming into this course, I figured that it makes sense to have an econonics of budgeting course in an distance education program, especially since this program can prepare its students to become director's of DE programs. However, while reading Bates, "Technology, E-Learning and Distance Education" I came across an idea that brought it all together for me. For a while, I thought that the technology of DE was a separate concept from the overall cost of the DE program. I thought that the cost factor of the DE program was similar to the cost factor of any other education institution. But, then, what was the purpose of justifying the technology, and deciding which technology would have the greater return on investment.
I am starting to think that it all comes down to justification. Why is so much research and emphasis placed on the newest technology? Why must the proponents of DE prove that this is an effiecient learning mehtod and worth the investment? Why must it be proven that it is worth the cost of investing in an LMS that costs a huge investment upfront versus using a free open source system or general blog open for everyone?
I am just now starting to connect the dots within this entire DE system. Granted, I am still at the early stages. I also hope that this weeks conference with the guest instructor Tony Bates will provide me with more insight.
More insights to come as more lightbulbs go off.
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Ending October; Realizing Fears
I completed my first project for the Cost Economics course. I wasn't sure what I was in for, or exactly what I was going to do, but I somehow made it through. The project was laid out in such a way that you reviewed the information, your looked at and practiced with a mock assignment, so that when time for the assignment came due, you were properly prepared. Well, not everything works out as planned.
I read and reviewed the material, the Rumble text "The Costs and Economics of Open and Distance Learning." While reading the material it all made plenty of sense, because I was only reading it of course. I learned and felt I had an understanding of the basic concepts, such as overhead (sidenote: there was always the statement that DC public schools had the largest overhead in the country. I would quote this with the understanding that it meant that per student the cost to run the administrative and other sides of the school system were huge in comparison to other cities. I wasn't too far off course.) However, the Rumble text provided me a better explanation with direct and indirect costs as it matter in education. This will also prove beneficial as I begin to venture into the world of budgeting for the compliance costs at my current position.
So as I continued to read, I thought I had a basic understanding of the concepts and would be able to apply them to the project. Even the mock assignment made sense to me. So, I started the project, and was amazed. The basic ideas made sense, the maintenance, overheads, and development. These ideas to me were sound and made sense when applying them to the project. However, the more detailed analysis of the project made me investigate more and dig into a deeper undertsanding, or at least try to.
Gaining an understanding of depreciation or annualization was very difficult. As a homeowner and car owner, the idea of depreciation does not lose its message with me. However, when applied to education it doesn't hold the same value. Depreciation it what helps to distribute the costs of the planning or start up of the course development over time. An example was given in regards to the building where the product is developed. Yes, in the beginning it appears to be a huge costs, but when applied to the life of the program it is stretched throughout the development of the program.
The hardest idea for me was annualization. Literally, I reviewed this idea hours and days. The key concept of this idea that was hard for me to wrap my mind around was "the opportunity costs of interest forgone" (45). I took this as understanding that rather than spending the money or losing value in the money that was spent, it could have earned money in another account instead of being spent. In my mind, it makes more sense to stick with what is actually happening and not what may have happened. I'm still working my way, through this. Maybe the conference that is still ongoing with Rumble will provide additional insight.
I read and reviewed the material, the Rumble text "The Costs and Economics of Open and Distance Learning." While reading the material it all made plenty of sense, because I was only reading it of course. I learned and felt I had an understanding of the basic concepts, such as overhead (sidenote: there was always the statement that DC public schools had the largest overhead in the country. I would quote this with the understanding that it meant that per student the cost to run the administrative and other sides of the school system were huge in comparison to other cities. I wasn't too far off course.) However, the Rumble text provided me a better explanation with direct and indirect costs as it matter in education. This will also prove beneficial as I begin to venture into the world of budgeting for the compliance costs at my current position.
So as I continued to read, I thought I had a basic understanding of the concepts and would be able to apply them to the project. Even the mock assignment made sense to me. So, I started the project, and was amazed. The basic ideas made sense, the maintenance, overheads, and development. These ideas to me were sound and made sense when applying them to the project. However, the more detailed analysis of the project made me investigate more and dig into a deeper undertsanding, or at least try to.
Gaining an understanding of depreciation or annualization was very difficult. As a homeowner and car owner, the idea of depreciation does not lose its message with me. However, when applied to education it doesn't hold the same value. Depreciation it what helps to distribute the costs of the planning or start up of the course development over time. An example was given in regards to the building where the product is developed. Yes, in the beginning it appears to be a huge costs, but when applied to the life of the program it is stretched throughout the development of the program.
The hardest idea for me was annualization. Literally, I reviewed this idea hours and days. The key concept of this idea that was hard for me to wrap my mind around was "the opportunity costs of interest forgone" (45). I took this as understanding that rather than spending the money or losing value in the money that was spent, it could have earned money in another account instead of being spent. In my mind, it makes more sense to stick with what is actually happening and not what may have happened. I'm still working my way, through this. Maybe the conference that is still ongoing with Rumble will provide additional insight.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)