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)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)