A new report from a business-financed public-policy organization says that traditional colleges and universities can learn from for-profit colleges’ approach to teaching.
The Committee for Economic Development’s new report makes recommendations for how the government, colleges, and universities should encourage online education. One of its chapters, titled “Lessons From For-Profit Institutions of Higher Education,” summarizes the strengths of for-profit colleges’ teaching methods.
For example, the report says of for-profit colleges, “If disruptive technology allows them to serve new markets, or serve markets more efficiently and effectively in order to profit, then they are more likely to utilize them.” It cites e-texts as an example of a disruptive technology for-profit colleges were quick to use.
Some for-profit institutions emphasize instructor training in a way that more traditional institutions should emulate, according to the report. The University of Phoenix, for example, “has required faculty to participate in a four-week training program that includes adult learning theory,” the report said.
The report says for-profit institutions’ attention to costs and outcomes, driven by the need for profit, provides a guideline for how traditional colleges can pay attention to student achievement rates.
The report was presented at a luncheon at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., on Friday. It was written by a group of information-technology experts who work for companies with ties to the Committee for Economic Development. The committee’s largest sponsors include GE, Merrill Lynch and Company, IBM, McKinsey and Company, General Motors, and Pfizer.
Read a summary of the report here.
Developing online and blended learning programs requires research and collaboration. Learn how top technology companies are partnering with campuses across the country to advance online learning as it becomes an increasingly important aspect of higher education.
12 Responses to Business-Backed Group Tells Colleges to Follow For-Profit Model When It Comes to Teaching
jcmurphy - December 11, 2009 at 4:33 pm
“utilize” does not mean use. How does this get into a report about education? Is this perhaps part of the business-model problem?
11272784 - December 11, 2009 at 4:51 pm
They miss the point. At research institutions, faculty are there primarily to do research and bring in grant money. Teaching is a necessary inconvenience that usuallty counts little or nothing toward tenure. There is no incentive whatsoever to try new ways of teaching…just to get grants, do research and publish. Until the reward system for faculty is changed to value teaching, nothing else will change.
lgarmose - December 11, 2009 at 5:14 pm
Having served as a Dean on both sides of this fence, I can assure you business LOVES the proprietary model. Where else could you have faculty compelled to actual class face-time over 23 hours per week in order to be considered as “full-time”? Where else could you have them run classes from 5:30-11:00 p.m. and do “turn around” classes from 7:30- noon the next morning. Where else could you have them add library duty and tutor duty to their 40+ hour week, all for 40 hour pay? Also, conduct “other duties as assigned”, in between all this, including, DAILY follow up on every absentee by phone, e-mail and/or letter (with full report) and if attrition is over 3% get written up for not doing your job! Just a thought!
philosophy - December 11, 2009 at 6:22 pm
#2: You miss the point! I grant that your point is valid for many, maybe most, research institutions, but the vast majority of colleges and universities are not research institutions.
laoshi - December 11, 2009 at 10:38 pm
They had me until they mentioned the University of Phoenix as a sublime example of how “Some for-profit institutions emphasize instructor training in a way that more traditional institutions should emulate”. A “four-week training program that includes adult learning theory” is a bit condescending to some of us who have taken 12 or more graduate credits in adult learning theories, whilst applying theoretical knowledge in classroom praxis. You cannot understand theoretical knowledge in quicky seminars. Praxis is the only way to see how, and if, certain theoretical frameworks apply to the students that you teach. A for-profit model may be worth considering, for the economic stimulus a private sector can bring. But it should not be at the expense of the quality teacher training that many of our state-subsidized institutions have traditionally offered.
11209892 - December 11, 2009 at 10:40 pm
As a facilitator for the UOP, I believe that there is some merit to our method of instruction. However, we must have care that the student is treated like a student and not a customer.
arrive2_net - December 12, 2009 at 12:47 am
For-profit institutions have the most immediate incentive to get the most bang-for-the-buck through ed. technology, so it makes sense that they would be the biggest pushers for that. Perhaps in a way, the for-profits tend to be leading edge in ed-tech development, whereas the research universities prioritize being leading edge in their discipline. If you want to make research university professors practioners of advanced educational technology, you may be giving something up since it seems to me that at research universities you are trying to expose students to leading edge researchers whose knowledge base is truly advanced and is tops in their field. Where a research university professor may bring to the classroom a research praticioners knowledge base, it seems to me that the for-profit profs bring the latest textbook and perhaps the latest ed tech application. A research professor’s ideas and methods may not be mainstream … perhaps the mainstream has not caught up yet. For-profits and research universities seem to be much different horses, the same saddle won’t necessarily fit all.
eelalien - December 12, 2009 at 2:38 am
Oh, please – for all those who believe themselves to be among the “academic elite” who are too concerned with theory rather than practice to be bothered with understanding current instructional design principles, this is a wake up call: you now have competition. While I have many reservations regarding for-profit models in higher education (UoP being highly suspect in terms of academic integrity), it is about time that faculty in institutions of higher education realize that they are in a competitive market. Students are ultimately the ones who will make or break your courses – not pretensions of being above the fray.
allens - December 12, 2009 at 10:00 am
laoshi: I have to say that there are an awful lot of people coming out of master’s and doctoral programs without any training at all (practical or theoretical) in education; I rather doubt anyone who isn’t getting a degree in education is going to have the coursework you describe. Yes, if someone has that, then the UoP, Kaplan Online University (which I took), etc courses are not going to be much good regarding “how to teach”, although knowing how to use the instructional technology may well be another matter. I note that one reason that Kaplan was interested in me is that I indeed _have_ experience teaching (TAing), and UoP also prefers this; at least Kaplan also requires mentor observation (rather easier online than in person!) for the first course or two in most departments.arrive2_net: There are actually some overlaps between instructional technology and that useful for a research position. My computer experience (via doing bioinformatics, for instance) was definitely helpful with the Kaplan course, and presentation methods can be used in not only classrooms but in conference talks and seminars.
tom_washingtondc - December 13, 2009 at 11:34 am
If the student consumer wants more technology in the classroom, then it should be offered due to diverse learning needs. Anything that keeps the student coming back is working.
phree - December 13, 2009 at 9:16 pm
The for-profit model uses technology to de-professionalize academics. As someone who has worked in this system for some time, I can tell you that for-profit faculty that teach online are called “facilitators” and have much more than 40 hours per week to do if they are not efficient. UoP, Kaplan, Capella and others are into getting students, but not so much into respecting faculty as valuable members of the team. There is no concern for workloads. At some institutions the courses are pre-written and faculty have little or no say in curriculum/content. They merely lead students through the course with extreme requirements for interaction while providing basic assignment commentary, grading papers, etc. The interaction is scripted by the pre-written nature of the material and very little spontaneous interaction is possible. Some courses are excellent and others are make-work courses designed to deliver minimal post-secondary rigor. The workload is very intense on both sides, but not very inspiring. At for-profit institutions faculty are interchangeable cogs in the big profit machine. If traditional universities follow this model, they will be able to further erode the profession and saturate classrooms with low paid part-time facilitators who are responsible for feigning interaction with students online. The idea in the for-profit schools is that students are paying for the degree and it matters little who actually teaches the course.
procrustes - December 15, 2009 at 10:49 am
I notice that that sponsors of this study include two failed corporations and several others that are struggling. The for-profit sector is not really in a position to tell others what to do.