Online programs are generally profitable. But despite the buzz about Web 2.0, the education they provide is still dominated by rudimentary, text-based technology.
Those are two key findings in a recent report, “Benchmarking Online Operations: Snapshots of an Emerging Industry,” produced by the consulting firm Eduventures.
Online education has grown in popularity, yet it remains dependent on learning-management systems, with content-delivery built around text, says Richard Garrett, an Eduventures managing director.
“The underlying delivery model or pedagogical model hasn’t really changed much in the last five, 10 years,” Mr. Garrett says.
The survey of 96 institutions, which is not publicly available online, was released to Eduventures members and subsequently to The Chronicle. Mr. Garrett describes it as the first attempt to benchmark online-specific operational activities across a large number of institutions — activities like technology, outsourcing, and marketing. Data were collected in the fall and winter of 2008-9. The Campus Computing Project is expected to soon release an expanded, updated version of the survey.
The study found that nearly all programs were either profitable or breaking even. Overall, 65 percent reported that their online programs were profitable. For for-profits, 100 percent were profitable; for nonprofits, 62 percent were. (With nonprofit colleges, “profit” is used in the sense of a surplus, with revenues being larger than expenses. Universities have various systems for handling the surplus.)
The profitability findings underscore how the recent — and widely publicized — demise of University of Illinois’s online Global Campus program does not reflect the typical experience, Mr. Garrett says.
The finding “gets away from any notion that online is somehow a flash in the pan, or it’s all up-front investment and no return, like the Illinois Global Campus,” Mr. Garrett says.
But when it came to technology, the Eduventures survey found that the widely used tools are e-mail, text discussions that don’t happen in real time, physical textbooks, and word and PDF documents.
That contrasts with what you find on the programs of distance-learning conferences, where the talk is often about Web 2.0 technology that allows students to interact with the content or the provider in tangible ways. Those tools might be social-networking platforms or wikis or virtual worlds.
“Any innovation is really on the periphery in terms of the odd synchronous session, or the odd video clip, or the odd simulation,” Mr. Garrett says of online programs. “But those are really to supplement what is still a pretty rudimentary core.”
11 Responses to Online Programs: Profits Are There, Technological Innovation Is Not
geekest1 - October 19, 2009 at 6:23 pm
I think the opportunities are there but web 2.0 will not be the vehicle that will ‘bring it home’. There is an excelent article, Presence Pedagogy:Teaching and Learning in a 3D Virtual Immersive WorldStephen Bronack, Robert Sanders, Amelia Cheney, Richard Riedl, John Tashner, and Nita MatzenAppalachian State Universitythat describes the advantages of virtual reality in creating a learning environment that works. I have to agree, secondlife, or a similar platform, i.e. virtual reality, removes many of the impediments associated with text based online learning. Not only are impediments removed but there is truly an engaging, rich, social, collaborative context to one’s presence. I suspect big things are coming…. and at Internet Speed
11272784 - October 19, 2009 at 6:44 pm
I agree that online courses tend to be heavily text-based. But that’s not the fault of the distance learning people – it’s because faculty haven’t learned yet what the potential of online learning is. Faculty often think that an online course is recorded lectures, or extensive reading of Powerpoint presentations and submitting papers. We need to give faculty members more time to learn another model of teaching – one that’s quite different than the classroom. I contend that faculty members are trainable, and given time, they will learn to teach in this new medium. It’s just going to take years for each individual faculty member to learn on the job, working through courses and learning what to do and what not to to. And oh, yes – they might even listen to an instructional designer every now and then!And by the way – the fact that discussions don’t happen in real time is often an advantage, not a drawback. In f2f courses, class discussions are limited to the class period. In online courses they go on 7×24. I’ll take the online model anytime – given that it’s led by someone who invests time in the course, the discussion is much more comprehensive and richer.
searcher2020 - October 19, 2009 at 7:03 pm
I just finished a survey of technology integration within the classroom throughout the United States and I found that technology innovation is there! It all depends how you define. What tools are actually available for instructors to use for their courses? There are many free social media tools out there and they do work, as my survey has shown. It does depend on what the instructors know how to use but if they are left to use what they know, the students could learn and benefit by it. They could use their iphones and Twitter lessons. Instructors could then go even further and incorporate the platforms that they use through their professional learning communities. We, as instructors, should not depend on paying services. The technology innovation is actually technology ingenuity that must come from the instructors.
samueloulrey - October 19, 2009 at 9:57 pm
There are many innovations waiting in the wings for decent band-width.Get 500Mbps to most residences and interactive video-courses will break loose… if reasonably priced.
captainshowbiz - October 20, 2009 at 9:53 am
I agree with 11272784 about advantages of asynchronous offerings — the class runs 24/7. Many in my online classes are nontraditional students–that’s why my assignment deadlines are usually set for 11 p.m.The wonders of web 2.0 are great except for two things which limit me: 1) in my discipline — business — I’m scrambling to keep up with technical innovations in the subjects in which I’m teaching, much less the technology of course delivery. Secondly, and this is the real issue, even in my text-based online world my attention to course content gets distracted by needs to keep the machine going. Although my university charges a premium for online courses, none of that money goes toward course designers or even data-entry people charged with uploading things. As a result, I frequently end up being a high paid typist who has to carve out time to deal with student issues regarding course content. At one time, I considered putting a supply chain management course on Second Life but quickly realized the work involved for that one course could consume all of my time.
salrosario - October 20, 2009 at 2:39 pm
“text discussions that don’t happen in real time” is not a negative. It is by design. The main advantage of online learning, in my view, is that it removes the space-time constraint. By adding real-time chat, then we will need to have students logged on at the same time. That is not realistic. Besides, students need to engage in research to substantiate their class participation and that takes time. If you add real-time, you may end up with a lot of chat and little substance.In terms of virtual worlds and other things, you need to keep some standards and to a minimum in order to meet the needs of as many people as possible. A world in which students have to constantly absorb the technology of the day introduced by professor X is not productive. We need to go slowly.
ttuenglish - October 20, 2009 at 3:30 pm
I think that studies like this are based in the assumption that online education ought to try to emulate the on-site experience by moving into more and more virtual classroom emulation. But this assumption doesn’t understand that the online experience is essentially different — in some ways better, in some ways worse — but definitely different from the on-site experience. Trying to make online like a virtual classroom is simply a mistake.In the 12 years we’ve been offering online graduate courses and degree programs, we’ve basically discovered that some things work best synchronously and other things work best asynchronously. Submitting assignments, such as reading responses, forum posts, papers, and tests, works best asynchronously. But freewheeling discussion — such as in a graduate seminar — works best synchronously. In terms of technology to support both asynchronous and synchronous instruction, we have tried every imaginable and available tool (websites, wikis, blogs, Second Life, e-mail, Twitter, course management systems, video/audio podcasts, Facebook, threaded discussion lists, video/audio/text chat, video conferencing software, and so on). But our old standby is still a graphical MOO, which contains a text chat pane on the left and a display pane on the right in which we can show just about anything online — webpages, presentation slides, graphics, video. A few years ago, when Second Life was getting rolling, I tried teaching in it. Aside from the constant bugginess and instability, the biggest problem was that the students didn’t like it. Our students are busy people who pay a lot of money for our courses. They were impatient with the kind of levity and horsing around Second Life seems to foster. One of them said to me, “I don’t need to fly to class — I’m here to learn something, not play.”The fact is, our text-based MOO is an efficient, cheap, and dependable solution for online education. The discussions we have there are intense, dynamic, and concentrated in ways that other, more “virtual reality” approaches with fancy animation and video can’t really approach. Our MOO is not like an on-site classroom — and that’s a good thing.I don’t have much hope for university or program sponsored social networking, either. We have found that students simply don’t want to hang around in a system sponsored by our program. When we installed the MOO, we thought that students would meet there just to socialize, much as people do in Second Life or other Web 2.0 systems, such as Facebook (again we were trying to replicate the on site campus experience). We built it — but nobody came. I think we ran into in effect that Chris Lott and other folks in educational technology call the “creepy treehouse.” Students don’t want to hang around where the teachers can listen — it’s like some adult building a treehouse in his backyard and expecting the neighborhood kids to come over to play in it. Students have their own back channel where they talk without us knowing about it — the whole point is that we don’t get to listen in.
coloradodan - October 20, 2009 at 3:50 pm
@ttuenglish – I’m not sure if this and other studies are necessarily based on the assumption that online education ought to emulate “on-site experience” or not, but you do raise interesting points about 1) assumptions related to students be willing to hang out in a MOO just because you build it and 2) students not wanting to hang out where teachers listen.The key, I would think, would be to facilitate and encourage the use of existing online technologies where the majority of students already spend their time. E.g. Facebook. Why recreate the wheel, unless it really is to monitor and regulate discussions. Encourage the use of, say Facebook, by asking or encouraging students to friend each other, create their own private pages, etc. Teach them how to control the privacy settings to ensure privacy, and let them truly benefit from peer-to-peer learning in an environment where they are in control.A tool like Facebook really is nearly ubiquitous in our current information environment. Any willing person really CAN use it, if they know of a purpose, see value, and are informed about their privacy options. Twitter is only a waste of time if you waste your time using it.And all of this at no cost to the University.
tbohs - October 20, 2009 at 5:55 pm
captainshowbiz and 11272784 both hit on a critical point, time. In teaching a live class, you show up, do the class and go home to maybe correct papers or tests. How do we handle classes that go on 24/7 over the Internet?When you get right down to it, teachers are paid for their time, as well as for what they know. Teaching live classes clearly defines the time element. Online classes fall into a different realm. When a distance learner who works full time is going to class at 2 a.m., what is the role of the teacher? When does he or she handle feedback for multiple submissions and questions at all hours of the day and night?I love the Web 2.0 concept, and teach it in my writing class. But actually engaging it to teach is another matter. Web 1.0 offers instant access to information, some of it exceptionally good, that can be shared in class and outside of class via e-mail, blogs or what have you. Integrating Web 1.0 into teaching is a cinch. Finding ways to implement Web 2.0 is proving much more difficult, and time consuming.
brocansky - October 20, 2009 at 7:21 pm
I too believe that more faculty would embrace more innovative uses of technology in their online classes if they were adequately supported, encouraged and rewarded for their efforts. Online teaching is more work and exploring and experimenting with new forms of emerging technologies can be a full-time job in itself. The recent APLU faculty survey supports many of these ideas and institutions really need to listen to faculty voices. http://www.aplu.org/NetCommunity/Page.aspx?pid=1347Students today relish innovation in their online classes, when they’re so used to spending hours and hours in front of text-based content. I have taught online for six years and have supplemented my LMS content with collaborative learning activities built with VoiceThread (an amazingly easy to use web 2.0 tool that accomodates voice, video and text comments around images or presentations or even video clips) and Ning (which provides you with the ability to create a “closed” social network like your own Facebook). Through my student feedback, I identified a much stronger online community and students noted a stronger sense of my online teaching presence, both of which, according to student surveys, promoted greater motivation to persist week to week in the online class. Moreover, this is the 21st century. Educators should consider modeling innovation in the way we teach. Innovation is a skill in intense demand in our country and, I believe, if we showcase this skill for our students, they will respond with admiration and respect and be more likely to model it in their own lives. It’s ok to make mistakes. Take a risk. Michelle Pacansky-Brockmpbreflections.blogspot.com
kencoach - October 30, 2009 at 8:49 am
Having benefited from online study myself, and observing many others also benefiting; and having served at a large midwestern state university currently and for the past 25=years I must agree with most of the preceding comments, in that the technology is there the academic “ivory tower” mentality is also still there. We have technology today for realtime video classrooms, only this week I participated in a court interventions where patients at a hospital were live in the court room because of video conferencing. Business and industry use it daily; yet higher education cannot figure this out in a functional way. With an aging population and a still untapped “non-traditional” education market to be “had” if you will, ignoring the technology available today is naieve at best ignorant at worst.As much real time, people oriented, classroom and study room interaction as desired can be had with exisiting technology.Spend more time funding the technology within and for the online campus and less time arguing against it.