November 20, 2008
Minnesota State Colleges Plan to Offer One-Fourth of Credits Online by 2015
In hopes of saving tax dollars and reaching more students, state leaders in Minnesota say they plan to offer a substantially higher percentage of their courses online in the next seven years.
Tim Pawlenty, the state’s governor, and David Olson, the chairman of the Board of Trustees for the Minnesota State Colleges and Universities, held a series of press events today announcing their intention to offer 25 percent of college credits online by 2015.
Only about 9 percent of course credits delivered during the past academic year were received through online education.
As part of the plan, high school students who earn the state’s ACHIEVE scholarship will be given a $150 bonus if they complete an online course while in high school.
A. Frank Mayadas, president of the Sloan Consortium, a group of colleges that offer instruction online, says he’s never heard of state leaders at such a high level making this kind of pledge to increase the amount of online teaching. But he said several other states are already moving in that direction. And he predicts that more will soon follow Minnesota’s lead.
“All you have to do is read the paper and you see all the budget cuts for these guys,” said Mr. Mayadas. “While online is not hugely cheaper, it is cheaper.”
A study released this month by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation found that enrollment in online courses increased 12 percent in 2007 over the previous year. —Jeffrey R. Young
Posted on Thursday November 20, 2008 | Permalink |Comments
Commenting is closed for this article.
Previous: Report on Youth and New Media Pokes at Educational Institutions
Next: Campus Management Acquires Customer-Relations Software Company
Minnesota is clearly a more enlightened state and more interested in Education generally then propping up institutions lacking outside the box thinking. Way to go! My school – UT-Austin offers no degrees (well one – take a tech product to market master’s degree (basically)) online.
— Phillip Nov 20, 05:25 PM #
On-line education is an appropriate choice for a relatively small number of students. Most students require (and desire) face to face interaction with other students and their instructors to get the most out of their classes. On-line may save money in the short run, but if the result is poorly equipped workers in the long run, what have we really saved?
— liz Nov 20, 07:55 PM #
Liz the Luddite. In 1910 she’d have fit in an Edith Wharton novel or something, holding that riding around in horsedrawn carriages calling on friends by means of embossed calling cards and butlers was appropriate and necessary, and telephones were a newfangled uncouth toy for people with more money than taste and good upbringing. Campus college is an expensive luxury for the welloff. Paging Veblen.
— g Nov 20, 11:27 PM #
I have enjoyed BS, MS degrees from well regarded Bricks and Mortar schools. Some of the lectures were informative, and some of those were even informative. I do not regret that path for those days.
However, after 5 years of doctoral studies, I can say beyond a shadow of doubt that my electronic education is far more rigorous. I culminate every learning sequence with a paper of 10-12 pages. The papers require reading, research, synthesis, and new thinking. Criticism is found through direct criticism via Professor (not TA’s) and coursemates.
Sure, I pick most hours of study. And, I have to make efforts to attend speeches, lectures, conferences that pertain to my field of study, but I put the work in gladly.
Liz should go on thinking her thoughts and acting in this manner. I am earning great money, learning and applying new knowledge, and getting ready to take her job.
Some of her hours, I will probably teach electronically. PS, I’m 52.
— E-Education @ 52 Nov 21, 07:00 AM #
Interesting that this does not apply to the “flagship” U. Minnesota system!
— kk Nov 21, 08:34 AM #
The above comments miss the the real issue, which is far more complex than most realize. Consider this: Many students think online courses will be easier than traditional classroom work. This is not true. While online courses work for some, not every student thrives in this techno-environment. My colleagues tell me when they teach online courses, at least 25% of the students receive a D or F.
— nancy Nov 21, 09:31 AM #
I agree with Liz. Traditional-age undergraduate students as well as underprepared students benefit from face-to-face interaction with faculty and other students. How do you effectively engage in undergraduate research online? How about living learning communities? Peer study groups? I believe online education has its merits but it is not effective for every student.
— MC Nov 21, 09:56 AM #
The move, as claimed, is for “saving tax dollars and reaching more students”. It has nothing to do with learning! Educational systems have had very little to do with learning, anyways, but less so now (and in the future being envisioned) then ever before.
— Mahmoud Nov 21, 10:18 AM #
Online learning can be quite a joke. The method of instructional delivery should be determined by the professor not by some board of trustees—perhaps they could spend more time lobbying for state and federal funding to support educational needs in their state rather than meddling in what obviously should be faculty-driven decisions.
— SG Nov 21, 10:34 AM #
Given reports nationally of enrollment growth, moving to Online is seductive. Yet course completions appear to remain a problem. With the explosive growth of online colleges and programs in the past ten years, one would expect expect U. S. higher education attainment to continue to be ranked first in the world but indeed has fallen out of the top ten. At our local campus we opted for the hybrid format about five years ago for our degree completion program. Program enrollment is up 70%, course completions are above 90% with about 60% of early enrollers having graduated to date. Recently, the Illinois system created a massive online initiative that netted only 121 enrollments. Blended/Hybrid may be becomng a best practice, being both hi-tech and hi-touch.
— Fred Nov 21, 10:51 AM #
Liz is absolutely correct. Sorry folks, but online education is NOT as effective as being in the classroom, and it never will be. The reason for the push for online courses is because it’s cheaper, not because it’s better, or even comparable. Educators understand online education is a compromise, but unfortunately our governor and many legislators do not. The goal for 25% of all credits online is a joke.
— Jim Nov 21, 11:13 AM #
On-line eduction can be of high quality and students can have meaningful educational experiences online (I did in my doctoral program, but I mainly used on-line courses to avoid having to listen to stats lectures in person…). It is not, however, appropriate across the board. I have real issues with teaching in my discipline (education) on-line. The in-person and very human lessons that are a part of training teachers simply cannot be done, in my opinion, via chatrooms, weekly postings, wikis, blogs, and the like.
This doesn’t even take to account the pedagogical needs of field experiences, service learning opportunities, and practical activities, such as micro-teaching.
— education prof Nov 21, 11:29 AM #
As a librarian at a MN comm/tech college, I’d like to voice my concern about the support systems in place (or not) for the online students.
Most faculty teaching online courses require that their tests be proctored. At the smaller colleges in our system, this burden often falls to library staff. Until the state fully funds testing facilities to accomodate the expansion of online learning, and therefore test proctoring, I will
not support this effort. No librarian I know rec’d their MLS so they could babysit test takers.
I am VERY fortunate that on my campus, all test proctoring has been reassigned to the testing center.
I also find it curious that many institutitions charge a higher per credit tutition rate for online classes than on- campus classes …even though the claim is that the online line classes are cheaper to deliver. HMMM…
— CJ Nov 21, 11:54 AM #
On Line education is to traditional education as the cell phone is to the pay phone! If pay phones could have unionized we would never have had cell phones!
LL
— Lynn Lashbrook Nov 21, 12:13 PM #
I’m surprised that people believe Online courses are not as effective as courses delivered face-to-face. I’m not an educator, but it seems to me that several of the commentors on this article have a narrow view of what “online” means. People regularly interact, collaborate, evaluate, create and share applications, attend live lectures, and engage in productive and provocative discussions. The online experience is often richer than face-to-face interactions. Online, people people can easily have compressed real-time experiences but also can participate in much longer shared experiences without the constraint of gathering in the same physical location at the same time. Like all technologies, those used to deliver an online experience require skill to apply. Applied poorly, they can be as bad as a course taught by a bad instructor. Applied well, they can be extraordinarily effective.
— Al Nov 21, 12:15 PM #
At many universities, lower division courses are taught in much larger sections than are typical of on-line courses. On my campus, the large sections are about 200 students (often taught by tenured faculty) while we limit on-line courses to 25. We are considering making a major investment in increasing undergraduate on-line instruction (most of our current efforts are in graduate work) but this will clearly not be a money saver. I expect that most of these courses will initially fill with students who otherwise would have taken the face-to-face course, with the net effect of increasing instructional costs. With no ability to increase the number of tenured faculty, this will require either overload teaching or increasing reliance on adjunct faculty. Although additional compensation for teaching overloads can be a short term benefit to faculty, in the long term I see this as detrimental so supporting the university’s research mission. Many of our current adjunct faculty are outstanding teachers, but an increasing reliance on part-time instructors does undermine, in my view, our obligation for students to learn from our tenured faculty. I am curious if anyone has thoughts on how to revolve this.
— Jeff Nov 21, 12:24 PM #
Should the communal foundations of education change to virtual community? Will the distance make the hearts grow colder? Can we feel the frogginess of a frog online? Let us just click and learn…
— Balsy Kasi Nov 21, 12:48 PM #
To the critics: Some people learn better in an online course, some not as well.
To the proponents: Some people learn better in an online course, some not as well.
To all: The quality of online instruction is probably more variable than traditional instruction in higher education, because you have (at least) 4 things that vary in terms of fit to determine whether online courses are better:
1. student learning styles (in the broadest sense);
2. faculty teaching styles (again, in a broad sense);
3. the extent to which the material being taught lends itself to being taught online; and
4. The degree to which appropriate resources are available to support online instruction.
All of these interact, so blanket statements about whether online instruction is a good thing need to be blanket statements about a 4-way interaction!
I might be really good at teaching statistics (my students tell me that), but I may not be able to transfer that skill to an online environment… but maybe I could if I had a pen-based input device so I could show students how to work through a problem interactively, live, online. But even with all that in place, a student who isn’t self-directive will fail because he needed someone to put me in front of him MWF at 9 instead of leaving him to put himself in front of a computer running the course management software regularly… and that same student could excel at learning statistics as long as he had to be in class at set times — where I could be using the same technology in front of him, with the same assignments etc. as in the online course… while that same student could succeed brilliantly in a different course online… taught by someone else… or even a different course taught by me… with different technology support…
Bottom line: give up the blanket statements…
— Ray Nov 21, 04:56 PM #
check out the new NSSE results for what students say about on-line courses — more active and collaborative learning, higher level of academic challenge, etc.
— js Nov 21, 06:56 PM #
What js said – the NSSE results are extremely compelling. Furthermore a large number of studies have been conducted demonstrating that online learning and face to face learning are identical in terms of student learning outcomes. This effect is so pervasive that it has a name – the “No Significant Difference Phenomenon.” Google it, and you’ll find lots written about it.
I also need to point out that there is almost no engagement between faculty & student in a lecture theatre with hundreds of students in attendance. Given the choice between that sort of course and one taught online, I’d take the online one any day. Even a crummy online course would offer me the benefit of being able to do the work in my pajamas – why come to campus for a crummy face-to-face lecture with hundreds of other students in the room?
I also encourage doubters to check out the Pew Course Re-design project, which demonstrates substantial savings AND substantial GAINS in student learning outcomes through the judicious use of technology. The Pew courses are not online classes; instead, they re-design courses with the dual goals of saving money and improving student learning. It is a proven approach and works very, very well. Only a very foolish administrator would ignore the Pew project.
— CK Nov 22, 09:37 AM #
Everything I’ve read on the chronicle indicates the cost-savings ratio does not make up for what is lacking educational effectiveness. Unfortunately this is another case of politicians trying to balance the budget on the backs of the poor. If these courses (as actually offered) were just as good or better as some claim as meeting an expert in her or his field for face to face seminar/lecture/office hours, wouldn’t first, or second tier schools offer their primary courses this way too? Why no Harvard or even Twin Cities e-learning? No. Just another way to crank out another course with contingent adjunct labor and growing divide between what is available to rich and poor.
— ej Nov 23, 11:53 PM #
I would like just one of the people claiming that online classes are less effective to post a credible study demonstrating this. The research overwhelmingly demonstrates that online learning and face to face are tied in terms of student learning outcomes, and the new NSSE data demonstrates that online students are more engaged than F2F.
Or are those commenting here not sufficiently intellectually curious to do the legwork required to answer that question? It really aggravates me that so-called scholars are unwilling or unable to do a database search in their online libraries. I suspect that there is so much personally at stake that many of you are unwilling to think deeply about this issue.
— Anonymous Nov 24, 09:21 AM #
By the way – Liz isn’t a Luddite. She emails, texts, surfs the web, views podcasts, uses youtube in class, as well as D2L functions, including discussions. She’s just well aware that while technology is a great tool – that’s all it is – a tool. Used well, it can be a great addition to the classroom. Used poorly – you get the idea.
— liz Nov 24, 02:23 PM #