|
« AAUP Homepage
|
Colloquy on Distance Education Held
One of the most striking trends in higher education in recent years has been the proliferation of online distance education enterprises, both as independent entities and as arms of otherwise traditional colleges and universities. Many institutions have seen distance education not only as a tool for reaching students, but also as a potential source of income. To explore its profitability, the Chronicle of Higher Education organized an online discussion in February around the question, Is anyone making money on distance education? In a background piece prepared for the discussion, Chronicle reporter Sarah Carr noted that many institutions are not in fact seeing the positive cash flow they had anticipated, and that some distance education leaders predict a slowdown in the field.
The Chronicle’s guest respondent for the online discussion was A. Frank Mayadas, the director of the Sloan Foundation’s Asynchronous Learning Network, a program that supports asynchronous distance education, primarily through grants. In asynchronous distance education, students can complete assignments at any time within a framework of deadlines; in synchronous distance education, students and the instructor "meet" at specified times in, for example, a live online chat session. (The Sloan Foundation provided funding for a roundtable on accreditation of distance education programs hosted by the AAUP last fall.)
Mayadas replied to questions and comments sent in by Chronicle readers. Many of the questions centered on the cost of providing quality online education. One participant noted that for more than a century universities have used various media to offer courses to students separated from their professors by distance. Why, she asked, do institutions suddenly expect that doing so will be profitable now that distance education has moved to the Web? Another participant remarked that the "pressure to generate profit can lead to terrible academic decisions," including overuse of adjunct faculty. A participant from the University of North Carolina wrote that a vocal minority in the North Carolina state legislature persists in regarding distance education as a money-saving venture despite data showing that the costs of distance education exceed that of campus-based instruction.
One point stressed in the discussion was the difficulty of accurately accounting for and projecting distance education costs, particularly when they are intertwined with costs for traditional programs at the same university. Technological infrastructure such as servers and computers, for example, may be used by both traditional and online programs. And, as with traditional instruction, fluctuations in enrollment can cause dramatic changes in budget. In reports written by recipients of Asynchronous Learning Network grants, the ways in which costs were reported varied considerably.
Participants also raised questions about student services for distance education courses. Do you adapt existing student services, or create a new infrastructure to meet the needs of online students? What kinds of services might institutions anticipate online students needing?
Despite the uncertainties involved, Mayadas remains a strong proponent of Web-based, asynchronous distance education; he believes that after start-up costs, the ongoing costs of distance education delivery will be comparable to or lower than costs of traditional face-to-face delivery.
Transcripts of this discussion and others, including one on whether faculty members should receive royalties for developing distance education courses, are available at <www.chronicle.com/colloquy>.
|