“Learning takes place when you are OUT of the comfort zone; the networking and live-action conversations are so important.”

Warning: this essay wanders more than a bit, so here for the impatient reader is the conclusion: there are no longitudinal metrics available to readily determine whether on-line higher education is en route to being a truly major delivery mechanism or instead will be viewed as basically a niche tool.

A Few Background Comments

Change in the overall educational arena has never been a process which would find its way into the consulting playbook of a Bain & Company, nor would it have been a chapter in Jack Welch’s famous binder for developing management talent at GE. Neither would it resonate well among the highly intelligent players at the Google ping pong tables.

Historically, for example, shifts in elementary, middle, and high school education have been episodic. Professors and experts at various non-practitioner locales would slay multiple trees in order to produce pedagogical dissertations, the result perhaps being the “New Math,” inexorably followed some years later by a learned discovery of all the flaws in the “New Math,” which then quietly was transformed into some type of modified approach (what else!). Subsequently, with sufficient passage of time so that prior errors in highly-paid thinking would not be so evident, there came the “New Math,” not to be confused with the prior curriculum of the same name.

Meanwhile, life in the classroom went on, as it did at the teachers colleges. Tenured teachers knew they would outlast any iteration of the “New Math” and hence could combine lip service and rolled eyes without serious impediment to either their job security or, in fact, to how they taught their classes. The aforementioned colleges, having no substantive connection to what took place in real world classes, could easily abide still another Ph.D thesis on “A Comparative Study of the New Math, Singapore Math, and the approach to Math by the Indigeneous Population of Nebraska.”

Describing the pathways of change at the higher education level is on the one hand, impossible–there are so many variations, and simple—each college/university has basically established its own path, its own blend of academic and non-academic offerings, with the metrics being rankings in the listings compiled by various publications (which the schools all “hate” of course), the ability to select students from a nice pile of applications, and the success of the perpetual fund-raising campaign. Missing until recently has been deep and public scrutiny of costs, graduation rates, and ultimately, life success rates.

Hopefully, somewhere in this contorted essay, there will be at least a conceptual linkage of the above comments to on-line higher education—after all, that is the subject of this essay– but first I have to take a break and go to Bernie’s Diner for something to eat. In the words of the famous Belgian detective, Hercule Poirot, “…to think, the stomach and the brain must be in harmony.’

At Bernie’s, I know that if the consumptive public has no taste for an item on the menu, it will not be there. Students should be so lucky; their reaction to educational innovations historically have almost not counted, even though they are the ones whose presumed appetite for education (and the statistical scorecard which becomes theirs) can be irreparably damaged by exposure for years on-end to non-productive curricula and teaching methods alike.

The K-12 school superintendent chefs may turn over in only a few years, but the educational meal was largely unchanged until a quarter-century ago, when the loose category called “educational reformers” appeared on the scene. Said individuals are not to be confused with the pedagogs within the system who have misused the term “reform” ever since the McGuffey Reader was removed from the public school curricula. The newer breed of reformers actually not only wants to do everything differently but to measure the results and make adjustments accordingly.

At the college level, change at the top has been triggered by unsatisfactory athletic results and unsuccessful fund-raising, which in many cases is saying the same thing. Before rocks get thrown at me, I am not referring to the elite universities who are caught up in the research/publish race even more than in apples-to-apples academic comparisons.  I mean a top place like Stanford would never be concerned with its football prowess, would it!

One line of thought therefore is that on-line education in general is the logical outgrowth of a screwy education industry change mechanism and the desire of many smart, highly motivated people to make the academic lives of students better, whatever that means.

Anyway, now that I am satiated—probably overly so– from a rewarding visit to Bernie’s, with luck I will be able to think more clearly about the subject at hand. Unfortunately, on-line higher education does not have the simple decision rules as a diner.

On-line Higher Education

Founded in 1976, the University of Phoenix came onto the scene as a completely on-line approach to higher education and a for-profit one at that. The conventional college/university system all but tarred and feathered these newcomers and their new-fangled method, demonstrating once again that the most illiberal segment of our society is often found on the nation’s campuses. Phoenix persevered, however, and actually grew quite substantially, peaking at around 400,000 students before somebody important, the Department of Education, had its eyes opened to the fact that the school had high drop-out rates, high debt levels for departed or graduated students, and high default and delinquent rates for said young people. Not good. The entire category of for-profit higher education providers is now subject to a rule which is summarized as the “ability to benefit:” does what the student pays for in his education equate to a sensible current/future financial obligation considering his chosen career.

Meanwhile, conventional non-profit purveyors of what is purportedly higher education are having nightmares, disguised as philosophical debates, about the unfolding trend to look at their august endeavors in a similar way. Attempts to hold them accountable for the way they run their college businesses are inevitably met with, “you do not understand,” overlooking—no, seeking to sweep aside—the fact that student debt is now about $1.2 trillion, which is above that of consumer debt, and 40% of recent graduates are either unemployed or working below their ostensible academic credentials.

Permeating the entire higher education system is the belief by many that socialization and networking are being “taught” well, but academics not so, which presents an employability problem. Employers not only value the generic skills of critical thinking capability, complex reasoning, and writing, but also what are called “field specific competencies” (source: “Aspiring Adults Adrift,” the follow-on to “Academically Adrift”). Bluntly put, employers do not trust that any academic credential, from high school diploma to Bachelor’s degree, means that the recipient actually knows how to do something.

Because of skepticism toward degrees per se, many big companies have reduced the number of campuses on which they recruit; moreover, they use strategies which aim at establishing a preliminary self-selection process. An example is having a three-day conference/workshop for prospective Bachelor’s graduates meeting certain criteria who are interested in working for a specific multinational company. In addition, it seems that companies are placing even more importance on whatever formal or informal training programs that are in-house. Simultaneously, they want a seat at the curriculum planning table of community colleges: public costs, private profit anyone!

Graduate School Level

To put the higher education dilemma in a different statistical box, at present, in the American graduate school system, 17% of all students are international; in the STEM sector, it is more than half (this is an immediate argument for immigration reform that speaks directly to our self-interest but that belongs in a separate essay). Of total student debt, about 40% is incurred at the graduate level, compared with only 14% of enrollees.

These data points could argue for changes in the graduate school cost/delivery mechanism, but at present there is not a clear connection between the two, even as there are signs that additional business marketing principles are coming to the fore. Whether business logic and on-line education should be conflated, as many are doing, at least conceptually, is a different story. More students served cannot be the metric; it has to be more educationally satisfied customers.

The Wonders of Technology

In a backwards way, because on-line education is light on socialization among students, it offers the opportunity to be more, not less, academically focused. Individual courses may have reached this standard, but there is no evidence that systematically this is happening.

Instead the primary appeal of on-line is convenience, not only for students, but for schools, professors, teachers, parents—with the assumption that everyone in the digital age associates all the cool “iDevices” with “learning,” with no need for prior or on-going analysis to validate the premise.

So it is now time to talk about technology, which might be considered the final, pivotal piece of whatever structural image befits the discussion.

This part is really simple: everybody knows that in today’s digital world, all things are possible short of slicing bread. If the gadget or app or website or whatever is doable, like really easy to accomplish and often really cheap, it must be good, beneficial, no problems attached. So roll it out. And do not cringe when more students use Twitter than can place Afghanistan on a map.

P.S. A complete understanding of the Luddites reveals they got a bad rap, which stuck obviously as a synonym for being against technology. Not that I would be sensitive about being so labeled.

Higher Education Premises

At the same time there is a recognition of technology being the centerpiece of educational change (overlooking the even more important factor of human capital), it useful to list some of the general assumptions regarding higher education in general.

• Students, and this writer for sure, already regard all colleges as businesses
• Students (and many teachers) have grown up with the Internet as an everyday activity
• Instant gratification is desired by a large number of people of all ages
• Students are looking to be employable upon gradation
• The supply function in higher education is deficient in many countries
• With respect to policies, whether academic or administrative, colleges can do as they please
• Socialization, sports, and networking are the most important subjects at college
• Those seeking upward economic mobility from education have to march to a different drummer

Picking up on the final point above, financially challenged students are faced with multiple questions: how many hours per week can I work, should I stay close to home in order to help family finances, and—should I go for on-line education as a way to hopefully finesse these questions. Given that less than 10% of individuals in the lowest economic quartile get a college degree, versus over 75% in the highest such segment, changes in education which benefit low-income strivers are devoutly to be wished. Unfortunately, the skew of where these students go for higher education is toward community colleges and for-profit vendors, neither of which is an academically compelling alternative.

On-line Education

It is time to fit the actual subject of this little essay into the mosaic less than artfully sketched above. Is on-line higher education to be the collegiate capstone of the delivery component of education reform, bringing successful education to those otherwise unexposed, or allowing those with geographical constraints around the world to access the best professors, or giving those with squeezed schedules the flexibility to make their education purchase on their own time.

Unlike the “New Math,” the contemporary version of on-line education has sprung from entrepreneurial energies, even when coming from those who initially were employed by large schools. The most important of the energies are those surrounding the aforementioned technological advances, the Internet/Social Media age. Second has been specific individuals like Salmon Khan, who thought there had to be a better way to help his little sister learn math.  (His approach deserved the label of the “New Math,” except, as noted at the outset, that term now has been used to the point of abuse.)

Third has been the amorphous group of education reformers who function with a combination of philosophy (high academic standards, disciplined culture, data driven instruction, heavy professional development) and intellectually open minds that, to quote Poirot again, “do not disturb facts to support a theory.” Fourth has been those colleges and professors who were not shy about recognizing the type of business opportunity which the for-profit education providers had discovered years back. The fact the former would still shun the latter at your average cocktail party should not obscure the numerous underlying commonalities.

Break number two: time to get personal.

THE WRITER’S STUDENT EXPERIENCE WITH ON-LINE HIGHER EDUCATION

Never having had the pleasure of pursuing an MBA and being a constant traveler, I decided to go on-line for this totally unnecessary add-on to my life’s resume. The purveyor was Southern New Hampshire University (SNHU), whose ads can be seen anywhere from the World Atlas website to the NBA.

The following was the early check list for on-line learners¸ what in business would be referred to as qualifying the prospect: “persistence, ability to tolerate technical problems, technical capability to create documents, ability to process the Internet and download software. Students must have good time management skills, preferably by setting a schedule. They must have effective and appropriate communicate skills.”

Certainly there is an implicit belief in the on-line world that sending students to read a website is no different from its historical predecessor–get this book from the library and read it. Of course, it is a little more difficult to mark up websites, although there are related ways to do so.

These are the technological mechanics, suggestions, and requirements relevant to the first on-line course I signed up for, “Human Behavior in Organizations.” Intellectually I knew this would be quite interesting since I function as the sole employee of the WKBJ Foundation. The second course was on “Global Entrepeneurship.”

 Key to understanding the process was knowing that “your course will be delivered through Blackboard. Below are the most used Blackboard tools and areas.

 Announcements: this area is used to post day-to-day course details such as the status of or directions for assignments. Check the announcements on a regular basis, at least several times each week.

1. Course Information: the course syllabus, assignment guidelines and rubrics, technical support, Student Handbook, and advising information can be found here. Check this area at the start of the class. It is recommended that the syllabus be downloaded for future reference.
2. Learning Modules: this area contains course content, including lectures, readings, resources, and assignments. Check this area at the start of each module and throughout the module week to review course materials.
3. Discussion Board: this is one of the areas for discussion and collaboration in the class. Participate and contribute on a regular basis if your course includes discussions.
4. Research/Writing: SNHU library and research information can be found here. Check this area for links and information on different library-related resources.
5. My Instructor: instructor information is located in this area. Check this area to find out about your instructor’s background and contact information.
6. My Grades: Check this area to find out your grades for your course assignments.”

With respect to writing assignments,”because submitted papers remain the intellectual property of their authors, instructors, and respective institutions, we are unable to show you the content of this paper (ed. the student’s writings) at this time. If you would still like to view this paper, your instructor may be able to request permission to view the paper from the instructor to whom the paper was originally submitted.” That advisory came from another vendor, iParadigm, LLC to be specific. It handled the “Turnitin” aspect, after the student agreed to several pages of legalese. This relationship was not mentioned in the above list of procedural descriptors.

•  Moving right along, ”this is your class homepage” (which I discovered on the first day of week three). “To submit an Assignment, click on the “Submit” button to the right of the assignment name. If the Submit button is grayed out, no submissions can be made to the assignment. If resubmissions are allowed, the submit button will read “Resubmit” after you make your first submission to the assignment. To view the paper you have submitted, click the “View” button. Once the assignment’s post date has passed, you will also be able to view the feedback left on your paper by clicking the “View” button.”

A description of the students in the Human Behavior course would be as follows: some were English as a Second Language students, some were virtually illiterate relative to what one would expect at the graduate level, a couple were extensively experienced in the world of work. Many had children, many were dissatisfied with their jobs and looking for a fix; some were ex-military. All were into political correctness: all diversity is good, all stereotypes are bad, all bosses are stupid. There was lots of whining among the younger students who apparently think that companies were established for the sake of prospective employees.

The Clicking Process

 As the above advisory from the school said, the on-line student must be comfortable with the computer.

There were at least 15 main menu navigational items, with another 15 or so subheadings, including some attempting to steer the student to other products and services of the publisher whose e-book is assigned to the student for the specific course. There were Help Desks at multiple places.

Here is a quick run-through of the clicks:

SNHU … User Name … Password …SNHU Mail … Back to Home … Blackboard … Course Name … Discussion Board (Create Thread and/or Post) … (When prior okay) Return to Course List … My Management Lab … Sign In … User Name … Password (both different from above) … Course Name (Seven items, including a Study Plan) … Study Plan: five questions, click for answers, then a three-question test; 4-6 sets of these per chapter … Click out three times to be fully finished.

The Educational Function

From my standpoint, the course questions in Human Behavior were simplistic, ignoring important facets of context, culture, consistency, and credibility. In a normal classroom, these issues would hopefully be the subject of vibrant discussion. Not here. Discussion Board responses are of the kissing your sister variety. Here is a comment from the professor:

*Bob, “Your discussion for this week reflected a distinguished post. You made a connection to the content in the course by discussing the organizational behavior. Your responses to peers were engaging and informative. Your posts were submitted in a timely manner. Your responses supported with research will reflect critical thinking. You’re off to a great start in the discussion board!”

The above was my first input from the professor, as you can tell; I came to believe that her comment about research was a veiled way of saying that I was not yet quoting academic/website sources in my posts. Could I tell her I am so ancient that I have experienced all the curricular stuff and do not need to look it up?! I subsequently sent two “Case Incidents” directly to her, calling the computer system Kafkasque, and I am sure I did not exactly follow all the rules about APA format (another area where the student gets pointed elsewhere to find out how to do something, as opposed to it being included in the syllabus handed out by the professor on day one) so I doubted that her next message to me would be quite so cheery. I did finally find the ”turnitin” box, but could not resubmit what actually was an early submission. Yes, I said that right.

Here is another comment from the professor: “You accurately summarized the main elements with sufficient details about the obvious and not so obvious issues of the aging workforce. You applied the concept of age discrimination correctly within your analysis when you described the demographics behind the aging workforce. Critical thinking was evident through comprehensive exploration of a diverse workforce and supported with sources; however, your reference page (Note: I never got the hang of APA) was missing. Keep up the good work!” My guess is that this set of words was generic and applicable to the majority of students.

Interestingly, the worst score I received on one of the little simulation exercises we had to do was concerning a Motivation situation. If I had been in a classroom, I would have argued there was no correct answer possible from the limited information provided.

At times, taking the courses seemed rather like a game: click on this icon/question/button and then, if correctly done, move to the next click. If the icon/question/button is intellectually provocative and/or elicited meaningful commentary from either the professor or other students, then value-added is created. Alas, not the case for these two courses. Note that this observation is not a complaint stemming from a low grade. Just the opposite. Below are the details on points received for my Global Entrepreneurship business plan.

“(24/25) Milestone submission and incorporation of feedback (25/25) Comprehensive final product (15/15) Critical Thinking (14/15) Research (10/10) Integration and Application (10/10) Writing (Mechanics/Citations) Bob, I have enjoyed watching you progress through this course with both ventures. The risk and competitors matrixes for these ventures were significantly different to one another. You have delivered a consistently high standard of work throughout the course and the final project reflects this. Thank you for your participation in this course.”

Well prof, it would have been nice to have had some pushback from you, like in any direction. When I put Yao Ming on my Board of Directors for a projected business in China, you might have said something other than, “you have put together a distinguished group of directors.”

EVALUATION OF ON-LINE HIGHER EDUCATION

The Teachers

Who are the teachers of on-line education? How can a student possess the information necessary to make quality judgments; essentially do they not revert to the brand—the name of the school—or to convenience, as stated seemingly the leading motivation for a student to go on-line. If the student draws a professor like the one I had for Global Entrepreneurship, an individual who does not care about his spelling, is there not an instant loss of respect, which then carries over to the content side of the deal (and which also speaks poorly of the sponsoring college). As with the first course, there was minimal real feedback on the weekly submissions.

The Objectives

What are the goals of on-line higher education:

• more low income young people taking college courses
• greater persistency by existing students through the Bachelor’s/Master’s cycle
• more college enrollees
• greater accessibility to higher education for international students
• tighter link between education and employability
• nice addition to existing academic resumes
• exposure to best teachers

What is the tangible document in the hand of the graduate of a random on-line course (as opposed to a complete curriculum through one education vendor):

• nothing
• certificate of participation
• certificate of accomplishments
• some college credits
• enough college credits for a diploma

Commentary

As is true in many areas, from sex to a publicly-held company’s reported earnings, the actual of on-line higher education inevitably is compared with expectations. Capital is raised and staffing established based on the latter—and so is the publicity.

The MOOC (Massive Open On-line Courses) development became front page news when glamour players like Stanford and Harvard took the lead, not the disreputable (to the college establishment) Phoenixes of the world.

What is the actuality of MOOC thus far. According to the “New York Times” Jeffrey Selingo, in his October, 2014 article “Demystifying the MOOC,” the average on-line user is a young white American man with a bachelor’s degree and a full-time job. ”Some 80% of MOOC students at the Universities of Michigan and Pennsylvania in 2012-13 already had a degree. Surprisingly, the same 80% ratio prevailed in the BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India, and China) and in South Africa. The data are from a sampling of Coursera courses but are representative of edX as well.”

Drop-out rates for students swapping the classroom for on-line are much higher than for their counterparts who get dressed and go to a boxed physical layout with a talking head up front. Perhaps on class sizes should be limited. This could move discussion board posts from vanilla to at least pistachio, if not in a totally different direction, like tossed salad. Right now, they are bland, flavorless, not satisfying to the mind’s appetite. Which spills back to a basic question of the purpose of on-line: is it a quick checkmark thing, akin to a tourist in Rome going down his list of sites seen—Coliseum, check; The Baths, check; Vatican, check, what’s next.

I find myself wondering about the on-line business model applicable to the SNHU on-line courses. The school provides its name, takes care of G&A (general and administrative functions), is customer conscious, and—then what? What is the relationship with the adjunct professor who has no other contact or contract with the school? Is the professor paid a standard rate or with incentives based on graduation rate/drop-out rate, class size, student surveys? If the student is paying full rate, should exposure be required by the curricula to all manner of commercial websites with their get one free come-ons of no use to students. What part of the curriculum does the professor create; are they almost entirely implementers of an academic approach created at the home office?

On reconstructing On-line methodology

My initial thought is that the starting point should be a definition as to what are one-time aspects of the course: syllabus, scoring rubric, etc. The idea would be to organize them in one place with a request that they be printed out by the student because following week one, they would come off the computer. After that, do every communication possible through the Discussion Board, including “here’s what you need to do this week.” There will still be a need for separate clicks for TurnitIn and Grading, but the overall net result would be a shifting of the education/navigation ratio in favor of the former, which–ignoring convenience–is what you signed up for in the first place.

The present system is like going to Bernie’s but having to obtain different parts of the meal from different places, when what you want is somebody responsible for delivering a good total eating experience—the student has already ceded by going on-line that physical ambiance is not the issue—but does he not still want an interactive classroom/professor dynamic?  What is the right role for technology, what part is about value-added education?  Again, note that the desired characteristics of an on-line learner start with being comfortable with the technical stuff, i.e, the marketing pitch is not about education.

Naturally I am not the only one rethinking what on-line is supposed to accomplish or who it is to be aimed at. In January, 2015, the non-profit Modern States Education Alliance (founded by Steven Klinsky) announced an initiative, “Freshman Year for Free.” It will be a collaboration with edX, a well-known on-line provider founded by Harvard and MIT.  Courses and exams created by university partners will establish a tuition-free route to the attainment of college credit. Clearly the target audience here is the financially challenged student.

Udacity, the MOOC often credited with paving the way for this concept, has already thrown in the towel on its original approach and is now concentrating on fee-based “corporate and vocational training.” Not exactly a paradigm shift in higher education.

 CONCLUSION

 The third choice in the Scottish judicial system—“not proven”—seems accurate with respect to any assessment of on-line higher education at this moment in its evolution. How’s that for succinctness!

Bob Howitt, Fall/Winter, 2014-15.

Notes:

The opening quote is from Griselle Baret, the Education Program leader at the Hunts Point Alliance for Children in New York City. Griselle, who has a Master’s, is less than half the age of Bob, who laughs out loud when reading the BBC book, “Grumpy Old Men. ”

For those who are not familiar with the culinary leader in New Jersey, it is the genre known as a “Diner.” Wherever it is located, and that seems like on every decent highway, the menu will be huge and the portions large, but not the prices. The pies and cakes will have more whipped cream, meringue, and frosting than is allowed by the AMA. The establishments are typically open twenty-four hours and are usually owned by Greeks, who hopefully are more inclined to pay their taxes here than is true of their home country compatriots. The servers look like they are from central casting, which is often true of the customers themselves. Thin is not in among these patrons, including yours truly.

In addition, a diner for me is a place where essay ideas often are born, especially when Bernie’s is actually in Barcelona, where I recently spent a total of five months.

The Poirot quote is from Agatha Christie’s 1924 book entitled “Poirot Investigates.”

I first became aware of SNHU because of its customer friendly approach to enrolling two-year college graduates directly into its four-year programs. A while later, in watching the NBA play-offs, I was reminded of the school. I decided to call its 800 number, with the resolve that if one component of the conversation was unappealing, I would bag the idea. Somewhat to my cynical surprise, everything went smoothly, including the adviser’s willingness to send me a year-old syllabus for a course I was signing up for and the school taking on the burden of tracking down my college transcript of fifty years ago.The fact that it was pure on-line, i.e. not a hybrid, was a must because of my travel bug. I know I should at least attempt some balance in my experience by enrolling on-line with a big name university—yes, I know I should.

ADDENDUM TO BERNIE’S DINER:

If I am really testing various on-line approaches, perhaps my upcoming third class at SNHU should be my last. Maybe attempting to make sense of Financial Regulations in ten on-line weeks will cause me to go in a different academic direction, perhaps social work.

Oops, the school advised me to withdraw completely! SNHU interpreted my several changes of schedule as being indicative of low resolve.  Uh, true!

Meanwhile, the world of higher education is rife with different sales pitches for graduate programs, what I refer to as “Get your Masters by Tuesday” marketing approaches, with a heavy emphasis on the courses delivered on-line.

In this context, it is interesting to enumerate the points made by a recent graduate of an Executive MBA program. With corporate world experience spanning five years a requirement to be enrolled in this particular endeavor, she found the classroom interaction with other mature individuals of great benefit. Backgrounds ranged from that of a surgeon to that of a nuclear engineer. Moreover, the professors were typically rooted in the real world of business and thus connected well with the students. Additional exposure to different careers and cultures was gained from a residency overseas.

In theory, each of these attributes can be garnered through the on-line modality. In practice, however, it appears that aspirational student are as likely to be disappointed as satisfied. A cautionary note to myself in forming any opinions about on-line; everybody I know who has taken such a course did so for convenience, not for its educational attraction.

http://BobHowittBooks.com/?page_id=22