Why the E-Learning Boom Went Bust

From the Chronicle July 9, 2004

http://chronicle.com/prm/weekly/v50/i44/44b00601.htm

I believe you need a subscription to read the entire article.

I was hoping the idea of distance education via e-learning would gain more acceptance as time went by. But according to this article it appears the opposite is happening.

Comments?

Just my opinion

 

E-Learning Bubble...

Speaking as someone who was the CIO of a big university-run quasi-business/entrepreneurial e-learning operation, I can certainly identify with and agree with some of the conclusions of your post and the article. Yes indeed there were stars in the eyes of many senior university officials who should have known better. The attitude of those heady days was "well, we know businessmen make good money. But they had better watch out now that PROFESSORS are getting involved - we'll eat their lunch". Quite the opposite occurred, except for those e-learning operations that went totally into the "for profit" mode, like Capella and Phoenix. Not saying the quality or reputation is what it needs to be in those institutions, just that they did better and survived.

What is going on now seems to be an integration of e-learning with traditional education. There is no college or university of repute these days that does not have a heavy dose of e-learning and technology based learning included in its program. Will this eventually lead to students taking an entire degree online, in these highly reputable organizations? Yes... it already exists (e.g., the Duke MBA). But will it completely replace all forms of traditional education, where the face-to-face experience remains an important component of one's overall learning experience? No. The future will reveal once again the value of these human connections, while at the same time removing the barriers between "e" learning and just plain old "learning" learning.

 

If you figure the average masters program has 12 classes and each one has to be set up, instructures trained, and material pepared. Then maintained and matched to the class room version (if needed). This takes money, people, and dedication.

IMO the slow growth of e-learning (NB: e-learning is a sub set of Distance Learning (which is thriving)) is due to several factors:

1. Preparation: A good e-learning class takes more preparation and support (by the provider) than a class room based course. You can not just say "Hey, let's offer this course over the internet starting tommorrow!"

2. Economy: With the economic downturn of the last 3 years, public programs are suffering cost cutting. This slows up the development of programs.

3. Preception: Potential students thought that the it would be easy to take a couple of courses over the next couple of weekends and get a degree. It ain't so, it is hard work, and takes a long time (years).

4. Growing: After the era of the dotcoms people expected things to change instantly, but they don't. Many of the most viable DL programs are adding e-learning, but gradually as they develop exertise in how it works.

It will come, but not today, and probably not tommorrow, but definately in the next several years.

 

The B&M schools have a lot invested in their B&M, so it's in their interest to kill e-learning in its infancy. Toward that end they seem intent on making the e-learning experience as stultifyingly boring as the traditional classroom. Schools that succeed are true non-traditional schools like Northcentral, who use e-learning to minimize the annoyance, not perpetuate it.

 

I don't subscribe to the 'Chronicle of Higher Education', so I can't comment on the article.

But from my student's-eye-view, most of this e-earning stuff has been the emperor's new clothes (like just about everything with "e" in it).

In the late 90's I set up my Yahoo account to clip DL articles. What I got, besides all the software firms announcing sales, were grandiose announcements of prestige universities entering into schemes that, so we were promised, would transform everything.

But there were rarely any announcements of new programs that students could actually enroll in and graduate from.

It was just marketing schemes and strategic alliances that never came to anything because there was never any content to back it up. It was all "virtual", in the worst way, synonymous with "fake". Potemkin press-releases. Stage sets with nothing behind them but dust.

Meanwhile, every university this side of the moon was busy rolling out their own DL MBA program. The rush was obviously profit-driven, even when parent institutions were non-profit. The idea apparently was that an e-MBA would be a cash-cow that would help fund the entire university.

Even now, years later, it's still hard to find even one DL program in subjects like English or history.

But the hangover and the sobering up after the dot.com e-everything binge isn't going to sink DL. It's just the inevitable process of maturation where university administrators learn to stop acting like grade school children or Enron executives.

If anything is going to really damage DL, it's the degree-mills, the slimy underside of e-educational entrepeneurism. I think that the general public is already starting to think of DL in general as something suspect and a little disreputable.

Comedians already get laughs with the phrase "internet university".

 

I think you nailed it.

 

While it is true that we academics tend to be pretty inept when it comes to merging business/industry tools and concept into academic models, I must disagree with some of the observations regarding the status of distance learning in higher ed.

As a tool to bring big profits to universities, distance learning (distance education, online learning, e-learning, etc., etc.) has definately not been sucessful. That line of thinking was flawed from the start.

However, distance learning programs in institutions of higher ed have grown exponentially. Hundreds of colleges and universities offer entire degree programs via DL. I am in regular contact with distance learning faculty and directors at many colleges and universities. None of their DL programs are shrinking! Dozens of colleges and unviersities are currently recruiting people with masters degrees in instrucitonal technology to serve as instructional designers to work with faculty in distance learning prgorams. The mission for most of their distance learning programs is to serve the needs of students whose needs are not met by the traditional college schedule. Their distance learning programs augment, rather than replace, their brick-and-mortar operations. There is no vested interest in "killing their e-learning programs", since they do not compete with their "traditional" operation.

Associates through masters degrees in numerous subjects are available, many from well-known and highly regarded schools and more doctorates are becoming available (although most require some residency). Let me choose two subjects at random (actually, I'll let Bill choose them) English and history.

The latest issue of Bears' Guide list 28 English degree programs via DL and 30 history programs. This is not counting the more than 100 programs in general studies, humanities, individualized major and interdisciplinary studies that could be done with an emphasis in English or history.

This is my observation of what's currently happening in the universities that I visit and with which I correspond. I am eager for all your views on this issue.

Tony Pina
Faculty, Instructional Technology
Cal State U. San Bernardino