.
• Seed of Doubt (Inside Higher Ed)
Is online education as good as traditional, face-to-face education?
It is a loaded question. Online programs comprise the fastest-growing segment of higher education, with brick-and-mortar colleges — many ailing from budget cuts — seeing online as a way to make money and expand their footprints. Meanwhile, some politicians are eager for public institutions to embrace online education as a way to educate more people at a lower cost.
These movements have much invested in online education being equal or superior to the old-fashioned kind. And since a Department of Education meta-analysis last summer concluded that “on average, students in online learning conditions performed better than those receiving face-to-face instruction,” many advocates now consider the matter closed.
Not so fast, say researchers at the National Bureau of Economic Research.
The Education Department’s study was deeply flawed and its implications have been overblown, say the authors of a working paper released this month by the bureau.
“None of the studies cited in the widely-publicized meta-analysis released by the U.S. Department of Education included randomly-assigned students taking a full-term course, with live versus online delivery mechanisms, in settings that could be directly compared (i.e., similar instructional materials delivered by the same instructor),” they write. “The evidence base on the relative benefits of live versus online education is therefore tenuous at best.”
Mark Rush, an economics professor at the University of Florida and one of the study’s three co-authors, says he thinks the Education Department was under immense pressure to reassure online education’s many stakeholders, particularly cash-strapped state higher-education systems, that online education is just as good, if not better, than the classroom kind. But the fact that it “did not compare apples to apples” and severely lacked experimental data means that to treat the meta-study as a conclusive vote of confidence for online education would be scientifically irresponsible. “The conclusion that Internet-based and live classes are comparable might have been reached a little hastily,” Rush says.
Rush and his collaborators — Lu Yin, also of the University of Florida, and Northwestern University’s David N. Figlio, the lead author — sought to contribute to the online-education debate something they say it sorely lacks: reliable data collected via a controlled experiment.
. . .
Barbara Means, director of the Center for Technology and Learning at SRI International and lead author of the Education Department’s meta-study, says the bureau's paper, in addition to being rife with erroneous claims, draws conclusions that are essentially irrelevant to the debate over online education.
By taking pains to isolate the online-versus-classroom variable while keeping other variables constant, Means says Rush and his collaborators miss a crucial point: that what distinguishes online education from classroom education has little to do with the fact that one comes on a computer screen and the other does not….
• Mounting Congressional Scrutiny of For-Profit Colleges (Inside Higher Ed)
Five Congressional Democrats on Monday asked the U.S. Government Accountability Office to begin a study of for-profit higher education that would look at institutional quality and business practices. The request comes just days after a House of Representatives hearing on accreditation that included criticism on the sector, and on the same day that witnesses were announced for Thursday's Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee hearing on the for-profits. (The group scheduled to testify has a decided slant against the sector. The witnesses are Kathleen Tighe, the U.S. Department of Education's inspector general; Steven Eisman, an investor who has warned that the sector is "as socially destructive and morally bankrupt as the subprime mortgage industry"; Yasmine Issa, a former student at the for-profit Sanford Brown Institute; Margaret Reiter, a former California deputy attorney general and consumer advocate; and Sharon Thomas Parrott, chief compliance officer at DeVry, Inc.)
The request for a GAO review came from the chairs of the House and Senate education committees – Rep. George Miller of California and Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa – and three other influential members…. Citing "recent press reports [that] have raised questions about the quality of proprietary institutions" in a letter to the GAO, the members requested information on the sector's recent growth, as well as data on program quality, student outcomes and the amount of corporate revenues that comes from the Title IV federal financial aid program and other government sources. They also asked for a consideration of whether the Education Department's regulations on Title IV program integrity (in the process of being revised) do enough to safeguard against waste and fraud….
SEE ALSO: Democrats in Congress Call for Federal Review of For-Profit Colleges (Chronicle of Higher Education)
• Suit in Illinois Adds to Questions on For-Profit Higher Ed (Inside Higher Ed)
Some former students have filed a class action against the Illinois School of Health Careers, a for-profit provider, after they spent eight months completing a program (with federal loans financing their tuition) to become nursing assistants, only to find out that the program wasn't approved for them to receive state certification, the Chicago Tribune reported. Those suing cite materials they received that said that completing the program would allow them to sit for the state exam. The school admitted that some "unauthorized and wrong" information had been given out.
• Experts Ponder the Future of the American University (Chronicle of Higher Education)
American universities have long set a global standard for higher education. But U.S. institutions will have to change, an international panel of experts said Monday, if they want to retain their edge and help the country in an economy ever more dependent on knowledge and innovation.
"The American model is beginning to creak and groan, and it may not be the model the rest of the world wants to emulate," said James J. Duderstadt, president emeritus of the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor and one of the speakers on a panel assembled by the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars here to discuss the university of the future and the future of the university.
The other panel members largely agreed with Mr. Duderstadt's assertion that higher education could be among the next economic sectors to "undergo a massive restructuring," like the banking industry has seen.
Among the factors that could lead to change, they said, are the globalization of commerce and culture, the accessibility of information and communication technologies, and the shift in demographics in developed countries that will result in the need to educate greater numbers of working adults.
One model of a new approach to education could be the for-profit University of Phoenix, whose president, William J. Pepicello, also spoke at the Wilson Center forum. He argued that higher education must be more responsive to and tailor the curriculum to students' needs….
. . .
The challenge, [Duderstadt] said, is that the United States lacks a coherent national policy for using higher education to drive economic development. By contrast, many Asian governments are spending on universities and research to advance their economies. The American approach to higher education is very "laissez faire," Mr. Duderstadt said. "That's why the U.S. is in trouble."
. . .
When asked to predict what the university of tomorrow will look like, Mr. Duderstadt suggested two ideas: the global institution and the "meta" institution.
On the first point, he said, higher education has always been international, but in the future, there will be a growing number of universities or consortia of universities that compete on a worldwide level for students and faculty. They will also define their missions as trying to solve large issues, like climate change or global societal inequities.
The so-called meta university will be built on rapidly advancing information technology and such applications as OpenCourseWare, digital libraries, and social-networking programs that facilitate peer learning.
. . .
John L. King, vice provost for academic information for the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor, said universities are deep repositories of academic knowledge that can't simply be replaced. "They're not going to be wiped out," he said.
. . .
New technology will, of course, alter some academic practices. Mr. King predicted that OpenCourseWare and similar learning tools could mean the end of the "guild status" enjoyed by professors and the death of tenure….
The SOUTH ORANGE COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT — "[The] blog he developed was something that made the district better." - Tim Jemal, SOCCCD BoT President, 7/24/23
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Roy's obituary in LA Times and Register: "we were lucky to have you while we did"
This ran in the Sunday December 24, 2023 edition of the Los Angeles Times and the Orange County Register : July 14, 1955 - November 20, 2...
-
Professor Olga Perez Stable Cox OCC Trumpsters/GOP A professor called Trump’s election an ‘act of terrorism.’ Then she became the vict...
-
The "prayer" suit: ..... AS WE REPORTED two days ago , on Tuesday, Judge R. Gary Klausner denied Westphal, et alia ’s motion f...
-
Yesterday morning, the Irvine Valley College community received an email from college President, Glenn Roquemore, announcing the coll...
No comments:
Post a Comment