|
1
|
- Al Petrosky, Kaylene
Williams & Ed Hernandez
California State University, Stanislaus
- Robert Page
Southern Connecticut State University
|
|
2
|
- “Education is a state-controlled manufactory of echoes.”
|
|
3
|
- Instead of focusing on the similarities and dissimilarities in pedagogy,
should we view it as a commercial enterprise? What should an online
higher education business model look like?
- Comparison to the music industry in response to digitization (both
broad, service-based industries):
- Early successes in digital formats that emulate prior traditional
forms: i.e. compact disc
- Reticence to move to more ephemeral, less controlled forms: i.e. online
distribution
- Competition from providers less tied to legitimate, legal forms; i.e. Napster,
Kazaa
- Focus turns to defeating competition and consumer rather than improving
offering: i.e. RIAA lawsuits, DRM, RootKit
|
|
4
|
|
|
5
|
|
|
6
|
|
|
7
|
|
|
8
|
|
|
9
|
- EVIDENCE of new segment
- Online enrollments have continued to grow at rates far in excess of the
total higher education student population (Allen & Seaman 2008, Online
Education in the United States)
- Implication: Non-traditional students account for some larger
proportion of the online target population
- Have these non-traditionals previously avoided face-to-face higher
education for reasons beyond locational and temporal access issues?
|
|
10
|
- Is the goal of online education:
- DISCONTINUOUS INNOVATION
Reaching a new, non-traditional student, or
- DYNAMICALLY CONTINUOUS INNOVATION Providing a complementary channel for
existing, traditional students?
- If the asynchronous nature of online learning is one of its primary
appeals, and divorce from physical limitations of the classroom one of
its strengths:
- Why are online courses regimented into traditional semester and quarter
timelines?
- Does this conform to the needs of the student or the needs of the
university and its faculty?
|
|
11
|
- Progression of discontinuity
- Traditional
No online content
- Web-facilitated
Limited online content (0-29%): Online syllabus, list of
assignments
- Hybrid or Blended
substantial portion of class online (30-79%), reduced F2F,
typically utilizes online discussions
- Online
most or all content delivered online(80%+), typically no F2F
- Sloan Consortium categories
- But is this where the progression ends?
- Does it matter what the contents are?
|
|
12
|
- Progression of discontinuity
- Further extension driven by the concepts of
- Mass customization
- Micromarketing
- Mass collaboration
- Modularized course contents:
- courses reduced to/ replaced by number of interchangeable modules, any
given combination of which may be a course
- A marketing major can benefit from the discussion of outbound
logistics without taking the entire supply chain course
|
|
13
|
- Progression of discontinuity
- Further extension driven by the concepts of
- Mass customization
- Micromarketing
- Mass collaboration
- Modularized program contents:
- programs reduced to/ replaced by number of interchangeable modules,
any given larger combination of which may be a program
- Any number of customized majors created out of modules combined in
unique ways to respond to student or environmental needs
|
|
14
|
- Progression of discontinuity
- Further extension driven by the concepts of
- Mass customization
- Micromarketing
- Mass collaboration
- Reactive course and/or program contents:
- Course content reacts to the needs of the student: e.g. poor
performance on mathematical modules prompts further inclusion of
remedial modules
- Program content reacts to the previous choices of the student,
compares and prompts potential modular additions according to collaborative
filtering-based choices of similar students
|
|
15
|
|
|
16
|
- Individualization impacts price
- Does customized product have customized price? Are there bundling
opportunities? Targeted promotion opportunities?
- Does the transparency of online programs encourage price shopping?
- Modularization = cost control?
- Larger consumer pool due to no
geographic restriction = fixed cost lowering?
- Price base more understandable?
- Trackable reaction to price variation?
- Interactivity means easier feedback?
|
|
17
|
- NOT just another communication channel
- Reduces shopping “costs”
- There are potentially no “stockouts”
- Disintermediation: i.e.. “cutting out the middleman,” removal of the
physical trappings of the university setting
- Structural obstacles of disintermediation
- Providing a recognizable “retail setting” without the typical sensory
or aesthetic cues
- No experiential, tactile interaction
- No divisibility (after Rogers 1995)
- Providing necessary ancillary services
- Confuses channel power relationships: Authority, legitimacy,
accreditation
- Removal of channel function = removal of added value
|
|
18
|
- 5 Principles borrowed from optimal PR Web Design
(Kent and Taylor 1998)
- Principle 1:
The Dialogic Loop allow feedback from audiences to be embedded in
the [public relations] tactic itself. Running chat rooms, discussion
boards, links to corporate reps
- Principle 2:
The Usefulness of Information Sites should make an effort to
include information of general value to all publics. Indexical apparati,
links to similar websites, collaborative filters.
- Principle 3:
The Generation of Return Visits
Sites should contain features that make them attractive for
repeat visits such as updated information, changing issues, special
forums, new commentaries, on-line “Q&A” sessions, and on-line
"experts"
|
|
19
|
- Principle 4:
The Intuitiveness of the Interface Visitors who come to Web sites
for informational purposes, or even for curiosity, should find the sites
easy to figure out and understand. CONTENT over fluff. Does increased
bandwidth lessen the value of this principle?
- Principle Five:
The Rule of Conservation of Visitors Designers of Web pages
should be careful about links that can lead visitors astray. Embed
visited sites within frames.
|
Notes
