October 5, 2004
Re: "The Long Tail"- Implications for The Odd Course?
This is an interesting article about how digital media is changing the mass-market approach to selling entertainment. Books, movies, and music no longer have to appeal to a large audience in every segment of society to enable profits for local physical outlets. The large audience can span the globe, making a movie that might not play well in a small town viable. Of course, it seems obvious because it is rare that I find the sort of arcane academic books I am interested in at my local Borders or Barnes and Noble and have grown accustomed to instantly finding what I want at Amazon. What really made this article thought provoking was the amount of data and anecdotes provided to demonstrate the economic feasibility of personalization.
The same thing would appear to be possible in higher education. Though the traction is slower, mass-market courses do not have to be the only way to keep courses viable. A small example is the online course I teach in instructional technology. It is a Topics course in education and is not required for any degree program. On one campus, it has difficulty reaching the magical number to "make." It is now offered on two of the IU campuses and could be added to more campuses soon. What if this same course was offered for credit at other universities too? Could see a proliferation of odd courses on a number of subjects that might not be viable on a single campus but would appeal to a sufficiently large number of students across campuses?
There are the obvious administrative and cultural issues. But it is more than that.
While having an intermediary campus that works across universities to provide access to professors and give credit, the courses are often limited and the degrees are generally not from a “branded” institution. Just as the article mentions, there needs to be equal access to the big hits as well as the more obscure gems to make the enterprise viable. This was the case with Cardean University developed by UNext (where I was employed for 18 months). Faculty from Columbia, Chicago School of Business, Stanford, London School of Economics, and Carnegie Mellon developed Cardean MBA courses. The program was accredited and the courses were individually branded with the faculty member but people wanted more than just the great teaching of individual teachers, they wanted the "big hit song" of a branded degree.
Of course, there is a huge difference between university courses and online music. It might seem obvious but music, books, and movies are all commodities that can be stored in databases and university courses are about learning. The product in education is not the content. It is the knowledge acquired by the student! Without getting into a deep discussion about the definition of knowledge, it is basically the interaction between the individual, the content, and the social contextualization that creates understanding.
This makes knowledge is a lot harder to package than the latest hit song. But a brand-name degree is still a marketable commodity. Can there be a combination of the "big hit" degree and the personalization of courses across campuses?
Posted by Rovy at October 5, 2004 12:00 PM
Comments
Brilliant synthesis of topics that would seem vastly different at first blush. The commodification of courses is a fascinating subject...the implications aren't all negative, as my gut always first tells me. Thanks for this thoughtful and creative post.
Posted by: Mike Arnzen at October 6, 2004 5:17 PM
Thanks for the kind words about the post. Not sure I quite said what I intended but, for 20 minutes worth of writing, I gaveit a shot.
The bottom line:
Content can be commodified, learning cannot!
Posted by: Rovy at October 6, 2004 9:07 PM
The was an intriguing article. I am currently pursuing a graduate degree here at Utah State University. The department of Instructional Technology is branching out by offering degrees through distance education. During my masters program my cohort consisted of around 45 students all attending class at their local highschools, junior high schools or elementary. We all learned at a distance and more entered the program because of travel, not to USU in logan Utah, rather to their local school.
Posted by: John W. Roe at October 8, 2004 7:28 AM
John,
You bring up an excellent point. People attend distance programs for a number of reasons. In the U.S. nearly the entire population lives within 60 miles of a university but it can still be a problem to get to the program of greatest interest to you. On a larger scale, I wonder if this means that we could see a greater difficulty for smaller, less well-known programs, even if it is a benefit for an individual course?
Posted by: Rovy at October 8, 2004 8:02 AM
I wonder what would happen to the "odd course" if enrollment was based on the Gmail principle. Gmail appeals to the human desire to be part of an exclusive group. Considering that the Gmail group isn't that exclusive anymore (even I have an account) doesn't change the perception.
Think of an "odd course" that required an invitation from someone else in order to participate. I realize this selectivity would probably violate equal access laws, but it would be interesting to see what kind of response occured. Would the invitations branch out across an institution or would they remain within a single group?
Posted by: Jim Taggart at October 10, 2004 10:24 AM
You talk about the long tail for the odd course- but what about the long tail for the odd learning object? And do the 3 rules apply to instructional technology?
Rule 1: Make everything available (open digital repositories)
Rule 2: Cut the price in half. Now lower it (I can't see how this applies, but maybe you do)
Rule 3: Help me find it (metadata)
Posted by: Shelley Henson at October 11, 2004 1:52 AM
Shelley,
You raise some great questions. I think that there is the potential for the same concepts to apply at the object level but we have two issues: 1)object repositories are still in their infancy and 2) content is only a part of the issue: context is also critical.
I think all three of these rules apply. You ask about #2, high-quality multimedia instruction is VERY expensive to create. We must find a way to make this more reasonable and amortizing the cost across multiple courses is one way to do this.
Thanks for the comments!
Posted by: Rovy at October 12, 2004 7:54 AM
Love your comment on 'The product in education is not the content. It is the knowledge acquired by the student! Without getting into a deep discussion about the definition of knowledge, it is basically the interaction between the individual, the content, and the social contextualization that creates understanding.'
Courseware management systems like WebCT & BB does an excellent job of housing all the online content. In time, with better customization, they can only get better. Advocates like Dave Wiley support collaborative learning among peers. But I come from a very different system (Singapore) where learning is mostly 'top-down', not 'peer-peer'. So, my thoughts are always centered on what can the instructor do to improve learning for their students?
I like to hear your thoughts on the 'superstar syndrome' of hiring professors that is in tandem with “branded” institutions. For example, if Lawrence Lessig of Stamford Uni teaches a course in copyright, vs. dr. nobody from island of xandadu, chances are people will flock to Lessig – even if both are using the exact same content.
What are the implications of such effects on lesser well-known institutions of higher learning that offer similar classes but don't have these 'superstar professors'? After all, there are only so many students an instructor can commit himself to.
Cheers,
BH
Posted by: Bing-Howe at October 14, 2004 5:11 PM