A market–driven distance education system?

In a previous editorial (Vol3 No 3) I reported some impressions of the 1989 "think-tank" organized by the Los Alamos National Laboratory. Chief among these was the consensus that fresh thinking is required about the basic infrastructure of education and training as well as the technologies used. At a follow-up seminar in June 1990, representatives from the four main educational/training sectors (universities, corporations, armed forces and public schools) tried to conceive what these new structures might be, and to suggest strategies for reform. Consideration was given to what basic principles should underlie an integrated, multi-media distance education system; to the barriers that impede the development of such a system, especially the fragmentation of resources, and the strategies that might overcome these barriers.

 Asked to think about alternative models of educational delivery, one group turned the challenge on its head and proposed that a distance education system should not be driven by designers and providers, but should be driven by learner demand. The idea of a market approach to distance education is a concept that I find challenging, and thought I should pass on, (with a few ideas of my own added) for readers to think about, perhaps respond to, and maybe even act on.

 The market system is dependent on consumers having information, and therefore the basis of this system is each potential learner having easy, free access to a real time, interactive database of information about courses produced locally, in-state, nationally and internationally. The interface of such a system is located in such public places as libraries and community centers, as well as being accessible from home computers by modem. Some of the resources currently spent on content expertise (teachers of history, mathematics, professors of economics, human resource trainers etc.) are diverted to provide a cadre of readily available expert helpers in accessing and interpreting the data base. In response to any learner's inquiry the system provides information in pyramidal fashion, starting with details of courses that can be accessed locally, perhaps in a distance or face-to-face mode, then if the user desires, information about state and nationally or internationally produced courses. The content of courses fered locally is likely to be more specific to the particular locality, while courses offered nationally are likely to be more generic. It is likely that local and national providers would team up to give the benefits of both large scale production and local learner support. The system gives feedback to course producers to report unmet demand, which in turn brings new courses into the market.

In a significant statement the report from the group stated: "The content of the database would be determined and driven by market forces and the underlying self-interest of participants... (On) the issue of quality..... the assumption is made that the users filter out what is and is not useful to them. However in the long run quality needs to be addressed. The two issues, how do we organize and how do we develop higher quality products were seen as separate."

 In spite of this, the group did indicate a direction they thought the course development process might take. In what was called a "regional project level model" a number of different institutions in a region, (which may be as small as counties in a state or as large as a number of states), collaborate to develop and deliver programs and enter them into the database. The potential of this collaborative approach, as I interpret it, is that it permits individuals and institutions to specialize in such areas as content expertise, course design, contribution of particular media to a multi-media design and the ever-important process of learner support. We already have examples of interinstitutional collaboration in the design and delivery of programs by particular media, but far fewer examples of collaboration across media. If a market for distance education products and services were in force, it is likely to favor such collaborative course design and development arrangements since they are likely to produce betr courses than single institution or single media efforts.

 In most other countries national distance education systems have been set up by decision of central governments, with government funding, and courses are designed centrally and delivered nationally. There is very little competition among providers. The cost of a high quality distance education course, using a mix of both interactive and recorded media, human and technology based delivery, is very high and results in a monopoly market for the producer of that course. An unanswered question is whether market forces are able to bring distance educators and communications specialists as well as those who decide policy for education and training, into collaborative arrangements to design and deliver the same high quality programs as are available to our foreign competitors by state planning.

References

Los Alamos National Laboratory. Distance Learning Conference Proceedings, Fall 1989. Paper LA-11883-C. June 1990