The second post on the subject of online consortia can be found here.)
We heard a couple of months back about Unizin launching a consortium of large state universities to share course content, content systems, and analytics. More recently we learned about Cal State Online’s decision to slow down its already tepid push into a system-wide collaboration to offer online courses. These initiatives join a long list of efforts to expand online education by sharing resources across institutions.
The logic of building collaborations is infallible: joining forces can potentially bring down costs, reduce risk, provide access to better resources, stimulate innovation, ward off competition, and more. But there are more a few failed efforts to challenge any naive assumptions that academic collaborations — particularly those that concern shared courses — are fool proof. There are more than 50 consortia in North America and almost as many types. There are right ways to do it and wrong.
Having had a chance to review online consortia recently for a client, I want now to share a few observations in a handful of posts, beginning with “known obstacles” of course sharing initiatives. These obstacles are not insurmountable. But like any undertaking, it helps to know where the potholes are before you set on your journey.
one . . .
Most online consortia that include course sharing agreements were created in the 1990s; a time when many institutions had yet to make substantial investments in online learning (e.g. technology, student support systems, professional development for faculty) and/or had yet to develop a sufficient level of confidence to carry out the functions required. As of 2014, the vast majority of universities have internal resources in place to support online education. The capacity to scale-back these investments is often difficult, owing to labor agreements and established practices. Nor do I suspect many institutions would chose to scale back at this point — given the growing strategic importance of online education to institutions. This, possibly more than any other factor, could dampen enthusiasm among institutions for participation in shared course delivery models.
two . . .
Many course sharing initiatives target large enrollment, foundational courses because, first, these courses appear to offer the greatest possible savings and, second, because the curriculum is thought to be relatively generic. But of course these high enrollment courses also often generate higher net revenue for universities than other courses and activities. Revenue from these courses is regularly redirected to other university activities and program areas that are less “profitable” (i.e. “cost-shifting”). Consequently, initiatives that facilitate students enrolling in foundational courses at other institutions may appear to administrators as a threat to a strong and stable source of revenue.
three . . .
Owing to concerns about intellectual property, some university faculty and instructors have voiced concern about distributing their instructional content outside of their home institution. While open educational resources are often presented as a solution, in practice this approach continues to face opposition and seems to have greater traction for the distribution of academic research papers (e.g. open journals) than instructional resources.
four . . .
Course sharing initiatives typically involve moving students between institutions (rather than the courses moving between institutions). In these cases, institutions may question whether courses offered by other institutions are inconsistent with, or inferior to, the instructional practices and academic standards of their own institution.
Education is a positional good; it’s used to define the status of the student (and the faculty and institution). Not surprisingly, my review identified cases in which more prestigious institutions refused to participate in course sharing programs with less prestigious institutions. Initiatives that bring together institutions of similar status may produce higher rates of buy-in.
five . . .
Institutions with more robust and successful online learning operations tend to less interested in participating in consortia. As a result, the consortia will fail to benefit from the participation of institutions with the greatest capacity and interest in online education.
Next Up: Common Motivations and Objectives of Consortia
Dr. Keith Hampson is Managing Director, Client Innovation at Acrobatiq, a Carnegie Mellon University venture born out of CMU’s long history in cognitive science, human-computer interaction, and software engineering. Twitter: @Acrobatiq