Online Education as a Technology Innovation in Higher Education 17 th IRMA International Conference Steven F. Tello, Ed. D. University of Massachusetts.

Online Education as a Technology Innovation in Higher Education

17th IRMA International Conference

Steven F. Tello, Ed. D.

University of Massachusetts Lowell

Agenda

• Case Introduction

• Innovation Theory & Online Education

• Analysis

• Summary

Online Education Continues to Grow

More Students Taking Online Courses• Fall 2002: 1,602,970• Fall 2003: 1,971,397• Fall 2004: 2,329,783• 18% annual growth (corrected projection)

More Institutions offering Online Programs• 62% schools offering UG courses offer online courses• 30% schools offering BA/BS degrees offer online degrees• 44% schools offering Masters degrees offer online degrees

(Seaman & Allen, 2005)

UMass Lowell• 1 of 5 University of Massachusetts Campuses,

Doctoral/Research University• Launched Online Program in 1996• Situated in Continuing Studies,

outside academic mainstream• 115 enrollments in ’96 to over 7000 in ’04• 10 online degrees, 15 online certificates• $5.9 million online revenue 2004,

54% of Continuing Studies Revenue

Along with Growth Comes Challenges

• Expanded Geographic Boundaries increase bargaining power of students

• New For-Profit Entrants invest in proven CRM, increasing yield on student recruits

• New Technologies & Techniques challenge traditional lecture method

Innovation Theory & Online Education

• Provides a framework for:– Understanding the impact of online education – Examine Technological & Business implications– Allows institutions to think strategically

• “Innovation . . . is generally understood as the introduction of a new thing or method . . . Innovation is the embodiment, combination, or synthesis of knowledge in original, relevant, valued new products, processes, or services.”

(Luecke & Katz, 2003)

• Technological Innovations are “technologically new products and processes and significant technological improvements in products and processes.” (OECD, Oslo Manual, 1995)

Innovation Theory: Technology Perspective• Networked Communications, Global Internet

– Global Classroom, Global Resources, New Global Markets– Enrich On-Campus and Online Classroom

• Asynchronous Communications Technologies– Threaded Discussions, Email, Blogs– Support Time Shifting, Support Reflection,

New Student Markets• New Collaboration Technologies

– WebEX, Elluminate, Support Virtual Teams, Group Work– Enrich On-Campus and Online Classroom

• Emerging Mobile Technologies – Podcasts, eBook, Blogs, RSS, Swarming– Support 3rd Generation e-learning, Personalized learning,

appeals to today’s UG, and harried Adults

Innovation Life Cycle

TimeTime

Adoption

Adoption

Early StageEarly Stage

Mid StageMid Stage

End StageEnd Stage

- Growth/Adoption is slow- Growth/Adoption is slow

- Adoption accelerates, incremental innovation accelerates- Adoption accelerates, incremental innovation accelerates

-Adoption levels off, may decline

-New Innovation introduced

-Adoption levels off, may decline

-New Innovation introduced

(Rogers, 1995; Moore, 1999)(Rogers, 1995; Moore, 1999)

Adoption of Online Ed. by Students

Online Enrollments at UMass Lowell

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

AY 97 AY 98 AY 99 AY 00 AY 01 AY 02 AY 03 AY 04 AY05

Academic Year

En

roll

men

ts

Early Stage – HTML, BBS, Innovators,

Early Adopters

Early Stage – HTML, BBS, Innovators,

Early Adopters

Mid Stage – LMS, Centralization, Early/Late Majority

Mid Stage – LMS, Centralization, Early/Late Majority

End Stage- Online, Blended, Web-Enhanced, Laggards

End Stage- Online, Blended, Web-Enhanced, Laggards

Innovation Theory: Business Perspective

• Technology Innovation creates uncertainty regarding consequences among adopters while offering opportunity to adopters. (Rogers, 1995)

• Competitive Threats – Bargaining Power of Customers– Threat of New Entrants, Threat of Substitutes – Rivalry Among Competitors (Porter)

• Strategic Responses– Differentiation, Innovation– Growth, Alliance

Adoption of Online Ed. by Institutions

TimeTime

# of Institutions O

nline# of Institutions O

nline

Early StageEarly Stage- Innovator Institutions- Innovator Institutions

1990-19971990-1997

Mid StageMid Stage-eLearning Boom-THREATS - Rise of For-Profits

Student Choices-RESPONSE - Higher Ed Alliances,

Growth Cost Efficiencies

-eLearning Boom-THREATS - Rise of For-Profits

Student Choices-RESPONSE - Higher Ed Alliances,

Growth Cost Efficiencies

1998-20011998-2001

End StageEnd Stage-Main Stream Adoption-Market Consolidation-Integrates into Academy-Differentiation

-Main Stream Adoption-Market Consolidation-Integrates into Academy-Differentiation

2002-20052002-2005 2006 - 2006 -

Innovation Theory: Business Perspective

• Disruptive Innovations (Christensen & Raynor, 2003)– May not meet market demands when first

introduced but over time establish new standards or industries

• Appeal to “New Markets” – Who have not adopted an existing technology,

product or service due to price or skill– Product or service requires travel to inconvenient

location– Who would purchase a product of lesser quality

• For-Profit Institutions targeted these very markets, which much of traditional higher ed. ignored

Innovation Theory: Business Perspective

• Sustaining Innovations (Incremental) – Improve product performance or service consistent

with customer or market demands– As the threat from for-profit institutions grew, public

& private non-profit institutions changed strategy– Expand online offerings, Offer flexible schedules,

Deliver relevant professional curriculum– Penn State World Campus, UMassOnline, SUNY

Learning Network

Differentiated Market

Public Private FP Private NP

Business 51.3% 80.5% 27.3%

Liberal Arts/Sciences 54.6% 55.2% 20.2%

Comp. Info. Sci. 43.0% 51.9% 21.6%

Education 30.4% 50.8% 17.6%

Social Sciences 40.7% 31.6% 11.1%

Health Professions 35.5% 32.3% 23.4%

Psychology 34.4% 26.5% 9.3%

(Seaman & Allen, 2005)(Seaman & Allen, 2005)

Summary

• Dot.Com hype of 1990’s warned of demise of the “Academy”

• Many for-profit ventures collapsed as venture capital disappeared

• Market consolidation left several successful for-profit players (U.Phoenix, Cappella)

• Public Higher Education embraced online education as a Sustaining Technology

Thank you

• [email protected]

• http://frontpage.uml.edu/faculty/stello