BlogU

  • Portability and Cost

    By Joshua Kim May 5, 2010 9:41 pm EDT

    Let us engage in a thought experiment. You are teaching a course, and you want your students to participate in an online discussion/debate around some materials. The content that you want your students to discuss and debate is the PBS Frontline episode, "College Inc." that aired May 4th. The online discussion that you want your students to participate in is the one kicked off by Dean Dad -
    First Thoughts on "Frontline."

    Could you accomplish this teaching goal?

    In one sense, this is pretty easy - as PBS has put the documentary online and made it available for free.

    Kudos to PBS.

    But in another sense, the video will not be equally available and accessible to all of your students. After reading Dean Dad, I was excited to watch College Inc, and join the debate that he kicked off. But streaming the video was not an option for me, as the only window of time I would have to watch the video would be during my oldest daughter's soccer practice (where no WiFi is available). Fortunately, PBS has made the documentary available on iTunes for $1.95. I was able to download the video, and watch it on my iPod Nano (the only mobile screen I happened to have on me today).

    So when it comes to acquiring media, I'm a "have." My credit card and iTunes account lets me get the video in a format that allows the most flexibility for viewing - a downloaded file.

    Some questions:

    Will we see a future in which some students can buy full and flexible access to curricular media, while others must limit themselves to the devices and file formats that are freely available?

    How does the principal of universal access to curriculum, regardless of resources, square with an emerging reality of the "paid" download and the "free" stream?

    Will some students bypass the available curricular media if it is only available via streaming, if they can afford to purchase the files for the mobile devices that provide them with this flexibility?

    This thought experiment had pretty generous terms. A free stream is available. But what about cases where a free stream is not available, and the downloadable file for pay is the only one available? Will faculty be cut-off from assigning media that is as topical and relevant as College Inc? Will curricular media loose its velocity, as the traditional curricular acquisition and distribution cycle lags behind the new markets for downloadable video?

    I understand that content providers (iTunes, Amazon, etc.) have not developed reasonable or viable models for academic institutions to license downloadable content. And I understand the legal (i.e. lawsuit) concerns amongst academic institutions for providing curricular media in downloadable format for mobile devices. What I'm hoping for is a discussion around the divergence of learning opportunities based on the ability to pay.

Go to comments (2) »
Advertisement
Open Job?

Comments on Portability and Cost

  • Good questions
  • Posted by TechieLibrarian on May 6, 2010 at 9:00am EDT

  • Universal access doesn't meet equal access in this scenario. Students will all be potentially able to get material, but will be limited by economic costs just like they are today. Frankly it would be an improvement over current practices.

    We'll see a divergence in flexibility, but not one of actual content. Students who can afford to pay for content get added flexibility while others need to schedule their use around limitations such as access to the internet, much like many students do today with requirements like special software or students without regular internet access.

    This would disproportionally affect low income students, who are likely to have outside commitments (such as jobs) that would limit their access schedule. On the other hand this isn't that different from earlier problems in access, which was sometimes limited. It's only exceptional in that it violates the recent "anytime, anywhere" model of the past few years. It does disadvantage certain students, but does not really remove them from the educational table so to speak. There's also the seeming rise in pay-to-stream such as Hulu's upcoming Plus service that may drop the free streaming model.

    What would really help as you said is a careful look (and revision in cases) of fair use and copyright law to more explicitly allow media to be placed in a online classroom environment similar to in-class use. While it is supported by law, other areas such as the no defeating anti-piracy measures and lawsuits make the whole issue very messy. Clear legal precedent would make things much easier. Then a faculty member can buy the online video and provide it to students. You're likely to still see a "streaming only" restriction however since fair use for classroom applies to showing it and not any copying. Downloading becomes too close to distribution there.

  • Price of Access
  • Posted by djordan , Coordinator of E-Learning Initiatives at University of the Pacific on May 6, 2010 at 12:30pm EDT

  • Your thought experiment is a good one, though I think it reveals a blind spot in education regarding the price of access for our students. Students can pay up to $1000 a year for textbooks and often instructors are unaware of the price of the books when they select them for their classes. One complaint I often hear from students is that they are forced to buy books for their classes, and many times an instructor will use only a small section from the book, or may not even use the book at all. We are still in the mindset that $150 on a textbook is just the cost of education, but a $150 device like an iTouch is a luxury that creates a divide between the haves and have-nots. Some colleges have experimented with requiring computers for their computers, and soon we will see colleges requiring tablet devises or other types of mobile technology, and I think that this is critical. When colleges require such things, it becomes an educational expense that is necessary, can be financed with loans and grants, and provides an even playing field for students.

Print
© Copyright 2011 Inside Higher Ed