Search News


Browse Archives

News

Special Report

A Curricular Innovation, Examined

December 16, 2010

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

It was the fall of 2010, and I was taking an introductory macroeconomics course. As I sat at my computer clicking through the lesson presentation for Chapter Eight: Basic Macroeconomic Relationships, my eye was caught by a "Real World Example":

"Is the U.S. housing market out of equilibrium? For a current example of equilibrium in action, read 'Housing Bubble — or Bunk? Are home prices soaring unsustainably and due for plunge? A group of experts takes a look — and come to very different conclusions.' Keep the housing market in mind as you go through this topic, and use your new knowledge to draw your own conclusions."

The blurb linked to a Business Week article dated June 22, 2005.

Few professors of economics would argue with the idea that it's important to relate the material in a macroeconomics course to events both current and historical. But what kind of professor would tie his class lessons to economic news more than five years out of date -- and now painfully ironic to boot?

The answer, at least in this case, is no professor at all. I took my introductory economics class through StraighterLine, an online provider of higher education that has made numerous headlines over the past couple of years for its unusual business model. Students can take StraighterLine courses for an exceptionally low price, then receive college credit through one of StraighterLine's partner colleges, or through another institution that awards credit for courses evaluated by the American Council on Education's Credit Recommendation Service (ACE CREDIT recommends college credit for 15 of StraighterLine’s courses, including the lab and non-lab versions of two science classes) -- StraighterLine itself is not accredited.

StraighterLine courses are not led by instructors; instead, students work through the materials at their own pace, with the (optional) aid of up to 10 hours of tutoring per course, provided by the online tutoring company SmarThinking -- another business started by StraighterLine's founder and current CEO, Burck Smith. StraighterLine does not offer degrees or certificates, simply courses a la carte: at present, it offers about 17 different classes in a range of general education subjects, mostly at the remedial or introductory level. (According to its website, StraighterLine is "developing 11 new courses that will launch in the first half of 2011.")

StraighterLine offers three different pricing models, but each results in a total cost far lower than that of college courses offered anywhere else, with the exception of perhaps a handful of community colleges. Students can choose to take any number of StraighterLine classes for a flat rate of $99 per month, plus an additional one-time fee of $39 per course; take a single class for a single payment of $399; or take ten courses over one year for $999. As a result, the company has received a raft of press attention, much of it positive, with a focus on StraighterLine's low cost and the convenience it affords students.

Special Report
Inside Higher Ed's Serena Golden
took StraighterLine's Economics 101
course this year. This article recounts
her experiences and what they reveal
about the much-discussed curricular
experiment.


"Affordable, accessible, flexible, high-quality courses with on-demand assistance," wrote Carol Twigg, president and CEO of the National Center for Academic Transformation (NCAT), in a 2009 NCAT newsletter piece supportive of StraighterLine. "What’s not to like?"

"There is no question that there is a need to reduce the cost of higher education … and it is clear that StraighterLine is doing this," Twigg's piece continues. "There is a clear benefit to both students and the taxpayer."

And Twigg isn't the only big name in higher ed to shine a favorable spotlight on the company. "Smith may be the person who revolutionizes the university, or he may not be," wrote Kevin Carey, policy director of Education Sector, in a 2009 Washington Monthly article about StraighterLine. "But someone with the means and vision to fundamentally reorder the way students experience and pay for higher education is bound to emerge."

But the low cost touted by its advocates has helped fuel suspicion about StraighterLine: what kind of education can it possibly be offering for $99 a month? Students at Fort Hays State University, in Kansas, protested when news of its partnership with StraighterLine broke in early 2009; they worried that it would "cheapen the value of a degree from FHSU," and an English department committee there expressed doubt about the quality and rigor of StraighterLine's composition courses.

In light of this ongoing back-and-forth, Inside Higher Ed decided to find out what a StraighterLine course was really like -- firsthand. Last spring, I enrolled in ECON101: Macroeconomics, a course -- indeed, an entire subject area -- I'd never tried during my own college career; the idea was that the unfamiliar material would help keep me from comparing the course to those I took in college.

Smith is "particularly touchy," he acknowledged in an e-mail, about "the frequent criticism … that [StraighterLine courses] don't adhere to the idealized version of a college course.… In my opinion, the more appropriate comparison is how much they resemble a typical college’s online course, or an online course for which that college will award transfer credit."

"We're doing nothing in our courses that's different from anybody else," he added in a telephone interview. "So whether it's McGraw-Hill courses, Smarthinking tutoring, Blackboard LMS, course redesigns, or development theory around the courses, there's nothing that's different."

Economics I: Macroeconomics

Putting Together a Course

StraighterLine relies heavily on the good name of McGraw-Hill, as it must: StraighterLine's courses (with the lone exception of general calculus), as Smith noted, are all built with McGraw-Hill course materials, and accompanied by McGraw-Hill textbooks. The main text for the introductory macroeconomics course is Macroeconomics: Principles, Problems, and Policies, by Campbell R. McConnell and Stanley L. Brue. This is the 17th edition, released in 2006; an 18th edition was released in 2008 (and is now offered with an "Economy 2009 update"), but, said Smith, "to keep costs low for students, we don't want to use the most current textbook because then there's no vibrant used book market for those textbooks."

According to Smith, StraighterLine does play a role in course design: "We employ consultants and faculty to put the course together -- write the scope and sequence of the syllabus, align with the content, make sure the test banks work, etc." But, for the materials themselves, McGraw-Hill is responsible — a point often cited by StraighterLine's supporters. (McGraw-Hill representatives, contacted by phone and e-mail, did not make anyone available to discuss this story.)

"The same materials we're using are used extensively by schools around the country as well," Smith said. This fact is underscored by Carey's Washington Monthly article, which describes a StraighterLine student who noticed that her daughter, a community college student, "was using exactly the same learning modules that she was using at StraighterLine, both developed by textbook giant McGraw-Hill. The only difference was that her daughter was paying a lot more for them…."

Similarly, Twigg's NCAT piece states that "McGraw-Hill educational materials [are] developed by educators who have spent years thinking about how to teach introductory courses to college students… [and] are used by thousands of colleges and universities." In an interview, Twigg affirmed that "the McGraw-Hill courses are, I think, generally regarded as being of high quality."

Course Overview

The course is structured as follows. For each of the 19 chapters in the textbook, there is a corresponding "topic page" in the Blackboard account for the course, showing the assignments for that chapter. Ten of these topic pages assign a new "lesson presentation" for the chapter; each lesson presentation operates essentially like a series of PowerPoint slides with accompanying voiceovers. Five additional chapters (3, 5, 10, 13, and 14) have no new lesson presentation, but instruct the student to rewatch the previous chapter's presentation while focusing on a different set of issues. Four chapters (15, 17, 18, and 19) make no mention of a lesson presentation at all.

Each topic page directs the student to read the corresponding chapter in the textbook, as well as that in the study guide. Many — though by no means all — of the topic pages also have a set of online review activities; these generally include a set of flash cards, a crossword puzzle, a jumble, a matching game, and a round of "beat the clock."

Each chapter also includes two practice tests (not timed or graded), consisting of 10 multiple-choice questions each, and one graded exam of 40 multiple-choice questions, with a two-hour timer (this time limit is a relatively recent change; until earlier this year, students were allowed five hours to take each test). When I took the course, it did not have a cumulative midterm or final exam, although the latest version (which is otherwise unchanged) has both.

To get assistance with any of the subject matter, students can schedule a half-hour online tutoring session with a SmarThinking tutor; the appointment must be made at least 48 hours in advance, and the available hours are extremely limited (at the time I was taking the class, there were a total of four half-hour tutoring slots for macroeconomics each week; as of this writing there appear to be six). Students can also simply "drop in" during SmarThinking's live tutoring hours, which vary by class and time of year -- but in most cases, and particularly in economics, are not "24/7," as articles about StraighterLine often state.

Lesson Presentations and Review Materials

The value of the lesson presentations is debatable. The material that appears on each test is in the corresponding textbook chapter; the information in the lesson presentations often bears only a vague relationship to the content of the textbook, let alone the tests.

The website for McGraw Hill Online Learning explains that the "courses were built using a set of topics that follow a critical path of knowledge — not a specific textbook’s table of contents…. [The courses] are intended to augment and enhance a textbook; the course content is original and does not 'parrot' any book."

In other words, the material in the lesson presentations isn't tied to the material in the textbook. In theory, having the topics covered in a different way, with different examples and explanations, should help students understand and retain the material; in practice, the lesson presentations are often condescending and sometimes utterly befuddling. Students who just want to get through the course and get the credit — that is, the students who are most likely to turn to StraighterLine — have no reason not to skip the presentations entirely: the final grade is simply a tally of all exam scores, and the exams are clearly based on the textbook, so in this sense the lesson presentations are extraneous.

Exacerbating the apparent irrelevance of the lesson materials is their sloppiness in both structure and content. Grammatical and typographical errors like "ressecion," "Ben Bernake," and "camp councilor," among many others, occur with distracting frequency. Text boxes often appear where they shouldn't, or don't say what they should; hovering over the highlighted keyword "depression" on one slide brings up a text box reading only "insert definition." A table showing supply curve determinants is entitled "Approximate Absolute Thresholds for Various Senses." A slide about the Phillips Curve notes that "According to this model, if unemployment and inflation have a stable, inverse relationship. Growth in the economy brings with it inflation."

And, of course, the material is dated; the example that begins this article is one of many. The very first lesson presentation — the course introduction — uses the example of the Great Depression to illustrate the importance of macroeconomics. The text and narration are filled with remarks like these: "There are factors within our economy right now that might send us into the next depression: a housing bubble, a sudden drop in agricultural supply due to the environment, even another stock market crash. The good news is that sound fiscal and monetary policy is in place to buffer the effects of these possible outcomes in the marketplace."

The content is also filled with minor bugs, particularly in areas that are meant to be interactive: hovering over a keyword to see its definition often causes the entire screen to wiggle back and forth, while clicking the answers to "Self Check" questions sometimes brings up an incorrect response, or a blurb of text that clearly belongs to another topic entirely.

(See the slideshow of course errors and bugs below; to increase text size, click “Menu” and then “View Fullscreen.” To return to original view, press your keyboard’s Escape key.)

The review activities are of similar quality. While there are a total of five different types of activity, they are all designed to do the same thing: help the student memorize key terms and definitions. While this is itself a worthwhile goal (though of dubious value for taking an open-book test with ample time to look up word definitions — but more on that later), it is of no use for the areas in which students are most likely to want assistance, such as how to read and interpret graphs, or calculate figures such as GDP. And even for the purpose they do serve, the activities are lazily done: some "crossword puzzles" consist of just a single word across and one down, while one "jumble" invites the student to unscramble the letters "GPD" -- while offering the (incorrect) definition, "The difference between actual and potential output in an economy; this can be positive or negative."

Keep Reading: Part 2: Econ 101, continued -- and what econ professors elsewhere have to say about the course.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on A Curricular Innovation, Examined

  • Thank You
  • Posted by JT on December 16, 2010 at 8:15am EST
  • This is just the sort of balanced, considerate, and thorough examination that has been all too rare in the discussion of online education. My institution is considering expanding online offerings and tutoring, and I'll be recommending this piece to all members of the committee.
  • idea for comparison
  • Posted by Andy Rundquist , Physics at Hamline University on December 16, 2010 at 9:00am EST
  • One of my favorite assessment methods that I'm able to do in small classes is the oral exam. I'm wondering if it's possible for IHE to arrange such an event for both the author and a few students who completed a similar course last spring at various institutions. Pick a professor of econ from just about anywhere and have her interact with the students for a half hour or so on the topics covered in the class. I think the idea of doing it so many months after the class is a great measure of whether the students got what they needed from the course (besides the 1000 points, of course ;) It reminds me of what I tell my students about my cumulative finals: You should all pass this six months from now. It helps them figure out the level of material on the exam.
  • Thank you X 2
  • Posted by In Agreement on December 16, 2010 at 9:15am EST
  • It is very refreshing to read a candid assessment of higher education, particularly from Carol Twigg who is not in the business of making money based on the outcome (I'm enjoying the double entendres here).

    I disagree with Burck's challenge to the journalist when asked for a traditional online comparison: I think two or three randomly selected, ground Economics courses would be a great comparison. My memories of economics in college are of 250 students in a lecture hall, and nit-picky multiple choice tests (mid-range private university). So Burck's argument about 'good enough' holds water. Checking out Professor Shapiro's "Rate My Professors" page yields this from 2007:

    Know the textbook!! All tests/quizzes come directly from the text. (In fact, they're written by the publisher.) He's a bit condescending, and there's no structure for self-teaching or studying. I found him intolerant to beginners and their questions..

    Hmmm.

    This said, the atrocious quality of the material would make me shut down both Straighterline and McGraw-Hill until proper proofing and editing had been completed. This, too, is just like traditional ground/online courses - and we should expect more given the argument for leverage (put effort into creating content that can be reused). You can't leverage crap, and McGraw-Hill should be firing some people today in response to this article. Again, nothing different than the average class/lecture at a traditional school, nevermind most half-baked attempts at online content that feature professors mumbling and sniffing into a microphone as they attempt to master Camtasia.
  • Innovation Examined
  • Posted by Gary Corrigan , Director of Marketing at Owens Community College on December 16, 2010 at 9:15am EST
  • Serena Golden's article was like a well written movie review. Insightful and filled with clear examples. Imagine if every course in every college catalog had the benefit of her insight. It would be interesting as to how all courses would hold up to such scrutiny and analysis. In the spirit of continuious improvement, online courses will get better and short falls in one do not indicate shortfalls in all. We will benefit from more well written articles like hers to improve the courses we teach. Thank you.
  • Posted by Perry on December 16, 2010 at 9:15am EST
  • This article gives the impression that if they just fixed the typos in the presentation materials everything would be fine. Surely there is more to education than that.

    As long as education is conceptualized as acquiring a set of facts, approaches like this will seem like a wonderful idea. If you instead conceptualize education as leading to a fundamental change in the student, the shortcomings of this approach will be more obvious.

    It has always been possible for autodidacts to read material on their own in order to acquire knowledge. It has not been possible for them to argue with themselves, raise ideas they were previously unaware of and see implications beyond their own understandings, see a piece from multiple viewpoints at the same time, systematically sample a literature with which they are unfamiliar, socialize themselves into a profession, act as their own mentors, force themselves to read things they truly do not want to read (but that would be good for them), and know which are the most important or critically key views to be exposed to (e.g., know where what they are reading fits or has contributed to a literature). Further, when they think things, there is no one there to give them feedback on their reactions.

    Reading info off a screen (or a page) is better than not reading, but the question is whether it is all there is to education. I can't believe we are seriously considering this to be learning. The fact that we have web-based presentation of material changes nothing. We have always had books available to whoever wanted to read them. We didn't think that was equivalent to a college education. Why now? Because the books come with tests?
  • Quality-risk shifting model
  • Posted by Glen McGhee at FHEAP on December 16, 2010 at 10:45am EST
  • What's different here is the delivery mode, pricing, and shifting of course-level QA/QC from a non-accredited knowledge-networking organization to an accredited partner or client college/university, who then takes responsibility for course quality.

    <b>This shifting of quality-risk is what's new with this business model, not the curriculum.</b> Non-accredited courses are bundled in with a school's own, home-grown on-line classes, just like sub-prime mortgages were.

    What about the instructors and their qualifications? Public institutions are taking on a risk by using this kind of pass-through consortium for distance learning, and the public should be worried about the lack of transparency in this regard.

    That this is actual practice speaks volumes about the inability of the present system of accreditation to independently ensure quality, especially for distance education. This arrangement is rife with conflicts of interest, allowing schools to -- in essence --accredit their partners, whose courses they then market themselves.
  • StraighterLine's Response
  • Posted by Burck Smith , CEO at StraighterLine on December 16, 2010 at 10:45am EST
  • While we thank IHE for the attention, it is unusual and unprecedented for Inside Higher Ed to dedicate a 3 part article to the review of a single course from a single course provider by a single student under a tabloid-esque banner. To provide a comparable headline, the article could just as easily be titled “Colleges Wildly Overcharge Students and Taxpayers for Online Courses.” Similarly, the article casts StraighterLine as a curricular experiment, when it’s really a pricing innovation. There are a variety of issues that should be raised as well.

    First, like any good college or professor, we are constantly updating and improving our courses. Prior to the writer enrolling, this course was reviewed and recommended by the ACE Credit service and given a positive review by the DETC, a DoE recognized national acccreditor. Since the writer’s enrollment in April, we have incorporated a variety of recommendations including shortening the time given on exams, including weighted and cumulative exams, and adding an additional layer of identity verification. Further, several weeks ago we announced that, in the coming year, we will give students the option for full exam proctoring and the ability to select moderated cohort based courses in addition to self-paced courses. Lastly, we periodically review the courses to make content updates or even wholesale changes. Given that this course was reviewed and recommended 13 months ago, we haven’t had a chance to do that with macroeconomics. The writer has provided a very public snapshot of a course that was deemed sufficient by all the course review bodies available to us at the time of enrollment. This course, like all of our courses, are continuously improving.

    Second, now that Inside Higher Ed is acting like the Consumer Reports of online courses, I presume that we will see several thousand more 3-part stories on all of the other colleges offering distance education courses? If that reporting burden is too much, perhaps they should just link to Rate-My-Professor and publish the student reviews found there? It is interesting that the writer neither included comments from other students nor actually compared her experience in a comparable online course. Like colleges, we conduct post-course student evaluation and over 90% of our students would recommend the course to a friend. If colleges actually used student comments to make credit decisions on their courses, there would be few colleges awarding credit. StraighterLine has been through every 3rd party course review available to us. The course taken by the writer has been reviewed and fully recommended for college credit by the ACE Credit service, a service to whose recommendations more than 1000 colleges profess to adhere. This course was reviewed by DETC. This course was reviewed by the College Board’s AP service. Our partner colleges, who award transfer credit for our courses, have been given complete access to the courses. What is the appropriate way to evaluate courses – a single student’s perspective or course-level reviews conducted independently by dozens of professors, dozens of accredited schools and several higher ed associations?

    Unfortunately, the standard used by most colleges for the award of transfer credit, the presence or lack of regional accreditation, is not only insufficient to determine course quality but is also unavailable to us. Despite the fact that credit (and courses) are the unit of academic currency in an age when students can take courses from anyone at anytime, individual courses cannot be accredited, only degree granting programs. This means that colleges can offer, and accept for transfer credit, taxpayer-subsidized courses of wildly varying and indeterminate quality under the umbrella of accreditation. If industry-wide course level, outcome based standards existed, we’d be thrilled to follow them. Unfortunately, such standards are always resisted by colleges and accreditors alike, resulting in entirely subjective decisions about what constitutes college credit. Such subjectivity lets colleges keep those with threatening business models out without having to examine their own standards of course delivery.

    Further, we are very confident that students that successfully complete StraighterLine courses will have greater success rates in follow-on courses and in degree attainment. An increasing amount of general and accepted research around the persistence rates of students that start college with prior learning assessment credit, that start college with AP credit and that start college with dual enrollment credit (particularly in Math), all point to the fact that students that start college with some credit are more likely to succeed.

    Third, StraighterLine is one of many options available to students. Not only is it low-cost, but it’s also low risk. If a student decides after a month that they aren’t ready for college, then they are out $138. If a traditional student decides that they aren’t ready for college, the student and taxpayer is out several thousand dollars. Working online in a self-paced environment is not for the faint of heart. However, if a student is willing to do that, it shouldn’t cost them the same either. Further, our model doesn’t apply equally well to all subjects. Courses that are heavily weighted toward skills and knowledge acquisition (for lack of a better description) are much better suited to both online and self-paced learning. Many of these courses also happen to be the freshman level courses usually delivered in a large lecture environment. Consequently, this is our only focus.

    All of the elements of StraighterLine courses are used extensively throughout higher education. To build the courses, we use the principles of Course Redesign which are used by hundreds of college and which de-emphasizes the primacy of the instructor-led model for large, introductory courses. We’ve been through every 3rd party validation process available to us. The controversy around StraighterLine seems to stem from the fact that we dare to price closer to the true cost of delivery and that we are completely transparent about what are courses are and are not. I would challenge the rest of higher education to do the same.
  • What's to come?
  • Posted by tom abeles , president at sagacity, inc on December 16, 2010 at 11:15am EST
  • As has been mentioned before, Clayton Christensen's model on Innovation fits this situation precisely. Think about how the US car manufacturers responded to the first cars to come to the US from Japan.

    Can the current model of the HEI's hold? Since other institutions accept SL's ACE certified courses, the student gets what they are told that they need, a degree from a regionally accredited institution.

    There are markets for BMW's and Lincoln's; and there are markets for Harvard and Williams' degrees. There are also markets for KIA's and for those who get their diplomas from the public institutions' CCBA programs.

    And even though several states have mandated "equality" of CC courses for transfer to their medallion public institutions, the public turns a blind eye.

    The lid is off the academic equivalent of Pandora's Box. We are seeing it now, for example, at the Federal level with certification of teachers where proficiency and performance will be the new standards and not courses and masters degrees which is of great concern to the HEI's cash cow models in education programs.

    As has been noted in many places, there has been an inversion of the ratio of adjuncts to tenured profs in the HEI's which challenges the rhetoric of the academics in the article.

    The story turns a complex issue into one that is just complicated by looking at a single course and not the system in which it is embedded. Burcks talks systems and the author talks reductionist, extracting the course from the larger fabric. This, of course, is what Carol Twigg was also addressing in support of Straigter Line.
  • Dah...
  • Posted by Glen S. McGhee at FHEAP on December 16, 2010 at 12:30pm EST
  • There are discrepancies in what was just cited above (Carl Parker's comments), and the previous statement by Provost Smith that, "FHSU credentials literally hundreds of hours of similar credit per year from unaccredited sources like ACE and places all kinds of transfer credit on students’ transcripts. But what is it about SL courses that provides me with a higher level of confidence about judging quality relative to, say, credentialed transfer credit from a community college or ACE? It’s simple. I know more about the SL content, design, syllabi, instructors, etc. because we’re a partner university with SL." (http://www.fhsu.edu/leader/?p=387 link no longer operative)

    Apparently not.

    Carl Parker at Fort Hays State University, "We have no idea …about the faculty teaching those courses at StraighterLine." Parker noted that, "all of the people that teach [Fort Hays's] courses online have their Ph.D.," and that this difference between Fort Hays and StraighterLine could "lead to us not being able to continue our relationship with them."

    Evidently, there is some difference of opinion about a central feature of this "innovation."

    Where, I ask, are the arbiters of education quality in all this? HLC wasn't even aware of the arrangement when I first asked them about it.

    "[S]o… it hurts us with our accreditation," according to Parker.

    I sincerely doubt it. Someone needs to get a copy of HLC's On-site Visitation report, just completed, to see if this did -- unless Parker is talking about Fort Hays seeking AACSB accreditation for its economics classes, "and they require that the faculty teaching courses be either academically or professionally qualified." Then it might matter. Maybe.
  • Course quality, Open University et seq
  • Posted by Jim Farmer , Researcher at instructional media + magic inc. on December 16, 2010 at 12:45pm EST
  • When Open University UK was founded, Diana Laurillard benchmarked quality by comparing the results of testing Open University students with those taking the same course and same tests in traditional universities. The results quickly established Open University's reputation. Open University course materials and protocols were developed by faculty committees from several universities and Open University instructional technologists. The materials were specific to the learning objectives and learning technologies.

    This type of evaluation would be appropriate for beginning courses, but would not reflect the intended and often subtle differences in tutorials and graduate courses.
  • Agreed
  • Posted by Glen McGhee at FHEAP on December 16, 2010 at 1:00pm EST
  • "Smith repeatedly and expressly urged me to 'make sure to compare our courses to other colleges’ general education courses with whatever evaluation standards they use rather than what they say they do or wish they did."

    “…[E]veryone else is doing the same thing,” Smith said, “but they’re allowed to be accredited and approved and sort of part of the club.” If one accepts Smith’s terms of debate, it is difficult to argue with him.

    This is true, simply because accrediting standards (not the published standards, but the reaffirmation outcomes) are a "black box."
    There is no independent assessment and evaluation, no transparency, so there is no way to know.
  • Race to the Bottom
  • Posted by Garrison Walters on December 16, 2010 at 5:30pm EST
  • Does poor quality instruction exist in higher education? Yes. Should we endorse it? No.

    In the rush for more degrees we’re embracing the convoy strategy (the speed of a convoy is that of its slowest ship), restated for higher education as “the appearance of learning is as good as the real thing.” With this strategy we’ll surely reach our goal of more degrees, but the devalued credentials won’t be of any use to the individuals or to the economy. Here comes the “Race to the Bottom.”

  • Why not independent study?
  • Posted by Barbara Wright , Vice President at Western Association of Schools and Colleges on December 16, 2010 at 8:15pm EST
  • I think it's wonderful that anyone who's interested in learning can go to one of dozens of sources out there and learn about macroeconomics or physics or principles of business administration or whatever it may be.

    But if autodidactic study is going to count toward a degree, this article is a great argument for why institutions need to develop their own assessment systems. Then when an incoming student says she wants to major in, say, economics, the program can say "Fine. Here are our learning outcomes for the economics major, here is the level at which we expect a beginning, intermediate, or graduating student to perform, and here are the kinds of assessments we will use to validate that you've met those expectations. Now let's sit down, assess where you are today, see what gaps you need to fill, and figure out how to fill them."

    That way, the focus is on outcomes rather than inputs, and the intellectual capital that the student brings to the program is honored -- something we do poorly now. At the same time, institutional and program standards are upheld and the whole process is transparent to everyone involved.
  • A Few Observations
  • Posted by Jane S. Shaw , President at John W. Pope Center for Higher Education Policy on January 11, 2011 at 3:15pm EST
  • A few thoughts about this article:
    The benefits of less-expensive education didn't seem to matter to this reporter. But it seems likely that Inside Higher Ed chose to take a StraighterLine course because it costs much less than the others. (Price doesn't matter when one is theorizing, only when one is paying.)
    The report indicates that it is difficult to distinguish between the quality of this course and other more expensive courses--the reporter was forced to rely on faculty comments (rather than actually experiencing the course) to assess how similar or different the courses are. And perhaps students who are paying ten times the cost of the StraighterLine course should expect a little more.
    The point about the text being out-of-date is ironic. How many articles have been written about greedy textbook publishers who issue new editions for no good reason? I believe that the U.S. Congress passed a law that
    requires textbooks to justify their publishing new editions!
    Jane S. Shaw/Pope Center for Higher Education Policy