The Economics and Industrial Organization of e-Learning An

The Economics and Industrial Organization of e-Learning: An introduction Andreas Ortmann, Ph. D. Citicorp Professor of Economics/Senior Researcher Center for Economic Research and Graduate Education, Charles University and Economics Institute, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic Prague Presentation at “Markets, Profits and the Future of Higher Education” conference, New York, May 1 -2, 2003 Acknowledgments: - NCSPSE at Teachers College, Columbia University - Alfred P. Sloan Foundation - Global Development Network/World Bank

Why study e-Learning? – Personal interest l l Invitation of Jones International University (via GG) to develop a course on boundedly rational decision making Proposed Virtual CERGE-EI – Virtual CERGE-EI l l Prep (screening/leveling) courses online See www. cerge-ei. cz/phd/dlp/ Micro, macro, or econometrics core course on-line? More advanced courses on-line? How about on-line executive or continuing education as profit center? Are there profits to be made?

Why study e-Learning? [Continued] – The next global success story of the U. S. economy (following the lead of computer hard- and software, movies, popular music, and academic journals) – We know little about e-Learning l an emerging industry l mostly proprietary data - we don’t understand yet what the viable business models are

[note to myself] – We do know l l l l > 75 percent of colleges and universities in the USA currently offer e-Learning (IDC) At least 40 US states either have a virtual university or other statewide organization to deliver or promote distance education. U. S. Department of Education supports about more than 100 e-learning projects (important because participating institutions are granted certain waivers) Army, Navy, National Guard, even the IRS, have their own e-learning programs in which they heavily invested. Venture capital has started to flow again into e-learning; in 2000 94 % of all total private investments in the education industry were dedicated to e-Learning up, from 38 % in 1996. Canadian Advisory Committee on Online Learning urged more spending on distance education (Spring 2001) and indeed in the Fall of 2001 seven Canadian universities initiated Canadian Virt University EU’s e-Learning action plan of 28. 3. 2001 (13. 3 billion euros); Germany earmarked 430 million euros for e-learning initiatives and England earmarked 88 million dollars for its own national e. University Of world’s 10 biggest distance institutions the majority of them are in the third world. China Central Radio and Television University has 1. 5 million students, two thirds of them in degree programs; it broadcasts radio and TV lectures to students at 2, 600 branch campuses and 29, 000 study centers. The government ordered China Central to expand its total enrollment by 100, 000 students each year.

e-Learning: What is it? – distance learning by means of digital or other electronic media – can take various forms l l instructor-led (synchronous) online replication of the brick-and-mortar classroom. . self-study (asynchronous) sophisticated programmed self-study guides – lots of interesting issues here - see Schank 2002, or experience. . . l l UNext/Cardean U, Alliance for Lifelong learning Schwab, Bloomberg, Barnes & Noble, . . .

e-Learning: How good is it? – Difficult to say because of incredible variety of on-line offerings – Emerging consensus: l l On average, not any worse than what we have, possibly better It works better for some than for others A function of the quality of the course A function of the self-discipline a student has

e-Learning: How good is it? [Continuation 1] – Content is not sufficient: The MIT Open. Course. Ware initiative. Aim: to post all MIT course materials -- lecture notes, video – – problems sets, syllabi, exams, simulations, and even lectures --on publicly accessible websites Did someone make a really bad call? Or, is there more to learning than content? - One possible explanation: interaction between teachers and students is essential. - Another possible explanation: peer effects (e. g. , Ortmann & Paalandi 2001). – Quality (control) of content is imperative! – Providers of e-Learning have no captive audience any longer. l l Sham-lectures will cause students to go “channel surfing” Sham-courses in corporate settings will be identified by “learning management systems”

e-Learning: How good is it? [Continuation 2] – Undisputed fact: people increasingly use digital or other electronic media to learn l l l high-school kids (Florida High School initiative) soldiers (Army, Navy, Airforce, NG on-line initiatives) and even IRS employees tribes people who want to increase their skills (Uo. PX Online, Schwab University, Bloomberg University, . . . ) people who learn for entertainment (All. Learn, Barnes & Noble University and its eight “campuses”).

e-Learning: The benefits – Just-in-time training (rather than just-in-case) l l l accessible anytime, from anywhere (at home, at work, or traveling) up-to-the-minute coursework when needed – Cost effective l no travel costs (out-of-pocket expenses as well as opportunity cost of time)

e-Learning: The benefits [Continuation 1] – From the home page of the UOPX Online website: “The University of Phoenix Online offers you the unparalleled convenience and flexibility of attending classes from your personal computer. In small groups of eight to fifteen, or working one-on-one with an instructor, students are discussing issues, sharing ideas, testing theories - essentially enjoying all of the advantages of an on-campus degree program, with one important exception. No commute!”

e-Learning: The benefits [Continuation 2] – Hall’s (1997) review of 130 case studies finds l l – time savings from 20 - 80%, with 40 - 60% being the most common range of time savings reduction in travel and entertainment costs of at least 50%. Other recent estimates tend to be even higher (e. g. , Digital. Think, Thinq, IBM) – (high fixed costs but) comparatively low marginal costs (Setaro, Hall 1995, Allen 2000) l l custom multi-media - 20 % in first year of implementation? - up to 50 % in second and third year of implementation? off-the shelf multi-media - 45 % in first year of implementation?

e-Learning: The benefits [Continuation 3] – More consistent course delivery! (No life performance, unedited, with all its vagueries) – More effective learning? (Repetition is easy!) – Better assessment! l l . . . of individual skill levels before taking a course. . . of learning that happened (“. . . makes it easy. . . to monitor progress and create detailed usage reports”)

e-Learning: The costs “Costing is a very murky business. ” (Bishop, of UMUC; Carr 2001) – Six early case studies suggested that “universities are hovering close to the break-even point with their distance-learning programs” (Carr 2001). l l commissioned by Sloan Foundation - conducted at Rochester Institute of Technology, the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, the University of Maryland’s University College, and Drexel, Pace, and Pennsylvania State Universities studies had to rely on estimated-cost projections - How to allocate costs for librarians, CIS, etc. ? - What if faculty members cease to be the virtual university?

e-Learning: The costs [Continuation 1] – Online programs are “bloody expensive to develop and develop well. ” (Myers, as quoted by Carr 2001) l l UMUC spent more than $1 million on online MBA program UNext/Cardean reported to spend up $1 million per course – UNESCO/World. Bank report in 2000 found that at the 10 biggest distance education providers, the majority of them in the third world, the cost of education per student is on average one third (!) the cost at traditional institutions

e-Learning: The costs [Continuation 2] – University of Phoenix Online l l Enrollments up by 67. 8% (37, 600 -> 63, 000) Profits per share up by 64% ($. 53 -> $. 87) online courses more expensive (20%) than on-location courses Economies from scale through centralized marketing, regulatory compliance, course design, and the ability to walk down the average cost curve. – Caliber Learning Network l bankrupt

e-Learning: The industrial organization – Market for e-learning is highly fragmented with no established industry model for growth and profitability. – APOL/UOPX, DV, STRA, CECO-EDUT-WIX, COCO, EDMC-ARGY, ESI, QEDC (now Kaplan/WPO), SVLN (Walden, NTU, Online. Learning. net; also 6 unis abroad) - degree-granting & accredited for-profit providers - provided in 80's and 90's skills -- often to nontraditional students -- that the traditional providers of postsecondary education did not provide - currently 3 percent market share, doubled in one decade - all of these providers now have e-learning initiatives

e-Learning: The industrial organization [Continuation 1] – Why were these firms so successful? (Ortmann 2001/2) l l They understood that education industry is first and foremost a service industry; those who want to survive and thrive have to focus on students’ satisfaction. n Satisfaction results from course offerings at convenient times and locations. n Satisfaction results from retention, graduation, placements (and brings about high referral rates) They operate under a “pricing umbrella” spanned by inefficiently run public and private nonprofits (Ortmann & Squire 2000; Dziech 2002); this allows them to increase prices at or above the rate of inflation.

e-Learning: The industrial organization [Continuation 2] – NYU Online and similar failures never managed to establish a corporate culture that pursued with similar relentlessness what was good for the customer (student, parent, employer). – Classic indicators: l l the build-and-they-will-come attitude the notion that e-learning is a profit center.

e-Learning: The industrial organization [Continuation 3] – Other players: l Other content providers - Cardean/UNext, Capella University, Jones International University, - WGU, and virtual state networks - UMUC and other nonprofits - Euro. PACE, Universitas 21, Worldwide Universities Network - On. Line. Learning. net/UCLA Extension Services - “The Alliance of Four”, Alliance of Life-Long Learning, Fathom - Digital. Think, Skillsoft/SMTF, Element K l l Learning infrastructure/platform providers Learning/course management systems providers - Blackboard, e-College, Web. CT

e-Learning: industrial organization issues – ”competency-based" education rather than degrees? l l l WGU’s “competency-based education” - one’s “skills and knowledge acquired at other universities, on the job, or just through life, ” may be counted toward one’s WGU degree Assessment as the new buzzword, certification as the most prominent example: - the “parallel universe” (Adelmann) - www. gocertify. com, www. about. com/compute/certification A course is not a course – quality assesment and assurance (e. g. , Klein-Leffler 1981, Shapiro 1983, Wernerfelt 1988, Tirole 1996) l How to guarantee quality in a fragmented industry? Branding! – scalability l How to walk down the average costs curve? Quickly!

e-Learning: Speculations – e-Learning is here to stay. l l e-Learning will become the dominant mode of delivery for corporate T&D e-Learning will penetrate the higher education market currently 50% of campuses will have adopted enterprise platforms (Eduventures) 4 online providers will emerge that deliver quality online courses in a cost-effective manner 4 private for-profit developers will be the key providers of such quality courses 4

e-Learning: Speculations [Continued] – e-Learning will consolidate over the next decade, with very few dominant players but a very competitive fringe – Should this make us worry? l l e-Learning has the chance to increase the quality of teaching/quality of learning. Return to the Greek model of teaching and learning? – Importantly l e-Learning will increase access to education/training in transition and developing countries.