Lenora Giles
November 6, 2003
Rumble (2003a) argues that single-mode distance teaching universities (DTUs) are economically and strategically vulnerable to competition as campus-based universities (CBUs) adopt distance education methods and become dual-mode universities (DMUs). The strengths of DTUs are the dedication to an adult student population, an industrialized model of materials development and delivery process, and use of technology for learning, interaction and student support. Economies of scales are realized by spreading high fixed development costs over large groups of students.
However, changes in student demographics, increased demand for higher education, under-funding from traditional revenue sources, and new computer technology have forced CBUs to position themselves to compete for the growing part-time adult market. The educational needs of that population, since the 1970’s, was mainly serviced by DTUs. DTUs then, are faced with the need to expand their support services and course offerings to compete for their traditional market. Expanding in this way eliminates the cost advantages of DTU's. But Rumble (2003a) advises that to remain competitive, DTUs should change themselves into DMUs.
While agreeing that that the combination of distance and face-to-face classes to teach students is the best option for the future, White (2003) makes a strong argument about quality and cost issues. White (2003) points to the fact that DTUs quality materials and cost effective infrastructure give them an advantage that CBUs and DMUs will find hard to compete with. CBUs will find it both an expensive and a time consuming challenge to create and deliver quality multimedia instructional materials to off campus populations.
But as Rumble (2003b) points out, the challenge here for DTUs is to maintain cost advantages created by using media to replace teachers and provide support services. CBUs adopting distance methods might not produce a quality product but if they have a prestigious name and competitive fees along with flexibility, some portion of the student population will be attracted.
Keegan (2003) debates that the planning and cost structures give DTUs a competitive edge because they do not incur capital cost associated with maintaining buildings for students. He further argues that DTUs provide a historic model of achievement and now fill the need for education to thousands of students in countries around the world. This indicates that for institutions with large unserved student populations, DTUs would be the better option because they encourage dedication to developing distance education courses and distance teaching pedagogy rather than focusing on creating face‑to‑face course work.
Here Rumble (2003b) argues that even where DTUs enjoy a strong position and high student numbers this can be weakened by CBUs and DMUs offering education using distance methods to that market.
According to Mugridge (2003), Rumble too narrowly defines DE and should expand his definition to include open learning. This would allow collaborating with CBUs where both models could concentrate on their strengths. But the counter argument here points out that CBUs can develop their own distance teaching courses less expensively than purchasing from a DTU(Rumble, 2003b). As DMUs they then have greater flexibility in costing these projects and in offering them to both on and off campus students.
The vulnerability debate raises important concerns about the future for providers of both campus-based and distance education. The heightened demand for flexible higher education from traditional and non-traditional students coupled with decreased funding from government sources make it imperative that these providers become more internally and externally efficient, produce a competitive product, and cater to the demands of students for more convenient methods of obtaining education.
For CBUs, this means adopting distance education pedagogy by using technology while relying on their credentials and continuing to serve on campus students. For DTUs this means improving the quality of their product and broadening their curriculum while maintaining cost advantages. DTUs have maintained this efficiency and economies of scale by developing and offering a limited range of courses and student support. If DTUs opt to increase either course offerings or student support by offering on campus study, the average cost also increase and the cost advantages decrease. DMUs have more flexibility where cost allocation and teaching modes are concerned.
The question is, can traditional universities develop and offer an equal or better quality product that allows for the same amount of flexibility to students. Students, as consumers will look for the product that offers an accredited degree, at the lowest price with the most student support. The concept of the virtual university and the pedagogy it uses to teach and learn could be deciding factors on how well DTUs compete.
Peters (2001) makes the argument that the new media alters the pedagogy of distance education by enabling interactive, independent and autonomous learning. New media allow a variety of learning activities or multiple tasks to be accomplished in a virtual world. He emphasizes that DTUs are in a good position to make this transition because both teachers and students are already experienced in situations where all participants are separated and use media during teaching and learning. Also, that DTUs have well-tested and developed strategies to deal with support, lifetime learning and independent learning.
However, this may mean that DTUs can make a smooth transition but does not guarantee that DMUs cannot offer an acceptable educational product using the same technology. Nor does it guarantee student numbers. DMUs with a stronger market presence, flexible accounting practices, and flexible study options result in competition for DTUs. Under these circumstances, DTUs need to consider all options including that of providing face-to-face study and the cost structure associated with it. This of course is also very dependent on external factors such as government funding and regulation and demand in a given locale. The combination of well-developed methods and new technology do place DTUs in a position to compete for a share of the education market.
References :
Keegan, D. (2003). The competitive advantages of distance teaching universities (1994). In G. Rumble (Ed.), Papers and debates on the costs and economics of distance education and online learning (Vol. 7, pp. 97-102). Oldenburg: bis.
Mugridge, I. (2003). Responses to Greville Rumble's article 'The competitive vulnerability of distance teaching universities' (1992). In G. Rumble (Ed.), Papers and debates on the costs and economics of distance education and online learning (Vol. 7, pp. 93-96). Oldenburg: bis.
Peters, O. (2001 February). Learning with new media in distance education. Fernuniversität-Gesamthochschule in Hagen. Fachbereich Erziehungs-, Sozial- und Geisteswissenschaft, Institut für Erziehungswissenschaft und Bildungsforschung. Retrieved 06,17, 2002, from the World Wide Web: http://www.uni-oldenburg.de/zef/cde/found/lnm.htm
Rumble, G. (Ed.) (2003). Papers and debates on the costs and economics of distance education and online learning (Vol. 7). Oldenburg: bis.
Rumble, G. (2003a). The competitive vulnerability of distance teaching Universities (1992). In G. Rumble (Ed.), Papers and debates on the costs and economics of distance education and online learning (Vol. 7, pp. 67-88). Oldenburg: bis.
Rumble, G. (2003b). The competitive vulnerability of distance teaching universities: a reply. In G. Rumble (Ed.), Papers and debates on the costs and economics of distance education and online learning (Vol. 7, pp. 103-106). Oldenburg: bis.
Rumble, G. (2003c). Competitive vulnerability: an addentum to the debate (1998). In G. Rumble (Ed.), Papers and debates on the costs and economics of distance education and online learning (Vol. 7, pp. 107-117). Oldenburg: bis.
White, V. (2003). Responses to Greville Rumble's article 'The competitive vulnerability of distance teaching universities'. In G. Rumble (Ed.), Papers and debates on the costs and economics of distance education and online learning (Vol. 7, pp. 89-92). Oldenburg: bis.