Steve Kerby
OMDE 606
November 17, 2004
Has Internet and Communication Technologies Increased the Competitive Vulnerability of the Distance Teaching University?
exactly 1,100 words of text

Introduction 

The increased availability of Internet and Communication Technologies (ICT) in developed countries has amplified the competitive vulnerability of Distance Teaching Institutions for markets in those countries. This is because ICT has helped to change the meaning of distance, the meaning of place, and has provided new contexts and new tools for the Campus Based University (CBU) to become a Dual Mode University (DMU).

The Competitive Vulnerability Debate

In a 1992 article, originally published just before the advent of ICT and republished in 2004, Greville Rumble foresees the competitive vulnerability of the Distance Teaching University (DTU). He predicts that traditional CBUs will evolve into DMUs by increasingly offering distance education versions of their campus-based courses to the growing market of adult learners (2004a). The traditional DTUs, Rumble argues, were set up in a "competitor-less environment" and will be especially vulnerable to incursion into their markets by DMUs. These DMUs can not only offer courses at a distance, but can also (he argues in a follow up article) offer the credentials and prestige of a traditional campus-based institution. (Rumble, 2004b).

White (2004) responds to Rumble's article in 1992 and argues that if DTUs are indeed vulnerable to competition, the CBUs will have to overcome "the hurdle of producing quality multimedia instructional materials" (p. 89). White assumes that the DTU has a competitive edge by having institutional processes of producing course materials for delivery.

Mugridge (2004) also responds to Rumble's article in 1992 and argues that DTUs should take advantage of their strengths: (a) the ability to produce quality materials, and (b) institutional flexibility. Mugridge assumes that the CBU is institutionally more rigid and that the DTU has a better course development process. 

Two years later in 1994, Keegan (2004) enters into the discussion, but seems constrained by his assumptions of what distance education means (i.e. huge numbers and course delivery). Keeegan argues for cooperation between open universities and distance education departments of conventional universities since he, too, assumes that dealing with the technology and managing course development for delivery requires the professionalism of DE institutions and DE processes.

What Rumble, White and Mugridge were able to foresee with amazing prescience (Keegan not so much) was the competitive vulnerability of the distance education institution. What they did not foresee (how could they?) was (a) the coming juggernaut of ICT in the mid-nineties, (b) the development of the Online Learning Platform in the late nineties, and (c) how these two dynamics changed the playing field by not only helping to redefine what distance education means and making it available to all institutions of higher learning, but also by providing new cost-effective paths to course development.

What Distance Education Means

In developed countries, where ICT is readily available, Distance Education can no longer be defined by distance or by place.

For years, it has been generally accepted that one of the central characteristics of DE is that the student is in a separate place from the teacher and the other learners. With the advent of ICT and the Online Learning Platform (Blackboard, WebCT, Desire2Learn), however, students can now enter the same learning place, regardless of where they are located geographically. Further, this "place" also functions as a set of tools for the instructor to build learning activities.

The ability to enter the same learning place by virtue of an Online Learning Platform has changed everything.

In developed countries, Distance Education is evolving into Online Learning. And here is where the DTU is especially vulnerable to the CBU. Before the Online Learning Platform (OLP), there were only a handful of learning options for the student who happened to be constrained by time and distance; after the OLP, there are scores of options--from the community college down the street to the small liberal arts college in the suburbs to the big State College in the city to dozens of colleges and universities all across the United States--all offering online classes where time and distance are no longer constraints to attending class. 

A recent Sloan publication (Allen and Seaman, 2003) reported that in fall 2003, eighty-one percent of all U.S. colleges and universities offered at least one online course, and thirty-four percent of all such institutions offered a complete degree program (p.1-2). 

ICT has helped to create the new field of Online Learning, already found in the vast majority of institutions of higher learning in the United States. So, yes: ICT has increased the competitive vulnerability of the DTU. 

How "Distance" Courses Are Developed

In historical DE, the DTUs had a (more or less Fordist) industrial process of developing course materials for instructional delivery. Technology (print, mail, broadcasting) was a means to deliver materials from one place to another. Students and faculty were separate. In Online Learning, the emphasis is not necessarily about developing materials for delivery. Why should it be? In online classes, students share a common space with the instructor and with one another. The emphasis quite naturally is on asynchronous interaction. And the center of course "development" is not an expensive industrial process of course development by some external department (the cost of which needs to be recouped by large numbers), but the individual faculty member--working alone, or with some technical support, or in concert with other faculty members in his or her academic department. 

The crucial point here is that this "New DE" naturally fits the institutional processes of the traditional CBU. In other words, without changing ideological, pedagogical, or institutional direction, faculty members in a traditional CBU can use the tools of the online learning platform and "deliver" instruction much along the same lines as they "delivered" F2F instruction. 

CBUs are becoming DMUs without having to develop new institutional processes or build new course development departments. So, yes: ICT has increased the competitive vulnerability of the DTU. 

Who is the Dinosaur?

Interestingly, it was long thought that the traditional CBU would become a dinosaur, unable to adapt to new technical and social changes. Mugridge certainly assumes that. But perhaps when we look back on these years, we will see that it was the traditional DTU institution who, by holding on to old assumptions and old processes, turned out to be the true dinosaur. 

Conclusion

Internet communication technologies changed the meaning of distance and place, as well as provided new contexts and tools for course development. They made it easy for CBUs to become DMUs. DTUs who go after the same markets in developed countries can only expect increased competition in the coming years. If DTUs hold on to their old definitions and old processes, they are likely to lose.

References

Allen, I. & Seaman, J. (2003). Sizing the opportunity: The quality and extent of online education in the United States, 2002 and 2003. The Sloan Consortium. Retrieved October 16, 2003 from http://www.sloan-c.org/resources/sizing_opportunity.pdf 

Keegan, D. (2004). 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: Bibliotheks- und Informationssystem der Carl von Ossietzky Universität Oldenburg.

Mugridge, I. (2004). Response 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. 93-95). Oldenburg: Bibliotheks- und Informationssystem der Carl von Ossietzky Universität Oldenburg.

Rumble, G. (2004a). 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. 67-87). Oldenburg: Bibliotheks- und Informationssystem der Carl von Ossietzky Universität Oldenburg.

Rumble, G. (2004b). The competitive vulnerability of distance teaching universities: A reply (1994).  In G. Rumble (Ed.), Papers and debates on the costs and economics of distance education and online learning (Vol. 7) (pp. 103-106). Oldenburg: Bibliotheks- und Informationssystem der Carl von Ossietzky Universität Oldenburg.

White, V. (2004). Response 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. 89-91). Oldenburg: Bibliotheks- und Informationssystem der Carl von Ossietzky Universität Oldenburg.