Steve Kerby
OMDE 601:9040 
March 31, 2003
Industrialization of distance education 

Peters (1998) makes the convincing argument that distance education (DE) is “the most industrialized form of teaching and learning” (p. 109).  This paper will first consider the advantages and disadvantages of industrialized DE, then briefly suggest how DE might function in a post-industrial context.

Early DE institutions were profit making ventures. From the very beginning, DE institutions have been motivated to seek efficiencies and economies of scale in order to generate maximum profits. For the last century and a half, most DE institutions have done just that.  In order to achieve maximum profits and/or lower costs, they have, as Peters demonstrates (1998), organized the production of their products (education) around key concepts of industrialization, such as mass production, division of labor, and standardization (109-111). 

The most obvious advantage of the industrial model is that it has mass produced and mass delivered education to students who otherwise would not have had educational opportunities. From a global perspective, the consequences of this are almost incalculable, since increased global education adds immeasurably not only to world economies (increase in human capital and thus economic growth and social welfare), but also to global politics (education functioning as prerequisite for democratization). 

Another component of industrialization--division of labor—offers advantages as well. In an industrial scheme, the course would be: (a) designed by an instructional design expert, (b) written by a content expert, (c) reviewed by subject experts, (d) edited by editors, (e) produced by publishers, (f) distributed and delivered by professionals, and, finally, (g) taught (or tutored) by someone trained specifically for teaching. Done properly, this product would acquire the benefit of numerous experts, the sum total of which would be far greater than any one teacher could produce. 

Standardization itself offers advantages, especially if the product created by the division of labor is one of quality.  Standardization can “standardize” quality on a mass scale.  

Further, standardization and mass production produce economies of scale, so the industrialization of education provides advantages to the student (consumer) in lower costs and advantages for the producer (distance education institution) in higher profits.

Most disadvantages of industrialization are simply another side of the advantages.  For example: standardization, which can disseminate a quality product, can also disseminate an inferior product; division of labor, which can take advantage of the talents of many, can also become a bloated system, more interested in perpetuating itself and its individual roles than in producing an efficient quality product; mass production, which can reach large numbers of students at low costs, only works with institutions large enough to commit the proper resources.  

In other words, the strengths of industrialization are also its weaknesses.  

But perhaps the biggest disadvantage of industrialization in education is the very nature of industrialization itself; that is, educational institutions are not really assembly lines, education is not really a product, and students are not really consumers. Further, as Peters notes (1998), even industrialization as an organizational model has evolved in recent years to new post-industrial models (p. 114-115).  Essentially, post-industrial models: (a) take advantage of information technology to increase efficiencies, (b) replace “top-down” management with horizontal networks, and (c) re-distribute power and  responsibility to flexible working groups.

The industrial model of DE has worked in the past.  With some modifications (mostly to take advantage of new information technologies), it can, perhaps, continue to work in the future, particularly for huge DE institutions with mass “consumers.”  But most DE programs should look carefully at post-industrial models of organization that emerged in the corporate world in the nineties. These models not only fit easier with traditional academic culture (e.g. horizontal networks, “working groups”= faculty teams), they also have a track record of combining efficiency with quality without the disadvantages of industrialization.

REFERENCE 

Peters, O. (1998). Learning and teaching in distance education - Analyses and interpretations from an international perspective. London: Kogan Page. 

ADDITIONAL WORKS CONSULTED

Moore, M. G., & Kearsley, G. (1996). Distance education: A systems view. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. 
Peters, O. (2002). Distance education in transition - New trends and challenges. Oldenburg: Bibliotheks- und Informationssystem der Universität Oldenburg.