Electronic Pedagogy and Future University Business Models

Communications of the Association for Information Systems Volume 38 1-2016 Electronic Pedagogy and Future University Business Models Fred Niederman Saint Louis University, Brian S. Butler University of Maryland R. Brent Gallupe Queens University Bernard C. Y. Tan National University of Singapore Cathy Urquhart Manchester Metropolitan University Follow this and additional works at: http://aisel.aisnet.org/cais Recommended Citation Niederman, Fred; Butler, Brian S.; Gallupe, R. Brent; Tan, Bernard C. Y.; and Urquhart, Cathy (2016) "Electronic Pedagogy and Future University Business Models," Communications of the Association for Information Systems: Vol. 38 , Article 7. DOI: 10.17705/1CAIS.03807 Available at: http://aisel.aisnet.org/cais/vol38/iss1/7 This material is brought to you by the Journals at AIS Electronic Library (AISeL). It has been accepted for inclusion in Communications of the Association for Information Systems by an authorized administrator of AIS Electronic Library (AISeL). For more information, please contact . Article 7 C ommunications of the A ssociation for I nformation S ystems Research Paper ISSN: 1529-3181 Electronic Pedagogy and Future University Business Models Fred Niederman St. Louis University Brian S. Butler R. Brent Gallupe University of Maryland Queens University Bernard C. Y. Tan Cathy Urquhart National University of Singapore Manchester Metropolitan University Abstract: Based on the International Conference on Information Systems’ (ICIS) 2014 senior scholars’ forum, we share insights on the relationship between evolving university business models and the adoption of electronic pedagogy. In recent years, particularly with the initiation of MOOCs, the potential for delivering high-quality and widely distributed coursework has expanded. However, particular instances of MOOCs and other electronic pedagogies do not guarantee equally high-quality educational outcomes for all participants. For example, some studies have suggested that most individuals completing MOOC coursework already have baccalaureate degrees, which contrasts with the idea that individuals undertake such coursework as a substitute for traditional degree programs. With this paper, we present varied experiences and views on using electronic pedagogy and report on both the conclusions and new questions raised about adopting these technologies for universities. Keywords: Electronic Pedagogy, Online Courses, University Business Models, Technology Adoption. This manuscript was solicited by the Editor-in-Chief. It was received 05/04/2015 and was with the authors for 1 month for 1 revision. Volume 38 Paper 7 pp. 157 – 170 January 2016 158 1 Electronic Pedagogy and Future University Business Models Introduction The cost of higher education is increasing rapidly and has already exceeded the ability of many middle class Americans to pay without incurring substantial debt or obtaining significant scholarship funds or other financial aid. In the UK, the marketization of higher education has pushed the average cost of an undergraduate degree to approximately £9000. While students are not expected to start repaying their loan until they earn a reasonable salary, this marketization has changed how people select their undergraduate majors. In some sectors in Europe, rising costs threaten the continuation of “free” education for students or, alternatively, requires that the education’s quality drop through lack of reinvestment and reinvigoration. In this paper, we examine how this landscape might be affected by massively open online courses (MOOCs) and other computer-mediated mechanisms for delivering pedagogy. Historically, organizations across many industries have used information technology (IT) to make themselves more effective and more efficient, particularly by automating repetitive, computationallyintensive tasks and freeing people to engage in more creative problem-solving tasks. IT can also affect the creation and delivery of content (e.g., industries pertaining to music, films, and books). The single largest cost component of higher education is faculty salaries. Hence, institutions face significant pressure to leverage faculty time by using information technology to supplement or replace faculty. We stand at the confluence of economic stresses on higher education and the transformative nature of information technology as applied to education. The fundamental question we consider is: how will the massively open online course (MOOC) concept be used and what impact will it have on the pedagogy, the business model and, perhaps, the entire paradigm of higher education? We can view higher education business models largely in terms of their mixture of income sources. University income derives largely from five sources: tuition from students, funding from government agencies, grants, donations, and, where available, investment income from endowments. An increasing number of generally government-supported universities, such as Queens University in Canada, now conduct programs sustained only through tuition. State-supported and private universities vary in the relative emphasis placed on research grants versus tuition-generating teaching. Such differences affect institutions’ ability to gather revenue but may also affect expenses for laboratories, support infrastructure, and labor to fulfill the grant purposes. A growing crop of “for-profit” universities exemplified by the University of Phoenix in the US have little or no direct government funding or grants except as loans to students but have significant revenue from tuition and capital through issuing equity and bonds. In the light of these forces and trends, serious pressures to lower the cost of higher education exist. Unfortunately, while cost is relatively easy to measure, quality is not. Many of these pressure sources are inclined to view education as a commodity where lower cost means a bargain rather than a simple trade off on a cost-quality continuum. The measure applied of cost per credit hour rarely considers that the value of all credit hours is not necessarily equal. The threshold of knowledge for awarding units, the contextual richness and larger mental map into which knowledge fits, and the ability to create, investigate, and question beyond the packaged content are difficult to assess and reward. In the general atmosphere of “dumbing down” curricula, the problem may be less about contrasting units across programs and more about the meaning of a unit of learning at its most fundamental level. This paper proceeds as follows. In Section 2, we present further discussion and background material regarding electronic pedagogy and university business models. In Section 3, we present a variety of viewpoints discussing factors that affect whether higher education institutes should adopt MOOCs and other electronic pedagogy at this time. In Section 4, we review some of the discussion presented (...truncated)