Class Ending...Thoughts

This course was a bit difficult for me to keep up with and the financial aspect of the course content was fairly hard for me to follow. Although it has been tough, I understand the purpose. I’m aware that I will need to understand the costs of various aspects of education and perhaps, at some point, be able to calculate these costs, create a budget, and follow the budget, so this information has been extremely helpful.

 It’s also been very helpful for me to understand the real costs of certain distance education items. This was my first major exposure to realistic costs of certain items, such as content development and learning management systems.

As far as the assignments, I really appreciated this reflective journal assignment because, at times, the number of topics in the weekly classroom discussions has been overwhelming. Also, I found myself struggling to write a substantial post in the somewhat scattered threads. This journal has been a “quiet space” for me to reflect on the course topics, discussions, and assignments.

I enjoyed the live Wimba session with Tony Bates and I wish that these types of sessions were present in every course in the OMDE program. This was, by far, my favorite course activity and it was great to not only have the opportunity to ask Tony a question and to hear his thoughts on various topics, but to also hear from my other classmates.

The most interesting topic to me this semester was Human Capital Theory.  Although I identified several weaknesses of the theory in my paper, the few strengths outweighed the weaknesses. I think that the strengths versus the weaknesses are what made the topic so interesting to me. I didn’t find it difficult to identify the weaknesses of this theory, but while writing the paper, I didn’t think that I would come to the conclusion that the few strengths I identified outweighed my long list of weaknesses.  That was a bit surprising, yet enlightening.

Overall, this course definitely pulled me out of my comfort zone (with all of the financial aspects) and I learned a great deal.

Web 2.0

Web 2.0 technology has pretty much taken over the internet. I think that Web 2.0 tools are great for use in the classroom. I created this reflective journal using Blogger and have enjoyed the creation and development process. Using various technologies in the classroom is vital to the learning experience, especially when studying in a program like the OMDE. I find myself thinking of ways that I can incorporate some of the tools that I’ve used in different classes in the classrooms that I create in my professional life. The exposure to different technologies not only promotes an exciting and dynamic atmosphere, but it enables the student to get hands-on experience using the different tools.

My favorite Web 2.0 platform at the moment is Pinterest. I just heard, from a news source, that Pinterest is the 3^rd most visited social media site…I’m assuming that Facebook and Twitter are in the number 1 and 2 spots, but the report didn’t specifically say that. I joined Pinterest about six months ago and am amazed at its growth since then. As a very visual person, the fact that the site is image-driven is amazing to me.

I attended a webinar that discussed social media sites a couple of months ago. The presenter mentioned Pinterest, but didn’t see any relevant educational value in the platform. I totally disagree with that. Pinterest would be most conducive to educational programs that are design-focused, such as art programs, interior design, and even architecture, but there are several other subjects that could use Pinterest to enhance students learning. Pinterest could even be used to create a classroom pinboard that students in pretty much any program could use to pin images specific to the course content and readings throughout the duration of the course.

Education as a Product?

A quote in Simpson’s (2008) chapter is very intriguing to me--

“But treated in purely economic terms, education is a strange kind of product. What manufacturer would run a production line with a consistent failure rate of 20–40% on the way to the finished article—and perversely take pride in that failure rate on the grounds that it must indicate the high quality of the final product? As the manager of a small manufacturing enterprise remarked to me, “You people in universities astonish me. You seem perfectly happy with a failure rate of up to 40%. If I manufactured a product with that kind of failure rate I’d have to change my production processes or my suppliers or I’d be out of business in weeks” (p. 186).

Of course, education is not the same, in most regards, as a product that one manufactures and puts on a shelf. There are many variables that go into educational endeavors, as well as many different types of learners that one must effectively reach with this “product” of education. Although there are similarities, perhaps in the production process as noted in the theory of the industrialization of education, unlike products, most educational content regularly evolves.  Most products are updated on a much less regular basis.

There are so many factors that can go into educational failure rates.  The professor may not be the right type of professor for some students, some students may decide to go into a different career direction, thus, following a different educational path, personal issues may arise making school a non-priority, etc. Just because a student drops out, it doesn’t mean that the withdrawal is a direct reflection of the education that the student was given. Perhaps proactive strategies could have been used to retain the student, but perhaps not. Education is a commitment and unfortunately, some people cannot balance the commitment with their other life commitments.

Simpson, O. (2008). Cost-benefit of student retention policies and practice. In W.J. Bramble & S. Panda (Eds.), Economics of Distance and Online learning, (pp. 162–178). New York, NY: Routledge.

Reactive and Proactive Student Support

Student retention is, and probably always will be, an ongoing discussion in higher education. I personally believe that there are a number of factors that affect student retention and most of these factors cannot be accurately predicted or remedied by an institution. In Simpson’s (2008) chapter, he discusses reactive versus proactive retention strategies.  A reactive strategy discussed by Simpson (2008) included “strategies aimed at retrieving students who have just withdrawn from their course or withdrew in some previous year…” (p. 200). Although Simpson (2008) reports “a retrieval rate of around 10%” of withdrawn students, it seems unlikely to me that many students who have just withdrawn will be easily convinced to go back to school. I guess it doesn’t hurt to try and convince students to come back, especially if the effort made is minimal as far as staff and cost.

 Among adult students in the 25 and up range, it would seem that the work-life-school balance would be a large part of withdrawals, as well as financial restrictions.  I think that identifying these students upon enrollment and giving them additional support would help in the retention effort. As Simpson (2008) points out, “…it should not be difficult to predict individual new students’ chances of success from their personal characteristics—such as age, gender, previous educational level, and other factors—using a logistic regression analysis of previous students’ success rates, and applying that to the new students” (p. 200).

In thinking about strategies for student retention, I thought about my experience here at UMUC. I don’t recall any specific student retention activities directed specifically towards me, other than receiving a few emails and calls from my student advisor.  I have probably only spoken to her once or twice during my time here at UMUC which has been about three years. I would think that I’m a “high-risk” student, but maybe not so much, since most of the students here at UMUC are balancing school, work, and family. Perhaps if I were in a graduate program on a traditional brick-and-mortar campus, I would be categorized as a “high-risk” student?

Simpson, O. (2008). Cost-benefit of student retention policies and practice. In W.J. Bramble & S. Panda (Eds.), Economics of Distance and Online learning, (pp. 162–178). New York, NY: Routledge.