The Billion Dollar Question... "How does Higher Education turn its OER into money?"

[michael j. trout]

Last week I went to Tokyo to meet with a very interesting group that I am hoping to aligning with. For those that don't know me. I'm the rebel looking to make all learning free and accessible to all by promoting the eSingularity Initiative (google eSingularity, Trout, India). I have e30 group on LinkedIn, the eRevolution -- a new "fashion" for Education on Facebook. I have just started TEDxFutureEd and I'm working with folks all over over come up with the answer for global learning. Well, during our discussion about a myriad of things education, we hit on something that was a zinger, and in many respects it's the billion dollar question " How does HE turn their OER into revenue?" I suddenly realized that OER isn't the artery gusher as I thought, but instead a huge opportunity! An opportunity not just for a university, but potentially a lasting residual income for the ones that are making it!

Tell me what you think....

If we could measure the outcomes of the person taking the course ware why would we not want to give them partial accreditation? think about it... when I take a course at MIT what is it that I getting accreditation from? Is it the fact that I'm physically at MIT? No, we have distant learning programs at MIT. Is it because I attended class? Of course not. The true value is whether or not I have learned the material at a level satisfactory to the professor over the course. So if we can prove that a MIT OCW student has mastered the Open Ed material and do it in such a way that the process could be scalable, then we might be on to something... no? How much accreditation would they get? I'm thinking 1/3. So a three credit course at MIT would be 1 credit via MIT OCW. So how does MIT make money? We could offer three kinds of membership.

basic FREE -- no accreditation but access to the learning engine

member $9.95/m per course-- email access to professor and get special periodic pod casts (obviously the emails would go to a clearing house and passed on to his grad students... like how tech support works. )

premium $29.95/m for any No. of courses -- get email and can attend special online lectures that will be live fed from a professors class.

I imagine the professor would get a percentage. I see it already Jim drinking cocktails in Maui as he answers emails and does pod casts...:p -- A retirement in bliss where teaching is just that and free from the hassles of allocating grades!

Keep in mind that less than 5% of the world has broadband access. And this will significantly change over the next 10 yrs. Ask yourself... If we offered credit could OCW attract students form other universities? And how many would sign up? 10,000, 20,000 100,000? How many of the current OCW members would be willing to pay? I think it would be very cool to be attending University in India and also be getting MIT credit! Hell, schools may even start requiring that their students sign up!

Do you think there are 20 universities or community colleges in the US that would be willing to give this a go? Here the deal! It will cost you absolutely NOTHING to set up... If you are interested in talking more about his the proven technology behind it. Shoot me an email!

Thought?

[Steve Eskow]

Michael, you are trying to invent a very old wheel.

It is called "credit by examination," and there are agencies and colleges around the world providing this service. See, for example, "CLEP."

http://www.collegeboard.com/student/testing/clep/about.html

Or Google on "Excelsior College."

For another version of this approach, look up "Western Governors University"

And: MIT does not seem to offer distance learning for credit.

[michael j. trout]

My point, which seemed to have flown over your head yet again, is not that its necessary a "new" idea. But that there is a way for universities to leverage their OER and turn it into $$$. That's great that CLEP exists, but it is not build on OER and it is it scalable? What I mean is it built on an automatic scalable tech or is labor intensive.

How CLEP Helps You
* Save time. Depending on your college's CLEP policy, a satisfactory score on a CLEP exam can earn you from 3 to 12 college credits.
* Save money. The cost of a CLEP exam is $72, a fraction of the tuition and fees for the corresponding course.
* Make college more interesting. Skip general introductory courses and move on to more advanced classes, or explore new and challenging academic areas.
* Graduate on time. CLEP can help you to the finish line if you're a few credits shy of graduation
* Satisfy a proficiency requirement. Demonstrate your ability in college math or a foreign language.

Okay, I just look at your idea of what I am saying and realize you have completely missed the point... lol Thanks for at least taking the time to read my posts. Your comments are always amusing to me.

For your clarification I'm referring to the Open Education course ware like MIT OCW and Berkley SEE and the host of other OER course ware options springing up.

[Steve Eskow]

The intent of the OER institutions like MIT is NOT to make money. Quite the opposite:OER costs MIT a great deal, and a number of foundations have contributed large sums to the OER initiative. The motivation is provide high-quality teaching materials free to individuals to use for independent study, to use as aids to their college study elsewhere. And the hope is that faculty in other colleges in need of outlines and syllabi of quality for their own teaching will adopt or adapt the OER materials: freely, at no charge, with no return to the OER institutions.

So: students who wish to earn credits toward their degree can use the OER materials--freely--to help them prepare to earn credits by examination at Excelsior or other institutions, or to earn college credit via CLEP.

Or: you can create a new university built around the OER materials, and you can then submit your new university for accreditation to one of the regional accrediting bodies in the U.S.: The Middle States Association of Schools and Colleges, for example.

Or you can do without accreditation and award degrees and graduates will hope that those unaccredited degrees are accepted by employers and graduate schools.

Be clear, however, that the intent of OER is the opposite of making a billion dollars from teaching materials. It is to "open up" education by making the best education materials available without charge.

MIT has moved beyond making its print materials freely available: it has now put a number of it expensive laboratories online and is making access to those labs also available--free. If you do no not know about this project, Google on "i-labs."

USAID has awarded MIT and two West African universities a planning grant designed to make the OER materials and i-labs available to institutions and students throughout Africa: with no income for MIT.

For an account of the history and motivation behind the OER initiative you might want to obtain a copy of the book "Opening Up Education," published by the MIT Press.

[michael j. trout]

Steve, thanks for the post and valuable info. "The intent of the OER institutions like MIT is NOT to make money." -- so you are saying that MIT would not want to make $$ off their OER is a way could be demonstrated? Why not have an easy to use OCW/CLEP option? But looking at CLEP is not a very model for what I am suggestion. In stead it would need to be scalable and over come language barriers. Or maybe the thing to do is for some group to take the OER and do as I described... the $19/course fee would be administrative fee not a course fee... does that violate usage? I bet it would make a heck of a court case. Maybe that is what is already happening with the $99/m university.

"you can create a new university built around the OER materials, and you can then submit your new university for accreditation to one of the regional accrediting bodies in the U.S.: The Middle States Association of Schools and Colleges, for example." -- its on the planner EDUITu :p and I imagine we will start with "doing without accreditation and award degrees and graduates will hope that those unaccredited degrees are accepted by employers and graduate schools."

thanks for sharing i-labs info... in some respects what they are aiming to do for experiments in many ways is what I'm seeking to do for global learning.

I wander if "Opening Up Education" talks about FSU's CPE at one time the largest free universities in the world. The reality is, the e-revolution movement goes back to a the free learning movement that started in 1970s. What I call the free education movement and it is this movement that set the ball in motion. One of the early defining players was CPE. "The Center for Participant Education (CPE) is a Florida State University (FSU) student government agency established in 1970 to provide an alternative to the traditional curriculum taught at FSU. Its founding philosophy was, and still is, that students should have a participatory role in their education. CPE was created as a result of the student activism of the time, and is now one of the largest "free universities" in the nation. It has provided progressive and alternative views on education, the arts, politics, and social concerns by offering a wide range of classes, workshops, films, and guest speakers, all free of charge and open to the public." MIT OpenCourseWare that came into being in 2002 is just another incarnation of CPE.

[Steve Eskow]

Michael, you ask:

<<so you are saying that MIT would not want to make $$ off their OER is a way could be demonstrated?>>

Yes, that's exactly what I am saying.

Consider avoiding the history of "the free education movement": it is a much longer and complicated history than you're aware of now, and it has nothing to do with the "e-revolution," if by that term you mean to name the technology-mediated learning movement.

The public university movement in the US was intended to extend free, publicly supported education through the university level. As late 1940's such major universities as the University of California and the College of the City of New York-- indeed, all the storied public universities--were free to state residents, and non-resident fees were minimal. FSU was neither the earliest nor the largest of these movements.

If you really need history, look up "The University Without Walls," an early consortium of universities exploring alternatives to traditional classroom-centered learning.

And see if you can get out-of-print books by Alfred Glossbrenner: he describes early experiments with mediated instruction, including the Electronic University Network, which I headed. Parker Rossman's THE EMERGING ELECTRONIC UNIVERSITY would also be useful, and also touches on our work of the 1980's.

You mention Florida's CPE as a result of the student activism of the '60's. There were literally dozens of "brown bag universities," free universities, started in those years by activist teachers and students.

Unless you feel history is important, you might avoid strong stands on historical matters,m since history doesn't seem relevant to what you're about.

[michael j. trout]

I think people like to complicate things that are in fact actually straight forward. I think you are naive to say that about MIT. The e-revolution or education revolution has nothing to do with technology and all to do with making learning a natural right afforded to all. Technology is just a vehicle. For your information the FSU reference was 1970s not the 1940s or 1950s... I don't know the actual enrollment figures of CPE but they must have come up with some numbers to justify the statement "one of the largest universities in the nation." I:ll let you take it up with FSU.

Wow free education movement goes back that far! So in a nut shell, to save me from reading the book, who was it that killed the vision? Could you argue that free edu movement was a product of the that to the founding Fathers?

[Steve Eskow]

Michael:

1. You are not a rebel introducing the idea of free higher education to a waiting world. the idea is a commonplace, widely held, but with its prospects increasingly dim in this time of economic troubles.

2. Education is never free: someone has to pay for it. In the neo-liberal era--perhaps initiated by Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher in the Western democracies-- the decision has been to shift education from the public purse and thus free to the student to the user--the student. There are many in and out of the academy who are working hard to reverse this trend.

3. If MIT wanted to make money from its courseware and its labs it would not need ideas from outside the field of higher education--indeed, it does not need ideas from outside the MIT faculty and student body.

4. As Jim Morrison has pointed out to you, you and others are free to use OER to generate income. Not only does MIT not want to do so, it does not now want to use its own materials to create MIT online education. If you want MIT instruction and credit, you must come to Cambridge.

5. There is no e-revolution now underway to make "learning a natural right afforded to all." (Presumably this means free to all.) The prefix "e" is widely used in such expressions as "e-learning" to indicate "(e)lectronic" learning." If the term "e-revolution" is yours you may be muddying the terminological waters.

6. In the beginning--the story goes--all education was funded by parents and those undertaking it. The story of making primary, secondary, and university education effectively free--a public rather than an individual burden-- includes such great names as Thomas Jefferson and Horace Mann.

The current fight for publicly supported health care resembles in many ways the struggle for free public education.

The "vision" for free health care and free education was never "killed." In democracies there are always competing visions, and the competing vision holds that these basic human services should be paid for by the user, not the taxpayer. That competing point of view--often labeled "neo-liberalism"--has successfully argued that economic realities make free university education, i.e. tax-supported higher education--a bad idea.

Sadly, then, there is no e-revolution and little hope of turning OER into a billion dollars.But of course you are free to try.

[michael j. trout]

Michael:

1. You are not a rebel introducing the idea of free higher education to a waiting world. the idea is a commonplace, widely held, but with its prospects increasingly dim in this time of economic troubles.

Umm yes I am. But, if you don't want to recognize my self appointed dictatorship I wont hold it against you. Who else is saying we can flatten global edu and make it free to all -- because I want to talk to them.

2. Education is never free: someone has to pay for it. In the neo-liberal era--perhaps initiated by Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher in the Western democracies-- the decision has been to shift education from the public purse and thus free to the student to the user--the student. There are many in and out of the academy who are working hard to reverse this trend.

Nothing is free. Everything has a cost. Is the air we breath or the water we drink free? Some might even go as far to argue that our thoughts aren't even free. But just because education isn't free doesn't it mean that it shouldn't be and it will never be? Rome wasn't built in a day and bringing about the eSingularity -- the term that represents the moment all learning is made freely available to all -- will take a movement and an eRevolution that has been set into motion whether you chose to recognize it or not... I wander when young Gandhi returned back to India from his South Africa ordeal, if he sat next to some pompous academic know it all on his long journey back to India... and talked about his vision for a free and independent India free from the grip of Great Britain -- it would make an interesting dialogue lol. I too want to free education.

3. If MIT wanted to make money from its courseware and its labs it would not need ideas from outside the field of higher education--indeed, it does not need ideas from outside the MIT faculty and student body.

Okay

4. As Jim Morrison has pointed out to you, you and others are free to use OER to generate income. Not only does MIT not want to do so, it does not now want to use its own materials to create MIT online education. If you want MIT instruction and credit, you must come to Cambridge.

I was just using MIT as an example I like how it becomes the center of the debate. I rephrased the question since I did a horrid job phrasing it to begin with. See page two... lets start all over...

5. There is no e-revolution now underway to make "learning a natural right afforded to all." (Presumably this means free to all.) The prefix "e" is widely used in such expressions as "e-learning" to indicate "(e)lectronic" learning." If the term "e-revolution" is yours you may be muddying the terminological waters.

An education revolution exists, but you are more than welcome to be an ostrich if you like. I careless whether it muddies anything. It exists because there are 296 people in the movement saying its real http://bit.ly/15oi5J. Also, eSingularity is as real as the tSingularity, both will happen... however, I'll bet, mine will happen before Rays. What is so wrong with sharing a vision and possibility with others? Why is free complete edu not doable? I can envision being able to pickup a free iphone like device and learn anything and believe the tech exist to bring it about. You know just 50 yrs ago if I was describe a cell phone today you'd be singing the same song. Come on Steve, maybe just maybe there is hope for humanity, because folks like me are bold enough to dream of possibility and what took 50 yrs for some things to come about might well happen in the next 10 years for education.

6. In the beginning--the story goes--all education was funded by parents and those undertaking it. The story of making primary, secondary, and university education effectively free--a public rather than an individual burden-- includes such great names as Thomas Jefferson and Horace Mann.

Funded by parents... its funny I see education headed that way again in Asia we just need to empower the parents to do it. So in essence I'm not some radical modern reformer, but a Jeffersonian and I didn't even know it! Ah sweet!

The current fight for publicly supported health care resembles in many ways the struggle for free public education.

Completely different because unlike HC you will be able to put a complete education solution in the pocket of every person in the world. You will never be able to do that with HC, unless you count nano-technology as a solution replacing the doctor... If that's the case we are probably still 50 yrs away, unless Ray's tSingularity happens sooner.

The "vision" for free health care and free education was never "killed." In democracies there are always competing visions, and the competing vision holds that these basic human services should be paid for by the user, not the taxpayer. That competing point of view--often labeled "neo-liberalism"--has successfully argued that economic realities make free university education, i.e. tax-supported higher education--a bad idea.

I would say that's an old argument.... At some point in the near future the entire edu play list will be compiled and this list will be mashed up and delivered to anyone by anyone. When that happened the cost to create the edu would have been paid for so in essence there would be no cost to it... just as there is no cost to Wikipedia pages that are complete and finished and are in use today. If I use the same page 5 yrs form now... is there a cost? Answers depends on how you want to define "cost."

Steve, thank for keeping the debate lively! I enjoy our debates and in no way wish to disrespect you. I hope you aren't offended by upfront dyslexic ramblings.

cheers,

Michael

Sadly, then, there is no e-revolution and little hope of turning OER into a billion dollars.But of course you are free to try.

Happily, social entrepreneurs disagree and we will innovate a game-changing solutions to replace the antiquated and broken education system you are a stakeholder of.

[James Morrison]

Michael, if MIT and the other 160 or so institutions participating in the OCW initiative wanted to make money via online courses open to anyone in the world, they would have already done so. However, given their stature as leading research universities, they want their faculties to focus on pushing back the boundaries of knowledge and on educating the students that meet their criteria for enrollment. They apparently do not want to expand their missions.

As noted, they encourage other institutions/individuals to use the courseware. If an institution wants to use OCW materials in an online course and charge a fee for doing so, they are not only free to do so, but encouraged to do so. This does not violate any legal usage agreement (see the OCW website at http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/web/home/home/index.htm)

I did an interview with MIT’s Vijay Kumar last year that is pertinent to this discussion titled “Recasting Distance Learning with Network-Enabled Open Education” in which Vijay describes the OCW initiatives within the context of open education. See http://innovateonline.info/index.php?view=article&id=657&ac...

Also pertinent are the interviews I did with Phil Long about the iCampus technology-enabled active learning project at MIT (see http://www.webcitation.org/5jFaDMpps) and the effect that redesigning MIT’s courses focusing on technology-enhanced active learning (as opposed to lecture and recitation) would have on the OWC initiative (see http://innovate-ideagora.ning.com/forum/topics/technologyenhanced-active )

Best.

Jim

[michael j. trout]

I disagree... OCW has just been around since 2003 around the same time social networks and web 2.0 started to take off. It wasn't created make money and we all know that edu institutions are slow to move and act. But its naive to think that if OCW could turn a buck while keeping to its original vision it wouldn't. I really think OCW in a way just grew out of an idea that caught on. I have seen it grow, evolve and taken shape along with MITworld and I personally know that senior folks are being approached about how to turn OER into a revenue stream. Come on Jim, you know how provost think -- I would imagine that there is significant discussion about how to turn it into a revenue stream.

Let me try to take this question from a different direction... If I took your OER offered for free and embedded it in a 10 yr tested, patented and proven learning outcomes engine and gave it away to learning institution, school or universities for just a 1% return on the administrative costs that they would charge, keep in mind this charge is administrative and has nothing to do with the OER. -- Do you think folks would be interested?

[James Morrison]

Michael, I doubt that the MIT provost is considering strategies to make a profit out of the OWC initiative because changing OWC's direction at this point would be dramatically counter to what MIT has publicly stated. However, I could see someone approaching a MIT professor about teaching courses using OWC materials for another institution as part of their service time (i.e., it is common for universities to allow faculty members a day a week for consulting). However, I think it unlikely that the professor would agree because it would take too much time to teach another course. MIT profs are paid pretty well; their incentives have to do with focusing on the next scientific/conceptual/methodological breakthrough, not income.

Jim

[michael j. trout]

please don't add words to my question... I never used the word profit. And I never said anything about changing OCW direction only asking could it be added too? And I never said it would take up time from professors. think about what I am suggesting...