Advertisement

Journal of Computing in Higher Education

, Volume 22, Issue 3, pp 177–191 | Cite as

Online higher education commodity

  • Paule Chau
Article
First Online:

Abstract

This article analyzes the current trend towards online education. It examines some of the reasons for the trend and the ramifications it may have on students, faculty and institutions of higher learning. The success and profitability of online programs and institutions such as the University of Phoenix has helped to make the move towards online education more appealing to other institutions, as well as, helped to change how online education is viewed by the public. Reasons such as cost, accessibility and flexibility are often presented as motivations for why many students and institutions use online learning. However, the reasons behind the movement towards more online learning may be more motivated by capitalistic ideals associated with an ever increasingly knowledge-based economy than that of providing quality and more accessible education. The movement towards more online learning coupled with the increased corporatization of higher education may be helping to contribute to the commodification of knowledge and the changing role of institutions and education itself. Thus potentially leading to a state in which education is further transformed into a commodity, students becoming more like consumers, faculty into entrepreneurs, and institutions of higher learning into storefronts for knowledge.

Keywords

Online learning Commodification Corporatization Online education 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Adams, J., & DeFleur, M. H. (2006). The acceptability of online degrees earned as a credential for obtaining employment. Communication Education, 55(1), 32–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2008). Staying the course: Online education in the United States. Needham, MA: Sloan Consortium.Google Scholar
  3. Apollo Group, Inc. (2008). Annual report: The power of learning. Retrieved from http://www.apollogrp.edu/Annual-Reports/2008%20Annual%20Report.pdf.
  4. Bartley, S. J., & Golek, J. H. (2004). Evaluating the cost effectiveness of online and face-to-face interaction. Educational Technology & Sociology, 7(4), 167–175.Google Scholar
  5. Bear, J. B., & Bear, M. P. (2003). Bears’ guide to earning degrees by distance learning. Berkeley: Ten Speed Press.Google Scholar
  6. Blair, K. L., & Monske, E. A. (2003). Cui Bono?: Revisiting the promises and perils of online learning. Computers and Composition, 20, 441–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Breneman, W. D. (n.d). The university of phoenix: Poster child of for-profit higher education. Retrieved from http://www.ncspe.org/publications_files/breneman.pdf.
  8. Carnevale, D., & Olsen, F. (2003, June 13). How to succeed in distance education. The Chronicle of Higher Education, A31.Google Scholar
  9. DeFleur, M. H., & Adams, J. (2004). Acceptability of online degrees as criteria for admission to graduate programs. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 16(1), 150–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dolence, M., & Norris, D. (1995). Transforming higher education: A vision for learning in the 21st century. Ann Arbor, MI: Society for College and University Planning.Google Scholar
  11. Education-Portal.com. (2009). Are state budget cuts affecting the quality of public higher education? Retrieved from http://educationportal.com/articles/Are_State_Budget_Cuts_Affecting_the_Quality_of_Public_Higher_Education.html.
  12. El-Khawas, E. (1999). The “new” competition: Serving the learning society in an electronic age. Higher Education Management, 11(2), 7–17.Google Scholar
  13. Flew, T. (1999). The virtual university: Mickey mouse or real learning? Australian Quarterly, 71(1), 34–41.Google Scholar
  14. Giroux, H. A. (2002). Neoliberalism, corporate culture, and the promise of higher education: The university as a democratic public Sphere. Harvard Educational Review, 72(4), 425–463.Google Scholar
  15. Giroux, H. A. (2003). Selling out higher education. Policy Futures in Education, 1(1), 179–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Giroux, H. A. (2009). Democracy’s nemesis: The rise of the corporate university. Cultural Studies ↔ Critical Methodologies, 9(5), 669–695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gladieux, L., & Swail, W. S. (1999). The virtual university and educational opportunity: Panacea or false hope? Higher Education Management, 2, 43–56.Google Scholar
  18. Grineski, S. (2000). I’ve a feeling we’re not in Kansas anymore: The commercialization and commodification of teaching and learning in higher education. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 20(1), 19–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hanna, D. E. (1998). Higher education in an era of digital competition: Emerging organizational models. JALN, 2(1), 66–95.Google Scholar
  20. Larreamendy-Joerns, J., & Leinhardt, G. (2006). Going the distance with online education. Review of Educational Research, 76(4), 567–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lynch, A. (1996). Thought contagion. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  22. Lynch, K. (2006). Neo-liberalism and marketisation: The implication for higher education. European Educational Research Journal, 5(1), 1–17. doi: 10.2304/eerj.2006.5.1.1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mangan, K. S. (1998, March 27). Corporate know-how lands presidencies for a growing number of business deans. The Chronicle of Higher Education, A43–A44.Google Scholar
  24. Morey, A. I. (2004). Globalization and the emergence of for-profit higher education. Higher Education, 48, 131–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Noble, D. F. (1998a). Digital diploma mills, part 1: The automation of higher education. October, 86, 107–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Noble, D. F. (1998b). Digital diploma mills, part II: The coming battle over online instruction. Sociological Perspectives, 41(40), 815–825.Google Scholar
  27. Noble, D. F. (2003). Digital diploma mills. In B. Johnson, P. Kavanagh, & K. Mattson (Eds.), Steal this university: The rise of the corporate university and the academic labor movement (pp. 33–47). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  28. Parker, N. K. (2004). Chapter 16: The quality dilemma in online education. In T. Anderson & F. Elloumi (Eds.), Theory and practice of online learning (pp. 385–409). Athabasca, Canada: Athabasca University.Google Scholar
  29. Pearlstein, S. (2003, December 17). The lesson colleges need to learn (p. E1). Washington Post.Google Scholar
  30. Pina, A. A. (2010). Online diploma mills: Implications for legitimate distance education. Distance Education, 31(1), 121–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Postman, N. (1992). The broken defenses. In N. Postman (Ed.), Technopoly: The surrender of culture to technology (pp. 70–91). New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
  32. Selfe, C. (1999). Literacy and technology linked the national project to expand technological literacy. In C. Selfe (Ed.), Technology and literacy in the twenty-first century: The importance of paying attention (pp. 3–24). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Storey, V. A., & Tebes, M. L. (2008). Instructor’s privacy in distance (online) teaching: Where do you draw the line? Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 11(2). Retrieved from http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/summer112/storey112.html.
  34. University of Phoenix. History. Retrieved from http://www.phoenix.edu/about_us/about_university_of_phoenix/history.html.
  35. University of Phoenix. Transfer. Retrieved from http://www.phoenix.edu/admissions/transfer_information.html.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Indiana University of PennsylvaniaIndianaUSA

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options