Tag: Online

  • Why History Instruction is Critical for Combating Online Misinformation – The 74

    Why History Instruction is Critical for Combating Online Misinformation – The 74

    Can you tell fact from fiction online? In a digital world, few questions are more important or more challenging.

    For years, some commentators have called for K-12 teachers to take on fake news, media literacy, or online misinformation by doubling down on critical thinking. This push for schools to do a better job preparing young people to differentiate between low- and high-quality information often focuses on social studies classes.

    As an education researcher and former high school history teacher, I know that there’s both good and bad news about combating misinformation in the classroom. History class can cultivate critical thinking – but only if teachers and schools understand what critical thinking really means.

    Not just a ‘skill’

    First, the bad news.

    When people demand that schools teach critical thinking, it’s not always clear what they mean. Some might consider critical thinking a trait or capacity that teachers can encourage, like creativity or grit. They could believe that critical thinking is a mindset: a habit of being curious, skeptical and reflective. Or they might be referring to specific skills – for instance, that students should learn a set of steps to take to assess information online.

    Unfortunately, cognitive science research has shown that critical thinking is not an abstract quality or practice that can be developed on its own. Cognitive scientists see critical thinking as a specific kind of reasoning that involves problem-solving and making sound judgments. It can be learned, but it relies on specific content knowledge and does not necessarily transfer between fields.

    Early studies on chess players and physicists in the 1970s and ’80s helped show how the kind of flexible and reflective cognition often called critical thinking is really a product of expertise. Chess masters, for instance, do not start out with innate talent. In most cases, they gain expertise by hours of thoughtfully playing the game. This deliberate practice helps them recognize patterns and think in novel ways about chess. Chess masters’ critical thinking is a product of learning, not a precursor.

    Because critical thinking develops in specific contexts, it does not necessarily transfer to other types of problem-solving. For example, chess advocates might hope the game improves players’ intelligence, and studies do suggest learning chess may help elementary students with the kind of pattern recognition they need for early math lessons. However, research has found that being a great chess player does not make people better at other kinds of complex critical thinking.

    Historical thinking

    Since context is key to critical thinking, learning to analyze information about current events likely requires knowledge about politics and history, as well as practice at scrutinizing sources. Fortunately, that is what social studies classes are for.

    Social studies researchers often describe this kind of critical thinking as “historical thinking”: a way to evaluate evidence about the past and assess its reliability. My own research has shown that high school students can make relatively quick progress on some of the surface features of historical thinking, such as learning to check a text’s date and author. But the deep questioning involved in true historical thinking is much harder to learn.

    Social studies classrooms can also build what researchers call “civic online reasoning.” Fact-checking is complex work. It is not enough to tell young people that they should be wary online, or to trust sites that end in “.org” instead of “.com.” Rather than learning general principles about online media, civic online reasoning teaches students specific skills for evaluating information about politics and social issues.

    Still, learning to think like a historian does not necessarily prepare someone to be a skeptical news consumer. Indeed, a recent study found that professional historians performed worse than professional fact-checkers at identifying online misinformation. The misinformation tasks the historians struggled with focused on issues such as bullying or the minimum wage – areas where they possessed little expertise.

    Powerful knowledge

    That’s where background knowledge comes in – and the good news is that social studies can build it. All literacy relies on what readers already know. For people wading through political information and news, knowledge about history and civics is like a key in the ignition for their analytical skills.

    Readers without much historical knowledge may miss clues that something isn’t right – signs that they need to scrutinize the source more closely. Political misinformation often weaponizes historical falsehoods, such as the debunked and recalled Christian nationalist book claiming that Thomas Jefferson did not believe in a separation of church and state, or claims that the nadir of African American life came during Reconstruction, not slavery. Those claims are extreme, but politicians and policymakers repeat them.

    For someone who knows basic facts about American history, those claims won’t sit right. Background knowledge will trigger their skepticism and kick critical thinking into gear.

    Past, present, future

    For this reason, the best approach to media literacy will come through teaching that fosters concrete skills alongside historical knowledge. In short, the new knowledge crisis points to the importance of the traditional social studies classroom.

    But it’s a tenuous moment for history education. The Bush- and Obama-era emphasis on math and English testing resulted in decreased instructional time in history classes, particularly in elementary and middle schools. In one 2005 study, 27% of schools reported reducing social studies time in favor of subjects on state exams.

    Now, history teachers are feeling heat from politically motivated culture wars over education that target teaching about racism and LGBTQ+ issues and that ban books from libraries and classrooms. Two-thirds of instructors say that they’ve limited classroom discussions about social and political topics.

    Attempts to limit students’ knowledge about the past imperil their chances of being able to think critically about new information. These attacks are not just assaults on the history of the country; they are attempts to control its future.

    This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

    Source link

  • Promoting AI-Enhanced Performance in the Online Classroom – Faculty Focus

    Promoting AI-Enhanced Performance in the Online Classroom – Faculty Focus

    Source link

  • When You Need An Online Presence Quick

    When You Need An Online Presence Quick

    Do you need an online presence yesterday? You may be wondering how can I improve my online presence as a professor, researcher, or scientist quick.

    “I have a big talk coming up, it would be great to have my website up by then.”

    “My tenure review packet is due next month. Any chance we could have the website up?”

    “The book comes out in X month, my publisher needs my bio soon.”

    “It would be great to have this done before our grant proposal is submitted.”

    You may want to be intentional about your online presence if you need it for a

    • Conference, talk, or event
    • Book
    • Job search
    • Funding application or annual review
    • Award
    • Application
    • Press release
    • Board meeting

    I’m not always able to help academics who come to me with a short turnaround. But that doesn’t mean there aren’t ways for you to have a stronger online presence now. You have agency in how you show up online.

    What should I do 1st?

    Google yourself. What’s can people find about you and your research now? What makes up your digital footprint?

    Gather what they need from you. We’re you asked for specific materials such as your bio, headshot, or social media handle? If yes, these may be items to consider improving. This is more for an event, media appearance, or announcement.

    Update your bio, it’s a living document, adaptable to your needs. If you’re unsure where to start with your online presence, I always recommend your bio. In this video, I share top tips for writing and revising your academic bio with my friend, presentation expert, Dr. Echo Rivera.

    Here’s advice for writing your LinkedIn headline specifically.

    Need new photos of you? It’s okay to ask for support. For instance, can your university provide a professional photographer for the event? If not, can they recommend someone local? You can seek approval for use of funds towards that or other things for your online presence. If you’re doing a media appearance or event, it’s okay to ask your host if there will be photos or video.

    You can also ask a friend or family member to take photos of you. While selfie are a good option, a phone-camera savvy friend is ideal.

    I did my 1st professional photo shoot this year. It was much more comfortable than I expected because I had a great team there to help me. You can hear all about it in an upcoming interview for The Social Academic with the photographer and makeup artist I’ll be recommending to my clients. I can’t wait to share our conversation with you. I’ll update this article when that interview goes live, so bookmark it if you’d find it useful.

    Update your social media profile(s). Any small change makes a difference for how you communicate with people. While there’s a few tips in this article, here’s your how to guide for updating your social media profiles.

    Try pinning an introduction post (or post about what you most want to share with people) to the top of your profile.

    What can I use for my online presence

    LinkedIn is great for academics. Here’s 32 reasons why. Updating your LinkedIn profile instantly improves what people can find about you online. These LinkedIn resources are here to help you.

    Want section-by-section support? Sign up for my LinkedIn Profile for Professors and Researchers course.

    If you have access to make updates yourself, your faculty profile is a great way to improve your online presence. For most academics, it can be a slow process to request an update be made. If you’re unsure how to make changes to your faculty profile, now is a great time to ask.

    You could make a 1-page personal faculty website. Here’s what to include on yours.

    As part of the Best Personal Academic Websites Contest, Brittany Trinh, Ian Li, and I put together this Setting Up Your Personal Academic Website event. The replay will help you set up your website today with Owlstown, a free website builder for academics. Plus, what to expect with other website hosts (like my favorite, WordPress.com).

    If you need your website today, Owlstown is a great option for you.

    If you don’t want a website, but you still want something for people to view online, consider a Google Doc, Word Doc view only, PDF or other media with a public share link. If you need something more visual, consider a Canva presentation.

    Need a social media graphic? Canva is my favorite option. I’ve helps professors around the world feel comfortable using Canva for their social media. I even went to Cava Create last year in Los Angeles. This year’s event is coming up on April 10.

    Canva Create stage with a panel of speakers on Being a Force for Good: Meet the Action-Inspiring Changemakers with 4 people on stage.

    Social media graphic ideas:

    • Introduce yourself
    • Share your research
    • Meet your team
    • Share a paper or publication
    • Talk or event info
    • Invite people to your course (okay this one isn’t as timely, but still a fun idea, I had to share it with you)

    You don’t need to work with me to have a stronger online presence now. Find resources on The Social Academic blog (try searching by category). There are interviews you may find helpful on the podcast and on YouTube. You’ve got this! ✨

    Work with me on your online presence

    You don’t have to do it alone. I’m Jennifer van Alstyne. I help individual professors, research labs and groups communicate who you are and what you care about online. You can have your website designed for you. You can have set-up of their LinkedIn profile done for you. You don’t have to write your own bio (unless you want to). It’s okay to get support for your digital presence as a faculty or researcher.

    Professors with a tight turnaround typically book a private 1-on-1 consultation with me on Zoom. That way we can work together in real time to make a difference for your online presence. Academics like having an expert to ask their questions. Most save significant time with ideas that just won’t work for their goals and needs. I’m happy to help you on a private consultation too.

    Sure, there’s other ways we can work together on your website project, but sometimes you need a website “like yesterday.” Is that you? A quick website may be a good fit for you.

    But if your schedule is a bit more flexible, let’s meet on a no pressure Zoom call about working together so we can customize a service that fit your lifestyle, needs, and goals. Find a time on this online calendar.

    While I can’t promise I’m able to work with you when it comes to a quick turnaround, I promise to help you in the right direction (even when it isn’t working with me).

    Source link

  • Profit, Indoctrination, and the Dangers of Faith-Based Online Education

    Profit, Indoctrination, and the Dangers of Faith-Based Online Education

    As online education becomes an ever-expanding force in both K-12 and higher education, a disturbing trend has emerged with the rise of Christian cybercharter schools and online academies. While these institutions promise faith-based education and an alternative to secular public schooling, they also raise serious concerns about indoctrination, the commodification of education, and the profit-driven motives of their for-profit operators. For many families seeking an education aligned with their Christian values, these digital platforms offer an attractive solution. However, as the lines between faith-based learning and corporate interests blur, the question remains: what are we sacrificing in the pursuit of religiously guided education?

    The Growing Influence of Christian Cybercharters

    Christian cybercharter schools are part of a broader trend in which private, for-profit companies deliver education to students via online platforms. These schools, often designed to serve as alternatives to secular public education, integrate Christian teachings into core subjects such as history, science, and literature. While these schools may offer a semblance of flexibility for students in rural areas or families dissatisfied with traditional schooling, their model poses unique challenges.

    Cybercharter schools are, by definition, public schools that operate entirely online and are funded with taxpayer dollars. Yet, the rise of Christian cybercharters, run by private companies, complicates the traditional understanding of education. These institutions, rather than simply providing secular education, often incorporate Christian teachings into all aspects of learning. Students may study math, science, and history through a Christian lens, learning creationism instead of evolution or receiving a heavily filtered view of history. In some cases, controversial issues such as LGBTQ+ rights and reproductive health are taught in ways that align with conservative Christian values, potentially ignoring or dismissing broader social, legal, and ethical considerations.

    While these schools may appeal to parents seeking religiously grounded education for their children, concerns about the quality of education and the potential for indoctrination are mounting. Instead of offering an objective, well-rounded academic experience, these institutions may turn into ideological factories, promoting a singular worldview at the expense of critical thinking, intellectual curiosity, and open-mindedness.

    James Loewen’s Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong serves as a cautionary tale when examining the educational landscape shaped by these faith-based online programs. In his book, Loewen critiques the sanitized, biased versions of American history often taught in public schools—narratives that ignore uncomfortable truths about racism, inequality, and colonialism. This phenomenon is mirrored in some Christian cybercharters, where history is frequently reinterpreted to promote a specific religious or political agenda, potentially leaving students with a distorted, incomplete understanding of the world. The difference here, of course, is that rather than the state pushing a particular narrative, these programs are driven by religious agendas that prioritize faith-based views over academic rigor and historical accuracy. Just as Loewen critiques the “lies” of public school textbooks, one could argue that these Christian educational platforms sometimes present a faith-filtered version of reality—one that aligns more with ideological conformity than intellectual exploration.

    The Profit Motive: Corporations, Private Equity, and the Business of Faith-Based Education

    At the heart of the Christian cybercharter movement is a growing involvement of private equity firms and publicly traded companies eager to profit from the expanding online education sector. Venture capitalists have increasingly poured investments into education technology companies, including Christian online platforms. As a result, more and more online education providers—particularly Christian cybercharter schools—are becoming businesses in the traditional sense, with financial returns prioritized over educational outcomes.

    Much like other for-profit charter schools, these Christian cybercharters face the same pressures to maximize revenue. While proponents of this model argue that parents should have the option to select an education aligned with their values, critics argue that profit-driven motives overshadow educational quality. In many cases, the companies running these online schools are more focused on expansion, enrollment, and financial performance than on fostering critical thinking or providing a rigorous, well-rounded education.

    In the case of for-profit Christian cybercharters, this business model often leads to a corporate agenda that prioritizes market share rather than genuine educational development. Whether or not these schools offer the best or most effective education is secondary to their role as vehicles for profit. Furthermore, because many of these institutions are delivered through online platforms, the lack of direct teacher-student interaction and oversight further diminishes the opportunity for intellectual debate and inquiry.

    Indoctrination vs. Education: The Risks of Religious-Based Learning

    One of the most significant concerns with Christian cybercharters is the potential for indoctrination. Unlike secular education, where students are encouraged to explore various ideas, form their own opinions, and critically engage with the material, Christian cybercharters often deliver content that aligns solely with religious teachings. In many cases, students are not encouraged to question or challenge the material they are given, but rather to accept it as the unquestionable truth.

    For example, in science courses, students may be taught creationism in place of evolution or may receive instruction that contradicts widely accepted scientific principles. In history classes, there may be a deliberate effort to present historical events through a Christian lens, prioritizing religious interpretations and avoiding broader, secular understandings. This framing can affect the way students understand the world and interact with it, teaching them to see things in a way that aligns with specific religious views, rather than providing them with the tools to critically evaluate the world around them.

    Loewen’s Lies My Teacher Told Me warns of the dangers of sanitized history education. The same critique can be applied to some Christian online academies. Just as Loewen highlights how mainstream textbooks gloss over the uncomfortable truths of American history—such as the treatment of Native Americans or the legacy of slavery—Christian cybercharter schools may whitewash history to fit a specific theological or political narrative. Students may learn that America is a “Christian nation,” without an in-depth exploration of the diversity of belief systems that have shaped the country, or the ways in which Christianity’s role in history has been contested and debated. The problem arises when children, instead of being equipped to navigate complex historical realities, are taught to passively accept an ideological version of the past.

    When education becomes synonymous with religious indoctrination, the line between objective knowledge and belief becomes dangerously blurred. Students are taught not to think critically about their beliefs or values but to accept them as fact, leaving little room for exploration, dialogue, or intellectual growth. The digital environment, where much of the learning takes place through pre-recorded lessons and automated grading systems, exacerbates this issue by limiting opportunities for meaningful teacher-student interaction.

    The Corporate Takeover of Higher Education: Robocolleges and Faith-Based Learning

    The influence of private companies and venture capital isn’t just limited to K-12 education. As online education expands, the model of faith-based learning is also infiltrating higher education. Many institutions are now offering Christian-based online degree programs, promising students a “Christian worldview” in subjects ranging from business to theology. While these programs may appeal to individuals seeking a religiously informed education, they raise concerns about the quality and breadth of education students receive.

    The rise of “Robocolleges”—virtual universities run by corporations that offer online degrees—is another manifestation of the growing corporate control over education. These online programs, often funded by investors looking for high returns, can prioritize cost-efficiency and marketability over rigorous academic standards. In the case of faith-based online institutions, the goal can shift from providing a comprehensive education that challenges students to think critically about the world, to creating a narrow ideological framework where students are encouraged to see the world solely through the lens of Christianity.

    In this environment, the rise of “Robostudents”—individuals who navigate education through algorithms and automated platforms—further deepens the risk of creating a generation of individuals who are highly specialized but lack the broad intellectual and social competencies needed to thrive in a diverse world.

    Christian Robokids: The Future of Digital Indoctrination

    A particularly concerning aspect of the rise of Christian cybercharters and online academies is the emergence of Christian Robokids—students who, in addition to receiving a faith-based education, are increasingly immersed in a highly automated, digital, and corporate-driven learning environment. As Christian cybercharters adopt more sophisticated AI and data-driven learning platforms, children may begin to engage with content not only through pre-recorded lessons but through AI-powered tutors and personalized learning paths that adapt to each student’s “progress.” While this may sound appealing in theory, it opens the door for a future in which students are not only learning religious doctrine but are also being trained to conform to predetermined educational frameworks, shaped more by corporate interests than intellectual freedom.

    Christian Robokids would navigate a digital education system where their learning is increasingly controlled by algorithms designed to maximize efficiency and profitability. These students could interact with content tailored to reinforce a singular religious viewpoint, with little to no exposure to diverse perspectives. In a world of Robokids, students might not engage in real discussions with teachers or peers, but instead follow rigid, automated curriculums. Their development into “robostudents” is further cemented by the complete absence of opportunities for face-to-face interaction, debate, and critical engagement with differing worldviews.

    Moreover, the lack of teacher oversight in an entirely virtual system means that students may miss out on developing social and emotional intelligence, important for engaging in the complex, pluralistic world beyond the screen. The robotic nature of learning—where students become passive recipients of information rather than active participants—poses long-term risks to the intellectual and social development of children in these environments.

    The Biggest Christian Online Academies

    Several major Christian online academies are leading the charge in this digital faith-based education landscape, offering K-12 programs that blend academic rigor with Christian values. These academies not only cater to homeschool families but also serve as alternatives to public school systems, providing religiously grounded curricula that focus on both intellectual development and spiritual growth. Some of the largest and most well-known Christian online academies include:

    1. Liberty University Online Academy – This academy offers a comprehensive K-12 online program with a strong focus on biblical teachings alongside standard academic subjects. Liberty University, a major Christian institution, has established a reputation for delivering accredited programs that combine faith and learning.

    2. BJU Press Online Academy – Known for its biblical integration and classical Christian education approach, BJU Press offers a fully accredited K-12 online program that focuses on a Christ-centered worldview while delivering high-quality academics.

    3. Alpha Omega Academy (AOP) – A significant player in the Christian homeschooling space, AOP’s online academy offers a customizable, accredited K-12 curriculum. Its flexible approach allows families to integrate Bible-based teachings into core subjects.

    4. The King’s Academy – A Christian online school that blends academic excellence with spiritual development, providing a biblically integrated curriculum from kindergarten to high school.

    5. Veritas Scholars Academy – Known for its classical Christian education model, Veritas offers online courses with a focus on critical thinking, intellectual development, and biblical integration for students in K-12.

    These online academies reflect the growing demand for faith-based education in the digital era, offering flexible options for families who prioritize both academic excellence and spiritual growth. However, as these institutions scale and continue to integrate new technologies, the risk of further corporate influence and educational homogenization grows, raising questions about the long-term impact on students’ ability to think critically and engage with a diverse world.

    The Danger of “Garbage In, Garbage Out” in Faith-Based Education

    A worrying byproduct of the corporate-driven Christian cybercharter model is the “Garbage In, Garbage Out” phenomenon. Just as for-profit companies may prioritize profits over educational outcomes, so too does this model risk producing students who are poorly prepared for the real world. If the content students are being fed is biased, ideologically driven, or scientifically flawed, the result will be a generation of graduates whose knowledge is narrow, incomplete, and disconnected from the realities of an increasingly diverse and complex world.

    Christian cybercharters, while offering a religious alternative to public schools, risk leaving students unprepared for intellectual challenges and social engagement. Without the opportunity to engage with diverse perspectives or develop critical thinking skills, students may find themselves ill-equipped to navigate the broader society or the ever-changing workforce.

    Conclusion: The Future of Faith-Based Education

    As the trend of Christian cybercharters and online academies continues to grow, the future of faith-based education remains uncertain. Will these digital platforms provide students with the academic rigor, critical thinking skills, and social understanding they need to thrive in a complex world, or will they become vehicles for ideological conformity and corporate profit? As parents and educators, it is critical to carefully evaluate these programs, balancing faith-based values with a commitment to fostering intellectual independence and a well-rounded education that prepares students for life beyond the classroom.

    Source link

  • Florida Virtual School Partners with University of Florida and Concord Consortium to Launch ‘Artificial Intelligence in Math’ Online Certification for Middle, High School Students 

    Florida Virtual School Partners with University of Florida and Concord Consortium to Launch ‘Artificial Intelligence in Math’ Online Certification for Middle, High School Students 

    ORLANDO, Fla. — Florida Virtual School (FLVS) is partnering with the University of Florida (UF) and the Concord Consortium to introduce a groundbreaking year-long “Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Math” supplemental certification for FLVS middle and high school students enrolled in the school’s Flex option. FLVS instructors who teach Algebra 1 will lead this innovative program, teaching the online courses while also supplementing students’ learning with activities that build students’ understanding of math and AI concepts. FLVS students enrolled in Algebra 1 who elect to earn the certification will begin April 7. 

    The certification will introduce students to the foundational principles of AI that intersect with core math topics while offering insights into real-world applications, ethical considerations, and career opportunities in AI-related fields. By merging 21st-century technology with education, the program aims to boost students’ math skills, cultivate positive attitudes toward mathematics, and expose them to the rapidly evolving AI landscape.

    “As a leader in online education for more than 27 years, Florida Virtual School is committed to being at the forefront of educational innovation,” said Dr. Louis Algaze, president and CEO of Florida Virtual School. “By partnering with the University of Florida and the Concord Consortium, we are equipping our students with essential math skills and the knowledge to navigate and succeed in an AI-enhanced world.”

    The certification also includes a collaborative feedback loop between FLVS teachers and UF and Concord Consortium researchers. Teachers will provide critical insights into the online course structure and student outcomes, helping to refine and improve the certification’s effectiveness for future online learners.

    “AI is revolutionizing industries worldwide, creating new opportunities,” said Jie Chao, project director at the Concord Consortium. “Our partnership with FLVS allows us to offer robust AI learning opportunities to students with limited access to such resources, bridging the educational gaps and preparing young people for an AI-powered future.”

    FLVS teachers will also complete 40 hours of online professional development as part of the program. The training will include learning about specialized learning technologies designed to help visualize abstract math concepts and create interactive AI model explorations to ensure students engage with the AI development process in meaningful and dynamic ways.

    FLVS Flex students who are either currently enrolled or are interested in taking Algebra 1 can now sign up for the “AI in Math” certification by filling out this survey. Students who complete the program as part of their FLVS math class will receive enrichment credit and the AI Literacy certificate issued by UF and the Concord Consortium.  

    About Florida Virtual School (FLVS) 

    At Florida Virtual School (FLVS), the student is at the center of every decision we make. For 27 years, our certified online teachers have worked one-on-one with students to understand their needs and ensure their success – with FLVS students completing 8.1 million semester courses since the school’s inception. As a fully accredited statewide public school district, Florida students in grades Kindergarten through 12 can enroll tuition-free in full-time and part-time online education options. With more than 200 effective and comprehensive courses, and over 80 fun and exciting clubs, FLVS provides families with a safe, reliable, and flexible education in a supportive environment. As a leading online education provider, FLVS also offers comprehensive digital learning solutions to school districts, from online courses that result in high student performance outcomes, to easy-to-use online platforms, staff training, and support. To learn more, visit  our website.

    eSchool News Staff
    Latest posts by eSchool News Staff (see all)

    Source link

  • Why History Instruction is Critical for Combating Online Misinformation – The 74

    Why History Instruction is Critical for Combating Online Misinformation – The 74

    Can you tell fact from fiction online? In a digital world, few questions are more important or more challenging.

    For years, some commentators have called for K-12 teachers to take on fake news, media literacy, or online misinformation by doubling down on critical thinking. This push for schools to do a better job preparing young people to differentiate between low- and high-quality information often focuses on social studies classes.

    As an education researcher and former high school history teacher, I know that there’s both good and bad news about combating misinformation in the classroom. History class can cultivate critical thinking – but only if teachers and schools understand what critical thinking really means.

    Not just a ‘skill’

    First, the bad news.

    When people demand that schools teach critical thinking, it’s not always clear what they mean. Some might consider critical thinking a trait or capacity that teachers can encourage, like creativity or grit. They could believe that critical thinking is a mindset: a habit of being curious, skeptical and reflective. Or they might be referring to specific skills – for instance, that students should learn a set of steps to take to assess information online.

    Unfortunately, cognitive science research has shown that critical thinking is not an abstract quality or practice that can be developed on its own. Cognitive scientists see critical thinking as a specific kind of reasoning that involves problem-solving and making sound judgments. It can be learned, but it relies on specific content knowledge and does not necessarily transfer between fields.

    Early studies on chess players and physicists in the 1970s and ’80s helped show how the kind of flexible and reflective cognition often called critical thinking is really a product of expertise. Chess masters, for instance, do not start out with innate talent. In most cases, they gain expertise by hours of thoughtfully playing the game. This deliberate practice helps them recognize patterns and think in novel ways about chess. Chess masters’ critical thinking is a product of learning, not a precursor.

    Because critical thinking develops in specific contexts, it does not necessarily transfer to other types of problem-solving. For example, chess advocates might hope the game improves players’ intelligence, and studies do suggest learning chess may help elementary students with the kind of pattern recognition they need for early math lessons. However, research has found that being a great chess player does not make people better at other kinds of complex critical thinking.

    Historical thinking

    Since context is key to critical thinking, learning to analyze information about current events likely requires knowledge about politics and history, as well as practice at scrutinizing sources. Fortunately, that is what social studies classes are for.

    Social studies researchers often describe this kind of critical thinking as “historical thinking”: a way to evaluate evidence about the past and assess its reliability. My own research has shown that high school students can make relatively quick progress on some of the surface features of historical thinking, such as learning to check a text’s date and author. But the deep questioning involved in true historical thinking is much harder to learn.

    Social studies classrooms can also build what researchers call “civic online reasoning.” Fact-checking is complex work. It is not enough to tell young people that they should be wary online, or to trust sites that end in “.org” instead of “.com.” Rather than learning general principles about online media, civic online reasoning teaches students specific skills for evaluating information about politics and social issues.

    Still, learning to think like a historian does not necessarily prepare someone to be a skeptical news consumer. Indeed, a recent study found that professional historians performed worse than professional fact-checkers at identifying online misinformation. The misinformation tasks the historians struggled with focused on issues such as bullying or the minimum wage – areas where they possessed little expertise.

    Powerful knowledge

    That’s where background knowledge comes in – and the good news is that social studies can build it. All literacy relies on what readers already know. For people wading through political information and news, knowledge about history and civics is like a key in the ignition for their analytical skills.

    Readers without much historical knowledge may miss clues that something isn’t right – signs that they need to scrutinize the source more closely. Political misinformation often weaponizes historical falsehoods, such as the debunked and recalled Christian nationalist book claiming that Thomas Jefferson did not believe in a separation of church and state, or claims that the nadir of African American life came during Reconstruction, not slavery. Those claims are extreme, but politicians and policymakers repeat them.

    For someone who knows basic facts about American history, those claims won’t sit right. Background knowledge will trigger their skepticism and kick critical thinking into gear.

    Past, present, future

    For this reason, the best approach to media literacy will come through teaching that fosters concrete skills alongside historical knowledge. In short, the new knowledge crisis points to the importance of the traditional social studies classroom.

    But it’s a tenuous moment for history education. The Bush- and Obama-era emphasis on math and English testing resulted in decreased instructional time in history classes, particularly in elementary and middle schools. In one 2005 study, 27% of schools reported reducing social studies time in favor of subjects on state exams.

    Now, history teachers are feeling heat from politically motivated culture wars over education that target teaching about racism and LGBTQ+ issues and that ban books from libraries and classrooms. Two-thirds of instructors say that they’ve limited classroom discussions about social and political topics.

    Attempts to limit students’ knowledge about the past imperil their chances of being able to think critically about new information. These attacks are not just assaults on the history of the country; they are attempts to control its future.

    This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

    Source link

  • Three Questions With Lee Bradshaw on the Evolving Online Program Landscape

    Three Questions With Lee Bradshaw on the Evolving Online Program Landscape

    Last time we checked in with Lee Bradshaw, the founding CEO of Rhodes Advisors, he shared insights into how universities might grow online programs without breaking the bank. As a follow-up, I wanted to pick Lee’s brain about what he is hearing from the higher education leaders he works with on the evolving online program landscape.

    Q: As the online program ecosystem has grown and a few large universities have invested heavily in scaling their offerings, do you still see room for colleges and universities to enter the online degree market?

    A: Yes, the demand is still there, but the landscape has changed. We’re supporting universities launching new programs that achieve substantial first-term numbers—even in saturated markets. Growth is happening, but expecting 1,000 percent five-year ROIs like a decade ago isn’t realistic. Universities must temper expectations and/or focus on innovative, sustainable wins. That said, as we address in your third question later, I’m unaware of many investments an institution can make that carry a 275 percent ROI over five years. 

    If institutions want to launch online degrees that start strong and stay strong, here are four things they should prioritize.

    1. Market research that drives big decisions. Legacy OPMs excelled at data-driven market research before launching a program. Universities taking control of their growth need to do the same. Predictive, high-quality market research isn’t cheap or easy, but it’s indispensable. I’m bullish on how AI-facilitated deep research is advancing—within two years, I expect the cost to drop by 90 percent or more. However, the need for sound, evidence-based planning remains the same.
    2. Regionalization for most institutions. The earliest entrants focused on scaling national brands. But for universities growing in-house, regional strategies pay off, too. Think targeted regional marketing, employer partnerships tied to local workforce needs and even weaving apprenticeships or other learn-and-earn models directly into degree pathways. It’s not about being everywhere—it’s about playing to your strengths in your region.
    3. Breaking down silos to build relevant programs. One trend I like and am supporting is cross-campus collaborations leading to hybrid or interdisciplinary graduate programs. Northeastern’s combined majors model is well-known in undergraduate circles. We’re seeing more deans replicate that at the graduate level—joint programs, additional tracks and revenue-sharing agreements between schools. They’re savvy partnerships that pull together institutional strengths rather than competing internally.
    4. Scrutinize your tech stack. When I started the company, I assumed going inside universities would be illuminating. I wasn’t prepared for the delta in capability between OPM and campus technology stacks. Technology should be frictionless to the point that it’s invisible. And you should feel your stack moving from software as a service to results as a service. Before spending hundreds of thousands or millions in digital marketing to grow, I suggest a rigorous evaluation and professionally led tech discovery phase before doing any significant online endeavors. We’ve begun doing assessment and development work on Salesforce, Slate, WordPress, Drupal and more to unlock technological gains for our partners. Candidly, it wasn’t on my 2025 bingo card. But it’s critical work, so we had to add it as a service.

    Q: Given the pricing pressures on online degrees, with some well-known universities offering sub-$30,000 online master’s, how might institutions unable to offer lower-cost online degrees compete?

    A: Josh, I founded my first business in high school and my second in college—so I always nerd out on the entrepreneurial edges of higher education. And, of course, I’m in favor of lowering the cost of degrees while preserving quality. Some innovative higher education leaders and friends I deeply respect have entered the low-cost arena. They’ve gone to market with the support of MOOC platforms, which point millions of course takers’ eyes to the programs. 

    And if you’ve spent enough time around John Katzman, you’ve probably heard him say, “Low cost generally means low faculty.” That’s stuck with me. So, if that’s the architecture, we need to ask ourselves where the “low-faculty” model can work before stripping away any components required for quality learning outcomes. For example, I wouldn’t point that strategy at clinical nursing, education or health sciences degrees anytime soon. And frankly, we haven’t seen rigorous, long-term research on these $30,000 degrees yet, outside of self-published enrollment and graduation rates. Before diving in headfirst, I’d argue it’s worth conducting objective studies on the ROI for learners.

    To your question about institutions that might not have access to that scale, I’d advise them to call me. My team will sign an NDA and pressure-test their plan as a favor. I won’t tiptoe around this: I predict a MOOC-fed degree correction within a year from now. So, Rhodes Advisors is architecting solutions that leverage a next-gen course platform, AI-guided admissions and fresh tactics to drive lead volume, should that correction happen.

    MOOC platforms (and, to an extent, significant B2B relationships) are the only proven route for low-cost degrees to compete at scale in the hand-to-hand combat environment of online degree growth. Why? Fundamentally, platforms reduce your marketing overhead and let you tap into sophisticated conversion practices they’ve been working hard on.

    If you’re using a low-cost degree to serve a mission-driven purpose, you don’t need millions of learners from a platform. I’d suggest covering the delta in tuition with a foundation or donor. And I’d focus heavily on messaging and positioning so learners see you’ve struck the right balance between value and price. Rhodes Advisors is often brought in to do that work, too.

    Q: Let’s talk numbers. Say a university wants to build a new online master’s degree or certificate program. How much money does developing, launching, recruiting and running that program cost? To set some boundaries, let’s say that the online master’s tuition is about $50,000 and the target enrollment at steady state is 150. Help us understand the economics of the online learning business.

    A: I prefer talking numbers and using them to cut through the noise, so I’m glad you went there. We’ve recently run this analysis for several universities evaluating alternative revenue strategies. I’ll extend this answer beyond the basic analysis data and into some significant trends I’m seeing that your readers will find helpful. 

    But first, any degree analysis requires a few caveats—there are a lot of variables when estimating costs to launch a stand-alone program. But assuming you have a competent tech stack, a skilled team and you’re building something the market favors, you can launch a 30-credit online master’s degree for roughly $900,000 to $1.2 million in the early years before breaking even as enrollment comes in. As your readers know, most of those costs fall into course development, faculty compensation and marketing/enrollment services. Assuming steady demand, the five-year ROI will land around 275 percent, or about $3.7 million. Anyone quoting a smaller up-front investment number is likely at a small private with fully centralized operations—or running programs with a few dozen students, not 150-plus as you asked about. And anyone quoting a significantly larger ROI has been lucky enough to find a niche.

    On the certificate side, launching a 12-credit stand-alone certificate typically requires $200,000 to $400,000 up front, with a best-case five-year ROI of around 70 percent or $500,000 total return. But certificates face steeper competition: They’re up against degrees in the digital keyword bids, and the market heavily favors industry certifications (Google, Microsoft, etc.) or programs offered by elite universities in business, tech, or licensure-required fields. So, while master’s degrees demand more up front, long-term economics almost always favor them.

    Reducing costs while maintaining growth has never been more critical than it is in 2025. Improving ROI, especially in new ventures, requires scrutinizing every operational lever—especially in learning design, marketing and enrollment management. There are two things I’m seeing play out that have a material impact on efficiency:

    1. Integrating core online and in-person program operations and functions like admissions, recruitment, student services, alumni affairs and career services has become essential. When universities unify these areas, they eliminate redundancies, lower operational costs and deliver a seamless experience for students moving between all modalities. That said, I typically see skill and knowledge gaps surface quickly when tasking a residentially focused function with online program efforts, so we’ll usually dedicate capacity-building and training efforts during a transitional period.
    2. Anywhere AI can streamline effort or lower direct costs should be surfaced immediately and prioritized. For instance, we’ve worked closely with the University of Virginia this year, and they have been able to drive down centralized course production directionally by applying AI tools in specific and strategic ways. Another partner is preparing to launch a master’s degree in our co-pilot DIY model, intentionally designing enrollment operations to be AI-first. Applicants interact with an AI chat bot to handle basic program details before reaching a human adviser. Early signs suggest that approach will cut costs by more than 50 percent—though we’ll let the data speak as it matures.

    I hope this check-in was helpful. And I’d love to come back and share more as we continue down an exciting and fulfilling path at Rhodes Advisors!

    Source link

  • Maximizing Student Engagement During Live Online Seminars – Faculty Focus

    Maximizing Student Engagement During Live Online Seminars – Faculty Focus

    Source link

  • Why Online Learning Teams Should Read “Co-Intelligence”

    Why Online Learning Teams Should Read “Co-Intelligence”

    Co-Intelligence: Living and Working With AI by Ethan Mollick

    Published in April 2024

    How many artificial intelligence and higher education meetings have you attended where much of the time is spent discussing the basics of how generative AI works? At this point in 2025, the biggest challenge for universities to develop an AI strategy is our seeming inability to achieve universal generative AI literacy.

    Given this state of affairs, I’d like to make a modest proposal. From now on, all attendees of any AI higher education–focused conversation, meeting, conference or discussion must first have read Ethan Mollick’s (short) book Co-Intelligence: Living and Working With AI.

    The audiobook version is only four hours and 37 minutes. Think of the productivity gains if we canceled the next five hours of planned AI meetings and booked that time for everyone to sit and listen to Mollick’s book.

    For university people, Co-Intelligence is perfect, as Mollick is both a professor and (crucially) not a computer scientist. As a management professor at Wharton, Mollick is experienced in explaining why technologies matter to people and organizations. His writing on generative AI mirrors how he teaches his students to utilize technology, emphasizing translating knowledge into action.

    In my world of online education, Co-Intelligence serves as an excellent road map to guide our integration of generative AI into daily work. In the past, I would have posted Mollick’s four generative AI principles on the physical walls of the campus offices that learning designers, media educators, marketing and admissions teams, and educational technology professionals once shared. Now that we live on Zoom and are distributed and hybrid—I guess I’ll have to put them on Slack.

    Mollick’s four principles include:

    1. Always Invite AI to the Table

    When it comes to university online learning units (and probably everywhere else), we should experiment with generative AI in everything we do. This experimentation runs from course/program development, curriculum and assessment writing to program outreach and marketing.

    1. Be the Human in the Loop

    While anything written (and very soon, visual and video) should be co-created with generative AI, that content must always be checked, edited and reworked by one of us. Generative AI can accelerate our work but not replace our expertise or contribution.

    1. Treat AI Like a Person (But Tell It What Kind of Person It Is)

    When working with large language models, the key to good prompt writing is context, specificity and revision. The predictive accuracy and effectiveness of generative AI output dramatically improve with the precision of the prompt. You need to tell the AI who it is, who the audience it is writing for is and what tone the generated content should assume.

    1. Assume This Is the Worst AI You Will Ever Use

    Today, we can easily work with AI to create lecture scripts and decks. How long will it take to feed the AI a picture of a subject matter expert and a script and tool to create plausible—and compelling—full video lectures (chunked into short segments with embedded computer-generated formative assessments)? Think of the time and money we will save when AI complements studio-created instructional videos. We are around the corner of AI’s ability to accelerate the work of learning designers and media educators dramatically. Are we preparing for that day?

    How are your online learning teams leveraging generative AI in your work?

    What other books on AI would you recommend for university readers?

    What are you reading?

    Source link

  • Online college courses are popular, why do they still cost so much?

    Online college courses are popular, why do they still cost so much?

    Emma Bittner considered getting a master’s degree in public health at a nearby university, but the in-person program cost tens of thousands of dollars more than she had hoped to spend.

    So she checked out master’s degrees she could pursue remotely, on her laptop, which she was sure would be much cheaper.

    The price for the same degree, online, was … just as much. Or more.

    “I’m, like, what makes this worth it?” said Bittner, 25, who lives in Austin, Texas. “Why does it cost that much if I don’t get meetings face-to-face with the professor or have the experience in person?”

    Among the surprising answers is that colleges and universities are charging more for online education to subsidize everything else they do, online managers say. Huge sums are also going into marketing and advertising for it, documents show.

    Universities and colleges “see online higher education as an opportunity to make money and use it for whatever they want to make money for,” said Kevin Carey, vice president of education and work at the left-leaning think tank New America.

    Online higher education is projected to pass an impressive if little-noticed milestone this year: For the first time, more American college students will be learning entirely online than will be learning 100 percent in person.

    Bittner’s confusion about the price is widespread. Eighty percent of Americans think online learning after high school should cost less than in-person programs, according to a 2024 survey of 1,705 adults by New America.

    After all, technology has reduced prices in many other industries. And online courses don’t require classrooms or other physical facilities and can theoretically be taught to a much larger number of students, creating economies of scale.

    While consumers complained about remote learning during the pandemic, online enrollment has been rising faster than was projected before Covid hit.

    Yet 83 percent of online programs in higher education cost students as much as or more than the in-person versions, an annual survey of campus chief online learning officers finds. About a quarter of universities and colleges even tack on an additional “distance learning fee,” that survey found.

    In addition to using the income from their online divisions to help pay for the other things they do, universities say they have had to pay more than they anticipated on advising and support for online students, who get worse results, on average, than their in-person counterparts.

    Bringing down the price of a degree “was certainly a key part of the appeal” when online higher education began, said Richard Garrett, co-director of that survey of online education managers and chief research officer at Eduventures, an arm of the higher education technology consulting company Encoura.

    “Online was going to be disruptive. It was supposed to widen access. And it would reduce the price,” said Garrett. “But it hasn’t played out that way.”

    Related: Interested in more news about colleges and universities? Subscribe to our free biweekly higher education newsletter.

    Today, online instruction for in-state students at four-year public universities costs $341 a credit, the independent Education Data Initiative finds — more than the average $325 a credit for face-to-face tuition. That adds up to about $41,000 for a degree online, compared to about $39,000 in tuition for a degree obtained in person.

    Two-thirds of private four-year universities and colleges with online programs charge more for them than for their face-to-face classes, according to the survey of online managers. The average tuition for online learning at private universities and colleges comes to $516 per credit.

    And community colleges, which collectively enroll the largest number of students who learn entirely online, charge them the same as or more than their in-person counterparts in 100 percent of cases, the survey of online officers found (though Garrett said that’s likely because community college tuition overall is already comparatively low).

    Social media is riddled with angry comments about this. A typical post: “Can someone please explain to me why taking a course online can cost a couple $1000 more than in person?”

    Online education officers respond that online programs face steep startup costs and need expensive technology specialists and infrastructure. In a separate survey of faculty by the consulting firm Ithaka S+R, 80 percent said it took them as much time, or more, to plan and develop online courses as it did in-person ones because of the need to incorporate new kinds of technology.

    Online programs also need to provide faculty who are available for office hours, online advisors and other resources exclusively to support online students, who tend to be less well prepared and get worse results than their in-person counterparts. For the same reasons, many online providers have put caps on enrollment, limiting those expected economies of scale.

    “You still need advisers, you still need a writing center, a tutoring center, and now you have to provide those services for students who are at a distance,” said Dylan Barth, vice president of innovation and programs at the Online Learning Consortium, which represents online education providers.

    Related: The number of 18-year-olds is about to drop sharply, packing a wallop for colleges — and the economy

    Still, 60 percent of public and more than half of private universities are taking in more money from online education than they spend on it, the online managers’ survey found. About half said they put the money back into their institutions’ general operating budgets.

    Such cross subsidies have long been a part of higher education’s financial strategy, under which students in classes or fields that cost less to teach generally subsidize their counterparts in courses or disciplines that cost more. English majors subsidize their engineering classmates, for example. Big first-year lecture classes subsidize small senior seminars. Graduate students often subsidize undergrads.

    “Online education is another revenue stream from a different market,” said Duha Altindag, an associate professor of economics at Auburn University who has studied online programs.

    Universities “are not trying to use technology to become more efficient. They’re just layering it on top of the existing model,” said New America’s Carey, who has been a critic of some online education models.

    “Public officials are not stopping them,” he said. “They’re not coming and saying, ‘Hey, we’re seeing this new opportunity to save money. These online courses could be cheaper. Make them cheaper.’ This is just a continuation of the status quo.”

    Another page that online managers have borrowed from higher education’s traditional pricing playbook is that consumers often equate high prices with high quality, especially at brand-name colleges and universities.

    “Market success and reputation can support higher prices,” Garrett said. It’s not what online courses cost to provide that determines the price, in other words, but how much consumers are willing to pay.

    Related: Apprenticeships are a trending alternative to college — but there’s a hitch

    With online programs competing for customers across the country, rather than for those within commuting distance of a campus or willing to relocate to one, universities and colleges are also putting huge amounts into marketing and advertising.

    An example of this kind of spending was exposed in a review by the consulting firm EY of the University of Arizona Global Campus, or UAGC, which the university created by acquiring for-profit Ashford University in 2020. Obtained through a public-records request by New America, the report found that the university was paying out $11,521 in advertising and marketing for every online student it enrolled.

    The online University of Maryland Global Campus committed to spending $500 million for advertising to out-of-state students over six years, a state audit found.

    “What if you took that money and translated it into lower tuition?” asked Carey.

    The online University of Maryland Global Campus is spending $500 million to market and advertise to out-of-state students over six years.

    While they’re paying the same as or more than their in-person counterparts, meanwhile, online students get generally poorer success rates.

    Online instruction results in lower grades than face-to-face education, according to research by Altindag and colleagues at American University and the University of Southern Mississippi — though they also found that the gap is narrowing. Students online are more likely to have to withdraw from or repeat courses and less likely to graduate on time, these researchers found, which further increases the cost.

    Another study, by University of Central Florida Institute of Higher Education Director Justin Ortagus, found that taking all of their courses online reduces the odds that community college students will ever graduate.

    Lower-income students fare especially poorly online, that and other research shows; scholars say this is in part because many come from low-resourced public high schools or are balancing their classes with work or family responsibilities.

    Students who learn entirely online at any level are less likely to have graduated within eight years than students in general, who have a 66 percent eight-year graduation rate, data from the National Center for Education Statistics shows.

    Graduation rates are particularly low at for-profit universities, which enroll a quarter of the students who learn exclusively online. In the American InterContinental University System, for example, only 11 percent of students graduated within eight years after starting, federal data shows, and at the American Public University System, 44 percent. The figures are for the period ending in 2022, the most recent for which they have been widely submitted.

    Several private, nonprofit universities and colleges also have comparatively lower eight-year graduation rates for students who are online only, the data shows, including Southern New Hampshire University (37 percent) and Western Governors University (52 percent).

    Related: Some colleges aim financial aid at a declining market: students in the middle class

    If they do receive degrees, online-only students earn more than their entirely in-person counterparts for the first year after college, Eduventures finds — perhaps because they tend to be older than traditional-age students, researchers speculated. But that advantage disappears within four years, when in-person graduates overtake them.

    For all the growth in online higher education, employers appear to remain reluctant to hire graduates of it, according to still other research conducted at the University of Louisville. That study found that applicants for jobs who listed an online as opposed to in-person degree were about half as likely to get a callback for the job.

    How strongly consumers feel that online higher education should cost less than the in-person kind was evident in lawsuits brought against universities and colleges that continued to charge full tuition even after going remote during the Covid-19 pandemic.

    Students had part of their payments refunded under multimillion-dollar settlements with the University of Chicago, Pennsylvania State University, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, the University of Maine System and others.

    Yet students keep signing on. For all the complaining about remote learning at the time, its momentum seems to have been speeded up by the pandemic, which was followed by a 12 percent increase in online enrollment above what had been projected before it hit, according to an analysis of federal data by education technology consultant Phil Hill.

    Online students save on room and board costs they would face on residential campuses, and online higher education is typically more flexible than the in-person kind.

    Sixty percent of campus online officers say that online sections of classes tend to fill first, and nearly half say online student numbers are outpacing in-person enrollment.

    There have been some widely cited examples of online programs with dramatically lower tuition, such as a $7,000 online master’s degree in computer science at the Georgia Institute of Technology (compared to the estimated nearly $43,000 for the two-year in-person version), which has attracted thousands of students and a few copycat programs.

    There are also early signs that prices for online higher education could fall. Competition is intensifying from national nonprofit providers such as Western Governors, which charges a comparatively low average $8,300 per year, and Southern New Hampshire, whose undergraduate price per credit hour is a slightly lower-than-average (for online courses) $330.

    Related: Fewer students and fewer dollars mean states face closing public universities and colleges

    Universities have started cutting their ties with for-profit middlemen, called online program managers, who take big cuts of up to 80 percent of revenues. Nearly 150 such deals were canceled or ended and not renewed in 2023, the most recent year for which the information is available, the market research firm Validated Insights reports.

    Another thing that could lower prices: As more online programs go live, they no longer require high up-front investment — just periodic updating.

    “It is possible to save money on downstream costs if you offer the same course over a number of years,” Ortagus said.

     A student studies on her laptop. The number of college students who learn entirely online will this year surpass the number who take all their classes in person.

    While that survey of online officers found a tiny decline in the proportion of universities charging more for online than in-person classes, however, the drop was statistically insignificant. And as their enrollments continue to plummet, institutions increasingly need the revenue from online programs.

    Bittner, in Texas, ended up in an online master’s program in public health that was just being started by a private, nonprofit university, and was cheaper than the others she’d found.

    Her day job is at the national nonprofit Young Invincibles, which pushes for reforms in higher education, health care and economic security for young Americans. And she still doesn’t understand the online pricing model.

    “I’m so confused about it. Even in the program I’m in now, you don’t get the same access to stuff as an in-person student,” she said. “What are you putting into it that costs so much?”

    Contact writer Jon Marcus at 212-678-7556 or jmarcus@hechingerreport.org.

    This story about the cost of online higher education was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for our higher education newsletter. Listen to our higher education podcast.

    The Hechinger Report provides in-depth, fact-based, unbiased reporting on education that is free to all readers. But that doesn’t mean it’s free to produce. Our work keeps educators and the public informed about pressing issues at schools and on campuses throughout the country. We tell the whole story, even when the details are inconvenient. Help us keep doing that.

    Join us today.

    Source link