Slide presentation

1. The Unbundled University: Researching emerging models in an
unequal landscape
x
Professor Neil Morris
Centre for Research in Digital Education
School of Education
University of Leeds

2. The focus of the project: The Unbundled University

3. Evolution of online education

4. Facets of ‘unbundling’
Process Products
Activities Services

5. Unbundling: process
An example of unbundled educational provision could be a degree programme offered as
individual standalone modules available for credit via an online platform, to be studied at the
learners’ pace, in any order, on a pay-per-module model, with academic content, tutoring and
support being offered by the awarding university, other universities and a private company.
Unbundling is the process of disaggregating educational
provision into its component parts likely for delivery by
multiple stakeholders, often using digital approaches and
which can result in rebundling.

6. Unbundling: products

7. Unbundling: micro-credentials
● In the UK, some universities are accepting standalone credit-bearing courses
as accredited prior learning (‘MOOC to degree’), but not widespread and
locally owned. There are discussions about introducing national micro-
credential standards
● New Zealand has a nationally agreed system for accreditation of micro-
credentials
● Some universities in Europe have ‘virtual exchange’ programmes where
students study MOOCs for credit from other universities
● The OER university is a consortium of universities offering alternative models
for stackable credentials e.g. pay for assessment only (https://oeru.org/)

8. Unbundling: activities and services
Online education programme and course unbundled services Source:Walji, Morris & Czerniewicz, 2017 CC-
BY https://unbundleduni.com/2017/09/28/emergence-and-role-of-private-providers-in-thesouth-african-higher-
education-landscape/

9. https://i0.wp.com/mfeldstein.com/wp-
content/uploads/2018/03/OPMmarketLandscape20180328-1.jpg
In-house
University unbundles L&T provision (e.g. standalone
modules) and offers content to learners (internal
systems)
Fees for Services providers
University procures services from a company to offer
elements of the ‘bundle’ or services to deliver the
provision
Full Service Partnerships
A – partnerships with platform providers (MOOC
providers) – university partners with a platform provider
to host university courses
B – partnerships with OPMs – university partners with a
company to offer modules, programmes and services)
Routes to market for (unbundled)
online education

10. In-house
Strengths
• Full control over product, brand and
delivery
• 100% fee income to university
• No contract to manage
• No external partners to on-board,
manage
Weaknesses
• Complete reliance on internal capacity
and capability
• Initiative must compete with others for
prioritization
• Significant up-front investment
required
• Limited market exposure
• Limited scope for partnership with
other universities
• Current and on-going knowledge
about international markets required
• Current and on-going knowledge
about digital marketing required
Opportunities
• In-house capacity building
• Develop and keep skills in-house
• Integration with other propositions and
activities
Threats
• Large on-going, unknown investment
required for student acquisition
• Uncertainty about minimum cohort
size, and financial sustainability
• Rapidly evolving landscape
• Competing with large private
companies

11. Fees for service
Czerniewicz, L., & Walji, S. 2019-02. Issues for
universities using private companies for online
education.
https://open.uct.ac.za/handle/11427/29813

12. Full Service
Partnership –
partnership
with platform
provider
Strengths
• Exposure of online courses on
platform with other HEI brands
• Large user base
• Technical infrastructure managed by
third party
• Managed environment for course
delivery
• No long-term contract
• Global reach
Weaknesses
• Some loss of control of brand
• Alternative platform for on-campus
students to use for credit
• Lack of integration with core systems
• Reliance on platform provider to
generate / grow user base
• Fee for platform use / revenue share
• Lack of control over delivery
mechanism
• Less control over portfolio
• Inability to directly market to prospects
Opportunities
• Partnerships with other HEIs / platform
partners
• Course sharing between partners
• Cross-selling
• Involvement in new initiatives (shape
market)
Threats
• Reliance on third party platform
provider
• Risk of platform provider being bought
/ changing direction
• Lack of voice in platform strategy

13. Full Service
Partnership –
partnership
with OPM
Czerniewicz, L., & Walji, S. 2019-02. Issues for
universities using private companies for online
education.
https://open.uct.ac.za/handle/11427/29813

14. Key research questions
Where does the discourse of
unbundling come from and how
is it used by the research
literature, the policy literature,
the media and the
interviewees?
How do different stakeholders
in HE understand unbundling
and rebundling?
How is unbundling happening in
practice in SA and in England?
How does the intersection of
unbundling, marketisation and
digital technology change the
pedagogies available in the HE
system?
Which aspects of pedagogy
and provision can be / are
being unbundled and/ or
marketised?
What is the nature of the
educational provision currently
available in UK/SA HE at the
intersection of
marketisation/unbundling/digital
technology?
The Unbundled University: Researching emerging models in an unequal
landscape

15. Fieldwork
South
Africa
20 universities
• Historically
advantaged
(elite)
• Historically
disadvantaged
• Historically
advantaged
with historically
disadvantaged
sites (mergers)
UK
166 universities
• Russell Group
• Post-1992
Policy-makers
HE leadersPrivate company
CEOs
Academics
Edtech developers
Students
Interviews
Focus Groups
Surveys
Universities &
OPMs
Desk research

16. UK: Senior managers views
Unbundling
Uncritical and accepting of partnerships;
Reputation enhancing; building global
brand;
Growing new markets and obtaining ROI
on digital investment
Responding to policy landscape
Marketisation
Mature marketisation language and
mindset;
Value private companies to enable online
presence, share risk, grow markets and
widen access
Responding to student demand for flexible
learning pathways and employability
Digital technology
Focus on campus-based blended learning
and digital infrastructure;
Online courses are secondary purpose;
Supporting diverse student population
across many levels;
Strong focus on pedagogical value
Focus on in-house provision
Inequality
Focus on widening access;
Focus on increasing fees and increasing
numbers of students working whilst
studying;
Online to support working students

17. Private companies perspectives
Importance of university’s brand,
rankings and reputation as factors for how
a course or programme would be attractive
to the market and a key rationale for seeking
a partnership
Building “trust” with a university senior
leadership - discourses of ‘partnerships’
more prevalent than a buyer-seller-supplier
relationship - use of social capital, personal
relationships
Confident about understand the market
and industry needs in specific professions
- more so than universities

18. Private companies perspectives
Confident about understand the market
and industry needs in specific
professions - more so than universities
Spoke about universities being slow and
lacking capacity and agility to move into
online spaces
See themselves as catalysts for
universities to be more entrepreneurial
and risk taking
Profit making couched in terms of new
markets of students and meeting
industry needs

19. Private companies perspectives
Championing students’ needs - more career
focussed, skills focussed opportunities
Superior service for online students with
wrap-around support, confidence building
Private companies consider themselves as
brokering relationships between
universities, (new) students and industry
Private companies see themselves as
visioning the future of online education
But companies only willing to work with some
universities and discipline/ professional fields

20. Partnerships between universities
and private companies to create
online learning courses are
focussed around world rankings.
Some vocational and technical
universities serving specific
communities of learners may be
left behind.
Swinnerton B, Ivancheva M, Coop T, Perrotta C, Morris NP, Swartz R, Czerniewicz L, Cliff A, Walji S. The Unbundled University: Researching emerging models in an
unequal landscape. Preliminary findings from fieldwork in South Africa. Networked Learning 2018 Proceedings: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on
Networked Learning 2018 , pp. 218-226.
Mapping partnerships in UK Higher Education

21. Findings from student survey data
• Students had high personal ownership of, and access to, digital devices, and had received
training, and felt prepared to used digital devices for learning;
• Postgraduate students were significantly more likely to have heard of online education than
undergraduate students;
• Students who work full time (both UGs and PGs) were significantly more likely to have taken a
free online course;
• Strong motivating factors to take an online course/ degree are practical (reduced cost and less
travelling time) rather than pedagogic (online community and development of digital skills).
• Students prefer an on-campus experience (but these were all contact-mode students): they seek
the social learning experience, value networking and exposure to pedagogical role-models.

22. UK – Policy implications (1)
In the UK context, as the number of universities developing online education grows, there are
emerging issues which may limit the potential for Higher Education Institutions to see a return on
investment:
● As this is a new area of activity in many public universities, there is an urgent need for
capacity building and upskilling to support all stakeholders to make the most of the
opportunities available and to avoid expensive mistakes. The research team has identified
development needs in the following areas:
● Digital Literacy – there is a lack of digital literacy within the academic and professional staff
communities in public universities; this is limiting the potential growth of online education and
use of digital technology.
● Online Education Landscape – there is a lack of understanding of the online education
landscape and emerging business models amongst decision makers within universities; this
means that opportunities may be missed. Additionally, institutions may not be aware of risks
or the implications of particular types of unbundled partnerships.

23. UK – Policy implications (II)
In the UK context, as the number of universities developing online education grows, there
are emerging issues which may limit the potential for Higher Education Institutions to see a
return on investment:
● Universities need to consider their strategy for online education, in consultation with
staff and students, including a clear approach to unbundling.
● Government should consider the barriers to use of unbundled credit between
universities, through credit transfer and credit accumulation policies.
● The sector should consider the role of private companies to drive growth in online
education.
● The sector should consider the impacts of this approach on all student groups,
including those currently struggling to participate.
● The sector should consider alternative approaches to unbundled education, including
the Commons approach.

24. Funded by the Economic and Social Research Council (UK) and the National Research Foundation (South Africa)
Web: http://unbundleduni.com/
Twitter: @unbundledHE
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/unbundledHE/
Online course: https://www.futurelearn.com/courses/the-
unbundled-university