Hot off the press, here is an article from our Workshop guest and keynote, Anya Kamenetz: http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/138/who-needs-harvard.html.
Anya reports on the "Edupunk" movement, one that might at first sound a bit flash in the pan, but that has been around, morphing and gathering steam for some years. (In fact, as I showed in a couple of presentations and an Open Educational Resource on the subject, Edupunk's combination of technology, openness and disruption has a quite respectable genealogy, from Palo Friere to the "Experimental University Center" at the Vincennes in Paris).
I definitely don't think that the university will be irrelevant in 2020, as one of Kamenetz' sources predicts, but I know there is much to learn from the experiments and initiatives that the young "edupreneurs" she reports on are undertaking.
-N
Kamenetz's exploration of the term "free"--in all senses of the word--in the context of online education is very exciting.
ReplyDeleteI agree with most of what is written here but I just finished reading "The Rise of Incivility in Academia" in which the authors make the case that it is the expectations that faculty will adapt to and be competent in the new technologies of learning that have contributed to many faculty's growing insecurity and fear that they are not doing enough. This, according to the authors, may lead to mobbing and bullying behaviors (as per a Frierian view of anti-oppression behavior). I am struck by how little most universities do to help faculty experience confidence in integrating learning technologies while at the same time holding them responsible for being competent teachers. For someone who was an excellent lecturer but is intimidated by technology, this must be a formula for learned helplessness, discontent and general unhappiness. If universities embrace the opportunities available with the use of learning technologies, they must be prepared to invest in the support and teaching of faculty to be competent in their use.
ReplyDeleteBlended learning... what are we trying to achieve, what are the motivating factors?
ReplyDeleteWe are assuming several things:
- students are motivated to learn on-line and feel they are getting value for their money.
- instructors have been given adequate support to create engaging materials and are able to test the course before delivery
- instructors are motivated to provide the additional materials - if it's already working, why do I need to change it?
- copyright issues have been resolved for using or re-using intellectual property
- students are not being disadvantaged by not having appropriate devices to use the material
I agree with Barbara's comments. We provide lots of software and new appliances for faculty but expect they should be able to flip the switch and provide impressive outcomes. Since the transition, I've seen additional wireless, mobile apps, Smartboards, Clickers, high speed connections, software, but the support has been reduced, not increased with the additions.
Europe/Australia is moving or has moved in most cases, to a 3+2 sequence: three years for a degree, 2 years for a masters. Perhaps blended learning might be used to achieve a three year degree and give us an advantage?
Doug
OERs are certainly abundant. However, it is still hard to find them as well as fit them into existing courses. This situation will hopefully improve over time. It will be important to develop new skills in course and program development related to finding, evaluating and using such resources. Also, universities have a responsibility to continue researching and developing new knowledge rather than just replicating what is already available, and this includes giving to as well as taking from the OER pot. The learning activities and feedback that occur in a course, the setting of historical or cultural context, the comparing and critiquing of resources as well as the development of analytical, critical and other perspectives all, for the most part, lie outside the function of individual units of open content. The university brings to the table knowledge of pedagogy, the judgement of the faculty member, the ability to evaluate and organize or sequence learning content, and the tools to evaluate learning. This is where hybrid or blended learning can play a part, providing the best of both worlds.
ReplyDeleteGood article for discussion; thanks. Yes, technology is a great tool to help us enhance access and services to students. We want to be responsive and interactive, and have students engage with their teachers and each other. New delivery modes can enable us to add value to the education of our students. The Open access movement is affecting research and scholarly publishing and will have a significant impact on the access and distribution of research material. The challenge is to determine how best to use new information technologies to ensure that we continue to provide quality programs. Nancy L
ReplyDeleteThe Kamenetz article offered an enjoyable, even provocative, read—though I confess to being less than convinced by the rhetorical clichés of her conclusion (i.e., the students are already using social networking, twitter, etc., and thus we, as educators, need to as well—or risk being “left behind”). Those students (individuals and focus groups) I’ve consulted as part of our planning process seem unimpressed by the prospect of their profs “intruding” into their online spaces. One young woman said firmly, “If one of my profs asked to be my Facebook friend, I’d ignore the request. It would feel creepy.” On the other hand, that same student praised her experience with Blackboard and Moodle. Technology can certainly enhance teaching and learning, but, when introduced inappropriately (say, in a manner not tied to the furthering of well-considered learning outcomes), it can also detract from teaching and learning.
ReplyDeleteLike others, I’m fascinated by talk of high-tech do-it-yourself education, of possible new models of education and the new economics of learning implicated by those models; that said, it seems to me—and I’m certainly no expert in this area—that instead of invoking what are essentially scare tactics and false analogies (e.g, likening the fate of universities to that of “newspaper chains and record stores”), we have a wonderful opportunity to triangulate consideration of audience, desired outcomes, and _then_ the mode or modes of instructional delivery.
The first two years or so of university engender enculturation (an introduction to the university, to the work of the disciplines, to advanced literacy development—and to learning the basics of how to learn); and, with these outcomes in mind, first- and second-year students would no doubt benefit most from face-to-face instruction enhanced by classroom-based technology—for few of these students are independent learners, and it is hard to enter an intellectual community or any ongoing conversation without face-to-face interaction.
Senior-level students, however—especially those studying in academic disciplines that might not routinely employ extensive hands-on, practice-led learning experiences—might respond well to hybrid instruction (perhaps incorporated via a project approach, or a capstone semester in the final year).
Graduate students (including international grad students) seeking compressed degrees and concentrated learning experiences (and here I’m thinking also of experiences that draw especially on local expertise, history, culture, landscape, etc.) would make strong candidates for an array of innovative approaches. This last group would also seem a likely source of the revenue required to fund the university’s technological infrastructure?
Will GP
Interesting article indeed. There are many initiatives happening on the fringe of higher education that will undoubtedly have an impact on our future. Many of these initiatives are being funded by wealthy individuals who believe that our current model for higher education is unsustainable. Examples include the Gates foundations interest in funding disruptive models like the Khan Academy http://www.khanacademy.org/, the Saylor Foundation's aggregation of OERs into actual courses and programs http://www.saylor.org/, and the Thiel Foundation's new 20 under 20 Fellows who are college aged students who were each paid $100,000 to not go to college http://www.thielfoundation.org/index.php. There was also a recent US Chamber of Commerce report on transforming Higher Education which is also worth a read http://icw.uschamber.com/publication/college-20-transforming-higher-education-through-greater-innovation-smarter-regulation. At TRU we have a choice, we can continue to fight for the status quo or we can become a leader in the change.
ReplyDeleteThanks for suggesting this reading and the accompanying book. As I read them, the issues they raised brought to mind many of the experiences I’ve had over the last 40 odd years (some odder than others) at schools ranging from the Canadian and American Ivy League’s (Queen’s and Univ. Pennsylvania) to here (Cariboo College/ University College of the Cariboo/ TRU).
ReplyDeleteAs we consider our own future in Post-secondary Education and play ‘Futurists’, I hope we keep in mind what the essence of what makes a higher education experience important. In our Faculty of Science Academic Plan, we aim to produce ‘knowledgeable and skilled problem solvers’. To be successful at it we will need to stay focused on the question of how to keep students motivated to learn and we feel that the best way is by providing hands-on experiences with the ‘stuff’ we are teaching. For me it was never about stuff, but about people and the act of discovery. (I learned to identify all of a cat’s muscles not because it was important in and of itself, but because I was totally engaged by a professor who opened my eyes to the ideas of anatomical adaptation and evolution!)
I look forward to some interesting discussion.