What are your assumptions on online education?
The importance of questioning assumptions.
Here are some assumptions:
In this Paper: Education as Commodity:
Commercialization of academia, commodization of instruction. Is it a solution to the crisis to the financial debacle?
David Wiley comments on David Noble:
The foremost promoters of this transformation are rather the vendors of the network hardware, software, and “content”… who view education as a market for their wares, a market estimated by the Lehman Brothers investment firm potentially to be worth several hundred billion dollars. “Investment opportunity in the education industry has never been better,” one of their reports proclaimed, indicating that this will be “the focus industry” for lucrative investment in the future, replacing the health care industry… It is important to emphasize that, for all the democratic rhetoric about extending educational access to those unable to get to the campus, the campus remains the real market for these products.
I am finding this MOOC an interesting phenomena and would highly recommend that this be included in an “informal course” of research study. My reasons are: MOOCs sound quite paradoxical and political to Higher Education and HE institutions, even for most of the MOOC providers and elite institutions. Revolutions were always bottom up act, when people were not happy with the existing conditions. There were a few revolutions that were “politically motivated” in the history of human, that were against some “parties”.
So, to have revolutions initiated from the top institutions, like HE institutions sound really interesting. What are people revolting against? Their own system, or an old system that they don’t want. But is this dangerous, if it is their own system, as the system includes people working within the system?
If it is an old (existing) system, then what are the problems with the existing system? High tuition fees? Poor completion rates? Decreasing enrolment? Lack of funding? Lack of choices for the learners in education and learning? Inadequacy pedagogy? Lack of a global focus in education? Too much mass lecturing? Lack of interests from students in those mass lectures? Lack of education platforms for students to interact with?
What vision and missions are the institutions trying to achieve? If it is really free and open Higher Education, then what does it mean to their existing system? If it is to educate the world for “free”, then this would need to be carefully explained to the world, as the world would have certain expectations, like really “free” education, without any payment, or any conditions. That is, whether those OERs are really open to the public and are free under those conditions?
I doubt if any study at a PhD level would “dare” to touch on the sensitive nerves of HE and institutions, as a result of MOOCs. I wonder if any PhD supervisor would be willing to take up any PhD students working on such a study, though any one who is courageous enough would be able to showcase a “ground-breaking” research that reveals all the opportunities and challenges of MOOCs.
I still haven’t read a research paper on xMOOC that is “neutral” in reporting what actually happened in xMOOCs, and the associated learning and feedback on xMOOC based on the “massive” students who completed or didn’t complete the course.
As I have shared, there are simply too many assumptions behind these MOOCs movement, due to the complexity nature of MOOCs and the lack of available statistics to draw up any pattern or conclusion.
Here I have shared in the post of Are we at the cross road in Higher Education?:
If you are still not yet convinced that we are at the crossroad in Higher Education, here:
The diversity of our learner profiles with a wide range of educational backgrounds, skills, and aspirations makes the offering of a one-size-fits-all approach increasingly ineffective, and frustrating to both the institution and learners. There is no doubt in my mind that the future of higher education will be digital, open and mobile.
Is it a fantasy? Higher Education will be digital, open and mobile, rather than the brick and mortar, as it is now.
In this EPIC 2020: Higher Education in the Year 2020.
I don’t think I am convinced of the “transformation of higher education” yet, even with the dramatic introduction of Sal Khan Academy, or the recent MOOC movements, though they are creating enough “disruptive technology” to the HE itself.
Why? Transformation of education comes at a price, in terms of the paradigm shift, and the pedagogy that best appeals to educators and learners. Education wouldn’t be changed much unless there are associated changes in the way we teach and learn.
Even if you could prove that a huge number of students could “succeed” in completing online courses, by passing with good marks, there are still certain “commodity” that cannot be challenged or exchanged. What is it?
The values well laden in the “qualification market”, where qualification is still the number one hall mark for a number of professions. For instance there are certain professions which would only accept formal qualifications, such as those who practice as doctors, lawyers, engineers, accountants, pilots, and even professors. Universities in the HE are still the gate-keepers of all qualifications, and that would likely be the case in the coming decades.
Is there really disruptive technology in education? John Dvorak argued that disruptive technology was just a myth, back in 2004. I am however, more than convinced that disruptive technology is indeed a reality as revealed through its adoption throughout the ubiquitous networks, and cheaper mobiles and emerging technology are quickly replacing the old technology.
Who would want to break through in education (or Higher Education) via technology – be it sustainable or disruptive technology?
If the innovator’s dilemma in this is providing the right direction then:
Even after correctly identifying potentially disruptive technologies, firms still must circumvent its hierarchy and bureaucracy that can stifle the free pursuit of creative ideas. Christensen suggests that firms need to provide experimental groups within the company a freer rein. “With a few exceptions, the only instances in which mainstream firms have successfully established a timely position in a disruptive technology were those in which the firms’ managers set up an autonomous organization charged with building a new and independent business around the disruptive technology.” This autonomous organization will then be able to choose the customers it answers to, choose how much profit it needs to make, and how to run its business.
What seems to be happening with the numerous initiatives such as MITx, EdX, Udacity, Coursera etc. have been rightly predicted and charted out by Professor Clay Christensen. Those “x” extended from the institutions would become an autonomous organization to experiment with new potential and emerging disruptive technologies (the MOOC) and (research resulting from the MOOCs).
This would probably be a route with no return in this sort of experiments, and Higher Education movement.
Higher Education CAN only afford to succeed, under the current economic climate, as more administrators are looking for alternative ways to fund their programs, and students are also looking for cost-effective solutions to their own education.
What would then be necessary to drive this education in a way that would guarantee success, rather than risking for failures? There is simply no magical formula here, as our future is driven by “complexity”, and is likely governed by “complex” though strange attractors that would lead to a whole different world of education, even in a few years time.