Learning from the Living (Class) Room [Grush & Christian]

CampusTechnology-12-5-13-DSCLivingClassRoom

 

Learning in ‘the Living [Class] Room’
From campustechnology.com by Mary Grush and Daniel Christian
Convergent technologies have the ability to support streams of low-cost, personalized content, both at home and in college.

 
 

Are we in an age of collective learning?– from permamarks.org by Rotana Ty
Rotana Ty shares a wonderful essay on collective learning, curating the ideas of Marcia Conner, Nilofer Merchant, John Hagel, Tiffany Shlain, Gideon Rosenblatt, J. P. Rangaswami, Greg Satell, Mark Oehlert, and more.

Excerpted quote:

We are moving away from the model in which learning is organized around stable, usually hierarchical institutions (schools, colleges, universities) that, for better and worse, have served as the main gateways to education and social mobility. Replacing that model is a new system in which learning is best conceived of as a flow, where learning resources are not scarce but widely available, opportunities for learning are abundant, and learners increasingly have the ability to autonomously dip into and out of continuous learning flows.

Instead of worrying about how to distribute scarce educational resources, the challenge we need to start grappling with in the era of socialstructed learning is how to attract people to dip into the rapidly growing flow of learning resources and how to do this equitably, in order to create more opportunities for a better life for more people.

Marina Gorbis

 

What's the best way to deal with ever-changing streams of content? When information has shrinking half-lives?

 

For chairs, the seat’s gotten hotter — from chronicle.com by Audrey Williams June
With new demands for fund raising and assessment, academe’s middle managers feel the pressure

 

Also see:

Excerpt:

Despite their long history in higher education, accreditors now face what some believe are existential challenges, including technological changes that could transform higher education in ways that diminish the groups’ role as standard-bearers of quality, or even eliminate them as gatekeepers for federal dollars.

The higher-education landscape is shifting rapidly. But accreditation, a lengthy and complex process, is not keeping pace, according to critics, and even some supporters, of the current system.

 

OnlineBrandingForAcademics-SidneyEveMatrix-11-1-13

 

Online Branding for Academics 
— from cyberpopblog.com by Sidneyeve Matrix; Keynote for EdMedia 2013 in Victoria BC

 

 

From DSC:
Sidneyeve’s presentation made me wonder…in the future of higher education (if it’s even called higher education), will adjunct faculty and faculty members be their own brand?  It’s already heading in that direction for many adjunct faculty members.

 

 

A proposal for Apple, Google, IBM, Microsoft, and any other company who wants to own the future living room [Christian]

DanielChristian-A-proposal-to-Apple-MS-Google-IBM-Nov182013

 

 

 

“The main obstacle to an Apple television set has been content. It has mostly failed to convince cable companies to make their programming available through an Apple device. And cable companies have sought to prevent individual networks from signing distribution deals with Apple.”

Apple, closer to its vision for a TV set, wants
ESPN, HBO, Viacom, and others to come along

qz.com by Seward, Chon, & Delaney, 8/22/13

 

From DSC:
I wonder if this is because of the type of content that Apple is asking for. Instead of entertainment-oriented content, what if the content were more focused on engaging, interactive, learning materials? More on educational streams of content (whether we — as individuals — create and contribute that content or whether businesses do)?

Also see:

 

internet of things

 

Excerpt (emphasis DSC):

The communications landscape has historically taken the form of a tumultuous ocean of opportunities. Like rolling waves on a shore, these opportunities are often strong and powerful – yet ebb and flow with time.

Get ready, because the next great wave is upon us. And, like a tropical storm, it is likely to change the landscape around us.

As detailed by analyst Chetan Sharma, this particular wave is the one created by the popularity of over-the-top (OTT) solutions – apps that allow access to entertainment, communication and collaboration over the Internet from smartphones, tablets and laptops, rather than traditional telecommunications methods. Sharma has coined this the mobile “fourth wave” – the first three being voice, messaging (SMS) and data access, respectively – and it is rapidly washing over us.

 

Addendum on 11/25:

 

SmartTVFeatures

 

 

 

 

Yale’s struggles signal broader challenges ahead for colleges — from christenseninstitute.org by Michael B. Horn

Excerpts (emphasis DSC):

For some time, the business model that supports traditional colleges and universities has been breaking. The ability to continue to implement sustaining innovations—more research faculty, more extravagant facilities, more administrative positions—that add cost by using increased revenue from a mixture of tuition, government funding, endowment returns, and donations is in peril for many institutions.

As a result, we’ve written about how there are a number of traditional higher education institutions that will likely merge or even cease to exist in the coming years. Many have suggested that this could not happen—despite the fact that a state like Georgia is already consolidating its public institutions of higher learning; that the situation is not so dire; or that it is something for which there will be a fix at some point.

The article relates how even five years after the onset of the recession, revenue sources have not bounced back at Yale: “More and more students require financial aid, endowment investment returns are still down, government funding is declining and tuition and fundraising increases are limited by the weak economy.”

The bigger point for traditional institutions of higher education beyond Yale is that with the repeated annual tuition increases over the past few decades, the middle class is increasingly being priced out of much of higher education. 
 

IBM-Opening-up-Watson---11-15-13

 

Excerpts (emphasis DSC):

For the first time, IBM will open up Watson as a development platform in the Cloud to spur innovation and fuel a new ecosystem of entrepreneurial software app providers who will bring forward a new generation of applications infused with Watson’s cognitive computing intelligence.

The Watson Ecosystem empowers development of “Powered by IBM Watson” applications. Partners are building a community of organizations who share a vision for shaping the future of their industry through the power of cognitive computing. IBM’s cognitive computing cloud platform will help drive innovation and creative solutions to some of life’s most challenging problems. The ecosystem combines business partners’ experience, offerings, domain knowledge and presence with IBM’s technology, tools, brand, and marketing.

 

 

mindsy-November2013

 

From DSC:
Does Mindsy represent a new ingredient of — and/or model for — our future learning ecosystems?

Learning on demand.

 

Addendum from The Economist:

Mindsy’s website hosts more than 5,000 courses provided by vendors, many of whom are specialised in e-learning. Tens of thousands of users pay $29 a month to access as many courses as they would like in that time, a model some have compared to Netflix, a popular online film-rental service. Users pick and choose their courses, says Christian Owens, Mindsy’s founder, with many preferring to watch short modular videos on one topic before moving on to another area. Whereas TED provides lofty academia in easily-digestible formats, Mindsy prefers to focus on the practical. One of the most popular courses explains how to build a website. Swap the ankle boots on our TED Talks commuter for winklepickers, and the flannel shirt for a well-cut suit, and you have the young professional who makes up most of Mindsy’s user base.

 

Study: Teachers love EdTech, they just don’t use it — from edudemic.com by Katie Lepi

Excerpt:

EdTech Is Essential!

  • 86% of teachers think it is ‘important’ or ‘absolutely essential’ to use edtech in the classroom
  • 965 say that edtech increases student engagement in learning
  • 95% say that it enables personalized learning
  • 89% say that it improves student outcomes
  • 87% say that it helps students collaborate

However…

  • Only 19% use subject specific content tools weekly
  • Only 31% use information or reference tools weekly
  • Only 24% use teacher tools weekly
  • Only 14% use digital curricula weekly
  • Despite all the buzz about 1:1 classrooms, only about 1 in 9 are implementing a 1:1 or BYOD classroom

 

From DSC:
Looking at this solid posting from edudemic and Katie Lepi, I can’t help but ask:

  • What might this tell us about the model/approach that we are using?
  • Is that model/approach working?
  • Is that model/approach working fast enough to prepare our students for the futures they will inherit/experience?
  • Are there other approaches that would work better?

I’d like to add some potential factors to the list of why educational technologies might not be being implemented in certain situations:

  • We decided not to use teams; that is, we decided that our teachers (or professors or trainers) should continue to do everything — “it is their job after all”
  • A teacher (professor, trainer) may not be gifted in a particular area (such as creating digital audio or digital video, designing simulations, developing educational gaming, designing e-books, offering mobile learning, etc.)
  • A teacher (professor, trainer) may not be interested in a particular area (such as creating digital audio or digital video, designing simulations, developing educational gaming, designing e-books, offering mobile learning, etc.)
  • May view an area as totally irrelevant because that wasn’t part of that person’s background/experience (i.e. Who needs educational gaming? Why should that matter/help? I didn’t have that in my toolbox.)

With the rapid pace of change, time is no longer on our side.  That is, it doesn’t serve our students well if it takes us 2-3 generations to get teachers, professors, and trainers ready to use all of the relevant technologies.  That is a pipe dream and we need to abandon it asap.  No one has all of the gifts that they need. We need to work with teams of specialists.  It will take team-based efforts to create and deliver learning environments, products, and services that feature more choice and more control for our students.  They — and all of us actually — are encountering a different world every single day that we wake up. Are we preparing them for it?

 

 

 

Accreditation on the block as lawmakers look to innovation — from EvoLLLution NewsWire

Excerpt:

Accreditation and federal financial aid policies are in line to be overhauled as lawmakers start to debate the possibility of mainstreaming some of higher education’s most recent innovations.

During a recent hearing of the U.S. Senate’s Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, numerous federal senators pointed toward competency-based education and hybrid models of online education as examples of strategies that could revolutionize higher education. However, they were concerned by the role of federal financial aid rules and regional accreditation boards in keeping these innovations from reaching the wider higher education marketplace.

It is expected that a number of bills will be introduced in the coming days to overhaul the regulatory systems that govern American postsecondary education.  Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) plans to unveil a bill to move accreditation responsibilities from the region to the state. This would allow greater market access to non-institutional education providers, which are typically unaccreditated and cannot compete with traditional institutions on an even footing.

 

Faculty Coalition: Forget About Cost Savings with Online Programs — from CampusTechnology.com by Dian Schaffhauser

Excerpts:

Cost savings promised by the expansion of online education are tough to pinpoint, including those programs that promise to be free for students.

According to the Campaign, there are no guarantees that online courses save students money.

The Campaign declared the idea that MOOCs could lower the cost of college degrees a “pipe dream.”

But even as public institutions introduce their own online programs, they frequently charge students more for those courses, the report said.

 

From DSC:
(Dian, these thoughts are not aimed at you. Keep up the excellent work out there!)

The only way that online education costs as much as a face-to-face offering is if such a course/offering is ***highly*** sophisticated — that is, that it incorporates a ***significant*** amount of programing, educational gaming, deep analytics and sophisticated reporting, home-grown animations and/or simulations, etc.

Otherwise, there is no way in the world that an online course costs as much to produce and offer as a face-to-face course.  Consider two key things:

  1. Ask any Director of Physical Plant to lay out their annual budget and expenses ***just to keep their campus(es) up and running*** — let alone enhance them further — and you’ll quickly see what I mean!
  2. In many cases, the infrastructures already exist to serve the face-to-face students (i.e. systems like the CMS’s/LMS’s, Student Information Systems, etc.). So offering online courses only serves to increase the ROI for this infrastructure. (If one couldn’t use the existing systems, then I could see where there would be additional expenses; with that said, the bottom lines are still not the same.)

Many colleges and universities are using the increased demand for online courses to keep the prices up; they are not passing along the savings to the students. (BTW, for those who claim higher education isn’t a business, how do you explain this?  The argument that higher education isn’t a business holds no water at all; such viewpoints can no longer be taken seriously.)

By keeping the costs of online courses as high or higher than F2F courses, such colleges and universities are making a big mistake.  By doing so, they are only causing the existing bubble in higher education to expand even further.  It will pop.  In fact, with the increased use of incentives and lowering the tuition that’s actually being paid by the students (vs. the “list” price), one can’t help but wonder if the bubble hasn’t already popped at many colleges and universities.

We need to start passing along more of the savings to our students.  I can’t think of a good reason why everyuniversity and college in the U.S. should not offer a spectrum/variety of pricing structures.  If you want to take a face-to-face course, you will need to pay more for that course, as there are greater expenses involved in providing that type of learning environment.

Last thoughts:

  • While I think that MOOCs are half-baked, they continue to improve.
  • If MOOCs morph into something that uses technologies like IBM’s Watson, that will be a game-changer for sure.  We will still need SME’s, but the prices that can be offered will be drastically less.  See this recent posting for further thoughts on this perspective.

 

 

Items re: Helpouts by Google, which was just introduced on Monday, November 4th, 2013:


 

HelpoutsByGoogle-IntroducedNov-4-2013

 

 

 


From DSC:
This type of thing goes hand and hand with what I’m saying in the Learning from the Living Room vision/concept:  “More choice. More control.”   This type of thing may impact K-12, higher ed, and corporate training/L&D departments.

It this how we are going to make a living in the future?  If so, what changes do we need to make:

  • To the curricula out there?
  • To the “cores” out there?
  • In helping people build their digital/online-based footprints?
  • In helping people market themselves?

 

 

 

7 non-university MOOC partnerships: Who are their students? — from educationdive.com

Excerpt:

MOOCs are moving beyond universities.

Coursera recently announced a partnership with the United States government, but it’s not just the government teaming up with MOOC providers. MOOC partnerships outside of universities encompass museums, technology companies and even the World Bank. Their intended audience varies, but one group crops up often: teachers. Many of the programs are meant to educate educators.

Here are seven high-profile non-university organizations that are partnering with MOOCs:

 

“Learning in the Living [Class] Room” — as explained by Daniel Christian [Campus Technology]

Learning from the Living [Class] Room  — from Campus Technology by Daniel Christian and Mary Grush; with a huge thanks also going out to Mr. Steven Niedzielski (@Marketing4pt0) and to Mr. Sam Beckett (@SamJohnBeck) for their assistance and some of the graphics used in making these videos.

From DSC:
These 4 short videos explain what I’m trying to relay with a vision I’m entitling, Learning from the Living [Class] Room.  I’ve been pulse checking a variety of areas for years now, and the pieces of this vision continue to come into fruition.  This is what I see Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) morphing into (though there may be other directions/offshoots that they go in as well).

After watching these videos, I think you will see why I think we must move to a teambased approach.

(It looks like the production folks for Campus Technology had to scale things way back in terms of video quality to insure an overall better performance for the digitally-based magazine.) 


To watch these videos in a higher resolution, please use these links:


  1. What do you mean by “the living [class] room”?
  2. Why consider this now?
  3. What are some examples of apps and tech for “the living [class] room”?
  4. What skill sets will be needed to make “the living [class] room” a reality?

 

 


Alternatively, these videos can be found at:


 

DanielSChristianLearningFromTheLivingClassRoom-CampusTechnologyNovember2013

.

 

 
© 2024 | Daniel Christian